topkilla wrote:I believe that if anonymity was added to the game, less democracy would take place as everyone would be too paranoid.

Diplomacy would still exist by necessity- if you go silent in paranoia, you will lose to players who reached out to each other for mutual gain.

My own thoughts: Every ranked game should be anonymous. Every tournament (paid especially) should be anonymous. Otherwise those venues will eventually turn into popularity contests.

My own thoughts: Every ranked game should be anonymous. Every tournament (paid especially) should be anonymous.

Truth. It makes the competitive players play the way they want. If they want to find their friends (or enemies) that they have notes on, let that exist in public-non-rated matches and private games.

azrael_254 wrote:

My own thoughts: Every ranked game should be anonymous. Every tournament (paid especially) should be anonymous.

Truth. It makes the competitive players play the way they want. If they want to find their friends (or enemies) that they have notes on, let that exist in public-non-rated matches and private games.

I disagree. Players are going to play the way they play regardless. Being anonymous doesn't change anything.

topkilla wrote:I disagree. Players are going to play the way they play regardless. Being anonymous doesn't change anything.

Have you played with the same person twice? If so, you honestly think it didnt change either of your diplomacies? If not, wait till it happens, you will see.

kevlargolem wrote:

topkilla wrote:I disagree. Players are going to play the way they play regardless. Being anonymous doesn't change anything.

Have you played with the same person twice? If so, you honestly think it didnt change either of your diplomacies? If not, wait till it happens, you will see.

I second this. It definitely makes a difference.

kevlargolem wrote:

topkilla wrote:I disagree. Players are going to play the way they play regardless. Being anonymous doesn't change anything.

Have you played with the same person twice? If so, you honestly think it didnt change either of your diplomacies? If not, wait till it happens, you will see.

I third this You will find that, even if you were enemies in the previous game, in a new game with him as the only person you know, you will probably become close allies.

tw2000 wrote:

kevlargolem wrote:

topkilla wrote:I disagree. Players are going to play the way they play regardless. Being anonymous doesn't change anything.

Have you played with the same person twice? If so, you honestly think it didnt change either of your diplomacies? If not, wait till it happens, you will see.

I third this You will find that, even if you were enemies in the previous game, in a new game with him as the only person you know, you will probably become close allies.

Thats yet another quote taken out of context.


I have absolutely played in multiple games with the same people. Yes. It changed both our diplomacies. But not in a bad way. It just so happens that the depth of strategy in this game is further developed when you are able to make a trusting alliance.

In the future, I can only imagine that the depth of this game is going to be extremely deep. Not because of a change in game mechanics, but because of the interpersonal relationships that will develop. Relationships are built on trust. To establish trust, you need to know who you are interacting with.

Out of context? I quoted your entire post.

The "strategy" you are talking about is just an unfair advantage due to a quasi-multigame deal (against the rule, thus cheating). I've done it too, because there is almost a magnetic draw to it. I didn't plan to play with them specifically, but there's only so many higher rated players/games. And once we're both there... and if you want to win, why would you not go with a sure thing presented on a platter?

Is playing with a premade alliance an advantage that most would want to have? Yes.
Does it make for a more competetive/fair game? No.

Other questions to think about:

How anonymous should anonymous be?

If names are hidden, should also ratings and medals be hidden? - If someone has a particular number medals, or an unusually high or low rating, you might be able to use them to identify someone. Then again, having a base level of information about another player's skill before the game starts adds to the strategy of the game.

Should there be a penalty or a rule against purposely identifying yourself? If you WANT to be identified, its very hard to stop people from doing this. For example, there could be a rule against identifying yourself, so stating your name in public chat could be forbidden by the rules (for whatever that actually does). But what if someone always introduces themself with a something like "Howdy pardners!". Is this rule also supposed to keep people from having unique personalities? If theres no way to keep people from identifying themselves, should there be an option to turn off your anonymity and reveal you name? (I personally don't think so, but its interesting to think about).

^ These questions are not to try to force a nirvana complex. Some imperfect soloution is significantly better than nothing. But its worth thinking about the imperfections to try to address them where possible.

Guys, I am the original advocate on this thread for anonymity. It comes from my long experience playing online Diplomacy which is usually anonymous. For those of you who wish to seriously explore this question, take a look at the many online Diplomacy sites that are out there (I use www.dipbounced.com/). They have been doing this for many years and there are a set of best practices in place including post-game debriefs, player rankings, rules about disclosure, etc.