People, experienced people, don't seem to understand that a fundamental objective of the game is to keep your opponent from getting 17 centers, for two games in a row a player has been gift wrapped victory by an idiot who insists on pressing an attack or initiates an attack as hordes of the leader swarm down on the map, beyond frustrating.

ummm...the objective is to get 18 centers.

Typo

But thanks for both of your stunning insights thus far, I truly feel welcome

For one thing, stay away from PPSC games. Winner takes all highly discourages that for good reason.

Yup. There are some players who play with the point mentality. WTA will force players to stop a solo instead of trying for a strong second.

I just had an experienced player in winner takes all initiate an attack that forced me to turn my back on the primary threat allowing him to take a win. It doesn't seem to matter

And it's not just attacks on me, in the ame game two other opowers were locked in a death struggle as the winner slowly gobbled them both up

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=115044#gamePanel

Most egregious example thus far

Play diplomacy, not gunboat. Simple solution.

@Human

You need to play WTA, not PPSC, and you'll have a much better time.

He was playing WTA.I've asked Barnett about the kamikaze play but he just smiled on it...

@abge - His last game was WTA. He was up against Split and The Czech. It wasn't going to end well no matter what happened.

That one he linked was PPSC, no?

gameID=115146

Sorry. Didn't see his link. Just went to his last game.

I'd think it is premature to see tendencies with only five games played. However, it is hard to find a good game in that the quality is truly linked to the weakest player. So I wouldn't be surprised that you found some play lacking. If you've been playing PPSC instead of WTA, that is a simple fix to solve most of your problem. I wouldn't say that full press would completely solve your problem, as the core issue (nations identifying the threat of a solo) still exists. But it may expose whether it's an issue of skill or luck--in other words did the players simply guess wrong about a stab that enabled the solo, or did they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the balances of power (i.e. stalemate lines).

I'd be interested in your thoughts after some more games, particularly tournaments or invited games.

He was talking about a WTA game too,he just hasn't linked it.And he had a good point about it.

Gunboat sucks.

Oh, good grief, one bad game in a long time and I get a forum discussion from a nooblet who I'm not sure could set up a stalemate line if it was handed to him.

I apologize for having to walk away. Fussy newborn and new mother.... Humanwave, I found your vascilating play to be frustrating. Coming back to two centers, and questioning your competency, I decided to take a few swings. Some of that was an outlet for the ingame frustration, some for out of game. Split, you're a great player. The harranguing you seem entitled to dole out evertime you lose, #2, is getting old.

Actually, the point of playing Diplomacy is to have fun. Messing up with other people is fun.

The only one,apart from Humanwawe,who is whining here is you actualy. I just asked you the reason why you did it,that was all but I don't give a shit if I win or lose,that's your immagination only.

wow, i guess im whining now. So glad I attempted to discuss a topic on the forum.

"Fussy newborn and new mother.... Humanwave, I found your vascilating play to be frustrating"

I'm italy, you are supposed to engage in "vacillating play" especially when the balance of power is on the line. I helped you out in the beginning in order to stem the threat of the jugger. That was accomplished. So I doubled back and addressed the new threat, Germany. Again I was successful. I was in a perfect place to address yet another threat, England and actually win some SCs when your dumbass sacrificed your only quiet border for what you thought was a cheap Supply center. Brilliant.

after scrolling up i actually see most of the responses are constructive, I will indeed give my continuing impressions.

I don't know how my "competency" could ever have been questioned. I left you in a stalemate with Turkey and Russia rather than duking it out with turkey over a few SCs as Germany swept the board. I think the move was very competent, if anyone wants to agree with Barn3tt please do so so I can learn from my mistakes.

@Human - I invited you to a game with some great gunboat players. Join up and you will see that your experience was not the norm.

wish i could Im out on business in a couple months, wouldnt want to leave early, depending on how long games like that last here

One day turns. People who normally hit "ready" instead of "save." A few weeks, max.

alright then I'll join, I have another business trip but i should have steady internet access

Germany was never in a position to sweep the board. He was a paper tiger waiting to implode with a clearly capable and emerging England to his rear. You moved on Germany when he was a check on English growth not a solo threat. You abandoned taking out Turkey and left me in a stalemate position with a fleet in Ionian offering no assistance. Taking Turkey's few centers was important.

Germany was making odd plays for Tyrolia. It is for that reason I was bouncing him out of there. I was not making a play on Venice. However, your sudden retreat and zero signs from Tunis made me nervous about simply bouncing Tyrolia and leaving Trieste unoccupied.

Later when you turned on me, I hit the draw button to indicate that it was time to turn and face England. You still seemed set on attacking me and abandoned the MAO line which lost you Tunis. So, yeah, I do disagree with your play.

If you truly seek to learn from mistakes then I'd say you have to take Barn3tt at face value that your play was too vacillating for him. Part of what makes this game so great is that it depends greatly on the personality of the other players, which can vary greatly. I think I'd probably feel similar to how Barn3tt did. If you're going against Turkey, I think you have to take them out completely and quickly. I find Turkey to be terribly hard to eliminate and to be a real thorn later on, especially with gunboats. You abandoned that strategy in 1905--too early for me.

That being said, Humanwave and Split, my patience is short today which probably impacted my play.

I find Turkey to be terribly hard to eliminate and to be a real thorn later on, especially with gunboats.
exactly- and especially for Austria, hence frustration

@Human - See the other thread about the game. Gunboat for people with a brain

I don't see why italy leaving a large austria in a stalemate position is a sin... I actually think it is quite understandable if not expected. My ionian fleet helping you into the aean would have helped you grow and be directly in contrast to my interests.

I never had the ability to attack you, I was responding to not one, but two provocative Tyrolia trieste moves in a row. Notice I didn't respond to the first move which was obviously to bounce tyrolia because there was no accompanying trieste move. Then, two times in a row you tried to put two armies on a lone army in venice. For someone just trying to bounce tyrolia why make that move twice? Obviously I am not the only one who thought you were making a late play for italy this all sounds like a lot of convenient revisionist history to me. You yourself mentioned frustration earlier as a reason for the move.

I also do not believe that Italy is supposed to be a vascilating country. It has the freedom to do so for a year or two. After that, vasciliation equals lack of growth and probable elimination.

again, Austria has every right to be upset i abandoned him in the east, but also I think my point is that if you are being rational all that doesn;t matter when england is sitting on 13 scs and pushing

So I was required to ignore a rapidly expanding Germany in my backyard in order to engage in a sustained fight with turkey which would have netted me at best 2 SCs detached from my home SCs and given you an easier time expanding whichever way you pleased

You yourself mentioned frustration earlier as a reason for the move.
No, this frustration was why I hit you at the end.

Well, coming back to 3 centers, I figured I was going to be shaken out of the game anyway. So, I decided to enjoy jacking you...

so your sticking to the story that two Trieste-Tyr and Bud-Trieste moves in a row had friendly intent

after the first time i even made a conscious decision to build a fleet and not an army so I could signal I was gong West. then it happened again and that's when I "attacked you."

Well I can never prove thoughts and intentions so ill chalk this up to gunboat related misunderstanding and leave it at that