Concerning Diplomacy, and it's esteemed players...

[TheGreatBrain]

Okay. The Diplomacy forum at BF is dead as a doornail. Know why? Because it went into overload. Every player there started a game, some started 2, or even 3 games. Eventually it just got to be so that so many games were happening that it got confusing. Then it got aggravating. Maps started getting delayed because GMs were so tired of making so many. Players were putting in so many sets of orders that late orders and resignations from games got a little too common. Then, all of a sudden, everyone just said "fuck it". And noone played anymore.

I see that same thing happening here, and I don't want it to happen. Diplomacy can be a really fun thing online, but I know that when I was in 12 games, and GMing one, I didn't really want to play anymore. If we keep going this way, the Diplomacy community will go on overload and burn out too.

I propose we set a limit on how many games are going on at once. Have a little section in the Diplo scoreboard area where all the games going on are listed, and when one ends, it's deleted. Then the next game could just start on a first come first serve basis? The point is, we need to come up with some kind of system for regulating the number of games going on.

What does everyone else think?

[OboeGuru]

Impeccable idea, I'll add it now.

The question is, how many games should we limit to? 3, 4, 5?

[TheGreatBrain]

I think more than 5, maybe 7 or 8. 7 sounds good to me. Obviously, all the games going on right now would stay if we did this.

EDIT: In the list of active games, make it numbered to the limit. What I mean is something like this:

1. Bird's L33t Diplo
2. Diplomacy (1st game)
3. OboeGuru's 1600 open
4. Bi-Turnaday
5.
6.
7.


So it can be seen how many empty slots there are.

Need input, guys! Let's make something everyone will be happy with.

[Valjean]

I agree with TGB. ^_^

[BlackHawk]

I agree with TGB as well. We don't want the RPG forum to be full with Diplo as well, it would overrun us :(. And I certainly don't want Diplo to overload.

[Cygnus]

Knowing first hand that I helped in the problem I totally agree. But I think the limit should be lowered to 5 not 7.

Considering that we usually had 7+ games of Diplo going on at once. I also recomend that we try never to reach the limit and have a few games less than that.

[TheGreatBrain]

Yeah, now that I think about it, I think 5 is better too.

I agree with TGB as well. We don't want the RPG forum to be full with Diplo as well, it would overrun us :(. And I certainly don't want Diplo to overload.
Yeah, that's another good point. I remember for a long time at BF, the RPG forum was overrun with Diplomacy, and any RP that tried to start just got snuffed out. I know a few people here who wouldn't look too kindly on that.


EDIT: BTW, someone absolutely MUST start an Imperial Game. I'm itching to take over the world. :D

[BlackHawk]

Yeah, now that I think about it, I think 5 is better too.

Yea, we only have 5, and even then I think it is a lot, so a limit of 5 would be good. Though also, we don't want to have a quene of like 5 waiting, so like Cygnus said, we should try not to reach the limit or go far over it.

[Cygnus]

Brain on the issue of Imperial or the 20th century variants: Bird and I have already discussed it, We're planning on having one or two of these games sometime this summer after we get sufficient amounts of players into the game. So until them we'll be just be playing the standard and smaller variants.

I'll probably be GMing these games as well, but not playing sadly (although I love to kick ass again as Holland). I much rather avoid the accusations of cheating as happened in my first game.

To all Diplo players:

Until this summer only play the standard game or variants with 8-10 players max or less. Also please do not exceed the five game at a time limit.

EDIT: And considering we currently have five games, don't start a new one until one of those is finished.

[OboeGuru]

I've reflected all the above changes in the scoreboard.
Just out of curiousity, how many players does Imperial Diplo have?
It definitely sounds like a good thing to slate for the summer in any case.

One more question: should we have a limit on queued games as well?

[Cygnus]

I believe there should only be five games going on. No queued games at all, since in essence we'd end up having tons of backlogged games waiting to be started.

BTW

Players needed for Imperial: 13

Info:
http://www.diplom.org/Online/variants/imperial.html

20th Century Diplo: 13

Info:
http://www.diplom.org/Online/variants/20th.html

I hope to use invitational style for these games, using players who have played in other games and also "know what to do".

[Shinigami]

I'll create a thread concerning this now and stick it. But I do have two questions:
1) Will the limit be increased over, say, summer vacation when people will have more free time?
2) Will there be a waiting list of sorts for new games? Of course there would have to be a way to sift through it... For instance, if someone has two games on the waiting list and one was just picked then of course someone else would get their chance next.
EDIT: 3) Will we have a ranking system similar to/a copy of BlizzForums'?

[Mattimeo]

I think that there should also be a rule about GMing games. I think there should be some amount of experience or expertise required so some random person doesn't start a game and all the eager diplomacy players looking to win a game join but the poor guy can't read orders or make a map. Either we make some kind of suggested experience level or we have a set of instructions on how to GM. Just my input.

~Don't Panic

[Shinigami]

I actually disagree... It's a great way for newer players to learn the rules of a game by GMing one and anyone who enters a game with a newer GM will know that there will be errors and things won't move too terribly fast. It's a great learning experience and provides invaluable information on all aspects of the game. Sure, we could say it was tough and suggest an amount of experience, but we shouldn't enforce it.

[TheGreatBrain]

I'll create a thread concerning this now and stick it. But I do have two questions:
1) Will the limit be increased over, say, summer vacation when people will have more free time?
This sounds okay to me, but I think only by one or two. But that's just an opinion.
2) Will there be a waiting list of sorts for new games? Of course there would have to be a way to sift through it... For instance, if someone has two games on the waiting list and one was just picked then of course someone else would get their chance next.
EDIT: 3) Will we have a ranking system similar to/a copy of BlizzForums'?
I think a waiting list is a good idea, to avoid a lot of commotion when a game ends, and like 3 people try to start a new one.

Scoring system, that's not my expertise.


EDIT: Just wondering why the scoreboard got unstuck, it kind of needs to stay prominent.

[Mattimeo]

I think we should have rated games and then fun games. That way you don't have newbies worrying about their score when they first start and just have fun learning the game. I remember when I first started playing diplomacy all I cared about was earning points. I think it would be better if people can learn it for fun and then join a rated games. Or maybe make rated games invitational, i dunno.

~Don't Panic

[Duddits]

I don't agree with the 5 game rule. I think that we should have it at 7, as games last/can last awhile and other new players will want in on it. I think setting it at 7 is fairer.

Another thing, I think there should be a limit of.. say 2-5 games a player is allowed playing in. This is because, as mentioned, other players will want in on it and they would be hogging the games.

Alas, one other. I believe that players should only be allowed to GM 1-2 game/s at a time. Two reasons: It will probably add to the decay of the GM and diplomacy as a whole and it will allow for more people to start a diplo game up. How boring would it be if all but 2 games were Imperial, created by the same person?

Lastly, on qued games: I think this is great. It is a fair way of setting up games, in my opinion. Not everyone is on-line all the time, thus it would not be fair if the same few people keep snatching up open diplo spots just because somebody lives in the Czech republic and has a social life and job.

-end-

[Valjean]

I don't agree with the 5 game rule. I think that we should have it at 7, as games last/can last awhile and other new players will want in on it. I think setting it at 7 is fairer.

Another thing, I think there should be a limit of.. say 2-5 games a player is allowed playing in. This is because, as mentioned, other players will want in on it and they would be hogging the games.

Alas, one other. I believe that players should only be allowed to GM 1-2 game/s at a time. Two reasons: It will probably add to the decay of the GM and diplomacy as a whole and it will allow for more people to start a diplo game up. How boring would it be if all but 2 games were Imperial, created by the same person?

Lastly, on qued games: I think this is great. It is a fair way of setting up games, in my opinion. Not everyone is on-line all the time, thus it would not be fair if the same few people keep snatching up open diplo spots just because somebody lives in the Czech republic and has a social life and job.

-end-
I totaly agree with you, Duddits. Except for the first part, that is. If we have too few games open, not enough new players will get in and if there are too many, we'll get confused with our orders and and forget to post them alot. Therefor, I think the game limit should be 6, as should the que for games.

I also think there needs to be tweeking on the # of games people can be in. I think about 2-4 is fine. Maybe 5 if there is minimal activity.

[Cygnus]

I see you're points on queued games as well as the idea of GMing games. Knowing from experience... I suggest we put the limit on 2 games a person can GM (3 if another GM needs you to GM for you for a short period of time). More than that only causes stress and delays. But the only thing I have a problem with is this: Why can't people play as many games as they want?

First of all, the concept of queued games kind of negates the fact players can't join other games. There should be enough queued games that you should get a spot somewhere.

Perhaps we could compromise here: First come first served in games. With queued games allowed. Even better, why not create a seperate thread just for queued games. This would prevent a million different diplo threads from popping up in advance, as well as allow for space for the RPs. Also if you already have two games going on you would not be allowed to queue any games.

How this could work: You could lock the thread and have the the soon to be GM PM a mod to for his or her game to be queued. The Mod then checks to see if the person has not exceeded the quota of two games GMed. The Mod then edits the thread and puts the queued game there, with how many spaces there are. Players then can PM or even email a mod to add them to the list and then they can be put on to be able to play the game. When the max number of people for that game are found, a player can no longer be able to join the queued game.

When another game finishes, the next queued game can begin.

EDIT: On the matter of points...

The point system gives you points based on what position you get. If let's say someone is beat on the same turn turn as someone else they get the level the step down and recieve points.

For my example I'll use a standard game where two nations lost all their SCs on the same turn

1st place - (number of players +2) = points
2nd place - (number of players - 1) = points
3rd place - (nummber of players - 3) = points
4th place - (number of players - 4) = points
5th place - (number of players - 5) = points
7th place
7th place - 0 points

This system is the easiest to understand, use, and in my opinion is the best.

[Subjukator]

We should also not create a separate diplomacy forum as well. When I first when into the RPG forum at BF, I didn't even enter the diplomacy forum until it was well into its "boom" period. Thereafter when my interest was piqued, I didn't revisit it until the forum was turning downslope and there were no new games being made.

Not having a separate forum for diplomacy will attract newcomers. (and lets not call them "fresh blood" plz ok?) :)

Five games in play at any one time is what I believe is the optimum number. Since the diplo games here were staggered and weren't all made at the same time, that is good since more players will become freed up as they lose and come back itching to play again.

My idea on qued games

General comment: Only four qued games should be allowed at once.

The stickied thread on diplo rankings should also be a place where the qued games can be viewed. A reliable person will edit their post on the four qued games that will be played next. This same person should also be where all PM's concerning game proposals go to as well. Of course, he should also be a reliable person.

In order to reduce clutter, whenever a game is coming to a close (when only three-four major players are left) THEN a qued game will be made and like Cygnus said, players will sign up and when the number of players are reached for the game, the thread will then be closed until that game is finished with. Then the closed game will be reopened for play. Just don't anyone who signed up forgot plz and the GM better send PM's ;)

Now I know most of what I said in my last paragraph depends a lot on faith and long-term memory. But it's just an idea for those whom it may concern.

[OboeGuru]

*cough* I'm reliable. *cough*
I made the thread anyways, so does anyone object to me running it?

Speaking of which, the Scoreboard/Game List is locked... that kinda defeats the purpose.

- - - - -

I agree that we need to set a limit on the number of games a person can be involved in. I would tend to agree with Duddits on all the points he brings up.

So how about opening my thread back up to me to change it?

[Cygnus]

I think the mods did that so they could manage the thread, but I don't know for sure. Also that prevents more posts from being made in the thread, which is actually a smart idea.

[Shinigami]

Whatever rules you guys decide upon, I will be here to enforce them. So far I don't have a single objection, but a few comments.

Large games, such as Imperial and Twentieth Century, should count as two games, given how large they are and how long they last, not to mention the sheer amount of units one controls. So, if the limit of games per player was four, they could play two normal games and one game of Imperial.

Also, we've got our subforum! Big thanks to AJ. :D

EDIT: Unlocked the thread.

[OboeGuru]

Okay, now before more suggestions/comments are made, I ask everyone to take a looksee at the *updated* guidelines/scoreboard thread, and make suggestions based on that.

To me, four seems too many for the queue. The fourth in the list, in all likelihood, would be waiting quite a while to start.

[Subjukator]

What I said last time reworded and added on

We should also not create a separate diplomacy forum as well. When I first when into the RPG forum at BF, I didn't even enter the diplomacy forum until it was well into its "boom" period (where people were in like 20 games and GMing 5). When my interest returned later, I revisited a forum that was turning downslope and there were no new games being made.

Not having a separate forum for diplomacy will attract newcomers because they won't have to go through the extra step to go see the diplo forum, and why would they visit something they have no idea about when they come to the Online Roleplaying Forum for RPs in the first place?

The trick is for newcomers to click on a diplomacy game expecting to find an RP and instead find a diplo game being played. As they surf through, they hopefully become interested anyways and another potential player has been added to the list.

So... I am still strongly against having a separate diplomacy forum, but it seems my opinion has been overruled...

[Modred]

Ok, I see that some of my ideas have been used, and others not. I personally believe that if there are 7 games running and you can be in 5, that is too many. I think it should be limited to 3. GMing 1 at a time.

I will GM an Imperial later this year. Probably starting in mid-July at earliest.

EDIT: And Cyggie, I think we need a new score system. And I have just the one. More to come later.

[Cygnus]

Why do we need a new score system? If you come out on top you come out on top. If you lose, you lose. This system works, it's basically what they actually use in Diplomacy Tournament play, proving it's dependability and also how easy it is to understand. Extra points are not handed out because of what nation you play as either.

EDIT:

On the issue of having a seperate diplomacy forum... It's do to lack of space. We'd end up having RPs pushing Diplo games back to other pages, or visa versa.

[Modred]

A better (though more complex) scoring system: WACkyCon Scoring System (http://www.rset.net/~jake/Diplomacy/WACkyCon/WACkyCon_Scoring.html) created by Jake Mannix, currently used at DipCon.

It takes into account the skill level of players by having players ante 10% of their points into a "pot" at the beggining of the game. Solo gets all points. Draws use a fancy formula to divide points. Higher your points, the higher your skill. Defeating players with more points gives you more. Think like the b.net ladders, only for diplo.

With your scoring system, I get the same number of points for beating you that I would for beating...PiXeLs (if he starts playing again). And you are at least ten times more experienced than he is (considering I taught him how to play over AIM :p).

[OboeGuru]

Modred, I love it! If no one objects, I'd like to adopt that system.

I'll be the one doing all the math anyways, so no complaining about the math involved. :p

Teehee, we're all tied for first. I think I got everyone on that list...
Hopefully all the GMs will be able to get the information down the way I want it... set the standard!

[Cygnus]

*shrugs* Whatever you wish. Although I'll still hold the old system near and dear to my heart. The only damn problem is, if this is like BF, I'll be at the top. :bigsmile:

Which means someone might be putting huge amounts of points on the line while someone else might only be putting one or two points on the line. But such is life, and this game is all about taking those risks... I must say I'd like to see this in action.

[BlackHawk]

Modred, I love it! If no one objects, I'd like to adopt that system.

I'll be the one doing all the math anyways, so no complaining about the math involved. :p

Teehee, we're all tied for first. I think I got everyone on that list...
Hopefully all the GMs will be able to get the information down the way I want it... set the standard!

Woah, I just looked at your explanation, all I can say is: you better be doing the math :\.

Just a few questions:

a) Do we automatically put 10% of our points into the games "pot"? I.e. right now since we all have 100 points, did we all put 10 points into each game we're currently in?
b) When our scores begin to fluctuate, is the 10% in the "pot" of our score when the game started, or when it ends?

That's all for now...

[Subjukator]

But with only five games going on at once Cygnus, it wouldn't be too bad you know...

And where in Pitt do you live in? This whole thing with you living near my general area is quite frankly, pretty awesome.

[OboeGuru]

*shrugs* Whatever you wish. Although I'll still hold the old system near and dear to my heart. The only damn problem is, if this is like BF, I'll be at the top. :bigsmile:

Which means someone might be putting huge amounts of points on the line while someone else might only be putting one or two points on the line. But such is life, and this game is all about taking those risks... I must say I'd like to see this in action.
No one will ever be putting less than 10 points on the line. Every player begins with 100 points, and you can never lose points in this system, so no worries. :D
Woah, I just looked at your explanation, all I can say is: you better be doing the math :\.

Just a few questions:

a) Do we automatically put 10% of our points into the games "pot"? I.e. right now since we all have 100 points, did we all put 10 points into each game we're currently in?
b) When our scores begin to fluctuate, is the 10% in the "pot" of our score when the game started, or when it ends?

That's all for now...
Answer to both a) and b):

All point calculations occur at the end of a game, so technically, there are no points in the "pot." There really isn't a "pot" at all right now. At the end of a game, I take 10% of the person's total points as of then, then do the calculations, add points accordingly, and then those are the new current point totals for the next game they are in.

So basically, points go in the "pot" only during the 10-20 minutes or so it'll take me to make all the calculations..

[Cygnus]

And where in Pitt do you live in? This whole thing with you living near my general area is quite frankly, pretty awesome.
I live pretty close to Monroville and Turle Creek.

[Modred]

I'll be checking your math Oboe. (Unless you cheat and use this (http://www.rset.net/~jake/Diplomacy/DipCalc/)...)

[OboeGuru]

I don't need no stinking calculator, I'm smrt!!! ;)

I'd trust my hand and brain more anyhow.

[Shinigami]

I don't need no stinking calculator, I'm smrt!!! ;)
Oh, the irony...

How exactly does one get on the game queue?

[OboeGuru]

I wrote it in the rules/guidelines, 'Gami.

They have to PM either me or you. Would you rather it be just me they PM?

And yes, I realize the irony, that was sort of the whole point of posting those words...
Teehee. It's also making a reference to a Simpsons episode from the days of yore.

- - - - -

I wish to correct what I said earlier. It IS possible for a person to go under 100 points, so it's possible for a person to be putting less than 10 points in the pot. It just creates more incentive to do well in a game, because there are less points to be had in a game with someone/some people who is/are not doing too well.
So sit back and enjoy, Cygnus, this is going to be one wild ride!

[Shinigami]

No, no, PMing me is fine.

Now, seeing as there are two spots open...

[Cygnus]

Went over the rules you gus set down, I guess they're good (I agree with most of them except the limit on playing but I see your point why we should have it).

Now my one question is: Is GMing an Imperial or TC Diplo count as GMing two or one, or does the counting as two games only apply to playing in it?

The only thing I'll have to go over, again, your guys point system. :)

[OboeGuru]

Just leave all the math to me, all GMs have to do is give me stats from the games. :)

GMing Imperial or T.C. counts as GMing two games, unless you can come up with a compelling argument why it should not be so.

[Modred]

GMing Imperial or T.C. counts as GMing two games, unless you can come up with a compelling argument why it should not be so.

The great and mighty Oz commands it.

[Cygnus]

Screw Oz, I'm just that damn good! :rolleyes:

[Shinigami]

At the price of being really, really late. :P

[Cygnus]

That was only because I was GMing 5+ games at once. If I'm only GMing two games max at one time, then I could probably keep up with the deadlines.

Really! Yeah...

[OboeGuru]

With our first player dropping universally, I think it's a good time to bring this up:

Should we lower the games-per-player limit to 4?
If we did that, I think we should also tack on that it's allowed to be involved in a 5th game, but only as a GM or Mentor.

[BlackHawk]

Well, I'd agree with 4 max, but maybe hold of until the first Diplomacy game is over? Cause I'm at 5 right now, and once that ones over then initiate it? Or initiate it but have a little clause or whatever for those in that game, since it is about to end (I think).

[OboeGuru]

Yeah, I'd have to include that little note, otherwise I'd be breaking my own rules... :smirk:

[Cygnus]

Ex post facto, but I'm forgetting that this isn't a democracy... More like a world of cold-hearted, paranoid, backstabbing dictators. ^^

[OboeGuru]

True, but there's isn't substantial documentation on the date the rule was changed. Didn't stop me from doing it though. :D

[Cygnus]

With great power comes gre... wait a second, who the hell cares? :p

[OboeGuru]

I'm not a cold-hearted, paranoid, backstabbing dictator, I swear!
I'm just cold-hearted and backstabbing.
;)

[Fenguin]

I'm not a cold-hearted, paranoid, backstabbing dictator, I swear!
I'm just cold-hearted and backstabbing.
;)
No, you're a cold-hearted, paranoid, backstabbing, dictatorial Satan-incarnate. ;) Yup, you're paranoid and dictatorial. :D

[Subjukator]

We shouldn't change the rules just because of one person leaving. If a situation such as a this one ever comes up again, just ban the person from joining diplomacy games for three months as punishment for joining lots of a games, then leaving like a whore after declaring he WAS a diplo whore... which, as was discovered, an entirely false declaration.

[OboeGuru]

If we don't start getting new players, I'll raise the limit back to five.

Now don't take that as an incentive to not recruit people for Diplo, I whole-heartedly encourage it, we definitely need some new blood soon.

[Duddits]

-drools- Blood.. new... Mmmm... Zombified!

Or not. But yes, Oboe, you are a -insert random adjective with nouns and a couple ,- moderator and don't you forget it! <XoX>

[Whiteknight]

Erm, what else can the Werewolf Cleanup Crew take care of?

[OboeGuru]

Nothing. I've decided not to let Werewolf's spot in 1600 be filled, considering his nation is on it's way out.

[Modred]

We shouldn't change the rules just because of one person leaving. If a situation such as a this one ever comes up again, just ban the person from joining diplomacy games for three months as punishment for joining lots of a games, then leaving like a whore after declaring he WAS a diplo whore... which, as was discovered, an entirely false declaration.

So, according to that rule...I should ban you for dropping the original Diplo game for no reason whatsoever. :p

[Subjukator]

So, according to that rule...I should ban you for dropping the original Diplo game for no reason whatsoever. :p

That was my first game FYI ever in playing Diplomacy so don't blame me for getting a bit discouraged as I get pwned playing Austria. And Werewolf91 left three-four games which I have not done.

[Modred]

Well, you did leave all the games you were in (since that was the only game running)....

You realize I'm just messing with you?

[Subjukator]

*Rolleyes*

You got me there. :_owned: