Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1215 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
steephie22 (182 D(S))
27 Nov 14 UTC
What's the name of a picture/movie that changes and transitions smoothly in a loop?
So what I mean is that you don't really notice it's a loop unless you're paying close attention because the end of the loop fits perfectly on the start of the loop. There's no strong feeling of repetition. Just a 'background' continuously moving.
Just looking for the word for such a thing. I saw one quite a while ago and thought I could use one of those in a design, but now I finally have the time to do something with it, I forgot what it's called :-(
Help me webdip!
8 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (1576 D)
27 Nov 14 UTC
Gunboat: Playing as Russia
When, in a gunboat game, in the Spring 1901 moves, England, Germany, Austria and Turkey all make an anti-Russia opening, what is Russia supposed to do, exactly?
6 replies
Open
Bayclown (0 DX)
05 Nov 14 UTC
WebDiplomacy History Thread
After hearing about that Congo shit I was wondering what other scandals/notorious players/legendary stories there are buried in the annals of this site. I assume some of the elder players would know some of the lore I speak of and can weave some tales of old?
113 replies
Open
Zach0805 (100 D)
26 Nov 14 UTC
Iran
USA Secretary of State,John Kerry, has anouced that Iranian Nuclear Talks will be extended for another 7 months. Discuss.
8 replies
Open
rmf (100 D)
25 Nov 14 UTC
Is it normal for people to sign up for very slow games (10 days/phase) and stay quiet?
I am relatively new to webDip. From the little experience I have here, I get the impression that it is not uncommon for very slow games to be pretty quiet. I've had no replies at all from some parties, even though they are giving orders. Is this usual? I thought very slow games would have lots and lots of diplomatic talk.
10 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2736 D(B))
25 Nov 14 UTC
Was Moses a Founding Father?
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/was-moses-a-founding-father/383153/
29 replies
Open
Chaqa (3971 D(B))
10 Nov 14 UTC
Scenario Game: World War 1
Anyone interested in trying a WW1 scenario game?
27 replies
Open
KingCyrus (511 D)
21 Nov 14 UTC
Executive Action
Today, President Obama said that his administration will grant deferred action on some groups of illegal immigrants. Discuss.
105 replies
Open
Mintyboy4 (100 D)
25 Nov 14 UTC
Any Programmers out there?
Yes, Mr webdip programmer person, I'm looking at you!
40 replies
Open
jmo1121109 (3812 D)
25 Nov 14 UTC
Grand jury doesn't indite Darren Wilson in death of Michael Brown
Thoughts?
134 replies
Open
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
(+2)
Diplomacy Tournament Scoring Methods
I’m starting this thread with two goals:
(1) To further discussion on the three Diplomacy tournament scoring methods I have witnessed
(2) To invite anyone who knows of Diplomacy tournament scoring methods not outlined below to post them. Any and all are welcome.
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
The first is the tournament scoring system that, while not originating from, I first encountered at The Boroughs Diplomacy Tournament. It’s a Sum of Squares scoring system with two easy rules
A) WTA. In the event of a solo, the winner receives 100 D; all other players receive 0 D
B) In the event of a draw, each player will receive a percentage of 100 D, proportionally to the number of centers they control as follows:
(I’m betting 1000:1 that webdip forum will fuck up formatting of sigma notation and sub/super scripts so forgive the crudeness)
Percentage to Player 1 = (SC owned by Player 1)^2 divided by [SUM FOR PLAYERS 1-7 (SC owned by player N)^2 ]
Where N of course is players 1-7

In descriptive rather than mathematical terms, what this means is that the portion of the 100 D you get increases non-linearly with SC you own, AND ALSO increases the more fragmented the other players’ SCs are spread out.

Let’s take an example [country: SC; points]:
England: 8; 27.83
Russia: 8; 27.83
France: 7; 21.3
Turkey: 6; 15.65
Italy: 4; 6.96
Austria: 1; 0.43
Germany: 0; 0

How did England get 27.83? Well, it’s 100 * (8^2 / (8^2+8^2+7^2+6^2+4^2+1^2+0^2)).

It should be immediately obvious how more SC means more points. While the numerator rises quadratic ally, the denominator does not rise as much (although it still does) due to being diluted out by the other scores.

The denominator is what’s really interesting here. To easily illustrate this, a score of 16 SC against a 9 SC and 9 SC power would give you 100 * (16^2 / (16^2 + 9^2 + 9^2)), or 61.24. A score of 16 SC against the other 6 powers each having 3 SC would give you 100 * (16^2 / (16^2 + 3^2 + 3^2 + 3^2 + 3^2 + 3^2 + 3^2) = 82.58.

So this scoring system (A) has a WTA mechanic (B) non-linear scaling (C) promotes not eliminating other players unless you’re the one eliminating them. It actually hurts your score to allow weaker players to be taken over by others and (C.2) disregards amount of players in a draw, only their SC amounts
goldfinger0303 (3157 DMod)
23 Nov 14 UTC
such discussion. Much interest
goldfinger0303 (3157 DMod)
23 Nov 14 UTC
Ahhh shit, I failed at ninja'ing you
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
The second type of tournament scoring is that used at the Carnage Convention. I will steal the explanation shameless from JimTheGrey:

“Each game is worth 28,034 D. If you solo, you get them all. If the game ends in a draw, then the players are ranked by center count, through order of elimination, as necessary. If you top the board, you get 7,000 D. Second highest center count gets 6,000. Down to 1,000 for the lowest center count or the first person eliminated.

In addition, each player gets 1 point per supply center at the end of the game. These points essentially act as a tiebreaker. So, if you top with 10 centers, that's worth 7,010 D. Finally, if two players share a rank, they split the points for those two positions. If two guys top the board with 10 centers each, they each score 6,510 D.”

This tournament scoring system has a WTA mechanic, and is noteworthy for caring about rank order. Again, for example, the scoring would look something like:
England: 8; 6508
Russia: 8; 6508
France: 7; 5007
Turkey: 6; 4006
Italy: 4; 3004
Austria: 1; 2001
Germany: 0; 1000

The main consequence being that for example, if Italy had 3 and Austria had 2, it wouldn’t change the amount of points they got except for tiebreakers. I haven't experienced it myself because I could not attend Carnage unfortunately.
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
The third scoring system for Diplomacy tournaments I’ve experienced is that for the 2014 webDiplomacy Tournament that is currently ongoing. This is the most different system in many respects. Explanation shameless stolen from Tru Ninja:
“Everyone starts with 50 D. Here's how scoring works: I add the total of SC's controlled by each country across all 3 boards and divide by 3 (finding the average of the total boards). I then round to the nearest integer value (decimals of 0.5+ round up to the next integer and 0.49- round down to the nearest integer).

After obtaining the averages I do the following:
(YOUR CENTERS FOR YOUR COUNTRY) minus (AVERAGE FOR YOUR COUNTRY). This gives the D change from that initial 50 D for that round. After the second round of games, I will have 6 games I use to tally averages, and after the third round, I will have 9 games.

This system is aimed at looking at players who do well with a country when others tend to do more poorly. It is designed to remove the bias that sometimes happens when someone gets lucky and draws countries that people tend to play well and not penalize someone for getting a country that people tend to struggle with. This is to help account for the possible meta-gaming that naturally occurs in tournaments.”

This scoring system is notable for effectively being PPSC even when someone solos, and that round 1 will affect round 3 scoring, but round 3 will not affect round 1 scoring.
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
Seeing as the forum gave me an error of "posting too frequently" I have a feeling ninja'ing around here ain't all its cracked up to be :P

more on topic:
For the 2014 webDip tournament scoring system:
I don’t want to put words in other peoples’ mouths, but there’s some rumblings of discontent at the idea of a tournament without a WTA mechanic, and while no one but me has shown concern about the asymmetric temporality of the round 1 vs round 3 retroactivity discrepancy, it’s certainly very different from the other two I’ve witnessed. I want to emphasize, especially to Tru Ninja, that I simply love Diplomacy and Tournaments and no matter what this scoring system ends up doing, I'm going to have a blast playing both the games and the system, please don't take any criticism personally.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)
Here's a new method, the Kuta Method, which has never been used before and probably will never be used:
There are *three* tiers for scoring in order to rank players and break ties.

1) Each player who wins a game earns 1 Game Win.
2) Each player who survives a game earns an equal share of 420 Tournament Points.
3) Each player who survives a game earns 1 Supply Center Point for each Supply Center they control.

Game Wins are first. Tournament Points are first tie-breaker. Supply Center Points are second-tie breaker. Coin flip is final tie-breaker.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
EDIT
1) Each player who wins a game earns 1 Game Win and 420 Tournament Points.
2) Each player who survives a drawn game earns an equal share of 420 Tournament Points.
3) Each player who survives any game earns 1 Supply Center Point for each Supply Center they control.
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
Your system seems simple and prioritizes what's generally considered to be important, in order, by the community, I think it's pretty good on an initial pass, however I have to ask whether games in which there is a solo still award TP and SCP. It seems to allow a situation where as, for example, if I'm Russia and France is about to solo, I can just try to eat everyone up as a last ditch effort to get TP and SCP.

Do you really mean just "survives" for 2 and 3, or should that be changed to "partakes in a draw"? Normally a WTA mechanic not only gives everything to the winner, but gives nothing to the losers, this seems only to do the former (as strange as it sounds the two things are not mutually inclusive)
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
goddamn got ninja'd. I need to make refreshing a muscle-memory habit.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
We were simultaneously typing. All good.
/ninja skillz
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)
Apologies to Jim in advance, but I am not a fan of Sum of Squares for several reasons:

It does not encourage small countries to remain in the game at all costs, because the difference between elimination and 1-2 centers can be the equivalent of less than 2 out of 100 D.

It is very hard to quickly understand what your current score is while playing, which can be a serious problem in F2F games.

It often encourages nonintuitive play, such as keeping a small power alive to reduce a larger power's centers. In other words, you can gain more points for yourself simply by shifting points between other players.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)
Carnage I am a fan of, for pretty much all the reasons I dislike Sum of Squares. It's easy and encourages players to remain alive. It also prevents issues with WTA scoring where people spend years thinning out the draw. Probably the best scoring system I've used so far.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)
webDiplomacy Tournament is interesting, but I'm not convinced it's good. I like that it tries to normalize based on country, but I don't like how people are punished/rewarded so directly by things that happen completely outside their games.

The biggest concern is that everyone else on a board with a solo isn't given the equivalent of zero centers for comparison across boards. If the purpose of this method is to judge how players did relative to other players of the same country, then surely a 2 center Austria that draws has done much better than an 8 center Austria in which England solos. The scoring method does not reflect this and I think it's a fatal flaw.
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
Thanks for the input Abge!

Personally I think the sum of squares incentive to keep smaller powers away from opponents fascinating and potentially creating a much more intricate and richer diplomacy; I'm ready to admit however that unless everyone is briefed thoroughly on how it works and spent twice as much time scheming and diplomat-ing (which would make it hard to fit a single game a day in!) its more of a bane than a benefit.

I'd also consider it true that it would be almost too tempting to give away your dots in revenge (which is one of my favorite things to do of all time), seeing as you can easily add 15 D to the leader or runner up while only depriving yourself of 1 or 2 D. And if you're in a position where you think you're going to lose them anyway, suddenly the amount of power you hold is very large. Which again, is interesting in theory but seems like in practice is more arbitrary than cunning.
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
Which is another subtopic:
Should the scoring system take into account F2F versus asynchronous play? How so?

I think the obvious answer is that there is more pressure to draw when playing F2F (at least in my experience), as there is real life time constraints and real life exhaustion especially on games 2 and 3. How it should be handled (i.e. draws more punished or more fragmented, etc) however I have no clear thoughts of as yet.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
To which scoring method do you refer to below?

"The biggest concern is that everyone else on a board with a solo isn't given the equivalent of zero centers for comparison across boards. If the purpose of this method is to judge how players did relative to other players of the same country, then surely a 2 center Austria that draws has done much better than an 8 center Austria in which England solos. The scoring method does not reflect this and I think it's a fatal flaw."

In my proposed method, if there is a solo, the winner gets a Game Win and *all* the Tournament Points. In your Austria example, the 2 SC draw gets more TPs than the 8 SC loser. However, the Supply Center Points would kick in as a tie-breaker so that an 8 SC Austria which is part of a 4-way draw is worth more than a 2 SC Austria which is part of a 4-way draw.

As for "taking years to whittle down the draw to fewer great powers", I don't see why this is an issue. I guess it depends on how long the game will take. If games must be played to completion, then that could create issues with time which are likely to negatively impact a multi-round tournament. If games must end in a forced draw at the end of a certain time limit, then it is a fair result to whittle down the draw.
JimTheGrey (968 D(S))
23 Nov 14 UTC
>>Apologies to Jim in advance, but I am not a fan of Sum of Squares<<

No apologies necessary. I like the system, but I didn't create it. I like the Carnage system, as well. I find center-based and rank-based systems to be much more fun to play than draw-based systems.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
@Jeff,

That statement refers to the webDip Tournament scoring system.
JimTheGrey (968 D(S))
23 Nov 14 UTC
(+3)
Also, to be clear, PPSC is not a center-based system. It's a draw-based system that shits on itself in the event of a solo.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
23 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)
PPSC is literally the worst part of this site.
Jamiet99uk (1576 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
How about a "Hardcore" variant? No draws, and no quitters! I propose the following rules:

1. The buy-in is 101 to weed out n00bs. Instead of these points going into a "pot" as normal, they are given to Jamiet99uk in tribute to him for coming up with this cool variant.

2. In the event of a solo, the winning player is awarded 50% of all the other players' points.

3. Also in the event of a solo, the winning player's username changes from the usual blue colour to black, for 24 hours, to show everyone how hardcore they are. Meanwhile, the "Defeated" players usernames are coloured brown until they next solo in a game (any variant).

4. In the event of a draw, any "Defeated" players get their stake back. The players participating in the draw get NOTHING.

5. The game cannot be cancelled or paused.
oscarjd74 (100 D)
24 Nov 14 UTC
Jamiet I really like your proposal. However, you should dub it Moronic Scoring System (MSS).
A_Tin_Can (2234 D)
24 Nov 14 UTC
This is an interesting discussion, and has got me thinking: What would people think about adding a centre-based scoring system to the site, alongside the other options?

(I am not proposing that this is actually something we'll do, but I'm interested in opinions)
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
24 Nov 14 UTC
No. Mostly on the principle, however, that we shouldn't fragment the player base of webDip any more (and in fact should still be trying to eliminate poor options), not that I think centre-based scoring is necessarily bad.

If you want to talk about replacement, I'd be more receptive to the idea.
Tru Ninja (1016 D(S))
25 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)
@abge: I have seen where you and others are coming from, and it's a change I fully intend to include in next year's tourney. The system as a major point is fine, but I agree it needs incentive to solo, and it's far more PPSC than I intended. As a fan of WTA only, I will change it next year so that solos are treated as 18 centers and all others on that board as having earned 0, although center counts for average are unaffected.

That may
Tru Ninja (1016 D(S))
25 Nov 14 UTC
Reward solos and punish survivors without affecting the mechanic I was looking for initially.
Mapu (362 D)
25 Nov 14 UTC
I want my money back. I saved my receipt.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
25 Nov 14 UTC
@Tru

Very glad to hear that.
oscarjd74 (100 D)
25 Nov 14 UTC
If I were to play a tourney then from the systems discussed here, I'd prefer the one with the Game Points, Tournament Points and Supply Center Points.
Doug7878 (1578 D(G))
25 Nov 14 UTC
There could be a positive adjustment for solo and downward adjustment to survivors, but otherwise keep the same system. For instance survivors could lose 1/2 of their SC points (rounded down) and these points would be added to the points for the solo. Thus a 17, 10, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0 draw would be scored as such but an 18, 10, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0 solo would be scored as 26 (18+5+3), 5 (10-5), 3 (6-3), 0, 0, 0, 0.
Just a thought.


31 replies
MadMarx (36299 D(G))
24 Nov 14 UTC
The first ever GR Challenge
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=399706
15 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
24 Nov 14 UTC
GR Challenge Sub Needed
I need a sub for Game 3 of the GR Challenge. Please see inside for more info.
39 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
24 Nov 14 UTC
One player needed to start GR Challenge Game
We are short one player to start Game 3 of the GR Challenge. Great group of players. See below for more details. If interested post within.
5 replies
Open
metaturbo707 (126 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
Control active game play time option ?
Hello,

What if it was possible to control the time allowed for game play, such as, "game only active between the hours of X & Y". Then shorter phase games could be played more easily and not at strange hours of the night. Thoughts?
9 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (1576 D)
21 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)
Who deserves the most +1s?
Just +1 this instead. zultar offered the wrong voting options.
13 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
17 Nov 14 UTC
(+2)
October 2014 GR Challenge!
You know the drill! Full Press Classic WTA GR Challenge Signup!
Find your GR here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_KSmWyLiG1pSWdQNGVCSUVPNUU/view?usp=sharing
GR. Name (Max Points, Phase Length Preference, Non/Anon)
176 replies
Open
ILN (100 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
Nice idea
https://www.helium.co/#/home
2 replies
Open
KingCyrus (511 D)
18 Nov 14 UTC
(+3)
This Global Warming is Killing Me
Just got finished snow blowing for about three hours...
138 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
19 Nov 14 UTC
(+8)
Fluid Dynamics
https://haxiomic.github.io/GPU-Fluid-Experiments/html5/?q=UltraHigh

Righteous.
17 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
The burdens of administration
There's something I'd like to discuss with you all.
8 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
23 Nov 14 UTC
NFL Pick 'em Week 12: Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow...eh, Buffalo? ;)
So, with Buffalo's game postponed until Monday (and moved to Detroit as, um, Buffalo's sort of buried under snow) and the Raiders having won their first game of the season--and in more than a year!--vs. the rival Chiefs, we enter Week 12. The Lions and Patriots meet in a big clash. Rams//Chargers is an intriguing match-up. Cardinals/Seahawks up in Seattle, and Ravens/Saints on a suddenly-crucial Monday Nighter. Week 12... pick 'em!
2 replies
Open
JamesYanik (548 D)
22 Nov 14 UTC
What's the record?
what is the longest time a classic game has been played over (i dont mean how many days i mean # of phases elapsed). The game can have been drawn or won i dont care about that.
5 replies
Open
ILN (100 D)
22 Nov 14 UTC
"Merkel runs out of patience with Putin"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/merkel-runs-out-of-patience-with-putin/article21712671/

Best line in the article:
"Obama is a very weak politician"
9 replies
Open
Newmunich (208 D(B))
22 Nov 14 UTC
Proposal to Limit Cancelled Games
The issue with games being cancelled due to Meta-gaming and other infractions has gotten to the point where it is no longer fun to play. Let's solve this!
14 replies
Open
StraT^ (350 D)
21 Nov 14 UTC
The webDiplomacy points ruleset is almost perfect, but...
No one should be rewarded for a game that fails to produce a victor. Everyone who bought into a drawn game and didn't leave should receive an even split of the pot. Otherwise you facilitate awful situations like " just kill Austria, then draw" or more intricate draw pacts, which favor anyone who lucked into a difficult-to-kill nation like France.
67 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
10 Nov 14 UTC
(+5)
Webdip Sponsored Seasonal Game Fest!!!
The mods and I are sponsoring a seasonal game fest starting with this month. Details inside!
141 replies
Open
Accountancy (303 D)
22 Nov 14 UTC
Seasonal Variant Fest: Game 2, gameID=150349
So I know this was mentioned almost a week ago, but I can't find the original thread. We're still waiting on the last player to join this game with less than 24 hours on the clock. Apparently they wanted to join so that it would start on Friday night, well Friday night has been and gone and the game has yet to start...
0 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
21 Nov 14 UTC
(+2)
Who deserves the most +1s? A Friday-existential crisis
Just +1 this!
20 replies
Open
Sevyas (973 D)
21 Nov 14 UTC
Slow full press wta game
Unfortunately my real life keeps interfering with my diplomacy games. Therefore I am looking for 6 more players who would be willing to play a slow 72hrs/turn game.
Wta, full press, 50-150 D, anon preferred
2 replies
Open
Page 1215 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top