too bad "everyone else" is figle's other account.

djbent, the quote is true but it only concerns your abilities in the France vs Austria variant :P

i never heard of the 1v1 map but that sounds interesting, i have a feeling it would have alot of stalemates.....also i must have picked up on this game quick or something because i have mostly wins and draws, the defeats and survives are mostly from when i was first starting and the resign is explained in my profile. im not sure if i just get lucky, im actually good at this game, or if im just a very convincing player with my messages.

then again i will be getting another defeat soon because im going to be demolished by usa in one of my world games. (i never want to play world games again they last forever)

one on one is an interesting variant but kind of lame too. You get bored of it after 10 times.

if they ever put it on this site (even if its only for a limited time) then i would have to try it out.....that just game me a great idea, abge said that theres tonz of variants on vdip that they try out...i think we should take the better ones from vdip and put them on this site for a limited time just to see how many people play them (like put them on for a month or something then if nobody likes it they can take it back off). it would require alot more work for kestas but if theres time i think that would be pretty cool. or just bring a variant from vdip over to this for special tournaments or something like that. what do you think?

that has already happened.
that's how the world map variant and south Europe ancient map got here.

thats cool, i didnt know that because i just started playing about half way through december, do you think they would do that again? (btw i love the ancient map its where i play most of my games)

I hate ALL fucking variants.

What about regular variants?

for once, i must agree with hellalt. though i do like some regular variants, as abgemacht points out. public press can be fun. i'm no good at tactics (see above) so naturally i think gunboat is shite.

Wow, what an ugly thread. I just checked again after taking a break- I got spanked in this game so hard I needed to get away for a bit. I was hoping to come back for some fun, but this atmosphere is just poisonous.
I'm not going to argue to anyone that people should relax because this is "just a game," since I get as emotionally invested as anyone in the outcomes. I've even flipped out at some people for being stupid, being liars, being trolls, etc.
But what I am going to do is point out that most of the fighting going on in this thread is between the top players on this site. So it's truly ridiculous to lob the insult around that any of you are "bad" or even "mediocre." Perhaps the reason why you all have such heartfelt differences is because you've all risen through the ranks with very particular styles that happen to conflict, and it is your attachment to your Diplo philosophy- rather than personal animosity- that is making everyone so passionate.
Even being a total dick (and I refer to no one) can be part of that fundamental approach. Maybe someone trades tact for brevity. Maybe someone is trying to stir up controversy for a diplomatic/tactical reason. Or, maybe like me, you just flat out tend to lack diplomatic subtlety and grace- I try to make up for it by being good with my move-strategy.
The point is, most everyone arguing here is the cream of the crop, and I gently suggest that this implies a slight responsibility to lead by example and try to be courteous and good sports. And, people enjoy watching the top dogs play. It sucks when it devolves into acrimony that eclipses the game (cf. The first Suicidal Tendencies game).
Regardless of my feelings about MM (for example), I like playing with him because he's always been a gentleman in the games I've played. It really improved my experience of the site to play with people who were willing to take that extra effort to make the game FUN. Even for the losers.
If we want to keep attracting people here and keep them here to stay, shouldn't we try to treat them, and each other, well?
Can't we all just get along?

Alright, enough speechifying from me. I guess I'm just a little sensitive right now after spending so much time getting insulted over on Battlenet. (If you really want to meet a bunch of assholes, buy Starcraft and check that out. Sheesh).

Wow, DaveH just said everything that needed to be said. Thanks Dave.

Damn, I make it a whole week not checking this site, since I'm taking a break and trying to break my addiction, and all this breaks out?!

I really like what DaveH has to say, but maybe largely because he said he likes playing me and I read what he said last...

Ava, we can talk, but I'm not on much these days...

+1dave

I just read through this thread again. I must admit, ava's intensity about his opinion of my abilities is a bit disturbing to say the least, I feel a bit violated honestly, but the actual point of this thread is interesting nonetheless, so that's where I'll focus my comments.

Personally, I think the ranking system is just fine. What Ivo appears to be frustrated with is the difference in priorities/opinions people have on this site. No ranking system can prioritize things accurately for every one of the thousands of players on this site, it's impossible. A ranking system has to be relatively generic, and as long as people understand its accuracy at ranking is a mere estimate, then there isn't really a problem.

As far as differences in opinions on how to play, that debate will never end. Personally, I've always enjoyed games with Dunecat and have found him to be an admirable opponent. That said, I prioritize preventing a solo just a whisker behind getting a solo, and after how Dunecat played this game I'm left wondering if I'll ever willingly join a game with him again, since our views on how to play diplomacy are so very much at odds on this single point (regardless of how many other points we have similar views on). It's nothing personal, Dunecat is free to take a one-in-a-million shot (I'm being generous here, by the way!) at a two-way draw over a guaranteed three-way draw any day of the week, but I'm just as free to avoid playing a game with someone that thinks that way if I want. Different strokes for different folks.

As far as how specific people are ranked, and comments made by ava and hellalt, I have a few things to point out. One comment is that people that are considered to be relatively "good" at online diplomacy are not "good" every second of every game, not every bit of press they utter is profound and not every guess they make about what orders to submit in a given season is spot on perfect. That is absurd. Hell, the New England Patriots lost to the Cleveland Browns this year, right? Everyone has those moments, some more than others, but I think what makes a player a quality player is an ability to excel in spite of personal shortcomings. Speaking on my own behalf, for the first 2+ years on this site, I never EVER thought of myself as all that good of a player. I tend to hyperfocus on my shortcomings and downplay my talents. But, in spite of being more interested in how I play the game rather than if I win or lose, at some point results speak for themselves, especially over an extended period of time, and since October 2009 I have won 8 games, drawn 29, survived zero and was defeated 4 times, which means I have won or drawn over 90% of my games the last 16+ months on this site, so regardless of what I personally think of my abilities I must admit that I am above average based on my results.

I must run, but one last comment, for me specifically, is that I tend to be very reactionary. If I view someone to be an ass (regardless of if they are being one or not), I find it difficult to avoid being an ass in return. My interactions with people vary greatly and it's not only based on how they interact with me, it's based on the game board and how all six players are interacting with me. I'm sure in any one or two games I can easily come off as quite the ass, as appears to be the case with ava, but I like to think of that as the exception rather than the rule. So, regardless of any one's opinion of the quality of play of any one other player, it is all subjective and a bit of a useless conversation (as someone else pointed out earlier).

Must run, will discuss more if others are interested...

Ava never did explain his thinking on this one. He said he was going to...
Helalt provided a few examples, poorly timed stabs, tactical errors, communication issues (not just about MM, but other top players) - but this was a weak argument too. Firstly even the best of the best make mistakes sometimes. What matters is consistency and I think players long term record is the best evidence of that. So while a great player will occasionally make a mistake, a mediocre player will make a lot more mistakes. Secondly often a bad play is bad play in retrospect. How successful a move is is conditional on other players moves. Diplomacy is often a guessing game. What might seem like a crazy move becomes a great move if a rival power was expecting more rational play - or it can just be a crazy "what were you thinking move" - it all depends.
It is all very well to claim that you are better than the best - but words mean nothing. Prove it by your results.

regardless, my question is what's the point? who cares? just play and have fun. if you think you're better than someone, play them and try to beat them. it just seems like a ego-massaging exercise to go around saying other players aren't any good or that you're better than them.

on the other hand, i'll be the first to admit i'm a pretty terrible player who mainly gets by on luck on trying to be likable, which doesn't always work!

Well actually if Ava really had been able to back up his claim with some useful insight - that would be interesting reading. I like reading strategy articles about diplomacy. So if someone can write a ten step guide to on how to knock the best off their perch - I'll read it.
djbent false modesty. The fact is you are a great player. Your stats speak for themselves. Whatever you do keep doing it because it works. Sometimes I wish I was privy to the communications of the best players - I could learn a lot.

"after how Dunecat played this game I'm left wondering if I'll ever willingly join a game with him again, since our views on how to play diplomacy are so very much at odds on this single point" -- Marx

I would never make the same choice again, Marx. I'd really miss playing with you! Keep in mind that you and I really wanted to make something happen in the beginning of Suicidal Tendencies and it was England and Germany that screwed that up!

So, Dunecat, why did you make the choice in this game, it is unfathomable to me?! I'd miss playing you too, as I said, I've always had a ton of fun in games you are in, but seriously, to have a stalemate line in place and hand over a solo, have a little pride, man, that kind of play is totally unacceptable (even by a noob, but a noob would at least have a good excuse)! :-)

I was naive to believe Babak.

So, Ms. Bent, you ask "what's the point? who cares?"

To me, the point is the topic of this thread, rating systems. Rating systems have been discussed ad noseum on the forum, and I think there is a consensus that most people like rankings regardless of if you take them seriously or immediately dismiss them, it still can be a fun thing to chat about and, as I think Ghost says is another point, ranking systems encourage good/better play. Sure, you have your flashmans of the world that quit the site because people care too much about rankings, but that merely reinforces the fact that many people care about some sort of system to attempt to give a generic sense of how well you are playing and if you are getting any better. Any other thoughts along this line?

I can attest to MadMarx being rather reactionary in his press. In our game together, he was civil to me throughout, except for one year when we were clashing a bit over mos/stp/lvn, and I was a bit more abrupt than usual with him (and didn't order the moves that he wanted me to around Germany . . . ). The press I got from him that turn may as well have been from a completely different player.

Dune, if I'm reading you correctly, your primary motivation was vengeance- to the point where it overruled strategic logic? If so, I think it's valid (technically, anything you do is valid, but even in high-level play). It's a frustrating thing to see when that results in a push on you, but it's your own fault if you provoke that much rage. I'm more sympathetic to the third party who sees their hopes for a stalemate fall apart based on nothing they could control. That would drive me nuts.

Mad Marx -- i didn't mean what's the point of ranking systems, as i agree with TGM on that. but i meant what's the point of talking in a forum saying who you think sucks and who you think is mediocre and how good you are. just seems pointless to me. don't get me wrong, i care a lot about rankings, perhaps more than i should. but i don't sit around saying "you think you're all that but you really are a terrible player" or "you think you're so good?lucky you weren't in a game with me." those are the kinds of conversations that seem pointless to me.

Thanks for the clarification, Ms. Bent, though I must disagree with all discussion of a player's skill being pointless, especially when you say you are not very good and I can think of no other six lowercase letters I fear more on this site, you clearly need to take a step back and look at your results, perhaps pretend they are another player's results and tell yourself how you'd describe that person's ability to their face.

guys we need to do an EOG for this game I think... but maybe we should create a new thread? anyone ready to start us off?

as for this naval-gazing conversation - people will always have different opinions and metrics... and that is why its great we have a much more objective metric in the Ghost-rating system.

one point I do want to make, relevant to this discussion - despite what people might say about this game and my solo in it - I do believe that in the end - it WAS my diplomacy that made it possible. not just over the last few turns, but over the ENTIRE game... I spoke (as I always do) with EVERY player all game long and try to keep a great relationship - and in marginal cases, like this game, that commitment to conversation (same as MM by the way) ends up giving me the edge I need to pull through something like this...

I'll go into it in my EOG. but go take a look at how badly this game started for me... and how my stab of both Russia and then Austria and finally France were all executed... if some haters dont like it, tough ;)

I wont be falsely humble, - I know I'm a pretty good player -but I also know I'm not the best. where I excel in diplomacy and tactics, I often falter in strategy... there are a few games I'm in now that I'm embarrassed with and would much rather they never finish so I dont have to show my name... but there are many more where I'm proud of my play... I certainly dont have the sterling record of MM - but I think i've done pretty well for myself here :) and yes, I am proud of that.

Babak, I honestly give you 0% credit for this solo. If I am to explain the game of diplomacy to someone who has never played the game before, I would certainly very clearly explain that when someone is very close to a solo, such as Turkey in this game, that the Turk will lie to no end to get the solo and a Turk in this situation cannot be trusted for anything, the Turk must be ignored completely and the board must do all the talking for the Turk. This is honestly one of the most basic concepts in a game of diplomacy, something a noob will understand relatively instantly, even before writing down a single order. France admits to being naive and that is an understatement of epic proportions, and the reason I question whether I'd ever play someone with that poor of basic judgement in a future game. Yeah, real life gets in the way, we get busy, we get upset with others in a game, etc., etc., but if a player can't discern such a basic concept within a game that has 48 hour phases, I don't care how skilled that same player can be at other aspects of the game, I'm left fearing that at any point in a game that person they will do something relatively equally as inept and give someone else a solo (though my views are likely a bit biased based on how very much I hate the idea of anyone else getting a solo in a game I am in, that I view giving up a solo just slightly below soloing myself, as far as priorities in a game). Sure, I could view it as that same player may do something crazy to hand me a solo on a silver platter, but that type of solo isn't worth much. So, again, I credit France 100% for allowing a solo to take place, it was a complete and total lack of judgement on France's part, regardless of how much Turkey encouraged poor play by France, France should not have fallen for such empty words given the situation, not ever. Period.

That said, there are few solos that I think are earned, including most (if not all) of my own solos. I read somewhere that every quality game of diplomacy should end in a draw, and while I may not quite be to that extreme of an opinion on the matter, it certainly isn't very far off.