Ah. Gotcha. So everyone who has a build or retreat that readied was a douche, but the one asswipe fucktard who has nothing to do but disband his last unit and end his participation in the game isn't? I guess you're a fucktard too. ;-)

Except that as I understand GR, you generally would prefer to lose sooner rather than later; losing later maybe helps you for one month and in return hurts you indefinitely, to a diminishing extent.

No, CS it doesn't matter because you lose at the end of each game. But reporting is only at the end of each month.

So you could potentially game the system by delaying certain games (though what you win depends only on your opponent's GR, so you being lower doesn't win you more - it just seems like more because it is a larger percentage of your current rating)

@maniac think of playing for GR as the same as playing a tourney to maximize points. Its simply sound playing. If you know that an eatly win in a tourney will cause others to eliminate you in later games then you play for the draw unless a solo puts you so far in the lead others cant come back. theres many reasons youd alter your play method to suit a current need.

@CS if your next game is going to be a defeat, i prefer it to be at the beginning of the month to lessen its impact on the month. Companies do it by selling as much stuff at the end of a fiscal quarter to make that quarter look better. Lots of factories work OT at the quarter end for that reason. Its deceptive since the defeat is going to be there regardless but it makes you look temporarily better than you otherwise would.

Actually, the whole lame asswipe GR excuse is just that, an excuse. GR is computed when the game ends so unless youvexpect them to draw as soon as you're eliminated, drawing it out does nothing versus being eliminated quickly.

"A more egregious action would be using GR to decide who to attack first."

I never understood this attitude or what I consider flawed logic. Once everybody "pays" their GR entry fee, what does it matter from that point?

A win where MM is eliminated 1st is just as good for my GR as a 18-16 win with MM surviving.

A 3 way draw with MM and Babak included is just as good for my GR as 3 way draw with two randos where MM and Babak were eliminated 1 and 2.

I don't understand attacking the high GR player first, other than just fear of them winning?

Because they are perceived as threat. Same thing with attacking the big point players or the high win/draw percent. It is stupid, but people do it.

Yeah, you don't gain more for eliminating mm and bab, but you do stand a better chance of winning of you eliminate them... Collaboration of the weak against the strong is a perfectly valid tactic - except that kind of metagaming really sucks if you're deemed the better player (though actually if you're really better than everyone, at least this makes sure you still have a challenge... Not that this really becomes an issue in dip as even the best have less than ~50% win ratios...)

I've delayed games that I was losing because I had sent out last-resort offers to other powers and was waiting on responses. Gunboat, though? No reason to delay unless you really need more time to think.

@AWB - That is a perfectly valid reason for taking the full time. But when it is eliminating you last unit cause you have no SCi then there isn't anything more to negotiate.

True true Draug, still, if there is one thing playing in my current high level game has taught me, even the best players make enough mistakes to give the rest of us a chance.

Oh yeah, if that's happening, then just ready up and post a gg.

Discarding you last units when you have zero SCs... What kind of mistake could possibly change your status of "dead"?

That was a response to your response to me, not AWB.

@Tru - The difference is that with companies, there is an immediate impact to posting a good quarterly return -- investors will be more willing to inject cash into the company. In GR, there is no impact whatsoever; it's an ephemeral rating and a high rating does not increase your chances of winning future games. However, the *order* of your games does impact GR as an ELO-based system; for a given set of results, your rating will change based upon the order in which those results occur. Why? Because your results are calculated based upon the ratings of the other players at the time of the result.

So, by delaying your losses and pushing forward your wins, you give yourself a better number at the upcoming snapshot, but in return you've actually increased the impact of that loss on your future rating, so that in every future month, you're suffering from those delayed losses.

Not that it actually matters; I play each game on its merits, and based upon the conversation in this thread, have found several people who I would prefer not to play with. My goal isn't to improve my GR; it's to be a better player. Slowing a game down for no in-game advantage simply isn't a reasonable tactic, and it's absolutely *not* a fair response to somebody who stabbed you to death.

The cardinal rule of Diplomacy is that when the game ends, it ends. You have signed up for a situation in which people will lie to you, stab you, treat you unfairly, and expect you to try and do the same to them. Sometimes, they'll do so for reasons you disagree with, and it will end up poorly for both of you. If you cannot handle playing in such a game and walking away with a smile on your face, you shouldn't be playing this game. And part of that means you're welcome to fight to the last, and probably should, but the moment you're dead, you respect the other players in the game who have beaten you and let them continue playing, and if there's a discussion afterwards, try and avoid saying anything you wouldn't say at the end of a face-to-face game where you need one of your fellow players to give you a ride home. If you can't manage to do that, I'd be happy to suggest some other board games that might be better suited to your temperament.

Does that mean I'm never the last player to enter moves in a game? You will, often, catch me submitting orders and not hitting ready immediately in gunboat games. Why? Because in a complicated tactical situation, I've found it valuable to enter my instinctive moves immediately and then come back to the situation fresh, which in a live game typically means that even with 17 units on the board I'll have a set of moves within ~45 seconds, take about a 60 second break doing something else, and then analyze the position. I also sometimes write a new set of orders and don't hit save, giving myself until the deadline to either submit the new set or not depending upon my analysis, so when that happens, you might never see me hit ready unless I manage to get myself off the fence between the two sets before the deadline. But, I can promise that any time I am certain of my orders, I hit ready, and in addition that in an endgame situation where it's clear that my choice will not affect the outcome, I'll also hit ready. And, I've found that I'm rarely the last person to submit orders in situations where I have the most units on the board.

It should be punishable by death.

I can understand there are some games where you get frustrated and just really don't want to spend any more thought into the game. I don't like to ruin the quality of the game, but if I get stabbed at the wrong time and have no further route to success, it's hard to spend time trying to think out moves. In this case I ready up all holds every time, and try to do it at the beginning of each phase. I'm certain this often gives an advantage to one person or another in the game, and it's unfortunate, but also I think it's a fairly decent compromise to just leaving and making them wait.

Van Ketris - that's no sort of compromise, because quitting the game isn't any sort of option. If you wouldn't do it in a live game where you're in a room with the other people. don't do it here. And, understand that people do treat NMRs, especially in live games, as things that ruin the game, and will draw/cancel accordingly. [You were also recently England in a game that should have been drawn due to NMRs, except you tried to play for a win, and only took a draw when otherwise I would have soloed, and just now you refused to do the same thing.]

When you sign up for a game, you agree to play it to the end, win or lose, and even though sometimes people aren't going to be very nice to you. If you can't manage to do that and play this game with some respect for your fellow players, or if you can't handle sometimes having a game go poorly, you shouldn't be playing.

I almost always draw for people who leave, if it's early on...so I dunno what your talking about there. The only exception is if others don't do it, or if I don't realize it then sometimes it's delayed. And in some cases I know a new game won't go that night, and am sick of not being able to play....so a flawed game is better than no game. There's a big difference between playing the game out until you can't win, and leaving early, or never showing up.

I'm not entirely concerned with what other people think, but I do try to be considerate for the most part. Ready'ing with all holds is a right...just like I can't tell you to support hold or support move. Second, the alternative is most likely going to be me going after someone and ruining their chance at victory, as much as possible, even though I have no chance at success. Which to me is just silly. If you beat someone, to where they cannot win, and they surrender, I don't see that as an unrealistic or problematic thing. I'm not a fan of delaying the game, or going out of your way to ruin the quality for others.

I'm not surprised that many will disagree, but to me I'd rather have someone "surrender" and ready all holds, than have them make moves simply to ruin someone else's chance at victory. I'm not necessarily against either though.

I'm sorry - I mixed you up with a different player in terms of England.

My point remains about all holds - surely you can find something to do with your units which is better than leaving them in place. Give yourself a goal. Maybe its spoiling the game of the player who killed you. Maybe it's rewarding them and trying to throw them a solo victory. Whatever it is, play the game. Abrogating that responsibility means you're not keeping the commitment you made when signing up.

Why can't my goal be to step aside and let those that defeated me play on?

There are some games where I do become vindictive and go after someone. However, there are other ones where I say, well done, you got me, and I have no interest in plotting how to attack with no hope, or turtle up.

It does influence the game, but so do any other decisions. I don't really see one as more or less negative, and it depends entirely on the circumstances of the game how much of an impact it has.

@YJ - I just reviewed both pages and I never responded to you. So what the fuck are you talking about?

@CSteinhardt - Delaying your loss has no significant effect on when the GR is calculated, though, as GR is adjusted at the end of the game, not the end of your loss. So unless your loss resulte din someone else's win or you are sutre they will draw as soon as you are eliminated, delaying is just a douche move.