Dunecat has it. There's a huge difference in knowing that someone visited the website and in knowing they messed with their orders in a game you are in. Essentially, this feature forces you to "finalise" minus the entire purpose of the finalise feature, which was to speed up games.

The ability to know when someone is/was online was not the predecessor to this feature, but it does make this feature even worse by allowing you to not only know who is submitting orders but also when they are submitting orders and with whom else is online.

I've been checking out this feature and it doesn't mean as much as you think Geofram. If I updated one part of one order it brings on the gray check. There's nothing to say that it means the player already has a strategy fully outlined. Do you always wait until you have every tiny piece of diplomacy conducted before you touch an order? Seems like a good way to miss turns.

@Dunecat, I've already agreed that they're not exactly the same features. However, there are similarities... surely you recognize this. The last log in times could explicitly tell you that someone was about to NMR if they hadn't logged in during the phase, which is half the story with regards to the problem with the grey checkmarks. Otherwise, while it was not entirely explicit, you could reasonably say that it's likely that they have submitted orders but have not finalized yet if they have logged in during the phase, and the likeliness increases with how late in the phase they logged. This likelihood decreases the effect of the grey checkmark on that half of the problem too. What's more is that when you see that someone has logged in during the phase, everyone assumes that they've submitted orders but haven't finalized anyway... who actually guesses that they are actually going to NMR? The far larger half of the problem still lies with knowing explicitly when someone is going to NMR, and this problem still existed with the log-in times, it was just not recognized.

Is my point clearer now? I don't mean to say that the grey checkmarks don't affect gameplay, I'm just questioning the real magnitude of the effect, with the belief that some of the reactions so far have been overstated. I'm fairly indifferent. =)

"The ability to know when someone is/was online was not the predecessor to this feature, but it does make this feature even worse by allowing you to not only know who is submitting orders but also when they are submitting orders and with whom else is online."

If you are this observant, then I think you deserve the extra intelligence you get. As a parallel to F2F games, it's often patently obvious who is talking to whom.

Knowing someone has logged in could lead you to speculate they have orders waiting for the phase to end, and you'd be less likely to guess they will NMR. But the lack of a grey check means you know with a 100% certainty that they've yet to make any orders.

@dangermouse. Imagine a face to face game. The ability to know someone is online is essentially the same as knowing they are writing *something* on paper. Whether I'm writing down a command for only one of my units or all of them, the other players sitting at the table should not be able to know that I'm even writing my orders, they should think it could be a message to someone, notes to myself, or my orders until the paper leaves my hand.

This feature essentially adds a clause to the board game: "Write on yellow paper when sending messages, write on blue paper when sending orders." And that information is privileged.

There's a difference between being very observant and gaining an unfair advantage. Remember that the reason online and e-mail versions of this game are so popular is because the board game takes too large of a time period to complete. The convenience of only having to spend a few minutes online a day is the major benifit to this website. Why should the amount of time you can spend on the website contribute to your ability to play?

Or worse, why not just write a script that tracks all this information even when you're not at keys. Have it display in a nice little chart with notes:

"Well, turkey and russia got their grey checks shortly after Russia logged on, they were obviously talking and it's more likely they're working together."

You might as well just let everyone know who is messaging who, and then 1.0 will make every game public press eh?

ah...just noticed the "bar graphs", but only because of a comment in this thread.

maybe it is because of the IE size problem, but these bar graphs are basically unreadable to me. I can't get any useful info from it unless I hold the computer up close to my face and squint.

In my opinion it would be better to just take them out since they just appear to be additional divider lines

I'd much rather see a number.

And then users will want to multi-account just to hide their online status. Or start planning their login times and grey-checks to make others suspicious of an alliance that doesn't actually exist.

Putting It simply, it adds a strategy to this game that wasn't intended. In theory, it sounds like a great way to keep people from NMRing, but by making it public information, it will turn into a completely new and different tool.

oops - posted in the wrong thread...

I actually completely disagree...
I've admitted before the checkmark that I -will- put in orders and update once the turn has changed. Why? No NMR... it may not be my finaly plan, but it's something in place until I can think it through. This has saved me more than once... sure, sometimes it's a stab I've been thinking is too early, but it's a orders I put in and they backfire, but nothing is worse than a NMR... so if you are in a game with me, be sure to see the checkmark consistently... if you don't see it, I haven't logged into the game.

Will that change strategy? Nope, because it'll be consistent every turn.

Jacob, might you have the wrong thread mate?

@fortknox, why should you care if other players know you might NMR or not? Surely if you're participating in the game with press, they'll know you won't. And if you're worried of NMRing on accident and want the checkmark to remind you, then the solution of making the checks private would work fine.

This issue isn't as simple as the absence or presence of a checkmark. If I start a new game and see checks by Italy and russia first, i might be inclined to think they were talking and planning together. Whether or not they really were talking is irrelevant, the features on the page shouldn't even help you come to that speculation.

Even further, it was your choice to inform your opponents that you plan to initiate orders at the start of every turn. For those that don't want to make that information public, we should have the choice to keep it hidden.

I have submitted half orders before....e.g. As Russia, I have submitted my southern orders--short of finalization---and held my northern orders until I have heard from a foe/ally in the north. I view the checkmark as different, but not necessarily negative. A skilled player will be able to use this to his advantage.

Going to reserve judgment about how much this effects things, though I tend to agree with Chrisp that this isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

@Geofram - What I really want to say is: why do you keep responding to things with a thousand short posts rather than just one long one. I mean good lord your opening statement was spilled across 8 posts, and several of your answers have been spread across at least 2 posts. We all occasionally write follow up posts to what we just said, realizing we left something about, but you're taking that sort of thing to a whole new level!

It does seriously change the dynamic. You now know with absolute certainty whether someone is coming in with all holds or not. Like I said in the 0.9 thread, I've never missed an entire phase, but I've NMRed several times. Aks yourself this, how many times do you check something but not enter orders? This is undeniably a HUGE change.

To clarify, there are tons of situations where someone would have a log in time where they could have potentially submitted moves but didn't. In the old version this wouldn't have come up, but now it is not only evident but is front and centre.

I regularly log on from work where the internet is very shoddy. I can communicate by copying all my messages beforehand so if they don't go through I can just do it again. However, orders take a huge amount of time if the internet cuts out every ten seconds, so its a huge hassle for me. This system penalises me for not submitting orders because it invites attacks from those who think I might miss my move.

I agree - there are a lot of issues with this, but there's also a HUGE opportunity for counter-intelligence. Think of it as having an informant in your nation. They can only tell if you've considered moves. If you're THINKING about moving. Now imagine what kind of tricks you could play against people, knowing that you can make them believe you know what you're doing or that you're talking to someone.

On the other hand, it does leave a fairly large issue; I'm playing devil's advocate, and I agree with you all - let's get rid of it.

While I agree with Geofram, I think this new feature adds something new to diplomacy.
First, I personally like to ready my orders but not finalize before I engage in diplomacy, so that I have a basic plan of what I am going to do, rather than swaying in the direction of other players.
Second, in face-to-face diplomacy, it's easy for one to write down the orders he or she think she will take, and it's easy for opponents to see this motion. Orders can be changed, having initial sets of orders help to know whether the player is in game as well.

So while Geofram is right, this new feature adds something unique. Maybe we ought to try it a bit, and if it's still bad, we can vote to remove it.

Just like what SirBayer said, this feature is great for "counter-intelligence."

@Centurian
"Aks yourself this, how many times do you check something but not enter orders? This is undeniably a HUGE change."
I'm not sure about the rest of you, but the first thing I do when in a new turn is write down my orders, then I can change orders depending on there is a change of strategy with allies or among my armies.

I still vote on that we should try out this feature, and if it's bad, we'll remove it.

You never know. Everyone hated the new facebook when it came out. After a month, everyone loves it.

I wish the events weren't at the bottom of the home page in the new Facebook...

@Geofram,
"Knowing someone has logged in could lead you to speculate they have orders waiting for the phase to end, and you'd be less likely to guess they will NMR. But the lack of a grey check means you know with a 100% certainty that they've yet to make any orders."

That's exactly the point. If a player didn't have the gray check mark, you can avoid wasting extra supports =)

But why should you be able to know that somebody is not going to move?

@Chrispminis: The grey check mark takes a measure of control away from the player. The game is about politicking, and otherwise making others believe that you are their friends. If they know, with 100% certainty, that you're entering moves at the same time as their enemies, they will inevitably be suspicious. The time at which you enter your moves should not have any bearing on the game as long as you are entering them!

@idealist: I don't really care about Facebook changes. I was not one of the people who hated the "new" Facebook, and there have been several. Instead, I complain when it needs to be done. Geofram has made his point clearly, consistently, cogently, and I can't believe that I'm agreeing so much with somebody from the Internet. Further, the grey check mark brings with it all the baggage that finalising early does, so if you're worried about wasting your supports, you can ask your ally to finalise.

Nobody can deny that it alters the dynamic of the game. Like them or dislike them, the rules of Diplomacy generally stay the same. This design change alters a fundamental mechanic of gameplay. The simplest question is "Did Kestas intend to alter the mechanics of Diplomacy?"

If that answer is no, this feature should be removed, or modified so that only the owner can see his own grey check marks.

How about we give it a week and then make conclusions :)

I'm sure there were similar debates when the 'finalized' green dot was introduced in the older version. People will adjust - more information cannot be a problem - just gives you more options how to play.

thank you Ivo, my point is, give it a week or so, then decide.

"Nobody can deny that it alters the dynamic of the game. Like them or dislike them, the rules of Diplomacy generally stay the same. This design change alters a fundamental mechanic of gameplay. The simplest question is 'Did Kestas intend to alter the mechanics of Diplomacy?'"

I couldn't have said it better, though I'd add that if Kestas did intend to change the dynamics of the game, he shouldn't have, at least not with an explanation in the rules.