Committed

I agree, I thought that the 4 games would be mixed (some players from A1 play A2 and A3) But I guess not. I assume that the Primier League would be professional enough to to not let one game carry into the other but when you're in B league like me, you get a little scared.

I seriously think tournament GM should consider scrambling the games up.

I probably look like an incompetent fool to all people in my league now, so there's that..

We seriously need a way to scramble this or something. I have reason to believe that the non-anonymity of the games is actively influencing the outcome, or will influence the outcome, in a rather negative manner, simply because of metagame/fear of the metagame.

It should be anonymous. If one player already soloed, all the others are going to team up on them.

Why don't you just play anon? Anyways, the metagame, in terms of trust, opinions of a player (not of through game alliances) is part of what makes the league special.

Guys, the point of the leagues is that there's a legal meta aspect. That's what sets them apart from everything else on the site.

Lol one of my allies randomly attacked me becuase they "didnt want to appear too biased for the games to come" Yeah it's definitely having an active influence

I don't enjoy it one bit. I would gladly give up my spot and never participate in this again. No for me.

Ditto basically everyone. It's all within the rules, sure, but it's messed up.

It gets really weird when the second game starts and you're still in the old one. I may want to team up against a player in the new game, but I am wary of doing so because it might trigger a stab in the other.

Leagues suck. Can't stand it. Make it stop please

@rmf: that would be a violation of the rules I believe..?

But do you realize how easy it would be to justify the stab? It's a violation of the rules, yes, but it would be rather difficult to prove that the stab was based on illegal meta.

It's not against the rules. The leagues allow metagaming.

Not metagaming as in "Yo let's never stab eachother in the entire series" though, right? It allows a metagaming element, not that stuff, correct?

Yeah, you're allowed to make decisions based on things that happen in the other games, but simple cross-game alliances aren't allowed.

Personally, I like the leagues (although less because of my poor choices in Game 1). In later rounds it forces non-standard alliances and openings because of the impact of the standings

I was wary about the Leagues, but find it quite fascinating actually.
It introduces a completely new element into the game and requires far more strategic thinking to come out on top over a period of 4 games - the shifting nature of alliances will actually make it extremely interesting, especially in game 2 and 3.

The metagaming aspect of Leagues was discussed explicitly in the threads when the league was proposed - I remember abge posting about it and discussing how the meatgaming aspect was super fun - any description of the tournament also makes it explicitly clear - so there's no way it can be cancelled now cos a few players haven't done so well.

As for the games being anon - that defeats the purpose entirely. If the games were 4 anon games, it would be just 4 separate standard games. The whole point of the leagues is the non-anon part - it introduces the shifting alliances and added layer of strategic though which makes the Leagues unique.

^
The extra dimension to strategic decisions also allows for more solo possibilities.

Looks like Sh@dow crossposted me with something far more detailed.

The leagues are what they are. I can't stand them myself, which is why I didn't join. For those that love them (such as the late, great Draugnar) they offer a unique flavour of diplomacy and it would be a shame to see that flavour go.

I think those in the leagues and not enjoying them should persevere, and make sure you give them a damned good shot before deciding, at the end of the season, whether to leave them or not. Like a new pair of shoes, they may grow on you once broken in. Or they may make you very angry and generally unpleasent to be around. Time will tell :).

I disagree that there is a "legal" form of meta-gaming in non-anon league play, and I site the below European Diplomacy Association's 4 point code of ethics on meta-gaming as support.

While taking current league standings into account to enter alliance to maximize your own overall league result is fine, making alliance or retaliation decisions based on what happened in a previous game is not consistent with the spirit or ethics of the game.

Here is the EDA's 4 point code of ethics on meta-gaming from the, from the article 'Meta-Gaming and Diplomacy' by Stephen Agar.*
1.You should always play so that you maximise your own score and ranking in the tournament, or in the game you are playing.
2.You should not engage in cross-gaming. That is, you must not give favours to another player in exchange for assistance in earlier games or for the hope or promise of assistance in later games. Every game is a new one and should be treated as such. You should not try to take revenge for a stab or elimination that occurred in any other game.
3.You should act properly when conducting diplomacy with other players and must not cheat or complain at the least provocation. You should act the statesman you are supposed to be.
4.You should never attack or ally with any other player for purely ethnical or geographic reasons.

*Thanks to Valis for provided the link in this winter's orginal League sign-up thread:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/meta.htm

chluke, to the best of my understanding - the webDip Leagues is entirely consistent with the points you made above. No one objects to that I think.

As I am not an advocate to quit the round like Bo, if possible I will not go to round two. I will see this through as I agree with Octavious. but this type of gaming is not for me.

Sh@dow, I think a lot of people are implying that subtle meta-gaming will occur, or is even permissible, where it would violates this EDA ethics statement at the end of point #2:
"You should not try to take revenge for a stab or elimination that occurred in any other game."

normally you are not ensure that you will play 7 different countries in 7 rounds. Normally you are allowed to send press to other players. Normally, in the rulebook or tournaments or in face-to-face play when those effects rules were made especially, there would be no such thing as anonymous. normally the map is for 7 players. however there are game modes and tournament modes explicitly break these rules in order for variety and fun. The leagues is one of these.

in addition, the only aspect that abge mentioned was ganging up on the current score more the leader for your league, which is already allowable in the tournament FX most places, such as the guide for tournament play that Edi Birsan released. cross game prejudice is a more complicated matter

I personally am enjoying the leagues! The added layer of alliances as mentioned my Sh@dow seems really interesting. I'm not sure what there is to not like about them so far. Perhaps in games 2-4 when non-standard alliances are being formed the game may get weird but this is something you have to plan for. I view this as one really long game in which you can solo win by actually not ever getting a solo. It seems all the Care Bears would like this. Though, perhaps that is the problem... time will tell. My only issue is yes the second game is about to start and there are still 6 players alive in my current game. But hey that's part of the challenge.

The "meta-gaming" aspect of the leagues is debatable. Consider it like this - you are not playing 4-games, you are playing on game in 4-part. Thus, just as the early rise of a player in the first half of a single game may cause others to gang up against him in the later years of that game, so too will the early success of a player in one or two games cause others to gang up on him in the later stages of the 4-part league match.

Further, the complaint of meta-gaming in the league play is much different than meta-gaming in regular games.

I find it odd/curious that ssoren complains of meta-gaming. Don't take this wrong - but meta-gaming in any non-anonymous game is par for the course. I am NOT accusing ssoren or anyone else of cheating -- but to suggest that ssoren does not use his knowledge of a player for his own advantages is ludicrous in the extreme. He will use prior relations with a person to enhance his negotiating skills with/against them.

For myself, I will use my most obvious "meta-gaming" point (if it can be called meta-gaming). I am very familiar with a particular former-mod's style of play/negotiation tactics. I will definitely use that prior knowledge, gained from my knowledge of him as a person through the forums, and through my experience gaming with him, to change my negotiating style with him. I will also inform others as to my knowledge of his tactics so that they, too, may try to use that to his advantage.

Is that cheating?

I think not. It is life. It is no different than a face-to-face game where I look a player in the eye to gauge him.

Further, I myself - not to be a martry or anything - am the frequent victim of meta-gaming. My abrasive style, both here in these forums, and sometimes within the negotiating realm, is used against me **constantly** and people openly admit it to me. They hate me personally, therefore they will make decisions to attack me, regardless of the strategic value of their actions.

So please...meta-gaming. BAH....Get over it.