Guys,
Your missing my key point: that not knowing whether or not you can trust another player makes the game more fun! Ask any Diplomacy player. Trust uncertainty is a huge aspect of the game.

Let's project ahead with Subterfuge if there is no anonymity. What's going to happen after a few months. Except for a few newbies and rogues, everybody is going to be completely trustworthy because they will be concerned about their reputations in future games. I see the comments from some of you saying that is what you want. BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR! The diplomacy aspect of the game will become very minor and it will become one of mechanics. Who can manipulate the specialists and drillers to the best outcome.

The game community will evolve into sets of teams of players who will tend to play together and against other teams. There will be complete trust within these teams and their will be almost zero diplomacy. The most interesting and entertaining aspect of the game is the diplomacy and the uncertainty of trusting other players. Sure, you guys may feel more comfortable knowing how you can trust and how you can't but it won't be nearly as much fun. Trust me on this—or talk to any Diplomacy player.

Having different types of games is a good solution to this. Some with anonymity, some without. Some with pre-established teams, some without. You will be finding me in the anonymous games...but then again, you won't know who I am!

yes i am agree with that. we play a lot with same person, and anonymity game ll make every game a challenge of diplomacy

rkduke wrote:Guys,
Your missing my key point: that not knowing whether or not you can trust another player makes the game more fun! Ask any Diplomacy player. Trust uncertainty is a huge aspect of the game.

Let's project ahead with Subterfuge if there is no anonymity. What's going to happen after a few months. Except for a few newbies and rogues, everybody is going to be completely trustworthy because they will be concerned about their reputations in future games. I see the comments from some of you saying that is what you want. BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR! The diplomacy aspect of the game will become very minor and it will become one of mechanics. Who can manipulate the specialists and drillers to the best outcome.

The game community will evolve into sets of teams of players who will tend to play together and against other teams. There will be complete trust within these teams and their will be almost zero diplomacy. The most interesting and entertaining aspect of the game is the diplomacy and the uncertainty of trusting other players. Sure, you guys may feel more comfortable knowing how you can trust and how you can't but it won't be nearly as much fun. Trust me on this—or talk to any Diplomacy player.

Having different types of games is a good solution to this. Some with anonymity, some without. Some with pre-established teams, some without. You will be finding me in the anonymous games...but then again, you won't know who I am!

I must admit this has changed my thoughts on this. Especially this part:

rkduke wrote:The diplomacy aspect of the game will become very minor and it will become one of mechanics.

I still think there is a place for both, but I get the feeling I'm now leaning towards the need for anonymity in ranked games.

One thing that I feel would be important though is that at the end of the game you get to see who each player was by revealing their usernames.

And maybe an option is to have a list of all players usernames that are in the game, but not know who is who.

Bump for anonymity. (Although I'm aware that there are already plans to implement this I'm excited to give it a go)

Yeah, my initial reaction was not to be anonymous, but the posts here changed my mind. And now I'm in a situation where my alliance with a player in one game is by default creating an alliance in the other game I'm in. And I'm sure breaking the alliance in either place would affect both games. I also vote for anonymity.

I get why some might like it - helps wipe the slate clean for those who try different strategies in different games. But I'm finding more instances of people of who I think will use it to be purposeful spoilers without any consequence. Your milage may vary, tho.

I really like that players are not anonymous. The notes that you can keep in people is a nice touch too. It's just like playing a board game with people you know. For instance when I play monopoly with a certain friend we know that we are both pretty good and we know the strategy that each other always uses. I will never give him the last orange property he needs and he will never give me the last blue and we will beg ( or in his case often deceive) and bribe other players not to as well. It adds a layer of depth to the diplomacy

rkduke wrote:Guys,
Your missing my key point: that not knowing whether or not you can trust another player makes the game more fun! Ask any Diplomacy player. Trust uncertainty is a huge aspect of the game.

Let's project ahead with Subterfuge if there is no anonymity. What's going to happen after a few months. Except for a few newbies and rogues, everybody is going to be completely trustworthy because they will be concerned about their reputations in future games. I see the comments from some of you saying that is what you want. BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR! The diplomacy aspect of the game will become very minor and it will become one of mechanics. Who can manipulate the specialists and drillers to the best outcome.

The game community will evolve into sets of teams of players who will tend to play together and against other teams. There will be complete trust within these teams and their will be almost zero diplomacy. The most interesting and entertaining aspect of the game is the diplomacy and the uncertainty of trusting other players. Sure, you guys may feel more comfortable knowing how you can trust and how you can't but it won't be nearly as much fun. Trust me on this—or talk to any Diplomacy player.

Having different types of games is a good solution to this. Some with anonymity, some without. Some with pre-established teams, some without. You will be finding me in the anonymous games...but then again, you won't know who I am!

So true !
I'd love to have two game modes, with and without anonymity !

FateCreatr wrote:I'm against anonymity in the game, but understand that others might like it as an option. I would be reluctant to join a game where previous players who have lied to me are not remembered.

That's a good argument, but consider the thing this way : it wouldn't be fun if someone who backstab you in one game create a real alliance with you in another one ? ^^

Well, after playing four games I am more convinced than ever that player anonymity is badly needed. Here are some scenarios I am experiencing:

1. I am allied with Player A in Game 1. Player A is also a participant with me in Game 2 but we are not allied. Player B in Game 2 has suggested to me that we team together to attack Player B. The circumstance are such that this is an attractive option that would be in my interest. But I have to decline Player B's offer out of concern that my attack of Player A in Game 2 will result in our alliance in Game 1 breaking apart. I politely decline and my position in Game 2 suffers as a result.

2. I am in a 3-way alliance in Game 3. We are doing well and will all end up as the top three winners. There is tremendous trust amongst us because we know who we each are and don't want to ruin our reputation for future games. This game has 3.5 days to go and has become very boring. The three of us dominate the map and are just cranking out drillers and mines waiting for the game to end. If we were anonymous there would be a concern that #2 and #3 finishers in the alliance would conspire to backstab the #1 finisher and things owuld be more interesting (and fun!).

3. Back in Game 2, only one player has built a mine and he is projected to win in 81 days! Some outposts are being captured back and forth but the alliances are stable. Nobody wants to betray anybody else and this game is dragging on...


Bottom line - nobody likes to be the victim of a backstab and it certainly is more "comfortable" knowing who you are playing against. But, the game is becoming boring as the diplomatic element is greatly diminished. After just four games I am already getting bored with Subterfuge and hope that the developers add anonymity to it.

I agree completely with Rkduke. And let me give another example to support his case.

In a game I'm currently playing, I was in diplomatic relations with Person A and Person B. Person A is my immediate neighbor, and Person B is on the far side of Person A from me.
Right off the bat, Person A attacks Person B with everything he has. Now I'm caught in the middle, and have to choose one of them to support. I choose Person B for two reasons: Person B has been communicating more, and Person B is too far away to attack. Not to mention, Person A left his border *wide open* to me.

Obviously the strategic advantages of attacking Person A far outweigh the options of attacking Person B or even staying neutral, despite my informal peace with Person A. Now, when I attack Person A he throws a fit. This is to be expected, but the problem is that when Person A tells everyone else that I am not to be trusted, it hurts me in more than just this one game. If and when I see these people again, they'll remember that I am "not to be trusted," even though I never even attacked them and in fact had good diplomatic relations with them.

You might argue, "That's just the metagame," but I don't think that kind of metagame should exist in a game like this. Like Rkduke, I've also played online Diplomacy, and there was no such thing as a metagame. It was just this one game that I'm currently playing.

I feel like my only concern in stabbing Person A in the back should be the repercussions in that game alone. And if I weigh the advantages of gaining free territories against the disadvantages of Person A's anger, the choice is obvious, unless I look at the metagame.