Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 66 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
kickboxer (128 D)
29 Jan 08 UTC
new game. Three wars
this is a team game with france and turkey allied, england and russia allied and germany and austria allied with italy neutral.:-)
1 reply
Open
figlesquidge (2131 D)
29 Jan 08 UTC
Forum Tidyness
As part of the update, I think that a simple system for sorting the forum should be added. It would just be until someone puts in the very hard work of converting the forum completely to work as a fully features forum should.
My simple request is that when posting a thread you have to set a category for it. Those would be vague, but still sensible, possibly:
-> Misc (Other stuff, like conversations or forum games)
-> Feature/Bug
-> Games (organising new games, tournaments etc.)
-> Ingame (reporting suspected Multiple accounts etc, might not be needed once moderators are in - as long as players have the power to mail a moderator)
-> Private (any private messages you have)

These would appear across the top of the page as tabs, and you could then select what you were after.
14 replies
Open
Nick Douglas (408 D)
29 Jan 08 UTC
What famous game lines apply to Diplomacy?
I recently found my perspectives on Diplomacy expanding: Some forum threads taught me about threatening to give SCs to another player, and I've found more creative approaches for every stage of the game. Then I remembered the line from a recent popular video game: "Now you're thinking with portals!" Only now I'm thinking with psychology. Know another famous line from a game that applies to Diplomacy? I'm sure someone can draw from Mousetrap.
0 replies
Open
sean (3490 D(B))
25 Jan 08 UTC
win/loss ratio
just wanted to ask people here if they had any ideas about changes to this site? i really like the layout and bold colours. its simple and clear- leaving the games themselves to be complex and difficult, just the way we like it. but i would like our win/draw/\loss ratio to be displayed next to our sign on names rather than points. Points and the hunger for them may be partly to blame for the high number of draws. win/loss ratio displayed next to our names might mean less games played but of better quality.
for example player A- 10 games played, 1 win,4 draws, 5 losses could be Player A (.3) (thats =1 win,half awarded for draws = 2 and zero for the losses divided by the number of games played to equal .3)
player B 10 games, 5 wins, 2 draws and 3 losses would be Player (.6)
player C 0wins,3 draws and 7 looses playerC(.15)
thats pretty simple i know and i havent really thought about any further implications of such a system. so
figlesquidge and ilk i know you like a bit of maths so please have a say about what would be a good system.
Page 1 of 2
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
fastspawn (1625 D)
25 Jan 08 UTC
or we could just not award points for draws? or split it amongst all 7 players defeated and draw
mightyrobot (202 D)
25 Jan 08 UTC
My idea is that everyone starts with rating number (not the same as points). I don't know what the best starting value is but, lets assume a start rating of 200 points for this example.

When a game starts, the average rating of all your opponents in the game will be calculated. Ratings will go up or down, as follows:
-- If you win and the average rating of your opponents is less than your rating, your rating goes up a little. If the average rating is higher than your rating, your rating goes up alot.
-- If you draw and the average rating of your opponents is less than your rating, your rating goes down a little. If about the same as your rating, rating is unchanged. If higher than your rating, your rating goes up a little.
-- If you lose and the average rating of your opponents is less than your rating, your rating goes down alot. If average rating is higher than your rating, then goes down a little.

The start rating and exactly how much the rating increases or decreases would need more consideration. But the basic idea is that if a player does well against higher rated players, then then that players rating will be headed up.
mightyrobot (202 D)
25 Jan 08 UTC
So, to continue with some examples, with someone at a rating of 200:
-- Wins against average opponent rating of 400, then new score may be something like 225.
-- Wins against average opponent rating of 200, then new score may be something like 210.
-- Wins against average opponent rating of 50, then new score may be seomthing like 202.
Similar for loses, with rating headed in the oppose direction. And a draw might take you up if average opponent rating higher than yous, but gains you nothing (or very little) if the average opponent rating is lower.
Brutorix (100 D)
25 Jan 08 UTC
I like the current point system and personally would be very hesitant to change it. A visible Win/Loss/Draw ratio in the profile if not by your name is an interesting thought.
mightyrobot (202 D)
25 Jan 08 UTC
In addition, any additional data on each player's number of wins, losses, draws, times CD'd, number games played, etc. Is always nice too.
flashman (2274 D(G))
25 Jan 08 UTC
...And whether they are telling the truth at any particular time...
cgwhite32 (1465 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
You can't put that one in flashman! You and I would have such terrible scores!

A win/draw/loss ratio's a good idea.
alamothe (3367 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
i have played some internet games before which used rating systems, and i think that points are much much much better solution. but we could have more info displayed in the profile
figlesquidge (2131 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Well this is going to be a very very loud debate when/if the site heavyweights get here! From what I can tell, the better players favour all or nothing, whilst the newer ones favour points. I myself would like 50/50 on this, so that the main focus is to win, but that there is still an incentive to play if you can't win.
Sean: maths - why do you say that? do you know me in real life !?!
thewonderllama (100 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
@figlesquidge: i think sean has just been taking his opponent recon very seriously. ;)
figlesquidge (2131 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Very very seriously - he's not even my opponent! Is he thinking of stabbing me on the forum :o
Chrispminis (916 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
I'm not against the idea... but it's quite trivial in my opinion. I think the points do a good enough job as they are, but I wouldn't be against such a thing being displayed in the profile. But no alternative rating system is needed.
mightyrobot (202 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
How do Go, Chess, and other strategy games rate their players. I suggest a similar system. The point system is a better indicator of how players gambled and played for their points, but does not necessarily indicate actual player strength. (Though stronger players that want to play for points will likely have more points.)
Noodlebug (1812 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
My issue with the points is simply that there is not enough credit, and therefore incentive for winning. It is quite possible to finish second in a game and take more points than the winner. And even if you finish with half the supply centres or units of the winner you still take home a respectable pot, which is why so many people are quite happy to fight like a crazy man for second place. Many of my opponents have remarked that it is in their (or even my!) interest for someone else to win the game quickly before they (or I) lose more supply centres. That's just totally screwed up, right there dude.

That is why I advocate winner-takes-all, or a substantial win bonus. Maybe survivors in a game should get their original stakes back, but they shouldn't get anything more than that. I know I'm in a minority, and the points system is here to stay, and the winner-takes-all option is a sensible compromise. I just feel that the original designers of the game, or people playing a one-off face to face or play-by-mail game would barely recognise some of the strategies which the point system encourages here, where winning is just one of a possible range of goals rather than THE objective.
alamothe (3367 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
go, chess etc. differ from diplomacy in two aspects 1) there are only 2 players, 2) there's no element of luck / randomness in them. i believe that point system is better for this kind of games. imagine how the stock exchange would work if they would have ratings instead of points??
alamothe (3367 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
and players are meant to play for points :-)
Wooble (450 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Diplomacy has very little luck involved. Perhaps the system should actively try to even out the number of times you play as each country instead of randomly selecting them (which should, of course, in itself even out over the long term in theory)?

Obviously ranking based on the relative strengths of your 6 opponents would be more complex than doing so based on only 1 opponent, but it could be done.
Darwyn (1601 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
I would have to completely agree with Noodlebug.

This site has Rait ranked #1, NOT because he's won 45 games, but because he has 9000+ points (not that I would argue he's not #1). Other respectable players have 0 to little points because they enjoy constantly playing and joining games. Their rankings are in the thousands, despite having double digit wins simply because of their points.

Could you imagine Rait being ranked in the thousands if he happened to lose his points? NO!

I strongly believe that the rankings on this site should take into consideration other factors other than the points you are left to gamble with.

Keep earned points SEPARATE from any sort of ranking. The present system encourages nothing but draws and contentment for 2nd place, which are definitely NOT in the spirit of the game.
Darwyn (1601 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
"My issue with the points is simply that there is not enough credit, and therefore incentive for winning."

Exactly.
Thucydides (864 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
No I don't think you're a minority noodlebug, I agree. I like the points but winner-takes-all is important.
Razz (144 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
figlesquidge, how about an alliance, we can help each other and take him out. I propose a 55:45 splitting of his points. We can pretend we're going to help flashman too, then stab him as soon as sean is gone. Sound good?
sean (3490 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
i remember a prevoius post by figlesquidge. think the topic was on multiaccounting, anyway if involved a not inconsiderable amount of statistical analysis. so i assumed that here's a man who likes his numbers. the win /loss ratio wouldn't be good for me - i would become sean(0) as ive only finished 4 games, wiped out in one, survived but lost in 3. for example somebody like wonderlama would be 19 games, 3 wins (3 /19 @ 100% ) plus 1 draw (1/19 @ 50% ) and 15 losses(0) that makes him Wonderlama(.184)
razz would be a rather impressive 16 games, 9 wins one draw and would become Razz(.59)
anybody else like to to post their ratio?
comerade marx (102 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
being an avid chess player there is a little luck in chess as there is in diplomacy. "can you out-do your opponent"? that may be a skill but it takes luck as well to pull it off (unless a novice is playing a master, in which case the novice is doomed anyway).

anyway, about how i think our points should be dispensed. perhaps all living players gain a fraction of the points they put in for the game, say one fifth for example. all the dead players lose it all, and the winner takes the rest. the only reason i include the one fifth compensation is because i think that if you lived you played the game well enough to a certain extent.

i dont know, sounds good to me though...
figlesquidge (2131 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
The only thing i would like added would be a 'recent games'. I think games should also be marked with the date they were finished on, and that there should be an entry on the profile page saying how many of the last <certain number> games you had won etc - I know my figures are shocking, but I know that my recent games are very good, and it would be nice to see that!
kestasjk (95 DMod(P))
26 Jan 08 UTC
(Sorry I haven't read replies, only the start)

At the moment the next version does have a win/loss/drawn ratio listing, but it's only contained in the profile of the user. I'm not sure how to list all the stats on a user without it taking up too much space. I wouldn't like to see kestasjk (845D, 8% win, 50% loss, 38% drawn)
figlesquidge (2131 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Basically this thread had a debate about different ways of showing the data.
In my opinion the Hall of fame should have several sort options.
Thus when you go on the hall of fame it allows you to sort the players based on multiple options:
Recent games
Total points
Spendable points
Account Age
Points / year ( calculated, average obviously)
Victory %
Total games
---
You get the idea
Noodlebug (1812 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
I think putting Win/Games next to peoples names would be one way to psychologically boost the importance of winning. Points could be recorded in the same way they are now but they should only be relevant when you were joining a game, but otherwise only viewable on people's profiles.

So you'd have Noodlebug (19/65), Rait (45/60), Newbie (0/0). (I couldn't be bothered to count up completed games so the figures aren't necessarily accurate!).
That tells ME everything I need to know to assess the strength and danger of a player. Points are useful for assessing the big guys, but people with lower scores could be journeymen, newbies or someone who just bet 8000 points on a game because he felt self-conscious!
figlesquidge (2131 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Well then, how about having an option in settings for which figure to show beside a players name? This could then allow you to choose players who play for wins alone if you wanted, or for points otherwise.
I guess the danger there would be you could end up with two leagues, points and wins. Then, a pointer would ally with a winner, and let the winner win, thus taking lots of points, and by always coming 2nd win the points tally. Still, that is unlikely i think as people aren't so gullible!
Noodlebug (1812 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
We predicted with the points system that people with the higher points would get targeted and find it harder to win games. If anything, the opposite has happened. Maybe we should consider an anonymous game system (option?) where all players are equals. In fact, now I think about it, maybe it would be a good idea if we didn't record wins and points at all! Every game would be just about seven people trying to beat all the rest...
(nah I'm kidding! I want to be number 1!!)
figlesquidge (2131 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
I agree we should add anonamous games, but i want to disagree with your comments about bigger players being assisted! In one of my recent games I asked my ally why he had stabbed me (there was a 3rd more powerful player in the game as well) and he said that it was because I had more points and so he felt i was more of a threat! You yourself said recently in many of your recent games you've been wiped out early as people view you as an even greater threat than you are. Still, anonymous games (as an option) would be great yes, as default I don't know - i think it would be nice to know who your against, although arguably that is not as 'pure' as an anonymous game would be

Page 1 of 2
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

53 replies
flashman (2274 D(G))
27 Jan 08 UTC
Kestas - draw requested for game 2496...
Please can we have a draw for the game Crazy9s ID 2496.

All three remaining players have agreed to a draw and should be making this public in this thread over the next 24 hours...

Thank you.
3 replies
Open
Davetroll (100 D)
29 Jan 08 UTC
Eric
I have started a new game, anyone is welcome.
I have gone all-in, so the bet is 50 points.
0 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
29 Jan 08 UTC
Open Game: Napoleonic Age
I am looking for the creme de la creme, and I'm calling out
thewonderllama in particular. 50 points is the bet, and so the total, when collected, will be a healthy 350.

Thsi is Napoleonic Warfare, khavers and khaveras. Be intelligent, be devious, be your usual selves. I am hungry for a challenge- let the war begin, mein khavers and du khazers!
0 replies
Open
Noodlebug (1812 D)
27 Jan 08 UTC
Universal messages
I note kestas is including a universal message tab in the next version so we can send a message to everyone in the game. I'm a little worried about this. I know in face to face games it's possible to make announcements to everyone, but does it happen that often? Is it good etiquette? Three-way and four-way huddles might be more complicated to code, but are a more accurate reflection of (how I imagine) face to face negotiations progress. But even those would cause me concern.

Why? Well the dynamic of the negotiating table is changed. It will be much harder now to question someone's sincerity and truthfulness, to sow seeds of doubt, and to play people off against each other. If you make an announcement to everyone, no-one is in any doubt that everyone has heard the same thing. If there is any duplicity about it, at least one of the other people who heard the announcement must be in on the duplicity ("I'm going to announce this, but don't worry, it's just a ploy"). It is going to be much harder to go cowboy and play people off against each other. To keep your options open about which way your loyalties will ultimately fall. If anyone has doubts about you, or even if they don't, but are just naturally cautious players, their retort to any assertion you make about the actions, motives and intentions of another player will be "well tell me in front of him." If you cannot think of a damn good excuse not to, you're in trouble.

Yes there will be things you can't share in front of everyone, obviously you don't want your enemies to know your alliance's plans. But there will be things which it is safe to disclose to your enemies and neutral parties, but can ruin an alliance. The sort of "cover your back" negotiations and manouvers good players use can kill trust as quickly as any tactical stab, if they are brought to light.

Misinformation will not be wiped out, but for a canny player there will soon be a powerful weapon he can use to verify what you purport to be the truth.

I'm sorry if that was a bit complicated to follow, I'm still thinking about it and trying to get my head around the implications, and trying to think of firm examples to illustrate my concern. But I'd like to know if anyone else thinks this could have a big effect on the way people negotiate and communicate. For players who claim sincerity and honesty is their greatest weapon, it could be either the best thing ever to happen to them, or it could kill their diplomacy careers..!
20 replies
Open
arthurmklo (879 D)
27 Jan 08 UTC
not trying to win
In http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2562, France has more than enough chances to win, but rather than winning, he is leaving other countries SC when it is his already and letting England take back his home SC while letting Russia gain in the Balkans. England is also moving in and out of France's SC when if he backstabbes him, England is most likely to win (Belgium, Holland, Brest, Kiel, Berlin)...It seems that either France is trying to get a 15 SC to stomething like 20 SC (Serbia, Rumania, Warsaw, Naples, Tunis) bump to get more points, or hes a multi accounter, anyhow, its defintely not a good attitude and I hate to be in this stupid game
8 replies
Open
Noodlebug (1812 D)
28 Jan 08 UTC
Winner takes all games
When the option is implemented next month, how many of you will be looking forward to playing in winner takes all games, and who will be avoiding them like the plague? And will there be many of you who will happily play both options indiscriminately, or those who don't even look to see which they're playing?
13 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
28 Jan 08 UTC
Kestas re. THIRTY ONE game.
Looks like a multi-accounter in this one as well. In the new version, are you planning to eliminate these worms?
0 replies
Open
Comrade (100 D)
28 Jan 08 UTC
New Game for dulles decent
this game is not for david and matt, but for the new people at dulles playing diplomacy.
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2842

password is the name of the instrument I play with no spaces
************ <like that
5 replies
Open
jernau (80 D)
28 Jan 08 UTC
New Game
Just joined up and there were no open games, so I started up a new one, no password. Hopefully some folks join up, I haven't played since High School and I'm looking forward to it.
1 reply
Open
Shisuren (587 D)
27 Jan 08 UTC
Kestas - move glitch?
Kestas, could you please take a look at the following game?
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2589

In the spring, I set Portugal to move to Spain and Spain to move to Portugal; however, they attacked each other and simply held position. I understand that this would be a legal move in the board game and is a glitch - can you fix the moves? Thanks.
14 replies
Open
DumbDrummer (150 D)
28 Jan 08 UTC
Server
Is it having some problems again?
6 replies
Open
gryncat (2606 D)
28 Jan 08 UTC
stuck game
The game TWENTY ONE http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2582 is stuck on "due now." Also, I have notice very slow loading, as was note on the last post. Can we fix this please?
0 replies
Open
figlesquidge (2131 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Suggestion
Along the top of the page we've all got used to the list of games (indeed I wonder just how many people can remember before that was here - or even the old chat system, that was horrible!).
At the moment a game appears if you haven't finalized (with a x) or have a new message (with an envolope), I think that you should get a little yellow ! and a game in the list if you haven't been on it scince it last processed. It wouldn't be at all hard to add, just a few small modifications here and there, and it would make using the site much simpler in my opinion - I know that there have been several times when I haven't noticed my game had cycled, and this would solve the problem.
Comments..?
10 replies
Open
kestasjk (95 DMod(P))
26 Jan 08 UTC
Status report on 0.8
It's Australia day, a nice occasion to recap on how 0.8 is going. But I'm going to include it inside of a thread so it doesn't take up too much room.
11 replies
Open
thewonderllama (100 D)
16 Jan 08 UTC
Grand Festive Diplomacy Tournament Round 1 Results
I've trolled through the games and compiled what I believe to be the results of the first round of the tournament. For each game I've given a link, whether the game was drawn or won outright, and the top three players from each game with the number of units and SCs they had at the end of the game (in the format username (# units/# SCs)). Please correct me if any of this is wrong.

TOgilvie, if you're alive and well and not buried under a mountain of non-phpdip related stuff, mind setting up round 2?

Okay, here goes...

Game 1:
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2132
Game drawn.
SlkySmoothOtter (9/9)
Sirither (9/9)
Rait (8/9)
Note: james3838 withdrew from this game.

Game 2:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2149
Game drawn.
Mythago (12/14)
Gobbledydook (10/10)
wawlam59 (8/10)

Note: wawlam59 has since said that he won't have the time to play if the next round begins before February (see http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/index.php?viewthread=260432#260432). The last country to be eliminated was Russia, played by Ironclad, who had 3 SC at the time of his elimination.

Game 4:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2147
Game won.
stoni90 (19/19)
Chairman Mao (6/6)
Evilduck (5/5)


Game 5.1:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2144
Game won.
LucusVonLucus (18/18)
Signalseven (10/10)
TheMaster (6/6)

Game 6:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2136
Game won.
thewonderllama (17/18)
Darwyn (9/9)
Otto Von Bismark (6/7)

Game 7:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2151
Game won.
figlesquidge (18/18)
abab (12/12)
mightyrobot (4/4)
30 replies
Open
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Moving to the North Coast of Spain.
Whenever I have moved from Portugal or Mid Atlantic to Spain, I have automatically moved to the South Coast, whereas the North coast is often more useful. Is there a way of moving to the North coast (other than from Gascony) or is this a know issue, or indeed as it is intended to be?
2 replies
Open
sean (3490 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
Grrrrrrr these people!
http://phpdiplomacy.net/profile.php?uid=4454

check out this guy.
3 replies
Open
Noirin (2827 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Retreat Spain to Portugal
In NPT G2 (http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2720 - no press game) I've been dislodged from Portugal and wanted to retreat to Portugal (where there are no units and where no units attempted to go during last turn), but I can't.

So there is no way to convince phpD let me retreat where I can? :P
6 replies
Open
sean (3490 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
dp points?
quick nooblike question. the DP points return to 100 when you finish your last active game and you have less than 100 DPs or whenever you finish any game and you have less than 100 DPs? if the latter i can see why people play so many games at once.
2 replies
Open
Gobbledydook (1389 D(B))
26 Jan 08 UTC
35-pointer
Yet another novelty...
Join 35-pointer!
1 reply
Open
Noodlebug (1812 D)
25 Jan 08 UTC
Books All Diplomacy Players Should Read
ok after all the complaining and whining and ranting on the forums lately (I'm as guilty as anyone!) lets try and start another nice discussion thread, which may well morph into another elimination thread if it proves popular enough.

The theme is books, and particularly which books are the most relevant, educational and useful essential reading for any Diplomacy player with aspirations. I think The Prince and The Art of War are pretty much a given and likely to be unanimous choices (although in all honesty I have not read either!), but lets see what other obvious and off-the-wall suggestions you can come up with. As ever, don't just name a title (like I just did!), try and justify why it should be included in the list ahead of other candidates.

Hopefully some suggestions may well intrigue people so much that they actually go out and read the books, which can only be a good thing!
22 replies
Open
keeper0018 (100 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
Join Game "Armadillo," Needs 2 More Players
Joni Game "Armadillo," it needs two more players... the bet is 100, so please, medium rollers only (Rait, please stay out of this).

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2822
3 replies
Open
wawlam59 (0 DX)
24 Jan 08 UTC
How to deal with Such kind of Allies..
Headache, headache..if you have an alliance who threaten you that if you do not move like he suggested, he would attack you... if you (England) join Germany and Italy agaisnt him(France) he would throw his dots to Italy while stopping you from getting any dots of him, or even worse, an alliance who is good at blaming, violence/extremism in words (always with a good reason) .

How should I deal with such kind of alliance?
I believe some of you must have similiar experiences. Are there any good suggestions? Thanks very much!!
11 replies
Open
MajorTom (4417 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
How much force is required to overcome an enemy CD unit
basically the subject.
can you destory a unit in Civil Disorder by simply attacking it with one unit
or does it still take support?
3 replies
Open
MajorTom (4417 D)
26 Jan 08 UTC
What if you dont finalize your moves?
Say you go through and select all of the movement options that you normally would, thus you completely specify your moves, but, you dont hit finalize, instead leave the page and just wait for the countdown to reach zero and enter the next phase of the game.

What happens?
are the order that you had, but didnt finalize, carried out?
do all of your units simply hold?
3 replies
Open
comerade marx (102 D)
25 Jan 08 UTC
right... silly noobish question that must be asked
My friends and myself are long time Diplomacy players but are new to php. We trying to start a game and when I made the game I set a password. The issue is that when my friends cant find it, is there something special we need to do?

thank you for your time
3 replies
Open
Page 66 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top