webdiplomacy.net

Honestly, I think this is getting silly now.

Octavious has a point, and I generally agree with him that if you are not playing to win, why are you even playing this game?

Having said that, I also agree that the only way to really solve the problem is to "train" it out of them, because raging and whining about it does nothing at all.

Can't we just agree to gang up on carebears whenever and wherever they raise their ugly game ruining heads?

/Wusti out!

Wusti wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:13 pm

Honestly, I think this is getting silly now.

Octavious has a point, and I generally agree with him that if you are not playing to win, why are you even playing this game?

Having said that, I also agree that the only way to really solve the problem is to "train" it out of them, because raging and whining about it does nothing at all.

Can't we just agree to gang up on carebears whenever and wherever they raise their ugly game ruining heads?

/Wusti out!

Agreed. And we carebears will find you guys and root you out too.

For a synopsis of this conversation, please enjoy this Star Trek clip on the nature of winning and games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8

Johnny Big Horse wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:07 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 7:38 am

Johnny Big Horse wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:11 pm

Not everyone plays basketball to win. Some play to sharpen their skills, or to impress other people. Should they not be allowed to play?

If you are not trying to win whilst playing on a team of others who are then you are a selfish tit who has no business being there and will get thrown off the team. If you are thinking of someone on a basketball court who is just shooting hoops because they like to shoot hoops, that's absolutely fine. But what they are doing is shooting hoops, not playing a game of basketball.

So really it just comes down to name calling huh? That is what people do when they don't have an argument. I could do it too, but I won't, because I have an argument.

I was unaware that you were a selfish tit who ruined people's basketball games . If you are then you are, and I'll happily call you one if you wish, but it's rather obvious that I no specific tit in mind when making that comment.

The trouble with using the "you don't have an argument" line after someone has clearly made an argument is that it looks a little bit silly. You also have an argument, but it seems rooted in the bizarre premise that the game of Diplomacy is some kind of real world simulation (it is not) and that following the rule book and engaging with the spirit of the game is somehow dishonorable.

What I am trying to achieve here, and hope that for some readers I have, is to correct the belief that potential carebears have that such actions are decent and honourable and worthy of the respect of their peers. They are not. They are selfish and misguided and worthy of contempt, they are willfully ignorant of the game's objective and spit in the face of the game's spirit. If you are motivated to be a carebear out of a desire to be a decent person respected by the gaming community you are making a grave error. If you are motivated to be a carebear out of a desire to be a successful player you are making an equally grave error. If you are motivated to be a carebear for shits and giggles, or because you get a kick out of imposing your will on other people, then that kind of works. But I don't think many carebears are.

Octavious how someone comes to be if he plays as you recommend? One game and the other players know that you are not to be trusted. Even if the game is an anon, there are writing patterns that betray many players. So if I know that I am playing with you or a number of others I know that there is no trust not for a single turn, I think this makes for a miserable game.

PRINCE WILLIAM wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:06 pm

Octavious how someone comes to be if he plays as you recommend? One game and the other players know that you are not to be trusted. Even if the game is an anon, there are writing patterns that betray many players. So if I know that I am playing with you or a number of others I know that there is no trust not for a single turn, I think this makes for a miserable game.

Why do you trust someone in a game of diplomacy in the first place?
And if you get betrayed, do you take it personally or something? It's a game. Don't hold meta-grudges against people because they are playing the game correctly. Betray them before they can betray you, or come to agreements where them betraying you would be... Not that effective, easy to see in advance, etc.

In the early stages of the game, you have to trust and work with one or more players. You cannot do it alone. So you have to trust, to reverse this in a turn or two is not what I like.
After all the things said in this discussion, I contemplate the possibility of abandoning the game as it is understandable that my way of viewing it is annoying for most people.

PRINCE WILLIAM wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 2:23 pm

In the early stages of the game, you have to trust and work with one or more players. You cannot do it alone. So you have to trust, to reverse this in a turn or two is not what I like.
After all the things said in this discussion, I contemplate the possibility of abandoning the game as it is understandable that my way of viewing it is annoying for most people.

And yet you have many of the hallmarks of a great player. You are a very good communicator, you are fundamentally likeable, and you have a decent brain in you. The only thing holding you back is your belief that refusing to stab is noble. If you can shake that you will be a formidable player and a massive contributer to the enjoyment of your fellow players.

You may well never enjoy stabbing, which is generally a good thing as it will prevent you from over doing it, and it is perfectly legitimate to have games in which you don't stab at all because you are unable to generate the opportunity. But it has to be a card in your deck. To refuse to stab on any occasion is like refusing to use your Knights in a game of chess because moving over other pieces feels dishonest

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:54 pm

To refuse to stab on any occasion is like refusing to use your Knights in a game of chess because moving over other pieces feels dishonest

Now that is a good analogy.

It is like you anti-carebear guys want to drive us out of the game. You are just another branch of cancel culture. If you disagree with us, you must disappear.

Grow up.

Response to Octavious.... Here is some of what he said...

"What I am trying to achieve here, and hope that for some readers I have, is to correct the belief that potential carebears have that such actions are decent and honourable and worthy of the respect of their peers. "

Response: I don't need anyone's approval. We are not doing some moral crusade here. This game is a nest of vipers. We choose to play here. That is the game.

"They are not. They are selfish and misguided and worthy of contempt, they are willfully ignorant of the game's objective and spit in the face of the game's spirit."

Response: Maybe the reason you feel so strongly about us is that you don't like getting your ass kicked over and over. As I said before. Wise up. Learn to defeat us. It is not that hard.

"If you are motivated to be a carebear out of a desire to be a decent person respected by the gaming community you are making a grave error."

Response: That is a bad reason to do it. Who needs respect of people you don't know.

"If you are motivated to be a carebear out of a desire to be a successful player you are making an equally grave error."

Response: Disagree. I may not be Teccles or Swordsman, but I do alright.

I get what we're doing here. Octavious, you fool.

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=371047
https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=366733

Dear future allies, I too am a carebear ; )

Johnny Big Horse wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:48 pm

It is like you anti-carebear guys want to drive us out of the game. You are just another branch of cancel culture. If you disagree with us, you must disappear.

Grow up.

yOu ArE jUsT aNoThEr BrAnCh Of CaNcEl CuLtUrE...Come on man. Get real.

I sincerely believe if you enter a game of vanilla Diplomacy in 1900 and your objective is to draw - you shouldn't be playing.

PRINCE WILLIAM wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:06 pm

Octavious how someone comes to be if he plays as you recommend? One game and the other players know that you are not to be trusted. Even if the game is an anon, there are writing patterns that betray many players. So if I know that I am playing with you or a number of others I know that there is no trust not for a single turn, I think this makes for a miserable game.

Answering for myself: alliances are a great bit of the game! And a big part of an alliance between two ruthless players is making sure it stays mutually beneficial, through a combination of careful positioning, negotiation, and finding common ground. It's really fun to go through a game where you and your ally don't stab each other because you very deliberately avoid incentivising the other to do so. For me, at least, that is far more interesting that me and my ally not stabbing each other because that's just not how we play.

And you can build up a kind of trust in this mode - but it's the trust that your ally can understand the board, and see the long term benefits of your alliance, rather than the trust that you are such good buddies you'll never fight whatever happens.

Johnny Big Horse wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:57 pm

Response: Disagree. I may not be Teccles or Swordsman, but I do alright.

(Also, while I'm flattered, I don't even slightly belong on a two-player list of great press players!)

This is so stupid. It is clear in the rules of the game that you are allowed to make whatever moves you like, and can post whatever press you like. If you take that aspect out of the game, Octavius, you might as well be playing against yourself which you know wouldn't be fun. If you don't like carebears, tough luck, cause they ain't going away. If you don't want to play against them, play gunboat as there is no diplomacy and it is all similar to chess just as you like it.

I always put my draw vote in at the start of the game. The thought of war blows my mind. It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker.

Yonni wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:40 pm

I get what we're doing here. Octavious, you fool.

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=371047
https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=366733

Dear future allies, I too am a carebear ; )

I tried soloing. I did it twice. It didn't do anything for me. Look at my stats for full press. Mostly draws. My gunboat stats suck.

LeonWalras wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 12:23 am

It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker.

Friend only to the undertaker?

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=232095
The game above is my best game to the day. I took over France and made it to a two-way draw. I worked with Egypt in all the game and was a faithful ally. I reached 32 SCs and he had 31. I could have stabbed him at the time he got the 32nd so to be soloing, but what would be the point? For me, the achievement was already great and I was also rewarding my fellow who helped me get there.

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=370235
Ιn the above game when we got down to 4 players the two major powers said that they'd accept a 3-way draw so the two smaller powers had to fight each other for the third place. Should I betray my ally and kill him (I was a little stronger)? Wasn't it better to fight the proposition until the two powers changed their mind?