kaner406, I agree. I do think THAT stance that charlesf takes has merit. I still don't understand some of his other statements though and I feel (unintentionally or not) he is coming off as unappreciative and condescending towards a completely free site.

> > What's the solo rate? :-o
> I don't know. But decent players have shockingly high solo rates on this site.
I meant what does "solo rate" mean?

I believe Charles is saying that games between good players should rarely reach solo victories. The percentage of games that have achieved solos (rather than stalemates or diplomatic draws) is higher than he expects should be achievable.

Well, I love this site, as well as OliDip - and well would you pay to play Diplomacy? I think the system they have here, works well. I think that Charlesf might have come across slightly too strong, but him basic idea is sound.

Gray press, and an option for multiple messaging. He has obviously experienced working with automated judges - and he has made a suggestion which he feels would add to the site

(sorry Charlesf if you are female)

it would be a major update. and imho will open a LOT of new possibilities!

"I am against it, it reduces the uncertainty factor."

To take this argument to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't have any press at all...

Similarly, when global was introduced, it was thought that that might make a huge difference to how the game is played. It didn't.

I'm sorry, but the rules allow for press, regardless of who wrote the missive.

A "newspaper" article written and posted anon. would allow for much greater depth in the game.

@ JECE: tick boxes next to the names of the players to idicate who you want to send to and, as now, a message icon appears when they send you a message? The alternative would be more like an email system, with the option of adding recipients and a simple Reply or Reply all option.

@ charlesf: I agree with what you say about human GMs. I was just trying, in a fumbling way, to illustrate that saying "it isn't needed" doesn't mean "it isn't desirable" :D

@ kestasjk: I'm presuming, but "solo rate" = number of solo victories as a proportion of game results.

What I think would be a good system is similar to what JECE suggested, with some changes of titles (only more to do with what I'm used to, rather than the traditional titles JECE uses - which grew out of Play By Mail):
Messages: sent to one player.
Multiple-recipient messages: sent to more than one player
Press: global messages
Anonymous Press: global messages with the option of not revealing the power that posted.

As for whether it would reduce solo rates, it probably would, slightly. But you aren't going to make solos THAT more difficult to come by on an automated site only because drop outs are so common. It's just too easy to NOT bother with games you aren't doing well in or when you just decide you don't want to play anymore.

>>> why do you think there is lower quality play because of a computer gm?

Actually, there's no computer GM. Just a computer adjucator. A GM does a whole lot more than just adjucating. Especially a good one.

For one, GMs resolve NMR situations and seek replacements. Often earlier than at all possible here. (And I understand that most players do not pause the game and seek a replacement, but simply play on with a CD).

A GM also polices a game and exerts a form of social control beyond that exerted by fellow players. As in any group or society, good policing and strong social control help members of that group/society adhere to its norms. Just compare say crime rates in Sweden and Haiti...

>>> 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.

Shorter deadlines create more rough-and-tumble play, which is a fun change of pace (and for that reason I might play such games). Yet you necessarily have less time to negotiate and that lowers play quality. To what degree depends on the players in a given game.

>>> 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.

That may be a mitigating factor. Though one has to also consider that pbem-players tend to invest more energy into a given game than a player here who plays several games in the space of time a pbem-player devotes to one single game.

BOTTOM LINE: webDiplomacy has players self-govern a game. That can run smoothly provided that all players in a game prove reliable and do not NMR. In such a context, you can indeed have a high-quality game here. No question. In such a context, a GM wouldn't have to intervene much and his role becomes less important. Yet most games don't run as smoothly and there especially a GM will be missed.

>>> I still don't understand some of his other statements though and I feel (unintentionally or not) he is coming off as unappreciative and condescending towards a completely free site.

No. I appreciate what Kestas has done here. I just also appreciate what human GMs add to the game. They often invest a lot in a game and it very much shows.

re NMRs: Having an option to force people into CD as soon as they NMR, whilst pausing the game and not processing, would be a very good option to protect a games integrity.

re topic: Firstly, just saying 'add a tick-box' is not a reasonable response for how to run this option. More importantly, you are missing out the key factor here. The reason having multi-person conversations is useful in f2f is that you know what people are saying to one another, and you know if you then see them walk off a few minutes later for a 1-to-1 conversation. Here however, you don't know when people are talking to each other, and as a result this would be of very little use: they could just use direct chat to tell the other player to ignore what was said in 'semi-public'

So is there really a consensus that verifiable multi-country messaging would reduce the solo-rate, and that reducing the solo-rate is a legitimate thing to aim for?
If so I'd appreciate someone walking me through the thought process leading to those conclusions

Also I don't get the comment that having human GMs lowers the solo rate.

I'm not especially pro/anti judge style etc, as far as I'm concerned they're the first wave of online Diplomacy innovators, and they have lots to offer, but I do find they can sometimes be a bit stuck in their ways that differing from the old ways is necessarily wrong, so I hope everyone keeps an open mind in this thread on all sides

@Kestas: Having a 'no NMR', where if a player has not submitted orders they're immediately put into CD, would be a much better way to help further the game.

Also, I would suggest the reason the solo rate is so high is because there is such a skill *range* on this site, with new players as well as old, whereas other communities are more likely to be filled with seasoned players

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to solo, why play for draws?

Multi Lateral negotiations aren't really that important. You can easily tell people something in multilateral then plan a stab in bilateral anyway.

Only time I can see it being that useful is in Fixed alliance games.

Wow.... such a nativist flavor to some of the remarks here - specially by players who learned about diplomacy from this site, and have only played on this site.

As someone who has been an evangelist FOR this site among the PBEM and FTF communities I still interact with (including the elite ACD group), I have to say that some of those of you defending this site with knee-jerk reactions need a wider perspective before you try to defend webdip with such reactionary arguments.

charles, Duke, and JECE bring up some seriously important points. if we at Webdip decide not to do anything about them, that is fine, but to simply ignore them is choosing to refuse to respond to reality. They are correct - the solo rates on this site are abnormally high - even in WTA games. the PPSC variant is a mutated variant of the original game and is NOT real Diplomacy - but some of us have argued and lost that debate long ago. The lack of a human GM DOES reduce the quality of both play and results (an explanation for kestas further below). Having the FULL press options (mulitple player press) IS one way to increase anti-solo coordination - specially when coupled with the slower than "normal" deadlines... keep in mind, in "normal" PBEM games each season takes about a week to play out.

All of that said... and though I'm in full agreement with charles and Duke and the others who have probably played PBEM for almost two decades now, I still think the improvements provided by this site outweigh its drawbacks... and that is why over the past 3 years, I've played 100 games on here, but zero PBEM games and I've enjoyed my Diplomacy experience more than ever before... even more than my Cat23 and Academy days. keep in mind that PBEM and Judges were themselves variations of the original FTF diplomacy. the Original game never called for a GM so that itself is a mutation of the original in order to serve the particular means of the new medium or platform.

to charles, Duke, & other PBEMers: a key point some others have raised is that there is a much wider 'range' to the players on this site. with over 26,000 profiles and some 3,500 (and growing) active players this site FAR outstrips the likes of diplomaticcorp for example (some 800 profiles if I'm not mistaken). Even Cat23 in its heyday did not have a 1000 people on its email lists...

I will admit that in the early going when you FIRST join this site, when you are FORCED to play low-point and low-quality games, as an experienced player it can be a HUGE turn-off. specially when you have built up both a reputation and experience on some other site. I personally came here after having played dozens of games on Cat23, diplomatic corps and then on the Facebook version of this application. On FB I had played some 16 games and had a 100% win/draw record - I was top-10 in points and playing with the best players on that site... but I still put that aside because I knew that after 3-5 months of play here, I'd have a much larger pool of great players that would provide me with even more enjoyment...

so for you and those like you who join webdip from other sites... there has to be a realization that it will take you 3-5 months... maybe around 5-8 games to get to a point of playing really quality games. meanwhile, play the low-quality low-points even PPSC games to farm points... get yourself to 500-1000 THEN start judging the level of play on this site.

so my challenge to you two in particular (Duke & Charles) is this: With a site this large and with the points and GR system already in place (no system is perfect, but these two are pretty good for the role they play) you have to 'deal with it' for a few months... take advantage of the lower level of play and just kick ass until you get the points you need.

Personally, if I'd be writing recommendations for old-school players who want to join this site - here is what I would recommend:

1) First play a 100point 12-36 hr deadline PPSC game (as long as you can meet the deadlines) - in this game, you will quickly figure out who will and wont talk, do your best, but dont expect expertise. use your superior tactical, strategic, and diplomatic skills to either solo for about 360 or at least survive for 250+ points... this should be pretty easy for ANY decent player. - and even if by some crap luck you get AH and get gang-raped by a bunch of noobs, then you get your 100 back and try again.

2) repeat this process one or two more times with your newly acquired points... and get yourself to the 500 to 1000 point range... this should take as little as 3-4 games or as many as 7-8 games for a pretty decent PBEM player.

3) NOW advertise on the forum for 101+ WTA games with 36-48 hour deadlines. anon or not is up to you. this is when you say, "I am a good player that wants good competition"... players like Ivo and MadMarx will come out of the woodwork to play with NEW good players...

But... when you get to this point, be ready to lose games... because the GOOD players on this site... ARE better than the good players you are used to playing on your current PBEM site. THAT is a promise. And there are more of us here then wherever you are coming from. We look forward to having you join our ranks!

@charles

You keep talking about how there are too many solos on this site and quite frankly, it's getting a little old.

Here are the reasons there are more solos:

Webdip is MUCH more popular for new players than any PBeM site. So, of course they are going to play poorly because they're new to the game. I, for instance, played my first game of dip on this site. This isn't a point against webdip; it is a very good one. We introduce players to the game.

There are a lot of variants. Again, people will have inflated (or deflated) scores as they learn the new variants. Also (especially gunboat) more solos are to be expected.

If you look at games played by people with a GR of 100 or higher, I think you'll find that there are very few solos and that the level of play is exceptional. Webdip simply tailors to a wider audience.


"Shorter deadlines create more rough-and-tumble play, which is a fun change of pace (and for that reason I might play such games). Yet you necessarily have less time to negotiate and that lowers play quality. To what degree depends on the players in a given game."

This is absolute rubbish. Vanilla Diplomacy (F2F) has what, 15min turns? Even if I play a 24hour phase game with people all around the world, I have more diploming time per nation per turn than a true game of Diplomacy.

@ Hellenic - the game's intent: First - Aim for the solo. Second, if you can not get the solo, make sure no one else does. If played 'correctly' as intended, this means that draws are much more prevalent than solos.

@ kestas - you raised a number of very important questions, I hope to give you my opinion here...

1) Question: Is having less solo's desirable goal?

My Answer: First off, I think the 'goal' is to have a "good" game. that is to say, 7 players who actively play well and provide good competition and challenge to each other. if a game is truly well played, it WILL result in a draw. However, as any good player who solos will tell you, when one or two of the players slip up, then one player is able to slip through and solo. As someone who has had plenty of WTA solos and even more 14 to 16 center draws, I can tell you that solos occur when my opposition breaks down. when they are not able to coordinate effectively or when one of them, out of spite or mistrust of one of the others, provides me a window of opportunity to solo.

So to answer your question - in the community of players who have played dip for a LOOOOONG time... a lower solo rate is indicative of a more experienced and more 'serious' diplomacy community. From personal conversations I can tell you that the very high rate of PPSC solos' on THIS site has turned away dozens of my former PBEM and FTF dip friends - because it is a clear indication of lower quality of play to them.

2) Question: Will having multi-person messaging lower the solo-rate?

My Answer: It is likely to have a discernible effect, but is not the most important variable in why webdip has too many solos. The reason it will be effective has been outlined above. Mainly, it allows 2, 3, or even 4 players to coordinate against the potential solo. Usually, specially in 24-72 hour games, there simply is not enough time to go through all the potential counter moves with all players, specially those so close to being eliminated, they simply don't put in the time as much. Multi-player press would allow a group discussion where usually one of the players takes the lead and gives move directives for the anti-solo alliance and usually the others will provide limited feedback and simply follow orders. This WILL reduce the number of solos.

But my experience on this site tells me that both kestas and the larger community want MORE solos not less.

Which brings me to the more important point... the 'quality' of play.

Kestas, my second best recommendation to you for improving the quality of play on this site is along the lines of what figles is talking about above. to provide a "no-NMR-allowed" game option. once an NMR occurs, the game is auto-paused, the NMRing player is CDd, and the game auto-unpauses once a replacement player shows up. But for this to work - taking over NMRing positions should cost zero points and should not be calculated in GR. something along those lines.

IF we are able to come up with some system or mechanism to dis-allow NMRs in games, we will have fulfilled THE biggest function GMs play and we will have made as HUGE an improvement on the quality of games on this site as can be made. Its not an easy task, will require serious thought - but will have a big reward.

and Kestas - my first, and the best recommendation I can make to improve this site, is something I know you will not implement: Get rid of PPSC!

@ abgemacht - partially +1

I'm frankly quite disappointed that one apparently cannot post any criticism here without fanboys adopting a quite nasty tone in response, getting personal rather than engaging in a lively and cordial discussion. Quite sad.

I don't think people have really gotten nasty or personal, maybe just a bit (or more than a bit) defensive. As for the original topic of multi-lateral press, I, along with most people here, have no coding knowledge so I have no idea how and if it could be easily implemented.

I tend to think that these multilateral options would not be used very much though. FtF games and PBEM are very much different from this site, and maybe that is a good thing? I suppose it would be nice to have the option, but I don't think it would be utilized very much in a 24hr game. I still think that it is not all that necessary, and certainly that webdiplomacy is not committing some Diplomacy sin by not including it.

1. Although I'm not a terribly experienced and don't much care how high or low the solo rate at this site or any other platform is, I think that the multiple country press is an extremely good idea. Multiple-player communication press greatly eases communication within an alliance, or between players attempting to win over a third party; it improves the quality of the game experience. Whether or not it changes the solo ratio of the site isn't really relevant to my opinion, but whether or not it makes the game more interesting (which it would) is.

Hmmm. First there is no criticism of the site from me here. I said introducing multi-recipient messaging would possibly lower the solo rate. By that I meant it would be easier to organise a clear, coordinated defence against the solo.

Second, I was waiting for that one, well almost :D It isn't about the quality of games at all. I'm very well aware that playing games for "small" change or, more properly, playing games that I see in the games section rather than Forum invitationals, is likely to mean a lower quality game. Not necessarily lower quality play, by the way. The games may be lower quality but that is about the surrender rate, which is high. But that's to be expected (unfortunately). I'm not too concerned about that, though. The chance to play better games will come along (and forget the 3-5 months bit :D).

The point I'm simply making is that multi-recipient messaging would be useful. I'm sorry to those people who can't see how. Simply saying "It doesn't mean it can be trusted" isn't the point either. If you managed to read what I've put before, I did say that. But that's no different to single-recipient messaging, is it? The difference ISN'T that it can be trusted; it's that it can be USEFUL.

Again, simply saying "I don't see how it would be useful" really doesn't bring up a good case for not having it. Because you can't see how something might be useful simply means you can't see it. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be. "Pfft," said Phillipe VI at Crecy, "I don't see how the long bows can be useful."

Third, who said just put a tick box on it? I didn't. I said it COULD have a tick box, but it would need the option to reply to all and reply to sender and it would need an icon to show when messages had been sent to you. I ALSO said it could be done by making the system more like an email, where the option to add recipients could be added. AND I said it would take a lot of re-writing.

If the site doesn't implement this, it's no problem. Charlesf posted it as a suggestion, I agreed it would add a great dimension to the games. Having played using it (no not PBEM, but on an automated site that has it) it does give that extra dimension. That isn't criticism of this site.

On the secondary issue which is creeping in here, kicking people out after one NMR is a bad idea, IMO. To be honest, you've got it about right. One NMR and you're out seems to be used more on PBEM sites. There the deadlines are longer and players have more time to get their orders in. Here, with deadlines as short as a day, that means all it takes is for a player to be without access to the internet for a day (or less) and they're out of the game. Harsh. And, although you might say "tough" that it isn't going to solve the problem of NMRs and it will increase the problem of CDs. NMRs and CDs are always going to be part of internet Dip and more so on automated sites. Two NMRs and you're out makes more sense. For those who genuinely miss one deadline, there is some grace. For those who deliberately miss one deadline, only one more is needed.

If the players who took over CD positions were more reliable, then perhaps kicking a player out for one NMR would be useful. As that hasn't proven to be the case in the few games I'm playing, where take overs are just as likely to NMR and become CD, it seems. From that evidence, at least, causing quicker CDs will cause more CDs.

I like that webdip gives a player an opportunity to miss a move without his position being taken over. And then missing two moves and the position is up for grabs.

But, I agree the game shouldn't move on. I suggest on first NMR that the phase be reset. On a second consecutive NMR the phase should be reset again and the game paused and the country put into CD so someone else can take over. To keep this from being abused for temporary pauses, NMRs should be tracked.

At least as an option to start.

1. Grey Press

2. Multiple-player communication ability

3. Auto-NMR to CD



I downloaded the source code a few weeks ago with the intention to begin to learn how work with the coding, but it was beyond me. :-( I imagine it would take a fair bit of coding to implement )-:

As for multi-recipient messages, it would be handy. It would help organize the defense against someone close to soloing. But it is not specifically needed as everyone could just copy and paste.

On the one hand it is more akin to f2f where you can go off in groups. But as fig (I think) pointed out, in f2f you'd see if the other two of your three player conversation where talking behind your back, whereas here you can't see who is talking to whom.

As for implementation, there are a lot of ways it could be done. Having check boxes that allow you to CC (carbon copy) other countries would seem to be the simplest way to integrate it into the current format. And it could be done in a fairly non-confusing way. If you are on player A's tab and click the check box for player B, then the message will be sent to A and B. A and B would both get it and both see that the other got it as well in a way that can't be forged (black text). There are some more technical details that would have to be worked out but it definitely doable.

>>> I don't think people have really gotten nasty or personal, maybe just a bit (or more than a bit) defensive.

Well, I think trying to shut someone up (unless he's a troll) is perfectly hostile and rude.

Wow lots of interesting messages here. My thoughts.
1. I agree that the GM system leads to much more stable games, but it does require that you develop good GMs. One of the two things about webdip that bother me are the NMRs. Most other sites would never put up with those, and as a GM, I tended to replace people mercilessly for being late. Of course, on BOUNCED, where I GMd almost 200 games, replacement players can gain ranking but not lose, so replacement positions are easy to fill. Unfortunately, that means that you can also farm points by only playing replacement positions.
2. I've played one or two PBEM games, and the style of play is very different from here or on BOUNCED. Because of the long deadlines, players tend to send fewer messages, but those messages are quite long. Here and on BOUNCED, I'm one of the wordier players, but in PBEM, I'm considered a terrible slacker. I don't know how those guys come up with that much to say every turn.
3. As I've mentioned numerous times, I would love true partial and gray press, as they add a lot of subtle effects (and I'm lazy and don't like copy/pasting my messages). I think partial press would be relatively easy to implement, but gray would be significantly more difficult.
4. All that being said, the quality of play in the high level games on webdip is very high -- comparable to what you'd get in a ranking restricted game on BOUNCED, except that even at the peak of it's popularity, such games often took months to get started there, whereas we can usually get a challenge game started in less than a week here. That's the benefit of a large community -- drawback, of course, is that there's a lot of riffraff.
5. In response to Babak's advice: I don't think I've ever had more than 500 , and yet I still manage to get into good games. If you can type quickly, live games are an easy way to build up your GR and get into challenge games. Of course, the quality of play will not necessarily be very high -- some of my solos there have been rather laughable, and not because of CDs.
6. I must point out that I still hate the way we put in orders here. You lot keep telling me it's easier to learn, but I'd much rather type my orders into a box, as I'm less likely to pick the wrong province, it's faster, and selecting things from a dropbox is a pain without a mouse.
7. I first played on here in 2007, when PPSC was the only option, and there was no such thing as a draw. I might still have my criticisms, but I play almost exclusively here now, and it's been nice to watch the site grow up, in a sense.

@Babak; thanks for the explanation. I have no opinion on whether a large solo rate is better or worse, but I have to admit that in the past people have said that it is too low, that PPSC is the reason, and that WTA games would favor more outright wins and that that would be more true to the game, so it is odd hearing the opposite case argued now.
I like the idea of an option to not allow NMR games, but ultimately if the aim is to prevent them happening I think we can agree that nothing will stop them completely in lower stakes games. I think trying to structure games into tournaments, and trying to get to higher points levels, are the best approaches to reducing the NMR rate in a webDip context

> Well, I think trying to shut someone up (unless he's a troll) is perfectly hostile and rude.
Maybe I missed that, but I've asked you follow up questions and told everyone to keep an open mind, and the thread has continued in that tone I think. I consider webDip to be an extension of the PBEM approach, especially in terms of the open-source variant-friendly nature.
We welcome as many PBEM guys as we can get, and we get quite a few, and we've engaged via e-zine articles and discussions with PBEM admins/developers (one of which launched a project to get PBEM games interfacing with webDip code), so I think it's unfair to act like we're not receptive to criticism and want to suppress discussion


On that note one thing which is undeniable is that we get more newcomers here. This has its advantages and disadvantages; it's easy to see why PBEM people would dislike it, especially when they need to put themselves above a sea of newcomers coming from a pool of experienced PBEM players.

The important thing to bear in mind is that, to an extent, it's a tradeoff which can't be overcome by changes to how webDip operates: It *will* affect the solo rate, the NMR rate, the amount of communication, the quality of gameplay.
The question isn't "how do we make the site like PBEM and get rid of newcomers and amateur games?", it's "how do we let people play in the kind of games they want to play in?"

@kestas
What e-zine articles have featured webdip?

I had an article in diplomacy world #108, and TGM had one as well which was related to the rating system (can't remember which one). The whole PBEM-webDip tension is something that has come up before and which I don't think makes any sense, and my article was one of a few attempts to counter the opinion some PBEM guys have that webDip is something separate and alien to the community (it looks like they haven't been very successful :-( )

If you're interested:
http://www.whiningkentpigs.com/DW/dw108.pdf