I feel like it's a reflex kind of response that allows people to be vague and non-committal which is why is raises suspicion. I've done it before myself but try to make my replies at least somewhat convincing now.

It's just a bummer when you're trying to do the diplomacy part of diplomacy and get met with the gameplay equivalent of a brick wall

Sounds good.

[A > Pangloss' SC]

I mostly agree. There are worse things to hear, but I fucking hate answers like that. I try not to give them (although I'm sure I've failed). I think in a sufficiently high-class pool of players it's pretty close to a policy kill

I've been almost preaching about it lately in my games and a couple posts here, but ever since I got good at mafia I've been pretty shocked at how imprecise and noncommittal even the best players here can be in their press. I feel like there's a lot of room for players here to improve their press by talking more in concrete terms and calling out people for not doing the same. I think people get scared about restricting their flexibility by committing to specific actions, almost like there's a reflexive instinct not to make a decision! But flexibility is useless if you don't convert it to a specific course of action down the road.

It's an annoying message to receive, but fun to give! More seriously, it is not a reason to trust someone, and a simple "I agree." or "Certainly. Affirmation of goal (set to bounce et al.)" is better, but I can't think of an actually committal response I've received recently. I can't think of many I've given. Admittedly, I usually propose a method. I'm not sure there even is a committal response, except for certain builds and certain move orders.

What really pisses me off is when I write three paragraphs of analysis to an ally, or enemy of an enemy, or a neighbor I don't know much about, and barely even get a response. Something like "yeah i dont like it either", preferably with random grammatical mistakes thrown in will not get me to trust you. This goes both ways. I respond to communication with trust, and am willing to team up with a guy who just stabbed me if he writes me a message. I've also been able to multi-stab with this a few times.

I suppose it's just me, but "sounds good" is normally my way of saying, "it's your idea, and I agree to go along with it." Most of the press games I play are live, and I see it as an efficient way to express agreement when you're highly constrained in the time available for exchanging press. But I can also see its utility being inversely related to turn length. If the turn lengths are significantly longer than 5 minutes, then it carries much more capacity for just plain annoyance.

And not to derail, but: for the non-English speakers out there, what's the equivalent phrase for "sounds good" in your native language?

Sounds good, can be acceptable after several rounds of banter, and to bring an end to correspondence , but it's not acceptable as a single answer.

Yeah, correspondence starts at a paragraph, expands into five pretty quickly, and slowly diminishes into Sounds good, Agreed, or Set as move, confirm please. That is a natural way of things.

What about "sounds like shit"?

If you are in a top class game, with say the top 50 players on the site, and someone replies "sounds good" it means you're getting stabbed so hard the coming turn that they don't even care if you know it because there's nothing you can do.

If you're in a game lower then that then you just might have people who don't know how to write good messages.

But I always say "sounds good" when I'm *not* going to stab : (

If someone makes a proposal to me, and I agree, I would respond "sounds good", no problem. If I get that message, it's worrying, though.

I don't care either way.

@abge, you've played with the likes of MadMarx and Babak right? If so you know that if they send you a sort message, you are effed beyond belief, lol.

It all depends on context. *Any* short message is bad. But "sounds good" is a perfectly acceptable way to give final confirmation of a plan.

If you've had a discussion and gone over all of the concrete details, and someone asks you to confirm, you're good. If you offer up a complex plan with the potential to gain 44 centers in a single phase (I know...) and someone responds with "Yeah" or "Okay" then you probably don't want to work with them anyway even if they aren't stabbing you, so go after them.

It depends how long the phase is, because in a 5 minute phase you don't have time to write much when half the time is spent making sure your orders are correct and done on time. For longer phases you wonder what they are talking about with the other players.

Are you fucking kidding? I've sent this as the tail end of an alliance that worked perfectly. Fuck you.

I usually only say "sounds good" when I am lazy, but I actually have never really thought about this before, and I think I am going to try to improve upon this part of my game. Thanks guys.

Wait, was the forum actually useful for once...

Serious players once again having tantrums. That's why it's rarely fun to play with serious players.

"And not to derail, but: for the non-English speakers out there, what's the equivalent phrase for "sounds good" in your native language?"
The equivalent in my language would be "Klengt gudd" and has, as far as I know exactly the same meaning as in English. In relation to dip I'd say it can be both, agreeing to a plan or a non-commital answer that avoids detailed information. It always depends on the context how I interpret its meaning ...

It's much better than "mmhmm"

The longer the press, the more transparent the lie.

It really depends on context. If you're already secretly messing with the rest of the board, then a curt reply every once in a while within your scheming press is perfectly fine. If you're playing a public press game, an ambiguous reply may be seen as essential (for a simple example, imagine a minor Great Power aknowledging competing plans from two different larger Great Powers). And of course different players have different styles; an in-character short reply is different from an out-of-character short reply.

If you write a very long message in a full press game and get an annoying curt reply, then it might be seen as suspicious. But it could very well be a failure on your part for not interspercing a few concrete questions to force a sustantive reply out of the player you are messaging.

"soa bem" in portuguese.

Fun observation. Players are not likely to answer very many questions. They will tend to answer at least one. Ask about two uncomfortable questions together - you'll likely get at least one answer, and that means you catch them lying or they have to change plan. Always end with the most important question.

I played with Mad Marx once and it felt like he was beating me in the head with Press every phase. I think a few times I responded with "Good plan but not now" and I only now realize my response must have been torture

Adding to the end of my first paragraph, it's also true an out of character long reply can be equally suspicious than an out of character short reply.

phil_a_s: It's true that if you ask several questions, some players somehow ignore some of them. It's true for press in general that some players ignore big chunks, but with questions it's much more obvious.

I am afraid I use it all the time, especially when an ally has proposed a specific set of joint moves. Not sure what more to add to tht in this context

I can vouch for that

Yeah i always say sounds good and usually do what they ask or suggested

I think sure is the worst

Ssoren is always good enough to not take it amiss. Or he has stabbed me. Too many games and I can't remember now!

Late to the party here, but "sounds good" is deliciously ambiguous. It sounds good, but no way in hell I am going along with it. Go ahead and knock yourself out. I'll remind you later that I did not agree to do anything.

"K"

makes me cringe..reminds me of a pissed off girlfriend

I may try to use "Please proceed, governor" in future...