Number of messages exchanged visible to all

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: Number of messages exchanged visible to all

Postby super_dipsy » 23 Oct 2020, 06:54

As a general point, Playdip is not an attempt to simulate F2F diplomacy; it is an online version of Diplomacy for remote players. There are plenty of example where it chooses to deviate from F2F factors, such as length of turns, allowing comms continuously etc..

Specifically on this suggestion, one of the issues that online Diplomacy has to cope with is the problem of timezones / living patterns. If you are in a 12/12/12 game for instance, there are going to be turns when you are asleep for a lot of the turn. Or if you are a lot of timezones away you might find your interaction with a player greatly reduced in timespan. Therefore we have to try to keep these factors out of the picture as much as possible so as not to bias against a player who happens to live in the wrong place or who likes to go out partying at the wrong time.

Let me give an example. The most obvious information is probably that of a potential NMR, where there are no comms at all. If I am only online for the first hour or so of the turn I would have no way of knowing that Germany appears to have gone. If I am online in the last hour of the turn, I would have a complete history of how many messages sent in the turn between countries and therefore I could see a country that may potentially be about to NMR and I can act accordingly. It is already a disadvantage if you are only around for the early part of a turn, but at least you still have the opportunity to try to get things sorted before you go offline. But providing this extra information seems to me to unbalance this a lot more in my opinion.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12192
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Number of messages exchanged visible to all

Postby Ekphrasis » 24 Oct 2020, 23:10

Augustvs wrote:Also on that note, I would like to add, most tabletop games that turn into digital or webased change accessibility or game mechanics to a degree to be viable on those platforms. It is not suppose to be 100% simulation of the real thing.


Agreed, it's not supposed to be a 100% simulation.

But noting who talks to whom, when, and for how long is a very significant and meaningful component of the original game. Anyone who has played F2F knows that, and savvy playes incorporate that information into their gameplay.

And yet it's completely absent from the online version. Not because it has to be, it seems like it would be pretty easy to do. But instead, just because it hasn't been in the past.

That doesn't seem like a good reason for opposing the option.
Ekphrasis
Premium Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 19 Feb 2016, 21:50
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1020
All-game rating: 1012
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Number of messages exchanged visible to all

Postby Ekphrasis » 24 Oct 2020, 23:15

super_dipsy wrote:As a general point, Playdip is not an attempt to simulate F2F diplomacy; it is an online version of Diplomacy for remote players. There are plenty of example where it chooses to deviate from F2F factors, such as length of turns, allowing comms continuously etc..

Specifically on this suggestion, one of the issues that online Diplomacy has to cope with is the problem of timezones / living patterns. If you are in a 12/12/12 game for instance, there are going to be turns when you are asleep for a lot of the turn. Or if you are a lot of timezones away you might find your interaction with a player greatly reduced in timespan. Therefore we have to try to keep these factors out of the picture as much as possible so as not to bias against a player who happens to live in the wrong place or who likes to go out partying at the wrong time.

Let me give an example. The most obvious information is probably that of a potential NMR, where there are no comms at all. If I am only online for the first hour or so of the turn I would have no way of knowing that Germany appears to have gone. If I am online in the last hour of the turn, I would have a complete history of how many messages sent in the turn between countries and therefore I could see a country that may potentially be about to NMR and I can act accordingly. It is already a disadvantage if you are only around for the early part of a turn, but at least you still have the opportunity to try to get things sorted before you go offline. But providing this extra information seems to me to unbalance this a lot more in my opinion.


If you aren't able to be around often for 12 hour per turn games, there are options available for playing games with longer adjudication times -- 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days. Just like if you don't have 4ish hours to play a live game because you won't be available for the turns, you don't choose that option.

This doesn't seem like an objection to the option. This seems like something a particular player would account for (and probably already does) when they choose the turn length for the game they want to play.
Ekphrasis
Premium Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 19 Feb 2016, 21:50
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1020
All-game rating: 1012
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Number of messages exchanged visible to all

Postby V » 25 Oct 2020, 00:31

How many times do you need to hear it said a different way? PlayDip is not trying to simulate a board game. It’s not trying to include features that exist in the board game, just for the sake of attempting to replicate the experience or smart tactics of a board game.
It stands on it’s own. It’s different. It’s supposed to be different. It’s not a board game. It’s debatable whether knowing who is talking to who is a good thing. For a board game it’s inevitable, but removing that aspect could easily be viewed as an improvement.

You continue to return the the “option” aspect & true any option is difficult to have an “objection” about.
But I’d never play in a game that included the option. This forum suggests the only person interested in the option is yourself. Why would folks build in an option that gets selected once in a blue moon?
How to find 7 players, getting the game to start could be challenging in itself!
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.
User avatar
V
 
Posts: 820
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1769
All-game rating: 1827
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Number of messages exchanged visible to all

Postby super_dipsy » 25 Oct 2020, 20:28

Ekphrasis wrote:If you aren't able to be around often for 12 hour per turn games, there are options available for playing games with longer adjudication times -- 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days. Just like if you don't have 4ish hours to play a live game because you won't be available for the turns, you don't choose that option.

This doesn't seem like an objection to the option. This seems like something a particular player would account for (and probably already does) when they choose the turn length for the game they want to play.

I think you miss the point :)

The 12/12/12 example was just an example. If you are the sort of person who is not comfortable playing 12/12/12 and for instance prefers 3/1/1 games, the same is still true. The factor that affects it is when you have the time to drop in to the game. If you are playing 3/1/1 because you don't get to spend time on Playdip too often, you could still have a game where you weren't there for the last day for example, and therefore exactly the same issue occurs.

The real issue is that your proposal gathers and makes available a complete list of info for an entire turn, which obviously gives advantage to those accessing the game last because they have the most complete view of the information.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12192
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Number of messages exchanged visible to all

Postby Malarky » 01 Nov 2020, 21:32

I think it's been said a few ways so I'll not say it in a long-winded way, online Diplomacy isn't FTF Diplomacy.

One of the advantages of not seeing who has sent messages, is that you can say to another player that you've had a message from someone when, in reality, you haven't. For example: England is wanting to persuade France that Germany is untrustworthy. England therefore sends a message to France saying: "Germany tells me that..." If France can go to a log of who has sent messages, regardless of anything else, and they see that Germany hasn't sent any messages, then England's ploy is immediately shot down.

Of course, this is a risky business anyway. France can just ask Germany if they did indeed "tell England that..." but, when Germany denies ever expressing such Francophobic sentiments, France still has to make a decision about who to believe.

I have some sympathy about keeping Webplay as close as possible to FTF play but Webplay is always going to be a variant of the basic game. It would be lovely to know if someone is going to NMR... but isn't not knowing part of the Webplay process? In any online game?

One of the forerunners of Webplay is Play-by-Email (PBEM). In this variant, all communications are - not surprisingly - by email. If you're playing this way, you don't know whether PlayerP has sent messages anywhere, either.

I suppose that you could say that, as Webplay is it's own variant, you can choose whether you implement certain things or not. It would be fairly straightforward to implement no correspondence during retreats and builds, for instance, but is it desirable? Perhaps, as an option, yes. There are practical reasons why it isn't, however. Not something everyone would agree with, but the way the site has chosen to go, at least for now.

Knowing who has sent a message could also be desirable but it seems not to be from the majority of responses here.
Respect neither opinions nor beliefs; only respect the person and the right to express them.
Play by the rules but be ferocious.
The Playdiplomacy Guide
Across the Whole Board
User avatar
Malarky
Premium Member
 
Posts: 331
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 09:27
Location: Yorkshire
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (918)
All-game rating: (1029)
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests