Hi!

If you like diplo games and would like a new diplo feature please check my uservoice suggestion.
http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/9186289-diplomacy-scenario

And if you like this idea please give some votes to reach Fizzer's stimulus threshold, and then maybe the wonder just happen.

I commented on this at the uservoice, and I'll say the same thing here:

This is a tremendously complex change to the game which will require a lot of work (and create potential problems). That wouldn't be the end of the world, except...

Diplomacy games are made *worse*, not better (contrary to popular belief here, for some strange reason) by unbreakable alliances.

It devalues play, creates weird scenarios where the game can't end, weirder scenarios where games can end prematurely, can make strategy absolutely irrelevant, requires less effort/skill, and reduces strategic options.

I know very well a certain childish desire to force your "allies" to follow the agreements they made (I have that desire, too), but it does NOT make for a more interesting game.

Quite the contrary.

Play Diplomacy games with normal rules and embrace the possibilities: your Diplomacy games will be better for it.

Fizzer adressed this with "maybe someday" on the livestream. So never is the answer I guess.

Edited 8/5/2015 18:54:22

Also, a similar (but perhaps less well-presented) idea is already currently the most-often-voted Uservoice. So I doubt adding another one will do anything to help.

I have played diplomacy games.. And let me tell you I would be a diplomacy addict if this uservoice idea gets the go ahead.

Some people will diss it cause it's not "Real Warlight" or It's not strategic as other games.. But it doesn't matter People just want to have fun with games like this and let me assure you People like me will pray to Fizzer if this gets implanted.

Love it, This should be implace someday.. I'm no expert on coding but it must take a awful lot of time but when I see diplomacy games fill up.. Maybe it isn't such a bad idea.

(Just for the record, I'm not one of those "Strategic Warlight only!" people. I have an intense passion for Diplomacy games, in fact. But I've done a lot of thinking about it, and I find that peace treaties remove everything interesting from Diplomacy games and are in fact the *cause* of the problems people are having, not the other way around.)

I was a diplomacy Warlight player in by earlier levels.. Now the problem was that people were taking the game for their own advantage.. These rules were put in by users... But the game isn't reinforcing it or enforcing it. I hope you know where I'm coming here... Peace treaties? Is it the right or wrong step? We don't know but if it gets implanted it shows to me and to other diplomacy users that the game is facilitating this type of game.

Edited 8/5/2015 19:52:13

I love Diplos and everything, but I don't think Fizzer should make any updates surrounding the game type. After all this game is meant for the opposite of Diplos :/

Why shouldn't the game be going through revolution? Don't games not go through revolution all the time and find different purposes and meanings for them?

Better yet :) Make a completely different website of it... Call it "DiplomacyLight.com"

Backstabbing is part of the game, but then again it sure is one hell of a hassle when a player decides to go full-cunt PE on you. Might be interesting, might be bad. I'm indifferent.

The interesting part, Platinum, is that I asked Fizzer if WarLight spin-offs were okay. So, go ahead, make DiplomacyLight.com (but I'd probably call it something easier and more welcoming, like "AlternativeLight.com"), but you'll need some decent programming skills and maybe a team of 3-5 developers.

If you do the coding work before you release, it may take a while. It may be worth something to try to convince Fizzer to release the old(/current) warlight.net address and name to you.

Sadly... I haven't any coding skills whatsoever (I'm still in school ffs)

Great Idea if anyone wants to do that though!!

Do it.. I get 10% Profits.

I agree with Poireau's first post, diplomacies would lose a lot of the intrigue if people were forced by the game to obey alliances to the letter. If you are afraid of trolls and assclowns who ruin your games by breaking the rules then join a clan or invite trustworthy ppl, simple.

I like the diplo games with rules, like the PE based diplo rule, and like the possibility of brake the rule with a surprise attack and other tricks. If this diplo mode is popular it remains frequent in open games.

An optional diplomacy scenario like this would be just an alternate gameplay like local-deployment games, wich need alternate strategy and tricks.

I think with these settings would birth new tricks like:
- Fake public attack without battle to confuse others
- Fake ally who build hidden front behind the border
- Fake truce to calm down the enemy until reinforce

Of course this is just a suggestion who knows maybe the Warzone will contain this feature or something like this

Urfang,

Those are good examples of the kinds of strategies which become impossible or improbable with strict rules around alliances.

Diplomacy in the "real world" is fascinating precisely because you CAN'T ever have a 100% solid alliance. Why make gameplay LESS interesting than that?

So I maintain that not only are formal alliance rules (built into Warlight) *unnecessary*, they actually *harm* the quality of the games.

"Make a button where you can add people to your team and/or kick people from your team at any moment because in diplomacy, flexibility is a MUST."

In this case, if you're just talking about a public board which shows alliances (but has no effect on gameplay), that's something I could get behind!

(Incidentally, I think the game change which would be MOST useful to Diplomacy play would be a function which allows yourself to change your name in-game. So that, for instance, I could change "M. Poireau" to "FRANCE (M. Poireau)", or something similar. That would help a great deal!)