Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 105 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
KingCyrus (1258 D)
16 Aug 14 UTC
Message tab
Oli, how hard would it be to implement a message tab? It seems the only way I can view my PM's is when I get a new PM.... :(
2 replies
Open
jengamaster (1053 D)
15 Aug 14 UTC
I have a couple of rules questions regarding variants.
With variants that say they do not allow for a draw, is that the case? Do those formats not have stalemate lines, or how do those games resolve if a stalemate is reached.
6 replies
Open
Halt (2077 D)
14 Aug 14 UTC
WWIV Sealanes Game
So, the last time I tried to get one going, we hit around 26-27 players before the time limit killed it. To my knowledge, there are no games ongoing aside from those gunboats.
19 replies
Open
KingCyrus (1258 D)
14 Aug 14 UTC
A question about the Lab
So, I wanted to do some testing in the lab. Do I need to make a separate account on lab.vdip? Or does this one work?
3 replies
Open
Synapse (814 D)
03 Aug 14 UTC
Middle-East variant
I've started work on a variant of the contemporary Middle-East, but as I'm not an expert at balancing variants, I was wondering if someone can give me some insight into how to make it fair?

http://oi61.tinypic.com/zuf89j.jpg is a draft version.
41 replies
Open
EFTBSTHGK1337 (943 D X)
13 Aug 14 UTC
hey I have a question
Where is meepmeep? People on webdip said he was here. Did he like retire from vdip too?
4 replies
Open
Meckdar (987 D X)
26 Jul 14 UTC
NO DRAW ALLOWED rule
to those who complain of the players who play just to get a "draw", you can do this way:
18 replies
Open
EFTBSTHGK1337 (943 D X)
10 Aug 14 UTC
Oli sir could I have your permission?
I would like to advertise your site on my groups youtube channel and I also wanted to know if I could advertise my youtube on here if that's ok if not I understand sir.
24 replies
Open
Synapse (814 D)
10 Aug 14 UTC
(+1)
More than 1 way chats
In face to face diplomacy not only can you step outside with a single person, but you can hold multiple conferences between 3,4 even 5 players.
33 replies
Open
jimbursch (0 D)
10 Aug 14 UTC
hello webdip developers
I would like to get in touch with other webdip developers. The dev forum is inactive, so I'm hoping to get in touch with other developers here.
6 replies
Open
DEFIANT (1311 D)
08 Aug 14 UTC
RE: Obama's Response to ISIS and the Refugees
There are 40,000 - 50,000 minority refugees, a majority of them Christian, fleeing for their lives from ISIS. And what is ISIS doing to these men, women and children. They are beheading the children and women and hanging the men. They are closing in these people.

83 replies
Open
EFTBSTHGK1337 (943 D X)
11 Aug 14 UTC
So should I make one of my famous honest topic threads hmm?
Pretty please? :D covered with melted chocolate topped with nuts and banana slices with a cherry on top....man...I want icecream now.
0 replies
Open
pjman (661 D)
07 Aug 14 UTC
Opinioniated favorite variants
Hello all! I'm not familiar with all these variants compared to what are on Webdiplomacy. I'm looking to play some games but I'm not sure which ones are really good and which ones are not so much fun. So what's popular variant wise?
22 replies
Open
Windir (1570 D)
05 Aug 14 UTC
"Save" and "Ready" buttons aren't working. What's wrong?
I was able to successfully fill in orders for one game of mine, but the save and ready buttons aren't working on another. Here's a link: gameID=19797
18 replies
Open
KingCyrus (1258 D)
07 Aug 14 UTC
Multiple Cancelings?
So... I was in a game of Rinacemento that had not yet started. Not enough people joined. So it canceled. And canceled. And canceled. And canceled. I have NINE messages saying it canceled, BUT, I was NOT refunded 9 times! Not to mention, it still shows up in my games... which is annoying.... I WANT MY REFUND!
5 replies
Open
jimbursch (0 D)
06 Aug 14 UTC
Perpetual Diplomacy
Is there a variant of Diplomacy that is designed to be a perpetual game? In other words, players are free to come and go as they please, but the motivation is to be the biggest player on the board, not to "win".
19 replies
Open
jimbursch (0 D)
06 Aug 14 UTC
Glossary update
I am working on a WebDip glossary here:
http://jimbursch.com/webDiplomacy/glossary.php
Feel free to suggest additions and/or changes..
6 replies
Open
jimbursch (0 D)
05 Aug 14 UTC
Glossary of Terms
I'm working of a Glossary for WebDip here:
http://jimbursch.com/webdiplomacy/glossary.php
Help me gather terms and definitions.
26 replies
Open
Dr. Recommended (1660 D Mod (B))
27 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Diplomacy on the Radio
I'm listening to an episode of the radio program "This American Life" about Diplomacy. Featuring the same guy who recently wrote the Diplomacy article on Grantland. Not sure if it's the current episode or a repeat, but I figured I'd mention it here for those interested. Should be available on podcast now or soon.
1 reply
Open
jimbursch (0 D)
04 Aug 14 UTC
dev for vdip and/or webdip
Hello

I'm a php/mysql developer interested in contributing to WebDip and/or vDip.
10 replies
Open
yaaks (1157 D)
03 Aug 14 UTC
Ftf Games
I'm trying to organize a ftf game in the Los Angeles area. Anyone interested?
4 replies
Open
Oli, thank you for the color-blindness interface.
I have protonapia and this is awesome. That plus labeling the countries speaking global and the interactive map males it so much better and less confusing... Even on the phone (interactive doesn't let me interact but still shows what I ordered using the drop down).
14 replies
Open
Fischfix (976 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Admins please Review Chat
http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=19431

Guys, i really enjoy this game but from time to time people are really unpolite in what they say in the chat. i hope some admins will look into this chat and take actions against cursing and inappropriate comments by slavic nations.
Page 10 of 10
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
didigoose (1532 D)
02 Aug 14 UTC
(+1)
After scrolling back a few pages I am really disturbed by how personal this "meta" discussion has gotten. I see some very smart people argumenting here. Loads of valid points and good argumentation.

But many don't seem to be able to accept that others can have different oppinions without beeing "morons/dicks etc." and immeditaly getting personal. And some people are just trolling (e.g. chavismo) and should be completly ignored IMHO.

Which actually brings me back to the start of the discussion again and again. You can see the point fischfix raised in the beginning is completly unrealistic to execute.

Appearantly some of the most influental players here create this kind of aggressive atmosphere. I thought diplomacy is a game of gentlemen and i wonder if this atmosphere is part of the reason why there are so few people playing here.
gameID=20120

Everyone in this game so far plays to wind, draw, or screw those who acrewed you, in that order. If you want in, Tomahaha, I'm sure goose wouldn't mind. Samenforbyou alpha. That would complete our seven and get the game going. PM me or goose fornthe password.
fasces349 (1007 D)
02 Aug 14 UTC
I actually play Win>Draw>Survive>Screw the one who screwed you>Defeat, so not everyone :P
Well, defeat and survive are the same to me. And I never play for defeat. It happens or not, but it's not on the priority list.
fasces349 (1007 D)
02 Aug 14 UTC
then why are you advocating for survivors to get some points? lol
I'm advocating for either a compromise that removes the strong second point whoring/farming or the removal of points all together.
Retillion (2304 D (B))
02 Aug 14 UTC
Whether we like them or not, points are very useful : they prevent players from joining too many games simultaneously and they allow the creation of games only open to players who have enough points to join them.
We have other better means for both those situations now. RR and minimum number of turns played plus a cap of 6 games for new players handles both. Points have no purpose and don't reflect actual skill.
G-Man (2466 D)
02 Aug 14 UTC
YCHTT offers one alternative. vDip ratings can also be used to both prevent players from joining too many games simultaneously, and to allow the creation of games only open to players who have a high enough rating to join them.
Plenty of options that don't use points.
Retillion (2304 D (B))
03 Aug 14 UTC
@ Tomahaha :

You claimed that a survive had no value. You also claimed that a PPSC system was an heresy. As a "proof", you have been asking us repeatedly to show you at least one example of tournament or website that uses a points system rewarding players for surviving.

Here is one :
http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com/php/scoring/scoring_class.php?id_scoring=13
That points system encourages players to survive as long as possible. Actually, it even give points to players who have been eliminated : that points system even considers that being eliminated late is better than having eliminated early.

Here is another one :
http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com/php/scoring/scoring_class.php?id_scoring=25
On the second line of the text, you can read the sentence :
"It's better to lose by a little than to lose by a lot."
Interesting, isn't it ?

If you take some time looking at that website :
http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com/php/scoring/scoring.php
you will see that points systems which encourage surviving are not that rare.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
03 Aug 14 UTC
Retillion, did you actually read the content of the link that you posted? The following sentence from the first of the three suggested examples you cited says this:

"At the end of each year players get points equal to the number of owned supply centers (a player who solo’s is considered to own 34 supply centers in the final year)."

That's 34 centers, as in every center on the map. That's what a solo is. There is no survival. So even the scenario that you suggests that suffering a solo is losing. Then you want to being splitting hairs by rewarding a player who loses in 1909 worth more points than a player who lost in 1907? You appear quite fixated on making sure that losers get points, which of course suits your style of play. I get that this is why you're so impassioned about this debate. Any change to it would screw up your point-whoring and ranking chasing. But if you could slip out of you narcissism and consider what is best for the development of the hobby here for 5 minutes maybe you'd be able to see why it's better for everyone.

Unfortunately you favor a welfare mentality that keeps weaker and inexperienced players feeding at the trough of your magnanimous generosity where they get just enough to keep them going, and are indebted to you for that in perpetuity. That's psychological slavery, but I guess that's "fair" in your eyes.

What you produced was the scoring system of a particular tournament. I remember this tournament specifically (the Cascasida scoring system from 2005) While the tournament was well hosted, there was significant disgust and criticism of the scoring system with a one of the chief complaints that losers were awarded points. The point here being just because it was implemented once doesn't mean that it well well received or respected.

One of the main reasons this is considered in tournaments is to find a way to produce a tournament ranking. However, what's going on there is very different than what we are discussing here. In the PPSC system a player can *lose* a game and win more points than a player who wins another game by solo. If you cannot understand how that is wrong, there's just no point in hearing any opinions you have on this.
Retillion (2304 D (B))
03 Aug 14 UTC
@ RUFFHAUS 8 :


Tomahaha has claimed REPEATEDLY that NOWHERE in the world points were awarded to surviving players. He has repeatedly challenged us to find at least one example, that is simply what I have done.


And so, you pretend now that you "remember this tournament specifically" [YOUR EXACT WORDS]
Wow ! You really sound like you've been everywhere and you've seen everything !
Everybody must be very impressed by you now, or maybe they are just laughing, once again, when reading your preposterous comments.

But please, tell me, if you really knew about those other scoring systems, why have you let Tomaha write repeatedly that no system that was giving points to survivors had never been used ? Is that how you consider an honest debate ?

It is interesting that you contradict yourself in your previous post : first you write that "There is no survival."[YOUR EXACT WORDS], then you write that "there was significant disgust and criticism of the scoring system with a one of the chief complaints that losers were awarded points." [YOUR EXACT WORDS]

And for your information, the vdip, and webdip, points system rewards players who play A LOT : the more you play, the more possibilities you have to gain points, which is not the case with the Elo points system of chess, for example.
I play very few Diplomacy games and that prevents me from gaining many points. Just this shows that I am not a point chaser.

One last thing, RUFFHAUS 8, would you please be kind enough and refrain from using your usual rude and insulting language ?
Tomahaha (1170 D)
03 Aug 14 UTC
ummm, because they were used one time and discarded is not an example of another that USES (not used) your system of rewarding losing. I find it very funny so far how most of the PPSC proponents keep saying they play the "right" way. Win, Draw, screw their opponent they want to claim they play this way and that points do not matter yet they still back PPSC? They have no reason to support it based on their play or based on how they want others to play yet they then turn around and support exactly the opposite and something isn't right in those two opposing statements
Because one is not a "point chaser" does not mean he is interested in quality play. PPSC rewards poor play and yes, even if you played VERY well up to losing a solo, you ended up losing = poor play. Some people want quality play by dedicated players. Others want to win no matter how. I have seen examples of this in how some look to ways to exploit NMR's and finding ways to take advantage of whether anyone logged in, some look to end a game before a draw can be had because they could get more points. Yes, we do have plenty of examples of those who simply want to win at any cost.

and Retillion, would you please provide {HIS EXACT WORDS} where Ruffhaus used rude language in the last post as you state? Because he said you had welfare mentality? Well, PPSC is a welfare mentality, one that takes the pot of points and distributes to all, including losers. Or maybe because he asked you to slip out of your narcissm? you find that to be "rude" if so you have thin skin to consider that rude, just because he called you out based on your behavior he was rude? If was to be rude he could have directly called you all sorts of names, he was quite POLITE in his disgust towards you and your poor attitude regarding the welfare of the hobby here.
Retillion (2304 D (B))
03 Aug 14 UTC
@ Tomahaha :

1° You wrote :
"I find it very funny so far how most of the PPSC proponents keep saying they play the "right" way."
[YOUR EXACT WORD]

None of the "PPSC proponents" said that they play the right way. It is YOU, on the contrary, that keep saying that you play the right way and that others don't.
What I - as well as some other players - say, is that there are several ways to approach a Diplomacy game. Some players estimate that a survive is better than an elimination and you keep writing that it is false. Can't you simply IMAGINE, or CONCEIVE, that some people see, or feel, or estimate, the world differently than you do ?

2° You wrote :
"on how they want others to play"
[YOUR EXACT WORD]
Again : none of the "PPSC proponents" want you to play Diplomacy such or such way. It is YOU, on the contrary, that keep saying that everybody should always play WTA as you do.

3° As far as RUFFHAUS 8's rude language is concerned, do you really think that being disgusted by another person' opinion allows someone to become rude ?
What kind of persons are you ? Can't you disagree with people without insulting them ?

Since you ask me to clearly point out those rude words, here they are :
"Any change to it would s**** up your point-w***ing and ranking chasing."

English is NOT my native language but I do know that :
- "to s**** up" means "to f*** up", with just a little less rudeness.
- "w****" is a VERY insulting word that means "prostitute". And in MANY languages, that is one of the MOST rude and insulting words that exist !

Tomaha, are you so vulgar too that you don't see the vulgarity and rudeness of that vocabulary ?

A rude word is a rude word, even if you are not offended by it. I cannot be offended by insults on the internet.
You and your rude comrades keep writing, as a ridiculous "excuse" for your vulgarity, that we should develop a "thick skin". Gentlemen, do you realize that your "thick skin" is only the protection that you have because you are well hidden behind your computer screens ? Seriously, do you really use insults in your real life as often as you do on the internet ?

→ The only reasonable thing to do with rude people is NOT to discuss with them. The problem is that this is an internet site and if we stop discussing with rude forum contributors, then we lose any opportunity to express ourselves because the rude ones would steal everybody's forum.
Kestas wanted a free speech forum and that eventually caused so many problems on webdip that the moderators team finally started moderating speech by enforcing some rules about the respect that contributors should have for each other.
In many countries, on many forums, it would never be tolerated to be insulting.
Since most of you are Americans, you love your so-called "freedom of speech" and you think that you are allowed to be rude as you want. But total freedom of speech is an illusion : it never exists.
Freedom must have one limit and that limit is respect. Without respect, freedom means violence.

As a final note, it is interesting that this post was created in order to complain about abusive language used on this site. After 285 messages, we are back on topic : please respect the other players.
Tomahaha (1170 D)
03 Aug 14 UTC
and now that I have had time to check
The first example given, while rewarding those who lose (frowned upon as Ruffhaus pointed out) does at least reward continuing play and does not reward throwing the game. The thought per this scoring sysyem:
"As long as you are moving toward a better result (bigger power/smaller draw) your points will benefit from continued play." and if you note, a solo get almost three times more bonus points as does a second place to a solo, while I do not like this format, it does encourage continued play and does not encourage throwing the game to the leader as PPSC does here. PPSC does not encourage playing on nor does it encourage stopping the leader. I would not like this scoring format but it at least does intend to reward the right sort of play. While an example of rewarding losers (back in 2005) as asked for ...congrats! It still does nothing to bolster your position, it continues to erode at PPSC now doesn't it?

The second example makes me laugh.
You state [YOUR EXACT WORDS]
"On the second line of the text, you can read the sentence :
"It's better to lose by a little than to lose by a lot."
Interesting, isn't it ?"
Yet you cherry picked the portion that suited your agenda while ignoring the rest of the sentence directly before this. Let me quote the full thing...
"if you can't solo, come as close to soloing as you can. Failing that, don't let anyone beat you by more than you have to. It's better to lose by a little than to lose by a lot."
and you fail to mention this indeed IS a winner take all format, note the points distribution is assuming nobody solos.

There you have it ONE example you found and even that one undermines your position. So thank you for proving me wrong and in doing so proving PPSC is not accepted anywhere else.

Guaroz (2030 D (B))
04 Aug 14 UTC
@YCHTT "There is a third option. Do away with points. It could be done now, especially here at VDip. "

It has already been done. threadID=51665.
Those who like games without points can create or join games with the third Pot-type option: Unrated.
Noone can play for points in these games - because there are no sorts of points - just like it is in the tabletop-edition of Diplomacy.

I'm aware that the issue with this solution is that most of the Members here do like points (whether they admit it or not). In fact this option is barely considered and there aren't many Unrated stand-alone games around.
This is very likely because most of players here do love being rated. And this is again for different reasons... pleasure in checking one's progresses the HoFs... in hoarding D & V points... in having a great Won+Drawn percentage, just to make a few examples. Everyone got his own rating-goals. In short: rating-systems add a considerable amount of fun for many players, although basically everybody know they don't - and they will never - reflect the real skill of a player.
Hence so many players do love points. Maybe *almost all* players love points, just with different degrees or awareness.
If most of our fellow Members didn't love points and ratings, then Unrated would be the most popular Pot-type by now. Oh yes it would.

Every player is free to play whatever game the way he deems right, but:
Unrated games: you should expect most of players not playing for points.
Rated games: you should expect most of players playing for the rating. That is to say playing for Personal Stats, for V-Points or for D-Points, according to each one's favourite rating system(s).
The last thing you should expect in an online game is all players playing the same gamestyle. Everyone has their own vision of the game, depending on several things, from the obvious different levels of experience, skills and free time available, through the "online-experience", up the the different reasons that brought each one of us to join a site like this.
You add to that the different preferences and different visions on the 3 rating systems everyone got, and you can forget you know what gamestyle your opponents might have. Being able to discover it is one of the skills online-diplomacy requires, although it's not one of the most important skills, being it often helpful but rarely decisive.
This skill requires efforts; complain you did badly because someone else didn't play according to your vision requires much less.

Some say this is not how it *should be*, but there's an inescapable reason why this is how it *is*.
It's because you can't rate a game - anyhow you do it - and still expect players to play it like it was unrated.
In other words, you can't at one time add a new rule - I.E. a rating system - and expect that players will simply ignore that rule.

A rating system *should be* a tool for observation of an event - the game - in order to put it in relation with other games. But also, it inevitably becomes part of the observed event. It is a thing you add to the event.
Since a rating system *is* part of an event, it alters that event. I guess you know, YCHTT, that's why you wrote what I quoted, right?

So D-points, V-points, Personal-Stats and any tool you might use to create rating systems will always alter some players' behaviour in comparison to a game that's not related to anything and therefore has no alterations.
Mm? Otherwise why would some some of us be so worried about which names are given to the Personal Stats' result-types? Look: You change one name only -> you change the PS rating system -> you change the object(s) of the games -> you change players' gamestyle. That's what happens if you change one name. It's like you change the way a Pot-type work in the other 2 systems.
And I'd add: -> you have created a new variant.


The ones we got here have now become typical *alterations*. We could even call them "classic" alterations, since they've been online by now for almost a decade - which is an eon both on the world wide web and in modern RL - and thousands players learnt how to handle them here, on WD.com, on FBdip, on WD.it, on WD.es and on who knows how many other sites that use the WTA/PPSC pot-types.
They're so classic and so old, that some crazy veteran-online-players are wondering whether they still have to be the only available two and ask for new challenging Pot-types.

That's all YCHTT, thanks for reading my point of view on the matter of points in online-diplomacy.

_______________
tl;dr:
If you want to play a game on this online-edition but you don't want the typical gamestyle-alterations from the rating systems (eg: people who play for points), then choosing Unrated games might be a good idea.
Thank Oli, among the other 1000 we have this option too.
Guaroz (2030 D (B))
04 Aug 14 UTC
@ krellin "There is a group of players not referenced in the above divisions: MATURE players who adjust their game style accordingly...."
- The group you mentioned was intended to be the old #3, now #4. If it wasn't clear, my bad, sorry.


@ all
I've found a few more new groups.
Here's an updated list with some re-wording:

List of tastes on Pot-types (last update: 4 Aug 2014):
1. those who like WTA only
2. those who like WTA only and would like everybody to play WTA only
3. those who like PPSC only
4. those who like all the 3 available Pot-types (Unrated/WTA/PPSC) and adjust their game-style accordingly
5. those who don't like points, therefore they don't like Pots, therefore they like Unrated only
6. those who don't like any of the current Pot-types and would like to have a new one, which better fit their personal taste
7. those who like any variants & novelties and would like to have more new optional Pot-types to explore.

If you think your kind of taste is not referenced in the above list, please just tell me and I will add your group to the list.
But unrated isn't perfect. If it doesn't contribute to win/draw/loss stats, as you say, then it needs revision. We need a zero points version that contributes to the stats.
Tomahaha (1170 D)
04 Aug 14 UTC
again, a simple START
change the names as suggested. It does nothing towards points but is a good start as to pacifying the WTA "purists" while not changing a blessed thing except for terminology. I see no way how any could argue with that unless they want to encourage throwing games. If it's about your points... you still got 'em


290 replies
daviidnavidad (920 D)
01 Aug 14 UTC
Noob question
Sorry to be a pain but what is gunboat
12 replies
Open
Hirnsaege (1903 D)
30 Jul 14 UTC
Joining running games to compensate missed turns is not easy ...
... if there are so few games around to join.

I'd like to take over some country and compensate for some missed turns happily – i just can't find any game to join that are ...
11 replies
Open
mapleleaf (1155 D X)
31 Jul 14 UTC
Russian northern opening.
I have been known to order the Saint Petersburg fleet to Finland.
12 replies
Open
New game: Call Me a Dirty So-n-So: YCHTT edition.
All the usual a-holes are welcome to join. I'll create it after 10 total people sign up. Modern Dip (unless there is an even better variant), WTA, Full Press, phase 24-48 hours, points negotiable, non-anon.
51 replies
Open
qznc (1237 D)
30 Jul 14 UTC
Draft: North Sea Wars Strategy
I wrote a short review-strategy-guide draft on the North Sea Wars variant:
http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/drafts/north_sea_wars_strategy.html

Feedback welcome! :)
1 reply
Open
krellin (1031 D)
29 Jul 14 UTC
Testing 1...2...3...
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/29/poor-sandra-fluke-cant-afford-to-buy-her-own-birth-control-but-she-can-spend-100k-on-this/

Hmmm...Sandra Fluke said she couldn't afford the $3000/year to buy birth control (Good LORD does that chick like to f***...) but has managed to give her own Congressional campaign $100,000. Uhhhh..yeah. (By the way, birth control is like under $10/month for normal human beings...)
42 replies
Open
Oli (977 D Mod (P))
28 Jul 14 UTC
(+7)
New default Pot-Type WTA....
As the subject suggests.
To gather a bit more feedback about this issue I changed the default from PPSC to WTA and made a big announcement about this on the gamecreation-page.
This will last for the next few month and we will see if the games get better, worse, or if nobody cares.
59 replies
Open
Page 105 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top