webdiplomacy.net

Restitution wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:53 pm

nopunin10did wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:44 pm

Smokey Gem wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:04 am

Or you can make draws DSS worth half the value rounded down.

The number of points awarded at the end would be less than the points input.

Not necessarily, just award those points to the losers.

That does create a perverse scenario in which the eliminated players can earn more than the players in the draw.

I'm not sure if the issue is the scoring system. The issue is an idealogical one.

You can argue that soloing is the highest objective in the game, and you would be right. Drawing is simply not losing, better then a defeat but not better then winning.

If we agree that the objective of the game is to solo, then it is obvious that drawing is not ideal. Of course not everyone would. Some, including myself in the past, would argue that the point of a game is to enjoy oneself and therefore Diplomacy can be played with whatever objective or scoring system as long as they are having fun.

Now, where it is true that games are made to be fun, it is not true that you can simply change the rules of the game in the name of having fun. The victory condition is inherently part of the game, you can't change it the same way you can't change the movement rules.

An illustration might help make my point. When I was a child my father and I would play chess "off the board" which consisted of moving the pieces around and knocking them over. It was a blast. But if I were to show up at a chess competition, even an amateur one, and asked to play "off the board" I would be politely asked to leave.

Basically, changing the rules of a game can be fun, but it is not ok unless all parties agree before the game starts(e.g. different press types and maps). Soloing is the basic victory condition of Diplomacy, therefore a player cannot simply change that and think that they are in the right.

Those are my thoughts on the issue in general. Not sure about the scoring systems, but the idea of making one that rewards solos and only solos is fascinating.

I'm tempted to just change the stats on the profile page to show
Won: X%
Lost: Y%

ubercacher16 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:44 am

I'm not sure if the issue is the scoring system. The issue is an idealogical one.

You can argue that soloing is the highest objective in the game, and you would be right. Drawing is simply not losing, better then a defeat but not better then winning.

Maximizing your score is the highest objective in the game.

Restitution wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:27 am

ubercacher16 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:44 am

I'm not sure if the issue is the scoring system. The issue is an idealogical one.

You can argue that soloing is the highest objective in the game, and you would be right. Drawing is simply not losing, better then a defeat but not better then winning.

Maximizing your score is the highest objective in the game.

Playing the game from the start with the intent to draw will ensure a higher overall win/draw percentage but will result in no chance of a solo. Solo's require risk in most games. Tactically and diplomatically. If you play the game safe you'll lose every time.

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:12 am

I'm tempted to just change the stats on the profile page to show
Won: X%
Lost: Y%

Please do! Heck, there's even players that think "survived" is a positive outcome.

All Game stats:
Won: 31 ( 14% )
Lost but Drawn: 86 ( 38% )
Defeated but Survived: 51 ( 22% )
Eliminated: 61 ( 27% )
Playing: 5
Civil disorder: 3
Civil disorders taken over: 2
Total (finished): 229

Restitution wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:27 am

Maximizing your score is the highest objective in the game.

Ehhhh... no.

Diplomacy tounaments have scoring. Many, but not all Diplomacy communities have scoring. Diplomacy has no scoring.

Restitution wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:27 am

Maximizing your score is the highest objective in the game.

I guess if this is the perspective of some people then we should remove the scoring system altogether.

ubercacher16 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:03 pm

Restitution wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:27 am

Maximizing your score is the highest objective in the game.

I guess if this is the perspective of some people then we should remove the scoring system altogether.

I, along with many people, consider Ghost Rating to be the chief evaluation of skill. This is seeded from scoring.

I'm not opposed to the implementation of a scoring system that more heavily favors solos; but I, and presumably many other players, will play by this philosophy.

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:15 am

Restitution wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:27 am

Maximizing your score is the highest objective in the game.

Ehhhh... no.

Diplomacy tounaments have scoring. Many, but not all Diplomacy communities have scoring. Diplomacy has no scoring.

Diplomacy has no *innate* scoring, sure. But at this point, the raw Diplomacy game is a template or a game engine. According to the strictest definition, Diplomacy is in person, and you can't talk during builds.

The highest objective in the game of WebDiplomacy GhostRatings Diplomacy is the maximization of score.

If any cutthroat sons of guns who don't care about scoring and only care about a solo need another guy in their game, let me know.

What amuses me is when the draw vote is cast immediately after a fatal blow is suffered. I consider it the virtual form of begging for mercy.

RoganJosh wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:57 am

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:12 am

I'm tempted to just change the stats on the profile page to show
Won: X%
Lost: Y%

Please do! Heck, there's even players that think "survived" is a positive outcome.

i wouldn't call it positive, but it's often preferable to defeat, even if the points don't reflect that. of course, the motivation changes from board to board. sometimes it's really satisfying to throw the game to punish that filthy backstabber. sometimes when it becomes apparent you can't solo or draw, you don't care what the outcome is.

ziran wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:47 am

RoganJosh wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:57 am

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:12 am

I'm tempted to just change the stats on the profile page to show
Won: X%
Lost: Y%

Please do! Heck, there's even players that think "survived" is a positive outcome.

i wouldn't call it positive, but it's often preferable to defeat, even if the points don't reflect that. of course, the motivation changes from board to board. sometimes it's really satisfying to throw the game to punish that filthy backstabber. sometimes when it becomes apparent you can't solo or draw, you don't care what the outcome is.

IMO, survival indicates lower skill than a defeat. Allowing a solo to happen when you still have units on the board is far worse than allowing it to happen when you had no units.

Today I "won" a game by drawing. It seems most everyone believes that a draw is not a win but I completed my objective therefore it is a Victory. I paid X points to enter the game. I left with a X point profit. Soloing may have gotten me the full pot but half is not bad.

Last Battallion wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:32 am

Today I "won" a game by drawing. It seems most everyone believes that a draw is not a win but I completed my objective therefore it is a Victory. I paid X points to enter the game. I left with a X point profit. Soloing may have gotten me the full pot but half is not bad.

X times zero in, Y times zero out. Total profit:: zero

Still, at the end of the day success at diplomacy means doing whatever the hell you want, regardless of what others may wish. Some things are harder to achieve than others, and these tend to earn the most respect from other players. Losing as Austria is incredibly easy, winning as Austria quite challenging. Your draw, truth be told, seems a decent effort. Ultimately it will only ever be a not quite a solo to me, but whether you give a damn what I think is entirely up to you.

Drawing instead of stabbing for a solo could perhaps help repair the reputation of a known stabber. The stabber is attempting to prove they can be a trusted ally. Building goodwill is a useful tool in a non-anon setting. Build the mound high enough so when you push them off...

From a competitive standpoint, I want to win. I will do what I feel is necessary. A draw is like eating coconut. Technically, it's food, but is it really? I'd almost rather starve.

See also: Hellenic Riot's previous explanation of the 2-way to spite others theory.

Why, why, why do people feel the need to shove a square peg in a round hole? A draw may be a valid objective (whether it should be is a slightly different discussion), depending upon the circumstances. It may even be (though it often isn't) quite an accomplishment. A draw just ain't a win. No amount of self delusion or rationalization will make it one.

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:48 am

Why, why, why do people feel the need to shove a square peg in a round hole? A draw may be a valid objective (whether it should be is a slightly different discussion), depending upon the circumstances. It may even be (though it often isn't) quite an accomplishment. A draw just ain't a win. No amount of self delusion or rationalization will make it one.

All true. Isn’t it obvious that this thread is full of people using words to argue about words? It “may” be an “objective” or an “accomplishment”, but not a “win”. Who the F—k cares? It’s a game, play to get the best result you can based on circumstances & talent. Screw the rest.

Damn, I noticed this as well, but I thought it was a fluke... I actually went to play Diplomacy because I was tired of draws or de-facto draws when playing Hearts of Iron IV and Wargame Red Dragon, and here I am again... Plus, I have a very defensive/prudent way to play in all games, so that maximises the chances for draws.