Deals / Truces / Aliances - "Politics" in the game

[gp24176281]

At any rate, I don't c the objection to have such an option. The fact it's not enforceable just make it simpler - no real code changes, with a high benefit to many players.

I think that too many options will just make it harder for people to find (and fill) games that suit their specific preference and that wouldn't benefit anyone. So is there too many/too few/just the right amount of options today? I'm not sure but adding a new rule that is (as admitted by yourself) unenforceable really isn't the right way IMO.

Well - since I never waited more than a day for a game to fill up (and I mostly play 8 players games). We r obviously not close to the described scenario.

gp

[gp24176281]

At what point will the number of game options stop? What's next? Games for people who don't want cursing in chat boxes? Games for people who don't want others to skip turns intentionally as a matter of strategy? Games for people who think using text abbreviations such as "u" instead of "you" or "c" instead of "see" is the ultimate in laziness? Seriously, is it that hard to type two additional letters? I don't like any of these things, but I don't think we need more game options so we can create games to satisfy every little aspect of game play that we might find unfavorable.

I just wonder - Do u really think all these small petty things u remark upon, really compare to deals/no-deals (and I mean the real ones - not the idiotic ones)?

Well that is all about preference. IMO all the things Keebs mention are at least as annoying as in-game politics, for you they apparently aren't.

So - I decided to go to my current running games and to c in how many of them, the issue of politics came up and created a friction to some degree (that its result was ruining the game / create bad feelings). The answer is 3/10 (!!!) and I wasn't even involved in the discussion in 2 of those.
Now - let us do the other way. Go to your games and tell me - in how many of your running games one of the following scenarios harmed it:
a. Games for people who don't want cursing in chat boxes.
b. Games for people who don't want others to skip turns intentionally as a matter of strategy
c. Games for people who think using text abbreviations such as "u" instead of "you" or "c" instead of "see" is the ultimate in laziness

I don't know about u. I played 70 games up to now and none of the above become an issue. Strange - isn't it. Deals/Aliances harmed about 1/3 of my games and these (a), (b), (c) stuff - never.

go figure
gp

[Thezzaruz]

I don't know about u. I played 70 games up to now and none of the above become an issue. Strange - isn't it. Deals/Aliances harmed about 1/3 of my games and these (a), (b), (c) stuff - never.

Well I haven't had any game spoilt by alliances yet. In fact I've hardly had any games with alliances at all.

[gp24176281]

I don't know about u. I played 70 games up to now and none of the above become an issue. Strange - isn't it. Deals/Aliances harmed about 1/3 of my games and these (a), (b), (c) stuff - never.

Well I haven't had any game spoilt by alliances yet. In fact I've hardly had any games with alliances at all.

We r probably playing in different site than

Here are my running games and those that deals apeared in:
1720666 - no deals
2018881 - deals apear, no hard feelings so far
2022375 - no deals
1577751 - deals apeared - caused friction
1720620 - deals apeared - caused friction
1907217 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game
1984334 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game
2215716 - tripples game - deals can not exist
2020048 - no deals
1812794 - no deals

Some of us hate "politics" (and if u go these games - u'll c just how many). Why force such a big group, just so there will be "not too many options" according to the hell knows whos opinion.

gp

[Thezzaruz]

Some of us hate "politics" (and if u go these games - u'll c just how many). Why force such a big group, just so there will be "not too many options" according to the hell knows whos opinion.

The main point is that you want to impose a restriction that is unenforceable (as per previous posts). Plus the fact that politics will always occur as unspoken truces have just as big influence as spoken ones.
The "too many options" part is just an overall concern.

[gp24176281]

Some of us hate "politics" (and if u go these games - u'll c just how many). Why force such a big group, just so there will be "not too many options" according to the hell knows whos opinion.

The main point is that you want to impose a restriction that is unenforceable (as per previous posts). Plus the fact that politics will always occur as unspoken truces have just as big influence as spoken ones.
The "too many options" part is just an overall concern.

U r right there. Unspoken truces have a huge impact on the game and .... are just fine. In my eyes, this is the way to play the game. U want a truce - signal to your oponent. He might accept and might reject - but u'll not know before hand and u'll never know when he will break that understanding. That is what "risk" is all about. Not verbal agreements that are "not to be broken" (ppl get negs for breaking verbal agreements - unbelievable).
This game is not love and not war. This game is a past time enjoyment. Some of us want to play it differently.

U can c unenforceable as a good and as a bad thing. I c it as a very positive thing - it will not require hard work to implement. There are too many ppl out there that want to play this type of games, for some jerks to come into these games to ruin them.

Besides, there is an advantage also to those who want "politics" in their games. They can play ppl which r like minded and their actions wouldn't cause so much friction in the games.

gp

[ZawBanjito]

This suggestion would awkwardly solve something that ain't broke.

[Thezzaruz]

U r right there. Unspoken truces have a huge impact on the game and .... are just fine. In my eyes, this is the way to play the game.

Well I guess it's just about how we are used to play the game. All RL games I've played with my friends have contained much more banter/thrash talk/truces than any game I've played on here.
I mostly don't use politics myself but I still think that both the verbal and non-verbal agreements is a part of the game just as thrash talk and outrageous/deceiving suggestions are.

1577751 - deals apeared - caused friction
1720620 - deals apeared - caused friction
1907217 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game
1984334 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game

Had a quick look at those and IMO your complaint should be more about people behaving like jerks than in-game politics ruining the games.
1st - Loads of banter/thrash talk (by you too tbf). Don't really see how politics gets the blame (and when you're closing in on round 80 something got to give really ). It's your turn there btw
2nd - One player made a verbal suggestion (but not a truce really). IMO you where a bit picky here but I see where you're coming from though.
3rd - Mostly complaints about how other play (directed at you mainly ). Don't see how politics would be to blame.
4th - Seems that one player sort of gave away a position in a FoW game and another player went a bit mad about that. Not really a problem with politics.

(ppl get negs for breaking verbal agreements - unbelievable)

I fully agree there. How anyone can expect an agreement (verbal or not) to not be broken is beyond me.

[Ray Rider]

This suggestion would awkwardly solve something that ain't broke.

Agreed. I've played 136 games so far, and I can count on one hand the number of deals/truces/alliances that I've seen.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know about u. I played 70 games up to now and none of the above become an issue. Strange - isn't it. Deals/Aliances harmed about 1/3 of my games and these (a), (b), (c) stuff - never.

Well I haven't had any game spoilt by alliances yet. In fact I've hardly had any games with alliances at all.

We r probably playing in different site than

Here are my running games and those that deals apeared in:
1720666 - no deals
2018881 - deals apear, no hard feelings so far
2022375 - no deals
1577751 - deals apeared - caused friction
1720620 - deals apeared - caused friction
1907217 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game
1984334 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game
2215716 - tripples game - deals can not exist
2020048 - no deals
1812794 - no deals

Some of us hate "politics" (and if u go these games - u'll c just how many). Why force such a big group, just so there will be "not too many options" according to the hell knows whos opinion.

gp

I see, so you feel these 10 games are representative? I have only rarely had deals offered or accepted.

But, the bottom line is since this is completely uninforceable and might actually lead to more abuse (those who get kicks out of being annoying), just create a user group of like-minded individuals or put those you don't likeon your ignore list. Much easier than taking up space and time for everyone else.

[TheScarecrow]

i think the OP needs to take a look at the home page....

the politics is a big part of CC and everyone who signed up should be aware of it.

[gp24176281]

U r right there. Unspoken truces have a huge impact on the game and .... are just fine. In my eyes, this is the way to play the game.

Well I guess it's just about how we are used to play the game. All RL games I've played with my friends have contained much more banter/thrash talk/truces than any game I've played on here.
I mostly don't use politics myself but I still think that both the verbal and non-verbal agreements is a part of the game just as thrash talk and outrageous/deceiving suggestions are.

1577751 - deals apeared - caused friction
1720620 - deals apeared - caused friction
1907217 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game
1984334 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game

Had a quick look at those and IMO your complaint should be more about people behaving like jerks than in-game politics ruining the games.
1st - Loads of banter/thrash talk (by you too tbf). Don't really see how politics gets the blame (and when you're closing in on round 80 something got to give really ). It's your turn there btw
2nd - One player made a verbal suggestion (but not a truce really). IMO you where a bit picky here but I see where you're coming from though.
3rd - Mostly complaints about how other play (directed at you mainly ). Don't see how politics would be to blame.
4th - Seems that one player sort of gave away a position in a FoW game and another player went a bit mad about that. Not really a problem with politics.

(ppl get negs for breaking verbal agreements - unbelievable)

I fully agree there. How anyone can expect an agreement (verbal or not) to not be broken is beyond me.

U r right there. Unspoken truces have a huge impact on the game and .... are just fine. In my eyes, this is the way to play the game.

Well I guess it's just about how we are used to play the game. All RL games I've played with my friends have contained much more banter/thrash talk/truces than any game I've played on here.
I mostly don't use politics myself but I still think that both the verbal and non-verbal agreements is a part of the game just as thrash talk and outrageous/deceiving suggestions are.

1577751 - deals apeared - caused friction
1720620 - deals apeared - caused friction
1907217 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game
1984334 - deals apeared - caused friction - ruined the game

Had a quick look at those and IMO your complaint should be more about people behaving like jerks than in-game politics ruining the games.
1st - Loads of banter/thrash talk (by you too tbf). Don't really see how politics gets the blame (and when you're closing in on round 80 something got to give really ). It's your turn there btw
2nd - One player made a verbal suggestion (but not a truce really). IMO you where a bit picky here but I see where you're coming from though.
3rd - Mostly complaints about how other play (directed at you mainly ). Don't see how politics would be to blame.
4th - Seems that one player sort of gave away a position in a FoW game and another player went a bit mad about that. Not really a problem with politics.

(ppl get negs for breaking verbal agreements - unbelievable)

I fully agree there. How anyone can expect an agreement (verbal or not) to not be broken is beyond me.

Well, I won't follow your remarks - no real point. It's written very clear in those game and if that are the conclusion u make - so be it. It seems it became personal to u (or u just gave a quick glance looking for what u want to c), so - have it your way.

gp

[Thezzaruz]

Well, I won't follow your remarks - no real point. It's written very clear in those game and if that are the conclusion u make - so be it. It seems it became personal to u (or u just gave a quick glance looking for what u want to c), so - have it your way.

Well if those games are representative of your problems with in-game politics I suggest you just pretend that the chat function doesn't exist.

A player posting a position in a FoW (and then the following bitch fight) will never be classed as a problem with the political side of RISK.

[chemefreak]

gp -

If a "note" section or "parameter" section in the "join a game" that denotes the wishes of the creator is doable, i would be all for it.

[gp24176281]

gp -

If a "note" section or "parameter" section in the "join a game" that denotes the wishes of the creator is doable, i would be all for it.

chemefreak,

Even though our understanding of the game is different (as noted in your first post), I find your support for the idea refreshing. Most ppl that are for deals and the kind (at least in this thread), don't seem to understand that I wish to make the game more enjoyable for all parties - not only me.
As far as I can c, politics is the #1 cause of friction in this game. We can argue about the notion - what is politics. What we can't argue about is the fact that most ppl either support it or against it. I wish to play with ppl that r against it (whatever their notion of the issue is), since the chances of my games being more enjoyable increase dramatically. I believe the majority will benefit from such a difrentiality in the games.

gp

[thinktank]

I believe there is an option for the chat to have a pre-recorded message, i.e. "No deals" at the start of the game.

I'm not sure though if CC chat has that capability. Again, what can it hurt to have that option?

[insomniacdude]

I believe there is an option for the chat to have a pre-recorded message, i.e. "No deals" at the start of the game.

I'm not sure though if CC chat has that capability. Again, what can it hurt to have that option?

It couldn't. Neither this or the "house rules" idea could really hurt. It surprises me that the house rules suggestion was rejected last time with such a great use for it. I personally don't care about in-game politics, and if it came down to it I would not support an all-out "no politics" option due to the feasibility of enforcement, but either the "house rule" option or the pre-game chat message would be great to alleviate heartache (on both sides o this issue). Just let the negative feedbacks enforce the rule from there.

[carlatet]

In-game deals kill the fun in this game. All of us must , at one time or another, have been subjected to this. Take a strong position in the game, expect to win in 5 turns then whoa!, you read a deal in the chat.

If players must gang up on another, it MUST be unspoken!

[superkarn]

The solution is simple, really. If we add the House Rules (simple text description of the game you're creating), both sides win. If you like politics and deals, you can state them there. If you don't like them, just write "no alliances". That way people will know exactly what type of games they're joining.