@Red - the idea behind Mr_rb's "variant" is to get closer to the boardgame, not real life. There are no embassies in F2F play.

No the first thing that should be added to this awesome site is a way to send a message to two or more players at once, so you can have three, four, five or sixway conversations. IMO this is the thing that is missing and what is there in F2F and adds so many more levels to the game.. and would simulate RL diplomacy a lot more.

About two way draw discussion: .. nah forget it .. D33 already started a thread about those a while back, upon his marvelous 2way achievement, why dont we all read that again? ;)

This is how its supposed to be done, a two way ;) (gameID=69817) Read the EOG thread ;)

@red: If you would be motivated by points, which you are obviously not, you should have stabbed the shit out of Italy (in spring 1918 or something) and solo-ed and claim all the available points.

@MrcsAurelius. That would have been disrespectful. At some point during this game Italy sent a few troops (one or two) to his south eastern possessions in case of a stab. I deliberately didn't match them. I have that from Henry Kissinger's "Years of Upheaval", in the chapters where he describes the negotiations on the SALT treaties. A very good read.
Re: Multiple messages. I wholeheartedly agree. A multiple message thread would be extremely strong and also work well with Mr_rb's ideas on resembling the game to F2F play.
D33 started a thread on a two way draw, I started my thread mainly because the game is unusual for its length.

@red - Screw respect. This is Diplomacy: a game of using people to your advantage so you can get the win. If you can get the win, you should. The survivors have only themselves to blame.

@Draugnar, that is simply not what this website does. You are describing a system like I described above, but with a scaling factor of <1. Then you'd be right. The site uses 1. As long as admission is regulated by points, and no additional reward is given for victories, a two way draw is a fantastic result.

I simply do not understand what people's fascination is with points. Literally, I am cognitively unable to grasp the appeal.

I *learned* how to play diplomacy on this site and I hate points. They don't represent skill, they represent your ability to game a system unrelated to the game we are here to play. I've had about the same number of points for 2 years because I play low-pot games; however, if you look at my history, almost all of them have some of the best players on the site.

Points are stupid; get over it.

An additional reward IS given, namely all points in the game. It was WTA wasnt it?

@Abg: You dont think its cool to have a ranking of some sort? Whether thats points, GR or whatever..?

Competition puts an extra dimension in a game right? I mean a football game is/can be extra exciting because of the league around it right?

@red - From our front page (the *site's* front page).

"Luck plays no part in Diplomacy. Cunning and cleverness, honesty and perfectly-timed betrayal are the tools needed to outwit your fellow players. The most skillful negotiator will climb to victory over the backs of both enemies and friends.

Who do you trust?"

Nothing about points or honor or any of that rot you claim the site is about. Only Kestas can truly say what the site is about but the fatc he included this quote on the site speaks volumes more than your opinion. I'm sorry, but I feel confident in saying your opinion is worng this time. I'm not putting you down, I'm just saying you are incorrect to state what you feel the site is about is in any way a factual statement in light of the quote on the site's front page.

I think you should be careful about putting too much stock in ratings.

Because higher-pot games don't correlate to higher-quality games, more points can't correlate to more skill. Points are probably the worst rating system ever devised.

I like GR well enough. There are some issues. For instance, my GR dropped a lot when I taught some friends how to play on this site.

@all: I have to go to sleep, big day tomorrow.
@Draug: I'm saying, simply, that although in the spirit of the game that might be true, the admission system simply doesn't reflect it.
@MrcsAurelius: your all points argument is sound, except that that is actually an extrapolation of the already obtained result, although only in the abstract sense. It was reasoned that a player who controls more than half of the board can, in many instances, be considered capable of also taking ALL the rest of the board, so why not simply give him all the points.
Re: competition/league argument we are once again exactly on the same page.
@abg: I don't know my GR :(

A proper ranking system should allow for a game to be voluntarily excluded and shoudl restrict game parameters to very specific ones. Then you would see a more accurate representation of skill.

And once again I feel the need to point out that the point system was developed by Kestas to keep noobs from getting in over their heads with too many games and to reduce the number of games a new player could play simultaneously. It was never intended to be a rating/ranking system. To view it as such is folly and counter to the view and intent of the site's owner and key developer.Oh, and red, I will say again that no going for the win is counter to the goal of WTA. In WTA a win is worth twice a 2 way draw, 3 times a three way, and 4 times a foru way (and so on). You can say all you want about being about poinjts, but *not* going for the win in WTAS is proof you *weren't* going for the points because you cut your points in half.

@red - "It was reasoned that a player who controls more than half of the board can, in many instances, be considered capable of also taking ALL the rest of the board, so why not simply give him all the points." - Exactly! That's why it is WTA! Winner Takeds All! What's so hard with that? Get the dang win. Don't pussy foot around in WTA if you can win it. You'll just piss off the purists who play WTA and they'll stop invivting you to their private gamnes and playing with you.

Whahahahaha the purists won't invite me?? :'(

Goodnight all.

Goodnight and good luck with your big day!

@red - I'm just saying that with the apporach you are taking, you are cutting yourself off from some great games and players. If you wish to only play a subset of the site who plays Diplomacy as if it were Axis and Allies, so be it.

redhouse: I wouldn't have commented further, if you hadn't specifically asked me not to. That's one sure way to get me to keep talking. It's games like these that will make none of the high quality players on this site (or really, any good diplomacy player) not want to play with you. Until you go for the solo each and every time you can, people simply won't respect you as a player, and rightly so.

And with regard to solo rate, it's patently obvious that there are more variables at play, the primary of which being the quality of player that I play. If you really want to compare the average GR (as flawed of a metric as that is, it's the best we have) of my opponents and yours, we can, but I think you'll be thoroughly embarrassed.

Also, thanks, jmo. :-)

@Redhouse: you Dutch?

Red is inderdaad een Nederlander.

Gezellig ja :)

Am I missing something? Why didn't Italy take the easy win? Why play a WTA game with no intention on trying to win? It seems a bit pointless to me.

@Ursa, Victories, yes I'm Dutch.
@MrcsAurelius, Dankje.
@Skittles. I believe a /guaranteed/ WTA could only be achieved by either me or Italy after 1918.
We were up against a pretty strong field, particularly Turkey appeared to be a big player after the game. There was heavy resistance against our alliance.
There's one thing I forgot to mention. I think it's typically American /not/ to want to draw a game. This is because the most popular sports in America don't easily allow draws, am I correct? Baseball, basketball, football, none of them are games you easily draw. Our national sport, football, considers a draw a good result sometimes. In journals, you will read that "the draw reflected the fact that the two teams were balanced", "that both teams lacked the ultimate will to win" or "that it was a good result for the less highly qualified team" etc..

Dang auto-correct: Victorious. sorry.
Also: soccer or association football.

Well yes, I didn't go over the entire play-by-play, but I was explicitly referring to the final couple of turns where Italy could have taken centers uncontested for the 18.

Your comparison is certainly interesting, but I don't think it really applies. American football does award ties if nobody scores in overtime, but more to your point, I don't know the culture of your country, but I find it hard to believe teams prefer a draw to a win.

For example, your football (soccer), if a team has a shot on an empty net to win, do they not take the shot, just so they can draw? That's the equivalent of what happened in this scenario.

I certainly can't speak for all Americans, but for myself, It's not that I don't want to draw a game, but I certainly don't want to draw a game when a win is available, let alone guaranteed.

In soccer this is unlikely, I'm just saying it's not as lame as in other sports. In chess, the player who plays black and has a tiny disadvantage of not having initiative will often play for the draw.

In poker, I always play for the number two position, sometimes making it to number one anyways.

I do understand your point, red. I can understand "playing for a draw", but I just cannot understand decline to take the victory if it is possible. Even in your chess example, the black player who is playing for a draw will take the win if white gives him the opportunity.

I want to make sure you aren't misunderstanding me. I don't go for the win at all costs. If I have at draw locked up, I'm not going to sacrifice and give another person a chance at a win (or a chance of knocking myself out of the draw) for a gamble that I may, perhaps, get a victory. However, I simply can't turn a win down if it is staring me in the face.

Yeah. But of course this is not a zero sum game between two people, as you're with multiple countries. I consider I won from 2.5 other players :)