Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 106 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Treefarn (6094 D)
06 Jun 08 UTC
New Game - Bet of 151 - PPS
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4173

Called simply 'No'
1 reply
Open
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
06 Jun 08 UTC
New game- Opium Wars, PPS, bet is 30
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4178

Join gangstas.
3 replies
Open
dangermouse (5551 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
Big Money
Can I get any takers for a new game?
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4163

WTA, bet is 800. Not for the squeemish.
13 replies
Open
cgwhite32 (1465 D)
27 May 08 UTC
Seven Game League - New Thread
Continuing the discussion from the previous thread, which was getting a tad too long...
Page 1 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
cgwhite32 (1465 D)
27 May 08 UTC
Right, we don't appear to have a solution to the separate country issue - that is, that for each game within the league you start as a different nation. It doesn't seem that we can get this sorted any time soon.

Therefore I suggest we try and work within the current system. I am very keen to trial this, even if we can't get the above working. Would the following people be prepared to play in a league system with the rules that I set out below? The league would be between:

Braveheart 9wins (45%)
Sean 10wins (31%)
Theghostmaker 7wins (33%)
Chrispminis 11wins (28%)
Flashman 10wins (20%)
cgwhite32 6wins (20%)
Abgemacht 4wins (25%)

(Figle removed, to be replaced by Abgemacht)

Entry pot per game would be 20 points WTA, with two games run concurrently.

Points for the league table would need to be discussed, but if you had a dual system, whereby you combine a place system with the number of supply centres held at the declared finish, I think that would be fair.

For example, if Sean won with 18 centres, he would have 18 centres + 7 for first place = 25 points for first place. If Flashman came second with 12 centres, he would have 12 centres plus 6 for second place = 18 points etc. etc.

This would encourage wins, but ensure that those eliminated early on would still get points, and give incentives to remain playing the game for as long as possible. League results to be posted in the forum.

Obviously we can tinker, either by increasing the number of 'place points' to make it more interesting for those lower down the table, but I really do want to get this up and running.

Can those listed above suggest whether they'd be prepared to play under this system, or make necessary suggestions. I'd like to get cracking in the next week or so!
cgwhite32 (1465 D)
27 May 08 UTC
Forgot to add that as and when the second league gets up and running, we can do a two up two down promotion/relegation system. So far, those interested in the second league are:

Canaduh 6wins (19%)
Thewonderllama 5wins (15%)
xgongiveit2ya55 2wins (15%)
Gobbledydook 5wins (11%)
Shisuren no wins
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
28 May 08 UTC
Regarding the points system - i think there should be a bigger differentiator between the following results:
- Solo win with 18 SCs = 25 points
- 3 way draw with 17 SCs = 23 Points (17+(7+6+5)/3)

I'd strongly prefer that we use the Dip Points Won and play the games as WTA. In my example above - points would then be as follows:
- solo win with 18 SCs = 140 points
- 3 way draw with 17 SCs = 47 points

In the event of someone being tied on points at the end of the season - then you can use total SCs as the equivalent of "goal difference".

I am also strongly in favour of 3 up/3 down - as playing 7 straight games with the same people may get tedious enough. But to do it for another 7 games with 4 of the same people will start to get silly. I don't believe this will cause people to have nothing to play for.... quite the contrary!! Someone in 7th place going into the last game could pick up a solo win and be promoted. I'd find it unlikely that somebody will have nothing to play for going into round 7 unless there is a runaway leader.

Last point is - need to clarify whether open meta-gaming within the 7 league games should be allowed or whether we should have honour system to discourage it. I'd prefer if this was discouraged.

Sorry to bring up old topics CG - but I think it's important to clarify all these points before kicking off. It's a big commitment from everyone who signs-up for a league... as you're talking about a good 7-10 months to complete it. This should be made very clear to those signing up!! So very important to try and get this right first time.
xgongiveit2ya55 (789 D)
28 May 08 UTC
I'm stoked to play in a league, so I hope we get the second one up and running. I'm not too worried about points, so whatever gets decided is fine with me as long as it encourages people to not give up after a bad start.

Seven games with the same seven people would be overdoing it I think, but perhaps three would be good? After thee games with the same group we could have 2/3 move up and 2/3 move down. This also brings in the question of meta-gaming. I think open meta-gaming should be allowed in the three games with the same seven. Say in the first game, you worked very well with your ally and only stabbed when necessary to win the game, or maybe not at all. I think it would be perfectly fine to ally with that person again based on the result of the last game. The whole concept of having a league involves getting to know the other players of the course of multiple games. You will eventually learn who who are compatible with, and who to watch out for.

However, meta-gaming should have its limits. After that set of three games with the same seven, everyone should get a fresh start. That's my two cents anyways, does anyone have a different take on meta-gaming within the leagues?
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
28 May 08 UTC
In don't mind people deciding to ally from one game to the next - that happens outside of leagues and can make perfect sense. What I would like to avoid however is the promise of doing Move A in game X, if you do Move B in game Y. So explicit tit-for-tat promises made across multiple games.

I'd also expect that everyone joining a league has some sense of decorum and can tolerate being stabbed. I have been subjected to some pretty bad personal abuse from a couple of people on this site - will not name, names - as a result of fairly standard stabs. And also threats of major revenge if we meet again etc,etc. I hope i don't get stuck having to put up with that type of behaviour for a full 7 games... or you'll end up with no-one stabbing anyone. And where is the fun in that!!!
xgongiveit2ya55 (789 D)
28 May 08 UTC
Well cross-game deals could be avoided simply by playing games one at a time rather than simultaneously. And anyone who can't handle a good stab shouldn't be joining a competitive league like this.
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
28 May 08 UTC
So i guess that comes back to how many games are in a season. If we cannot play all seven countries and it's left to a random distribution then perhaps playing 7 games doesn't matter after all. Perhaps the first league season could be 3 or 4 games until all issues are ironed out.... then once Kestas makes it possible to somehow assign countries then we move back to 7 game season again. I am not of a strong opinion on any of this, except that 7 games played B2B is far too long.
flashman (2274 D(G))
28 May 08 UTC
I have to agree with Braveheart on almost all issues here...

Including the metagaming angle. I think we should keep the existing moratorium on metagaming. It is wrong... Simple as that.

Alliances though are good, of course...

But when three players are facing relegation, they might just want to explore common interest. As long as this is done as the games develop and not set down before the league kicks off, then I think it counts as an alliance rather than pure meta-gaming.

I am happy to take 3 up 3 down too as I do think we need to have variety until the country assignment problem is fixed...

I also think that the scoring should be based on WTA so that wins are greatly rewarded...

and that an initial league of four games might be the best way to get this started and give enough time to iron out any difficulties. Places achieved can be used to allocate players if and when a more comprehensive league system is established.

As for starting bets? These do not need to be large but should at least be worthwhile... 20 points per game minimum I would say.
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
28 May 08 UTC
Am glad we are on the same page. Mr White are you ok with this?

I think 4 games is a reasonable enough period to determine who is worthy or not. Am happy to offer to keep the league table up-to-date for now if no-one else wants to. And suggest we stagger the start of each game a least a little (as this is the most intensive press time)... so say Game 1 starts immediately, then Game 2 starts after we hit 1904 in Game 1. Game 3 and 4 can then KO as soon as Game 1 or 2 finishes. (only 2 games running at any one time though).

Anything from 20 to 50 pots seem reasonable to me.
flashman (2274 D(G))
28 May 08 UTC
50 max for the simple reason that one of us could be experiencing penury, having foolishly accepted entry to one of the MadMarx games and got stuffed. At least the system gives you back 100 pts so you can look at two more games...

Can we have rules for the following too,

a) baby-sitters;
b) players who go CD...

I think a) is easy. We just announce publicly who is taking over. No-one in the same league. The rest is down to honour and choosing someone reliable... If a sitter messes up, you take the full rap.

b) much more contentious... does someone who takes over a CD country simply assume the position of that country in the league?

The only way round this as far as I can see is to have the games passworded and let CD countries remain CD...

cgwhite32 (1465 D)
28 May 08 UTC
I would be happy with this system as a trial run. As long as someone with more mathematical skills than me keeps track of the points for the table...

Quick point on the CD issue - if you were to let it lapse by misfortune, are you able to log back in and continue once you return, the penalty being that you forfeit your position to be gobbled up by the other players?
sean (3490 D(B))
28 May 08 UTC
wont WTA style league lead to a lot of draws?
so we will base the league scores not on wins/draws/loses but on Dip points? i think it might be nicer to have it based on wins/draws/loses. but im willing to go with the crowd.
4 games at one (even with staggered starts) time might be a bit much. i prefer 2.
Chairman Mao (340 D)
28 May 08 UTC
Heh.....cg, count me in for a 2nd league. I am interested too........

what about a "lower" league going on at the same time (like Tier 1 and Tier 2 in football), then there is relgations and promotions...and when there are new players (either queue up for the lowest tier or form a lower tier with 7 new players......) and somewhat we find a place to cut off....

But regardless, just put me on the list of 2nd league....i'm interested....thanks a lot
figlesquidge (2131 D)
28 May 08 UTC
Yeh, sorry to drop out, but I just don't have time. I'm not sure when I'll next be around, but it might not be until September. Goodbye until then :)
flashman (2274 D(G))
28 May 08 UTC
Have a good Summer...

For the leagues, we could always start two at the same level and promote the seven best (by scores) to a higher league next time round, the remainder being placed in the Second Division... From then on it would be promotion/relegation as normal.
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
28 May 08 UTC
Do it in order of dip points to start with, then three up three down.

To start with play four games in a 2-2 format (first two, start another at the end of each)

I don't mind draws, when you have a position where he who wields the axe cannot wear the crown it is the only reasonable outcome.

And we can do this: for points:

Play pots of 24 for the lower league, 36 for the higher.

All points for a win, even splits for draws

SC count can be the tiebreaker (cos we'll need it with just 4 games).

metagaming stance: You can play to cement your own credibility, however a direct you do A I do B in different games is not allowed, nor is direct "we'll ally in all games"

CD: If you take over CD then you get that persons whole position. The punishment for a small CD is the harm it does to your own cause.
sean (3490 D(B))
28 May 08 UTC
we cant base relegation/promotion on the dip points gained in league games.
well we could but we need to keep track of how many points we have. how many we won in league games and be aware of other non league game points.
Chrispminis (916 D)
29 May 08 UTC
Alright, well I'm ready anytime to get it started. I do have exams coming up this June, but I think I can handle both.

As to point relegation, I don't think that using the points system is a good idea for a league. We aren't necessarily playing enough games to determine who gets promoted and demoted if there's a solo winner every time. We need a more gradual system that takes into account strong survivals. I would suggest the same system adopted by the Grand Festive Diplomacy Tournament during the 2nd round when determining who advanced to the finals. Here it is, from the site.

Solo victory in a game = 36 points
Participation in a draw = 34/# of players involved in the draw
Surviving a game = # of SCs you control at the end of the game

I think this is a better scaled system that still greatly rewards the winner. It still leaves a lot of players with zero points, though the number decreases with each successive game played. What does everyone think of this system? It's worked well before.
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
29 May 08 UTC
Agree with your stance on the meta-gaming issue - it seems we have a consensus. I hope people feel honour bound to maintain it.

I'd still prefer the WTA system and nothing for survival - it's the game in it's purest form, the way the game was intended to be played. If you end up just surviving with 2 SCs or 17 SCs then shame on you for not recognising a potential solo win and doing something about it.

Don't forget the PPSC system - which you're pretty much advocating, evolved due to limitations with playing against unknowns online to address issues like:
- people playing loads of games/giving up if you don't start well
- preferring to play against a certain standard of player

That all makes perfect sense for the site in general. But I'd hope none of these issues will apply to the league players so we don't need PPSC.

Am happy to have a vote on it if required and will accept the tryanny of the majority. I am also happy to keep a tally of the league tables on the groups behalf, once the scoring has been decided - should be easy enough.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
29 May 08 UTC
Hey, thanks for including me in the first league, but I'm probably going to have to drop out as well. I'm a lot busier that I thought I'd be and I'd hate to agree to something if I'm not sure I can make the commitment.
Chrispminis (916 D)
29 May 08 UTC
Hey, don't tell me I'm going soft on WTA. I was the original WTA whine. =)

I'm just saying, a league is hardly the game in it's purest form, and definitely be prepared to see many 2 or 3 way draws for a 2 or 3 up, 2 or 3 down system of promotion and demotion. You can't escape these strategies.

The problem with a WTA league system is that if 7 players play only 3 games, and three solo winners arise, then sure, we have the top 3 players, but how do we decide who gets demoted? We have 4 players to choose from. A more scaled system is fairer and clearer for a promotion-demotion system.

If it is going to be a multi-tier league, no metagaming whatsoever. Not even in the round of 3.
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
29 May 08 UTC
hmmm.. not a bad argument i guess. So in the tournament scoring system does everyone get the points for survival as well as points for participating a draw?
e.g. I have 17SCs and it's a 3 way draw. Is that 11 points (34/3) OR 28 points? (34/3 + 17 SCs)?
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
29 May 08 UTC
What is wrong with this:
60 for a win
30 for a two way.
20 for a three way.
15 for a four way.
12 for a five way.
10 for a six way.
8 for a seven way.

7 ways don't really matter b/c every player gets the same no. of points.

I liked the idea of SCs being used as a goal difference, not to grant points.
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
29 May 08 UTC
Ghostmaker - that is exactly how WTA should work (there is a slight bug on site at the moment, that doesn't split draws evenly but that is a BUG not the way it's supposed to be).

Personally i think if you play 4 games and end up with zero points, then you cannot complain if you get relegated.
flashman (2274 D(G))
29 May 08 UTC
Unless it is me...
thewonderllama (100 D)
29 May 08 UTC
in the scoring system chrispminis mentioned, the points are massively in favor of a solo, the intent to make a solo the most valuable and so, most important, objective while still allowing an easy to calculate way of ranking players who do not have a win under their belt. but i could be biased, as i came up with it. :)
thewonderllama (100 D)
29 May 08 UTC
oh, and to braveheart's question:
in a three way draw, each drawing player would only get 34/3 points. only losing survivors (that is, if the game ends in a solo victory, those who didn't win but have scs at the end of the game) get points for scs. the winner gets full value (34) plus a little bonus so 1 solo > n n-way draws.
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
29 May 08 UTC
But under that system the following doesn't seem right at all:
- 16SC survival (someone else sole'ed) = 16 points
- 3-way draw = 11 points

In my book sharing in any type of draw should be worth more than mere survival.
Braveheart (2408 D(S))
29 May 08 UTC
And wonderllama - it sounds like your system is basically PPSC except a solo winner gets double.
Chrispminis (916 D)
29 May 08 UTC
Not at all Braveheart. It makes sense to reward a 16SC survival over a 3-way draw. It discourages the winner from accepting a draw (#1 cause of draws) and it encourages smaller players to band up against the leader and at least force a stalemate (#2 cause).

And that's the point. A PPSC scenario is the easiest to use in determining a fair and scaled promotion and demotion scenario as it allows more nuance and there are less 0's. Except of course, we want to play a system in which people play to win. Thus, in addition to the PPSC system, we tack on a more than double reward for clinching that 18th SC and claiming victory. The reward for winning is very significant.

The Ghostmaker, that would be an ok system if we played a lot of games in between promotions and demotions. Unfortunately we're looking at about 3 games every round, and that's not enough games to determine the bottom 3 players with any accuracy using that system.

Page 1 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

86 replies
Hyperactive Jam (299 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
Strange Press
This is where you post press that refuses to make sense.
13 replies
Open
Lolflower (151 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
New Facebook Diplomacy - Strategery
A new phpDiplomacy fork for Facebook, Strategery. See inside the thread for details. http://apps.facebook.com/strategery/
34 replies
Open
Darwyn (1601 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
Congrats Red Wings!
Just wanted to say congrats on a great series and for taking the Stanley Cup, the greatest trophy in all of sports, back to Detroit for the fourth time in 11 years.

I'm a hockey fan from Detroit (aka Hockeytown) who also plays hockey (as a goalie) so that explains this post. Feel free to chime in, good or bad.
18 replies
Open
gundam_guy (100 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
No Points
I am new to this game. I currently have no points and cannot join any game. Is the only way to gain point is to host my own game?
3 replies
Open
Treefarn (6094 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
New Game - 129 Bet - PPS
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4154


Free Beer & Hot Wings
2 replies
Open
Giramondo (100 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
Physical Location on Profile
Is it worth placing the information of your physical location.

So that people choosing games can coordinate mutual convienient times to play?
8 replies
Open
kaigem (226 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
need 2 more for Revolution is no excuse for CD
we need 2 more players for this game

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4149

the entry fee is 20 points, and we only have a few hours left until it starts
no need to reply, just sign up :)
0 replies
Open
flashman (2274 D(G))
05 Jun 08 UTC
Totally non-Dip question about Google Chat...
How can I set it so that I always get the older version of Gmail?

I want to remove the Chat Box from the left hand margin. I do not use it / will not use it / am a bit peed off that I cannot keep the base page as original style.

Any help appreciated.

5 replies
Open
Sicarius (673 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
what a great day to be alive
sorry, I kinda just have to tell everybody.
A beautiful sunrise, in a windswept cornfield, dew all over me, birds...
idk, it was just intense. really makes you forget the little shit and just be glad you're alive
14 replies
Open
Treefarn (6094 D)
05 Jun 08 UTC
Diplomacy on my phone errors
I have a Motorola Q with Verizon in the USA. I frequently respond to countries via my phone, though seeing the map is difficult. The 'x' mark on the games tab does not show up on my phone, though the envelope DOES show. And in the list of players on a table, the check and xmarks after each player do not show. Any idea why?
0 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
05 Jun 08 UTC
Kestas - Point system for a draw is incorrectly rendered.
According to game rules, all players with units left on the board are to share equally in a draw. This is not the case in phpDip. Points earned are calculated based on the ratio of sc's held over 34. This is not Diplomacy.

In the game 'toledo paintball', I played as England and held an impenetrable position with only 7 sc's to my credit. It would have been to my benefit simply to refuse a draw and force my opposing allies to stab one another. Instead, I lobbied for a draw. The next time, I'll hold out until Autumn 2050.

Please comment.
2 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
04 Jun 08 UTC
Kestas - request for a draw - toledo paintball
Here is the link...

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=3587&msgCountry=Global

I am playing as England. A-H and Turkey should be posting soon with their acquiescence.

Thank you.
5 replies
Open
fastspawn (1625 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
Hello I am back
Hi! I don't know whether you remember me.
But I was the one who always signed off with the request to prevent users from playing more than one game at a time to prevent metagaming.
10 replies
Open
KaaRoy (0 DX)
03 Jun 08 UTC
diplomacy-archive.com
There was once a great website by this name. Now it is gone. Does anyone know what happened, is it going to come back, or are the contents available anywhere else?
11 replies
Open
Blackheath Wanderer (0 DX)
01 Jun 08 UTC
Lazy Sunday Game
Any players about who fancy a fairly quick turnover game running today, Sunday 1st June? It would be great if there are 6 of you out there who fancy the challenge of completing a game in a day.

If I get 7 replies, I will post a new game :)
22 replies
Open
GnuclearGnome (100 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
Noob question
I have another noob question. I'm having trouble with the clock that says "End of phase: x hours." I figure out when the phase will be over, then I log on about a half-hour earlier than that, but still a new phase has began. How long is a phase, and how does it end?
3 replies
Open
KaaRoy (0 DX)
03 Jun 08 UTC
Have you ever won "honestly"?
Have you ever won a game without stabbing anyone and always keeping all your promises? How did that happen?
24 replies
Open
Treefarn (6094 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
Come join "Bite Me" Bet of 111 PPS
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4137
1 reply
Open
Shino (113 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
lol join for 0 points
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4124 lol no one is playing in this game and u can join for zero points lol
1 reply
Open
xgongiveit2ya55 (789 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
Draw Request: Kaelthas
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=3881

Russia and I (Turkey) have agreed to a 17-17 draw. Russia will confirm.
1 reply
Open
nutsack (100 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
gmae
join game IM SO HIGH so we can get this shit started
0 replies
Open
flashman (2274 D(G))
02 Jun 08 UTC
The Wonderllama...
Does anyone have an e-mail for him?

I need it to send a game password.

Of course, if Mr Llama is reading this himself...
6 replies
Open
averyskijunky (160 D)
04 Jun 08 UTC
hey IM SO HIGH
i was just listening to this song when i created this game but yah this is a good game with decent stakes/bets and come and join
0 replies
Open
dangermouse (5551 D)
31 May 08 UTC
I hate loser players who...
decide to help another player to victory in return for simply not being eliminated.
33 replies
Open
dionysus (100 D)
03 Jun 08 UTC
How did the winner of this game win? He doesn't have enough Centres
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=3291
14 replies
Open
Katsarephat (100 D)
03 Jun 08 UTC
New game: "Why can't we be friends?"
I'm too lazy to post the link, sorry. Go to games, use Ctrl-F.

25 pt bet, PPSC.
1 reply
Open
Page 106 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top