Long debate here...
Maybe it already helps to offer stronger incentives to replace a CDed power. Halve the points it takes to join, or something like that.

The points are proportional to the number of centers the CD-ing power has (or rather, the percentage of centers). So picking up a 2-center or 3-center power costs relatively few points already.

thanks, but no thanks

@ manganese

"This morning I had to replace a player in one of the games I run. I had the replacement in after two minutes."

The plural of anecdote is not fact. Kthxbai.

How about the following: number of CD’s in your record or special CD rating (which affects your ability to join high quality games) is decreased when the player takes over CD? This might create an incentive for replacing CD-ed players.

Three more things mentioned above that I really liked:

- Katsarephat’s proposal of using number of CD’s as a restriction for joining the game.

- Red Squirrel’s idea that high quality games which do not allow players with bad CD record to join should also be unavailable for joining by new players (say the ones who hasn’t yet played 10 games without CD) to prevent sneaking into these games by means of creating new account.

- Separation of record for the games played from the very beginning and the games where the player has replaced CD, and/or the ability to see in the game history whether and when player has joined the game.

Bun those heckers!

enjoy to live game

It would be interesting to implement something along the lines of what you say, talleyrand. What if instead there was an overall CD #, representing the number of times you have CD'd. For every CD you take over, as you mentioned, your CD # would decrease by one. (It would, of course, increase by one every time you CD in a game. Whether it would drop when you came back remains to be decided)

Upon creating a game, you could specify who could join. That is, the maximum number of CDs a joining person could have. The minimum this number could be set to would be the number of CDs you have. Alternatively, you could specify a games to CD ratio.

I am sure that the dipbounced guy has nothing to teach webdip about web design.

But he does seem to know the game. And if you, like me, prefer to see orders being turned in every turn instead of having units just stand there, he has a good solution in my opionion.

I could be wrong, and there could be a better solution, but in my view CD's should never happen.

Having a country just do nothing is a lot worse than having it do stupid stuff. If I know that an army is no threat, it won't be part of my calculations on what to do.

That means that I may have an unfair advantage, and it ruins the game - even if it is to my benefit.

And if it happens two years in a row before a fix is in?

At least take a serious look at the solutions for these problems that has been implemented over at dipbounced before you dismiss them.

And also note the maps; they are a lot easier to read than webdip maps.

@manganese

There are situations in a game, where a player may decide it's a good strategy to 'play dead' for a turn, or two. The original board game also had a NMR option - if you messed up your moves, or missed the time. It sometimes happens for valid reasons, people have real lives, technology fails, etc..

Your position that CDs should not happen no matter what is wrong and impractical. You may also want to consider the following:
- Clearly you don't have enough experience on here in order to pass any judgement and draw conclusions. Play a bit more games. It will decrease the risk of you sounding stupid.
- Maybe dipbounced haven't been so good for your Diplomacy skills and understanding of the game...if you can't come up with any reason why missing a turn may be a good tactic. And how exactly does this work. If I have five units is it ok if I hold four of them and only move one? If I then decide to change my last unit also to hold, will the GameMaster stop me from doing it?

There're more CDs here mostly because there's a big turnover of people. Other places (dipbounced included) are less user-friendly actually and have a more stable group of players.

Here, you'll have to pick who you play a bit more. Plus, tournament games have a very low rate of CDs I think, join those.

@Ivo - I've been here longer than you and I must *disagree* most vehemently. All holds is not missing a turn and there is absolutely no reason to CD. NMRs happen. They take one turn and emergencies come up to preclude one from getting to the game for a turn, but all it takes is to visit the game's board once in two consecutive turns to avoid CD. There is *no* reason to CD.

I take back the part about being here longer than you, but I've been here nearly as long as you.

Well, CDs are nothing more than two NMRs, right? So, if NMRs happen, then surely CDs will also happen :)

You cannot automatically replace people who NMR once. You cannot turn back moves. Forcing people to stay on after they've given up and (usually) are already in a very bad position won't bring much good either.

In a more closed community with a hundred 'serious' players willing to take over lost causes and waste time as GameMasters you can have a no-CD policy.

Here, I've seen people NMR while being online and heavily involved in some form discussion.

Forum, not form.

No. CDs are two NMRs in a row. You can NMR all you want in a game as long as you don't NMR back to back sets of orders. And, NMRs only occur if you don't even view the board. If you just look at the board during the turn, it flags you as having been there and you don't officially NMR. So to CD you must not even look at the board for two consecutive turns.

You've been here six months longer than me and you don't know this most basic aspect of the rules?

Ok, let’s clarify one thing: how does this automatic replacement work exactly? Does it mean that when CD occurs, someone from the total pool of players registered on the site is automatically chosen and appointed to replace this CD, and this said someone has absolutely no say in whether to accept this appointment or not (other than going to CD right away in this new position)? Is that what we’re talking about?

Or, alternatively, when CD happens game is automatically paused and randomly chosen candidates from the total pool of players are invited to take over this CD, but it’s only their choice whether they accept the offer or not?

The former system sucks beyond measure, IMHO (especially now when in the player’s record CD takeovers are not separated from the games played from the start), whereas the latter variant has its advantages.

Draugnar, I know this. Not sure why we're arguing semantics. My point is - CDs happen and, unless we're willing to agree to cancel all games or pause them until a replacement is found, that's how it is. None of the suggestions are really that good.

@Ivo - I was just saying that the flippant "shit happens" and then arguing that a CD is a tactical thing was bull. Personally, I think we should have a system implemnted that gives a game extra time if the orders are truly missing (i.e. an official NMR where the player never even checked in) and the player in question has to come in before the extended time runs out or the game is paused and they are put in CD. Then they could visit and choose to "all hold" by not submitting anything and still used the tactic of "oh, I didn't get back in time to enter those orders for you, sorry" but truly absent players wouldn't upset the balance of the game because someone else could take over and prevent the damage done by a truly absent player.

@chtalleyrand Neither, actually.

@Ivo, because people have real lives, there is a grace option.

And you can always decide to run a game that allows NMRs.

Missing a turn is never a good tactic. Holding every single unit may be.

As for stupidity, I must say it seems clear that there is no correlation between that and the length of time one has played games on Webdip.

@manganese - So how exactly does it work then?

I tried to explain it earlier, but I won't ask you to read through all the crap.

The basic idea is that you have a regular turn, say 12h. Then you have a grace period for unforseen circumstances, say another 12h. Nothing happens unless you go over the grace period.

If you go over grace and still haven't put in any orders at all (not even a single hold), and it is not a game that allows NMR, the game will be paused and (if the GM so decides) added to the list of games that require a replacement.

Any player that so wishes (and who has the required amount of reliability and skill points) can then join the game and replace the defaulting player. It is fully voluntary. No randomization occurs. However, there is a first come, first served policy.

You have the option of viewing the game before you decide to join. If you don't like that Italy has a single SC and the only army is in norhtern africa, you don't have to join.

"The basic idea is that you have a regular turn, say 12h. Then you have a grace period for unforseen circumstances, say another 12h. Nothing happens unless you go over the grace period."

So, you have a 24h phase.

"If you go over grace and still haven't put in any orders at all (not even a single hold), and it is not a game that allows NMR, the game will be paused and (if the GM so decides) added to the list of games that require a replacement. "

In order to have this you need game masters. No such thing here, not sure if it's something that can be implemented, or whether it will be an improvement at all. Starting new games will get more complicated, you need to find a GM also.

"Any player that so wishes (and who has the required amount of reliability and skill points) can then join the game and replace the defaulting player. It is fully voluntary. No randomization occurs. However, there is a first come, first served policy."

I don't see any difference to the current situation here?

"You have the option of viewing the game before you decide to join. If you don't like that Italy has a single SC and the only army is in norhtern africa, you don't have to join. "

Again, no difference to the current situation.

Thanks for clarifying, manganese!

So essentially the only difference with the current system here is the presence of a grace period (which is actually nothing more than longer phase length) and automatic pausing game (if the game is set this way) on NMR.

I'm afraid if we implicate this approach, either most of the games will be started without pause-on-NMR feature or at least 50% games will be paused with a very slim chance to unpause.

I still think that the main problem we should address is demotivation to CD and motivation to take over the CD’s. Demotivation to CD can be achieved by explicitly stating “reliability rating” of each player and adding the feature which allows restriction of joining the games based on this rating (importantly, “reliability rating” is not 100% clean by default – when the new player joins the site he first should build up his rating by participating in certain number of games without single CD; otherwise there would be a loophole to purge your record by creating new account when the old one is shouting “Unreliable!!!”). As to motivation to take over the CD’ed positions, I see three ways for that:

1) separation in the player’s record of the results achieved in the games played from the very beginning from those which come from the games where the player took over CD;

2) ability to improve “reliability rating” as a result of CD takeovers (you can redeem you “CD sins” (“CDins” :)) by doing the right thing);

3) point incentives to take over CD (say, cost of takeover is half of the actual position price, or even some fixed amount, for example 5 ).

@Draugnar
"I was just saying that the flippant "shit happens" and then arguing that a CD is a tactical thing was bull."

No, it's not. I was talking about NMR, not CD, and these are different use-cases. I didn't say it is both intentional and random at the same time - but that when you think about rules you should consider how to deal with both situations.

@chtalleyrand

While we clearly agree on most other points, I have to say that I am totally against any system that makes it ok to take over lost causes. Manganese said earlier "Having a country just do nothing is a lot worse than having it do stupid stuff." ...I believe it depends on how stupid.

If taking over a 1 SC costs nothing and is somehow not a part of one's record, what motivation is there for the player to try and play seriously. Why not just go berserk, or give the game to someone for a survival, or maybe I can just take over all such CDs and keep them on hold until they are eliminated.

Yeah, we are not playing the same game.

For me it is not about moving pieces around the board, it's about negotiation, intrigue and guile. You know - diplomacy.

Even a country with a single SC should count, and with that in mind giving a solo for survival is completely legitimate, otherwise the bigger powers won't have to care what the single-unit power does.

And if even a single unit matters, it's more fun for everyone, IMNHO.

No system is secure against idiots, you just have to weigh pros against cons of a particular implementation.

If you don't a particular implementation to deal with the problem om NMR are worth it, fine. At the moment it just feels more like a case of the old "not invented here".

I have a perfect play record so this affects me little, but philosophically, I like the idea of a reliability rating and being able to restrict play that way. Weighting that reliability rating is a good idea, thus a person with 3 games total but no CD's doesn't have the reliability that someone with 60 games played and maybe even 1 CD. Obviously there is the question about whether we grandfather in existing ratios, give everyone a clean slate as far as CD's go, or simply start now with a rating that is not tied to current stats on games played vs CD's. (obviously this last is more difficult to code since it would require two separate played/CD records in addition to the current records, thus it may be rejected simply on that basis alone).

I don't necessarily see the need to motivate picking up countries that have gone into CD beyond what is currently in place. Doing otherwise will skew rankings or ratings and render them less useful.

@manganese

You seem to think that people who take over CDs will be all sane and responsible and would be able to pull themselves together and finish off the game. Well, if people were like that we won't have CDs to start with. If you want accountability, you need to have a real cost (penalty/investment, whatever you call it). The current CD takeover system is quite fine.

Reliability rating will be a very good thing though. Especially if it's incorporated as part of the functionality when starting new games.