The grey checkmark only stands for "this guy, at some point, hit the update button".

Really, it's no big deal, let's take the tone down in this discussions, because you seriously can't extrapolate all the information that you think you can extrapolate from this, and if somebody wants to, they have an easy way to cirucmvent that.

I think we should focus on the real problem, wich is NMRs. I believe that knowing there will be an NMR allows all players in the board to react on it, and level the playing field somewhat, whereas a previously undetected NMR hurts play more, because the alleged allies of the NMRee will expect him to make a certain set of moves that just won't happen, and that can ruin the balance a lot more than two or three powers going on an SC grab against each other

(There's usually more than one neighbour that can benefit from NMRs, and while it's not ideal, the struggle between them will diminish the effect of the NMR somewhat)

Really, Centurian, if you don't want to understand it, you won't, but it's been made pretty clear.

If you disagree, that's alright, but if you don't understand it it's because you haven't read it properly.

Or decided not to understand.

hm maybe you all are right. i had originally felt it was a positive addition, but then geofram convinced me it wasn't. but maybe it is true that the burden of the NMR should go on the person who commits it, no matter how innocent. i guess i need to think about it some more before i decide my opinion, but i think this is a good conversation if we can keep it civil.

Basically, if an ally NMRs, your usually shafted as much as the person who NMRs ever was. Now, you can take measures for yourself, and to an extent at least, solve the problem for yourself.

Ahh I see. So if you were expecting support from someone but then don't get it, etc.

But of course that works both ways. I might support hold all my units in defence against an attack normally, but if he isn't going to move I'm going to move for position, speeding up the fall of my enemy.

Your enemy... the one who NMRed.

That's the whole point.

Exactly the point- this transfers the effects of the NMRs so it is necessarily the case that the person who NMRs feels the primary effects. Other players feel secondary effects, yes, but they will be less devastating.

But I don't think someone who NMRs should be piledrived if we can help it. Because if Turkey isn't moving, England loses out.

I don't want to click update because the feature is nice *for me*.

I think not moving is punishment enough right. Does anyone think this feature will actually reduce nmrs? (Anymore than a private version I mean.)

Centurian, someone will suffer from the NMR, possibly everyone in a way or another.

The point is that, by knowing, we place most of the suffering in the head of the NMRee, wich I think is how it should be.

"Does anyone think this feature will actually reduce nmrs?"

Did anybody say it will?

Do you want all the neighbours to massively benefit? (Moving away from the suffering we want to cause.)

Do we want to create a system where you have to log in towards the end of phase to make sure everyone is going to move, because not everyone has that kind of time.

Do we want to create a system where everyone scrambles order changes at the last minute, with last minute diplomacy, according to nmrs?

Do we want to create a system that is focused on who moves and who doesn't, or actual strategy and diplomacy?

@Geofram: The last 3 games I was in that had NMR's had people who communicated to me, but just forgot to enter orders until it was too late (which is why I -always- enter orders when the turn changes)

"Do you want all the neighbours to massively benefit?"

I'd rather have all three neigbours of a contry benefit, over two neigbours benefit while the other is left hung out to dry.

"Do we want to create a system where you have to log in towards the end of phase to make sure everyone is going to move, because not everyone has that kind of time."

No, but one is supposed to be able to log in at least three or four times in a phase, otherwise you can't diplomate.

"Do we want to create a system where everyone scrambles order changes at the last minute, with last minute diplomacy, according to nmrs?"

NMRs are not the norm, they are the exception.

"Do we want to create a system that is focused on who moves and who doesn't, or actual strategy and diplomacy?"

NMRs are not the norm, they are the exception.

It is too early to draw conclusions - so I believe this debate does not need to be so heated - and some people are looking at it the wrong way :)

For me, one of the beauties of Diplomacy comes from the 'noise' element of the game-play. Any such game will have strategy, tactics, negotiation. But here you get so much more. In FtF you can see who sneak to the balcony for a chat, who is pissed off, who is evading a straight look, etc. Some funny moments occur, sometimes a whole game goes south due to 'outside' factors.

The same happens here. Some other sites don't show player login times and status at all. The only thing that changed was it was more boring.

Because information is nothing more than a tool/weapon for one to use. More information means more weapons, more alternatives to be creative and more data for analysis. It will be equal for anyone, and we'll all have to adjust a little. Then again, maybe the most 'pure' form of the game would be via e-mail (PBeM), or even via surface mail, but I somehow don't think most of us would ever really want to play a game so boring.

There should have been more changes. I'd really like to have a by-country statistic in the player profile. Some people check actual games, so there's demand for it.

There is a fundamental difference between those like Geofram, Centurian, and myself, and those like Xapi, Ghostmaker, and Draugnar.

The former think the privacy of whether or not a player has entered orders is an important part of crafting one's perception across the board. Without that privacy, other people will inevitably make poor, possibly baseless assumptions about the intentions of others. Why should anyone know when I have a tentative plan at all? Why isn’t my press for others to make decisions whether or not to trust me? Should the paper I write on or the colour of my shirt matter as well? What if I want someone else to believe that I don’t have a plan without his cooperation?

The latter believe that NMRs ruin the game no matter what, and that if anybody ever NMRs, the other players should go on witch hunts to kill them as quickly as possible. These people think NMRs are equivalent to CDs. They also want some form of assurance that the other players are actually entering moves, because that would affect their own. This might seem reasonable at first glance, even though NMRs and CDs are not equivalent.

However, the latter simultaneously argue that they already presume someone has entered moves as long as he’s logged on recently. If you already presume that someone having logged in meant they entered moves, why do you need the grey check mark?

Workarounds are obnoxious, and updating as soon as the phase begins is tedious at best, impossible at worst. What if I’m asleep, bro? If you want to act on a possible NMR, make your own damn decision that I’m going to NMR and deal with the consequences.

Two ways to fix the problem come to mind. First, Geofram and I have suggested time and again that the check mark signifying “orders submitted but not finalised” should be private.

However, another solution would be to change the meaning of the checkmark. Instead, it could signify that someone has logged into the site during the current phase. This would be automated and wouldn’t require that the player click “Update.” This would be a graphic representation of information that was presented on the old site (last seen x minutes ago), and would still make it obvious when someone is about to NMR. This would also protect the privacy of whether or not people were working on a tentative plan, and address all of my concerns regarding this feature.

That said, NMRs are rare in the games that I play, and Xapi himself said that they are they exception—not the norm. As such, why are we threatening other aspects of gameplay (secrecy) for the sake of hurting NMR players? They cannot "ruin" the game, they only add an extra surprise challenge. To a skilled player, they are mildly annoying at worst, and if you can’t deal with the occasional NMR, you might need to become a better judge of character. Judging character is a fundamental part of the game!

"Do you want all the neighbours to massively benefit?"

Do we want to create a system where you have to log in towards the end of phase to make sure everyone is going to move, because not everyone has that kind of time.

"Do you want all the neighbours to massively benefit?"

Actually, the neighbour's don't "massively benefit". Their benefit is in line with the harm done to the player who NMRs. At least this way it is all the neighbours benefiting, not one of them benefiting not only from one player's NMR at the expense of two players.

"Do we want to create a system where everyone scrambles order changes at the last minute, with last minute diplomacy, according to nmrs?"

We could just as well have that already with log in information. You notice a player isn't entering moves before the last minute, and discuss plans for if he doesn't change before the last minute etc. Your exaggerating the effects here, it will be very slight- in most games you will get the grey tick with everyone early, so you don't have to check at the last minute

"Do we want to create a system that is focused on who moves and who doesn't, or actual strategy and diplomacy?"

No, but when there is an NMR, there is an NMR, and no amount of programming will suddenly magic moves out of thin air. There was an article in the Diplomatic pouch about how to prepare for an NMR and get the greatest benefit when it happens. He was proposing changing your play style specifically in the hope that somebody NMRs. Here you change your play style only when you know somebody will. Isn't that a better situation, where normally it isn't focused on who moves and who doesn't?

Personally I think the only person who is focused solely on who moves and who doesn't is you at the moment, because you are thinking about this so much it gains some sort of mystical significance that it doesn't deserve.

did someone already mention that someone can simply hit update, and the check comes in? so it actually shows you nothing about potential NMR

i can login, hit update, and then not make it back before the end of the phase. all my units are holding, and so i NMR, but you don't know it.

so, the argument that this helps with NMRs is only partially true. it will help with some, but not all. and it may not even help at all.

i am enjoying reading different people's perspectives, and i do agree with Ivo that this is not going to be settled soon.

You can hit update, and thus lose the benefit of the feature. If I have to hit update at the start of every turn I might NMR more because I think I have updated my moves when I haven't. Why should I suffer when I just want to protect my privacy.

Xapi, in low level games, nmrs are the norm..

But I think the most important point was made by Dunecat. NMRs and CDs are not the same thing. Reasonable people miss moves sometimes. But CDs are just CDs.

Dunecat, your claim that "The latter [Xapi, TheGhostmaker and Draugnar] believe that NMRs ruin the game no matter what, and that if anybody ever NMRs, the other players should go on witch hunts to kill them as quickly as possible. These people think NMRs are equivalent to CDs. They also want some form of assurance that the other players are actually entering moves, because that would affect their own." is a horrendus straw man.

I don't specifically want to penalise people who NMR. On the countrary, my position has been that I want to reduce the magnitude of negative affects on other players. I don't really care what happens to the NMRer- an unintentional NMR hurts him already, he didn't mean to do it, and his position is irrevocably weaker than had he entered moves- I care about what happens to other players, and I think that this system gives them the best chance to protect themselves from the harmful effects.

You also misunderstand the argument about log in times, you get it backwards. It is not that we can use log in times to know for sure that somebody will enter moves, its that we can use it to know for certain when they will *not* enter moves, and that is the same here (because of the avoidance trick). Therefore, this merely acts as an extension of that element that already exists, and since I didn't see it doing any harm whatsoever before, I have no reason to suppose that it will start doing harm now. NMRs aren't that frequent an occurance, so this certianly won't represent a total upheaval of the way people play on the site.

You don't need to update as soon as the phase starts, only as soon as you log on, to avoid the "strategy" problems. If you can't log on, its no change from seeing that you haven't logged on. Therefore there's no problem if you are asleep.

djbent, it doesn't provide complete information about NMRs, but it does provide more, and so will have some beneficial effect, if not a totally beneficial one.

Centurian, you ask "Why should I suffer when I just want to protect my privacy?" I may equally ask why should you have the right to reduce the benefits of being able to prepare for your NMRing, which is your failing.

The debate separates into two sections, the effect with regard to NMR and the effect with regard to strategy. With the former, I have already made clear why I think that there is a benefit in this and earlier posts. With the latter, I don't think it is that significant a change, nor do I see any reason why that should be considered a change for the worse, for the reason's Ivo_Ivanov described, and nor is it impossible for a player to avoid them if they so wish. But in that instance, what you are doing harms the game in respect to the NMR, and so I wouldn't want people to do it.

Also, the proposed workaround to hit "update" at the beginning of the phase may have the unintended consequence of MORE NMRs.

Now, a conscientious player will not make this mistake, but if one comes to rely on the !! indicator, which signifies that you haven't entered any moves, and hits "update" just to get the grey checkmark out there, even though he hasn't entered anything, he may miss the fact that he hasn't actually entered good moves.

In other words, without the !! indicator, people who aren't paying attention might be more likely to NMR! Since you can't force people to pay attention, the !! indicator is a nice touch--it just screams, "hey, enter your moves! Don't NMR!" Clicking "update" on hold orders gets rid of that !! indicator.

Also, if you want someone to think that you're waiting for their response to develop a plan, you don't necessarily want them to think you have a tentative plan anyway. Clicking "update" on hold orders does not keep the privacy that we had in the old version.

So, in short, the workaround proposed is totally inadequate, and the workaround itself also defeats one of the better new features on the site.

Reasonable people miss moves. Reasonable drivers speed. They all receive a penalty, Centurian, and why shouldn't they? I say this knowing I have NMRed and will continue to do so.

Dunecat your criticism of the workaround is pathetic, I'm afraid. If a player cares so much about a game that they will move it on to a grey check mark for some sort of benefit, they would do well to make sure that they enter moves too. It's akin to trying to smooth out a small scratch in a shattered lens.

@Ghostmaker's "Dunecat your criticism of the workaround is pathetic, I'm afraid."

The gray check mark interferes with my ability to convince someone that I am waiting for his cooperation to develop a plan. There's no shattered lens.

*There's no shattered lens, I'm afraid.

"The gray check mark interferes with my ability to convince someone that I am waiting for his cooperation to develop a plan."

Really? You can't just tell them "I always hit update first", or "I entered a set of moves in case I don't come back."?

And then again, if you need to convince that player, can't you wait until you get the messages to/from him to enter the moves you want to enter?

If the best reason why the grey-check should stay in place is because it helps anticipate and punish NMRs, then there is no argument. If you want to punish NMRs, find a way to do it after they NMR. Take away points, send them a bunch of spam mail, but whatever it is, don't have it affect the gameplay.

Everyone NMRs sometime in their diplomacy career, but your opponents shouldn't be able to see that you will NMR before the turn is over.

Geofram, please, re-read.