webdiplomacy.net

I very much appreciate all of the great work that has gone/is going into this website – moderators, programmers, developers, administrators… a big thank you! :)

In response to some recent posts from individuals that would like to see increased uptake in live press games, I suggested a few website improvements that may enhance the user experience and consequently improve the popularity and participation in live games.

Are these workable ideas, or is there a reason to not do these things? If they are good ideas, who is the decider? Who needs to be contacted? What is the process?

Thanks for considering!

Vom Kriege


Potential Enhancements:

1) Decoupling phase lengths for diplomacy and retreat/build phases (for live games only)

Permitting one phase time for the spring and fall moves/diplomacy period, and one phase time for retreats and builds would be a great option. I like having live games with rulebook messaging… but the time requirements for having meaningful diplomacy/messaging are not the same as the time requirement for retreats and builds.

2) Removing players immediately after the first NMR (for live games only)

I'd like to see players removed immediately after their first NMR (live games only) as to not hold up the game for people that are actually playing, and permit others to fill in

3) Automatic refresh (for live games only)

It would be great to not need to constantly refresh to see if there are new messages or to see if a phase has ended.

4) Generating automatic games and predetermined times with predetermined settings (for live games only)

If automatically generated games were advertised and became well known over time, it would have a very good chance of supporting more people playing live games. The predetermined times could be, for example, every 12 hours (e.g. 7am and 7 pm daily) - I suspect that the administrators know when the popular starting times are. The settings could vary depending on popularity and demand (e.g. Mondays are 15 minute phases, Tuesdays are 10 minutes, and so forth with all of the variable settings) - and amend based on demand/feedback over time. Games should only become available to join one hour before start time, to prevent NMR problems. At worst, a game doesn't fill and just gets canceled. [Poker website use a similar approach of automatically generating games.]

While the focus of this post seems to be on live games, it tends to be easier to implement features across the board as opposed to limiting features to apply only in certain instances. Given that, I don't think any development will be aimed exclusively at live games unless it can also be directed to games with longer phase lengths as well.

1.)

Having different phase lengths for different seasons or for retreats and builds may be possible but I don't see that happening in the near future. Rulebook press is our implementation of a face-to-face style, wherein people have the opportunity to speak with one another for as long as they like during the move phases so long as they get their orders in on time but retreats and builds must be put in without any press. In face-to-face, people are asked to put in their orders immediately during retreats and builds, but that is only possible because everyone is already standing around the table with their pen and paper ready to go. Online Diplomacy is obviously the same game as face-to-face Diplomacy, but some facets are different, one being that you are not mandated to be present at the deadline in order to have your orders processed and have a chance to put in retreats and builds. For those playing a 7-minute-per-phase live game with rulebook press, the time during the retreats might be a convenient time to take a bathroom break or grab a snack. For those that play games with longer phases, they may not have time to log into the site and necessarily enter their orders upon first visiting the game during the phase. When playing online, players are entitled to the full length of the phase for reasons such as those. Rulebook press encourages players to ready up their orders and process those transitional phases as quickly as possible, but ultimately we cannot mandate that everyone be around the table when the orders are processed like you can in face-to-face games.

2.)

Changes are in the works to revamp our CD and NMR system. I don't want to go into the details before they are revealed, but we are working on creating a game option to remove players from the game and extend the phase another phase length upon NMRs.

3.)

Automatically refreshing games at the deadline is a good idea on the surface, but it becomes problematic quickly when you consider that some players, especially in live games, may be typing out a message while the timer hits zero. A refresh would erase the progress of their message and ultimately mess them up pretty badly for the upcoming phase. That's largely why I don't see this happening. However, automatically updating press (so that a new message is posted without refreshing the game) is part of our to-do list, though we are not ready to reveal that feature right now. I do not know if an automatically updating board and order entry is possible within that scope, but in an ideal world where we have enough development help to make it happen, that could be possible.

4.)

Without discussing the merits of this idea, I do not believe this is possible within our current game interface simply because all games are currently hosted by a player, and if there is no game host, there is no game. If you create a game and leave while you are the only player waiting for it to begin, the game will be canceled immediately. It will not show 7 open positions. As such, I don't think it is possible to automatically create a game without actually having a hosting player.

Thanks for the detailed response and considering the suggestions. I'm glad to hear some thought is going into 2) and 3). With regard to 1), I was thinking of live games with more meaningful diplomacy phases such as 12-15 minutes, where clearly that amount of time is not needed for retreats and builds. I'm not a programmer, so I'll trust you that 4) is complex.

Again, thanks for taking the time to address my suggestions. :)

Vom Kriege wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:09 am

Thanks for the detailed response and considering the suggestions. I'm glad to hear some thought is going into 2) and 3). With regard to 1), I was thinking of live games with more meaningful diplomacy phases such as 12-15 minutes, where clearly that amount of time is not needed for retreats and builds. I'm not a programmer, so I'll trust you that 4) is complex.

Again, thanks for taking the time to address my suggestions. :)

Have you ever tried live games with 12-15 minutes per phase? I estimate those would take more than 6 hours.

Our most common options (by far) are 5, 7 and 10 minutes.

Hey Claesar,

When I played live games they were 15 minute diplomacy phases with 5 minutes for builds/retreats. Yup, you are right - game are longer - they took about 4-5 hours. I very much suspect that I'm in the minority regarding my interest for longer phased diplomacy periods in live games (i.e. 12-15 minutes). If you caught one of my prior topics, I guess I just believe that the game Diplomacy is first and foremost a game about diplomacy, negotiations, persuasion and so forth. The essence of the game to me is greatly diminished when move analysis, move submissions AND diplomacy is limited to 7 minutes or less.

Just my 2 cents - and I concede that I am very likely in the minority here. That said, if there is an appetite for the diplomats that wish to play Diplomacy, decoupling the build/retreats from the diplomacy phase lengths is the best way to bring down the game duration - and (hopefully) address the problem that you sited while maintaining the essence of the game.