Conquer Club

Games should be marked as Secret Negotiation On/Off.

Then those who prefer secret alliances, truces and back-stabbing can do it legally.

Good idea!!!!

I like it

people would still disobey the secret alliance rules in the no secret alliance games.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:people would still disobey the secret alliance rules in the no secret alliance games.

That's not so much the idea behind this suggestion.

It's more about bringing another level of tactics to the game by making it trickyer.

Then what if i just made a multi and joined only games with secrets allowed?

Then i could use the "its my brother and we are talking secretly" excuse and they wouldn't ban me.

I vote "BAD IDEA" too much opportunity for abuse.

and what about actual friends? if this were enacted im sure my friend that quit b4 would be willing to come back and we could play hundreds of 3 player games, switching off who wins

wcaclimbing wrote:Then what if i just made a multi and joined only games with secrets allowed?

Then i could use the "its my brother and we are talking secretly" excuse and they wouldn't ban me.

I vote "BAD IDEA" too much opportunity for abuse.

Yeah I think it's a bad idea too. Though not so much the multi-thing but more the friends thing.

1. form, please
2. too abusable IMO
3. don't like it because secret alliances are just low in my eyes (just personal opinion, I understand that different people have different values).

flame wars forum to separate the abusers from the 'angels'

why not secret alliance games to separate the 'downright immoral lack of intelligence secret alliane people' to the people that play CC 'honestly'

I'm afraid more abuse than good would come from this idea...


--Andy

You are completely right.... GS has this option, and before that secret alliances were legal... it made the game a joke... nearly every single game was just two players executing everyone else on the board.. it wasnt even subtle...

there are team games, thats the closest youll come, and really the closest you should come to this... there is something to be said for the politics of secret alliances, but the benefit wouldnt come close to the complaints....and abuses

I like the idea,

Basically every reason people have given as to why it could be a bad idea, all the possibilities on how Secret alliances could go wrong, can be done now. It's easy to chat outside of the game and deny any part of doing so. At least if you enter a game where they are expected you are ready to face it.

One thing I would add is that odd games would not be permitted (particularly 3 player games) because like it's been mentioned it would be a perfect setting for a trap. But again, people can do that now if they are careful.

While it is tricky, if it is done with careful work and attention, I think this would be a good option for the game.


So to the original poster's suggestion,

Edward wrote:I like the idea,

Basically every reason people have given as to why it could be a bad idea, all the possibilities on how Secret alliances could go wrong, can be done now. It's easy to chat outside of the game and deny any part of doing so. At least if you enter a game where they are expected you are ready to face it.

Yes it's easy to chat outside of the game and deny it, but if you do that you're cheating and that isn't hard to discover. Basically this suggestion makes it legal for people to cheat.

It sounds good in theory but CC is just a too simple game for it.

yea, it does sound good, but it could never work, to many would miss use it and kill the fun of it

I love the idea I agree with edward and it sounds a lot of people like this idea too. But I dont see why people who dont like the idea ant just play the regular game.

Another option though may be to show the alliances made then you wanted you could track the players other games and see if they have alliances with the same people or something like that. Just showing the alliances will make it easier to catch the the cheaters.

But I think that will also put an interesting twist on the game if all players could see the alliances made. Could cause for interesting discussion and people trying to make alliances with others and so on.

But like I said I would love this new feature if they added it.

I don't like the idea because I'd have to deal with all the cheaters that would abuse it.


--Andy

and cheaters in games where it is off would have a built in excuse of "I thought this was a game that allowed secret negotiations!".

Herakilla wrote:and what about actual friends? if this were enacted im sure my friend that quit b4 would be willing to come back and we could play hundreds of 3 player games, switching off who wins

yeah so whoever joins your game is screwed two on one without ever knowing about it?

I still don't really see how this could be used to cheat, I mean other than the fact that it will encourage people to do it, when before they might not have wanted to go through the trouble of using MSN to form their secret pact.

If we added a limit of 2 players per secret team though...
Your in a 6 player sequential standard playing green, blue offers a secret alliance. If yellow wants in you say, "oh too bad I'm with blue" you would not be able to ally anyone else (2 player teams max) and your not allowed to ally with another team (Green and blue cant join with yellow and teal to kill red and pink).

So basically, since everyone would likely team up before the end, this would just be a setting that would mean people chose their own team mates. Or back stab them if needed.

Edward wrote:I still don't really see how this could be used to cheat, I mean other than the fact that it will encourage people to do it, when before they might not have wanted to go through the trouble of using MSN to form their secret pact.

If we added a limit of 2 players per secret team though...
Your in a 6 player sequential standard playing green, blue offers a secret alliance. If yellow wants in you say, "oh too bad I'm with blue" you would not be able to ally anyone else (2 player teams max) and your not allowed to ally with another team (Green and blue cant join with yellow and teal to kill red and pink).

So basically, since everyone would likely team up before the end, this would just be a setting that would mean people chose their own team mates. Or back stab them if needed.

but i could still just play 3 player games and always team with the same guy.

also, I could make a treaty with yellow, break it and treaty with blue, then break that and go back to yellow. We would only be 2 person teams, leaving the 3rd out for a turn, and since me blue and yellow are all friends, its easy to coordinate. That would be completely legit within the rules proposed above.

Secret Negotiations makes sense for Diplomacy and games of that nature, but not for risk.

yes, this is a bad idea...it opens up too much opportunity for abuse. Just play a team game...that way you can "secretly" work strategy with another player or two. I know it's not quite the same, but it's close.