Votes

[Barbarian Professor]

How does the vote system work here? I see that it can be set to draw, does that apply to all players left in the game who are set to draw? can you set it to specific powers?

[Claesar]

When you vote to Draw, you are making a suggestion to the other players to draw the game as it is and split the pot amongst the survivors in whatever way was agreed at the start of the game. They will see your suggestion unless the game has Hidden Draw Votes.

EDIT: You cannot suggest a Draw with only certain players.

[Mercy]

If every player who is still left in the game votes Draw, the game will end in a draw between all surviving players.

[Deeply_Dippy]

A while back, I did suggest a variation whereby a MAJORITY vote could secure a draw - and exclude certain parties from a share of the points - but only the player with the highest SC count could propose it.

Coding it would probably be a nightmare but it would bring on-line play 'in line' with F2F and PBEM.

[Magnetic24]

A while back, I did suggest a variation whereby a MAJORITY vote could secure a draw - and exclude certain parties from a share of the points - but only the player with the highest SC count could propose it.

Coding it would probably be a nightmare but it would bring on-line play 'in line' with F2F and PBEM.

Although this may be a good idea in concept, I think the idea of the highest-SC count individual is a bad idea. It's certainly better than the lowest-SC, but still, if someone needs a draw with 6 SCs then they're out of luck. The highest SC individual could just decline & collect.

[ByzantineX]

I feel like this could be done with a surrender option that would forfeit one's points to the pot. I don't think a draw should be allowed without everyone's consent to do so, strategies such as holding out until parties stab each other are viable and I have seen them in use in diplomacy games. Being able to draw with a majority would nullify tactics such as stalemate lines, but a surrender option would be of use to players that want to draw with certain players only, being able to force a surrender or threaten elimination.

[Octavious]

Not having a surrender button is one of the few points where this site is still superior to PlayDip. I can't express enough how repulsive I find the idea. Majority draw votes... even more so. Although there maybe some amusement in a Russian player proposing a 4-way in spring 01.

[Aurelin]

Not having a surrender button is one of the few points where this site is still superior to PlayDip. I can't express enough how repulsive I find the idea. Majority draw votes... even more so. Although there maybe some amusement in a Russian player proposing a 4-way in spring 01.

If you think about it, it makes it slightly better.

If someone absolutely cannot finish a game for personal reasons, they can ask for someone else to play and then surrender, so nothing happens to the balance of the game. And if someone isn't responsible enough to do that or whatever, they NMR twice, and the game's been thrown off for two turns, more if someone doesn't step in. If they simply give it up, yes, maybe it'll only be in civil disorder for one turn, or maybe even none if someone comes in quickly enough.

[Octavious]

Not having a surrender button is one of the few points where this site is still superior to PlayDip. I can't express enough how repulsive I find the idea. Majority draw votes... even more so. Although there maybe some amusement in a Russian player proposing a 4-way in spring 01.

If you think about it, it makes it slightly better.

If someone absolutely cannot finish a game for personal reasons, they can ask for someone else to play and then surrender, so nothing happens to the balance of the game. And if someone isn't responsible enough to do that or whatever, they NMR twice, and the game's been thrown off for two turns, more if someone doesn't step in. If they simply give it up, yes, maybe it'll only be in civil disorder for one turn, or maybe even none if someone comes in quickly enough.

No doubt that was some of the logic behind introducing it to Playdip. In practice it legitimises CDs in the eyes of many players and they become a lot more common. Asking for someone else to play before surrendering is extremely rare, probably even more so than asking for a substitute here. What happens depressingly often is that a player surrenders from a difficult position, he gets replaced by someone who reads the messages, assesses the situation, maybe enters a set of orders, and then surrenders himself. It is quite common to have a game at Playdip with more surrenders than the original number of players. The effect is not a seamless transition, but to turn a CD into a crazed zombie state that lurches randomly across the board, shudders to a halt, before lurching randomly again. You might as well play with dice.

[Octavious]

There is nothing quite so depressing and against the spirit of the game than to see a western triple pressuring other players into surrendering so that the game finishes quicker. And there's very little that's as disappointing as being part of a triple and planning to use a desperate Turkey to stab for a solo, only to see all your leverage resign before the game is half over.

Surrender buttons are a plague on diplomacy. Nothing good comes from them.

[Claesar]

...
Surrender buttons are a plague on diplomacy. Nothing good comes from them.

I wouldn't go this far, but as far as I know there's no talk of introducing one except to 1v1s.

If you can no longer enter orders for whatever reason, contact the mods [email protected] and we'll discuss the replacement options available to you. This doesn't happen enough, which is why we've started to actively seek out NMRs and try to prevent them or future ones.