That's because you're a pretentious idiot.

You, sir, are the idiot, as every action of yours that I am aware of has shown.

in a way points can show at a simple level who is the most dangerous player your playing with so in a way yes it is a valid stratergy a simple one but a valid one

Otto,
Are you suggesting it's inappropriate for people to ally against the player they perceive as the biggest threat?

I think it makes sense to think about your dangers, but would strongly warn players against doing this based on points. Whilst they might be a good indicator in the long term, they can be very biased. Few people take time to check a players finished and open games, and so someone with lots of expensive games open seems poorer. However, someone like me who hasn't played in months and now has just one cheap game will seem like a big threat.
Thus I think that whilst it is a valid strategy, it is a very poor one and will not do you well in the long term

Im saying that to make that decision arbitrarily is inappropriate. Instead you should treat everyone equal, until they act within the context of any particular game to make them unequal. I want to see some posts of people will many points

I have used the point system to determine both my enemy and ally. Recently I played a game that I thought it was better to eliminate the higher point player because I felt that I had a better chance against the rest of the field if he was eliminated. In another game, I teamed with the higher player because I thought he would be a better ally against the field. Goes both ways. Whether accurate or not...I assume that the higher point player is the greater threat...either to me or the field.

But I made those decisions very early on based on the point system.

My personal take on it is that it depends on who it is. Sometimes a higher point player will be better in an alliance because he's better at keeping himself alive and upholds treaties until it distinctly favors him to break them.

i think its a valid strategy if calculated properly. a player's point pool roughly equates to experience. Experience is a decent indicator of skill. Skill, is a decent indicator of a player's probability of winning. So, a player's points are an indicator of their likelihood of winning. Since only one player can win (assuming draws are not wins), a player with a lower win-chance can increase his/her chance of winning by ensuring the elimination of players with higher win-chances. So, if you want to win, eliminating the guy/gal with the highest point total seems like a pretty decent idea.

however, note that each indicator is not in exact correspondence with the attribute of which it is an indicator. because correlations multiply and the point shown are not the point pool, the actual correspondence between points shown and win chance is not as great as one would initially suppose.

also, points are not accumulated only through winning. They are accumulated through draws and survivals as well. So, the assumption that high points means high win rate, is actually quite faulty. Points only indicate that a player is good at not losing.

Therefore, because the calculations are based on an 'incomplete' number and the correspondences are not perfect, the strategy, though valid, has a lower success rate in this environment than would be initially expected.

A better strategy is to look at a player's loss rate. The higher the loss rate, the less inclined you should be to ally with that player in the short term and the more inclined you should be to want that player around in the long run. It may seem somewhat contradictory, but makes sense if you want someone you can easily beat in the late game. In practice, this would mean you have a N.A.P. or something similar with a weak player, taking as many of their expansion centers as you can without eliminating them. Simultaneously, you leave them (the weak players) to fight and distract the other better players that you are friendly with but don't directly help while you gain a positional advantage so you can eliminate them. Once the strong players are made insignificant, you eliminate the weak players for the win. (another way to look at it is like vassalage: force weak players to join you to fight the strong players, then then take out the the weak when the strong can't fight back.)


wow... that sounds really mean when i think about it. Good strategy though.

how do my posts always end up being so long? i really dont know...

Points are also used up when joining a game, so a player with a ton of games running simultaneously might seem weak if you don't bother to check. Still, I agree that it doesn't "abuse the principles of diplomacy."

Go ahead, but points have less bearing on their actual threat level than you probably think. It's more often circumstance that decides the threat level than how many points they have.

However, points are helpful in judging experience so that moves can be predicted better.

As a general trend, new players tend to always go for Supply Centers, even if their move would sacrifice one SC for another. This is especially true in the Autumn phase. More experienced players will try trickier manoeuvres that pay off in tactical position for the following year, rather than a simple build. This is often taken into account when attempting to predict what my opponent will try to do, tactically speaking.

I always try to eliminate MarekP as soon as possible. Looking at his points, he must be very dangerous.

You're not doing a very good job of it so far... he's still winning!

Oh no, I WAS very successful a couple of times.

looking at the Meta-game (and this is meta gaming, but the only way to stop it is to make points private)

it would encourage players with higher ppoint to only player in games with their peers, (even if they were low pot games) because in those games there are no longer bigger or lesser treats.

Them playing in high stakes games would of course allow them to lose points and again play against the general low point member without bias.

i of course would relish the opportunity to play in higher point games as i have found the quality of the higher point players to make for better games(even if playing agianst them decreases my chances of winning, i'd rather lose a great game than solo a boring game, but i guess the fact that at least one of 6 opponents is likely to be half-way decent makes most games a little better than boring...)

I recall I simpler time before points when we all played in harmony and in peace.

and about 40 games each... CD'ing in any game where we weren't up four builds within the first two years.

I think it's valid to use someone points tally as a means to get someone to ally with you - the scare factor is just another tool in the armoury.

But I do not use it myself as a factor in determining who I ally with - in fact I'd suggest that the exact opposite of what you are suggesting can sometime be true.... I am sometimes very wary of allying with a complete newbie who may have a higher propsensity to not send much press, misorder, going into CD or generally make mistakes which can also cost you dearly. So i think it's very much a double-edged sword.

How very true, have had some recent disasters with plans involving new players.

No it's perfectly fine, and you can't question my credibility because I'm often the highest-point player in a game. In my current one I was the only one above 150 and the next highest guy that wasn't a complete noob I targeted first. You can call it bad diplomacy but it's prudent and wins games, which last time I checked is the correct way to play this game.

Its a perfectly good strategy. It is also a perfectly good strategy to ally with the high-point player and backstab everyone else who is heading the wrong direction and an even better strategy to organize the alliance against the high-point player yourself before backstabbing everyone.

There is a fine line between predator and prey - predictability can make all the difference.

alexander the great's nation was small at first but it got bigger because it attacked big nations that were weak, If a nation is not strong it good game for someone else you wants it

Guys, I have to disagree with almost everything said above :)
1. The best strategy is to start any game open-minded and adjust to the situation as needed. Any pre-defined strategy is wrong at conception as it limits ones options.
2. Better players (how you measure that is a separate problem) are better at defending - so it will take more time to kill them - plus, they will react better and are more creative in breaking up/forging alliances.
3. The Alexander the Great example (above) is entirely wrong - Alexander (and his father Phillip) first conquered and secured most of ancient Greece - only then did he move on to Persia. Attacking the strongest enemy first is a pretty high-risk approach - it does not work usually - neither in Diplomacy, nor in real life.
4. I often face attacks by 2-3 players based on my points/rating/etc. It is very unpleasant at first - but what usually happens is that the remaining players then hit my attackers and my position changes substantially. I usually end up winning such games - not because I did something special - but simply because my neighbours played poorly.

I think experienced players will assume the worst about players that don't prove them otherwise. Unless you show them you know what you are talking about and are committed to alot of discussion then you will probably get trouble from them.

D-points are minimally in relation with a player skill (it has been shared in other threads that this relationship is more or less accurate for the very top-dpoints-owners, but almost non existent for the rest of the rank).

Yet... they are perceived as if they were a valid indicator by the most of this community.

Ergo...

1 > I would agree with ivo that the best strategy is to start open-minded and adjust.
2 > It is very convenient to have few d-points as you will be perceived as non-threatening while you might well be a mastermind.
3 > You could use the other players' beliefs on d-points = skills to bias your risk-assessment of a given situation in your diplomatic press.