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.
I have sent requests for an unpause and a multi-account investigation (and a follow-up email) over the last two weeks and nary a squeak in response from the mod email address. Is anyone else having this problem?
What if 7 players were to get together and play the game the way two would? These 7 players would have forced alliances: GAT, EFR, with Italy picking a side to join in Spring 1902 (that part may be up for discussion) The players on a team would be forced to work together, and the game would go on until one full team was elimanted, the winning team draws
I made the very stupid decision to post a thread about an active game of mine. I apologize for accidentally cheating. My password is 123456789. Someone can log onto my account, change the password, and play my two remaining games. Sorry.
This Time On Philosophy Weekly: Schrodinger's Cats and Consistency...
Aimed at those of you who, frankly, make me incredulous as to just how many highly intelligent physics thinkers are on the site...so, Schrodinger's Cat--I understand that there's a cat, radioactive particles, a 50/50% chance the cat is dead or alive...or both...what are your thoughts? (And if that cat DOES blur the lines between the differentiation of states...well, YOU change every moment via experience...is there anything constant about us, or you as "you," for that matter?
I notice the BBC are now using in-page SVG content. We've seen youtube/google et.al. pushing the standard over the last few years, but this is the first time I've seen a non-web company supporting the formats. Have we turned the corner?
Right now I'm pretty desperate. I'm Turkey, and I've got Italy, Germany, and what's left of Russia creeping towards me. Starting this turn Italy will start picking off my SCs, one by one. Can anyone help me out? http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=53685&msgCountryID=0&rand=74811#chatboxanchor
If this is against the rules, then pardon me; I looked through the FAQ and didn't seem to find an answer to it (that I understood)
I played through the game with some friends, but for the life of me couldn't seem to figure out support hold/support move. Can anyone tell me in clearer terms the difference between the two, and how to use them?
Interesting...I was wondering if it'd come to intervention--but to be honest, I'm GLAD the US and did so in this way--no troops, no occupation force, just batter them off the coast with one--and with friend England, two--of the best navies in the world--GREAT CALL by Obama in my opinion! Thoughts?
@Santa - if you went by available points, you are better than me. But if you go by GR, I'm in 224 place versus your 893rd and I have an actual GR of 180 something versus your 110 something. That indicates the better player is me. But thene there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics and all rating systems are nothing more than a form of statistics.
@Checkmate: Generally, the consensus on this site seems to be that points are not the objective of the game, but simply a way of matching players to games of appropriate ability level. Consequently, it is considered bad form to play out games in which there are multiple early NMRs/CDs.
IMO it would be useful to separate the statistics for game outcomes according to whether a CD occurred (and possibly how many of them or when in game time they happened). I think it would mute a lot of the arguments over CDs and NMRs if we could differentiate between "pure" game results and "tarnished" game results.
Putin you imply that I had some knowledge of these unwritten rules before doing what I did, which, as SC has already pointed out, I did not.
Again, my motivation was to acquire the points to play more games. Nothing more.
" The purpose of poitns was to reduce the number of NMRs/CDs by limiting the number of games a player could play at once. "
Draugnar, everyone's circumstances are different. Some people have the time to devote to a large number of games. I'm sure the multiaccounting rules were introduced to stop the same person playing two countries in the same games - this is not what my intention would be, were I to do it.
Putin is incorrect when he says most play that way. Some may, even many may (many being a relative term) but I doubt that more than 50% of the people on this site are unwilling to Cancel/Draw in the face of early CDs and unless Putin can provide statistically significant evidence by surveying a statistically significant subset of the population and finding that subset contains more than 50% who won't draw or cancel to an early CD, I call bullshit on him. He is a PoliSci professor, not a statistician.
"and unless Putin can provide statistically significant evidence by surveying a statistically significant subset of the population and finding that subset contains more than 50% who won't draw or cancel to an early CD, I call bullshit on him."
No multiaccounting for any purposes. Just try to win some more points and you will be able to play in as many games as possible. Also, you did nothing wrong by not cancelling. You may have upset a group of people, maybe even the majority on this site, but I'm sure that there are lots of people who have the same mind set as you.
I would have cancelled, but thats just me. You don't have to defend yourself against these people. Its just two different mindsets
Sorry, Putin. Had to zing you there. I do agree thought that many do play that way. I can't say most play one way or the other and my opinion is that it varies from game to game and whether or not the person is in a good mood or not.
As other have said. Multi accounts to play more games is against the rules. I know it may seem like a pain in the rear end right now. While your stuck with too few points to actually get much done with. (If you have further questions on this particular question I'd be happy to discuss it with you via PM.)
But 100 is enough for 20 games at 5 a piece. Which should more then satisfy your desire to play.
As others have also said it is generally frowned upon to play on after a first year CD, particularly if more than one player shows up. While we all understand that you didn't know this. We hope you will consider it in the future.
True live games are often plagued by CD's however it is not impossible to establish a few good ones. You'll find the good players much more receptive to playing with you if you play by our little code of etiquette now that you know it.
@ Check_mate - Bear in mind that when you draw a game, even that early, because a nation or two has CDed, you come out of it with more points that you started with. Your point total would still be increasing, and you wouldn't have to put up with discussions like this one. :)
I'm also fairly new to the site. I've only played 16 games and have managed to increase my point total from 100 to 480 without (1) playing through CD's and NMR's and (2) coincidentally, without paying more than 25-30 for a game. You don't have to push for a solo win in a CD-laden game to get points.
Regardless of what you decide to do, I hope you don't let this bad experience (or this thread) chase you away from the site. I've had a great time playing here and hope that is your overall experience as well.
...and whether or not you follow the code of etiquette, you won't get to play at all if you multi account. The mods usually start with a warning and banning the new account, but several of them will have already read this and know we all warned you, so don't count on that. One account per person. Period.
Check_mate... most of what people are saying are nothing more than suggestions, except for multi-accounts... that is against the rules.
Ivo, a top 5 player on this site, plays an immense amount of games at one time (there is no limit, other than points). So if you are comfortable playing a lot, go for it.
Your moves against an NMR or CD will get you in hot water with a lot of players and people will shout and holler (as they are doing right now). If you don't mind/care, feel free to keep doing it (though know that a lot of players will not accept games from you if you exhibit this behavior).
As far as politics ruining the game..... umm.... IT'S DIPLOMACY! Of course if you give the players free speech in a forum, it'll break down into a bunch of silly arguments. Fortunately, the mods and admins follow the rules... for example: what happens after an NMR or CD isn't a 'rule' in the game. You won't be 'forced' into a draw or cancel. People will bitch and moan and you may not be well liked, but it is perfectly legit. That is the voice I'm bringing up.
And as I said before, I usually insist on a cancel/restart for an early NMR. I know you have the right to continue on, but it will sour your relationship with me if you did it in a game with me (but not in this discussion).
@Draug: "Diplomacy is supposed to be a game of manipulation and strategy and there is supposed to be no luck involved."
Not to start a holy war (if anyone wants to argue this point, put it in a new thread and I'll try to keep up with it): but this is why I hate gunboat. There isn't manipulation or strategy to the level with which you can get through communication. All you have is tactics and hints, which flies in the face of the pure concept of the game.
I agree about gunboat to a point. I don't like it because the opening is pure luck and sets the tone for the rest of the game. If Italy, Turkey, Russia, and Germany all jump Austria in Spring 01, he's fucked.
As I hoped, I have learnt a lot from this thread......namely.....
- Don't muti-account - taking advantage of NMRs annoys people (what does NMR actually stand for btw? lol) - there are a few twats about who shout first and ask questions later - Don't multi-account - I am too keen to play and not patient enough! - I probably think I can handle more games at once than I actually can - oh....and.....did I mention.....don't multi-account....
Seriously, thanks everyone, I hope I can become a better player - or at least a more polite one - after this.
Oh, and the one thing you all now know about me is that a logical and reasoned discussion is the best way to deal with me if you think I am wrong.
And SC, if it seems like I have had a little dig at you in this post, well yeah, maybe I did - because you wound me up a little before you brought this here to the forum. Remember that some people would have responded to your insults with more insults and probably just fecked off, or not listened to anything else that anyone else on the site had to say.
"the alternative is multiaccounting. Would that be acceptable?" No, no, and no. I'll say that before someone else does with slightly more profanity.
"nobody except other noobs will want to play for a pot of 35" Not true - I may not be super-experienced, but I've got a decent amount of points and I can tell you I'd rather play a 5 game than a 50 game - that way people are playing for fun and don't take it too seriously.
And as for the original topic: Firstly, I would say that if all other players voted to Draw/Cancel, you are obliged to as well. Personally I enjoy playing on because I don't really care abouts points or GR, as often we can compensate for the advantages gained from these CDs (eg, Italy and France ally against Turkey) but if everybody else wants to cancel you should probably do the same. However: this was also about your strategy. As Italy, seeing England and Germany NMR in Spring 1901, I would immediately move into Piedmont - a strong France is never good for Italy, so in that respect France attacking Italy was sound. However, you have to keep in mind that this left Turkey with nobody to fight, so perhaps a support hold from Piedmont to Venice or something of the sort would be in order to show to Italy you would be willing to cooperate, especially when England came back.