Diplomacy!

Hi guys!
I'm new here, I've discovered Dominating 12 just few days ago. It's a really nice risk-based site, one of the best in the entire web, without any doubt...

But...

I think it misses an element... I don't know, maybe someone else has alredy talked about it in another post, I've tried to check for it, but I haven't found anything similar to my issue.
Fact is I've played a lot of games in other risk-sites, and one of the best things I've found in them was Diplomacy. With Diplomacy I mean an explicit agreement system, used by players and ratified by the site-software, that officialize the temporary termination of hostilities between 2 contiguous countries owned by 2 different players. Each player have to respect the agreement till it ends, otherwise he/she will lose some points from an eventual "honor-rank", which could be turned visible to all players, so they could understand who is trustworthy and who not... I think that introducing this system would speed-up and facilitate games, so that players they could make more long-term strategies and have a nicer experience... This system could also facilitate moderator's activity, so they can monitor more easily eventual "risky subjects"...

Well, that's all, I hope someone like my idea...

 

Hi Trust, welcome to Dominating12!
I tried that site and personally I don't like that option. I think it would encourage a behaviors that is forbidden.

Here the general idea is that everybody play for himself without treaties or alliances. They are allowed just in case you want to prevent one to win the game. Even in that case I like better when people make a teaming action against the leader without using the chat but only watching the game.

Well we have other interesting options like Capitals gametype (normally with increasing cards), Domination gametype (normally with fixed cards) and then Fog of War and Capped Cards. I hope you will enjoy them.

If you read the site's rules than you will see for example that sending each other private messages about a game to team and stuff is forbidden.
Simply because its not fair to cooperate with a player without other players to know about.

A diplomacy system can be a way of cheating.

So if you have to team up because a player is way too strong, just use the chat. Otherwise don't team up.
(Unless its a team game, but that is not implemented yet).

I don't like the idea of the site's software ratifying the treaty. The board can change drastically in one turn and you could have the chance to kill the player you made the treaty with. I would hate to lose "honor rank" for winning a game by breaking a treaty.

Everyone knows this is war and that only one will survive. Even an honorable player will break a treaty if it means victory.

Using the site's software to facilitate treaties is a break from the original game. That is why we say just put it in the game chat because that is how you would do it if the game was in real life.

I would never win a game doing something I had promised not to do.

Maybe we need that "honor rank" ;-)

Ok, so imagine you are in a game with three people, A, B and C.
Now you (A) need to cooperate with B for one turn against C, because he has a too big bonus.
You promise not to kill B's cap that turn.

Suddenly, B kills C, and because of that B's cap is not defended.
However, he will be too strong next turn and then he will kill you, nothing you can do agaisnt that, except killing him this turn - which you promised not to do.

So, what would you do in this case? I defenitely would take out B's cap and win the game, promise or not.

Maybe I wouldn't do that pact (or at least in that way). But you can be sure that if I promise to do something I will do it, even if I lose for that. I know I will meet those players again and I'd rather to know that thet trust me than win one game.

I know that what I say it may look quite radical; I would probably ask the other player if he would feel betrayed if I attack his cap but if he answered YES you can be sure I wouldn't attack him.

That's why I think best pacts are those you don't need to say anything; they are understood by the way you play and you feel free to act as you want in case the situation on the board change.

(With so many conditional sentences I doubt anybody can understand this).

Wealready have a "honourability rank"... the overall rank and the skill level themselves...

100% view

I did a mock up of something i saw on another risk site, probably the same one as mentioned above, but it was also an unused feature in RISK 2 pc game I use to play also. But instead of just your word....what if
there was an agreement between 2 players over a border, that it would be something you accept or deny, and if accepted, then those adjacencies were disabled (unable to attack/reinforce/fortify) between those two players for a agreed amount of rounds. Maximum rounds maybe something like 3. 
but then a 3rd party could just break both those borders loll and they couldn't take them back for said amount of rounds.

something interesting.

I like it. Can you do multiple? For instance I have people who agree to team up for 3 rounds across all territories.

I really wish that it just wasn't allowed at all however.