Diplomacy Debate

[StayPuft]

My problem with binding treaties as an option is simply the concern that such games will become the dominant and preferred game mode, in particular among the higher-tier players. I think we lose something when we cut a little bit of the calculated risk out of the game. I'd like to see all four options get tested while we're in beta (the four being the present system, a no diplomacy mode, a binding treaty mode, and a no-penalty for trucebreaking mode).

If we had all four in open release though, I think my no-penalty mode would just end up as the mode specifically for the assholes who would rather ruin the game for others than play for fun and victory, because the sheer range of options (aside from being confusing for newbies) could shepherd the more honourable players towards 'safer' game modes.

 

[coolname]

I'm still interested in some data on how diplomacy is used now. What are the numbers? Obviously in 2-player games and in RT, diplomacy plays no role. My gut-feeling is that in the majority of games, no treaties are made and within that realm, very few are broken.

MajCom HQ (Bado, Evan): Could you provide some ballpark figures? Some back of the enveloppe estimates; there have been played 12.000 games, about half are 2-player games and 3000 are RT. That leaves 3000 games where diplomacy might be used. I'd say in about 20% of them, a treaty will have been made, so 600 games with at least one treaty. Assuming 10% get broken (quite a high estimate I'd say), I would predict that the cumulative number of all players that is shown in parentheses after the diplo score is 60 (so Orbo's 3 + Staypuft's 1 + Mapguy's 0 + ... etc =60). Is that about right?

And who is the biggest offender? It might be helpful to have a separate "hall of shame" where you can see the biggest treaty breakers at a glance.

 

[coolname]

. I'd like to see all four options get tested while we're in beta (the four being the present system, a no diplomacy mode, a binding treaty mode, and a no-penalty for trucebreaking mode).

If we had all four in open release though, I think my no-penalty mode would just end up as the mode specifically for the assholes who would rather ruin the game for others than play for fun and victory, because the sheer range of options (aside from being confusing for newbies) could shepherd the more honourable players towards 'safer' game modes.

I think the a-holes will also be doing fine in the no-diplomacy option. I personally don't see that much added value to a no-diplo-penalty option.

 

[FLAGG]

Yeah - Agree.

I say we make the binding mode, and have a mode just like it is for Treaties.

However - I am not really sure that I see a reason for the "no-penality mode". I would rather just leave things the same versus trying that. I would never play that mode.

I do like the "Hall of Shame" idea And would like if there was a little more harshness to breaking a treaty - maybe it involved actually points on the scoreboard - like 50. That way you weigh the consequences.

For instance if you are going to lose a game and lose 30 points, or win and get 100 (based on breaking a treaty). You might decide it is worth wining the game for 50 points. (I would not). But it would be a gamble because if you lose - you lose the 50 points regardless. At least there would be some real penalty toward breaking a treaty that was official.

And that way official treaties can still be broken - but are more binding. And there would be more of a confidence in making them.........

FLAGG

 

[mapguy]

from my perspective this debate is over. This thread is now focused on how to sub-categorize the diplo options so as to create the games that people want to play. This must take into account the likes and dislikes of the two major groups of players. Some (mostly young) players, are keen to the hectic dog eat dog style, that allows for backstabbing. While the more mature players prefer the thoughtful cerebral type game. I can appreciate both, but I think that it is only proper that players be made aware of the backstabbing nature of the first option. otherwise it becomes a way to farm noobies.

I do NOT think that any sort of Official punishment should be levied against truce breakers in the dog eat dog mode. Let them have their game. In the binding mode, the software should not allow for any broken truces, unless both parties agree to end the truce early.

The third option, (No Dip), means that no verbal diplomacy is allowed at all.

 

[WidowMakers]

I don't think it is really fair to say that young player (dumb) will back stab each other and older wiser cerebral won't.
I think about my game and I analyze what I do. If I need to break a truce to win 200 points. i will do it. But I will also not do it often and only in a last resort.

Grouping people who break truces into 2 categories is not honest or a true perspective on reality.

 

[FLAGG]

Mapguy does seem right that this debate is pretty much over..........we are now talking about tiny things in rules changes, and who breaks treaties. I don't really have anything else constructive to say..........

The only thing that would interest me is if the programers of the site were ACTUALLY going to test another diplomatic option.

Since I don't think anyone has really posted that the programers were willing to actually try a change to the current system........I am running out of interest in discussing.........

FLAGG

 

[mapguy]

I don't think it is really fair to say that young player (dumb) will back stab each other and older wiser cerebral won't.
I think about my game and I analyze what I do. If I need to break a truce to win 200 points. i will do it. But I will also not do it often and only in a last resort.

Grouping people who break truces into 2 categories is not honest or a true perspective on reality.

I am afraid that you are just not getting it. Not only does your post make no sense, it miss-quotes me. We are not arguing which mode is better or most honest or fair. We are only trying to nail down what the various options should be. Nobody is calling anyone else "dumb".

It seems to me that we have boiled it down to 3 options for a Diplo. settings to be tested.

1) dog eat dog or what ever you want to call what we have now.

2) Binding. Truce breaking is made impossible.

3) No Diplo. Verbal diplomacy is prohibited.

 

[WidowMakers]

I was referring to your "cerebral" type mature players vs young dog eat dog style.

Mature cerebral vs young backstabber
Your words.

It just seemed to me you were associating people who do break treaties as those who really don't use their minds and know how to play.

 

[WidowMakers]

1) dog eat dog or what ever you want to call what we have now.

2) Binding. Truce breaking is made impossible.

3) No Diplo. Verbal diplomacy is prohibited.

Option number 3 is not an option as far as I know since we came up with dilpo to get rid of option 3. People abuse it and that is why we have dilpo now.
If I ever played option #2 I would not make an official agreement so fine with me.

 

[mapguy]

Option number 3 is not an option as far as I know since we came up with dilpo to get rid of option 3. People abuse it and that is why we have dilpo now.
If I ever played option #2 I would not make an official agreement so fine with me.

There ARE a lot of people on this site that do not like diplo. It makes sense to accommodate them, as we ponder the diplo options.

Again, this conversation has turned from what you may personally like, to what should be the options that will include what everybody likes.

 

[StayPuft]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think a no penalty mode is at least worth testing, in particular when compared with the alternatives that are being proposed.

If you don't like breakable diplo (and the uncertainty brought along with it), then yes, we can accommodate that (though it's not a great idea to split the user base too much), but I'm gonna say this (a little provocative, maybe, but hopefully not flamebait): it's not Risk.

Oh, and as for the debate being over, this thread reads suspiciously like an agreement to disagree, not a consensus.

 

[FLAGG]

Yup - "agree to disagree"

I want a Binding Treaty option (just an option......not changing the current game). From reading this thread it does not seem like that is ever going to happen. So the best I can do is agree to disagree

But as long as I know and understand the rules, I am more then happy to play with them. I say again this site is awesome!

FLAGG

 

[stonebergftw]

In all honesty, using diplomacy as is, is severely crippled anyways, since MOST if not ALL diplomatic decisions should ideally be happening MID-TURN, not after the turn AFTER the one you are taking. A diplomatic decision, should be altering what you do ON THE TURN THAT YOU DO IT, and should allow you to immediately put pressure elsewhere. And really, there isn't anything to be done about that on a 24 hour correspondence type of game anyways.

No, this isn't Risk, but you'd be silly to say it isn't damn near identical(oh except for all the baddddddd ass maps here!). And I can't tell you how many times I have made a deal in an "on the board" game of Risk that started with the phrase, "You can either accept this deal, or be annihilated this turn". 10 times out of 10, they accept the deal, and I put my foot on the throat of someone else the very same turn.

Long winded statement summary:
I'd like to see email notifications for diplomatic proposals. and if so...
I'd like to have all 24 hours of my turn allotment to take my turn, not have the 60 minute timer start, just because I've started my turn.

 

[mapguy]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think a no penalty mode is at least worth testing, in particular when compared with the alternatives that are being proposed.

If you don't like breakable diplo (and the uncertainty brought along with it), then yes, we can accommodate that (though it's not a great idea to split the user base too much), but I'm gonna say this (a little provocative, maybe, but hopefully not flamebait): it's not Risk.

Oh, and as for the debate being over, this thread reads suspiciously like an agreement to disagree, not a consensus.

it's not Risk.

This is a matter opinion and stems from ones own experience. From my experience at playing Risk, which started somewhere around 1966, we made truces, and had no rule against violating them. although no one ever did. Why would you want to set down and play a game with a dishonest backstabber ? At least that is the way my generation (for the most part) looked at things. Now I am NOT saying that the dog eat dog style of play is somehow wrong and should be scrapped, just that the more honorable version that I grew up with should be an option for those of us that want to play the game that we remember and love.

 

[StayPuft]

It's sort of funny, I have never made an alliance or truce in real-world Risk without weighing the question of whether it would be broken. In fact, my impression of them is that they are distinctly unstable whenever one party is significantly more powerful than the other. I have lost several games, at least, by being a little too trusting, and yes, it bothers me somewhat, but the lesson I took was to be more careful, not to curse my opponents.

So while I appreciate the fact that when you started playing Risk the Beatles were still playing regular concerts, I respectfully put it to you that it is not the game, but rather the players, that you remember so fondly. They sound like stand-up people, who took the game seriously. The thing is, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but, you were missing out on a fascinating aspect of the game. The making and breaking of deals takes a lot of the outcome-deciding out of the hands of the dice and invests it in the players. Having people skills and just a hint of manipulative talent, combined with a ruthless killer instinct, adds so much to the overall strategy of the game. I myself am bad at those things, so I take refuge in "honour" as a principle, but it's really pretty meaningless in Risk. When you sit down at that board, it's a contest of wits, cunning, and not a little luck, not one of honour or adherence to principles.

But, like I said before, agree to disagree, right?

 

[WidowMakers]

I'd like to see email notifications for diplomatic proposals. and if so...
I'd like to have all 24 hours of my turn allotment to take my turn, not have the 60 minute timer start, just because I've started my turn.

#1 - Great Idea and maybe already suggested but if not, post it in the Suggs forum.
#2 - You can sort of do that now by just waiting until you only have 60 minutes left in your 24 hour. If we allow a full 24 hours to take a turn, the games willlll draaaaaaaggggg oooooonnnnnn ttttoooooooooo loooonnnnngggggg. People would purposely not end their turn so as to make other people maybe miss of delay outcomes. It just makes the game take too long.

 

[mapguy]

It's sort of funny, I have never made an alliance or truce in real-world Risk without weighing the question of whether it would be broken. In fact, my impression of them is that they are distinctly unstable whenever one party is significantly more powerful than the other. I have lost several games, at least, by being a little too trusting, and yes, it bothers me somewhat, but the lesson I took was to be more careful, not to curse my opponents.

So while I appreciate the fact that when you started playing Risk the Beatles were still playing regular concerts, I respectfully put it to you that it is not the game, but rather the players, that you remember so fondly. They sound like stand-up people, who took the game seriously. The thing is, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but, you were missing out on a fascinating aspect of the game. The making and breaking of deals takes a lot of the outcome-deciding out of the hands of the dice and invests it in the players. Having people skills and just a hint of manipulative talent, combined with a ruthless killer instinct, adds so much to the overall strategy of the game. I myself am bad at those things, so I take refuge in "honour" as a principle, but it's really pretty meaningless in Risk. When you sit down at that board, it's a contest of wits, cunning, and not a little luck, not one of honour or adherence to principles.

But, like I said before, agree to disagree, right?

Advanced (real) strategy, comes from making good deals, NOT from learning how to lie and cheat. This version of Risk that is reduced to the art of treachery, is not the game that I have loved for over 45 years. I think it is despicable personally, but I am NOT trying to stop you or anyone else from playing it. ...just lobbing for the game that I love, to be made available..

 

[ORBOTRON]

Map, it's my opinion that you should speak more objectively on things. These broad declarations of your opinion, stated as fact, can serve to undermine your credibility. I appreciate the many ideas you have, and your willingness to contribute, it just occasionally gets lost in the rhetoric.

 

[mapguy]

Map, it's my opinion that you should speak more objectively on things. These broad declarations of your opinion, stated as fact, can serve to undermine your credibility. I appreciate the many ideas you have, and your willingness to contribute, it just occasionally gets lost in the rhetoric.

Sorry if my language gets a bit too colorful at times, but I am only trying to explain my point of view.

The fact is, I absolutely hate lairs and cheaters. To reduce this game to who can be the most dishonest, is (IMO), an affront to the real strategies that make up this game. Yes, I have heard from those that would say it takes great cunning to play this dog eat dog style of play. I disagree. It does not IMHO take very much brains at all to recognize the optimum moment to violate your word. All of this IS my opinion.

Now I do realize that some have learned to play Risk with a whole different set of rules. And, although I might dislike this kind of game, I am NOT trying to stop them from enjoying it here at MC. So why should they try to stop those of us, that want to play our game ? My suspicion is that, it is because, more people would end up choosing to play it, thus reducing the pool of oblivious lambs to the slaughter.