A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
Among the most recent strain of banned players was Brazil (who at the time had the most number of centers) and Quebec who also had a high number of centers. Some of the players in the game wanted to draw or cancel the game, because clearly the game had lost any meaningful value for them...however new players came in for Brazil and Quebec.
I'm curious as to what the board thinks should happen going forward, I think some players still prefer a draw or a cancel, but as of now the game is going forward. I understand a draw is now maybe out of the question since the new players bet a lot more so they might not get a good return on a draw, and canceling the game means everyone else just wasted a lot of time and that may not be favorable to all.
Any thoughts on what should happen? I'm curious how other players have dealt with similar situations surely this isn't unique. Thanks.
I thought the mods cancelled games when they ban someone for multi-accounting and the game had two or more such accounts and therefore cheating happened. But that may vary from mod to mod. Clearly in this case it didn't happen.
You could arrange with a mod to draw the game and then refund the necessary points so that those who took over CDs for more points get the correct amount back.
Or just try and force the draw and if a couple of countries won't go for it, have everyone else form an alliance to take them out at which point they will more than likely draw before being eliminated. Assuming you are in position to do such of course.
Or just cancel and sure there was a lot of wasted time from a point perspective, but if you have a broader perspective you'll see you learned about the map so you can do better next time, so you aren't walking away with nothing.
Yes, cancel and everyone recieves what they bet: including players who've been killed off. It is by far the fairest outcome, I'm just unsure at what threshold it would be fair for me to force it upon a world game.
i recently finished a game which began as a live game and then was paused because there was 2 players multi/meta-gaming (however it was decided that the player who was that the centre of it could play on because they were introducing their sister to the game or something), so we turned it into a 3 day phase game for various reasons, however by the end of it everyone had been banned apart from 3 of us, and there had been a couple of replacement players, so i think out of the 10 players involved only 3 of us were considered legit in the end.
Some of us are thinking that if we could draw and give the recently joined players their points back, that would be a better solutions. Currently, half the players including the new ones, are not voting for either. I just think the game needs to end.
This game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=20748 just progressed to diplomacy Spring 1902. However, it is not displaying a new map with new builds, making it impossible to see where others have built. Explanation?
I'm a Philistine and a Luddite at heart but I reckon I have a fair call on product names. To me, at least, Buzz seems the sort of attempt at naming a company like McKinsey would have come up with in a clumsy attempt to associate with the whole aura of buzz words.
Have you ever noticed that diplomacy nubs have an incredible sense of entitlement?
I've seriously learned from my mistake of playing low-stakes games. You end up playing with utter idiots whose sense of entitlement rivals that of rich girls on their sweet sixteenth birthday. I'm sick of playing with upstart hotshots who wouldn't know how to negotiate if a diplomacy board struck them in the face.