1.Suggestion in short: A personalized chat.
Detail: You have a button in the chatwindow "create new conversation". You can then manually add players to the conversation.
Conversation options can be linked to player lvl.
There should be an option to allow/not allow as host, just like PMs.
Reason: Makes diplo play alot easier, when you are in one alliance. Sure you can PM right now, but not talk to all ally members at once.

2. Suggestion in short: An "ally with" feature

Detail: In ffa, when clicking on a player, you have a new button (beside PM and stuff) "ally with this player". The other player then recieves an automatic PM "Player xy has requested an ally with you, if you want to accept, click "ally with this player".
The Effect: You are a team, you can win together, you can transfer armies
This option should be open with lvl 1, however creating games with the alliance feature can be lvl linked.
There should be an option to allow/not allow as host. Only for ffa.

Reason: In Diplo games, many players like to ally. However, in the end, only one can win, which this feature would change, you can now win together. Also transferring troups in ffa is impossible. This new feature would improve diplo play alot.

3.Suggestion in short: A gamefeature suggestion board on the forum
Reason: This thread will be lost in this mess. Forum orga is always good.

Many thx.

Edited 8/10/2015 14:06:18

Nice suggestion man. Hope they implement this since I'm a big diplomacy playa.

WOW BEST IDEA EVER!!! THIS SHOULD HAPPEN THIS UPDATE, Sorrry for caps, this idea is so greeat we need this! really soo cool


100000% AGREE

im a diplomcy lova ;c

Edited 8/10/2015 13:54:10

i also think that the personalized chat can be good in other modes too.

I'm 100% in support of this. Let's see if it'll happen then huh?

That is soo great idea, I'm surprised noone ever came with it before!!!

Oh, wait, actually couple of hundreds of players did

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1088481-peace-treaties

You even have official Fizzer response there.

thank you for your reply.

However, why is there a parallel forum to this?
Everything seems so unorganized communitywise.
It seems that the uservoice board is alot better, so why not get rid of this ingame forum?
Then there is also the blog with a comment section.

3 parallel systems. It blows my mind.

I looked for a similar idea like this, but didnt find it, since i didnt even think about there being another usersystem apart of this forum.

So, suggestion 2 is answerd. 1 and 3 still stand.

Edited 8/10/2015 15:01:01

that is somethign whihc have been talked about a lot voer the yers, which im oen fo the supporters (although i belive aliances should turn players into team mtes, nor should it be private)

1. Great idea.

2. Great idea but needs some more thinking.
a. Will the alliance be permanent? Can you quit it any time? Any of the options may be abused. You can not kick a spy out of a permanent alliance. A stronger ally can backstab you 1 turn before a victory in a non-permanent alliance.
b. Will allies always share their vision in fog of war/cards/orders? This should be optional.
c. What happens to their cards? Sharing cards does not make sense in non-permanent alliances.
d. Games with this option should fall in some other category, not FFA. "Diplo" is a good name for it. Else the statistics in player's profile will be broken. Like "40 player FFA: 123 / 123 (100%)".
e. You will want a name for you alliance, not just "Team A" or "Team B". It is a diplo after all.
f. Secret alliances? No way. The alliance is announced in the public chat and in the bottom right players list.
g. Two players agree to form an alliance. Okay. They do it. Then comes a third player. One ally wants him in alliance and the other ally does not. Here comes the political system of the alliance. Democracy votes to accept a new member of the alliance. Dictatorship has a leader who invites anyone (s)he likes.
h. Alliance should not work like a diplomacy card. Allies should be able to attack each other. Should they be immune to a diplomacy card?
i. Alliance should not be formed before the beginning of the next turn. Other players should not be surprised with an alliance on the current turn 5 seconds before boot time.
j. Statistics in player's profile should mention something like "40 player Diplo: 12 / 120 (10%) , average alliance size 3.14". Only won games should count to the alliance size average.
k. What happens if an ally is eliminated? Teams share victory even if a team member is eliminated. A non-permanent alliance may be disbanded to leave the eliminated player without the victory. Will a spy continue to see territories/cards/orders of a permanent alliance with shared vision even after his/her elimination?

3. +1

:)

Uservoice isn't a forum, it's a site you can suggest and vote on new features with your warlight username. everyone has 10 votes when he comes there first time, which you can spread to a maximum of 3 on one feature, and if a feature gets enough votes it will (in general) get a response of fizzer.

Fizzer does not really give a damn about improving diplo games (I think he should do something anyway diplomacy games are now entirely part of WL, if you look at "open games" you will see at least 1 diplomacy game opened).

It's been like 5 years many suggestions were proposed, the peace treaty idea in the uservoice has the most vote of all the ideas/suggestions ever made for warlight, and Fizzer said it was "not on his immediate roadmap".

If ever those updates are made I am sure it would attract way more people.

Rather than necessarily creating an alliance in a diplo game, I'd be happy if we just had the ability to transfer armies to other players who aren't teammates. That would go a long way to improving diplo games.

i believe transfering armies to non-team mates would just promote trolls with alts.

having na oficial diplomacy mode, would even work for common ffas, which would allow for oficial truces with everyone knowing about it

Interesting point, although I don't think it'd actually be that big of a problem. If you see a group of players who are all just funneling their armies into one player, blacklist them. We might all lose the occasional game to someone like that, but it's not like the site would be overrun.

Uservoice it!!

@Platinum, it has been uservoiced like 10 times.

Uservoice it another 10 times!