http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

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.


- BP

This is the feature that I have wanted more than any other for 2+ years. Let's get those votes rolling in and get it implemented!

I also want to endorse this. I have actually had friends quit Warlight until this is implemented. After enough FFAs with the same people, you get grudges and it gets personal. This would solve that problem if the user selected it.

I'll keep it short and simple. I love this idea and it would bring new life to the game as well. I put my 3 votes down for it

To be implemented properly, there would also need to be an option to disable all chat in a game.

While I guess I wouldn't mind there being an option to disable all chat, I hope that this is not the default, and that it isn't what most people are looking for in anonymous games. Personally, I still want to be able to talk to people via chat/PM -- I just don't want them to know who I am!

Troll, I don't see chat elimination being required in anonymous games.

the diplomacy side of the game can still be in force while you don't know who you are diplomacy'ing with.. it should have the same limitations as normal games... while i detest the notion of diabling public chat, I believe the option should be available for those that want a pure gunboat style game.. I'm sure Duke would love the notion, as it would make it purely a skill vs skill style game.

Personally, if Pm's are forced to be turned off in Anonymous games, I will likely not play them, the diplomacy aspect is a part that i enjoy in part, when done right.. All members of a game must keep the ultimate goal in mind, and make treaties accordingly.. an all game alliance Imho spoils the game on many aspects, as many people have found out when I attacked them mid-way through it.

and I got distracted so forgot what I had initially planned to say.. woo

I agree with Crafty an Perrin that I really enjoy the diplomacy aspect of games so I feel as though private message should stay, yet with an option of all chat disabled since some variants warrant this.

As an aside, with four more votes Anonymous games vaults into 4th spot and with 25 more it sits alone in 3rd. Thanks all for reading and casting your votes.

I should have qualified my post, and this overlaps with BP's other thread, by saying that to me it would be imperative to have all chat disabled for a FFA ladder since a ladder exists as a skill test. It would not be as important in non-ladder games.

I totally disagree that all chat should be disabled for the ladder. I love FFA but would probably not play much if this was the case. Diplomacy is a skill just like any other part of the game.

not as fun since you wont make relationships with players

thanks BP. I know to never make alliances with you.

People that take alliances past the single games that they are made in are fail, imho.
I take each individual game as an individual game, and will intentionally randomly change my methodology just because of people that think that they can manipulate me based on past events.

call it my roleplaying heart coming out in a strategy game, \*shrug*

True that Perrin.

Emperor, I'm not sure I follow. A win is a win. Usually I follow the same strategy, make alliances that further yourself in a game. Yet if it comes a point where I cannot win then I will make moves in accordance to help an alliance. In other words I stick to my word and want an alliance to win if I cannot. However, if a timely cancelled alliance is in my best interest to make then I make it.

Just as in chess where you need to think about multiple moves in advance in Warlight I think about multiple games in advance. This is why I play less aggressive then I feel as though I should. In other words, I think I should have won more FFA games then my record shows but wanting to protect my good name has prevented me from doing so. Anonymous games would correct this weakness; Players would make bold plays because it was in there best interest to do so - thats all I'm saying. In anonymous games, each move would be executed with solely that game in mind as every player would know that nothing is personal.

An update: Anonymous games is now in fourth in user-voice with 141 votes. Be heard and cast your votes!

I finally upped mine to 3 votes, so it's 143 now.. woo..

sorry for derailing...


BP, maybe I misread what you meant. I am not talking about alliances beyond a given game (play team games if you are always buddying with the same player). However, since I know you will break an alliance before the terms of that alliance have expired, why would I ever make an alliance with you?

From your other comments, it sounds like you have outside pressures to allign with other players before the game even begins. If that is the case, you need to set the record straight with those players and explain you are not in eternal alliance with them.

I don't get how your chess analogy applies here. Unless you have figured out a way for your opponents rook not to attack you until final 2...

/derail (but this could keep this side conversation helps keep this thread at the top of the forum)

I would find the anonymous games interesting and fun. Everyone vote for this idea (and vote for the player notetaking feature while you are at it)!

voted