I like the map changes @Enriador, as historical accuracy is welcome. However, I am not the biggest fan of the unit changes. Maybe this could be its own variant for those who wished to play it?

@Caerus

>Are you looking to add another listing to the variant page with these cosmetic changes, or are you wanting to alter the game currently listed as variantID=1 on the variant page?<

It's #2 (altering the variantID=1, aka "Classic" proper), and it alone.

It has been suggested that Classic retain its old icons for tradition's sake and the change be applied only to some/all of the Classic subvariants (Milan, Economic, etc).

Given that someone (on webDip) put an effort to make the old icons and these have a special place in everyone's heart, I believe they should be kept *somewhere*. So if the new icons go to Classic, the subvariants retain the old models (or vice-versa).

The map changes are so subtle that I guess they can be applied to Classic itself and all the Classic subvariants. To be honest, the inaccuracies of the map (like Green Corsica) are almost certainly minor mistakes that simply got overlooked across the years.

@matthew

>Maybe this could be its own variant for those who wished to play it?<

I wouldn't like to create a variant just for cosmetic changes. There would be nothing unique about its gameplay!

However, I suppose I can add them for the upcoming bunch of Classic subvariants (Britain, Egypt, Croatia and Brazilian) if people don't mind. Could be a nice test-drive! What do you think?

See folks? He wants to change the icons on all the subvariants. He is a egotistical snowflake who wants to alter others work. He just admitted it. Now will a mod please tell him he has no say in the icons on variants he didn't create?

"So if the new icons go to Classic, the subvariants retain the old models (or vice-versa)."

How about we not change either. He didn't create classic or fog of war and his "proposal" would mean one or the other got the shit icons.

What are these subvariants? Croatia? Is it a map of Croatia? Lol. And you are right it would just be cosmetic but wouldn't the unit changes also be merely cosmetic as well? And if not, how would it change gameplay?

Ah. Then I'd like to officially state my desire that the icons not be changed in any of the preexisting formats. You are, of course, welcome to set whatever Icon's you'd like for the variants you have authored (or ported as the case may be) and I have little to no desire to weigh-in on that prospect.

My preference regarding the color of the small islands is almost too small to measure, but I think, mostly as a matter of consistency, I'd prefer the color stays as it is.

Though, I have one more question, @Enriador, if you don't mind.

@matthew

There are links for all 4 variants in this thread: https://vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?viewthread=78314#78314

>wouldn't the unit changes also be merely cosmetic as well?<

Yes.

>how would it change gameplay?<

It wouldn't. It's just a recolored map/different unit icons. But the 4 upcoming variants mentioned do have several differences that do affect gameplay.

> as a matter of consistency<

What do you mean by consistency?

>if you don't mind.<

Go forth.

Enriador, like any other variant developer, is free to set whatever icons he wants for the variants that he has authored.

However, just like Caerus has done it, I would like to officially state my desire that the icons not be changed in any of the preexisting formats.

I am in favor of the proposed changes in the coloration of the map, e.g. Corsica colored blue. I am against the abstract flag icons, but would prefer fleets and cannons, whether or not colored uniquely for each country, above the current fleet and tank icons.

However, I think that changes in existing variants should only be applied if there is an overwhelming support for it, or at least not a significant portion of players against. So to me it seems like at least the unit icons shouldn't be changed.

>What do you mean by consistency?<
I mean, "Consistency: conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness." i.e. not changing things. I as I stated, my preference on the matter is absolutely tiny, and not sure if I'd notice a change in this manner if it were to happen, but, since you asked for opinions, I gave it, along with the amount of weight I give to that particular opinion (very little). This weight is in contrast for my preference toward established icon on preexisting variants (a much more significant preference).

...icons*

Silly Typos

@Mercy

> changes in existing variants should only be applied if there is an overwhelming support for it, or at least not a significant portion of players against<

Agreed. Ideally we could see an official poll somewhen so the lurkers can voice their preferences. I did some quick math and around 15 people stated their opinion here, ~3% of the website's total number of active players.

@Caerus

You said you would prefer the colors to stay as they are ("mostly") for a "matter of consistency". That's a perfectly good reason, but I am curious about the consistency part.

My doubt: where is the lack of consistency in changing the colors (e.g. painting Corsica blue)? You mean one variant might have a set of icons while similar ones (e.g. Milan) won't - thus breaking the overall harmony that we currently have? Or something else entirely?

>you asked for opinions, I gave it<

You unmistakenly voiced your opposition to *both* my proposals with spot-on objectivity *and* respect. Textbook example of how to write a critic, so thanks.

IMO the simplest 'vote' method would be to implement a new variant with your changes, Enriador, and then compare play count between the two (classic and the redrawn map) over a period of time (say, 6 months?)

Gets around any need for external voting software, and focuses on the 'votes' of people who actually play the map, rather than people who comment on the forum.

"Given that someone (on webDip) put an effort to make the old icons"
Actually, Kestas didn't design them. They were used because they were open source. We don't actually know who designed them or for what purpose:
http://webdiplomacy.net/credits.php

"To be honest, the inaccuracies of the map (like Green Corsica) are almost certainly minor mistakes that simply got overlooked across the years."

Yeah, no. Mar does not border TyS. As I wrote recently, "I do not think that Crete or Sardinia should be colored at all. Kestas was right to leave islands with adjacencies that don't match their 'parent' province a neutral color. To do otherwise could be confusing. If that is unacceptable . . . then the sea borders should be redrawn, much like the English Channel was expanded to touch Wales proper [in 1900]."

Funny enough, Enriador "totally agree[ed] with" that interpretation here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=23086#p23086

Oh! I have a new nickname! EnriAttentionWhore!

>compare play count between the two <

Hmm, I don't think this has potential to be as conclusive as a good old poll. My reasons:

1) Classic is the default map and has an awesome name that screams "I am the standard, pick me". So if a newcomer to vDip starts a "New game" Classic is automatically set to be the map being played - the website is "biased" for Classic already (naturally) and that may distort the data.

2) If someone wants to try a game of Classic, there wouldn't be anything written anywhere (as far as the current interface works!) about the difference between the default option ("Classic") and the option that is proposed to replace it (let's call it "Classic Redrawn").

The average player will look and see a "Classic - Redrawn" variant stuck between two variants (say, Milan and Crowded) that they know *aren't* the Classic map they are looking for. What reason (as in, "visual indication") would this player have to click on "Redrawn" to grasp what it is about?

Even then, the player wouldn't be able to check the (purely visual!) differences between the maps in any case. In other words: the player would have a decision to make without easy and immediate access to full information about both choices.

3) vDiplomacy is a blessed safe haven for variants for all kinds, styles and sizes, but this proposed "variant" is not a variant at all. I think it's somewhat wrong in principle to make a "variant" of Diplomacy whose only variation is cosmetic, but perhaps that's my bias.

4) It's not very ethical to make people cast votes without them being fully informed that they are casting votes.

If a player starting a game of a variant means they are casting a vote (unless I understood you wrong), how are you informing them about it? A red box besides the variant description like "By playing this map you will cast a vote in its favor"? And what if a player wants to play one of the maps just for testing's sake? They may hate it later but casted a vote for it anyway.

>need for external voting software<

Is this a problem? Not a rethorical question, I know little of how these online poll-makers work (just know many are free).

>focuses on the 'votes' of people who actually play the map<

I am going to affirm something without any proof to it, but if you think I am wrong please say so: everyone knows "Classic". I believe (roooough guess) 99% of players here know "the map where FRIGATE play in 1901 for 18 SCs", many by heart.

If we take this affirmation of mine as true (which it 'might' not be) then 'everyone" actually "plays (or played) the map" and thus are capable of making an opinion on what visual they like the best.

Here's my suggestion, based on yours:

1) Four Classic subvariants launch with the new icons (the 4 I ported).

2) We give them plenty of time for people to see them, play with them and get a good grasp on these units' clarity and style - perhaps 6 months as you suggested.

3) After this time expires we have an official poll, with @Oli (if he agrees) using his banner-making powers to make the poll *and* a side-by-side comparision of both sets of icons/maps highlighted in front of everyone's noses for another arbitrary time (1 month?).

The times and voting threshold (50%, 66%, 75%) required to change the status quo can be whatever. Thoughts?

P.S.:

1) Should the map changes also be subject to a vote? *Technically speaking* it's bugfixing.

Here's a comparision: https://imgur.com/a/O3q1GlB

2) Any other suggestions, whatsoever, for improving the new icons?

Latest set: https://imgur.com/a/BTOYlq1

Sounds settled. Before we move on, I still have one more question:

Can you please confirm the following Ban list?

I'd like to start a "Game of the Muted", but I need a number so that I can get a proper Variant that will fit the numbers. Though, I suppose if I were to wait a week, I'll find even Haven too small.

From @Drano
"Can we compile a list of how outrageous this is getting? People muted thus far:

RUFFHAUS
YCHTT
Drano
Retillion (threatened)
Leif (attempted, can't mute a mod)
Mapu
Uber (threatened, possibly actually muted)

Others who have made the deadly mistake of straying off topic and who might therefore be muted for eternity include:

GOD
mouse
FrozenDog
JECE
Mercy"

@ Caerus : NO ! It is not settled !

@ Everyone : Do you see the problem, the danger, with Enriador's technique of flooding the forum with his endless speech, while simultaneously muting all the players whose comments he does not want to read ? The consequence is that he manages to convince some people of what he wants.

And for those who still believe that democracy is equal to giving people the right to vote every once in while (that is what those who truly hold the power want you to believe) :
The majority is not right. The truth cannot be decided by a vote.

Please read my next post :

@ Enriador :

https://imgur.com/a/O3q1GlB : NO ! It is not "technically speaking bugfixing". If we let you do, it is you who are going to bring bugs that could lead to confusion !

The reason why Corsica, which is adjacent to both Gulf of Lion* and Tyrrhenian Sea, is colored in green at the start of the game is because it is related to Tuscany, which is the only land zone that is adjacent to both Gulf of Lion* and Tyrrhenian Sea.
Changing the colors of Corsica (which you seem to have related to Marseille**) could lead to confusion, some players being possibly driven to consider wrongfully that Marseille is adjacent to Tyrrhenian Sea.

Similarly, the reason why Sardinia always stays in neutral color is because it is adjacent to the three sea zones Gulf of Lion*, Tyrrhenian Sea and Western Mediterranean. And there is no land zone adjacent to those three sea zones.
Changing the colors of Sardinia by relating it to any of Tuscany, Rome or Naples could lead to confusion, some players being possibly driven to consider wrongfully that the land zone in question (Tuscany, Rome or Naples) is adjacent to both Gulf of Lion* and Western Mediterranean.


*The correct spelling of the name of that sea zone is "Gulf of Lion" : not named by the city of Lyon (which is 250 kilometers away from the Mediterranean coast, and whose correct spelling in English, and in French as well, is without an "s" at the end), but because of the fact that this sector of the Mediterranean Sea was desrcibed in the past as "dangerous as a lion".
That double spelling mistake is ridiculous.

**The correct spelling of the name of that city in English, and in French as well, is "Marseille"" : without an "s" at the end.

Instead of trying to "correct" some supposed geographical mistakes, why not first correct the spelling mistakes that are on the maps ?


I do not accept that a user of this site, who mutes many players just because he does not want to read their comments about the changes that he wants to make, takes the power to implement changes in variants, especially if those changes will lead to confusion.

If Enriador does not answer this message, I will report it to both Oli and to the administrators team.

As JECE noted in their most recent post (incidentally, yet another highly relevant contribution that you seem to have absolutely no issues completely ignoring despite your own stated aversion to people not reading the thread before contributing), the map changes could actually be considered 'bug creating', as they convey (incorrectly) that the province the colouring is based on borders the sea regions that the island does. For instance, Mar does not border TYS, while Corsica does - if Corsica is coloured by Mar rather than Tus it creates unnecessary confusion about the adjacency of Mar.

With regard to any decision-making process, I fail to see how minimising disruption and allowing a natural poll of people interested in playing a map can be construed as 'unethical'. If your changes are popular enough that people prefer them to the default, your alternate variant would be played more. If your changes are not sufficiently popular, then it can still exist for those that prefer it, while not forcing any unnecessary changes on those who are happy with the status quo.
For your objections: calling it, say, "Classic / Redrawn" (or some other symbol that counts as alphabetically before "-") would place it directly below Classic in the default sort of the variants page. There would also presumably be a note at the top of the page for the new variant being added, giving exactly the same notification as there would be for any off-site vote.
I would agree that it's not technically an individual variant, but I also disagree that many of the changes you are proposing are necessary (or even useful), and in my experience the 'best' result from situations where there are such strong opinions on each side (as demonstrated by the very stong opinions expressed in this thread) is one where both sides can 'win' - and in this situation the easiest way I can see for that is a new variant being created (so your contributions are validated and used, a win) while leaving Classic as-is (not forcing unnecessary changes on the rest of the site, also a win).

As for external votong software, they are generaly trivial to manipulate, if people feel strongly enough about a subject to devote time and effort towards doing so. Emotions in this thread appear to be running high enough that I would suspect vote rigging operations by all sides, rendering any attempt at a vote like that entirely void of meaning.

...and the Retillion posts the more productive part of my post, in significantly more detail, while I was composing.

That's what I get for taking snipes about not reading the thread, I suppose :p

I would note the strong opinions mouse references are roughly a dozen to one. One in favor of changing something for everyone (the rest in favor don’t seem to have a strong opinion behind their preference), and a dozen against it being done to everyone against their wishes.

mouse also very sagely suggested a perfect answer to allow Enriador to satiate his desire for historicity, but I doubt Enriador would care to settle for this.

mouse has now also gone off topic but will likely not be muted because the clarification I got from Enriador has changed from the reason he stated for muting me. I was apparently muted for being an internet stranger attempting to give moral lessons to him.

JECE and Retillion have convinced me; I am no longer in favor of the changes of the coloration of the map.

@Caerus

>"Game of the Muted"<

I was going to suggest it myself! I would never block you from the fun, so I muted you too. <3

I recommend 'Napoleonic', a 10-player variant with amazing unit icons and an incredible setting, pitching a few reactionary nations against the revolutionary ideals of France.

Happy stabbing!

>highly relevant contribution<

Last time @Jece made a "contribution" to this thread he complained about... a letter.

Nah, I leave the full weight of his wisdom (which I am sure he has!) to you.

>map changes could actually be considered 'bug creating', as they convey (incorrectly) that the province the colouring is based on borders the sea regions that the island does<

I have seem this claim before. Gonna give you four counter-arguments:

1) There are *many* variants, from Abstraction III (Corsica) to Enlightenment & Succession (Crete) and dozens of others, where outlying islands follow the colors of a mainland space. Never heard of an issue with them; in any case, if a player is in doubt about borders the best course of action is always to check the variant's Map (inside the variant preview).

2) Painting the islands (e.g. Corsica as French blue) is the historically correct course.

3) It's how Avalon Hill itself draws the map - the closest thing to a "map standard" we will ever have (https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1917970.jpg).

4) If fear of confusion over islands and borders is so vast, you can take a leaf from Backstabbr's book (among other places) and paint all islands Swiss black to squash any confusion.

Even better: we should use Douglas Crackford's mistake-proof map (https://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/map.gif).

I can't help myself but wonder what Rob Addison would think of it.

>minimising disruption<

I can't see how the absence of a poll makes such a choice any less disruptive.

>allowing a natural poll of people interested in playing a map can be construed as 'unethical'. <

If you bind "playing a map" to "this person is voting", you *must* warn that person that their action implies a vote.

Now that you mentioned it, I also believe that voters should be protected by secrecy, something impossible to do through the "vote by playing the map" method.

I am not saying this is a terrible idea (it's remarkably simple), just thought worth pointing out potential flaws.

>calling it, say, "Classic / Redrawn" (or some other symbol that counts as alphabetically before "-") would place it directly below Classic in the default sort of the variants page.<

"Below" Classic, and without any clear visual indication of the differences.

>There would also presumably be a note at the top of the page for the new variant being added, giving exactly the same notification as there would be for any off-site vote.<

Hmm, that would make the proposal more workable. Possibly with links to both maps (or a side-by-side comparision of the maps) so people can clearly see the differences anywhere in the website.

>it's not technically an individual variant<

And therein lies a major problem - I ain't sure if the "variant" would fill the requirements for showing up on vDiplomacy. You would have to ask @Oli.

>changes you are proposing are necessary<

Side note: no one ever said they are "necessary". There are very few "necessary" things for vDip, most of them listed on Github already.

>in my experience the 'best' result from situations where there are such strong opinions on each side (as demonstrated by the very stong opinions expressed in this thread) is one where both sides can 'win' - and in this situation the easiest way I can see for that is a new variant being created (so your contributions are validated and used, a win) while leaving Classic as-is (not forcing unnecessary changes on the rest of the site, also a win).<

That's a very solid rationale. I shall give the matter some thought.

> external votong software, they are generaly trivial to manipulate<

> I would suspect vote rigging operations by all sides<

I believe most of the big poll-making websites have both IP-blocking and encrypted connection. I would require a specialist to clarify how strong these protections really are, but I saw companies using them - shouldn't be too shallow.

Initially I would discard the hypothesis of someone trying to "rig" any vDip-related vote, but after seeing how creepy and agressive some community members can get you might have a point.

Do note, however, that a vote as you propose ("play & vote") can be easily manipulated by someone (say, myself) opening as many games as possible with a 10-day window. I could CD and NMR however much I want, but the games would still exist and count as "votes" for the side I chose.

Why must Classic Redrawn with icon and map changes be given no other purpose than to supplant Classic? Why can’t people see the two variations, pick their flavor, and enjoy? Why must this be driven forcefully toward a vote? Why must one “win” and replace the other? Cannot both exist side by side in perpetuity?

Oh wait, I am muted and Enriador refuses to acknowledge his apparent agenda that we in opposition are wary of, because to question the method he uses to present his case and any motives behind it is off limits/off topic/unsolicited discussion of his person/unwanted internet morality advice from a stranger and thus banned from his consideration in this thread.

As to his last comment about how he could rig a play to vote option, I have a strange feeling the mods could somehow easily sniff that one out.

Someone not muted feel free to repost my questions for Enriador’s consideration. (With or without attribution, I care only about his answer to the questions.)