no .

that system would be ideal

I like the randomness. It lets you mix up your play and makes the games less predictable

@IcyMind really? no? That's it? Brilliant argument!

How does "Random" work, in the example above?
If selecting "Random" , as your preference list, would the system generate your preference list randomly for you, or would you just get the nation that is left, once all the other players preference lists have been handled.

Your example above seem to suggest the second option here, or am I missing something??

Random is no preference and will get the last nation left. If more than one selects random then the preferred are choosed first then the randomers get randomly the remained countries

assigned first*

I don't like the idea of someone with no preference getting stuck with the droppings that no one else wants.

When I played face to face we drew countries randomly, but had 1 right of refusal. So if you didn't like the first country you were assigned you could refuse it and then you were stuck with whatever else you got. The last person was just stuck. You could do that sort online too, it would just take a bit longer to get a game started.

This is a Bad Idea™. First of all, it totally violates the random assignment of countries rule, which really hasn't changed much from the original set of rules developed back in the Good Old Days™, if I'm not mistaken.

The integrity of your record depends on the ability to play each country fairly well. If you cannot play certain countries well, that is a problem solved only by learning to play those countries well. Moreover, the integrity of all the ratings systems on the website depend on an impartial assignment of countries at game start.

Thus, your idea is a very bad one indeed because it totally violates the Spirit of the Game™.

Thank you, and have a nice day!

Integrity depends :teach:

also random shouldn't be last pickings, or whaever no-one likes, it should be a random asignment list (randomly determined each game) and competing in the same way as each other players for the best? countries, (and this would still have you playing un-popular countries more often than at present)

also Dunecat is correct.

still it is entirely fair to have a varient which doesn't count towards point (but is a kind of test/learning game where you get to assign countries, max 10 point pot. does not count for statistical purposes, fine to play with your friends...)

yeah, I'll go back to working on the Russian Civil War Diplomacy map, thanks for crushing that idea :P

A Russian Civil War variant sounds awesome.

I don't like it either, but I do hate being austria...

@redcrane: you're complaining when you've taken bulgaria from turkey(me) in S1902? i am stunned.

italy would be up in the air to often i think

I think it's an idea worth exploring, certainly a good idea at it's core imo.

The only real issue I see is that it does seem as if players would potentially have to only be skilled at a couple countries to win, certainly not as much fun as a virtuoso player-

Still, if the VAST MAJORITY are like that- wouldn't that random sorter thing (elegant phrasing I know, just getting over a BAD flu, sue me) work it out; if say there are four players who are only good at playing defensible England or early-expanding France, wouldn't it follow at least two of those players would be denied both of those countries and made to play another.

I like this idea, maybe it can be smoothed out a bit...

"certainly a good idea at it's core imo."

Do you understand the nature of the game?

the idea is not all that abnormal... again, I go back to the history of PBEM games where the GM would ask for 'country preferences' and 'assign' countries tot he 7 players... its not abnormal...

but I do agree with those that say the random nature of country choices far outweigh the idea of getting your preferences... so I'd be against this idea personally.

bad dunecat, he has a point.

@obiwan: i still think that on balance those players would get their 'prefered' country more often and this would be reflected in their scores, points, and whatnot. Also since the game is inherently unbalanced (well tactically at least, some people manage to turn a tacticaly advantage into a diplomatic disadvantage or vica-versa, early leader syndrome anyone?)

... playing a 'better' country messes up your scores.

that's why i suggest this would be a good addition, but only if these games were omitted from the statistics.

Sure, orathaic, as long as it's not included in your statistics.

@Dunecat

Do you understand the nature of a persuasive argument? Make your argument, there's no need for personal attacks, and cheap ones at that.

@orathaic

I think it should be an option the creator of the game can choose (random assignment vs. preferred assignment, just like selecting phase length.)

That way, those on the more traditional side of the fence can keep their games "pure," and those who want a new blend can try this out.

Hmmm , yes in the end, I think also, that the current system is better.

I can only imagine that certain people wouldn't constantly put the best countries on top of their preference list. I would only imagine that France & Germany would be chosen like the No1 country, a helluva lot more often than Italy.

Or just do round robins every different country in order, more or less, ... one after other.
Random only 'during same 'next-coutry_to_play result'', then back to the list, like a train, chug chug. Like it? 'predictable', yes, at least you have an idea of the next, (2-3 countries you 'should' get.) ...

actually when we play ftf we use airborne's system (yeah, you are not the first one to come up with it, neither am i of course). it actually involves some strategy in picking what country you place 1st 2nd etc in your preferences. so if nobody marks austria as a first choice and i do why shouldn't i just get it? i wish this system could be integrated into the webdiplomacy code.

Something like this is implamented on the playdiplomacy website, but it's optional. Personally, I don't like the site very much, but I just wanted to point that out.

This will never happen. I can see its merit if we end up having unranked games when we get into varients and stuff, but in general its a bad idea.

the only thinnk i dont like is being the same country many times in a row. who wants to be austria in 4 games????

The programming recently helps with that. If you are already Austria three times, the odds of you getting Austria again are very very low.

Power choice has been programmed, but Kestas hasn't yet chosen to implement it.

I think a good point touched upon is that there should be an allowed "exhibition" type of game where no points are gained(stats not changing as well), and options like country preferences would be possible. This would be good for playing with friends or just trying out new techniques with a country of your choosing.