Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 373 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
25 May 17 UTC
Need replacement for team game
Hey everyone, Team MOAB needs a replacement for Spain in gameID=197073. The only requirements are:
1. Use Google Hangouts
2. Be willing to drop MOAB on enemy
6 replies
Open
Hauta (1583 D (S))
24 May 17 UTC
Time to end Obama era sanctions on Russia?
Would it be better to let job creating trade flourish rather than hurting both countries economically? Can Russia be our friend?
85 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
25 May 17 UTC
The Phillipines
Just because i've been away for a few days, somehow there is no thread about this... One news headline (paraphrased) 'ISIS captures city in Philipines!' Is rather click baity... But goes in to refer to the 'Most Catholic country in south east asia'.
6 replies
Open
Carebear (100 D)
25 May 17 UTC
ODC @ PDET - Assignments Out
The assignments went out 24 hours ago and some of you all have not yet picked up your messages. Please come on over and join your games. :D
3 replies
Open
Refusing to draw in established stalemate
Is there a rule that if stalemate is made and it lasts for 3 years with no changes in a sc count, draw can be forced, or something like that?
3 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
25 May 17 UTC
On dna databases
http://www.nature.com/news/china-expands-dna-data-grab-in-troubled-western-region-1.22033

This is what colonial/state oppression looks like. As far as anarchist are concerned they are one and the same, the state oppresses its own people, the colonial empire oppress other peoples. In China they have this lovely grey area...
5 replies
Open
brainbomb (474 D)
23 May 17 UTC
(+1)
Why is Terrorism the only time people feel a visceral response?
I noticed recently there was an incident where a man crashed his car into multiple people injuring many and killing someone. But because it was not terrorism, people did not seem motivated in the same manner against alcoholism as they would have if he were a terrorist. If he had indeed been from any Muslim country at all, and also under the influence of alcohol, one has to wonder if people would just automatically assume it was a terror plot.
91 replies
Open
Hauta (1583 D (S))
22 May 17 UTC
American reporter arrested for asking questions to Trump HHS Secretary
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/business/media/reporter-arrested-tom-price.html

Freedom of the press is an integral part of the 1st amendment. Just wondering how rightwing media handled or ignored this story about Dan Heyman, the reporter that was arrested for asking persistent questions to Tom Price, HHS Secretary.
54 replies
Open
JECE (1322 D)
11 May 17 UTC
(+2)
On how PPSC scoring does not encourage players to throw games
In our recent discussion (threadID=1432961), many mods and fellow pillars of the community claimed that when you have two Great Powers in a game that have between 12 and 16 supply centers, one of these Great Powers has a (D) points-incentive to throw the game. I disagreed and this puzzled my fellow users, but only Lethologica took the bait when I explained my position. Here it is again:
JECE (1322 D)
11 May 17 UTC
(+2)
zultar, ghug, captainmeme et al:
I assume you all are imagining this chart when you say that large Great Powers have a points-incentive in PPSC to throw games to an even larger Great Power?

Full pot† 7,140 D
initial bet† 1,020 D

solo win† 3,780 D
2-way† 3,570 D
16-SC loss† 3,360 D
15-SC loss* 3,150 D
14-SC loss* 2,940 D
13-SC loss* 2,730 D
12-SC loss* 2,520 D
3-way† 2,380 D
11-SC loss* 2,310 D
10-SC loss* 2,100 D
9-SC loss* 1,890 D
4-way† 1,785 D
8-SC loss* 1,680 D
7-SC loss* 1,470 D
5-way† 1,428 D
6-SC loss* 1,260 D
6-way† 1,190 D
5-SC loss* 1,050 D
7-way† 1,020 D
4-SC loss* 840 D
3-SC loss* 630 D
2-SC loss* 420 D
1-SC loss* 210 D
0-SC loss* 0 D
† Assuming no CD positions taken over
* Assuming no neutrals left and no CD positions taken over

That is a very simplistic understanding of PPSC. Remember that there is always a points-incentive in PPSC to go for a win or (short of that) a 2-way draw. If you have two Great Powers in a game that have between 12 and 16 supply centers, then in your scenario there should be at least one Great Power barely holding on for survival but with enough SC's to influence the outcome of the game. So far so good, right?

In PPSC, your collective wisdom interprets this scenario as cause for the slightly smaller of the two Great Powers which dominate the board to throw the game in favor of the slightly larger of the two, effectively screwing over the tiny Great Power(s) still around. With WTA, you say that the slightly smaller of the dominant Great Powers should band together with the minor Great Power not to eke out a victory of its own, but to stop the game in its tracks at a stalemate line. (Note here that I'm not referring to other early draws without a stalemate line which Jamiet99uk and I have also been blaming on WTA because in similar situations PPSC discourages drawing.)

You're entirely forgetting that small Great Powers still have agency in this narrow scenario with two superpowers and are somehow missing that in PPSC the lesser of the two superpowers has a better option. I'll start with the small Great Powers.

In WTA, small Great Powers have zero points-incentive to play well unless they were lucky or smart enough to have placed their redoubt along a relevant stalemate line. Instead, their erratic behavior can decide the outcome of a game in the given scenario on caprice with little regard to the diplomatic or even tactical skill of either of the two superpowers. With PPSC, small Great Powers always have a clear points-incentive to survive and grow. Of course, with both WTA and PPSC scoring systems small Great Powers have a clear incentive to seek a draw, but often they do not have this option.

Here is where it gets interesting. In PPSC, both of the dominant Great Powers in your scenario can work with the minor Great Power(s) still in the game to win. Instead of being lazy and throwing the game or settling for a stalemate draw, the lesser of the two dominant Great Powers has a points-incentive to instead provide one or more minor Great Powers with avenues of either growth or stalemate line security (i. e. front-line placement). Working in the interest of minor Great Powers leaves open the possibility that the sponsoring dominant Great Power can (with cunning Diplomacy and tactical skill) surpass the position of the other dominant power and win the game itself.

The minor Great Powers for their part gain obvious short term benefits even if one of the major Great Powers clinches victory. With a PPSC scoring system, minor Great Powers can play the dominant Great Powers off each other in turn (Hey, just like the real world!) to grow their SC-count, knowing that they will always be rewarded even if they slip up and one side ends up soloing. But as a minor Great Power grows, so too does its ability to force a stalemate or even make a solo push of its own. There should never be a scenario where simply throwing the game is the preferred course, even for a small Great Power.

What do you all think?
JECE (1322 D)
11 May 17 UTC
(D)
JECE (1322 D)
11 May 17 UTC
hmm, don't remembr how to get the webDip points symbol
steephie22 (182 D (S))
11 May 17 UTC
10 points
steephie22 (182 D (S))
11 May 17 UTC
10 D
steephie22 (182 D (S))
11 May 17 UTC
Nope, I don't remember either.
Valis2501 (1897 D (G))
11 May 17 UTC
(+6)
420 D smoke webDip points every day
steephie22 (182 D (S))
11 May 17 UTC
10 Points
Tom Bombadil (3129 D (G))
11 May 17 UTC
(+3)
Here are my main two beefs with your analysis.

1) You claim that small powers in WTA have to be lucky or smart to have a chance at getting in the draw, as they need to be near a stalemate line. I strongly disagree with this. As the small power, your role is to balance the two powers in the hopes of forcing a draw by threatening to throw the game. You can be included in a draw regardless of whether or not you are on a stalemate line. Being on a stalemate line makes it easier for certain, but you can influence that balance from anywhere.

2) To me the biggest problem of PPSC is not the behavior of the small power, but the behavior of the second largest power. I've found that the second largest power is often the lazy one that is fine finishing with 13 SCs, instead of creating a conflict with their ally to go for the win.

Hell, I was guilty of this early on because I thought it was all about the points. See: gameID=34088

I made no attempt to stop the solo because I thought I was doing well because I was accumulating points. It is a system that encourages people learning the game, to play for points, rather than winning that individual game.
I think a small power well behind the stalemate line can still make into the draw by playing well and simply refusing to die.

For example, I got into this draw without being near the stalemate line at all:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=193506
Yoyoyozo (98 D Mod)
11 May 17 UTC
The second largest power would have to decide between a gauranteed large 12+ SC loss, or the slight possibility of eeking out a win, while at the same time severely increasing your chances of a lesser 3 way draw.

Most risk averse people would choose to throw the game, especially if it meant the possibility of gaining another supply center.
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
11 May 17 UTC
Let's say we have three powers - France at 16, Germany at 12, and Turkey at 6, as in your example.

Your argument is that both Turkey and Germany should not throw because they have the potential to gain more centers each if they work together. This sounds alright in theory, but when you examine it it falls apart. Let's play it out to see what happens.

Turkey goes to Germany and says to him "Hey, if the two of us work together, I can get you more centers here. You'll have a better shot at a solo, and even if he still solos you'll come out with more points."

A Germany who doesn't know the scoring system well might accept this, but if you're playing with people who are ignoring the scoring system that defeats the point of this argument. A smart Germany would go to France:

"Hey France, Turkey's offering me SCs if I stop your solo. How about you support me into some of his centers before you solo instead? That way I get more points, and you still reach the solo threshhold."

France would easily agree to this, because doing so does not hurt him at all, and Germany has almost certainly been his steadfast ally for the entire game. Turkey is screwed, Germany gets a good result from losing, and France wins with no opposition whatsoever.
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
11 May 17 UTC
And that entire argument skirts around the fact that this strategy doesn't even discourage throwing, it just delays it. If there are three players remaining, two of them always gain more from giving the win to one of those two than they do from drawing. A PPSC game where players know how the scoring works and play in their best interests will never end in a draw as a result.
JECE (1322 D)
11 May 17 UTC
Tom Bombadil: Regarding your second beef, my entire analysis above is meant to respond to this scenario: "I've found that the second largest power is often the lazy one that is fine finishing with 13 SCs, instead of creating a conflict with their ally to go for the win." Knowing that, is there something more concrete in my analysis that you take issue with?

I've been on the receiving end before of a particularly heinous example of a lazy second largest power (gameID=12239). My point is that such laziness is illogical from a points-maximizing perspective.
Tom Bombadil (3129 D (G))
11 May 17 UTC
(+1)
It's not though illogical though. Sure, at the beginning of the game, PPSC players want to win as well because it maximizes their points. But that doesn't apply to in game situations.

The safety net of survival points is a hindrance, and causes poor play.

Look at gameID=34088 again. Autumn 1905.

As England I am at a crossroads because my partner clearly has the upperhand on the race to 18. I can either coast with him to an eventual 13 center survival and a cool 201 points off of a 75 point bet, or I can make moves against him, and potentially have it blow up in my face (even though it would have given me a better chance of winning).

In the end, I chose the sure points, versus the potential upside of winning. I played from that point on with 0 intentions of winning the game, under the impression that I was playing well, because of the point outcome of the survival I was promised.

Your logic is skewed because it assumes that all players have the potential to win. There are situations where players view their chances of winning as 0%. That is where PPSC is a problem because then often the most desired outcome is a strong survive versus moving against the stronger player and hoping for a draw - this often reduces your centers even while increasing the chances of drawing.

Its a direct contradiction between points outcome and the belief that a draw is better than a survive.

A survive should never be viewed as a more desirable outcome than a draw.
Carebear (100 D)
11 May 17 UTC
(+3)
Nothing should be given to surviving against a solo. There should never be any incentive to throw a solo. Throwing a solo should always be based on in-game circumstances.
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
11 May 17 UTC
That's really all that should need to be said, Carebear, but we've all said it already and JECE never listens.
zultar (3900 D Mod (P))
11 May 17 UTC
(+6)
I'll be brief but direct.

1. Honestly, the mod team and I have other things we actually need to do at this point and this is not anywhere on the list anymore. We have to work with Kestas and others to redesign the site and add additional features that make the site run better and make the gaming experience better. We also have to continually catch the cheaters and we have been running behind on that as well. I have much bigger fish to fry, and this is such a small fish that I just don't care about nor do I have time for it.

2. PPSC shouldn't have been used in the first place. Kestas created it back then to implement the point system but both the point system and PPSC are terrible and not based in the rule book (you can argue against this if you want but the vast majority of players and other Diplomacy sites will not agree with you). That's why we give it out for free and replenish it to 100. No one else plays PPSC. We replaced PPSC with SoS because it is a better system and people actually use it in competition, but the main way and the default way is WTA or DSS.

In either case, PPSC is done.
JECE (1322 D)
22 May 17 UTC
I'll be brief too: bump.
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
22 May 17 UTC
"both the point system and PPSC are terrible and not based in the rule book"

Then why not abolish the point system? You're literally preserving something you yourself have defined as "terrible", Zultar. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
22 May 17 UTC
What if we made a new system for points? What would it look like? Any suggestions?
CAPT Brad (40 D X)
23 May 17 UTC
You tell him Zultar!
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
23 May 17 UTC
Hey Brad. Boner Jams boner Jams boner Jams.
2ndWhiteLine (2405 D (B))
23 May 17 UTC
(+1)
"Then why not abolish the point system?"

You only read point #2. See point #1.
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
23 May 17 UTC
My thought here is that if anyone has an issue with PPSC being gone they can make the effort to provide a compromising solution instead of just coming with grievances come with a proposal.
MajorMitchell (984 D)
23 May 17 UTC
I might have suggested ( more than once already, but if it escaped your attention, here 'tis again ).... An optional third scoring system, a non WTA form of SoS scoring.
Currently SoS is WTA when there is a solo winner. So is it possible to "tweak" SoS scoring so that there were two SoS scoring systems ? A WTA form, and a non WTA form ? Both work the same in a Draw. But in the non WTA "version" , when there is a winner, the winner gets about 70% of the points and the survivors share the remaining 30% of the points.
So I have already made the type of suggestion you "ask for" Commander Byron, and not confined my posts on this issue to "just grievances"... So that " characterisation " is innacurate.
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
23 May 17 UTC
Major you seem to have me mistaken. I am saying Zultar has an issue with the point she system and PPSC. What about a new system instead of points in which we can then figure out how to make PPSC viable in a different form. This issue as far as I can see Ian that pro-PPSC want a more relaxed scoring system that rewards good play even in a non-draw loss. The anti-PPSC camp is against this as it can lead to players throwing games diminishing the value of a solo.

So here's a proposal.

What would it take to transition the site fully to GR or a similar standard system? If such a system was imposed alongside what I'll call a "ticket" system. Then I think we could make something work. See in this system GR would be the gate to entry in individual games. Tickets would determine the max games a person could join at any one time. All players would have 10 tickets to start (so 1 ticket is equal to 10 points when we convert over.). Players may set a game to cost 1,2,5,10, or 50 tickets. In the event of a win the winner receives the total tickets entered by all participants; all surviving players are returned half their initial ticket entry or 1 (Whichever is greater). All eliminated players lose their entire entry. In the event of a draw eliminated players still receive 0 tickets, and participants in a draw receive their share of the ticket entries based on percent of supply centers owned. As an example: 3 way draw split 12,17,5 with an initial entry of 2 tickets per player. So at 14 tickets the 17 center player would receive 7 tickets, the 12 center player would receive 5 tickets, and the 5 center player would receive 2 tickets.

Like now an alternative scoring method could simply split the overall ticket reward evenly between the players.

The idea is that by having tickets and GR both instituted and used simultaneously the use of a PPSC like system which ensures sieving players don't suffer as bad as eliminated players would be less disagreeable. Since now we've checked the PPSC and antiPPSC boxes:

-does not diminish the value of a solo
-does not punish a survive as equal to an elimination

CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
23 May 17 UTC
If we converted a person with 766 points would have 77 tickets.
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
23 May 17 UTC
Example major Mitchell at 1009 would have 101 tickets.
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
23 May 17 UTC
In the game creation menu your options would be:
Press type
Anon or not
Map
Ticket entry
RR
GR
HDV
Bladerunners (1060 D)
23 May 17 UTC
And remember - an absolute key in making a point system work - is to get rid of Zultar christmas points.. as they are artificial gifts + artificially inflate the system... as they are not related to effort or skill (very nice of him .. but they really hurt a points system)
MajorMitchell (984 D)
23 May 17 UTC
Tickets or points, those are just names. I actually like the points system, except that Capt Brad has too many points, LoL. Plus I like the Omnipotent Zultar's benevolent points gifts, except of course when that blighter Capt Brad is a recipient of well meaning but ill directed largesse.



32 replies
Oztra (30 D X)
25 Mar 17 UTC
(+3)
Bump
Because I'm a new pleb, I'm not sure what bump means.
I've been seeing people use it a lot, and am unsure of the context and meaning behind this phrase
133 replies
Open
carder007s.com (0 D X)
23 May 17 UTC
Buy CC, Cvv , dumps Fullz of all countries
Buy CC, Cvv , dumps Fullz of all countries
0 replies
Open
Volmort (90 D)
22 May 17 UTC
Coast passing
Hi I have a question, can I move from mid-atlantic see to North Africa and next turn attack Tunis?

Or its prevented by coastal issues?
5 replies
Open
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
20 May 17 UTC
Gauging Interest: Econ-Dip
See Inside
31 replies
Open
Namejeff (10 D X)
22 May 17 UTC
GTA 7
Does anyone have GTA 12 that I can borrow for my comrade
1 reply
Open
bobarctor1977 (255 D)
18 May 17 UTC
Would anyone be interested in joining a game with some friends of mine and I?
I have 3 friends that I would like to introduce to the game, but can't seem to talk anyone else into playing with us for a full Ancient Med game. Just a casual, low-bet game, probably 2 day turns.
18 replies
Open
Hippopankake (80 D)
20 May 17 UTC
New game
I'm thinking about making a game where you have to have a war goal and a justification for going to war similar to paradox games thoughts ?
7 replies
Open
leon1122 (211 D)
18 May 17 UTC
(+1)
German Man Imprisoned for 10 years for Holocaust Denial
See below
381 replies
Open
brainbomb (474 D)
21 May 17 UTC
Lawmaker threatened with Lynching after calling for Trumps impeachment.
http://www.ketv.com/article/racial-slurs-hurled-at-lawmaker-after-calling-for-trumps-impeachment/9901862
4 replies
Open
Hauta (1583 D (S))
21 May 17 UTC
(+1)
Hehe, Trump just bowed to Saudi king and curtsied too
Just another example of Trump hypocrisy. He slammed Obama for merely bowing. The curtsy was bigly over the top.
32 replies
Open
brainbomb (474 D)
20 May 17 UTC
Juggernaut is actually a horrible alliance
Despite the fearmongering ive seen in Press games about Juggernauts over the past 5 years ive been here...I cant help but note its low rate of success and how its paranoia often benefits France or England most. Please share games where Juggernauts fail miserably. But also include ones which work out in a 2wd (if there even is such a situtation)
10 replies
Open
peterwiggin (14408 D (S))
24 Mar 17 UTC
Spring 2017 SoW Study Game
This thread is for commentary and discussion on the spring 2017 School of War Study Game: gameID=194603

233 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
20 May 17 UTC
(+1)
Mafia
It's been a while since the last game of Mafia. When does the next one start?
19 replies
Open
brainbomb (474 D)
18 May 17 UTC
(+1)
Is it Treason to sympathize with the Confederacy?
Shouldnt it be treason to sympathize with the Confederacy? We fought a war and defeated them. Hundreds of thousands died more than any war fought by America. For people who still wish the south had won- chant the south shall rise again or fly its flags isnt this treason?
86 replies
Open
Crazy Anglican (172 D)
20 May 17 UTC
Dresden Files rpg
Anybody here played it or better yet GM'ed it?
0 replies
Open
Fluminator (511 D)
18 May 17 UTC
Should otherkin be forced to give up their human rights?
Are there any otherkin on this site? I'm genuinely curious to understand this culture more. If you identify as something non-human, do you think you have a right to get the privileges that all humans deserve? Or do you believe you're in a separate category and thus have different standards and base rules to start off with?
20 replies
Open
Hippopankake (80 D)
20 May 17 UTC
New game
I'm thinking about making a game where you have to have a war goal and a justification for going to war similar to paradox games thoughts ?
0 replies
Open
Fat backstab (25 D X)
15 May 17 UTC
(+1)
WebDiplomacy
I feel this would be a much better game if you destroyed all of the thots accounts
52 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
15 May 17 UTC
(+2)
Trump hands highly classified information to the Russians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.ef65b5b012be

What a liability this man is.
43 replies
Open
Hauta (1583 D (S))
16 May 17 UTC
Hillary's secret agenda
Someone made a comment that they voted for Trump because they were worried about Hillary's secret agenda. What was she going to do that was so bad?
44 replies
Open
CAPT Brad (40 D X)
17 May 17 UTC
Why Should Hillary Have Been Elected President
Explain concrete reasons why.
81 replies
Open
Page 373 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top