I'm sure much of you have not max'd out your ballets in the user-voice site. This would be a shame since we all have equal impact how fun Warlight can go. If you have not voted yet, or have not re-used your returned votes since the implementations of ladder rankings and other things, then you should definitely check out the site again - link above.
The best one to currently vote for, that would get the most most legs out of what you can do with the feature, is the anonymous player games. And here's some reasons why:
First, for those who don't know what this would entail, it would simply mean that at the beginning of a large FFA game only your colour (and a random one at that), NOT your identity, would be known. Only at the end of the game would the names be revealed. Secondly, it would be an OPTION for the game creator rather than forced.
1) It would take player biases out of games:
- This means a few things. For starters great players would never be disadvantaged by their reputation. Someone like Impaller could join a game and not have to worry about getting quadruple teamed from the outset.
- Also, players could not carry-over grudges from other games. For example you would see no instances where someone attacks player X just because they dislike player X, or align with player Y just because they really like player Y.
2) A corollary of reason #1, it would make the game more about best strategies and real diplomatic relations:
- I for one am guilty of #1, I think we all are. Sometimes I want to do one thing but know that the repercussions in subsequent games would make it not a viable strategy in the long run. With anonymity you would always do what is best for you, nobody else. At the end of the game there would be no hard feelings since the anonymity would make it obvious that the abruptly ended alliance (known as the "backstab") was done only out of prudence.
3) New game variants are being constructed where non-collusion is required:
- Anonymity would prevent easy circumvention of this as nobody could make out of game alliances. Also, in game the common tacit alliances between friends would be eliminated. All tacit arrangements would face the fear of trusting a complete stranger.
4) For members, anonymity would be requirement if FFA was ever brought to the ladder.
- and how awesome would a 3, 4 or even 5 person FFA be in the ladder, or even a large one of 11. Without anonymity the leader would simply have no chance, it would be "Get Impaller" he's ranked #1. Not fun!
There are many other merits but basically I think i would just make the game less about personal politicking and reputation and more about solid tactics and gameplay. Undoubtably there would be more backstabs but this is part of the game and, after all, you can always grieve your case in the public forum, or concurrently vote for Pinkbladders suggestion where treaties between colours would be binding for x number of turns.
I know there are some cons, such a someone building a good reputation over time should be rewarded. This is valid, but don't forget the fact that anonymity would be an option to the creator. I personally would not only play in anonymous games for this reason, but I play a few of both since each (the anonymity and non-anonymity) each over interesting and different dynamics of play.
I'd like to hear your thoughts, and would much appreciate your support on this idea. It is currently ranked 6th on user-voice, lets bring it up into the top 3.