Messages - webDiplomacy

Chat archive

11 Mar 16 UTC	Spring, 1999: Hello! Good luck!
25 Mar 16 UTC	Spring, 2005: woooooo! gg all!
05 Apr 16 UTC	Autumn, 2009: I'm going on vacation and won't have internet from the 7th through the 17th. Everyone please pause and I'll pause last on the evening of the 6th.
06 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2010: I'll be leaving tonight. Unless you want the game to be ruined by a late-game CD, everyone should pause tonight. Thank you.
06 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2010: May I propose a draw before Florida solos off the 4v1 we've got going on? Everyone is up points.
06 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2010: Ok vote draw
08 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2011: Hi all. I took over Mexico. There seems to be a general pull for a draw. I don't wish to obstruct and will add my vote. If Florida isn't up for that, I'll be in touch with all soon.
14 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2014: Guys, he's six away from a solo. He's two away from having half the board. We are still bouncing around against each other and not attacking the most vulnerable part of his front in the northeast. It might be too late, but we should be doing things like having BC dislodge Montana and Saskat voluntarily and bringing New York territories back as builds on the exposed front. We need to stop defending our borders with each other and attack as a unit. We may still be able to force this draw. I wanted to send this press to the group so we can all express our commitment here, though we should take tactical planning private. We're very close to the end if we don't.
14 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2014: I'm in!
22 Apr 16 UTC	So New New York here. Can we end this Florida or what?
22 Apr 16 UTC	WTF? What is rule book press? This didn't say winner takes all
23 Apr 16 UTC	I think you would need to be in the game from the start to have shared the pot, if you bet 0, because like me you joined later to replace someone, then you get nothing.
23 Apr 16 UTC	Isn't all WebDiplomacy-games "winner takes it all", othervise it wouldn't be much of a win... Anyway, good game all!
23 Apr 16 UTC	No not all, it's what it says on the game, "sum of squares" that's not winner takes all.
23 Apr 16 UTC	But then BC would have gotten points. "Sum of squares" and "draw size scoring" just affects draws. And "rulebook press" seem to be about just being able to chat during diplomacy-turns
23 Apr 16 UTC	You need more than 2 supply centres to get points
23 Apr 16 UTC	I think the new rules have changed things. Whatever sum-of-squares used to be didn't do this. I soloed a game once in AnctMed and the last player standing with me still made points. We didn't draw and it wasn't his original bet. If it isn't WTA then an end game shouldn't be WTA especially in this case New York (the original) should have gotten his SUM OF SQUARES. Otherwise don't call it this. The point of that system is if you do well, but not the best, you still get something regardless of draws.
23 Apr 16 UTC	New York would have got his points if he had not left the game, the person taking over bets 0 and gets nothing.
23 Apr 16 UTC	Really? Didn't know that... Must say it sounds a bit wierd but I don't know the rules good enough to keep opposing
23 Apr 16 UTC	Zero bet people do get points back. Otherwise no one would take over CDs