• 11 posts
  • Page 1 of 1
Kochst wrote:
 wanted to suggest a new feature. Our games (among real life friends) can get rather personal at times. People target certain people for personal reasons or because of something that happened in a previous game. So I was wondering if it's possible to add an "anonymous" game mode, where colors are assigned randomly and player names are hidden until the game is finished (or when a player is eliminated). That way the "personal" factor will be taken out of the game.

Thoughts? Wouldn't really apply to games with random players though.
dough_boy wrote:
This has been suggested before as something akin to "total fog". So you wouldn't know who you were playing, who was what color, who had what cards, etc. But I agree, some just target because of personal reasons or rank, etc.
Hoodlum wrote:
yes. this mode i've played elsewhere and wish we had it.
i especially liked a mode where you couldn't even see how many troops you were attacking, you only know what you have.
Hoodlum is online.
vikingo1337 wrote:
Good idea.

Chat would probably have to be disabled though, since people can recognise each other’s tone of voice, idiolect, grammar, etc. Or maybe just limit the chat to preset phrases (like in gag mode).

You would need to tweak the rules a bit too for team games.
"The brave man well shall fight and win, though dull his blade may be."
~Fafnismal 28
AlexCheckMate wrote:
Sounds cool. Would love to try.
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
B4rny wrote:
Good idea.

@Dough_boy, also not being able to see how many cards someone is is holding, takes away a big part of the strategy, imo.

Also, for fog games, it would be nice for the creator to be able to have the option 'chat' or 'no chat'.
Too often it happens information is shared, to warn other players about another player's strength.
dough_boy wrote:
B4rny
@Dough_boy, also not being able to see how many cards someone is is holding, takes away a big part of the strategy, imo.

If you didn't know who you were playing, and where they were at, you shouldn't attack someone just because they have cards. You could easily hand the game to someone else and ruin it.
dimceto wrote:
I like the idea as well, this will solve a lot of problems..
sfclimbers wrote:
Can't we all just get along? LOL
But yeah, sometimes the sibling rivalry can get to be a bit much in our family games :)