I'm not trying to be mean, I understand exactly where you're coming from because it was hard for me to adjust to, also, and I DID go back to playing DiceWars alternately with KDice for a while. However, you can't remove the human element from a multiplayer game, and diplomacy and even feelings of revenge or teamwork come along with that. You can use these things as extra strategy tools in many ways, and it adds dimensions to the game that are not available in Dicewars, and you don't ever even have to say a WORD. You can have a silent truce, a silent alliance, you can silently lead a neighbor to want vengeance and spread themselves out only to be eaten by their other neighbor, while you find a comfortable position. These are just a few examples of the new strategies offered playing with other humans, and none of them involve saying "who wants to do this or that.." However, making public alliances or truces are also sometimes going to be part of the game. You don't have to ever initiate them; I rarely do. But if I'm on a board with someone who wants to play that way, either with me or against me, I seriously consider it and all the tactical and strategical readjustments it might bring about, and react in a logical fashion. Becoming angry or vengeful on the board is a very good way to die quickly, because you stop making logical choices and start weakening your territories most of the time.

And.. yes I'm posting again.. I want to mention the reason some people compare it to "evolution" is not because they think their dice are their children.. I think it has more to do with their realization that you have to be strategically adaptable during a game if you want to win it or even come close.

Hej everyone!

For i might not be the only one who dislikes it when the two strongest players ally in time or sb is protected undeservedly by a truce:

My proposition is to create explicit truce-free tables (by which i mean tables where ppl who arent big on truces could meet and play) where all these unspoken things you mentioned ("You can have a silent truce, a silent alliance, you can silently lead a neighbor to want vengeance and spread themselves out only to be eaten by their other neighbor, while you find a comfortable position") would remain and therefore ensure its not simply "dicewars" but still a game where humans play against humans :)

Diplomacy of any kind makes this game great. KDice should be like Risk, which to me is a social game first and foremost. Without the talking, it would be very stale.

My favourite games are those of complex alliances. I've had several great 3vs2 or 2vs2vs2 games which called for more finesse than just click, click, click.

Them being ethical may be debatable but I certaintly agree, makes the game far less fun. A no chat opnion would rock.

man diplomacy is hard.... hey green, alliance?
Shit that was hard and lame......

I do think that truce-free tables just as an option would not be bad (at least in sandbox to try)... The only reason for this is that there are quite a few people (myself included) that think playing without truces is a much purer form of the game.

Truces are not unethical, of course. Nor are they something that should be viewed as negative.

But honestly, I think a truce system makes the rank system a little less valued. Rank based upon non-trucing is much more statistically sound, at least as a representation of that player's skill (or luck).

There will never be such a thing as a truce free table as long as human beings are playing this game. Even at chat free tables there will be silent truces.Still, I do think it would be funny to have a table labeled "truce free" on which you could watch the truce-haters silently trucing.
Anyways: the new system (sandbox) will reduce trucing to only intelligent ones, so this will be good for all.