Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

03 Dec 19 UTC	Autumn, 1677: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
25 Dec 19 UTC	Spring, 1679: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
29 Dec 19 UTC	Autumn, 1679: GameMaster: France voted for a Extend. If 2/3 of the active players vote Extend the the current phase will be extend by 4 days. Please consider backing this. If the majority is not reached by "Autumn, 1680" the votes will be cleared.
29 Dec 19 UTC	Autumn, 1679: GameMaster: Per 2/3 majority vote the gamephase got extended by 4 days. (Voters: Portugal / France / Spain)
09 Jan 20 UTC	Spring, 1680: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
20 Jan 20 UTC	Autumn, 1681: GameMaster: Someone has taken over England replacing "KeyboardWarrior". Reconsider your alliances.
23 Jan 20 UTC	Spring, 1682: GameMaster: France voted for a Extend. If 2/3 of the active players vote Extend the the current phase will be extend by 4 days. Please consider backing this. If the majority is not reached by "Spring, 1683" the votes will be cleared.
23 Jan 20 UTC	Spring, 1682: GameMaster: Per 2/3 majority vote the gamephase got extended by 4 days. (Voters: France / Spain / England)
07 Feb 20 UTC	Spring, 1684: GameMaster: Spain voted for a Draw. If everyone votes Draw the game will end and the points are split equally among all the surviving players, regardless of how many supply centers each player has.
21 Feb 20 UTC	Spring, 1686: GameMaster: England voted for a Concede. If everyone (but one) votes concede the game will end and the player _not_ voting Concede will get all the points. Everybody else will get a defeat.
24 Feb 20 UTC	good game Sorry about the stab France, but with an odd number of SCs, there couldn't be a two way draw.
24 Feb 20 UTC	No problems Randomiser and congratulations; I knew it had to come sometime, but I can't bring myself to vote for a 4-way draw, so wiping the incredibly stubborn England whilst keeping Spain on the back foot in the Americas was best I could do. ... I enjoyed the game, but remain opposed to drop-in replacements who have zero risk. No offence Tobi1, but it has always felt like having a random stranger pick up the poker chips of an empty seat. I don't know about you guys, but I feel this game would be greatly improved if there was transit, build capabilities in the Pacific and movement capability between NW Atlantic and Hudson's Bay...
24 Feb 20 UTC	If you check the game description, you can move between NW Atlantic and Hudson Bay. I would have preferred another SC so you can have a two way draw. Three way in a four player game is stupid.
25 Feb 20 UTC	Congrats, Randomizer! Nobody likes draws anyway. :D Thanks for the feedback, Chumbles. Needless to say, the best course for a game is when all initial players stay active and trying for the best result throughout the entire game. But given this was not the case here, would you really have preferred to have an all-holding England during the rest of the game? Actually, when I decided to join this game, I had the impression it was down to a 2vs1 race for the victory condition and saw a chance to give it some interesting dynamics back. But anyway, if you have some ideas to improve this place, please state.
25 Feb 20 UTC	It's the 0 risk that bothers me; and the replacement of a mediocre player with a superstar in this case... I don't think it's right and I have expressed this view many times. Rando may recall a couple of Africa games where I have been stitched up like a kipper by a replacement deliberately and against normal sanity. In this game you've come down like Zeus " to give it some interesting dynamics back." Like Zeus in his irresponsible, immune fickle way, you decided to step amongst us mere mortals. The patronising way you've laid out your position is indicative. Shortly I will be out of my last game - I first played Diplomacy in 1968. I've developed in the UK variants and in spite of the deaths of my two best friends - Richard Sharp and Richard Walkerdine - I'd hoped to continue playing ... but after your response I didn't see the point.
25 Feb 20 UTC	Thanks for your reply. First of all, I am sorry if I have offended you in a way. It was not my intention to come along patronizing in my reply. Though, I guess I understand now how we get there. Secondly, I am honestly interested in any feedback and suggestions. Oli, jmo, I and others spent quite some time trying to improve the situation of drop-outs in recent years with the help of the community, it is in my interest to get out an optimal result. In my assessment, given the current circumstances, a discussion about free replacements comes down to the question wether we want an NMRing position or a replacement with a naturally different play style. Up to now I was of the impression that we have a common ground in the community on preferring the second case. Though, apparently that might be a misjudgement? Unfortunately, I do not remember your position on this topic in the past. We have the RR as an active incentive to encourage players to not leave their games. And we have the current NMR system in an attempt to hold the impact of the drop out, which is unavoidable in the web format, to a minimum. If you have further suggestions how to improve the situation, I am eager to hear. The same goes counts explicitly for the risk-free takeovers: Can you explain, please, if and why you do believe the introduction of risk-free take-overs worsened the situation after an NMR? Or can you think of a better way out? Finally, I regard you as one of the core members of our current community here. It would be a pity to lose you over a silly reply ...
25 Feb 20 UTC	Hoping someone doesn't take over for a NMR or hoping that a worse player takes over and then being upset when a better-than-expected player takes over seems somewhat selfish. There's no perfect way. I don't think England said anything or did anything wrong by taking over. France saying he will stop playing over it is a bit of an over-reaction...
25 Feb 20 UTC	Bye
26 Feb 20 UTC	Tobi1: Trying to take the discussion to the modforum, lost 75m of tapping HTTP ERROR 431 Will try again tomorrow Rann, site rules forbid me from telling you what I think of your accusation of selfishness ...
26 Feb 20 UTC	I'm glad, but the fact still stands. You get upset if a better player replaces a mediocre one. The only way around that is to not replace the player at all, which is even more unfair.