Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 128 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Grahamso1 (1912 D)
26 Nov 17 UTC
Extending the pre game time
Is it possible to extend the time while waiting for players in a game I created? If so how? Thanks
3 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
It's time to talk about Scoring
Hello all!

Let's talk about scoring? More specifically, about whether the dreaded Points Per Supply Center (PPSC) scoring should remain an option?
Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Enriador (1507 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
(+2)
I heard many strong arguments *against* PPSC over time, but never saw anyone defending it properly - I saw more criticism of WTA than true compliment of PPSC's good points.

I wonder what the community thinks about the subject, and whether Sum-of-Squares (SoS) could replace it.
Just play unrated and look to your Win/Lose/Draw percentages. They tell the real tale of your talent.
CCR (1957 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
(-1) YCHTT.

The main argument against PPSC is that it distorts the W/L/D ratio, favouring too much points for runners-up in soloed games (and too few points for the soloist as well).

Wake up defenders of PPSC! Stand up for your cause with beter arguments...
Enriador (1507 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
Kinda of agree with @YC..., since scoring systems aren't even part of the game itself. However, in a website where entry into games is decided by points, a scoring system is a must. Thought it was obvious.
Enriador (1507 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
@CCR, I do NOT defend PPSC itself, but I defend similar systems that reward points based on center count and/or position.

Most notably, Sum-of-Squares and C-Diplo are excellent scoring systems that may fit some games (like Rinascimento) way better than WTA.

But PPSC is just terrible.
@CCR - that's my point. Unrated games aren't PPSC. There are no points. Why -1 me when I was agreeing with you?
@Enriador - But they *aren't* a requirement here. Hence unrated games. We already limit the number of games a new player can join as well as having reliability ratings limit the number and an option to restrict players without a minimum RR to join. Points have become unnecessary.

What we should do as look to adding minimum vRating requirements (and maybe a maximum so newbies could start games and not get run off by more experienced players) and then have a simple check box to decide if the game counts towards the ratings or not.
ubercacher16 (2169 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
I'm with you YCHTT.
Enriador (1507 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
Personally, I don't like vDip points. ELO and its variants are terrible for a game like Diplomacy.

Besides, let's consider those who believe that the inherent dynamism of the points system creates interesting metagaming situations which have the potential to spice up games.

If some prefer to play Unrated, please be my guest! But I expected some debate about PPSC itself, thanks.
tantrumizer (1557 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
Win/Lose/Draw percentages don't mean much when sometimes you play 34-player games and sometimes 2-player. I won't defend PPSC - kill it I say! I'd replace it with Sum of Squares, but I don't mind vPoints and still consider that to be the measure of how well I'm going on the site.
mouse (1825 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
I'd support Sum of Squares if it was implemented for games with a winner (so, a balance between current PPSC and WTA scoring), as long as draws are still everyone scores equally. Which I know is entirely counter to what people are intending for Sum of Squares, so instead it must be decried as absolutely disgusting - a draw is a fucking draw; survival to reach it is the *only* metric that is relevant in a game that did not have a winner.

tantrumizer does raise a good point, that Win/Draw/Survive/Loss ratios are already rendered almost meaningless with variable game sizes - even your entirely average 1v1 player is going to have their Win percentage trend towards 50% simply from competing in games where they have a 50% chance of actually winning. It thus follows that having PPSC as a option does not detract from the site as a whole, given the entirely available option to simply not use it if you dislike it, and the fact that it's presence has demonstrably less effect on anything that matters than the entire point of the site (hosting variant maps; ie. maps highly likely to have different player numbers than the default 7).

In the meantime, PPSC adds diplomatic layers for people who want them (as such, those people who are actually likely to play a PPSC game, and thus those actually affected by any change to their availability - ie. none of the people in this thread arguing that they're shit). If you're in a dominant position, they allow you to actually play for a win while still rewarding loyal allies, rather than be forced into playing for a draw so as not to shaft them (always a shit thing, both the screwing someone over after lengthy productive cooperation, and playing for a draw). They also encourage people actually playing to win, rather than needing to think about 'how can we force a draw in this' from the fucking get-go as you basically have to in any WTA game of sufficient size.

In conclusion: PPSC is not hurting you. If you don't like it, don't play it, and let those who /do/ like it enjoy themselves.
tantrumizer (1557 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
PPSC didn't hurt me on WebDip where there were few variants and many players, but here I often decline to play a game when PPSC is selected and so perhaps that game is less likely to get started. That's the only reason I'd like to see the option removed.
mouse (1825 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
If 'perhaps' a game won't get to start because some people avoid it for being PPSC, similarly 'perhaps' the game wouldn't exist at all if PPSC wasn't an option.

Attempting to deny others something simply because you don't enjoy it yourself is, imo, not an acceptable position. Also, rather topical in my country (Australia) at the moment.
Captainmeme (1400 D Mod (B))
20 Nov 17 UTC
So, Sum of Squares would not work here. It's good for Classic Dip, but higher numbers of SCs on larger variants cause the vast majority of the points to go to the person in the lead, to the point where you actually don't need to get particularly close to the solo to get almost all of the points. That's just a problem that comes along with squaring larger numbers.

However, C-Diplo is actually a scoring system which works with all variants. Setting aside the issue of whether people who survive to a solo should get points, PPSC is still terrible in that it doesn't split the points by SCs unless someone wins the game, often creating situations where a player gets more points by giving up some SCs to allow another player to win than they would get if they drew, and considering that the point of PPSC is to gain SCs, the fact that you can earn more by losing them is completely bonkers. C-Diplo scores draws like PPSC scores solos, which would solve this issue.
mouse (1825 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
If there's a need for a point distribution system that prefers not to treat draws as, you know, actual *draws*, and instead favours a PPSC-esque distribution based on comparative areas controlled, why not implement it alongside existing options rather than campaigning for one of them to be removed?
GOD (1850 D Mod (B))
20 Nov 17 UTC
(+2)
All participants of a draw should be treated equally and get the same points. If you don't like the player with only two SCs getting as many points as you do with ten, kill him. If you can't, he deserves as many points as you do.

Diplomacy is all about making the most of your position, making yourself appear valuable and indispensable.
JECE (1534 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
I've written way too much over on the webDip Forum defending PPSC to no substantive response from the powers that be there. If there is a serious push to remove PPSC here, I'll try to dredge these arguments up again. I'm quite tired of repeating myself, though, so I don't want to waste my time if there are no real plans to change the scoring systems. Are changes to webDip points on the to-do list?
GOD (1850 D Mod (B))
20 Nov 17 UTC
You could just send a link to that thread? Also, I don't really think that the points are going away soon, but I don't really care about them, the whole getting system doesn't show a player's quality and is additionally heavily distorted by gunboats, as CM just pointed out in another thread.
GOD is 1000% spot on! And if you can't trust GOD, then trust The Truth. :-)

But seriously, he is right. A 2 SC player who wasn't able to be eliminated deserves his place in the draw and an equal cut. It means he made himself useful and positioned himself well to both assist in stopping the solo and prevent the allies of the moment from reducing the size.
But mouse, PPSC results in point inflation for those players who play for the strong second and don't give a flying rat's ass about their WLD%. As a result, those players have larger dPoint pools than some of the better players if you go by vPoint ratings.

If we are going to have points of any sort, it should be rating points and there should be no selecting how many you risk. Your risk should be based on the skill level of your opponents and we should simply have one measurement system with an option to play unrated.
mouse (1825 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
YCHTT - yeah, I see your point about d-point inflation. I suppose where I'm coming from is simply not giving a shit about d-points (other than as a limit on how many simultaneous games you can join) and only really caring for v-points - in which the current calculations when PPSC is used (namely, in a draw all survivors defeat all dead players, while in a game in a result it goes by rankings rather than centre count, 'defeating' anyone with less centres than you and losing to anyone with more) is pretty damn optimal.

As long as whatever options there ends up being include something that calculates v-points in that manner (or something similar enough), I really don't care about the manner in which d-points are assigned.
mouse (1825 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
while in a game with a result*
And the style of play by the dPoints players will inevitably influence their vRating as well. If they get lots of points as a strong second instead of stopping the solo, then they get their vRating adjusted based on their end game position and vRank versus the other players. But if they stop the solo and force the draw, then their vRank is computed based solo on their position relative to the defeated players, if I understand how it works correctly. But even if it scores the same, stopping the solo may result in fewer SCs and them coming in third, not second (in PPSC they may have helped the winner take the real second place players SCs for the win). In that situation, PPSC has just influenced vRating as well.
mouse (1825 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
And as we've already covered, that theoretical minor difference in results, in some games, absolutely pales in comparison to the massive and trivially demonstrable effects of having, for example, 34 players in one game.

The argument of 'PPSC can lead to imbalanced ratings' is utterly countered by the entire point of this site (variants) having a significantly greater distorting effect on rankings than PPSC ever could.
d-ice (1969 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
I don't get why it has to be either or...
My personal preference is games with fixed end year (1908 in particular) - since that mimics what I normally play when playing face-to-face (the way the game was meant to be played if you ask me).

Draw-size scoring doesn't make sense then - because most of the time the number of surviving players will be 5-7 (at least with equally skilled players). Scoring systems based on SC-count (like PPSC and SoS) make more sense. However, if I get to pick one scoring system over all others - it's going to be C-diplo for this type of games - because of the dynamic it leads to with shifiting alliances and backstabbing behavior - forcing everyone to think twice about every move.

If playing without such constraints, then DSS makes more sense - but personally I very much dislike how it tends to lead to an extremely unforgiving playing style. If you show weakness in a DSS game there is no incentum for anyone to not jump on you. What bothers me about that is that such weakness could very well be the result of a weak starting position (in some variants) or a misinterpretation of someone's agenda already after the first move. At this point the game becomes very predictable since everyone on the board benefits from taking out that one player with the weaker position.

When playing gunboat there's also the luck factor which is significantly bigger in DSS. I think the variant gunboat tournaments that were played here showcase this exact problem.

I can make countless arguments against draw-sized scoring - but I don't see the point on continuing further. Let everyone decide for themselves how to play the game. I like C-diplo, some like SoS, some like DSS, I'm sure some like PPSC too. Not a big deal.
GOD (1850 D Mod (B))
20 Nov 17 UTC
"My personal preference is games with fixed end year (1908 in particular) - since that mimics what I normally play when playing face-to-face (the way the game was meant to be played if you ask me)."

Copy of the Diplomacy rules:
"The object of the game is to use your armies and fleets to conquer as much of Europe as you can. Specifically, you must capture and be in possession of at least 18 of the 34 nations or provinces on the map that contain supply centres - i.e. a simple majority - at the end of a year.

Quite often the game ends in a two-way, three-way, or even four-way draw. Draws are generally agreed upon by all players or are declared after a pre-set time limit has been reached with all surviving participants sharing in the draw."

Where do you get that "the way the game was meant to be played" part from? It is quite clearly stated and essential for the game that you have to try to conquer more than half of the SCs, which is quite obviously hardly possible before 1908, or reach a draw. The time-limit is optional, but the game is designed to be solo'ed if possible!
Playing longer also usually leaves you with far less survivors than "5-7".

I have played numerous games with a set time limit and I despise it, since everyone know that in fall 1907 or 1908 everyone will just randomly backstab and grab all they can get. It is hardly possible to plan a long-term strategy or even think of going for a solo. FIGHT UNTIL VICTORY OR DEATH!!!
d-ice (1969 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
"the way the game was meant to be played" was a reference to face-to-face. Sorry for now being clear about that.
d-ice (1969 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
sorry for not ....
d-ice (1969 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
And GOD: I think I also mentioned that in longer games DSS makes more sense (because there will be more eliminations)

Regardless, the core message was to let people play it anyway they like. Why impose artificial restrictions?
GOD (1850 D Mod (B))
20 Nov 17 UTC
Oh sorry then :)

Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

98 replies
Major Problems (1364 D)
23 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
1 v 1 games on variant maps
I am not a coder (sic) so I was wondering how hard is/was it to code 1 v 1 games? Is it reasonable to think that variant maps (Modern, Ancient Med, etc) could be set up to create 1 v 1 games? The idea of having a larger group of countries to play against each other is intriguing. I just don't know if it possible, or doable.
2 replies
Open
Grahamso1 (1912 D)
22 Nov 17 UTC
(+2)
How old school are you?
I am not very tech savvy so forgive me. I think I started dip on some RSS pages using Netscape at work in maybe 1996(?) does that make sense? All email based through Judges. What were they called? USDJ or something. I remember FROG but they all spoke French. Haha. I used to stand outside my office in the snow smoking a cig with a hand drawn map with about 100 crossing out for each phase using coloured pens. Ah web based interactive maps?!?! Luxury!!!
5 replies
Open
Jamie_T (895 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
Notices
The notices on my front page are all jumbled up in a random order. PMs from weeks ago are at the top, and some of my game messages from the past day or two are lower down. Is anyone else noticing this?
9 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
09 Oct 17 UTC
Napoleonic Variant, and the lack of neutral centers
I had the honor to play 'Napoleonic' back in the lab (an awful game as Spain by the way). I had a question back then which I ask here and now:

Why there are no neutral supply centers?
23 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
20 Mar 17 UTC
Fixing the Pirates variant
With the new Lab up and running, as discussed in the DiplomacyGames podcast I'm keen to iron out the bugs in Pirates that people hate...
51 replies
Open
jason4747 (1633 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
"Biggest Game of All Time Completed"- worth a look
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=205586
By the nice people at WebDip.
Pot: 31,500  - Spring, 1918, Finished - Germany dominates at 17
10 replies
Open
The Real Wheat (969 D)
16 Nov 17 UTC
New Maps
I'm super new to the site and I was curious how new maps were made and/or submitted. I noticed a lot of the maps look a bit old and it got me thinking about what it would take to create a higher resolution version of a game map. Are there certain file formats a map must be in or is this all a responsibility for site admins only? Thanks!
11 replies
Open
Major Problems (1364 D)
17 Nov 17 UTC
Imperium Diplomacy
Under the variants, I noticed one called Imperium Diplomacy, but was not able to create a game using this variant. Is it a discontinued variant, or under a different name? It looks like an interesting one, especially the beginning turns.
5 replies
Open
DemonOverlord (910 D)
07 Oct 17 UTC
Vdip colour scheme
Hi, I think vdip would be more successful with a different colour scheme. Also less painful to look at.
31 replies
Open
rebecca02 (1000 D X)
15 Nov 17 UTC
locks of hair
Beautiful.
1 reply
Open
JECE (1534 D)
10 Nov 17 UTC
Custom phase bug
This might be better in the Mods section, but I thouht I'd post here first to see if other users have any input.

I'm trying to create a new game with a custom phase length. When I select "Custom" from the drop-down menu, nothing happens. However, when I select "2 days, 2 hours", I've given the option to input a phase length. Hopefully this is an easy fix.
3 replies
Open
KingCyrus (1258 D)
01 Nov 17 UTC
WWII Update Errors
Hello, I am currently in a game of WWII and I was just informed that it has been updated, "fixing" problems with dual coasts. This supposedly means that Palestine now has two coasts. However, I have a fleet in the Red Sea and it can no longer move to Palestine! Please fix?
1 reply
Open
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
20 Oct 17 UTC
(+1)
Replacement Player(s) Needed
I need replacement players game sitters for several games:
13 replies
Open
peterlund (1080 D)
30 Sep 17 UTC
I have reported 2 Issues for vdiplomacy to kestasjk/webDiplomacy
Bug 1: "Turn limited vDip games should end after possible retreats" (Issue 261)

Bug/Questions 2; "How does vDip decide who the winner is?" (Issue 262)
17 replies
Open
BenjaminHester (1035 D)
25 Oct 17 UTC
(+1)
not quite ready, but... SE Asia 800
going to refine Balkans 1860 and Sengoku: Nagashino as needed before trying to implement this one. Thought I would just give y'all a peek behind the curtain. Thoughts welcome! (it has a few known imbalances to address, but it's close.)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2CiokzfWGBhTlU0QTZZNzNrUEU
6 replies
Open
Jamie_T (895 D)
04 Oct 17 UTC
(+4)
MAFIA 1 - GAME THREAD
This is the game thread for vDip Mafia, Episode 1

Please DO NOT post in this thread if you are not playing in the Mafia game.
1560 replies
Open
Flame (1073 D)
23 Oct 17 UTC
Austrian question once again!
Please help with testing a map "War of Austrian Succession"
http://lab.diplomail.ru/board.php?gameID=51

Fast gunboat.
1 reply
Open
Flame (1073 D)
05 Oct 17 UTC
(+1)
Classic 1898 Variant adaptation
I do the adaptation for 1898 variant. Who knows the author of the variant to mention him in the description. Or it's Hasbro itself?

http://lab.diplomail.ru/board.php?gameID=43
7 replies
Open
Tactics
In year one when you just meeting everyone, maybe there anonymous but for sure you don't know any of them. How do you know who to trust?
They can be lying through their teeth and text doesn't show tone of voice or eye contact so you have no idea. If you believe them they may stab you. If you don't you venture into a DMZ and piss them off. Ask around to others and you get rumors or nothing. This game seems so much better suited to face to face.
15 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
17 Oct 17 UTC
Classic Mini-Tourney - Is there interest?
I thought about making a mini-tourney - comprising a single game - using a similar scheme to most Face-to-Face scoring systems.

Basically it'll be a Classic game, running until Fall 1907 and a PPSC structure. The bet would be 100 points - for a ultimate pot worth 700 points.
26 replies
Open
Grahamso1 (1912 D)
13 Oct 17 UTC
Unable to enter certain orders. How to contact GM
Can someone help. I am playing one of the odder variants. New for me. I’ve read the variant page repeatedly and seems I ought to be able to enter a certain order. But it’s not available as an option. (Maybe I’m missing something. Or maybe a bug). Emailed the mods. But how do I contact GameMaster min a gunboat game?
Thanks
2 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
09 Oct 17 UTC
(+5)
I love vDip
Enjoying this new golden age of variant development.

Hat tip to Oli and those building variants and supporting their development in the background.
5 replies
Open
FafevPlinskv (1039 D)
10 Oct 17 UTC
Taking over
Need help with a gunboat game, good position but sadly don't have time for it for a moment. PM for more details
0 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
08 Oct 17 UTC
Napoleonic
Hey, where are the neutrals?

;-)
0 replies
Open
Jamie_T (895 D)
10 Sep 17 UTC
vDiplomacy Forum Mafia
Would anyone be interested in playing forum based Mafia / Werewolf here, on the vDip forum?
154 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
04 Oct 17 UTC
Reliability system
I looked over Google but couldn't find any topic explaining the reliability system - can anyone hand out an example, and explain how noobs are handled? Thanks a lot in advance!
10 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
19 Sep 17 UTC
Win Conditions less than majority
Some of you with a bit more experience at vDip can clue me in here.

How does vDip currently adjudicate when more than one player meets the SC requirement for victory simultaneously? More details below.
38 replies
Open
brainbomb (662 D)
01 Oct 17 UTC
Variance
Varients my style Skippin paddy wagon rattle dash colum mile Flyin off the handle and I dial Clone pile vna for my DNA Rabid as a rattler in a CNA gettin paid like the Destin Pa Handle this festive kudza On a fish. Get you lil bliss Gimme smooch. Im a wish.
4 replies
Open
Page 128 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top