webdiplomacy.net

Don't get me wrong, Ben. You're welcome to suggest whatever you want. Personally, I think it's just polishing the brass on the Titanic. But who knows, maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe sweeping changes to a reward system for this game could make for better play all around. I'm self aware enough to know that I'm not omniscient, and I'm all for quality games. For what little it's worth, I'm with you on the sentiment that I play wanting to win. I don't give a fiddler's fuck about points, scores, ghost rating, or whatever. Just wins and stopping someone else from winning. I don't even pay attention to game scoring type when I join a game. In a tournament, I just play the best I can and let the judges figure out the score. Further, if anyone asks me (which no one has), I'd say get rid of it all! Diplomacy points, ghost rating, all of it. Just keep track of wins/draws/losses for one's own personal reflection. Gets rid of all those bullshit motivational factors everyone seems to obsess about. But even that won't matter. People will still make decisions outside the vacuum of scoring that will make no sense to me, but whatever. At the same time, though, I suppose it doesn't really much bother me why people choose to play the way they play. Peoples is peoples. Except salty NMR's and CD's. That shit is unacceptable.

I guess I'd say if you feel that strongly, take it up with the Devs and the decision makers and email them a compelling argument. Because arguing about it on the forums is like tilting at windmills. I mean, do they even read the stuff here anymore? Moreover, I would legitimately encourage those decision makers to take any suggestions with serious thought. And you're right, any change or lack thereof won't mean a thing to how I think it'll play out in the community and I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong. So why not? Have at it.

Just don't pick the box.

I think that the quality of play is far higher on webDip than other websites I have dabbled in. I think the main reason is all the metrics we use to track results.

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:02 pm

I think that the quality of play is far higher on webDip than other websites I have dabbled in. I think the main reason is all the metrics we use to track results.

Do you think that these metrics make players better, or allow you to only play with better players?

Or rather - they obviously do the latter. Do they also do the former?

teccles wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:16 pm

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:02 pm

I think that the quality of play is far higher on webDip than other websites I have dabbled in. I think the main reason is all the metrics we use to track results.

Do you think that these metrics make players better, or allow you to only play with better players?

Or rather - they obviously do the latter. Do they also do the former?

I think there is probably a significant divide between gunboat and press games. I'm not sure anyone who plays a significant number of public full press games would say that GR and Dipcoins drive better play as opposed to driving draws and superalliances. It is not a coincidence that the most vociferous defenders of the current system generally don't play many if any public full press games.

RoganJosh wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:55 pm

Unclear what part you think is 'not true'.

Treating a draw like a cancel is the same as treating any draw as a 7WD, and it means that a draw is still better than a loss.

Sure, but barely. Difference in degree.

The current system provides incentives for behavior at set levels. Those levels could be varied. It is easy to imagine flexing the rewards to drawing down from the status quo while still providing a closed/zero-sum/ordinally-rational system.

I don't "hate" drawing as a concept. I just spent 5 hours clawing my way into one in a WDC round after my neighbors came for me early.

I just find it unfortunate that people accept draw as a default, 1901 goal rather than as an option they can play for when the executioner has led them to the very last ditch.

I do agree with Ben's underlying point. The current scoring system(s) on webDip provide too much incentive to draw. I have seen far too many games ending in a draw when they are nowhere near stalemated.

Aristocrat wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:53 pm

It is not a coincidence that the most vociferous defenders of the current system generally don't play many if any public full press games.

I'm trying to change that about myself but it is sort of self-fulfilling. If I only play one or two FP games at a time and they take months and a lot of commitment to finish, then I want to make sure I'm playing with people that I want to play with. For that reason, I've often recruited through the forums or used GR as a barometer.

But I do see the value of branching out (and lord knows I have the time) so I've joined some public ones lately.

Aristocrat wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:53 pm

teccles wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:16 pm

swordsman3003 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:02 pm

I think that the quality of play is far higher on webDip than other websites I have dabbled in. I think the main reason is all the metrics we use to track results.

Do you think that these metrics make players better, or allow you to only play with better players?

Or rather - they obviously do the latter. Do they also do the former?

I think there is probably a significant divide between gunboat and press games. I'm not sure anyone who plays a significant number of public full press games would say that GR and Dipcoins drive better play as opposed to driving draws and superalliances. It is not a coincidence that the most vociferous defenders of the current system generally don't play many if any public full press games.

Compare it to the shitshows that are public games on backstabbr and play dip? Yeah I'd say WebDip is by far the best community. And there is nothing wrong with a draw. You should always play with a solo as your primary goal, but solos should be exceedingly rare in games with good players.

Flyingboat- The only part I disagree with is "exceedingly." Its not necessarily the case (like everyone says) that a player grossly erred if someone else wins the game.

It may just be the case that a player rationally took some risks that did not pan out. Faced with the scenario, "oh gawd, player X has 8-9 builds and the rest of us only have 4-6!" ----> most players just abandon all ambition and turtle. But there is nothing wrong with ignoring Player X and swinging your own bat, especially if there is a fat pitch to swing at. Maybe the swing helps X more than the batting player. But it still probably boosts the batting player's solo odds from whatever they were ex ante.

TheFlyingBoat wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:12 am

Aristocrat wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:53 pm

teccles wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:16 pm

Do you think that these metrics make players better, or allow you to only play with better players?

Or rather - they obviously do the latter. Do they also do the former?

I think there is probably a significant divide between gunboat and press games. I'm not sure anyone who plays a significant number of public full press games would say that GR and Dipcoins drive better play as opposed to driving draws and superalliances. It is not a coincidence that the most vociferous defenders of the current system generally don't play many if any public full press games.

Compare it to the shitshows that are public games on backstabbr and play dip? Yeah I'd say WebDip is by far the best community. And there is nothing wrong with a draw. You should always play with a solo as your primary goal, but solos should be exceedingly rare in games with good players.

Much, if not all, of the difference is attributable to the way WebDip handles NMRs versus the other sites (this issue makes Backstabbr in particular unusable).

ben9990 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:06 pm

The current system provides incentives for behavior at set levels. Those levels could be varied. It is easy to imagine flexing the rewards to drawing down from the status quo while still providing a closed/zero-sum/ordinally-rational system.

This reads just like mumbo-jumbo to me.

Here's my problem with the 'always solo'-crowd, in a separate post since it's not aimed at anyone in particular. Most of these players wants an action filled game from start to finish. They want people to attack and take risks. And that's a sentiment which is fairly easy to understand and agree with.

The problem is that they think that attacking and taking risks is synonymous with playing for the solo.

A small power in a game with a clear board top has a negligible change of soloing. If you want such a player to take risks, then you need to reward their realistic achievements: growing a center, eliminating a power, overtaking a power in the rankings. An increase in the probability of soloing from negligible to negligible is completely irrelevant.

If you want more action, then you should probably reduce the value of the solo. Just do straight PPSC. That'll give you games where players battle for each sc no matter what, until the bitter end.

RoganJosh wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:27 am

Here's my problem with the 'always solo'-crowd, in a separate post since it's not aimed at anyone in particular. Most of these players wants an action filled game from start to finish. They want people to attack and take risks. And that's a sentiment which is fairly easy to understand and agree with.

The problem is that they think that attacking and taking risks is synonymous with playing for the solo.

A small power in a game with a clear board top has a negligible change of soloing. If you want such a player to take risks, then you need to reward their realistic achievements: growing a center, eliminating a power, overtaking a power in the rankings. An increase in the probability of soloing from negligible to negligible is completely irrelevant.

If you want more action, then you should probably reduce the value of the solo. Just do straight PPSC. That'll give you games where players battle for each sc no matter what, until the bitter end.

You are right.

I continue to sincerely campaign for the return of PPSC scoring as an option, and I am encouraged that you can see the benefits of that system.

As I've often said the problem with WTA is that the risk of *not winning* becomes so great that that in practice, many players have come to regard "being in a 4-way / 3-way draw" as equivalent to a win. Diplomacy done like that becomes a strategy game entirely based around *stopping* anyone from soloing, and players work together toward that end.

Bring back PPSC. Have WTA as the default, fine, sure. But the removal of the PPSC option was done badly at the time and there is a case for it to be returned.

Aristocrat wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:41 am

Much, if not all, of the difference is attributable to the way WebDip handles NMRs versus the other sites (this issue makes Backstabbr in particular unusable).

What happens when there's a NMR on Backstabbr? I've never played there.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:42 pm

Aristocrat wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:41 am

Much, if not all, of the difference is attributable to the way WebDip handles NMRs versus the other sites (this issue makes Backstabbr in particular unusable).

What happens when there's a NMR on Backstabbr? I've never played there.

Turn progresses with NMR as opposed to here where the phase timer resets while waiting for orders.

TheFlyingBoat wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:41 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:42 pm

Aristocrat wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:41 am

Much, if not all, of the difference is attributable to the way WebDip handles NMRs versus the other sites (this issue makes Backstabbr in particular unusable).

What happens when there's a NMR on Backstabbr? I've never played there.

Turn progresses with NMR as opposed to here where the phase timer resets while waiting for orders.

Oh, that's how we used to do it here too.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:41 pm

...
I continue to sincerely campaign for the return of PPSC scoring as an option, and I am encouraged that you can see the benefits of that
...
Bring back PPSC. Have WTA as the default, fine, sure. But the removal of the PPSC option was done badly at the time and there is a case for it to be returned.

Practise what you preach. There was a huge PPSC tournament last weekend. You weren't interested. I don't believe you sincerely want PPSC back.

Claesar wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:46 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:41 pm

...
I continue to sincerely campaign for the return of PPSC scoring as an option, and I am encouraged that you can see the benefits of that
...
Bring back PPSC. Have WTA as the default, fine, sure. But the removal of the PPSC option was done badly at the time and there is a case for it to be returned.

Practise what you preach. There was a huge PPSC tournament last weekend. You weren't interested. I don't believe you sincerely want PPSC back.

Technically, the vWDC was PPSC *except* in the case of a solo, where it was WTA. Whereas Jamie is arguing for PPSC in the case of a solo, as a way of encouraging more risky play.

Which, to be fair, is indeed how I remember PPSC games going here. Whether people grabbing centres for a stronger loss is is what the solo-or-bust crowd are after is another matter though

I really can't imagine why anybody would advocate for a scoring system that can give almost the same number of points for losing as for winning, but after hours of conversations on the topic I have in fact become convinced that a WTA version of PPSC is my preferred scoring system.

This was strengthened by my experience at WDC where I greatly enjoyed the total absence of draw whittling enabled by the scoring. Artificial draw thinning is Diplomacy's great disgrace.

FtF games are time-limited. Totally different objective, totally different game, so makes sense for them to be scored differently.

Online, here, solos should be rewarded far in excess of center count. You have to take risks and clear milestones to solo (like sending that fleet across the stalemate line to take Tunis early, when you *really* need it to fight England right now) that "board-topping" does not require. At very least, WTA version of PPSC i hope.