For me diplomacy is a game where every participant is well aware of the fact that he will most likely not win. I do not think that we would encourage an interesting playing style if half of the game participants resign after a few years. This breaks the game balance for the remaining players und it deprives the surrendering player of the experience of the twisted nature of non-successful progress. Being able to deal with situations that are not under your control is a precious skill that cannot be learned without the pain of going through a declining situation all the way to its end.

Playing with non-human participants would be different: no one would care if you just leave the game alone as soon as you loose interest. But diplomacy is quite different in this regard.

Thus I would prefer the absence of a "surrender" feature. The other players are not bots - they are humans.

There is never no hope in a position. If you are good at negotiating, you can usually talk your way out of elimination - even if this doesn't work, it's worth trying.

The obvious example of why never to give up is the czech's comeback from 1SC to a solo:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=34872

I have a couple of games on vDiplomacy in which I got into a draw despite being extremely close to elimination (you have to copy the whole url, not just click the link):
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=9722
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=7006

And although survives are not a great outcome, given that I could not affect this game's result whatsoever I think it was a good outcome for me:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=6064#gamePanel

You should always play on even if you think a situation is hopeless - it very often isn't.

Some one plz join the game im in it needs one more person and it will start

Its called any suport in a storm

That was extremely rude. Make your own thread, don't piggyback off someone else's with completely irrelevant information.

Yeah, captainmeme, keep it relevant to the thread.

But honestly, noahtel, keep all game advertisements in the designated thread. There's one for live games and one for non-live games.
"And although survives are not a great outcome, given that I could not affect this game's result whatsoever I think it was a good outcome for me:" I understand the feeling. That's why I put a section on my profile detailing my results in games I was proud of even though someone else soloed.

Anyway, on the topic of surrenders, I am very much against the idea because it promotes
1. more NMR's and CD's, and
2. poor sportsmanship.

If you are joining a game, you should be committed to it no matter what happens. If it may take a long time to win a game even if it's "inevitable", then if the losing parties agree, they can simply help with convoys and open up their SC's to the victor.

Diplomacy is also a game of patience. You don't always want to attack Trieste in 01. If your opponent runs out of patience and starts making rash decisions, that is up to you to take advantage of it. If he wants the win, it must be well earned. If not, take your very fair place in the draw whether you have 17 or 1 SC. You're still on the board and that required just as much effort to remain there.

The option to surrender would be a good addition. Why?

People autosurrender after two (I think) NMRs anyway. By then, they've given up, and would have surrendered. But after a year out of the game, their position is usually awful. Some kindhearted individual might come in to try and save the game for everyone, but they're probably not going to win.

If we had a surrender position, the people who NMR out would just surrender, and it's a lot easier to take over a position where people didn't just disappear in a year.

It would reduce the number of NMRS and CDs. Instead of NMRing, they'd just leave, and someone else can take over. Countries wouldn't stay in CD, because they'd be stronger and more enticing to take over. I probably won't pick up a 1 SC England, but I'll pick up a 3 SC France.

A surrender option would be a good thing.

I think a compromise is to allow a surrender as long as they find a replacement.
The surrenderer would still be on the hook for the points they put in and whomever takes over should get a discount to do it.

I believe the idea is to have someone surrender to end a game, not to have replacements. (Check original post)

And I stand by my comment about commitment. Unless something drastic happens, you should prepare to dedicate a certain amount of time towards a game, and if you need a pause, arrange it. If you need a sitter, arrange that too. I find that promoting an option to opt out of a game and get a replacement is promoting irresponsible behavior. This could potentially be a way to flood webDip with points as well. (Not that we have a way to lower that anyway, without banning players.)

Sorry

One could argue that webdip has already been flooded with point, and even if more points come, they mean so very little , with GR and RR talking hold.

Interesting that the "the Czech" game was a no in messaging game.
I agree with the points that it is against the "nature" of diplomacy. Ie everyone should fight until the end. But then surely, the same could be said about a draw?
I think having a vote to allow someone to win as opposed to allow all to draw would be an interesting addition. In terms of points the "losers" in that situation would gain as much as a draw, ie "survive" and perhaps points per sc. The difference would be that the game would be allowed an overall winner. And people didn't agree, they don't have to vote - much like a draw


With regards to people taking over- it is a fact that people give up and ruin the game by CD. So why not allow an option to swap someone in? And that player could be protected by not losing points or something. And it isn't always the players fault. Games can long longer than expected and something may come up that they can't physically play.

@mrkyle7
The Czech game is a good example up until Germany and Russia NMR.

My point is that the original post is about surrendering in the way that it would end a game.
i.e. England has 13 SC, poised to take the next 5 needed because he crossed the stalemate line. However, it is going to take a few extra years because his home SC's are so far away. The other players vote to surrender, declaring England the winner.

That is different from: someone decides to opt out of a game after 1 NMR and another player takes his place, continuing the game.

I have less quarrels about the second than I do the first.

The issue I have with the first option (surrendering and declaring a certain player(s) the victors in the form of a win or draw) is that you would need to clearly set the agreement terms. This is especially difficult in PPSC: who gets what number of points? If the declared victor gets 18 SC for being voted winner, who loses the points that will become his? What if the victor will most likely gain more than 18 SC's? (Or more than half of whatever board you are playing on). This gets extremely messy and it will be hard to agree on. With the mindset to draw or surrender already, this decreases quality of play while negotiating terms.

This is as I have already said, poor sportsmanship to just give up, and poor game quality. The point of the game is to win by gaining half or more of the SC's on the board. A draw is often forced because of a stalemate, but as per the creator of the game, all players left on the board share equally in the draw. (I am taking this from something I saw in another thread arguing PPSC vs WTA, so don't shoot me if I am wrong saying this). If someone deserves the win, then make him go get it. Wins should be earned, not given.

@ssorenn,
I do like the idea of having people substitute immediately in a game. My idea is this: having a pending CD section. If someone NMR's and does not have moves set for the next phase, outsiders can put in a move set for the next phase (similar to a "save". If the original player does not put in moves and CD's, the player who "saved" moves will join and take that player's spot, with his moves taking place instead of a second NMR.

And I agree that points are kind of meaningless with GR and RR more prominent in determining a player's skill. But it still bothers me to have a vote option to pick a winner.
I don't see why anyone would vote to have a winner (except the winner) if they are in a position to draw and still gain the same number of points (as mrkyle7 suggested).

My points weren't really about the OP. And agree with CC that the game should be played out. Mine were more about lowering the CD rate and thus making more games balanced.

I suppose that depends how a Surrender option is implemented. Consider this:

1) Player flags their involvement in a game as "Surrender" or "Resign" maybe like a vote.
2) When a game is thus flagged, the site gives other players an option to take the game over just like a civil disorder. This may speed up the process of finding a replacement. Someone who doesn't have the time or wherewithal to fight to the end can bail out of a game with the appropriate penalty to their reliability rating.
3) If the game is taken over by another player, the player who Surrendered has their Surrender (Resign?) count incremented and the game proceeds as normal.

I think the main problem with the current CD model is that the player is further weakened by no moves before someone can take over. This means that players are less likely to join. As per Jeff's comments, flagging a CD will speed this up.
@cc, but if the "declare winner" vote is indeed a vote, theñ it is democratically decided. If you play a game and don't agree they should be handed a win, then don't vote! I assume this was a similar argument in favour of the "draw" vote. Much like someone being forced to take the win, shouldn't people be forced to take the survive? Both are handing over a win of sorts. I've seen plenty if games where people have survived with 1sc.

Both draw and surrender still comply with the original intentions of the game, ie diplomacy over war strategy. Ie if you can convince the whole board to hand you the win (or draw) then you have won "the game".

>>I don't see why anyone would vote to have a winner (except the winner) if they are in a position to draw and still gain the same number of points (as mrkyle7 suggested).

This can depend on the point system. If the points are appointed where each player gains the points as per the rules of drawing and the only difference therefore is that the player who wins has a +1 win and the rest only +1 survive.

In this scenario, the person "winning" may be asked to draw by the other players. He can then decide to decline the draw in pursuit of more SCS. The other players can then offer the win instead, in attempt to maximise more SCS for themselves. The winning player can then decide whether to pursue a win by SCS and therefore gain more points, or accept a win with fewer SCS (and points) but which is guaranteed. If you, cc, were playing this game, you would be disgusted by the others bailing out and try to persuade them to join forces instead.
Its then interesting that you feel that allowing people more diplomatic powers goes against a game called diplomacy.

Of course, this should still be an option on starting the game. Like no messaging (which surely completely goes against the spirit of the original game but that's a topic for another thread!)

And to clarify, i think there should be two options (in light of the discussions):
1. Vote winner to <nation>
2. Surrender (for quicker CDs)

2. Is of course anti the game, but unfortunately as it happens anyway, it is fairer for the other players than a CD by delay.

@mrkyle7
I'd first like to distinguish between the two surrendering methods. Option 1 was "surrendering" to end a game. Option two is what I like to call "Opt Out", which is similar to CD but earlier. For reducing CD's, that is why I proposed the idea for outsiders to watch games and enter moves in case the player does CD. (Players who wish to opt out can flag their games, as Jeff suggested). In that case, instead of a second NMR, the new player takes that spot and his moves occur as if he were always there.

No one should be forced to take a survive. A survive is not much more than a defeat, and even then some consider it shameful to have allowed someone to win when they are still on the board.
A win is the prize, and you must earn it. A vote to have a winner is democratic, but I'm suggesting that we not be given that option at all. If the supposed victor should be forced to take the win, (which I think he should be), then he should not have an alternate path to victory, whether it is in his hands or not. The win should be obtained in one way only, and that is gaining half of the SC's. If it is so obvious that he is deserving of the win, then players can just give him that win, or he can get it himself.

Voting to surrender is not a diplomatic power. This does nothing to unite people any more than regular press between players. If anyone even puts up a vote to select a winner besides themselves, then they are already giving up, which is not the purpose of the game whatsoever.
As I said before, voting to surrender and pick a winner is simply illogical. If you expect to lose, then why put the final nail in your own coffin? That is plainly stupid to me. Either draw (which seems to be the most beneficial to you) or keep fighting to see if a power shift occurs (the very worst that can happen is that you lose, just like if you voted to surrender. As stated before, points mean little.) With nothing to gain by voting surrender, why would anyone ever do it?

mrkyle7: Give up on 2. already. You've gotten off lightly. Most people who suggest that get eaten alive on the Forum.

Survive is a defeat, nothing more. In the two situations given, I believe that a player should be allowed to get out of the game, if he arranges a replacement. It's not exactly the best of things, but a lot better than just disappearing. As for endgame "I'm going to lose anyway", can't say I see the point.

@jece, #2 is what most people are agreeing to. Or at least a way of taking over a CD quicker than is possible now.

@phil_a_s - I assume you also think a draw is a defeat for everyone then?

@cardcollector - "With nothing to gain by voting surrender, why would anyone ever do it?" I was thinking that the vote is for "winner", and you gain the same as a draw. So, the same reason you would vote for a draw. Voting "winner" gives you more chance of it being accepted and therefore saving yourself from outright defeat.
Although, more I think about it- you're right in that this just gives the dominant power more power. Atm the dominant power has 2 choices: 1. Fight for win 2. Accept a draw
This was to give another option of 3. Win but accept less SCs and also others to gain SCs too. But thinking it through more- the third option could just make it a cheap win by threatening smaller nations they'll be wiped out. So I guess, what do you want the game to be? A win by political persuasion, or a win through war strategy.
Also "If it is so obvious that he is deserving of the win, then players can just give him that win"- that's exactly the point of that vote. Ie saving time.

Saving time is a sad excuse to vote for a winner, and a win that has no respect from me.
Victors will not vote for themselves to win if they can win it outright. They'd also get more points. They'll vote for themselves if they think they can't get the solo, at which point others should realize that they can stop it.

Losers should not vote for a winner because they are accepting a defeat either way. A defeat is a defeat, a survive is a defeat and a resign is downright disrespectful. Voting for a winner is sacrificing whatever dignity you have left for yourself and whatever respect you have for the original design of the game. If I am going to be defeated, I'd rather be wiped out completely or die trying to stop the solo rather than vote for a winner. A draw vote is the vote I'd pick because I'd have more to gain. Voting for a winner will never have any greater a "chance" at ending the game. You will always be in the majority voting for a draw with fellow losers versus the one "winner".

The vote for a winner is simply more power to the winner, and in your words which I fully agree with, "a cheap win". We don't need it, and I certainly don't want it.

I originally saw it as a way of allowing the game to finish early when there is a clear winner, as I don't think a draw is fair to the person who clearly dominated. But to your point, they should be patient enough to win it outright.

That said, the CD situation needs improving. There *are* people who CD, and atm this spoils the game through at least 2 inactive moves. It would be nice if these people continued as they should, but until everyone does, I think we need a way of allowing them to be replaced earlier.

That is why I think that flagging players after one NMR is a good idea. If potential replacements see these games and wish to "save" a set of moves that will take place if the player NMR's a second time to go into CD, then that replacement can replace the one who CD'd. This would go hand in hand with the "flagging" suggested by Jeff and work with the current CD replacement method where bets are halved to replace CD'd players.

Agreed.

And I think there should be an option for players to enable this mode even before the first nmr
Like a "I may NMR next round". In which case the same rules apply where the moves are only saved and can be overwritten by the real player if he doesn't NMR.
Eg, " I'm going abroad where I may not have internet, so I'll allow someone to take over if I don't get to submit a move in time"