Diplomacy Debate

[Marauder]

I think it is a matter of opinion on what you think this game is really about. You despise "liars" and "cheaters", who do not play this game as you did sitting around a table of friendly "combatants". I think many would say that this is a game of military or war strategy, where no limits should be placed on when or where a treaty can be broken.

I do disagree with you on one point, and that is that I think it actually takes more brains to make a non binding agreement and play the rest of the opponents in the game at the same time. If I am in a game with two players who have agreed to have non hostile borders for 98 rounds and are protecting their backside with 1s, I find it unfair to the nature of the game and the other players involved in that game.

I personally have no problems with the current system, seems more realistic to me, and it puts players on an even playing field.

:dontknow:

 

[mapguy]

I think it is a matter of opinion on what you think this game is really about. You despise "liars" and "cheaters", who do not play this game as you did sitting around a table of friendly "combatants". I think many would say that this is a game of military or war strategy, where no limits should be placed on when or where a treaty can be broken.

I do disagree with you on one point, and that is that I think it actually takes more brains to make a non binding agreement and play the rest of the opponents in the game at the same time. If I am in a game with two players who have agreed to have non hostile borders for 98 rounds and are protecting their backside with 1s, I find it unfair to the nature of the game and the other players involved in that game.

I personally have no problems with the current system, seems more realistic to me, and it puts players on an even playing field.

:dontknow:

If you should find yourself in a game that you describe, it should prompt you to make some truces of your own. I believe that if you just for one time played such a game, you would see that there are indeed many complex strategies that are involved.

I find it quite telling that MC agrees with me here-

Diplomatic agreements can be broken, however doing so may result in your diplomacy score being reduced, as well as being known as kind of a douche bag.

 

[Marauder]

I personally would rarely, if ever, intentionally break a diplo agreement. But, I personally would not find a game with diplo agreements that can NOT be broken very interesting. I think the element of the unknown keeps things on an even playing field between players. It seems that you have had one diplo agreement turned sour, among how many games?

Does the cost of another feature outweigh the benefit of getting out of beta that much sooner? I for one am eager to see the influx of newbies. You have every right to your opinion, I am just playing devil's advocate in regards to cost vs. reward at the moment.

You have every right to request a "feature", I am just saying that I personally have no qualms with the current one. Especially when the instances of people breaking the agreements seems to be low.

 

[mapguy]

I personally would rarely, if ever, intentionally break a diplo agreement. But, I personally would not find a game with diplo agreements that can NOT be broken very interesting. I think the element of the unknown keeps things on an even playing field between players. It seems that you have had one diplo agreement turned sour, among how many games?

Does the cost of another feature outweigh the benefit of getting out of beta that much sooner? I for one am eager to see the influx of newbies. You have every right to your opinion, I am just playing devil's advocate in regards to cost vs. reward at the moment.

You have every right to request a "feature", I am just saying that I personally have no qualms with the current one. Especially when the instances of people breaking the agreements seems to be low.

Marauder,
Well, maybe while we are still in beta, it might be wise to consider that when we do open the doors to all of those noobies, that they will be setting ducks for those that would prey on them. Unless this diplo thing is ironed out, that is just what will happen. I believe that a great number of them will just assume that a border treaty IS binding.

 

[ORBOTRON]

a noob is a noob is a noob. If someone is intent on farming, making treaties binding isn't going to stop them. The strategy would be different, but I'm sure just as effective. The argument for binding treaties can't stand on that premise. Users wanting it as a matter of preference is the only platform this request can come from.

 

[StayPuft]

I'd like to add to ORBO's point that a lot of newbies (read: the overwhelming majority of those who've played on a board at least a few times) will assume, in fact, that treaties are violable, and they'll be rather more surprised to learn that they can't invade mapguy's lightly-defended continents then they would be if mapguy suddenly turned on them in an (admittedly uncharacteristic) moment of opportunism.

I still advocate for a no-penalty option, because in all honesty that's how I learned to play the game: after a game was over, backstabbing was pretty much forgiven by the time the next one came around. My mates and I didn't really hold grudges over that kind of thing. I like the system the way it is now, I just wish there was a sort of "what happens in Vegas..." kind of a mode for those of us who like to play without taking things quite as seriously.

 

[mapguy]

I still agree with the Official "douche bag" label. lol.

 

[AAFitz]

Staypuft:

I like the system the way it is now, I just wish there was a sort of "what happens in Vegas..." kind of a mode for those of us who like to play without taking things quite as seriously.

Yeah, that mode is the great majority of players for the most part.

Some definitely get caught up in the "my way is best" attitude and get lost in the fact that its the variety and uncertainty of the human element which is the real draw of the game.

For my part, regarding diplomacy, I enjoy most,( Read: think "my way is best") and think is most fitting with the spirit of a war game, is no rules at all. Risk as with real war is a psychological battle, with no guarantees whatsoever and no real rules at all, and full of uncertainty, which is what really tests a players skill. It is the human interaction and ability to implement a strategy in a fluid environment, rather than a static, rule-filled one which will really be the test of a player. With treaties and implementations you take the human aspect out of it so much that you might as well program some intensity level players.

I myself certainly live up to my treaties if Im forced for some reason to make one, which I hardly ever do implicitly, but actually enjoy the fact that I cannot take the word from another player that they will not attack. Its the best part of the game really, because I have to make my move based on the trust of that other player, knowing full well, they may very well attack at any time, as is the case, in the real world.

Sure, this is just a game, but the best games are the most realistic, and while some do enjoy the rigidity of programmed diplomacy, many will always prefer the fluidity of human play, which is why we aren't playing against a computer in the first place really.

 

[ORBOTRON]

I still agree with the Official "douche bag" label. lol.

For the record, there is no Official douche bag label. The Wiki entry Map is referring to is meant as a notice that guys like Map might think you're a douche bag if you break a treaty with them.

 

[StayPuft]

Keep in mind as well, those of you who might unsuspectingly play with map and his ilk in a no-penalty match, that he is free to hold a grudge against you if he likes.

After all, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, except for herpes.

 

[AAFitz]

For the record, there is no Official douche bag label. The Wiki entry Map is referring to is meant as a notice that guys like Map might think you're a douche bag if you break a treaty with them.

DB medal soon to be implemented.

 

[mapguy]

Staypuft:
Yeah, that mode is the great majority of players for the most part.

Some definitely get caught up in the "my way is best" attitude and get lost in the fact that its the variety and uncertainty of the human element which is the real draw of the game.

For my part, regarding diplomacy, I enjoy most,( Read: think "my way is best") and think is most fitting with the spirit of a war game, is no rules at all. Risk as with real war is a psychological battle, with no guarantees whatsoever and no real rules at all, and full of uncertainty, which is what really tests a players skill. It is the human interaction and ability to implement a strategy in a fluid environment, rather than a static, rule-filled one which will really be the test of a player. With treaties and implementations you take the human aspect out of it so much that you might as well program some intensity level players.

I myself certainly live up to my treaties if Im forced for some reason to make one, which I hardly ever do implicitly, but actually enjoy the fact that I cannot take the word from another player that they will not attack. Its the best part of the game really, because I have to make my move based on the trust of that other player, knowing full well, they may very well attack at any time, as is the case, in the real world.

Sure, this is just a game, but the best games are the most realistic, and while some do enjoy the rigidity of programmed diplomacy, many will always prefer the fluidity of human play, which is why we aren't playing against a computer in the first place really.

You guys are so wrong. You keep saying "just like the real world". Well grudges ARE a part of the real world. Just ask Japan about that one. lol.

Also, you are misinterpreting my words to mean that I am somehow taking it too seriously. NOT. The seriousness that you are sensing is only in a gaming atmosphere. JUST LIKE REAL WORLD people like Tiger Woods or John MC Inrow.

FTR, if you are unable to succeed in this game without taking advantage of trusting souls, then you aint chit. Is that "fluid" enough for ya ? lol.

 

[AAFitz]

You guys are so wrong. You keep saying "just like the real world". Well grudges ARE a part of the real world. Just ask Japan about that one. lol.

Also, you are misinterpreting my words to mean that I am somehow taking it too seriously. NOT. The seriousness that you are sensing is only in a gaming atmosphere. JUST LIKE REAL WORLD people like Tiger Woods or John MC Inrow.

FTR, if you are unable to succeed in this game without taking advantage of trusting souls, then you aint chit. Is that "fluid" enough for ya ? lol.

Yes, its fluid all right, lol.

In any case, and speaking of John McEnrow, it is you who are wrong to assume this is all about you, or about you at all for that matter. I for one am simply posting my preferences, and fully respect that others prefer different settings, and types of play. I just dont happen to think they structured ones are as fun. Further, if holding a grudge makes it fun for ya, have fun with it.

My point is exactly that many people do enjoy the game differently, which is why I prefer a less structured setting, for those differences to add to the culture of a game. I enjoy the fact that in any one game I will be playing with different types of players and they will all have different moral views of the game. I find it challenging to predict and prepare for those different playings styles, and personalities. I simply happen to find it more challenging than playing with a set of strict guidelines, because I happen to view it as sterile, and much more akin to playing against computers.

Im not suggesting it is wrong to enjoy that, but simply that I do not prefer it. If that means I ain't chit, so be it.

 

[mapguy]

Yes, its fluid all right, lol.

In any case, and speaking of John McEnrow, it is you who are wrong to assume this is all about you, or about you at all for that matter. I for one am simply posting my preferences, and fully respect that others prefer different settings, and types of play. I just dont happen to think they structured ones are as fun. Further, if holding a grudge makes it fun for ya, have fun with it.

My point is exactly that many people do enjoy the game differently, which is why I prefer a less structured setting, for those differences to add to the culture of a game. I enjoy the fact that in any one game I will be playing with different types of players and they will all have different moral views of the game. I find it challenging to predict and prepare for those different playings styles, and personalities. I simply happen to find it more challenging than playing with a set of strict guidelines, because I happen to view it as sterile, and much more akin to playing against computers.

Im not suggesting it is wrong to enjoy that, but simply that I do not prefer it. If that means I ain't chit, so be it.

While I agree with much of what you said, I wholeheartedly disagree with some of your conceptions. You believe that playing with integrity is making the game "sterile" and less "fluid". You could NOT be more incorrect. If you would stop for a moment to analyze the advanced strategies that are incorporated into the game, when you play with the grownups, then maybe you would realize just how idiotic and juvenile the "backstaber/truce-breaker" style of game actually is.

I have a feeling that deep down you agree, or else you would be a truce-breaker yourself.

 

[AAFitz]

While I agree with much of what you said, I wholeheartedly disagree with some of your conceptions. You believe that playing with integrity is making the game "sterile" and less "fluid". You could NOT be more incorrect. If you would stop for a moment to analyze the advanced strategies that are incorporated into the game, when you play with the grownups, then maybe you would realize just how idiotic and juvenile the "backstaber/truce-breaker" style of game actually is.

I have a feeling that deep down you agree, or else you would be a truce-breaker yourself.

Well, again, I am not posting my conceptions, but rather my preferences. While you may not or enjoy or handle realistic human behavior, I simply can, and enjoy it, and consider predicting it to be more fun. Im glad you think it takes more skill to type in exactly who can or cant attack where every turn, but I simply dont need it or prefer it.

Your feeling is incorrect, and simply misunderstands why I do not break my truces. I simply do not do that because I am a man of my word. That however does not mean I do not respect the skill of those who are not afraid to break their word, especially on an online game, where there is no reason to necessarily trust that "word" in the first place. Sure, it makes the game more interesting and challenging and fun, not having it all structured, but some grownups like challenging games.

Either way, I don't even find the need for nearly any diplomacy in the majority of games, and when playing with the most experienced players online in the world perhaps, I hardly ever see them at all. I certainly wouldnt jump into a forum with the best players and start suggesting more stringent rules for diplomacy for fear of being laughed out if not kicked out. But again, its really just a matter of personal preference. I think the important thing is to recognize there is no absolute right or wrong, even when someone happens to disagree with something you prefer.

 

[StayPuft]

Map, I didn't make the "real-world" argument myself, as I agree with you that it isn't very strong. A game is a game and gameplay trumps realism. My objection, as well as AAFitz's (if I read him correctly), is simply that the game is more interesting when you have less scrupulous players free to do as they will.

What I find tremendously interesting, however, is this suggestion that diplomacy is unnecessary in the majority of games. My experience is that two players who team up (even if only partially and temporarily) gain substantial advantage over their opposition. A single player in a dominant position in a three or four player game, for example, can be whittled down and eventually eradicated if their opposition teams up. I'm in a game now where exactly this has happened twice in a row now, each time a player threatens to be in a winning position, the other two gang up and push him back. Clever diplomacy is probably worth a few armies, in my judgement. Sure, you don't need it to win, but it can give one a pleasant advantage.

 

[mapguy]

Well, again, I am not posting my conceptions, but rather my preferences. While you may not or enjoy or handle realistic human behavior, I simply can, and enjoy it, and consider predicting it to be more fun. Im glad you think it takes more skill to type in exactly who can or cant attack where every turn, but I simply dont need it or prefer it.

Your feeling is incorrect, and simply misunderstands why I do not break my truces. I simply do not do that because I am a man of my word. That however does not mean I do not respect the skill of those who are not afraid to break their word, especially on an online game, where there is no reason to necessarily trust that "word" in the first place. Sure, it makes the game more interesting and challenging and fun, not having it all structured, but some grownups like challenging games.

Either way, I don't even find the need for nearly any diplomacy in the majority of games, and when playing with the most experienced players online in the world perhaps, I hardly ever see them at all. I certainly wouldnt jump into a forum with the best players and start suggesting more stringent rules for diplomacy for fear of being laughed out if not kicked out. But again, its really just a matter of personal preference. I think the important thing is to recognize there is no absolute right or wrong, even when someone happens to disagree with something you prefer.

Well, again, I am not posting my conceptions

Yes you indeed are doing just that when you say

but some grownups like challenging games.

as if diplomacy robs the game of any kind of real strategy, and reduces it to a structured exercise that dictates who you can and can not attack.

This line of thinking is shortsighted and leads you away from discovering the advanced strategies that I speak of.

A brief outline of just what I am trying to convey -
It is a wise thing to make friends right off the bat with one of your close neighbors. You can do this verbally in the way of a border treaty, or you can simply position your forces in a non-threatening manner, in the hopes that your neighbor will capitulate. The important thing here is to end up with a situation that allows you to reduce the amount of borders that are defending your bonus areas. this in turn allows you to move the bulk of your forces to
those areas.

As you look out at the board you will see these impromptu alliances start to form. You then must be able to read and interpret the game dynamics, and make your own truces accordingly.

the game at this level is more complicated than chess, and thinking 3,4, 5 or more moves ahead is required. But there are pitfalls that you need to watch out for. -Not All truces will benefit you in the long run.

In essence what I am trying to convey is-
this level of play is very challenging, and NOT some rigidly structured boring waste of time, that you are making to out to be.

One last little kernel-
Be known as a man of your word. A good reputation will allow you to create good deals in future games.

 

[AAFitz]

Youve indeed made it very clear that you like to eliminate the possibility of someone attacking you so you can ignore that threat, and consider that an increase in strategic gaming. I am simply pointing out that I consider the fact that at any time anyone may go against their treaty, and have to allow for that. It without a doubt involves an entire other level of psychological gaming. Further, I actually prefer to avoid the diplomacy altogether, and instead of making little treaties and clicking little boxes that say I cant attack for so many rounds....I will instead let my armies speak for themselves, and make my moves to suggest any implied treaty, and let others do the same. In this situation, anyone can attack at any time from anywhere, and at the same time, some borders can be assumed to be safe. Every single army, every single attack, every single fortification becomes vital to the strategy, because one must consider the ramifications of those moves, on the view of your position to your opponents. One false move, even if one that might be numerically superior, that instigates a neighbor, becomes a bad move. It is this psychological game that I think is the most intense. By having a deal with any one of those opponents that is regulated by the game, the entire game changes, and in my opinion, for the worse. Further, the very option of regulated diplomacy, incites diplomacy, where in reality, it was probably not necessary in the first place. I simply find that psychological warfare to be much, much more interesting, and requiring much more actual strategy is all. I never said rigid structure made the game boring or a waste of time, or even suggested it was. I only explained I would be bored and wouldnt waste my time with it, because it just isn't as fun or challenging and just happen to play with players that tend to agree. I apologize if you do not like my choice of games though. I sincerely hope you enjoy yours on the other hand.

 

[ORBOTRON]

DB medal soon to be implemented.

haha, yes! Possibly a stylized dunce cap

 

[AAFitz]

haha, yes! Possibly a stylized dunce cap

You'd just better hope it doesn't look like a WW2 Army Helmet.