webdiplomacy.net

Gabe The Fancy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:46 pm

kgray wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:39 pm

Don't play DSS

I agree 100%. SoS is the way to go - as well as playing anonymous. I'm looking more for tactical or diplomatic in game solutions.

You do know that SoS soring is against the official, printed rules of the game, right? And you're here complaining about a so-called "unspoken rule"?

JECE wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:26 pm

soring

scoring

JECE wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:26 pm

Gabe The Fancy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:46 pm

kgray wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:39 pm

Don't play DSS

I agree 100%. SoS is the way to go - as well as playing anonymous. I'm looking more for tactical or diplomatic in game solutions.

You do know that SoS soring is against the official, printed rules of the game, right? And you're here complaining about a so-called "unspoken rule"?

The official, printed rules of the game do not allocate "points" at all.
The official, printed rules of the game do not provide a scoring system.

Gabe The Fancy wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:07 pm

As I mentioned in my OP. The point of the game is to try to win - anything other than that is against the spirit of the game. A draw is the second best possible outcome which should be settled on after it becomes too challenging to get that win. I am clearly not a top player - but how can I ever improve if I am not challenging myself?

Το challenge one's self is the way to improve, but there are limits. Let me give you an example from my favourite game, chess. I have an Elo of 1144 at the moment, I can play against a player of 1600 and hope to win, I can't do it with a player of 2000. There I can hope only to force a draw. The same goes for diplomacy, only that my Elo here is much much lower. So I play with the draw on my mind.

Prince William, I think anyone can solo if the right situation presents itself. Even you. Your task is to put the right situation in place. I know, I am supposed to be a carebear, I am, almost always. But the way to win it seems is to form a strong alliance and then spill the blood of your trusty ally. That is how you solo. It isn't something that really does it for me though.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:57 pm

JECE wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:26 pm

Gabe The Fancy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:46 pm

I agree 100%. SoS is the way to go - as well as playing anonymous. I'm looking more for tactical or diplomatic in game solutions.

You do know that SoS scoring is against the official, printed rules of the game, right? And you're here complaining about a so-called "unspoken rule"?

The official, printed rules of the game do not allocate "points" at all.
The official, printed rules of the game do not provide a scoring system.

The official, printed rules of the game are very clear. The very first page of the rules demand that draws be shared "equally". Any evaluation of player performance (such as SoS scoring) that does not honor the requirement that draws be shared equally does not honor the object of the game known as Diplomacy.

"OBJECT OF THE GAME: As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner. However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally in a draw."

Personally, I like DSS because it encourages smaller nations to keep fighting for a share of the pot and get the other players to draw. If you're playing for one coin, it's not worth it! But if you're playing for 15 or so, I'd definitely keep playing!

And, as a large nation, I like DSS more because it encourages me to wipe out the smaller players, therefore putting off a draw for a while, maybe then another player will try for a solo!

SoS, in my opinion, just encourages players to draw faster than if you play with DSS.

I'm also a fan of DSS because it incentivizes smaller nations to keep fighting. People are more likely to do what they're incentivized to do. SoS treats a player with 1 center as though they're barely worth noticing, which of course is often hardly not the case.

DSS incentivizes players to remain engaged.

The real issue with Carebears is they're basically playing a different game than someone who's looking to solo. The idea of "winning with someone" changes the intent of Diplomacy to something else entirely.

Another aspect of DSS vs SOS is in the GhostRating adjustments.

The following game is an example:
https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?game ... #gamePanel

BornAgainGamer (115 GB GR at the time) is board top (14SCs) and his GR was increased by 3 to 118.
Werner (126 GB GR at the time) is second (12SCs) and his GR was increased by 2 to 128.
Thibauld (103 GB GR at the time) is the other drawing player (8SCs) and his GR is not increased, even though he had a significantly lower GR going in.

If it were DSS, the assignment of increases in GR would have been quite different.

FlaviusAetius wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:41 pm

Perhaps think of it like this then;
An alliance forms by people for any given reason, once it forms they go through thick and thin together to try to survive and after all that time sometimes they end up in a success. They defeated their opponents and conquered the world side by side through all the struggles it had caused.

At what point would they throw this away to betray each other? In some games you are just right, it amounts to a chat a well developed and thorough one that amounts to a grand old victory.

Perhaps one lad stops talking to the other, perhaps rumors are spread, suspicions arise, and other allies form on the horizon. If you want to defeat a carebear alliance, you need to carebear someone else! Ideally one of the partners, talking with them, developing thorough strategies and eventually convincing them to side with you. A long with well timed rumors etc.

A carebear alliance is a sign of a successful diplomacy between powers, but not unbreakable. It becomes unbreakable when an alliance is well formed and precautions are kept to make sure betrayal becomes a near impossibility and entirely unadvantageous.

These people are playing much the same game as you, the solo not necessarily by choice went out the window.

Thats not really a carebear alliance. Thats just a well balanced game natural conclusion to a game.

Insisting that people are playing the game wrong isn't going to do anyone any good. It just comes across as an expression of impotent rage and while it might drive some "carebears" from posting on the forum, it won't change the way they play or keep them out of your games.

I assure you that "carebears" are not deliberately trying to ruin your fun. Nor are they ruining the fun of everyone else they play with. The other "carebears" are perfectly happy to have them in their games.

The problem isn't with the carebears nor with the not-carebears. The problem is that the two groups end up in the same games. So if you are worried about carebears ruining your fun what you can do is create a game and call it something like "Treachery for Fun and Profit". Then advertise it on the forums and explain how all players are expected to play to win and not doing so would ruin the fun and if you manage to do that without using the phrase "carebears" in a derogatory way I assure you this will solve 90% of your carebear problems.

Most carebears are decent people and will prefer to join games where they are wanted instead. Especially the true carebears who enjoy building relationships and making friends. The ones who carebear for easy diplo points (and might be more appropriately called "point hunters") won't be deterred as much, but they're also more likely to actually stab an ally if given a really good opportunity. Especially so if the game is anonymous.

Anonymous games in general are better for the sort of dynamic play with shifting alliance the not-carebears want because the anonymity hides any stabbing you might have done in previous games, so it's easier to get away with. And knowing your future games will be anonymous too removes the concern of having a track record of treachery. Meanwhile "point hunters" would much prefer being able to see that track record because it reduces the uncertainty of forging alliances, so they will naturally gravitate towards non-anonymous games.

As for the draw style, I don't think SoS will deter true carebears from joining your game. In fact they might like it better because they don't care as much for score and it'll make it easier for them to convince an adversary to allow their 1-center friend to survive. SoS might deter the point hunters though because it forces them to care how many centers each member of their alliance is getting.

To sum up, you can deter true carebears from joining your games with proper naming and asking nicely and you can deter point hunters by making your games anonymous with SoS draw scoring.

Yeah, but if someone came to a casino and joined a poker game, and proceeded to play 52 card pick up, the casino wouldn't deter them by asking nicely and changing the name of their poker games. It would deter them by telling them to get the hell out and only come back when they've had the decency to learn how to play poker and have the decency to respect their fellow players.

Casinos are a profit-seeking business, not a gaming community. They are working on the basis of making money, not having fun. So you cannot compare the two things.
Would you prefer to have players playing this way because they like honesty and honour or not have these players at all?

If it helps, then replace a casino with a scrabble tournament in which one of the players decides his way of playing will be to eat the tiles, or a football tournament with a repeat of the disgrace of Gijón.

These are fundamentally dishonest players who have no honour, and I'd very much prefer it if they didn't exist here

The scrabble analogy is of irrational behaviour, not a style of playing. Here we discuss a different approach to the game within the rules.
I am not familiar with the football example.
What is honourable and what is not differs from one person to another.
Should weak players who know that they cannot win and have to play for the draw not play at all?

PRINCE WILLIAM wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:08 pm

The scrabble analogy is of irrational behaviour, not a style of playing.

You don't consider playing a competitive game without any ambition of winning to be irrational?

PRINCE WILLIAM wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:08 pm

Should weak players who know that they cannot win and have to play for the draw not play at all?

Lose, learn from the loss, and improve. And then you start to win. Your alternative of permanently inhabiting a comfort zone somewhere below mediocrity is a far worse way to exist. Besides which, as I have tried to get across to you on more occasions than I care to recall, the primary reason that you are a weak player is the utterly wrong belief that you can't win. You are your own worst enemy.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 08, 2022 4:26 pm

These are fundamentally dishonest players who have no honour, and I'd very much prefer it if they didn't exist here

If you think people who keep their word and don't backstab are dishonest and have no honor then we must have very different ideas about the meaning of the words "honor" and "dishonest". If anything those players are excessively honest and honorable.

Your game analogies also fail because the carebears are playing by all the same technical rules as you. It's less playing 52 card pick up and more playing poker and trying to only win with a flush or better. It's less eating the scrabble pieces and more deliberately making low scoring words.

The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gij%C3%B3n]Disgrace of Gijón[url] example is better, though it's still not perfect because in football there is a broader consensus about what the spirit of the game is.

It seems like the best strategy for dealing with carebears is to:
1. Identify them
2. Pretend to be one and form a "carebear alliance"
3. Stab them at the end for the win.

Why can't that work?

tr1285 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 08, 2022 7:37 pm

It seems like the best strategy for dealing with carebears is to:
1. Identify them
2. Pretend to be one and form a "carebear alliance"
3. Stab them at the end for the win.

Why can't that work?

Easier said than done. Often times you're a few years in to a game before their obvious underhanded play is obvious. I think specifically the carebear alliances that I have a problem with are the two party alliances. Having a third party involved in a alliance is enough to allow some room for diplomacy or tactics to come in to play.

I started this thread looking for real time tactical or diplomatic solutions to crack apart these two person pacts. Truthfully I feel like the only option to deal with these people when you are facing them is to throw the game to the larger power. Sure, its a shitty thing to do - however, the carebears are the ones who violated the spirit of the game in the first place so turnabout is fair play.

Carol wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 08, 2022 7:20 pm

If you think people who keep their word and don't backstab are dishonest and have no honor then we must have very different ideas about the meaning of the words "honor" and "dishonest".

I don't think we do. I think fundamentally we can agree that it's dishonest and dishonourable to enter a competition in which you have no intention to compete, can we not? Asking whether or not lying or stabbing in Diplomacy reflects upon your personal honesty and honour is as ridiculous a question as asking whether winning at Hungry Hungry Hippos suggests that a person is selfish and greedy.