OH!! Guess I'm not being clear. I don't care about the specific game, I'm looking for how people view Edi's comment of accepting a draw and not pushing for the solo as a "break through" and a "higher field of play". I'm especially curious how such players as Babak and TheMasterGamer would respond to a concept that appears to be the antithesis of their own. I kind of chuckle to myself imagining a conversation between Babak or TMG with Sir Edi, listening in as they tell Mr. Birsan that HE doesn't "play the right way", good stuff!! ;-)

Oh please....I'm gagging already. Someone who has the chanve at a solo but gives it up as a draw....that isn't a "higher level of play". It just means that they effectively had the win and dind't want to play it out, and their record is good enough that it didn't matter and/or they just don't care.

Give me a break...I've drawn (in the few games where it was my option) simply because i wanted to, not to be some sort of noble character. Gawwwd...

Regardless of her motivations, Akroma was a supremely talented player. It could not be denied.

I might propose that Edi plays a powerful Diplomacy meta-game (whether intentionally or not) in the sense that many of his comments, perhaps even his guides and articles, and his general demeanor are such that players are more likely to help him out in game and include him in draws. I have vague memories of that game in particular, though I did not participate, and I believe that Akroma had Edi down to one supply centre, but chose the merciful path and eventually included him in the draw. I am somewhat doubtful that he would have made the same comment if he had been one of the other countries.

It would be impossible to determine whether Akroma personally decided to show Edi mercy or if Edi successfuly manipulated her into doing so, but such is the nature of persuasion.

I think I remember talking to someone who played with Edi a while back, and he referred to it in a very simple way: You either join the bandwagon to eliminate Edi early, or you work with him, and become his personal puppet.

Krellin do you even know who Edi Birsan is?

how could one not?

Well he is new and is disparaging him. Without knowing his identity, I suspect.

Come to think of it Eden, you are new too. How did you hear of him?

http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/strategy.htm

Chrispminis, that is a very astute comment about Edi and metagaming. In other similar discussions, people have talked about playing face-to-face and remembering past actions being impossible to avoid versus metagaming on this site and if it is possible to make all in-game decisions purely based on that game.

Anyway, my personal take on what Edi said is that I agree to him to some extent. I don't think the definition of being an elite player is based on never trying to solo, that's crazy. That said, I think certain games can play out a certain way and end in a five way draw even when it is possible to whittle it down to a four or three way draw because all the major/interesting decisions of the game have been made once the five-way draw is in place and to continue on is relatively meaningless, especially when everyone's time could be better spent starting up a new game that offers the major/interesting decisions to be made. So, if you relate that concept to a game in which one player could solo, but they see that taking the time to solo is boring and not interesting, I can see how Edi argues that is taking your play to another level, I just find it hard to believe I would ever be bored with seeing a solo through to fruition, at least not on a regular basis.

I'm with chrispy and marx's comments.

Yes, Edi plays the game when he's not playing the game. I've had the pleasure of playing a game with him, and he was legendary, even in defeat. The entire game, it seemed like he was looking out for me, sacrificing himself in the process. In doing so, I put in my famous line in my profile to sort of try to 'be like Edi'.

But there are times in a game when you CAN go for a solo or make very good headway towards one, but by doing so, you know you will change the dynamic of the game and someone else will solo first. Marx, you even know the game I speak of where we recently drew (and you were the linchpin in getting us to draw).

well - MM, I wish I had the time to post a thorough response to a question you partially directed at me... but I dont have time righ tnow.

suffice to say that I would agree soemwhat with Chrisp in that I suspect often that players such as Edi, yourself, and djbent do in fact play a subtle form of meta-gaming which is to actively 'build' and cultivate a 'reputation' that can bear fruit later on. However, this is not to say this is an 'illegal' form of meta-gaming... one could even consider a 'strategic' element in one's Diplomacy gaming. Another player that does this well (and I agree with most of his sentiments about the game in general) is Ivo - who has built a reputation for being a 'truth-teller' who almost always will tell you if he is going to attack you.

It truly is a feat to be able to build such reputations. So I do not disparage it. It is not at all the way I like to play the game, nor is it the 'pure' form of the game. but then again - nothing in life (even Diplomacy) is pure. so one has to live within the confines of reality.

All that said - I do agree that sometimes players will build counter-solo alliances and that is good. However, in my own belief, it is probably better to break such alliances if the solo-threat has been removed... I have had games on all sides of this situation and I have had varying levels of success breaking alliances, creating solos, and countering solos... so all the iterations of this are possible and it does come down to individual play. I guess the point I'm making is that this is one of those arguments that "where you stand depends on where you sit". so one's answer could (and maybe should) depend on where they find themselves in the game.

In my own case, I will say I've argued many sides of this same argument in various games. In fact, I think there was a game where I argued opposite sides of this issue in the SAME game =P

all that said - this is part of the reason I have come to LOVE and ONLY play anonymous games. to remove the 'mega-meta-gaming' borne of 'reputation' and 'rank' etc. except for the League games (which I also wish were indeed anonymous) I try never to play a non-anon game.

my own thinking has evolved to the point where I think the online anon game is a more 'pure' form of the game than FtF for this exact reason.


sorry for being incoherent and verbose - I didnt have the time to review or edit.

Thanks for the comment, Babak, MUCH appreciated!!

I like the concept of webdip play being held to a higher standard in regard to "metagaming" than face-to-face, allowing for a more "pure" game... Wow, I actually think we see eye-to-eye on this subject much more than I thought...

While I don't know many of the specific people you guys are mentioning, I think that I understand your arguments. I can definitely see how you guys think that playing an anon game on this site is "purer" than a FtF game, and I would have to agree. An anon game is about as even playing field as you can get, while in a non-anon game, or FtF game there will always be "favorites." You will always be more reluctant to stab a good friend (or in the case of the webdiplomacy, possibly someone you get along with in the forum) than the guy reluctantly invited because you needed a 7th.

I think people should always trust me. Or something ;)

damn fine read, babs! I think you hit the nail on the head!

Regarding the leagues, they act as a kind of social tournament: people, I have discovered play in it not as a "pure diplomacy" experience, but also because they can get to know and make friends with the players they are up against.

LOL, I must have been in the wrong league, I did nothing but make enemies in the two I was in, as you know, Ghost!! ;-)

i personally feel that if the win is on the table you owe a duty to game to take it. delaying to help an ally survive etc is fair enough, but you owe a duty to the game to always try and maximise your returns. same applies for someone choosing to die rather than survive or to help someone solo. all very questionable in my book.

but i appreciate people have other views and good luck to them. but describing it as a 'higher level' is definitely puke worthy, well said krellin ;)

I see some logic in what Edi said, Braveheart. Playing out a certain victory doesn't really prove anything or allow anyone to learn much, all of the interesting stuff has already happened, so if your focus is the interesting stuff, there's no need to play it out. Kind of a "it's not whether you win or lose but how you play" view to the extreme since you seriously don't care about who wins or loses, only how the game has been played.

maybe for someone like Edi whose had 40-50 years of solos at top Con levels etc, a solo on webdip simply does not have the same appeal. I know there have been (a few) cases where I've made decisions based on "hey, let me see if I can pull this off" - but usually at lower-stakes games... so if a webdip solo is a 'low-stakes' thing for Edi - i could see him saying... hell, let me see if I cant help a guy go from 1 dot to 17 for a 2way draw... that would be a freaking challange.

but thats not a 'higher level' of play in book. thats just someone being bored with the game and looking for new ways to get their rocks off =) (ps. can I say that? its not too rude I hope)

as for Leagues Ghost - I play them as they are. I enjoy them tremendously, top-quality players who take their games seriously, and indeed some fun interactions - you are right. but so far in my dipping experience (now going on 12 years) I think anon WTA with a GR-challenge gate-keeping mechanism have provided the most enjoyable and 'pure' Diplomacy games of my life.

@Babak, sure, that's fair enough. I have a similar view of things.

You lost me Babak. Edi does not relate a "higher level" of play to trying to take someone from one center to 17 for a two-way draw. Edi is also not saying a solo on webdip is meaningless. What Edi is saying, is that if someone gets themself into position for a certain victory, then actually seeing it out doesn't matter a bit. Edi is saying that Akroma should value that game as a victory, since in Edi's eyes it was a victory, Edi's "higher level" just doesn't involve any chest-beating about the victory or have any need to prove anything to anyone else (e.g. calculating their GR based on that one game's victory! :-P), it's all about enjoying the experience in that moment and not at all about wasting your time going through formalities that, as he argues, are trivial.

I imagine this is a similar thought that flashman has expressed. flash doesn't want GR influencing his games, or records/stats, he wants to play in a vacuum just for the joy of playing. Maybe, I'm not sure, I don't really understand flashman, but maybe I'm starting to, so I'll ask him to comment.

I think Babak's got it down. A veteran breaks into this higher field of play when they get bored with simple solos. =P

I know that I've made decisions purely on based on novelty. Triple alliance? Sure I haven't done one of those in a while. Koniggratz Freakout? Don't mind if I do! Yet another Lepanto? Please... I'd rather stab you.

Okay, a slightly different point but definitely relevant:

those of us who grew up with face-to-face games as the standard will easily recognise the 'resignation' option whereby the surviving players can see that one player is going to win - and hence save time or even start a new game instead of playing out a tedious ending. A bit like a Chess situation.

We do not have that option on Webdip and I certainly have drawn games in here when in a winning position just to end the play and also give a nod to the quality of an opponent/one-time-partner. There have been a few times when a player has congratulated me before a sure-win was completed and I have then offered the draw.

This is not the purist approach I suppose but the Web game lacks that early finish function and I am happy to have played in a decent game and been rewarded by the comments of those involved. My disliking of the ratings system is another reason for declining wins.

However, I would not recommend that a new player does this as the ability to finish is much harder to hone than the ability to get a decent opening going. This is a simple matter of frequency: we all start games, few of us are left at the end to finish them.

flashman +1 - I have rarely finished a FTF game as we usually conceed the game when one player hits 16 or 17 and the rest of us aren't near a stalemate line to stop him. This usually occurs on a stab against the player's ally and that player is to blaim for not covering their bases, but still it is part of the game and we'd wrap the game and declare the player the winner without forcing the 18th SC.

yeah - the early voting to finish games is a good option in FTF. most often, by 1906/7 you can vote for a 3 or 4 way draw without going through the motions of eliminating the last few players. but it has to be anonymous voting.

I wonder if there is a technical way to implement that on webdip