Surrendered - for ever?

This is the home for suggestions for site improvements, changes to house rules, and new variants.
Forum rules
It's okay to suggest new rules variants in this forum, but proposing new *maps* should be done in the linked "New Map Variant Proposals & Voting" subforum.

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby Phlegmatic » 24 Mar 2020, 18:19

V wrote:It’s not grossly unfair at all. Player B has been stupid.
All that’s required is to see the blindingly obvious fact player A finalised before leaving. First thing to do is check if whatever orders entered are to your satisfaction before sending out messages. If any doubt just change one order to anything & the orders are now not finalised. It no longer matters what any other player does it’s down to the phase timer unless otherwise desired.


V, I profoundly disagree. It's only blindingly obvious to experienced players like ourselves. For someone relatively new it is not obvious at all, and could be the kind of thing that puts them off the game if they fall foul of it. Thankfully it's never happened to me, but it would have been several months and many games under my belt before I'd have thought to check this.

To me, keeping it as a mechanic is only positive if we see value in experienced players getting a rare opportunity to say "Haha, you messed up there, stupid noob!"
Phlegmatic
Premium Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 18 Jul 2018, 16:50
Location: Cheshire, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1352
All-game rating: 1561
Timezone: GMT

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby V » 24 Mar 2020, 18:24

Phlegmatic wrote:
V wrote:It’s not grossly unfair at all. Player B has been stupid.
All that’s required is to see the blindingly obvious fact player A finalised before leaving. First thing to do is check if whatever orders entered are to your satisfaction before sending out messages. If any doubt just change one order to anything & the orders are now not finalised. It no longer matters what any other player does it’s down to the phase timer unless otherwise desired.


V, I profoundly disagree. It's only blindingly obvious to experienced players like ourselves. For someone relatively new it is not obvious at all, and could be the kind of thing that puts them off the game if they fall foul of it. Thankfully it's never happened to me, but it would have been several months and many games under my belt before I'd have thought to check this.

To me, keeping it as a mechanic is only positive if we see value in experienced players getting a rare opportunity to say "Haha, you messed up there, stupid noob!"


No one is gonna “say” anything. They screw up, hopefully once, they learn, problem solved.
It’s a game of skill, thoughtfulness, communication & intellect. It needs to be learned.
No one is gonna decry a noob for making a mistake & losing as a result.
They shouldn’t have their hands held either.
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 689
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1806
All-game rating: 1848
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby UFOash » 25 Mar 2020, 16:12

I agree with Phleg. Nothing puts players off a game like this more than being set back dramatically because of a misunderstanding of the website.

It's not like this is a part of the game rules, it's a part of the website. And on this website it's often a good bet that a nation surrendered towards the end of the game won't be getting replaced by another play. I think it needs to be explained to players somewhere clearly, or just don't allow order finalisation when a surrendered nation is still in play.

Although to be honest, this is why I rarely play without fixed deadlines.
UFOash
 
Posts: 285
Joined: 09 Nov 2009, 02:44
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1231
All-game rating: 1246
Timezone: GMT

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby Mr.E » 25 Mar 2020, 19:36

I have little patience with arguments such as
Figital wrote:With the mechanics as they are it means that if you have made moves against a surrendered power you need to keep watching the game up to the last minute of the deadline in case anyone takes over and requires you to rethink.
We mostly don't watch the game in that way, and decide moves based on the board as it is when we are able to make them.
simply because what's being really said is: "I don't do this and I don't want to do it."

However, there is already the PROTECTED GAME option for games, where a deadline is extended by a full deadline should a player surrender. This is so that a new player has a chance to come on board. The advantage is that the game has the best chance to not be affected by the surrender and a new player has - potentially - a full deadline to acclimatise.

It seems that if the site is prepared to offer the chance of a surrender not damaging the game as much as it might, then it seems to me that having someone picking up a position should not affect the game as much as it might.

NoPun's right, of course, that the players in the know probably shouldn't be finalising orders in this scenario, but that seems only to give the players in the know the advantage. Unless that's going to be made clear for all, on the games site rather than the forum, then it's a somewhat unfair advantage. I find it difficult to disagree with the idea that the lesson should probably be learnt and we move on, but it doesn't take away the unfariness of site mechanics affecting the game.

If a player picking up a surrendered position forces orders to be unfinalised, the worst that can happen is that the game is delayed because finalisation is cancelled. A game delayed is not as big of a problem as game moving on before people are aware of what's happening. It's like a bus being late is frustrating but a bus being early is annoying. The former still means you'll get there; the latter that you might not.

Games should always be open to replacements coming in because it's always better to have the chance of someone in the game who will play the game, no matter what the situation. But it really shouldn't be a major issue to unfinalise orders when this happens to give everyone the chance at a more level playing board. PROTECTED GAME gives the replacement player a chance to adapt to the game situation; unfinalising orders gives everyone in the game this chance, to a lesser dgree. If one is acceptable, shouldn't the other be?
Respect neither opinions nor beliefs; only respect the person and the right to express them.
Play by the rules but be ferocious.
Visit The Embassy, a Diplomacy blog.
Read Perfidious Issue 2.
User avatar
Mr.E
Premium Member
 
Posts: 238
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 09:27
Location: Yorkshire
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 966
All-game rating: 1134
Timezone: GMT

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby VGhost » 26 Mar 2020, 00:30

I think views on this one likely depend whether you like to think of the game as between players or between powers.

If the game is between powers, then absolutely it's clear that a finalized order is a finalized order, even if the player helming the power disappears or changes.

But if the game is between players, then introducing a new player changes the game, and it would be better to unfinalize orders when a new player enters, to encourage new diplomacy.

I lean towards the latter view, which I think is what the OP wanted. But I also think this is a trivial issue.
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
"I'm not panicking, I'm watching you panic. It's more entertaining." - Elli Quinn
"[Diplomacy:] No dice or chance. Just calculated insincerity." - Counter Trap
User avatar
VGhost
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 04:56
Location: Baltimore
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (995)
All-game rating: (982)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby ColonelApricot » 26 Mar 2020, 01:10

V is right. It's not unfair. The rules are the same for everyone. To play effectively you need to understand the rules, same as for any game.

If the issue is that some inexperienced players can be caught out or discouraged (is there any evidence of this?) by not understanding some of the obscurity in the rules then these details could be made more accessible. It is a failing of the site that it is not easy to find all the details easily.

Someone suggested a wiki a while back - I think this is worth serious consideration. Especially if the community can maintain it themselves avoiding any burden on the admins.

..CA
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 405
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1010
All-game rating: 1400
Timezone: GMT

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby Mr.E » 26 Mar 2020, 02:20

This isn't about rules, though, it's about mechanics. Unless you can show me where the rules of Dip provide guidance on finalising or even about what to do when new players join a game, it's not the rules.

It isn't about inexperienced players it's about how the site wants games to be played. The assumption that someone who is new to the site is an inexperienced Dip player is ridiculous.

As I said, the site wants games to run as smoothly as possible. That's why the protected game feature is there. Someone drops out, the deadline is extended to give time for a new player to drop in.

Personally, if someone drops out I don't finalise if my orders depend on the power remaining in CD. It is possible that someone will take control of the power. That's me being flexible if I can be. And I do check the game as regularly as I can as the deadline approaches.

The point is that if we want games to run smoothly we want changes to make as few ripples as possible. Unfinalising orders may do that. Of course it may not - not everyone will check the game before deadline if they've already finalised. But for some it will.

So, if we accept that the game would be smoother if this was in place, and if it fits the principle established by the Protected Game feature, it's a good idea and, importantly, not a particularly difficult one to code.
Respect neither opinions nor beliefs; only respect the person and the right to express them.
Play by the rules but be ferocious.
Visit The Embassy, a Diplomacy blog.
Read Perfidious Issue 2.
User avatar
Mr.E
Premium Member
 
Posts: 238
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 09:27
Location: Yorkshire
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 966
All-game rating: 1134
Timezone: GMT

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby Figital » 26 Mar 2020, 16:49

I strongly disagree.

In any other move you know your opponents' capability and can assess you moves at any point in the season. You may not know what he IS going to doing, but you know what he CAN do. He is not going to suddenly evolve another army or an airforce capability.

In the case in point you are faced with a power that up until the last moment may suddenly have a capability that you cannot be aware of, and that is not in my opinion 'exactly as it should be'.

My suggestion stands that if a power is surrendered for a whole phase then any change to that should delay (or immediately restart) the phase to allow the committed players to make orders based on the state of the board. Nobody watches the board 24/7 and this situation creates an advantage to the joining player that no-one else has.
Figital
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 21 Aug 2012, 18:16
Location: S.W. UK
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1209
All-game rating: 1216
Timezone: GMT

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby Figital » 26 Mar 2020, 16:57

And my OP was NOT about new players taking on a power where THAT power's orders have been finalised - that is a misrepresentation of the issue.

The point is that we all play this game amongst our real lives. Whovever said above 'I don't want it cos I don't do it' is also missing my point . No one checks their moves at the last minute in every game and for a power to suddenly change its capability is NOT a trivial point. We choose our orders based on our assessment of other player's capability.

A surrendered player has one set of capabilities (e.g. will not support his own units, and will not retreat units) whereas as soon as the power is revitalised its capabilities change.

Players should be given the opportunity to adapt their orders to the new structure of the game.
Figital
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 21 Aug 2012, 18:16
Location: S.W. UK
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1209
All-game rating: 1216
Timezone: GMT

Re: Surrendered - for ever?

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 26 Mar 2020, 19:54

I do think the request to un-finalize orders when a new player takes over a position is a reasonable suggestion.

What I don't think is necessary is adding more time to the clock; games often have multiple surrendered positions throughout their span, and every time that occurs it can kill the momentum and harm the remaining players' interest. Further delays strike me as not entirely healthy. I'd say it is recommended, for full-press games, for someone to request a processing exception after a new player joins, but that system is ultimately in the players' own hands.

As for un-finalizing: were this to be implemented, should this be the case for all phases? It certainly makes sense for Orders phases, but would it be desired for builds and retreats?
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest