Re-Education camps for Care Bears??

[Ginge86]

As we all know, the lowest form of diplomacy player is a Care Bear.

They are cowards of the highest order, valuing what they call reputation, over playing the game fairly. Or in other words, valuing the fact they can point to there awful stats in games, in order to secure allies, as they have 0 confidence in there actual ability.

My view, is that we need to establish a few Gulags. In order to properly deal with this scourge. Something a long the lines of forced re-education seems to be a fitting punishment for their crimes. Although I am also open to capital punishment, if that is what the people demand.

I am putting out a call to all fellow diplomacy players. It is time to get your pitchforks out. Lets hunt them down, lock them up and throw away the key.

Would you agree?

Before we all cry, this is clearly a joke, I do not actually want to murder people

[Doom427]

You don't want to murder them? Probably bc you already made an alliance and are planning a 3-way draw with them

[Ginge86]

You don't want to murder them? Probably bc you already made an alliance and are planning a 3-way draw with them

Draw?
What is this rubbish?
How dare you use such disgusting language on my thread

[Gabe The Fancy]

Please read....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3840

Carebears are just the worst.

[Ginge86]

Please read....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3840

Carebears are just the worst.

Thanks for that, nice to know I am not alone in my hatred of these cretins. I think this comment below by OctiBaby sums it up best

Octavious » Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:32 am

We've told you often enough, old chap. It's because it isn't fun.

Where there's a willingness to stab and a lust for the solo the game is dynamic and exciting. There's always hope for a change in fortunes, always a reason to carry on fighting.

Where you have games full of the sort of cretin who forms a permanent alliance the entire sorry affair boils down to just one decision of any significance. The rest is just the tedious fallout that bullys other players into turning up every day or two for weeks on end to enter an utterly meaningless order for the sake of preserving a rating.

You have often spoken of your distaste for betrayal completely oblivious to the fact that you have utterly betrayed every single player who has ever had the misfortune to play in the same game as you.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Being a serial Carebear seems pointless to me - why play the game if you're never going to try for the solo? If a player\s profile has a ton of games and no solos then I agree they're playing the game wrong.

That said, I'm not so confident that I can correctly identify a Carebear in any particular game. There are confounding factors:

- Some alliances become self-reinforcing, even if individual members might have originally preferred to try for the solo. Breaking up an alliance always risks throwing the game to other players, one member getting too powerful for comfort, etc.

- Building a trusting alliance is a huge part of this game and players who know how to read the map will reinforce partnerships by demanding particular DMZs, center-swaps, etc. If this is done well, breaking the alliance will probably not result in a solo.

- Some people are just really good at press. If someone can hold together a Carebear coalition based on press alone (exploiting other players' desire for revenge, making other possible coalition partners seem totally unreliable, etc.) are they playing the game wrong, or playing it well?

- Finally, I don't know if it's right to say that everyone should have the same risk tolerance. Even players who agree that the goal of this game is to maximize points could reasonably disagree on the extent to which it's reasonable to gamble on a solo when they're already in a position the rating system rewards.

[Ginge86]

Being a serial Carebear seems pointless to me - why play the game if you're never going to try for the solo? If a player\s profile has a ton of games and no solos then I agree they're playing the game wrong.

That said, I'm not so confident that I can correctly identify a Carebear in any particular game. There are confounding factors:

1- Some alliances become self-reinforcing, even if individual members might have originally preferred to try for the solo. Breaking up an alliance always risks throwing the game to other players, one member getting too powerful for comfort, etc.

2- Building a trusting alliance is a huge part of this game and players who know how to read the map will reinforce partnerships by demanding particular DMZs, center-swaps, etc. If this is done well, breaking the alliance will probably not result in a solo.

3- Some people are just really good at press. If someone can hold together a Carebear coalition based on press alone (exploiting other players' desire for revenge, making other possible coalition partners seem totally unreliable, etc.) are they playing the game wrong, or playing it well?

4- Finally, I don't know if it's right to say that everyone should have the same risk tolerance. Even players who agree that the goal of this game is to maximize points could reasonably disagree on the extent to which it's reasonable to gamble on a solo when they're already in a position the rating system rewards.

to answer each statement alone

1 - No harm in trying as you just re-ally if needed later
2 - Plan a stab properly and this doesn't matter
3 - If your really good at press, you can stab and get away with it. Trust me. So they should stab and win if they are so good, also if not trying for solo is a pattern, then that is an issue.
4 - True but if every game you start not even trying, you should not be playing diplomacy.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Being a serial Carebear seems pointless to me - why play the game if you're never going to try for the solo? If a player\s profile has a ton of games and no solos then I agree they're playing the game wrong.

That said, I'm not so confident that I can correctly identify a Carebear in any particular game. There are confounding factors:

1- Some alliances become self-reinforcing, even if individual members might have originally preferred to try for the solo. Breaking up an alliance always risks throwing the game to other players, one member getting too powerful for comfort, etc.

2- Building a trusting alliance is a huge part of this game and players who know how to read the map will reinforce partnerships by demanding particular DMZs, center-swaps, etc. If this is done well, breaking the alliance will probably not result in a solo.

3- Some people are just really good at press. If someone can hold together a Carebear coalition based on press alone (exploiting other players' desire for revenge, making other possible coalition partners seem totally unreliable, etc.) are they playing the game wrong, or playing it well?

4- Finally, I don't know if it's right to say that everyone should have the same risk tolerance. Even players who agree that the goal of this game is to maximize points could reasonably disagree on the extent to which it's reasonable to gamble on a solo when they're already in a position the rating system rewards.

to answer each statement alone

1 - No harm in trying as you just re-ally if needed later
2 - Plan a stab properly and this doesn't matter
3 - If your really good at press, you can stab and get away with it. Trust me. So they should stab and win if they are so good, also if not trying for solo is a pattern, then that is an issue.
4 - True but if every game you start not even trying, you should not be playing diplomacy.

Those are all valid points, but they might ignore uncertainty in the game or the possibility that not all players are as good as the GOAT lol

1- Sometimes you can't re-ally later. If you're in a three way coalition, good luck being the country that breaks it first.
2 - Sometimes you plan poorly, are out-planned by your opponent, or both players are very good and create a line that genuinely makes it worthless for either player to stab
3 - If a losing player uses press to get into the draw that's great for them. Doesn't mean they'll be able to use the press to then move onto a solo.
4 - I generally agree with this, but it's hard to say that's the way the game HAS to be played. I would personally take a 50/50 chance to solo or lose, but I struggle to say that someone who needs a 51% chance is playing wrong.

The Carebear problem is central to Diplomacy, otherwise the game would just be Risk. It's game ruining if everyone starts gunning for huge draws in many circumstances, but it would be a totally different game if people couldn't form useful and lasting coalitions (reinforced by board movements and press).

My personal view is it would be better if the point schedule better rewarded players who went for solos or at least smaller draws, but I sense there's exhaustion with the topic of scoring lol.

[Ginge86]

Being a serial Carebear seems pointless to me - why play the game if you're never going to try for the solo? If a player\s profile has a ton of games and no solos then I agree they're playing the game wrong.

That said, I'm not so confident that I can correctly identify a Carebear in any particular game. There are confounding factors:

1- Some alliances become self-reinforcing, even if individual members might have originally preferred to try for the solo. Breaking up an alliance always risks throwing the game to other players, one member getting too powerful for comfort, etc.

2- Building a trusting alliance is a huge part of this game and players who know how to read the map will reinforce partnerships by demanding particular DMZs, center-swaps, etc. If this is done well, breaking the alliance will probably not result in a solo.

3- Some people are just really good at press. If someone can hold together a Carebear coalition based on press alone (exploiting other players' desire for revenge, making other possible coalition partners seem totally unreliable, etc.) are they playing the game wrong, or playing it well?

4- Finally, I don't know if it's right to say that everyone should have the same risk tolerance. Even players who agree that the goal of this game is to maximize points could reasonably disagree on the extent to which it's reasonable to gamble on a solo when they're already in a position the rating system rewards.

to answer each statement alone

1 - No harm in trying as you just re-ally if needed later
2 - Plan a stab properly and this doesn't matter
3 - If your really good at press, you can stab and get away with it. Trust me. So they should stab and win if they are so good, also if not trying for solo is a pattern, then that is an issue.
4 - True but if every game you start not even trying, you should not be playing diplomacy.

Those are all valid points, but they might ignore uncertainty in the game or the possibility that not all players are as good as the GOAT lol

1- Sometimes you can't re-ally later. If you're in a three way coalition, good luck being the country that breaks it first.
2 - Sometimes you plan poorly, are out-planned by your opponent, or both players are very good and create a line that genuinely makes it worthless for either player to stab
3 - If a losing player uses press to get into the draw that's great for them. Doesn't mean they'll be able to use the press to then move onto a solo.
4 - I generally agree with this, but it's hard to say that's the way the game HAS to be played. I would personally take a 50/50 chance to solo or lose, but I struggle to say that someone who needs a 51% chance is playing wrong.

The Carebear problem is central to Diplomacy, otherwise the game would just be Risk. It's game ruining if everyone starts gunning for huge draws in many circumstances, but it would be a totally different game if people couldn't form useful and lasting coalitions (reinforced by board movements and press).

My personal view is it would be better if the point schedule better rewarded players who went for solos or at least smaller draws, but I sense there's exhaustion with the topic of scoring lol.

But you will never improve, unless you try

1 - Watch a high level game, good players will re-ally, they do not hold grudges, unless it benefits their game.
2 - Get better at stabbing, practice it, very rare a stab cannot be pulled off
3 - If your losing that is different, then you play for a draw, we are discussing people who plan for the draw on turn 1, situational draws are acceptable
4 - Watch a high level game, stab, stab and stab again.

I just personally think Care Bears ruin the game, I truly hope I never play with one again but alas, these cretins are common here

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

to answer each statement alone

1 - No harm in trying as you just re-ally if needed later
2 - Plan a stab properly and this doesn't matter
3 - If your really good at press, you can stab and get away with it. Trust me. So they should stab and win if they are so good, also if not trying for solo is a pattern, then that is an issue.
4 - True but if every game you start not even trying, you should not be playing diplomacy.

Those are all valid points, but they might ignore uncertainty in the game or the possibility that not all players are as good as the GOAT lol

1- Sometimes you can't re-ally later. If you're in a three way coalition, good luck being the country that breaks it first.
2 - Sometimes you plan poorly, are out-planned by your opponent, or both players are very good and create a line that genuinely makes it worthless for either player to stab
3 - If a losing player uses press to get into the draw that's great for them. Doesn't mean they'll be able to use the press to then move onto a solo.
4 - I generally agree with this, but it's hard to say that's the way the game HAS to be played. I would personally take a 50/50 chance to solo or lose, but I struggle to say that someone who needs a 51% chance is playing wrong.

The Carebear problem is central to Diplomacy, otherwise the game would just be Risk. It's game ruining if everyone starts gunning for huge draws in many circumstances, but it would be a totally different game if people couldn't form useful and lasting coalitions (reinforced by board movements and press).

My personal view is it would be better if the point schedule better rewarded players who went for solos or at least smaller draws, but I sense there's exhaustion with the topic of scoring lol.

But you will never improve, unless you try

1 - Watch a high level game, good players will re-ally, they do not hold grudges, unless it benefits their game.
2 - Get better at stabbing, practice it, very rare a stab cannot be pulled off
3 - If your losing that is different, then you play for a draw, we are discussing people who plan for the draw on turn 1, situational draws are acceptable
4 - Watch a high level game, stab, stab and stab again.

I just personally think Care Bears ruin the game, I truly hope I never play with one again but alas, these cretins are common here

So your assessment is "be better and you won't have to draw". I agree with that haha and would love to solo more. But along the way I'm going to have to play a bunch of games with other beginners who, unlike you, are not well ranked and haven't played hundreds of bot games. If these players sometimes lack the confidence to stab I'm not going to be surprised, and I will take it as a personal press challenge to try to get them to do whatever is more advantageous for me :)