FrickinZeus - You clearly don't understang the wat GR works. You amount is always 2/35ths of your present GR so a loss against noobs and a loss against peers cost exactly the same.

@General Lee, in my last 20 games I have 11 wins and 5 draws. Only 3 or 4 are games against really good players. The rest I either started or took over midway against noobs, and trust me, if I can do that then MadMarx, Babak, or djbent could end with a better record then I did.

I did inflate my GR a a bit that way, but not nearly as much as getting a 3 way draw in a top 20 GR game. Sure it's possible to "play the system" a bit, but it still doesn't get you as much of a boost as winning games against people close to or above you in GR.

That is actually a way you can game the GR system. Pick up a CD that is very likely to end in a draw or victory (or PPSC strong second) and you'll get full credit as if you started the game.

I'll be honest. My GR is way inflated in my opinion. I can't solo to save my life, but was, in the top 30, solely on the strength of my ability to get into draws, and build coalitions against the leader. Its a skill, but I really don't think I deserve the high ratings I've achieved.

I call bullshit. b/c I could beat ghug and jmo and madmarx in the same game at a certain point its not skills and just luck. Show me someone that has 67% solo. Socrates dissatisfied did after 6 or 7 games....he doesnt anymore.

My GR is inflated because I work my way into draws and pick up the occasional solo. In GR games, I don't risk the same way I do in others. When I see WTA, it makes me play more conservatively, and my GR gets higher because of that.

@Gen. Lee, I think you're more used to gunboats. Those have some luck involved. Press games really do not. It is mainly skill based, for sure more then 2/3's skill. MadMarx won his first 9 or 10 games. There are other members, Dizzy, for example, who do have very high win percentages. It all depends on who you play with. Most of the top full press players could win or end in a 3 way draw if they played only against noobs in full press games.

A lot of the top players have win/draw percentages around 70%, and that is when they are playing other top players.

@Alderian and damian, I agree, some GR's are affected by inflation of CD games or maybe someone got lucky as Gen. Lee said and won one game against high ranked members. Despite this GR is still one of the most accurate ways to measure skill. Taking into consideration GR as well as points and win/draw percentages gives a pretty accurate rating of skill. I see very few members where all 3 stats combined are not telling of their skill.

i declare a thumb war. Madmarx, jmo, ghug and whoever else. ;) okay maybe i just want a quality game, however im inviting you fuckers to prove a point.

I'll bet you all my points that I'll lose.

gameID=108637

players between 100-200 vs. 3 players top 20, anon so nobody know who is who

@jmo

What are you talking about? Full press games are full of luck. All this 'all about skill' line is a nonsense. From my experience my GR ranking playing random people in live games (which was my game of choice for my first 3/4 of games) was around 100. After the masters tournament and games playing mainly 'good' players it shot up into the top 50.

Conclusion: Playing noobs is bad for GR

Better conclusion: Ratings systems are best ignored

The only luck in full press is the country draw. Arguably coin toss moves exist but you can often use manipulative communication to get your opponent to do what you want or analyze the situation to figure out what he thinks is your best move and order counter moves to his counter moves. The trick is with noobs who let emotion, lack of experience, and possibly poor strategic skills, figuring out the optimal set of moves might be the wrong set cause they didn't see them and manipulating them after you stabbed them or they stabbed you is more difficult cause they get emotional and can't believe you want an alliance.

No, there is a little bit of luck in full press games when playing against low ranked players. If you have two neighbours who are of the opinion "You are highly ranked, so I will kill you" you're pretty SOL in most cases. The obvious conclusion is to play anon games, but you get the principle I'm driving at?

Some people play the game with the goal to manipulate others, while othr players play the game with the goal to work with others. Draugnar's view on this game is only one opinion. Certainly luck can and will play a huge part in every game. It is the responsibility of the player to hedge themselves and mitigate the possible negative consequences of unlucky events unfolding.

Those bad circumstances aren't luck. They appear as luck to the unskilled but there is no dice or cards or other random gaming factor. There is what the other players choose to do. If you can't figure it out or manipulate it somehow (negotiation is a form of manipulation) then it wasn't bad luck but a misread/failure in Diplomacy.

I agree with Lando here Draug. I play to manipulate others. That's how I advance. But (going form experience) there are those lower ranked players that simply will refuse to work with you out of principle, should you be in a non-anon game with them....or, say, take over a CD'd country in their game.

Here's an example of luck: I was in a game a while back, as Germany, was badly out of position against England, but the moment came where I felt I must oppose him since he would stab me eventually anyway. It wasn't going well, in fact, it appeared as though my death was only a year or two away. Desperate times call for desperate measures, so I submitted some orders that were sure to fail since England had a very straight-forward way to eliminate me. To my surprise, England misordered resulting in me gaining enough and England losing enough that one season for me to take the upper hand against England, eliminate England, and solo the game. Sure, there was some skill involved, but no way around it, I got lucky...

That said, I do remember sending some "Mad" messages to England, the sole intent of *trying* to mess with the guy's head and get him off his game, but certainly those sort of desperate tactics don't really work, the guy just messed up at the worst possible time... But, as they say, it's better to be lucky than good...

Everyone starts the game predisposed towards a certain opening. For some (mostly in noobs) this is because of a lack of confidence with openings they're not familiar with, for others with a bit of experience they have had more success with one opening than another and want to boost their chances, and for players who've been here a while it can be a desire to try something a bit crazy because they've never done it before. At the start players are distributed more or less randomly, and if you happen to be an Austria next to Russia, Turkey, and Italy who are all in the mood to try killing you early then you have your work cut out. If you're an Austria next to an Italy who firmly believes that Austria and Italy are best served by an alliance, and a Turkey who wants to try an early push on Russia, then you'll have to play pretty damned awfully to mess it up. This is all down to luck. There are load of situations in which luck plays a massive part.

Out of interest, Draug, how long does it take you to get a confident read of a player? In my experience players that have complete faith in their read by the first moves are either fools or have an ability far in advance of my own.

There are load of situations in which luck plays a massive part.

Ignore the last sentence :p. Don't know how it got there

@Oct: "In my experience players that have complete faith in their read by the first moves are either fools or have an ability far in advance of my own."

Very true!
The way to decide between fool or advanced ability, is whether or not the complete faith in their first read holds throughout the game, or even long enough to gain an advantage. I'm guessing for 99% of people who have this complete failth in their reads, they are fools. I do leave the possibility though, that there is 1% out there that actually can read a player based on a few typed sentences back and forth early in the game. I've just never played with any of them. It takes many turns of careful trusting and defending before I think I've got a good read. And even then, I constantly doubt myself.

'I know the way his silence is set up requires that anyone who uses his code give him access to any additional features/improvements should he ask for them.'

I don't like how you seem to be implying that this 'shield' idea is an improvement... :p

To clarify what everyone is saying, the luck that is being referred to is who your opponents are and where they and you sit at the table.

I don't think he was implying that the shield idea was good. But I certainly do think that sharing ideas and innovations with the global diplomacy community is a good thing. I can't seem to log on to their forums from my phone but, once I can, I do intend to ask them about that. At least write about it in the next zine.

First, I never claimed a confident read from the first move. In anon, that would be impossible. It would be like sitting down at a poker table and instantly knowing every players tells. But in non-anon with players whom you have experience with, you can pick up certain tells and get a read very quickly. For instance, obi is the silent player all around, bet if he talks just a little then clams up completely, he is about to stab (incredible how he writes ramblings missives here but says two line per game year in game).

@ Draug

I don't think Obi is a good example. Nice chap, but bloody awful at diplomacy :p. I'm glad you agree that luck at least plays a major role in the early stages of anon games (and indeed games where you play people you've never met) before you get a good read though. After that the luck factor in predicting other people's moves reduces somewhat, but never goes entirely.

Another example of luck is that you never know what sort of day the enemy has had. How France reacts to your diplomacy can vary significantly depending on whether he's knackered after a hard day at work, his wife has just had a row with him, or his mates have just thrown a surprise party to say what a lovely bloke he is. We have no way of predicting the mental state of anyone when they read our finely crafted message. It's success or disasterous failure is, at least in part, down to luck.

Well, I don't consider anything involving personalities to be luck per se. To me, even the most strong willed can be swayed, so when you can't get a read, you have to rely on your skills to influence them. But yes, there is a level of uncertainty throughout the entire game.

"Even the most strongly willed can be swayed" is a nice motto to play the game by, but like most nice mottos ("You can be anything you want if you believe it and work hard enough" and "we all are born equal" for example) we all know it's not really true.

Still, you clearly get a lot out of the game playing in your style, so who gives a damn?