I don't like the anonymous idea. It goes against the social aspect of the game, namely developing positive and negative relationships with your opponents. Also, without access to your opponents' pofiles you would not be able to put abusive members on your ignore list.

Well, the idea was that ...

cyberdaniel wrote:How about you just put him on the ignore list and you will not play with him. Why would I want to not know who I'm attacking?

Interesting point. However, it doesn't make the idea a bad one. I think it would be cool to use even among good friends.

How about you just stop stealing girlfriends?

Edit: I dont like the idea because i like to know who i am up against when i join a game.

You will know who you're up against when you join a game, you just won't know what color they are (unless they tell you outside of the game) while you're ...

My developers didn't allow that toggle.

stealGirlfriends = 1

I suggest to have an option when creating the game, of having the names of your opponents be hidden from you. That way, in a 1v1v1v1v1v1 game, that idiot in your office who holds a grudge against you for stealing his girlfriend won't constantly be hounding you when it makes no sense tactically ...

Pedronicus wrote:Has lack introduced a curved ball?

Please explain, in detail, what you think his motivation for doing something like this would be.

Again, the 12 hour game would be the exception, not the rule. If that doesn't fit your lifestyle, then simply choose to only play in 24h games.

Me? I'm constantly wired-in, as are all of my friends, and a 12H option would be a great addition. It would act as a motivator, of sorts, for those who ...

Jota wrote:

codymac wrote:Sentences end with punctuation.

Nobody said it was a sentence;

Nobody said it wasn't, either...

Blitzkreig wrote:Poll is not spelled "Pole"

Sentences end with punctuation.

Yea, it could be an option. However it would be a bad option that would have a negative effect, and ignores the real reason it's suggested.

People want faster games which would be over within a few hours, and I'm all for that. A 12 hour limit is simply a bad way of achieving that.

Again, the ...

OK, thank you for your replies.

This would not break the rules. If the three of you are on a team in a triples game then you automaticlly have an alliance and don't have to announce it. This would be the same as three people chatting on IM about stragagy during their turn.

That's sort of what I thought, except our strategy ...

:shock: If you three were a team and the other team was elsewhere then that would be a no no. I thought you meant that all six of you worked together and formed up teams for a game against each other.

If the former then I would think that very much falls under the secret alliance umbrela and would ...

I would think that as long as everyone is in on what is going on you should be fine. Just to be safe I would suggest making it a private game so nobody stumbles into it unawares.

Thanks for your reply.

It was a game that someone else had made, and the first three slots were taken, so we took ...

I have several friends of mine playing at work. It's really cramping our productivity, but that's another story.

Anyway, we've been playing Standard games, sequential amongst ourselves. We've even setup an inter-office tournament of sorts.

Well, one of my co-workers asked if me and another co ...

kevinc wrote:I think 12 hours would be crazy, especially given you're playing in different timezones, it'd be quite easy to miss a 12 hour limit.

If you think this would be an issue, then you wouldn't have to join such a game, right?

Would it be possible, for the dev, to add-in an option of maybe a 12-hour turn limit, rather than the 24 (when setting-up the game)?



Thanks!