I've been in games before where it's down to three and it's obvious to me that the other two guys are conspiring against me. Nothing is said in the message log, yet they have tons of troops on my borders and hardly any against each other. This could be a silent (or understood) agreement or it could be an IM agreement. AFAIK, the IM agreement is against the rules.
I've played games on other sites before where if someone at the table uses the built in messaging system to IM another person at the table, an automatic message is put into the "log" stating so. The contents of the message weren't revealed, just the fact that a message was sent.
I would like to see this functionality in this game. I think it would assist in curbing secret agreements.
Now, I understand that there are other messaging systems than the one built into the game, and they will most likely be used if this is implemented, but this still forces them to work a little harder.
Sure you can get around it, but I'd guess a large portion of secret alliances are done via PM. This would just make it more difficult, and should therefore reduce the overall amount of collusion, no?
what if I sent a PM to someone who happened to be in my game for other reasons? sorry, this idea seems like a complete waste of time to me as it'll accomplish nothing but making people even more suspicious for no reason, but what do I know.
what if I sent a PM to someone who happened to be in my game for other reasons? sorry, this idea seems like a complete waste of time to me as it'll accomplish nothing but making people even more suspicious for no reason, but what do I know.
For sure that will happen sometimes and people will have to be more careful not to appear suspicous. The question is - would this create paranoid hysteria or a reasonable amount of challenges coupled with much less collusion? I don't know but I'm tempted to experiment.
This should probably go in hand with a definition of what must be declared in an alliance. Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to reading that thread but I do intend to.
hey your site, whatever you want to waste you time on.
people will have to be more careful not to appear suspicous.
My point exactly... people shouldn't have to worry about sending PM's making them look suspicious. hell, I get accused of being a multi just because of friendly chat in the game. I can't imagine the wild accusations that'll fly now.
yep, know what you mean JS. I can't access email at work, so often use CC mail for that, as I can acccess that. Obviously, I'm going to be sending that mail to friends who I'm in games with. I haven't heard anything about this being implemented, so hopefully Lack forgets about it. Still a very bad idea, IMO. Who's business is it other than my own how many times I might IM a friend? I can just see the game logs now! lol
I notice you haven't done anything about this very obviously abused loophole at CC lack. Hell, why not eliminate the ability for PM's all together if people in a non-team game? No wall posting either. You wanna fight secret diplomacy or not? At least start utilizing the original idea: revealing when people have PM'd each other. Thx Andrito
Andrito wrote:I notice you haven't done anything about this very obviously abused loophole at CC lack. Hell, why not eliminate the ability for PM's all together if people in a non-team game? No wall posting either. You wanna fight secret diplomacy or not? At least start utilizing the original idea: revealing when people have PM'd each other. Thx Andrito
Nah wicked was spot on and this is still just as useless an idea as it was when first suggested. If PM's is such a big problem concerning secret diplomacy then it would be better to disable the PM system completely.
