"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."

Actually, the argument was not that we wanted more outright wins, it was that we wanted people to push more for outright wins. It was about changing the motivations, not changing the results.

A low solo rate isn't in and of itself a desirable thing, it is merely considered an indicator of high level play. It would be silly to try to tackle the issue from that end, when what is really wanted isn't a lower solo rate, but a higher level of play. The biggest factor in skill level is the players themselves and their experience with the game. It is only natural that at this site we have a large spread with a large population, it is both detriment and boon.

"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."

Well I think most of the responses here have been quite civil, and more importantly, quite constructive. You're a Diplomacy player, so you should know how people like to be talked to. I think there is a natural reflex here at this site to resent newcomers who walk in and start telling us all how things ought to be done. This is characteristic of almost any established community. You may be an established player in the PBEM world, but you can't expect your reputation to carry over; you'll have to build it up here again. You haven't played very many games here, but you're already judging the level of play by the solo rate and your bad initial experiences. You don't have the sample size to judge our level of play yet, not to mention the inherent sampling bias of playing low point games which can be joined by any of the multitude of new and inexperienced players. Still, I hope you stick with us, and I'm quite sure that it will be proven to you that the best players here can wield a dagger as well as the best in any diplomacy community. =)

If it's any credit to our level of play, I think even Edi Birsan was quite impressed by some of our players when he was here.

Personally, I think Babak is on the money, and he brings valuable perspective, having extensive experience in multiple Diplomacy media. I like to think that it's a good sign that someone with his experience and of his calibre is sticking around here, with us.

@Kestas
1. Your link is broken.
2. The GM thing works better if the GM isn't in the game. In my experience, the GM is very similar to a mod here, except without the power to change settings and do thorough investigations of cheating accusations.

@Chris
Right on, especially the bit about high level play, not a low solo rate, being the goal.

I'm glad we're getting so many varied points of view, but it's getting a bit confusing so I'll try and point out what I'm getting and people can point out what they see as mistakes:
+ Having human GMs would help lower the solo rate
- Mods fill the same role as human GMs
+ Our solo rate is too high, we need more draws
- The goal isn't a low solo rate, but a higher level of gameplay
+ A lower solo rate indicates a higher level of gameplay
+ PPSC gives a lower solo rate
- PPSC gives a lower level of gameplay
+ We have a high level of gameplay in high stakes games
- Things could be done better
+ We need to be more like PBEM in general
- PBEM isn't getting enough players to sustain a constant pool of games

I'm not frustrated or being defensive, but I'm trying to extract from this thread some tangible, compelling recommendations for change which can be implemented in practice, and I'm having trouble doing so

@peter: It's working here, if you copy and paste it into your address bar it should take you to the PDF

@ charlesf - Quit your bitchin'. If you don't like the variances inherent with online play then don't play web-based Diplomacy. My judgement may be clouded as I started out with online play and the only face-to-face games I've done have been with inexperienced players, but I can still tell that if you don't like how something operates, don't be a part of it.

@ kaner406

Sorry, sent that too early...

@ kaner406 - If you want to verify that the same message has been sent to multiple players, follow these steps. Rocky gets a message from Paulie saying "blah blah blah." Paulie also says that he sent that message to Adrian too. Rocky sends a message to Adrian saying "Yo, Adrian! Did Paulie send you a message that said 'blah blah blah'?" Adrian responds and the problem is solved.

Also, the current system works fine and there isn't any easy way to change it. I think from now on people should only be able to suggest improvments if they're willing and able to help carry them out.

I'm glad you like the way things are LTD, I appreciate the sentiment, but being open to criticism and different ideas is something we should hold onto. Quite a few popular features we have here now me and others were skeptical about at first

imo you can be critical of the site and give your point of view, you just need to be prepared to defend your point of view as well

@Charles - though I sensed the defensiveness as well, I do not think it was the dominant response to your points. I think you'd agree that most of the comments have been constructive and respectful of your arguments with quite a few in agreement with your premise.

@peterwiggins - thank you for the constructive comments - I agree with most all of what you wrote.

@ LJ TD - those two comments were perfect examples of UNconstructive comments that add nothing to the discussion and indeed detract from what is going on. I think its indeed 'rude' to call charles comments 'bitching' to begin with - and quite obtuse to simply dismiss ideas because you cant understand their merit.

@Chris - wow man. thank you, i'm quite flattered.

@Kestas - thank you for taking the time to really consider these discussion points. I have addressed them one-by-one from my perspective below:

"I'm glad we're getting so many varied points of view, but it's getting a bit confusing so I'll try and point out what I'm getting and people can point out what they see as mistakes:"
---- I will try to share my perspective

+ Having human GMs would help lower the solo rate
- Mods fill the same role as human GMs
--- I think this is consistant. Human GMs do increase the level of play, serve as a bulwark against unneeded NMRs/CDs and thus decrease solo rates. Our mods here CAN play such a role by pausing games with NMRs/CDs - by assigning countries - by extending deadlines. However, the fact that our mods CAN serve that purpose does not mean they DO. in PBEM GM operated games, there is a 1 to 1 GM to Game ratio. Here its like what? 1 to 100? In the tournaments the mods DO play that role, which helps increase the level of play.
--- So one possible implementable suggestion is this: provide "modifided mod powers" (country assignment/pause-unpause-cancel rights/force CD) and allow our players to create games as "GM's".... then they can say "Hey everyone, I've created a game and I will be the GM, will take 7 players". This would allow for a GM-operated webdip game that takes the best of both worlds. In such a scenario, the GM could also be the conduit for Grey Press, for commentary, or for other GMy things ;)
--- I have considered this approach because in the ACD I am trying to convince them to play official ACD games on this site and to recruit top-notch reliable players from here to grow the ACD ranks... and one of the issues has been the lack of an arbiter (the GM role)... such a solution as outlined above would allow for that role to be met and would increase the level of play without a doubt.
--- note, not all games need to be GMd, nor will all players WANT to be GM. but it would provide an additional option that I feel could increase the quality of games.

+ Our solo rate is too high, we need more draws
- The goal isn't a low solo rate, but a higher level of gameplay
+ A lower solo rate indicates a higher level of gameplay
--- This set of statements are consistent. The GOAL is "higher level of play". lower solo rates are a RESULT of higher level of play. so they serve as an indicator of said, not as a cause. another words, we should not go out of our way to make solos harder but we should increase the quality and level of webdip games and then measure our success by the rate of solos on the site.

+ PPSC gives a lower solo rate
- PPSC gives a lower level of gameplay
--- I dont know who made the first statement, but they must have been either drunk or not familiar with this game at all. PPSC increases the level of solos AND it lowers the level of play independent of each other. there is ALSO a causal effect in that lower level of play increases solo rates. I have begrudgingly come to accept PPSC as a variant (one that I even sometimes play just to farm points or to take it easy for a bit), but make no mistake, in general, the level of play is inferior to WTA games (not in EVERY case, but in aggregate).

+ We have a high level of gameplay in high stakes games
- Things could be done better
--- these statements are also both true. one can always improve things. and high stakes games attract better players. again, not always, but as a general rule that is true.

+ We need to be more like PBEM in general
--- I dont think anyone is making this argument, its a strawman. We dont have to be like PBEM, but we CAN draw from two decades of PBEM experience, learn new methods of improving the gaming experience, and improve the already awesome webdip platform. the PBEM community did not start as a finished product. it also evolved. the 'rules' of GMing, and the standards of conduct all were under active discussion and debate for almost a generation. communities grew, lived gloriously, and died in that period. So no one is claiming we need to emulate PBEM, we cant even if we tried, nor should we want to try... but what some are suggesting is that we draw on their wealth of experience (compared to webdip's 3 years of existence) and improve what we have to offer as a community.

- PBEM isn't getting enough players to sustain a constant pool of games
--- well, that's PBEM's problem not ours.

I'm not frustrated or being defensive, but I'm trying to extract from this thread some tangible, compelling recommendations for change which can be implemented in practice, and I'm having trouble doing so


--- Thank you for your immense effort and dedication to this product. Let it not remain unsaid that every one of the 3000+ active players and 28,000 account creators do not owe you a debt of gratitude. You have helped liven up my life and revived the joy I experience playing on this site... so Thank you. And just as you have guided the improvements of this site from its first version to now, I am positive you will oversee future improvements as well. This product has come a LOOOOOONG way from where it was in 2007.

As for concrete ideas... besides dropping PPSC altogether (yes, I'm a broken record on that), I would propose the "webdip GM" idea from above. If its unclear, I can explain it better or expand on the vision I have for it. However, when it comes to the programming, I have no clue and can not help you out =(

"PPSC increases the level of solos AND it lowers the level of play independent of each other. there is ALSO a causal effect in that lower level of play increases solo rates."

I'm not so sure that PPSC necessarily leads to a lower level of play. It could be that better players tend to prefer WTA over PPSC leading to a higher proportion of lower skilled players in PPSC, but I don't think that the rules itself is leading to a lower level of play so much as it leads to a different set of priorities, and as a result, a different sort of game. I think PPSC could be played at a high level but the results would reflect the differing priorities; a lower solo rate amongst PPSC would not necessarily mean higher skill level since one doesn't need to share in a draw to come out ahead. Obviously, I am still a proponent of WTA, but I don't think PPSC results can be fairly compared to WTA results.

But yeah, despite the use of the word "moderator", we don't moderate forums and we don't GM games. It may be that we lend assistance to tournaments and any games with various issues, but I don't think it's at a level where we could be called substitutes of GMing.

If we were to implement a GM system where the game's creator could name themselves GM at the start of the game, or appoint a separate person to be a GM at the start of the game, I think we'd also need to have an automated vetting system, perhaps based on points, because such a position could be abused. There would also have to be a way to deal with GMs who become inactive.

The thing is, it's the lower staked games that the ones that most need a GM. The higher staked games typically run well enough on their own with experienced players. However, lower staked games usually mean new and inexperienced players who are probably unsuited to take on the role of GM anyway, such that the game creator might not be an ideal candidate. The more effective solution might be to recruit more experienced players to GM lower staked games, and I think that this has been intuited in the past and is reflected in many ways by the School of War that has been set up here unofficially by the community. Perhaps official support would increase its efficacy?

I don't know though, I think the community itself is doing a pretty good job of working beside official support. It could be said that official tournament support would help, but still we've had a lot of tournaments proactively organized by the community. Before variants were given official support, it was not difficult to set up gunboat, public press, or WW re-enactment games on the forum. The advantage of unofficial community organization to official development from Kestas is that I think it's easier for us to change up when something isn't working as well as we'd like. It might be worth it to try and set up an unofficial community run GM program, learn from that experience, and maybe hand on the knowledge gained to Kestas to see if official support is a viable and effective idea.

On the topic of the thread: I'm not sure how realistic this is, but could there be an option where, when sending press, one could tag other players with, for example, @Germany? So if I were sending a message to both Austria and Germany, I could type it into Austria's box, tag Germany, and it would show up in both boxes with a notification that it had been sent to both?

I can see how that would clutter the messaging system, but it'd be a way to implement multi-player press without needing to change the interface. Similarly, couldn't you add something like "/anon" to the end of a message to send it anonymously? For gray press (that's the anonymously sent to a single player, yes?), we could just add another tab for messages sent to you anonymously.

Although the site works just fine for the most part as is, in my opinion, both of these options would do wonders in making the game more interesting. Whether or not it would lead to a "higher level of play" seems dubious to me, but it would certainly improve the game.

"in PBEM GM operated games, there is a 1 to 1 GM to Game ratio. Here its like what? 1 to 100?" As far as I know, its currently 2-564 :P

As many others have, sorry if it looked like I was being overly defensive. In my case it was more a case of trying to turn a request into a viable and implementable request.

My requests/suggestions:
-> Add the *option* for a no NMR option.
-> Show global chat in gunboat games, but without players being able to post to it
-> Grey Press
-> Make WTA the default option, and PPSC the alternative
(as well as the load of stuff I've left on the dev-forum :P )

Fig, I think the no NMR option would help a LOT. But the other part, was brought up earlier in the thread. Right now there is little incentive to take over a CD position. The no NMR option would help in that the CD country wouldn't be in worse shape than their centers would indicate due to others swooping down on them. But having the CD takeover cost either much less or nothing AND not counting against your stats, would encourage people to step in and help a game from being ruined.

I think adding those two things would make a lot of the issues with "bad" games go away. And at that point the automated system is perhaps good enough that there isn't a need for a GM.

"Show global chat in gunboat games, but without players being able to post to it"

What is this about?

Right now when a player is banned, a message goes to the global chat, even in gunboat games. But they can't see the global chat so can't make the flag saying there is an unread message go away.

It would also be nice if when the gunboat game ends the chat box would be opened up so they could discuss the game.

@gunboat global: Would also allow mods to post notes to the players within the game, without having to PM them all personally as we must currently.

@no NMR: True, but not all CDs are bad positions, especially if players had not NMRd. Again this comes round to how would you value a situation. A computer can only run an algorithm after all. A 1 SC could be incredibly valuable if it is stuck between a 16 and 17SC power, and equally a 17 would be worthless if the other player was a move away from victory.

I'd look at it as a matter of the country already having been paid for, so why pay for it twice. Yes, sometimes there would be some great deals you could get for free or cheap. But is that so bad? Compared to what happens now with CDs where that 1 SC isn't filled and so a player wins that shouldn't have won if not for the CD? Which is worse? My opinion, the empty country is worse.

One more thing to add to that. Being able to get a great position for free or cheap is only a "bad" thing with regard to diplomacy points. Having a country left empty is a bad thing with regard to the game itself. That is why I see the empty country as worse.

The only thing I would like to see from this site is e-mail notification of moves and messages.

Other than that I find the interface far more user friendly than "rival" websites.

@tj

that's interesting. I hear a lot of people say they want email notifications, but I personally would find that incredibly annoying. I get so many emails a day, I already miss important ones. Would you really want webdip flooding your inbox, too?

@abgemacht

Most definitely, especially if you were able to reply via-e-mail (not sure if you could code that). How many people would do some Diplomacy on company time? haha

Let it be an option you can turn it on/off that way if you don't want to get your inbox cluttered you don't have to.

That is the only feature I miss when I played on another website.

@Ald: I agree having a full game is better than not. I merely think that making all CDs free is not the right solution either. It would probably be better than we have currently (although its effect on cheating via multi/meta would have to be looked into) but it's not a good solution

It's a major plus point to this discussion that there've been very few ridiculous comments; you're always going to get people being defensive of a site they enjoy playing on. The ridiculous one though was "don't criticise unless you're going to put time into changing it". The user base for this site is big (although, like another, that will be inflated by people who join, maybe play a couple of games and disappear again, I guess). You expect people here to all have the technical knowledge to contribute to it's development? And if they don't they can't comment?

All sites of this nature - automated adjudication (and there's no need to go to GM games; you'll still get drop outs and possibly more whilst newer players get frustrated at holdovers) - have a high number of NMRs and CDs. I had a message on another site from a player who was bemoaning the lack of people who were prepared to drop into games to stop them becoming unbalanced. The fact is that there, as well as here, the incentive is small because if you do take over a poorly placed CD it is likely to cost you points. If players could join games without that risk it could happen more. And if they were better players then the newcomers in those games might learn something from it too.

Final point (I promise). I do agree that if all you want are games with the cream of the crop, with no NMR risk and no CD risk, this type of site isn't the one for you. (Having said that, my - admittedly - brief experience of PBEM sites tells me they aren't immune either. Maybe I'm just unlucky like that :D) But these sites aren't just about that kind of game. They're about new people discovering the game (which is why the better ones have an interface like this or a point and click interface). One of the things we more experienced (no, I know, I'm not claiming that for this site) players should be doing engaging them with the game and the site. And it's about having fun while you're doing it, as well as getting the decent game in too.

Gah, missed one. e-Mail notifications. I turn them off. I'm in three games here, all one day deadlines. That's at least three emails a day I would just delete. I'm on regularly enough to check on my games anyway. Though this time next week I might be too drunk to do that properly :D

> ---- I will try to share my perspective
I appreciate it

> --- So one possible implementable suggestion is this: provide "modifided mod
> powers" (country assignment/pause-unpause-cancel rights/force CD) and allow our
> players to create games as "GM's".... then they can say "Hey everyone, I've created a
> game and I will be the GM, will take 7 players". This would allow for a GM-operated
> webdip game that takes the best of both worlds. In such a scenario, the GM could
> also be the conduit for Grey Press, for commentary, or for other GMy things ;)
Should GMs create games, in which case how would players who want to play a game with a human GM find one at the level they want? How should human GMs be vetted, in an environment which is more prone to abuse than PBEM? I think making it so anyone can get enough power over a game to protect it from NMRs etc would be very hard to protect against abuse; we have excellend mods, but only because we have so many potential mods to pick from and need relatively few.
Would the possibility of letting only password protected games have human GMs be a possibility? This would guard against people joining a game without realizing it has a human GM which could kick them

Also can you explain the "grey press" thing for me?

> --- I have considered this approach because in the ACD I am trying to convince them
> to play official ACD games on this site and to recruit top-notch reliable players from
> here to grow the ACD ranks... and one of the issues has been the lack of an arbiter
> (the GM role)... such a solution as outlined above would allow for that role to be met
> and would increase the level of play without a doubt.
First off webDip is open source, so you could set up a webDip server that you can have complete control over if you wanted. Also I'm sure our mod team would oblige any request to host any external group here, but you're right it would be better to allow human GMs without needing official support.

> --- This set of statements are consistent. The GOAL is "higher level of play". lower
> solo rates are a RESULT of higher level of play. so they serve as an indicator of said,
> not as a cause. another words, we should not go out of our way to make solos harder
> but we should increase the quality and level of webdip games and then measure our
> success by the rate of solos on the site.

How should I judge suggestions for improving the level of play when it seems pretty subjective? I think I could reasonably judge whether a suggestion would alter the solo rate, but not whether it would affect the level of play.

> --- I dont know who made the first statement, but they must have been either drunk or
> not familiar with this game at all. PPSC increases the level of solos AND it lowers the
> level of play independent of each other. there is ALSO a causal effect in that lower
> level of play increases solo rates. I have begrudgingly come to accept PPSC as a
> variant (one that I even sometimes play just to farm points or to take it easy for a bit),
> but make no mistake, in general, the level of play is inferior to WTA games (not in
> EVERY case, but in aggregate).
If "increase the level of solos" means "decrease the level of draws" then I'm sure PPSC came under fire primarily because it increased the level of draws (i.e. decreased the level of solos), and that this was seen as a bad thing because PPSC players are less cut-throat about getting a win and more open to stable alliance. It was really the driving force behind getting WTA implemented.
I think getting to the bottom of this apparent contradiction will be very helpful for trying to understand the perceived problem here

> --- these statements are also both true.
I agree, things can always be done better. Mainly I meant that the way things are is all I expect from a decent system, since low stakes/newcomer games are never going to be as good, and that perhaps pointing that out would make it easier to explain the problems with what we're doing now

> > + We need to be more like PBEM in general
> --- I dont think anyone is making this argument, its a strawman. We dont have to be
> like PBEM, but we CAN draw from two decades of PBEM experience
I don't think it's a strawman, but otherwise I agree completely and I think we have learned a lot and can still learn more.
I do think there are some players who basically want PBEM with more players, and want webDiplomacy to be that. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but it's based on many similar debates such as this. When talking to some PBEM players all suggestions are of the form "webDiplomacy should be more like PBEM in this regard: […]"
(I'm not saying that makes them bad suggestions, but they do follow that pattern)

(I should also say webDip is currently just past its 6th birthday, it started early December 2004 as you can see from our sourceforge page, but that's just trivia and your point stands)

> --- Thank you for your immense effort and dedication to this product.
And I'm thankful for all the criticism (and praise) we get here, and I take comfort in that anyone who thinks we're doing something wrong can debate it here, expect a good exchange of thoughts, and even if they don't get the desired result anyone can pick up the open-source baton and run with it

"lower solo rates are a RESULT of higher level of play."

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but lower solo rates can also be the result of lower level of play. People being too afraid of solos or too dedicated to their allies will result in an inflation of draws instead of solos, but will still result in a lower quality game. The issue is much more complicated that just looking at the end result.

Hi Kestas,

as I understand it Grey press would function in WebDip as a completely anonymous posting tab, that is players can write in this 'grey' global tab and their words would be published without anyone knowing which player it was who wrote it.

One this I really enjoyed in PBEM was the ability to post anonymous press for the GM to publish, as it stands there isn't the opportunity to post without all of the players knowing who it was who wrote the 'news'.



@ LJ TYLER DURDEN : I believe I was more in favor of grey press as opposed to a multiple messaging system - which I believe would be a pretty cool thing to be able to do - yes you could copy and paste - but it would be much easier to "cc" the message, don't you think?

*One thing

Can anyone explain how Gray Press is at all useful or even enjoyable?

@ Kestas:

>>>Would the possibility of letting only password protected games have human GMs be a possibility? This would guard against people joining a game without realizing it has a human GM which could kick them

---- This is a good solution. Originally I was thinking along these lines as well because then it will really be a GM run game and he/she can choose who joins for accountability purposes. The idea is for the GM to bring value-added to the game not to just be a casual observer.


>>> Also can you explain the "grey press" thing for me?

--- sure. Grey press means 'anonymous press'. so for example Turkey and Russia are allied, but Russia is getting bigger faster. Turkey can send a message to the GM to post as "grey press" (or on other platforms, Turkey could send 'grey press' themselves) that says something along the lines of "wow! look everyone, Russia is getting big so fast, someone should stop him/her". without having to write everyone and explicitly say he is worried about Russia which could get back to Russia.
--- Usually, Grey press is more creative, and in the PBEM community, there is a 'norm' of sending "news articles" as Grey press. it adds quite a bit of fun to the turn adjudication.


>>> First off webDip is open source, so you could set up a webDip server that you can have complete control over if you wanted. Also I'm sure our mod team would oblige any request to host any external group here, but you're right it would be better to allow human GMs without needing official support.

--- ACD is a small community with barely enough people to put together a website, nevermind program an alternate webdip platform. On this ACD "partnership" thing, I'll hold my tongue for a few more weeks until the ACD process is over and a decision is made on their end to approach webdip first. its not finalized yet.


>>> How should I judge suggestions for improving the level of play when it seems pretty subjective? I think I could reasonably judge whether a suggestion would alter the solo rate, but not whether it would affect the level of play.

---- This is an astute question. However, I think the standards for 'improving level of play' CAN be objectively standardized to some degree. I'll list a few here: (No cheating is assumed) 1) No CDs 2) No NMRs 3) More communication between players 4) Better strategic play by the players 5) more challenging tactical moves by players.
--- obviously, as a site admin, you will not have control over #s 3, 4, and 5. That is up to the community members to improve their own "play". but as site admins or through site policies (for example your points system, your current process of dealing with CDs, etc) you can affect the first two items. The GM solution and the auto-pause for CD solution, or the 'lower-cost for picking up CDs' solution are all 'institutional' solutions to help create a 'better game'.


>>> If "increase the level of solos" means "decrease the level of draws" then I'm sure PPSC came under fire primarily because it increased the level of draws (i.e. decreased the level of solos), and that this was seen as a bad thing because PPSC players are less cut-throat about getting a win and more open to stable alliance. It was really the driving force behind getting WTA implemented.
I think getting to the bottom of this apparent contradiction will be very helpful for trying to understand the perceived problem here

--- well, to an old hand at Dip like me, this statement makes almost no sense. PPSC is NOT Diplomacy as it has been played over the past 50 years on every platform that precedes php-based online diplomacy. In every community from local FtF groups, tournaments, play by (snail) mail zines, PBEM, Judges, and even earlier online communities, PPSC has never been implemented beyond maybe random variants (At least I have never come across this, if others have seen it played elsewhere let us know).
--- so to say that WTA was implemented as a response to something strikes me as quirky at best.
--- I dont want to re-litigate why PPSC sucks and how it detracts from the great game-design that Diplomacy brings to the table... and I've adopted a "live and let live" approach to those who still insist PPSC is a worthy variation of this great game... BUT there is an important point I want to make:
--- WTA (should) result in more draws not because of stable alliances, but because it encourages stabbing. The whole point of the game is to emulate the "balance of powers" paradigm pre-WWI (which lead to WWI) and the idea is that as soon as anyone gets close to a solo, even if they have been your game-long ally, you have an incentive to stab them and keep them from getting to 18. because the #1 goal is to solo, and the #2 goal is to prevent anyone else from soloing. this SHOULD result in a game cost-benefit analysis by any rational player that results in multiple stabs to prevent any one power from getting within striking distance of a solo. Therefore, Draws are increased.
--- In fact, as old Dipsters will tell you, a "solo" is such a highly coveted feat that in a big tournament only a handful of players might achieve such a vaunted accomplishment and they are feted by all others. THIS is a big part of what makes Diplomacy such a treat. when you solo, you should SOAR! in older communities, it is such a RARE achievement that those who have a few under their belt are considered icons. THIS is why PPSC is such a mutation of the game, it not only reduces the value of the solo so much that its relatively meaningless, but it also creates a 'demand' for more solos in regular old WTA games.
--- this is also why I'd love to see separate stats on our profile pages for standard WTA games vs all others... if someone has 10 solos, but 9 are in PPSC, gunboat, public press, or the classic map, then I wont admire them as much as someone who has 3 solos from standard WTA anon games.


>>> I agree, things can always be done better. Mainly I meant that the way things are is all I expect from a decent system, since low stakes/newcomer games are never going to be as good, and that perhaps pointing that out would make it easier to explain the problems with what we're doing now

--- agreed that newbs will be newbs no matter where you are. HOWEVER, there is something to be said for the 'culture' of a community and its 'expectations' from newly-graduated-newbs. Another words, if we foster a 'culture' here that accepts CDs and NMRs as a normal thing, then it will become a normal thing. if we foster a culture that values players who pick up CDs to "save" games, then that is the community we will have. If we foster a 'culture' where solo's are a dime-a-dozen or where 'throwing a game' because of a grudge is the acceptable norm, then we will have lower quality games. These things... ie the "culture" of our community... are all things WE and you as an admin, do have significant control over.
--- let me be clear, I am not for a minute suggesting our "culture" is not good here. in fact, we have a great 'culture' of nurturing, of open-mindedness, of fair-play, of valuing skill etc... however, just like all other things in life, we can, if we choose to, improve even upon that good 'culture'.
--- Of course these things are somewhat subjective and based on aggregate ideals. Culture can not be imposed or demanded. It must be nurtured and developed. But institutionalizing certain things can help or harm that effort.


>>> I don't think it's a strawman, but otherwise I agree completely and I think we have learned a lot and can still learn more.
I do think there are some players who basically want PBEM with more players, and want webDiplomacy to be that. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but it's based on many similar debates such as this. When talking to some PBEM players all suggestions are of the form "webDiplomacy should be more like PBEM in this regard: […]"
(I'm not saying that makes them bad suggestions, but they do follow that pattern)

--- I guess I should not have said "no one" makes this argument since I'm sure someone is. and I agree that the PBEM community is more envious/jealous/appreciative of webdip's ability to attract so many new players. But WE, and particularly you Kestas, have to realize that webdip IS going to set the new standard for Diplomacy (until its replaced by god-knows-what... maybe hologram diplomacy lol). Whether we like it or not, we as a community will become the standard for how a whole new generation of players play the game. This also happened with PBEM as it replaced 'zine based snail-mail diplomacy.
--- my only point in this regard is that in order to be able to learn and adopt positive elements from the PBEM experience, we also have to either go and play there to see what is good, or really listen to some of those folks as they will increasingly come out of the woodwork to tell us how to run our community. we should not adopt everything they say, but we should be open-minded enough to listen to them and dig out the nuggets of good suggestions they may provide. The good thing is, I think our community is both diverse enough AND open-minded enough to do just that. In this regard, I am confident that our collective experiences and judgments do give us the right tools to learn and improve... this thread is an example of that.


@ abgemacht
>>> I don't know if this has been mentioned, but lower solo rates can also be the result of lower level of play. People being too afraid of solos or too dedicated to their allies will result in an inflation of draws instead of solos, but will still result in a lower quality game. The issue is much more complicated that just looking at the end result.

--- ummm... I don't know if I'd agree with you on this. I do agree that "care-bearism" is a form of bad-play, but I think that is seen more in PPSC games where being a strong second is a SMART thing to do. in WTA games, it occurs far less. where-as hedging your bets and being 'conservative' so that you dont give your enemies a chance to solo IS smart play usually. I do agree that at the higher level games, you sometimes have cases where someone who COULD stab for an attempt at the solo does not take the opportunity - but personally, I would lay that blame on our "culture" of valuing "reputation". that is somewhat inevitable when you have to play 100s of games in the same community, you will have less of a willingness to develop a reputation as a serial-stabber... something I suffered from until the advent of the anon game.
--- so I guess my point is that being hesitant to go for the solo with a stab is not a sign of 'inferior play'. its more a sign of our community's culture.


Though it may not need to be said, I will reiterate that the above is just my personal opinion, people can and will disagree. I don't claim to be an authority beyond what my words, my experiences, and my deductive reasoning abilities allow.

@Babak

Yes, this is why this is such a difficult issue. For instance, is it *really* better to always play it safe when you aren't sure you will win, or is it better to try your luck and go for the solo even if it might mean you'll give it to someone else? Either way could result in a very enjoyable game; I really don't think there's a right answer.

Clearly carebears and sycophants are the extremes of the spectrum and are both bad, but there is a very large gray area.

I just think we should be very, very careful about turning this into a issue of how many solos there are.