I like this sound of playing anonymously.. or having the option to, perhaps could include a players rank but that's all.

Will get usual complaints about it making it harder to spot multi-accounters, but i think you're right about it encouraging more wins.

they're never going to put that feature in, sad but true

I suggest you make an anonymous-only game option instead of being able to hide who you are. I personally think if you're a predictable player, you reap what you sow.

I love the idea of anonymous games. But the multiaccounting critique is a serious one. I propose a middle ground:

Anonymous games that can only be joined by players who have finished 8 games or more. In addition, players identities are revealed at the end of the game (that is fun all on its own). This allows people that suspect multiaccounting or metagaming to look back and check it out. Finally the mods and Kestas need to be given the ability to review the identities. Because of the 8 finished minimum there will be few of these games so the mods can easily look them over a game at a time (sorry if thats too much work guys).

I think these are decent enough precautions to allow us to pursue a great feature that addresses all the problems that DipperDon mentions. Who, by the way, should feel his opinion is valid regardless of him being a site newbie.

i have to disagree.
DipperDon "I believe this is counter-productive to the idea of having each game stand on its own."
each game stands on its own as far as deals that cross games, of course that is out but knowing the players and their past history is just the same as face to face diplomacy.

"Metagaming, or negotiating between games, is frowned upon. Using prior history should be viewed as having an equally negative effect on having a free-standing and independent game"

equally?

i think there is a vast difference between knowing a player(ie, oh this guy, he is a great ally but somewhat too trusting, oh that guy, he makes a good short term ally but stabs often, etc) and making "if you help me here i will help you in another game " deals.

i thought Face to Face games are the ideal and what we do here is to imitate them as much as possible because FTF is difficult- getting 7 people together for a long game of diplomacy is quite difficult. FTF, they are all your friends(i assume) and you have most likley played them before and thus know them and their style.

futhermore the rulers of each nation in this simulated scenario would also have intelligence reports or have met (or in some cases actually be related!) to the other leaders. they have a rough idea of their personalities, never perfect but they knew their enemy to a degree. there were no anonymous rulers.

I often thought to this possibility (anon playing) too... yet I am not 100% convinced either. Probably I am with Centurian's proposal.

I think that - as in any sport (chess is also a sport, so I consider Diplomacy too!) - part of the fun is to study your opponent's history and discover his/her recurring techniques, weaknesses and strengths.

I like the idea of having anon playing too, though: it would be refreshing, especially at top level, where there are not so many players around, and one might end up playing over and over with the same people...

I like the idea of anonymous games as an option. Then we get the best of both worlds. I also agree with Centurian that we should reveal the real users after the game finishes.

Anonymous play encourages development of a single strategy. When you're France, you always team up with Germany to destroy England. Having a reviewable history makes that strategy less likely to succeed.

These have been suggested by many people (including myself) over the last year and a half!
The other main issue with them is it becomes much harder to spot multi-accounting

Having it as an option can't do any harm. It would certainly make our leagues more interesting, which is saying something.

I'd support an anonymous option, but this has been brought up many a time.

It might require a change in multi account detection...

I really like this idea - would be good to have it as an option.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, I agree it should be added as an option.
I think that getting round it would be fine, as moderators should be allowed to see who is who, assuming they are not in the game themselves (this would need a trust element of them if they were also in a league, but I would hope we trust the mods!)
Still, a definite support for the addition.

I totally think player history is important. It can be used by a player to negotiate with and against opponents and allies. I view diplomacy as something of a role playing game anyway. Certainly, we aren't all sociopaths in our everyday existence - we just play them on phpdiplomacy.com. It leads to a deeper level of intrigue and difficultly to know something of your fellow players pasts and that they know something about you. Also, most newbies can be spot very quickly anyway. You don't need to consult a profile to know if you opponent or ally is a fool - just watch them work. Though, I would rather have a clue beforehand. You obviously relate differently to players based on your assessment of there capabilities.

this is the 22nd time (no, seriously) that this suggestion has come up since i joined. it has had a lot of support, but Kestas has reasons for not implementing this. if you want to try again, email him.

Here would be one very good reason for not implementing it. First, I would assume that the aliases would just be the country names. But the issue is this: my friend Bob and I decide we are going to work together and thus join the same game. Once countries are assigned, I phone Bob up and tell him what country I got, and he tells me which one he got. Now, we have a perfect meta and it is much harder for the other players to even begin to spot it.

Btw, I don't have a friend named Bob.

Although possible, I doubt many veteran players would try such underhanded tricks and it would be punishable more harshly at the end when it becomes apparent. The mods can keep a particular eye on the games, I don't think anyone would risk it.

Mastergamer, how would that be different than you and an unknown friend signing up for the same game now? Please elaborate, because I see no difference.

aoe3rules, sorry that this is a retread topic. I looked for such a thread topic, but evidently older threads are deleted. Also, I posted on the developer forum, and Kestas suggested I post here to see what the players think of the idea.

Positron wrote: "Anonymous play encourages development of a single strategy. When you're France, you always team up with Germany to destroy England. Having a reviewable history makes that strategy less likely to succeed." I'm having trouble buying this argument. Are you saying that with alias names, the negotiations wouldn't affect who you ally with and who you decide to attack?

It seems like many players think it would be a good "option", but only for well-established players, to reduce the likelihood of multiple accounts. Does anyone have a solid argument why this option should not be available for players who have completed "x" number of games?

But how do you join such games? Is it that once you've joined it only says 'player 1 joined...player 2 joined...etc. '?
Then if that is so how do you advertise the game on the forum without exposing your identity?

Thats an idea. Perhaps you could have the player names visible until the game actually starts? Then, when countries are assigned names are hidden...

That could perhaps work.... though you might be able to work out whom is whom easily enough, especially in higher stakes games.

What I like about this feature is opportunity to pretend to be someone else, which could add to the intrigue. Pretending to be someone with a poor command of English for example. Anonymous play would also actually make the leagues a truer test of someones pure diplomacy skills I reckon.

I'm happy to implement this if people want it, with the exception that it should be simple and not be a game option. I really don't want to have an anonymous/non-anonymous game distinction

(To clarify I'm saying implementing this feature is a replacement rather than an extra)

Why can't we add it as an extra - its only one little thing and wouldn't be too complicated to do..?

let's say...why can't we do it like WTA games, where only players with 101 points or above can see the option.
That eliminates the trouble for new players...

I've played on another site where games are played anonymously. I prefer it here as press tends to be more civil. I'd suggest playing like a good poker player and varying your style or taking over CDs since there seems to be no way of knowing (without being in the game) whether a player played throughout a game or just for part of it.

Although I favor more information about each player in a game, since a number of players seem to like the idea. I think the option to play anonymous would be good to have. This should be an option the creatot picks during game setup. Although, I would want the stats to be included in the players overall history. I think the technological evolution of internet play opens a lot of possibilities for the further development of this game and we should embrace creativity and experimentation in all aspects of the game.

On risk based site I used to play called LandGrab, for each new game you had the option to enter a different alias. It still showed you a full game history and their rating/scores.... but did allow a certain amount of anonymity. On a smaller site like this the top players would be find it harder to hide themselves against people determined to find out their real identity, but it might offer a happy medium between the proposals above.