Sean - you've hit the nail on the head. You must have seen my complaints on the issue, hence the reason why I set up intensive press games!

Too many times, there are single word replies to messages. Even if they are planning to attack you, why telegraph it with no response at all? If you are offering alliances with other players that would be beneficial, why not talk about it, get the person on side and then stab them afterwards once they are duped?!!

I have said before that there should be a limit on the number of games you can enter on this site. I recall in another thread that someone was playing something like 31 current games, which is ludicrous. You cannot devote time to playing games in detail, conversing properly with each player to discuss tactics. A limit of 12 would be far more appropriate, and probably lead to better game play.

It is all about Diplomacy - talking to other players - not simply playing as many games as possible for the hell of it.

12 game limit sounds fair. what do you think is the reason for no replies/no messages?

I am not defending anyone but there is the possibility of intimidation... It can be daunting to respond if English is not your strong point. Having said that, it is only by using the language that you can learn it (What do I do for a living?)... and some very interesting players are willing to struggle through within their limitations. Where is the lovely Italian now?

This is what the point system is for (one of the reasons), the newcomers who have yet to learn the importance of diplomacy play with others like them, and those who have a few wins under their belt due to better diplomacy skills can play in the larger games and expect to be playing other diplomatic folks

I agree that there's a need for communication, but I don't see how capping the number of games will help. 31 is ludicrous? The fact that you can't play 31 games at a time doesn't mean other people can't. 12? 12 is too many for me, but not enough for some. I don't see how setting an arbitrary limit will help this problem.

@flashman
what is this "lovely italian" you're referring to in your posting above?

Sometimes it's fun to try do a solo win. And it's a challenge ofcourse.

A formerly very interesting player, thought to be female (always a seductive theme) and most emotive when stabbed... Definitely Italian.

She (?) has not been seen for a while and has no current games running. Shame. We shared some good alliances...

And some terrible ones - if it's the one I'm thinking about Flashman, I was on the wrong end of one of her games...

@abgemacht - If we are talking about diplomacy, the original point of the game was to achieve success through diploming - literally making and breaking alliances with other players. To do that, you must talk in reasonable depth to at least the players around you, or even better, the players on the other side of the board.

England should always talk to Turkey for example. Why? Because a joint attack on Russia by England and Turkey will almost always succeed, yet I very rarely see it done.

Above all, if you don't talk to someone on the other side of the board, then halfway through the game and it's reduced to three or four players, that person you didn't speak to might have formed a strong alliance with the other player, and not you. Yet if you've been talking to him, reminding him that you are there, suggesting tactics that benefit him even though they don't help you very much, then when it comes to the crunch, he may very well think that you are a good potential mid-game ally. At the very least, he may reconsider before an attack.

Why is 31 ridiculous? I've said this before, but think of the number of permutations of people you have to speak to in 24 hours. 6 other players, so times 31 by 6, and you have 186 different people you have to talk to. Now I don't think it is possible to speak to that many people about alliances, persuade players to change sides etc and keep track on the number of games/alliances/stabs etc.

If you had a limit, it would force players to devote more time to diploming. I believe that around 12 games is the right limit, but others may think differently. It's certainly something that we as a community should consider.

The points system is used to moderate how many games a player can join. Someone can join 20x 5 points games if they want, if they do well despite the number of games they'll get more points, and get to play with better players.
If someone has 500 points and joins 5x 100 points games, but can't play well enough to play 5x 100 point games at a time, then he'll lose some of his points and be penalized for playing in more games than he can handle.

This system is nice and self-moderating, and it doesn't rely on magic numbers like 12, but the fact is that in small stakes games you are more likely to play with bad players, and in higher stakes games you are more likely to play with good players.

If you're better than the guys you're playing with then outplay them and move on up!

I agree that it's frustrating when even your neighbours won't talk to you, but limiting the number of games per player would not 'force' lamers to communicate. It would just increase the amount of time it takes them to play as many games as they need to play before they work out why it is that they never win....

It's even more frustrating when they talk to you but absolutely won't listen. Even when everything you predict turns out to be 100% correct, and everything you warn them about happens.

Haha, Noodlebug. Only when it foils your plans. Most people aren't intentionally irrational... nobody can see the ENTIRE picture, not even you. =)

Oh, and yeah, it's interesting how a lot of these issues come up all the time. After much debate, bringing up the exact same arguments and solutions (before the points system, we had a 10 game limit, and before that, a large part of the community played in more than 20 games) as you people have, there was a general consensus that the points system was the way to go. The simple homeostatic laws of economics at work for you!

I'm fairly sure it's because the players don't realize the importance of this faculty, they don't see the endless possibilities diplomacy can bring. I can remember often forgetting that even if all seems lost that I could still send out frantic messages, that, when tried, often paid off.

I've been frustrated by this as well in multiple games. In one, Italy and Austria are duking it out over Trieste and Budapest. I have aTurkish army sitting in Serbia doing nothing, yet no one thought to say 'Hey Turkey, how about supporting me?' After their first battle, I even posted in the global section the same question, 'why is no one asking Serbia to help and whats the point of this game if no one is talking?' I got no response from Austria and about 4 words from Italy.

And those four words?

something like 'give me support please'