I consider myself a much better F-t-F player.

@Jamiet, i will just leave that alone

Im not who thinks they're better at what, im asking if the player traits are they same. If you are good at one does it translate to the other?

Being confrontational, able to control volume, lying to people's faces, and eavesdropping/spying don't necessarily lend themselves to online play.

Thank you Prado, those are some of the obvious things that are different, but it doesn't answer the question . Being good at one version of Dip, does it translate to the other

The biggest diff to me is that in FTF I get to see *how much time* people talk to together. Online, I don't know that. Knowing who spends lots of time together is a good predictor of whose working together.

I'm afraid to answer because ssorenn will get mad at me for not providing a satisfactory response.

online- I get muted

FtF - I get punched

Im not asking what the differences are, i want to know if the character traits of a successful online line player translate to a successful F2F player

In the last few months, I've been to two F2F tournaments (Boston Massacre and Cascadia Open) after playing exclusively online online since 2014. In both tournaments I placed 5th out of about 20 players, and took home best countries for Austria and Turkey. Now, anyone is able to go look at my WebDip GR and see that online, I am a mediocre player at best. You can look at my win and draw percentages (subtracting 1v1 stats) and see that mediocre would be a generous description of my online game. I am happy with my F2F results and I think they are quite different than my online results. I don't "try harder" F2F, I don't slack off in online games either (see my RR). So, my conclusion is that being good at F2F does not auto-translate to being good online. I think what makes me good at F2F is time management skills, interpersonal social/communication style, and my ability to read non-verbal cues in others. None of that truly matters online and my tactical game is so-so (or more gently put, a work in progress). I believe that online, even in FP games, tactics trump diplomacy. In F2F it's the opposite.

Just my opinion, feel free to GFY if you don't agree.

Assets that would assist you in both:

Analysis of the board
Good understanding of the tactics and rules
Ability to coherently put together a plan
Ability to let the other guy talk himself into a bad move


Possible Impediments:

Poker face and/or acting ability (not needed in online)
ability to watch for non-verbal cues (not needed in online)
Mental Stamina (useful in live games and FtF but not in longer phase games)
Sense of humor when stabbed (can be an asset in both, critical in FtF)

@CA, that's exactly right, although the last one can apply in online as well(but never happens)

@OB that was what i was looking for, but i disagree that tactics trump diplomacy in online(gunboat,OK) being able to talk your way in or out of a position is of the upmost importance.

@Sorrenn, I'm not saying Diploamcy counts for nothing in online, but tactics trump it. You can write novels to someone about why they should do what you want them to and be very convincing. But there's nothing you can do about the phase lengths here, where they have an abundance of time to analyze the permutations of said move or strategy and with sufficient intelligence would make the move that benefits them. But in F2F, where you have 15 min to negotiate and put in orders, diplomacy completely overrules tactical gamesmanship. Give me 5 min to deadline and someone on the fence about a move I want them to make, I am utterly confident I can get it done my way. Online just doesn't have the aspect where someone with social charm/charisma/guile (whatever you want to call it) can gain a substantial advantage from it.

@OB

I agree with you in that my experience has been the opposite. I am okay here, but got hammered the last time I played FtF. I was surprised how quickly they kicked my tail.

"You can write novels to someone about why they should do what you want them to and be very convincing."

This lend to another question, do players find this enticing and why?

Some seem to be successful because of the novels written---wont name any players here-- I think sending concise press that articulates a point is better. What do others think?

Ftf requires charisma. Online requires good writing skills. If I write too little some players mistake it for insincerity. Writing a lot shows commitment which can be enticing. It's hard to write a lot, lie, yet have your logic hang together.

I think longer press tends to give the signal that more thought has been put into it. Whether or not that's actually the case, it does tend to make people more comfortable going along with plans in my experience.

I agree Captmeme. Its an illusion though. Having been able to play with what this site considers to be the best players, novels seem to get the job done. But if you take a moment to look through the bullshit, they are not always the best plays.

@OB, Massacre is not always well attended by the best players. In your neck of the woods, Carnage gets a strong showing.

As a player with solid success in both spaces, I too agree with CA's assessment. I think the crucial aspect is the ability to persuade. Some players can do it FTF, some in writing, and some can do it in both spheres. I think FTF and live games are more difficult in general because of the time control.

OBTW, I got to past WDC champs to play in the ODC @ PDET. So, we will get to see how their skills translate into online play.

No.

Well that's affirmitive.

(luckily my game is paused until tomorrow otherwise I would not have had time to contribute to this thread)

I'm pleased to see you had the time to offer such an in-depth analysis, then.

@carebear, fair point about Massacre, but the Cacadia open was attended by universally well respected players including one former world champ.

I assumed my analysis was implied. Where's that thread on my first WAC Con when I need it.

@OB, is Cascadia the one that Chris Brand ran and was attended by Doug Moore and won the big Scot Jamieson?

@OB, how did you finish there?