It took a few years but I get it now!!

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby Fuddin » 08 Aug 2017, 19:59

Pootleflump wrote:V - you have a bit of a fanclub developing (woop woop). Whilst I was trying to work out how to articulate how I felt, you nailed it. Couldn't agree more. The adventure is the diversity of people and personalities. Each game is different. Different challenges, different skills. That is its beauty.

I really like this.
springbutt46 wrote:Another point I may have failed to get across... is that when players see a solo as a possibility... I believe everyone else should band together if possible and stop it. Now that situation could inevitably lead to a draw of three or more players. That I believe should be viewed as unfortunate, but not unacceptable. I would hazard a guess in that case that the player who was going for the solo simply stabbed just a wee bit too early to get to that solo. Pure conjecture there also.

Spring

Thank you one and all for your comments. I appreciate them.


I don't get why this should be viewed as unfortunate. Solos should be hard to get. If the smaller players are able to band together and stop a solo from happening, then good for them! If this "unfortunate" situation never happened, then solos would be too easy to get.
Never Surrender. Never NMR. Also, screw kingmakers!
User avatar
Fuddin
 
Posts: 190
Joined: 13 May 2016, 02:41
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1117)
All-game rating: (1119)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby DQ » 08 Aug 2017, 20:46

Many years of playing in draw-based-scoring tournaments taught me that the right way to play in those events was to look for my partners in the inevitable draw, and maximize my points. It did not make for especially fun events, although I won a lot of tournaments that way.

One of the reactions to this in North American tournament play was a shift to lead-based scoring systems, like Sum of Squares and Carnage. Now, there is no point in trying just "be in the draw" if you want to do well in the tournament - you have to have more dots. This makes for, IMNSHO, both better and more fun play. I played two games recently to 12/11/11 and 11/11/11/1 finishes, but neither of them was motivated by a desire to "get the draw" - it was a tense standoff of getting the most dots possible while ensuring that no one else had a chance to solo.

But the truest thing I've ever heard said about this subject is "trying to tell someone what they ought to be playing for is an exercise in frustration. Instead, learn what they are playing for, and see if you can get them that while you get what YOU want."

I want to win. You want to have fun. WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN PEOPLE!
Stab you soon!
User avatar
DQ
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 11 Sep 2008, 14:29
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby springbutt46 » 09 Aug 2017, 01:20

It is unfortunate in my view... and in my view only... as part of this debate because it's outcome is a draw with three or more players. I hope I have made it as clear as possible that this is my opinion only.

As to DQ's mention of the change in the way tournaments are played... and how that change has driven people to play for the solo... and end up in a draw, THAT is quality play. THAT is what I seek in Diplomacy games. That is exactly the kind of play that I am looking for. Where the real art and substance of the game is trying to get that unequivocal victory and if you have to get a draw because two other strong players were doing the same thing and you ended up in a stand off that couldn't be broken without a solo being the result... that is cool.

I hope all tournaments move to that format... nudge nudge wink wink DQ, see you in October eh??

Spring
Classicist, Platinum Member.
Premium Member.
NEVER Surrender.
and I play discgolf too.
User avatar
springbutt46
Premium Member
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 29 Apr 2010, 15:04
Location: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1469
All-game rating: 1477
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby dulles » 19 Aug 2017, 22:34

To each their own. There is no right or wrong way to play. It all depends on the player and the game.
dulles
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 03 May 2017, 16:48
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1105
All-game rating: 1106
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby Tarsier » 28 Aug 2017, 21:49

dulles wrote:To each their own. There is no right or wrong way to play. It all depends on the player and the game.


This is certainly an ecumenical answer, but I think the conversation is well worth having because, when different players define victory in different ways (without know that about each other), it presents a challenge they might not have signed up for. A player will not realize that, with his opponent dead set on a three way draw that he planned out in early game, no amount of diplomacy will change that player's intended outcome.

In the case of Diplomacy, the only "winner" mentioned in the rules is the "great power" who ends the game with 18 centers, so someone new to the game would assume that to be everyone's goal. Draws are only mentioned in the context of players who want to "end the game early", with early implying that the final goal hasn't been met.

In other words, suppose we played Monopoly this way, with three players able to declare a draw because their combined properties will bankrupt every other player on the board.

As you said, this is perfectly fine if all players among them agree that this would be an acceptable outcome. However, if one player enters the game not knowing that, assuming the goal was a solo "monopoly" (is there any other kind?), it would be a bit of a farce.

That's why players pursuing solos get frustrated with players whose goals are draws (draws by necessity being a different matter), because they often enter the game with the understanding of victory that is spelled out by the site and game rules and find themselves talking to players who are unwilling to break an alliance because of loyalty, rather than strategy.
User avatar
Tarsier
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 03 Dec 2013, 02:39
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2008
All-game rating: 2100
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby dulles » 08 Sep 2017, 13:40

But that is why it takes everybody to agree to obtain a draw. Loyalty is more important to some even in diplomacy. For myself, I would like to solo but it is not all that important.

It is my belief that it is just a game and people play differently and there is no right or wrong way. It is just their way. Peace out.
dulles
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 03 May 2017, 16:48
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1105
All-game rating: 1106
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby Tarsier » 10 Sep 2017, 15:18

dulles wrote:But that is why it takes everybody to agree to obtain a draw.


Sorry, but this doesn't fix the problem I described. Say three players and I enter a game with my only understanding being from the published rules, which is that there is one winner, and that is the player with 18 centers. Three other players - carebears - quickly align in the first year or two and, while keeping this hidden, coordinate well enough to wipe out the players who are open to a solo.

I manage to hang around while the other three outside the draw are eliminated. I refuse to "agree" to the draw, still thinking we are all playing with the same goal - the one expressed in the rules. I have no luck, as the other three see "draw" as a goal and have no motivation - zero - to listen to persuasion. To them, a three-way is as good as a solo. The "value" loyalty.

Still, I refuse to agree to the draw. No problem. The gang of three just eliminate me. It doesn't take everyone to agree at all.

Loyalty is more important to some even in diplomacy.


Cool. But again, you are playing a different game that I am. The triumph of loyalty isn't an advertised goal of the game, so if you and I enter the game together and I don't know that you have a different understanding of the purpose of the game, then it's a sham.

To use an extreme as an example, let's suppose that four people are playing Monopoly. However, three of them value loyalty, "even in" Monopoly. Once they eliminate the fourth player, they proclaim a draw. Are they really playing Monopoly? Or is it more a game of Cartel? Note that this is a different scenario than if that Monopoly game lasted so long that, after the first player was eliminated, they decided to call the game quits, which seems to be more in the spirit of what the rules are referring to by players "agreeing to a draw", since those same rules never call them "winners" or declare that conclusion a "victory".

It is my belief that it is just a game and people play differently and there is no right or wrong way.


I never expressed a problem with that. However, the problem is that if seven different players enter the same game with the intent to play "differently", then the outcome of that game isn't genuine.

It is just their way.


The same as with my example game of Monopoly. It would sure suck to be that fourth player, though.

Or the game of Catan where three players refuse to make trades with the odd man out just because they value loyalty ...
Or Ticket to Ride, where three players decide to block the assumed progress of a fourth and call it a draw ...
User avatar
Tarsier
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 03 Dec 2013, 02:39
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2008
All-game rating: 2100
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby dulles » 11 Sep 2017, 03:20

I feel your pain. So you need to be better at persuasion than the other carebears. It is what I said it is and it matters not to me. To each their own and if you are good at persuasion you might get your solo. But if I have determined it is in my best interest to draw I will try to take you out. Diplomacy right?

Secondly, my above post was not directed at anybody. It was just my comment as you seemed to have thought it was in reply to your earlier post-Tarsier.
dulles
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 03 May 2017, 16:48
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1105
All-game rating: 1106
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby Tarsier » 11 Sep 2017, 04:58

dulles wrote:I feel your pain. So you need to be better at persuasion than the other carebears.


Yes, my rating on the site probably betrays that I'm horrible at persuasion. Otherwise, I'd be rated at least #7.

Anyway, my whole scenario was a common one that I think most of the members of the site (who have played a few games) will attest to have encountering, which is the player who isn't interested in being persuaded. Hang around the threads or peruse them enough and you'll find a number of threads where players complain about going up against a draw where the members just totally shut down communcations. No messages sent. No messages answered. After all, they've found a partner or two to take them to the end. Why communicate with the guy who is shit out of luck?

Perhaps you could suggest how to persuade in that case?

It is what I said it is and it matters not to me.


What you said it is (according to your earlier post) is a game where to you (and presumably others like you) a solo isn't all that important. This admits a spectrum of those to whom a solo is important. Which means that there are probably those to whom it isn't important at all, which means they have zero motivation to give up a sure thing in a draw, which means that ...

To each their own and if you are good at persuasion you might get your solo.


This conclusion is a bit of a flippant dismissal of reality.

But if I have determined it is in my best interest to draw I will try to take you out. Diplomacy right?


Again, totally agree. But this comment only makes sense if you haven't read the thread. Nobody is talking about drawing because it is in his "best interest". I'd do the same. We're talking about players who go into the game with the intent of settling for a draw, long before his "best interest" is apparent.

Nothing diplomatic about that.

I'm going to refer back to the earlier point I made, which isn't that draws are bad, per se, or that there is any shame in settling for a draw (look at my last five or so games), but that having players who enter a game intent on a draw changes the dynamics. That's all.
User avatar
Tarsier
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 03 Dec 2013, 02:39
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2008
All-game rating: 2100
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby dulles » 11 Sep 2017, 19:08

There are a lot of carebears that play this game and I find the loyalty aspect intriguing and part of the pleasure. I am sorry that you can't find the same satisfaction. Go ahead and play whichever way you wish and if we play a game you will find I will play the way I wish also. That is why the game is enjoyable.

I am new to this site and have found it lacking so far in actual diplomacy. There have not been very many messages written.
dulles
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 03 May 2017, 16:48
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1105
All-game rating: 1106
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests