I'm sure someone already mentioned this, but it would be pretty useful to be able to message another player directly/privately.

well there is the in game chat, but thats probably not what you mean

I can put this into the WWPA.  Yes?  No?

+1 to out-of-game messaging 

It has so many uses - nudging someone who needs to take a turn, arranging secret allegiances, co-ordinating a team effort

Yep yep.  I'll set to work.

especially the nudging use - it doesn't feel quite right posting a message to the general community chat when you can't reach the player through the game chat, and the message probably wouldn't get seen with the volume of chat going on.

i was thinking when a message is received it would trigger the "!" notification - and any app/widget hooked in to the API would be able to notify the user as well.

I will hook it into the IM notification as well as e-mail, but I can only do it through the WWPA.  I have no way to hook into the weewar.com stuff, such as weewar.com user e-mail, or the /!\ thingie.

Look at it this way: another reason to join the fabulous WWPA! 

very cool, glad i am a card carrying member of the WWPA
 

We have cards now? I want one 

anyway.. yeah, messaging, cool

Messaging is ready, folks.  Login and try it out. 

I will work on IM and e-mail notification next.

IM notification done.  E-mail notification pending.

WOW! You genius!

You just gotta pick the right tools for the job. 

very nice!

i hope we something like this for weewar someday!
 

I have a feeling the weewar devs are happy to have these relegated to third-party tools and sites, so that they can focus on core aspects of the game.

no doubt, but down the road it makes more sense to have this functionality integrated rather than making users go through 3rd party sites which, i imagine, would have to have them go through another registration process to use such a service.

Yes.

Okay, the WWPA message system now sends an e-mail as well if the recipient has specified an e-mail address in his/her WWPA contact info.

I use the old games that I've played and put into my archive as a chat channel with other players.

I'm mixed on secret chats.  These days I would recommend it only if you couldn't chat with someone you were currently playing against.  Because there's enough games where I'm accused of collaborating with another player when it's simply not true.  I think it would be much worse if losing players could start suddenly coordinating against a player who's winning.  Suddenly it's not about your skill, it's about the ability of two players with less skill just kicking mud.

tvjames: Well, if a game is a free for all, with no prior agreement about teams, then I think creation and dissolution of alliances in the middle of the game seems valid.

Half of what I want chat for is to be able to secretly collude with other players... and I don't see anything wrong with doing so

I agree with super-king. After all this is a war game... alliances and war go hand in hand

+1 for secretly colluding against TheTorrent...err..

hehe, I'm not saying I support beforehand alliances or even arranged alliances, though I can say that I have participated in an alliance, however I would NOT support an alliance arranged before the game starts where 2 people gang up against 1.

yeah, pre-arranged alliances where you're aiming to go in as a pair (without announcing this) and gang up on someone, they suck for obvious reasons

no reason why you can't have a little peace talk in the middle of a battle though 

Of course, if the ganged-upon player ALSO agreed ("Yeah, I can take you both on!  Bring it!") that might be acceptable, right? 

Sure, if you let the person know before they agree to the game and give them the chance to back out without point loss and they're fine with it then its all fair play

Maybe that's one of the options at the start of the game... allow private messages between players.

There've been a few games where I (I'm only 1537) have been up against someone who knew what they were doing and someone who didn't.  I was able to hold them both off, even though the decent player was trying to openly coach the less advanced player.  If they had full blown private chats, I'd probably never win a game.  It'd be like Survivor where the subpar bland player wins by being neither too much of a threat nor too much of an easy target and coast along while all the stronger personalities kill each other off.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.  I bet that's what you all think.  

Thats a great point there.

Alliances could be made in-game and much back-stabbing could happen. If it was possible to implement a single string of communication then that would solve the problem. (aka, when in game with person A, you cannot message person A out of the game as you already have a general chat window open in-game)

What's wrong with forming, abandoning, and lying about alliances? Even heard of the game Diplomacy? Real wars are won that way. You should be able to combine forces in such a way that aids you in one circumstance, but still have the option to turn around and stab their back (while still talking to them and having them believe you) when it's time for the tides to turn once again.

I think it adds a since of realism to the game, and lead to a much higher level of enjoyment for those who really enjoy the game and could benefit.

So in other words, the option to cheat, lie, and play un-fairly? Erm, great thinking darthnerdus X_x

Cheating: no.  Lying: no.  Unfair play: No.  Strategizing: Yes.  Playing within rules: Yes.  Using all tools and avenues available: Yes. 

guess it could be used for good as well as evil

i just wanted to message people to give them a nudge or get together a multiplayer game

Look at the name of this game: Weewar. Look at the turn based strategy. So why not act like that's what the game is? It's not breaking rules. Please show me such a rule! Even in the WWPA, I didn't read ANYWHERE where it said that strategizing and using available resources (including other players) to your advantage was against the rules.

@ darthnerdus: While lying about an alliance is within the rules...I don't think it's the most sportsmanlike way of playing. I would really advise against doing this, as eventually word will get out that you are not a man of your word and people will just stop playing you.

And what's the point of a an +1800 rating if no one wants to play you? I know if someone lies about an alliance in a multi and back stabs me, it will probably be the last time I play that person. Not that breaking an alliance if things go south is a bad thing. Eventually ALL alliances breakdown, but willfully deceiving someone from the start into joining an alliance is another matter.

Remember games like Diplomacy are board games played among friends...with these games you can laugh it off afterward. WW is played for the most part with total strangers across the world. Often times, the way you play is really the only indication of your personality. Whether or not I like a player is often times solely  based off a single game experience....and people talk alot more about bad experiences than good ones.

You can do what you like...just some friendly advice.