Diplomacy Debate

[mapguy]

 

[ORBOTRON]

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

I was thinking more like a stetson :tongue:

Nice one Map, haha

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I love it! Only thing to figure out is, how many broken treaties gets you the "Big D" award?

 

[Badorties]

I agree with Fitz, however, let it be know that I only read the first third of anything he says.

 

[FLAGG]

I don't understand why people keep saying that to have BINDING treaties eliminates the strategy of the game??? In my opinion is makes for a different game with different strategy. If it were an option, people could choose the type of game AND STRATEGY that they wanted to plan.

As it is now, we only CAN play the game as it exist now. OK.......Fine. But please stop saying that to have BINDING treaties would take all the strategy away from the game. Far from the truth............

FLAGG

 

[mapguy]

I was thinking more like a stetson :tongue:

Nice one Map, haha

Glad you liked it ORBO. haha

I do not however, get the quip about the "stetson". .. is that supposed to be some sort of slur towards southerners ?

 

[mapguy]

I don't understand why people keep saying that to have BINDING treaties eliminates the strategy of the game??? In my opinion is makes for a different game with different strategy. If it were an option, people could choose the type of game AND STRATEGY that they wanted to plan.

As it is now, we only CAN play the game as it exist now. OK.......Fine. But please stop saying that to have BINDING treaties would take all the strategy away from the game. Far from the truth............

FLAGG

Exactly...
Why not just road test the 3 options. if one or more of the options are not popular, then they could just hit the trash heap. I think that it would be wise to use this BETA period to iron out these kind of issues. Remember it is not about your own personal likes or dislikes. It IS about variety, and providing for everyone.

 

[ORBOTRON]

Glad you liked it ORBO. haha

I do not however, get the quip about the "stetson". .. is that supposed to be some sort of slur towards southerners ?

lol, no, most of my relatives live south of the Mason-Dixon, it was a crack at Fitz's avatar.

 

[mapguy]

lol, no, most of my relatives live south of the Mason-Dixon, it was a crack at Fitz's avatar.

HAHAHA
This Texas boy is glad to hear that.

 

[ORBOTRON]

I've probably got as many relatives in Texas as you do, lol. Brother, sister, nephews, nieces, aunts, cousins, grandpa....
Actually, my mom is down there visiting for a few weeks right now too, haha

 

[mapguy]

I was thinking more like a stetson :tongue:

Nice one Map, haha

 

[Badorties]

makes me think D for dunce cap.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

yeah, maybe it should say DB

 

[StayPuft]

I don't understand why people keep saying that to have BINDING treaties eliminates the strategy of the game??? In my opinion is makes for a different game with different strategy. If it were an option, people could choose the type of game AND STRATEGY that they wanted to plan.

As it is now, we only CAN play the game as it exist now. OK.......Fine. But please stop saying that to have BINDING treaties would take all the strategy away from the game. Far from the truth............

FLAGG

No one is suggesting this. No one at all.

All that's being said, and you'll note this is a much more defensible claim, is that your version diminishes the complexity of strategy involved. This is not seriously disputable: by making a binding treaty you radically simplify your game, reducing avenues of attack and defence, giving you the possibility of the one-dimensional strategy that almost every map is designed to avoid. Having the possibility of betrayal means that you have more potential eventualities to consider. That means a more complex strategy, accounting for increased uncertainty.

Look, we can't accommodate every single user preference, regardless of how meritless or unpopular. You have to make choices that will eliminate some modes, even those that some players hold to be virtual shibboleths. The choice should, in my mind, always be against excessive simplification and the neutering of the game. AAFitz is right to say that yours is a laughable suggestion.

 

[AAFitz]

lol, no, most of my relatives live south of the Mason-Dixon, it was a crack at Fitz's avatar.

Lol, I didnt even get it. That's just the gunslinger from the Dark Tower.

 

[AAFitz]

Thanks for the new avatar.

Id respond in kind, but I have no idea what those bars are in your avatar.:dancing:

 

[AAFitz]

yeah, maybe it should say DB

Im guessing there had to be some plausible deniability there. Im not exactly sure, but making a DB cap and putting my avatar on there, may just have made mapguy, into thatguy in the eyes of MC.

In any case, it was well done.:congrats:

 

[mapguy]

The image is from The Dark Tower, haha. In any case you know very well the lighthearted nature of this conversation. I think that maybe You yourself are trying to be "that Guy" by acting belligerent here. Just as you did a couple of days ago when you spammed my box with nasty notes. I am truly sorry if you are still upset about the Point Gap thread. But even Orbo commented on how well the subject was handled.
http://gyazo.com/7c4f1f04356c171f392aa5ec1d552f81.png

 

[FLAGG]

Are we not way off the diplomacy topic here???? Or was that topic ended with no changes or options after all that writing

FLAGG

 

[RjBeals]

way off now, just keep commenting to keep the thread alive.