Disable Game Chat: No Diplomacy or Fog Reveals

[DoomYoshi]

Many of the comments seem to be about whether or not diplomacy makes a fun game. Some think it does, some think it doesn't. However, this suggestion can't focus on whether or not diplomacy itself is a good thing, since we aren't banning diplomacy in ALL games, even if this suggestion goes through.

The main pragmatic issue that the proponents of this suggestion must account for:

How can be assured that this game setting won't result in an increase of Secret Diplomacy and accusations?

Also, just to clarify, so I know what we are looking at... please post the types of game settings you see yourself using this option for.

[skychaser]

Ha! I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about US foreign policy

All I meant was that in a fairly silent game of cc, many players will only begin diplomacy (or social engineering) when they are about to lose!

I think it shows great strength and resolve to win a game without alliances, truces or any other kinds of manipulation.

I think that using truce and manipulation is strength. If you don't have the dice or the bonuses then you use another methods.


You guys want the people to be sitting ducks so you can smash them without they trying to win. That's NOT risk.

[skychaser]

Risk all your troops on a daring land grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you crush your last opponent.

========================
Its a text from the site, from the intro.
If you're strong then you need to either finish a game or lose. Not hoping people to be sitting ducks while you gain more and more advantage and expecting them not to target you till you're a superpower from hell. Being strong may even mean being weak. There were lots of matches I feeded someone so he would become strong enough so I could throw everyone against him cause it's part of the game.

[undert0w]

When one player is far stronger than the others it is pretty obvious that all other players must attack the leader so that the game can continue. A 'no chat' game variant option will not change this.

It could be argued that many of the game variants that have been implemented on CC are 'NOT risk'; but I just don't play those variants. If you don't like this one, don't play it!

[Fazeem]

When one player is far stronger than the others it is pretty obvious that all other players must attack the leader so that the game can continue. A 'no chat' game variant option will not change this.

It could be argued that many of the game variants that have been implemented on CC are 'NOT risk'; but I just don't play those variants. If you don't like this one, don't play it!

well said

[spiesr]

MERGED with a really old one.

[Metsfanmax]

The main pragmatic issue that the proponents of this suggestion must account for:

How can be assured that this game setting won't result in an increase of Secret Diplomacy and accusations?

DY has hit on the only serious issue against this option. This would actually be an exciting and interesting option. I would be quite amused to see some of the most high ranking players try to play a game on Third Crusade without diplomacy! Unfortunately, I don't know how we could know one way or the other whether secret diplomacy would increase as a result of this game option. But on intuitive grounds I don't think that it would. If someone is going to cheat and tell an opponent something they don't want everyone else to know, they're going to do it whether or not there is a game chat.

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• no chat option
• NO DEAL BUTTON
• Disable Chat Button
• Game setting: Disable Game Chat

[Lord_Bremen]

Diplomacy is a central part of Risk. Maybe we should take out dice too? Or continent bonuses?

[tkr4lf]

Diplomacy is a central part of Risk. Maybe we should take out dice too? Or continent bonuses?

+1

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• Silent Option
• Make In-Game Chat an Option

[agentcom]

The main pragmatic issue that the proponents of this suggestion must account for:

How can be assured that this game setting won't result in an increase of Secret Diplomacy and accusations?

DY has hit on the only serious issue against this option. This would actually be an exciting and interesting option. I would be quite amused to see some of the most high ranking players try to play a game on Third Crusade without diplomacy! Unfortunately, I don't know how we could know one way or the other whether secret diplomacy would increase as a result of this game option. But on intuitive grounds I don't think that it would. If someone is going to cheat and tell an opponent something they don't want everyone else to know, they're going to do it whether or not there is a game chat.

I feel like SD won't be significantly increased. In order to participate in SD, you need to reach out to the other players. That's how most people get caught: someone they reached out to reports them. The only other option is to go into games knowing that you can work with one of the other people in the game. This means that C&A Team could look at game history for suspicious SD behavior ... just like they do now!

I suspect that most SD is and would continue to be "accidental" rule violations in that a player doesn't realize that it's not allowed. I would suggest replacing the Game Chat box (instead of removing it) with a grayed out area with some text that says something about how most games allow chat, but these silent games do not and that PMs, etc. about the games are not allowed in any games. This would reassure noobs looking for a way to communicate that in most games you can talk to other players, but also educate them on SD rules.

[koontz1973]

Whilst I have no real opinion on this idea as a stand alone, I do think it would work great with another suggestion (Super Foggy Games). Lumping these two into one suggestion would make both more sensible. It would stop chat in super fog games, limiting the problems accidental reveals. It would also make this one more relevant and not just another setting to turn on or off.

[agentcom]

Whilst I have no real opinion on this idea as a stand alone, I do think it would work great with another suggestion (Super Foggy Games). Lumping these two into one suggestion would make both more sensible. It would stop chat in super fog games, limiting the problems accidental reveals. It would also make this one more relevant and not just another setting to turn on or off.

In fact, as I've pointed out over there, the super foggy suggestion could contain this one. It just depends on how super that fog will be.

[koontz1973]

Whilst I have no real opinion on this idea as a stand alone, I do think it would work great with another suggestion (Super Foggy Games). Lumping these two into one suggestion would make both more sensible. It would stop chat in super fog games, limiting the problems accidental reveals. It would also make this one more relevant and not just another setting to turn on or off.

In fact, as I've pointed out over there, the super foggy suggestion could contain this one. It just depends on how super that fog will be.

If you are going to have a super fog mode, you might as well go all the way or it just becomes pointless, hence my reasoning to place this with that. See agent, great minds think alike.

[Demen]

Many of the comments seem to be about whether or not diplomacy makes a fun game. Some think it does, some think it doesn't. However, this suggestion can't focus on whether or not diplomacy itself is a good thing, since we aren't banning diplomacy in ALL games, even if this suggestion goes through.

The main pragmatic issue that the proponents of this suggestion must account for:

How can be assured that this game setting won't result in an increase of Secret Diplomacy and accusations?

Also, just to clarify, so I know what we are looking at... please post the types of game settings you see yourself using this option for.

Re: How can be assured that this game setting won't result in an increase of Secret Diplomacy and accusations?
We cannot be assured that Secret Diplomacy doesn't happen with chat on anyway. I don't understand that argument. There are any number of options for secret diplomacy if that is how people intend to behave.

Re: ... please post the types of game settings you see yourself using this option for.
Single player, Standard, Auto, Sequential, No spoils, Fog.

Re comments regarding diplomacy and chatter being part of the spirit of the game: There are many elements options in the new and improved game of Risk that is Conquer Club. This would simply be another. An option. Those that rely on diplomacy and those that wish to make friends (or enemies) could simply avoid games with this option selected - just like avoiding trench in The Hive.