History is what I dislike the most about Diplomacy. If people could play the game in its purity, then history is fine, but I find grudges and other petty feelings boil over into future games. Thus, the reason I enjoy anonymous games.

Because people metagame against them and team up on them merely because they are good...

metagaming is unfair and cheating thats why. like im in a non anon game and i have way more points than anyone else and i know that people are never really going to trust me and want to get rid of me early.

Its true Bask, as an new player a few months back I never trusted a highly ranked player

Good to hear from you, Bask. I think the founder would argue that in its purest form, each game of Diplomacy would start completely fresh, so that players knew nothing about the other's style, trustworthiness, etc. Do you agree?

if i recall correctly bask also likes long term alliances with no stabbing and the overarching goal to have a 17 17 split.

Anonymous games are evil, because you can't tell who is likely to CD and who plays like a buffoon. This effects the outcome greatly.

Centurion, Bask recanted and joined the dark side. He is now a true WTA Sith Lord.
Some day, I hope he comes back to the Forces of Goodness and Light.

that is metagaming putin. making preconceived notions of people based on past games is metagaming.

so he doesnt do that bullshit anymore? well hes still supporting metagaming in essence.

Virtually everything is 'metagaming'. It's become a meaningless term.

One change I'd like to see is to hide exactly which players have not submitted orders. As it is, when a player is about to cd it gives an advantage to other players who are able to check-in on the game just before time-out. Do we really need to know exactly which players have submitted orders or not?

false. i do not metagame because i play anon games. i dont know whos who.

right, but anything short of an anonymous is 'metagaming'. Whatever.

In the sense that I look at a player's history and judge their trustworthiness, I absolutely DO metagame, if that be the definition. Do I assume that because they stabbed before, they will ALWAYS stab? Or ALWAYS be trustworthy? no. Do I ignore it? No.

If those at the site truly believed we should be blind to our previous experiences with a player, or to their history, then all games would be anonymous. I believe that they feel that players should approach each game freshly, with an open mind to new alliances. That, one can do, even with history in mind.

it is if you go and look at past records like baskinelli does.....

(which I guess, in a less civil way, would be "that bullshit" lol)

>>>> From a recent posting:

raugnar: "Bask, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy. "
Bask: I'll never join you!
Darth Draugner: If you only knew the power of the Dark Side. MadMarx never told you what happened to your father.
Bask: He told me enough! He told me *you* killed him!
Darth Draugner: No. *I* am your father. 17 17 draws are against the intent of Diplomacy.
Bask: No. No. That's not true. That's impossible!
Darth Draugnar: Search your feelings, you *know* it to be true!
Bask: [anguished] No! No!

Indy +1 and Bask +1 and Putin +1

i guess it depends on how you play FtF. if you play with the same folks, or same pool of folks, yeah its less like anon. but if you play at tournaments or whatnot, it's more like anonymous.

If you take your time and read reports of FtF players, they always are trying to figure out who they are playing against.

In fact, in FtF diplomacy EVERYTHING goes. You can even get the other side to drink too much alcohol to stop thinking clearly. I think that this is the real Diplomacy.

My point is that anonymous games are biased towards stabbing (and stabbers). Since there are no long-term consequences for randomly stabbing everybody, people do it.

Most high-pot high-GR games (I bet more than 90%) are anonymous, and this behavior promotes only one style of the game.

I think both anon and nonanon have their place.

I like nonanon because it allows me to build relationships with other players. It's also nice to have the added info from past games when making decisions. Those who say you should not look at past games are fools. That would be like a football coach not looking at previous games, or a student not looking at previous exams. Use the information you have available.

I also enjoy anon because it allows me to focus solely on the game at hand.

I don't think anyone can make a solid argument that either anon or nonanon is more true to F2F. In fact, I'd say F2F is a mixture in both. For instance, when I went to the Boston Massacre last year, I felt like I was playing anon and everyone else was playing nonanon!

'Because people metagame against them and team up on them merely because they are good... '

And this is entirely fair meta-gaming as far as i'm concerned. If these players lost a number of games they would go on to have less points and be seen as less of a threat. Anon gives them a measure of protection and thus makes their games easier (this is not as extreme as playing against yourself, but as always making the game easier is no fun for me - fortunately i don't think anyone's considered me much of a threat, but in the hypothetical situation...)

'I think the founder would argue that in its purest form, each game of Diplomacy would start completely fresh, so that players knew nothing about the other's style, trustworthiness, etc. Do you agree? '

I do not agree - i believe that diplomacy is inherently a social game, and previous social interactions(ie:reputation) are an important part of our decision making (and an important part of FtF games)

That said, the creator of diplomacy or even the creator of webdiplomacy is not a perfect uber-being who defines how we should absolutely play the game.(appeal to authority fallacy)

In fact, i think KNOWING someone's reputation forces players to build a reputation. Usually the best would be 'unpredictable style' OR 'varying trustworthyness'.

This may make the game harder, but i've no reason to be against that.

'I believe that they feel that players should approach each game freshly, with an open mind to new alliances. That, one can do, even with history in mind.' - +1

'but if you play at tournaments or whatnot, it's more like anonymous' - I guess, but if you can do some research online when you see who entered the tournament you may be able to find out a bit about a person's history...

and if they have no history of playing in tournaments then assume they are a noob.

Are there any tournaments which try to exclude people from knowing who won? ie anon tournaments...

My solution to the points loss/ganking the big guy problem is to let them sell their points (at least all but their last 100 )!

yes, let players pay to play in more games... it doesn't subvert the purpose of excluding people from playing if they're not serious, it just gives them an opportunity to prove they are serious...

(all imho, fyi)

so you metagame good now i know not to play with you

A good anon game is a fresh slate, where relationships are made and broken based purely on what happens in that game. First time player or rank one on the GR charts, you all have equal footing circa 1901. Sure F2F and nonanon games are a hoot, but I tend to prefer playing those games with friends, chums I enjoy playing games with.

To me, it sounds like you rely on relationships forged over time and many games, which, does smack a bit of meta, but hey, a charming fellow is a charming fellow. And sure, the fact that this site offers back ground history is a neat feature, but, unless in tournament play, you're NEVER getting the background history of a new player in F2F.

In an anon game, you just need to play a bit more defensively, and talk a bit more. Don't lift your dainty little skirt and show him your centers just because he promised to take you to Paris in the spring.

I prefer to play anonymous games because I really learned the game online, and believe that part of it is figuring out -- through only the evidence you can find in your opponents' press and moves, -- their tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses so that you can exploit them. In that respect, it's the 'purest' form of the game, as it makes it almost impossible to take into account anything outside of the game.

However, I understand that this is not the way the game has been traditionally played. In ftf games, as Bask mentioned, anything goes, up to and including buying others drinks. PBM and PBEM games are almost never anonymous, and players are encouraged to use any and all information they can find to their advantage. They can also do whatever it takes to deceive the other players as long as it doesn't involve impersonating or lying to the GM -- and there are definitely stories out there of people succeeding in turning in fake orders for other powers and getting them adjudicated. So it all depends on how you define 'pure.'

FInally, I disagree that anonymous games favor people who like to stab. It favors people who communicate well, and it allows people who like to stab to thrive over a long period of time (assuming that they do it well, of course). However, there are also players like MadMarx who really don't emphasize stabbing very much in their games, insist on anonymity, and manage to do quite well, to say the least.

"so you metagame good now i know not to play with you "

No centurion1, and here is the difference.

I go into a game with all the information I can use to do my best, (which happens to include that the players have agreed to abide by the rules of the website and specifically they've agreed to not be a multi)

I do not let outside information alter how i treat them in that game. There is nothing meta or outside of this game which i allow to influence me. If i'm unable to be online i try to have a pause agreed so the game isn't influenced by this external factor either.

After the game is over, i DO remember what happened. (and at this point the game is over i'm not able to meta game anymore...)

However, if you wish not to play me then that's your choice.

"First time player or rank one on the GR charts, you all have equal footing circa 1901. "

- no, they are not on equal footing, first time players have no experience of playing diplomacy, and while nobody knows this the fact influences the game. It is external information (or lack there of) being what they took into the game. This is as i've stated above NOT meta-gaming, but it does influence play.

'I tend to prefer playing those [non anon] games with friends, chums I enjoy playing games with.'

- As i prefer to make friends on this website by playing non-anon. Further i'd prefer if players had the ability to GM games, where they create the game and invite players (real-life friends, tournament signups... whoever)
to play, and they have pause/draw/cancel/forced into CD/replace powers. (which is being discussed on the dev forum)

Anonymous prevents metagaming. Every time I've tried to play non-anonymous with my friends, someone ends up metagaming. If we don't know what country the others are, we can't strategize or negotiate in real life.

*which happens to include that the players have agreed to abide by the rules of the website and specifically they've agreed to not be a multi*

- And I seriously doubt people would agree to play any game on this site with this information. In any case, knowing that all your anon opponents are infact different people is outside information which you can't determine from within the game.

If you play assuming they are different then by centurion1's definition you are meta-gaming (and i wouldn't have it any other way)

"Anonymous prevents metagaming."

False. You'd be surprised how many meta cases are in anon games. If 2 players are in the same location they can still discuss the game. Or, they could do so via PM or other means.