Yes. What you need to know is that I never lie, and you should trust me 100% of the time, as I am the perfect ally.

Now, let's play a non-anon game. :)

And remember, I always do dumb shit like that and am incredibly easy to manipulate. I am completely incapable of defeating you in any way shape or form if we ally and will believe everything you say.

Now, let's play a non-anon game.

@retard - so, I'm going to answer you somewhat seriously here.

The toughest players I've dealt with aren't the most skilled or manipulating. They're the ones who are relatively silent, or aren't quite good enough to know when they're being manipulated. The kind that just pick an ally and just follow them until they die. It stinks because if you're not their immediate neighbor, chances are you won't be that first ally. Or the kind who will go for a 2wd even though both of them could easily solo on the other. So to some extent I can understand what you're saying.

But you should also be listening to everyone else here. They're giving sound advice/critique

Surely playing gunboat would resolve a lot of these issues.........

Playing checkers is not the solution to learning how to play chess.

My first game ever, I was badly, very badly stabbed.

Then I got so obsesive with the possible stabs, I used to play like a paranoic, it sometimes worked, sometimes failed very ugly.

Then I started to play very dirty. Always waiting patiently the chance to stab my best allies. It sometimes gave me epic wins, but a pair of times the other players made me feel so ashame of myself.

Then I think I started playing like a 'normal' diplomacy player. Feeling perfectly o.k. trusting and sticking to good alliances, but not hesitating whenever there was a good stab.

But once I was able to solo without the need of thinking to stab anyone, I was somewhat lucky to get a good ally, and to found people that just would fight me, and I'd fight back and defeat them. I cannot describe how good I felt then. It was almost like an ethic orgasm.

From then, I've been more and more tending to base every single decision I make in (normal) game, about alliances I mean, in moral considerations. Sometimes it's hard, but you learn than you don't need to win every game you play, but you need to play well every game you play.

This game has tought me very deeply 2 things:

1. How important is to communicate clearly and frequently with the people around you.
2. How much time one can just WAIST with a game.

"Playing checkers is not the solution to learning how to play chess."

Just ask Split Diplomat.

OP, I hear you. People just don't play the way I think they should, the opinions about what the object of the game are are just too diverse. I say you have to try to solo at any cost. Everyone else seems to play with grudges or play like they want a 5 way draw. It's depressing.

I used to hit myself repeatedly in the head with a roofing hammer. It gave me the worst headaches imaginable. Then one day I stopped hitting myself with the hammer. The headaches completely went away. Best day of my life!

The problem Thucy is that it's much mor common than not that you either:

1. Know you just can't win. Then obviously you go for the draw.

2. Know that *stabbing your ally* you MIGHT win... or you'r eliminated by that same angry ally... or just forced to draw anyway, but in evry case with the added shame of being a traitor.

3. You can be sure that you'll win, but what's the point of playing a game in which you know what's gonna happen?

@retarded:

I went back through your games and saw mostly beginner talent. When I did see a strong and recognizable name, you were defeated.

I'd say that your diplomatic skills need a boost. This game is 75% diplomacy and 25% tactical warfare.

One final thing I noticed is that you're not sending many messages each game. When I divide your number of messages by your completed games, you're sending less than 60 messages each game.

You'll find that strong players are sending easily half that or more just in 1901. I personally send over 150 messages per game and I've seen as many as 250+ per game.

More messages = more advertisements about yourself = better communication. If you're not talking, you're not winning.

Tru brings up an excellent point. I'm about 225 messages per game myself. You're around 40. You need to at least double that.

that's very similar to why a political group capable of sending its messages to more people, and of repeating them more, and and of getting more spaces in the media to add to them, usually has an advantage.

"My expectations for how this game is played is completely thrown out the window."

This actually says a lot too. What the heck were you expecting? ;)

People are unpredictable and behave in ways that you yourself would not, sometimes directly contrary to your expectations. Some are committed and competitive, others are casual and flaky. Some are just playing the game for extra credit in a high school history class.

And remember...

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

Tru is absolutely correct. Talk ,talk and when you're down, talk more. Give people a reason to want to help. No just hay stop it or why did you do that. You will be on the road to getting better, when you can answer those questions yourself. <ding, light goes off in head>

I can safely say that the biggest deciding criterion for whether to ally with someone or not and in deciding whether to stick with an ally that I've found myself using in my admittedly short time on this site is the quality of communication I am getting from them. I suspect this is a problem with newbie games in particular here, and seems to be a problem you may be running into yourself. Communication is a way to establish your credibility, and avoids leaving a player in a situation where he stabs you because he isn't sure what you're up to and is positive it can't be good for him (honestly, probably my most common reason for stabbing in games I've played here so far).

I also took a look at some of your games, RA, and a number of your outright defeats had their beginnings in some 1901 and 1902 misplay. I obviously can't see any of your active anonymous games, but bad early blunders can really cost you.

Also, and many other posters have already hinted at this: many of your games seem to be PPSC games, and this little change makes a huge impact in how people approach and play the game. I think the site here bills PPSC games as newbie friendly, but I think this is misleading. Once there's blood in the water in a PPSC game, there is generally little incentive for moderately strong powers to side with struggling powers to contain very strong powers. Often, it benefits them as far as the score is concerned, to jump in on the feeding frenzy and help the big power win. So once you start stumbling, there's much less chance you'll be able to buy yourself a diplomatic reprieve and get back in the game.

Also helps to just relax and accept that some people are going to do awful things that are terrible for them long term, sometimes you will draw Austria and Germany will be playing his very first game ever, and think you're his best target, and sometimes there is nothing you can do about it but relax, take a deep breath, and go on to the next game.

"sometimes you will draw Austria and Germany will be playing his very first game ever, and think you're his best target."

It's certainly not HR's first game ever, and he is still completely convinced that Austria is Germany's best target.

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

But in Diplomacy they can know that you are an idiot. Too many games I see everyone wants to Draw and/or Cancel a game because of CDs and NMRs except for one players who can't win or even do much with his position. If it's also a gunboat then the only alternative is to eliminate him before the player with the most units can get a solo.

Sometimes people draw or cancel because it's early enough that imbalance occurs.

Also, instead of changing the subject, why not take time to reflect on the things others, who are unbiased, have suggested.

If you're here to whine, then whine and be done. If you're here to actually learn something about yourself and change those things to improve your game, then take criticism, thank others for their input, and take what you will.

I'm beginning to see where your press falls short...

I don't know why you think I have to graciously accept "criticism" that is blatantly malicious.

Oh wait, I know; it's because their names are familiar.

zzzz

Wow... I'm at 334 messages a game. I must be the social butterfly around here...

@ retardedarcher:

"I am very confident in my tactical skill and board analysis. Obviously my social skills are not to snuff."

Social skills are the #1 skill required to be truly good at the game of diplomacy. This is not a wargame simulation - it is an abstract boardgame in which the single most important skill is the ability to talk.

(unless you limit yourself to play gunboats, of course)

@retarded:
I meant nothing malign. I'm simply attempting to point out something that I feel is a big contributing factor to your game outcome.

I performed a series of statistics on Diplomacy and in one such piece, I compared press volume to win/draw percentage. There was a strong correlation indicating that more press results in better results. At 50 messages per game, you're sitting around the 36.6% win/draw percent result which is consequently exactly where you're at.

(For the record, my formula is f (x) = 19.2*ln (x) - 38.5 where x is the number of messages per game for all non-gunboat and yours is 47).

@Tru Ninja

I'm saying that there are some criticism in this thread that is intended to put down, and is only constructive if you don't have self-respect.

I'm not arguing that more messages doesnt not give you better results

There are always people that will give unwanted comments. Ya gotta kill em with kindness.

I am currently playing a game with you, so I will not comment directly on this - but if you want my opinion on your diplomacy skills afterwards...

OP: By the way, All this game does is make me hungry