I prefer it this way, because it leads to greater intrigue.

as if multilateral communications would be any more trustworthy. You either trust someone or you don't. The fact that they say it to two people won't change that.

I think it would be very nice to have, but doesn't give one 100% faith. For example, after every message sent to a multilateral group, you could follow it up with NOT! sent to your one true ally. So you have still have your intrigue.

I am against it, it reduces the uncertainty factor.

I think that it better simulates face to face diplomacy. Also, another interesting factor of F2F is that you can fairly easily tell who's been talking with who. That would be another thing which would make this site more interesting.

but HOW?
Do you expect to get a tab for every possible combination? Because there are 63 of those, and thus you'd need 56 more tabs!?!

Yeah, I think it sounds good on paper, but I don't see how it can be implemented.

A possible method would be to have an option on the end of the tabbar called [new] which you would click, then be given options to select which players were in the conversation. Then, if/when you were finished with it you could just close the tab.

However, this would make the interface much less clear.

As for who's talking to who, that could very easily be done, but would it really be wanted?

It wouldn't improve faith or trustworthiness, no, but it would make multi-power alliances more manageable. It only reduces the uncertainty factor if you DO put more trust in what the "allies" are saying and there's no more reason to do that than if you can send messages to just one other power at a time.
Obviously it means giving the ability to select more than one recipient at a time in game, but to work best it would also require a replies option: reply (to only respond to the power that actually sent the message) and reply all. To some extent it increases the uncertainty factor as; eg. E sends a message to F & G with plans for a Western Triple. F replies to all (both E & G) that she agrees and will order a certain set of moves. Ideally F could then also reply to E's message to E only giving a completely different set of moves as they set G up.
Of course, that can be done now and a triple or multi-power alliance can be set up now. Having the option to do so by selecting multiple recipients just makes it simpler.

Oh and having seen those replies above, it could be done by having a tick box next to the name of the powers you want to send to. It is potentially a big change to the system the site uses.

I would be opposed to this. It is not necessary.

As a time saver to send copies of a message to multiple recipients it wouldn't be too bad, and wouldn't add any way of knowing that you had actually sent the same message to each recipient, but I'm not sure whether it'd look nice / be intuitive / clutter things up / get used and save enough time to be worth having

Way back in the pre 0.75 days we used a system that looked like the forum, you could create a "thread" in the game specifying which combination of powers you wanted to send to, and within that thread all discourse was visible to all people who had been sent the thread initially. It didn't really work though, I think just because it wasn't quite as clear and simple, so I'm reluctant to make it more complicated

>>> Oh and having seen those replies above, it could be done by having a tick box next to the name of the powers you want to send to.

That's how the DPJudge does it (a pbem-judge). It's very simple.

webDiplomacy is very much out of step with normal practice in the Diplomacy hobby here.

And this may actually be the reason the solo

...and this may also be one factor in the solo rate being worryingly high on this site. Solo bids should more often be stopped by a well-coordinated counter-alliance. And this site makes that needlessly difficult. As said, this is not how Diplomacy is commonly played, face-to-face or otherwise.

I think the main reasons for the solo rate being so high are that ppsc games and gunboats (among less experienced gunboaters) tend to be soloed more often. In ppsc, the second biggest power often has a points incentive to prefer the loss than the draw, in gunboats, sometimes players are too stupid to build the stalemate line in time and its hard to communicate that to them sometimes.

i imagine the WTA full press solo rate is similar here to what it is elsewhere

Yeh it doens't need multiple tabs and it wouldn't look cluttered. Just a check box. And it IS useful in games, especially in co-ordinating a multiple alliance response to a near solo, for instance, It may take a lot to alter the system, though.
Tbh just saying it isn't necessary is like saying automated judges aren't necessary. No they aren't; a human GM can do the job (possibly better) but automation makes it quicker and regular (you don't have to wait for the GM to make the time to collate, adjudicate, etc). Multi-recipient messages allow you to coordinate more readily (and deceive more deceptively :D ). having played on a site with this option it does get used and gets used a lot.
The only things I would say are: Is there the money to implement the change? And is it a priority over other developments that might be waiting? And, of course, is there the will to implement it?

I feel this is just an interface upgrade that is needed. Copying and pasting the same instructions to many people leads to unnecessary mix-ups and errors. Talking strategy is also more complicated.

It definitely doesn't add to the uncertainty as the game, because you can easily lie behind people's backs anyway. All it does is reduce errors, something any player who prefers fair games should value. If the current system somehow does give you an advantage (and I don't see how it can), then you are taking advantage if something that is only available in on-line implementations of Diplomacy and impossible in the original game, something that I'm pretty sure is expressly forbidden.

figlesquidge: Maybe all but the current tabs could start out hidden? Or they could only be enabled once used, and then hidden again later?

Duke_of_Marlborough: I think the problem with tick marks is that then you don't really have a way to display what messages you've missed.

I would like to see the following implemented in full:
"*Press* is the diplomatic communication between players. *Broadcast press* is press sent from one player to everyone else. *Partial press* is press sent from one player to a subset of the other players (often just a single other player) *White press* is press for which the recipients know who sent it. *Gray press* is press for which the sender is hidden (to all but the game master and sender)." -- http://dipbounced.com/help/startgame.html, *ORIGINALLY BOLD TEXT*

We have broadcast, white and part of partial press implemented on this site, but lack grey and the other part of partial press

I'm failing to see the point of this. How hard is it to write a message to one country and then copy and paste it and send it to another country and be like, "hey England I just sent this to France too." I feel like it would be a needless option.

i want to see how the WTA solo rate comapres with the ppsc solo rate...

Duke_of_Marlborough: Money? You mean memory, right?

jman777: Someone questions the moves set you gave to two players. You find a compromise. Then you tell the other player about the changes, and then the other player has an issue. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

Obviously it can get much worse than in the scenario I just gave. Planning as a group is definitely useful.

>>> Tbh just saying it isn't necessary is like saying automated judges aren't necessary. No they aren't; a human GM can do the job (possibly better) but automation makes it quicker and regular (you don't have to wait for the GM to make the time to collate, adjudicate, etc).

Human GMs increase game quality. A good GM will lessen the likelihood of NMRs and make sure players aren't (near-)gunboating. His commentary will add flavour to the game and enhance the overall experience. Player press (e.g. images, haikus, etc) also add another layer.

Baskineli: Look at the first two paragraphs in my big message and tell me if you still believe that.

Serioussham: Look at the first two paragraphs in my big message and tell me if you still believe that. And if you really want intrigue, just play no press, anonymous games.

Jamiet99uk: It's a dramatic interface improvement and it holds this site more true to the original rules. You tell me if that's necessary or not.

What's the solo rate? :-o

I like the idea:

but I would also like to have a Global tab that is entirely anonymous - no indication of which country/player sent the message.

kaner406: Look at my comments on grey press.

> What's the solo rate? :-o

I don't know. But decent players have shockingly high solo rates on this site. Rates not even elite players elsewhere attain. Now, a big factor here is that this site has this points-per-SC variant rule as a default. But even in WTA games, I believe that:

a) most games being played with far shorter deadlines than is common in pbem hurts anti-solo coordination (and coordination in general)

b) anti-solo coordination is more cumbersome given there being no simple way of sending multilateral press.

c) without a human GM being around, play quality will tend not to be as high as with one around. And as the higher play quality is, the lower the solo probability becomes, this also impacts on the solo rate.

d) NMRing/CD policy here also more likely imbalances games.

why do you think there is lower quality play because of a computer gm? if anything, i think this site has more elite players, since many of us have played many more games than would be possible for pbem players to have played.

i just think this site has more variance in skill level-- i'm not sure how that affects the solo rate

I don't think the NMR/CD issue has any affect on the solo rate of games played at a high level. Sure if you join 5 point, 12 hour phase games, the solo rate is going to be higher.

Secondly, I also don't see how a human GM has any affect on the quality of play from the players.

Thirdly, you can set the phases to whatever you want, so I don't see why you take issue with shorter phase times. Just create a game with longer ones since you feel the play here is SO inferior.

The only issue you bring up that I think has merit is the multilateral press, and I think if players were really trying, they could easily circumvent this problem.