For the no-draw-til-stalemate-line bit: I personally like this idea a lot, but it's impossible to implement. The stalemate line needs to be diplomatic and tactical in nature, which can only come about by 1vx stalemates (where x is the total of other players playing, of course).

That is, take the problematic 2v2 situation Alderian described. If one of the four powers remaining cannot stab its ally without being destroyed by the other three, and this situation applies for all four players, then the game has reached a diplomatic stalemate line. Defeat is inevitable if any of the alliances are broken; the two players are effectively playing as one. It is basically like a 1v1 stalemate, so you would think in theory that the idea could be implemented.

In practice, though, there is no way for anyone in some 2v2 scenarios to know with certainty what will happen if they stab. Every player can say in an EoG "Well, if x did y, I would have done z to throw the game to a and b," sure, but in the middle of the game we can only assume and extrapolate from assumptions. This is too subjective an area for someone to lay down a hard-and-fast objective rule (which is why the players decide when to draw, and mods only force a draw when there is objectively no progress to be made -- and even THEN there is enough room for subjectivity that forced draws are very rarely seen).

So while the no-draw-til-stalemate-line idea is sound, and something I follow (unless I'm on the losing end, in which case I'm trying to be devious and use smoke and mirrors to delay the inevitable :P) to the best of my ability... for something as objectively measured as a competitive, points-based league system, it simply cannot work.

@gjdip, that's why I want a true WTA mode, where if you draw, everyone, even the eliminated, get their points back. Only soloing gets anything. I'm not saying replace the current WTA with my version, but it would be a nice option, IMHO.

The Masters' are supposed to encourage winning by making it the only thing that counts towards winning the tourney. But I didn't find it played out much different from normal WTA games, everyone happy for a draw. But then I was also a part of that, before having my personal revelation that I've been too happy with draws and not trying hard enough to put myself in a position where a solo could happen.

You could make an anon league similar to the current league except the only way to move up is to get a win. No season, just start a game each month with the current group unless someone has won or someone is being replaced with a winner from below. But winning is so rare that it would be pretty stagnant. Unless you made each level 14 players and random assignment to the two games per level per month.

Well, perhaps it doesn't have to be a draw forced by stalemate lines.

The problem is the draws and the points that are given for a draw (12/n). If we abolish that and only award points to the player with the most SCs at the end of the game we will see a change in behaviour.

The situation we have now in the leagues is very similar to what led footballing authorities to decide to play the last two matches in the first round of major tournaments (World Cup, European Cup etc) simultaneously.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany_v_Austria_(1982) for those interested.)

By the way, the thought I had with regard to the premier versus other leagues, is that you are playing for first place only. With A, B, and below, you don't need first place to advance. Heck, due to higher level players dropping out from season to season, you don't even need to do more than middle of the pack to progress often. I've happily taken second or third place knowing I'd advance. (Although I won B1 this time around.)

But in the premier league, what else is there but the top spot? I imagine that makes things a bit rougher than any of the other levels.

Close, but still no cigar. You'll have three players arranging to end with 10 centers each with a fourth unlucky player at 4 centers. Or 14-14-4-2 or so on.

And if you make it so you only get points for winning, but still have seasons, then you'll have people trading wins even if they shouldn't. So what do you think of my suggestion at the end above?

I think it's a good suggestion. Again, the idea is to have fun and all the leagues and tournaments are meant to augment that. I don't see a problem with running as many of those as we like as long as we have enough people to take care of the admin stuff.

It may all end up like boxing with its WBF, IBF, WBA associations and Don TheGhostmaKing having funny hair.

It would be possible to set up a series of Leagues for those who have left the Leagues - there are enough out there. I wonder if the WBF, IBF, WBA approach would work so that a League could exist that had different rules from those already in place?

Imagine a world in which the extent of permissible meta-gaming was clearly defined and enforced; no points whatsoever awarded for draws; all games anonymous; (no GR points accrued... just for me); seven games each season, getting each country once and once only; WTA, of course.

Oh, and a tie-break scoring system that awarded points on the basis of how quickly (number of moves) the game was played. These points only acting if the number of wins is insufficient to determine promotion/relegation issues, SC counts being irrelevant. This last condition being there to torpedo any attempt to draw one's way to a League victory where SCs become proxy points. It is much, much harder to control speed while deliberately trying to fix up a multi-player draw.

Ah, wasn't that the original dream? Seven players committed to WTA and trying to win, seven players getting each country once.

Yes, that was it. Care to set that one up? I'd play in a flash.

Pfth! Bitter old man . . .

:-)

Since I was part of the premier league and my manner of play has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, I think I am entitled to add a few personal thoughts here (albeit a bit late)

Firstly, I agree with Babak that my winning of the league is mainly because of luck. I am a beneficiary of two very good players playing lose-lose.

I never expected things to get so personal. In real life, I played a lot of stressful office diplomacy. I tried to seek some emotional asylum here to play stabbing / negotiation in a risk-free environment. It looks like the atmosphere can be as tense as real life here – I would not call it a “game” in such case. Nonetheless, I must thank all six opponents (incl. Babak and Ivo) for the four good games.

To Ivo: I would like to apologize – not for stabbing you or breaking my promise of a 2-way draw in Game 4. The apology is because of giving you some crappy excuses for my decision to go for a solo. I just tried to avoid confrontation. From your reaction in our private conversation and in this forum, I realized these might have been an insult to your intelligence. I owe you the true explanation – I freaked out when you took Kiel by surprise. You are a much better player than I, and the only condition for me to be comfortable to stick to a 2-way draw was that I must be completely in control, and pass on centres to you at my pace. In the end game, you penetrated into my home territories, and I was not in a position to give you any centres, and you could outplay me (as you did in the last year) and grab more centres than I was ready to give (nobody knows whether Babak will help you to solo once he realized I am not swallowing the solo which he shoveled down my throat).

You may be right in saying that I acted like a four-year old kid in a candy store, greedy for a solo. But the kid-candy analogy also applies to you. Remember how our mom would give us candies if we behave? All is well until you put your hand into the candy jar without permission, the deal is off. You were just like the unruly boy (well, I am that control-freak mom, but the fact was that I was in control, and I could afford to be one). Your tactic is partly to blame.

LB, I'm sorry, but this is replacing one bullshit with another:

1. I gave you a plan that gave you all the control. You simply refused and told me you're going for a solo. What jars are you talking about.... you do realize there's a record of written communication we can always check???
2. Babak would have been dead anyway at the end of the turn (unless you decide to keep him alive), so this would have been the first time in history when someone already eliminated would help someone else solo... no comment
3. I moved to Kiel AFTER you refused to agree to anything. You had a chance to get to 18 centers this turn, of course I'll make a move - what would you have done - sit and wait? :). I don't know if you're aware of the fact that the game finishes once someone gets to 18... I did not know I have to wait more.

Yes, I do consider this somewhat insulting to my intelligence, or at minimum a total waste of time and energy ... so I'd suggest we drop this discussion altogether. No need for anyone to apologize for anything. Everyone played as good as they could and everyone can draw their own conclusions.

I wish Edi was here...
In his articles on playing in face-to-face dip tourneys, he makes a point to say that people WILL look at points and make decisions on future games based on those points (eliminate the person with the highest points, etc...). So what has happened... can legally happen in F2F games...

So... how are you going to handle the adversity?

Again, remember.... just a game.

We have something not available in FtF - the option of anonymous games.

I would expect these will become more popular and will change the way the game is played around here. For the better. Each game for it's own.

Re: "Again, remember.... just a game. "
Well, actually, that's exactly my point with games. I play soccer regularly, usually with friends. Sometimes some other guys join, and some of them don't know the limits. I am not there to worry for my ankles - it's a responsibility for everyone to worry for everyone's health, we're not each man for his own. I don't want to argue "did it really cross the line" every time the ball goes out of play, but most of all, I don't like the fact that the only thing that works is responding in kind...

Anyway, the point of this story is, well, if it's just a game then how about we do it right then... It's nor real life, it's just a game, how we do it should be more important than the results, right?

Heh... funny you should mention soccer...
I'm a ref for both (american) football (highschool and NCAA Div III level), and lacrosse (highschool level). So I usually have to make judgment calls on a lot of that. Perhaps it is time to establish something beyond moderators for the forums and have 'diplomacy officials' to rule on arguments?

Guys stop acting like a bunch of sissies. You all knew the rules before you joined the leagues and you decided to play by them. The goal is to score the best results in 4 games i.e. those games are not separate. And you blame the rules for being hurt? Haha

There are many high quality anon games around, go and play if that is what you want.

Its possible that non-anon 7-player leagues are just not a particularly good diplomacy format, particularly at high stakes, but they have been popular, for sure.

Anyway, gjdip now runs the leagues, and although it would be nice for him to consult me before changing how he does it, it is really his prerogative (since he is putting the work in, after all).

I wouldn't think changes to drawing conditions etc. would be a good change. If anything, making the leagues 14 players would be best to deal with the problems (don't make them non-anon, that changes the fundamental way they work to be too similar to other tournaments we have, I submit)

After my sometimes-unpleasant experience in the D2 league, I'm still in favor of keeping the leagues the way they are. I like the challenge and the experience of playing them with all the complications that come with the format. If you think it's too much of a headache, then you can (should?)

hmmm... so much discussion so many people to respond to.

at some point, I will get to it I hope.