Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Forum

A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.

Page 117 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last

Gobbledydook (1389

(B)

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Wanting account sitter for the next 2 weeks

I will be missing my computer for the next two weeks.
Anyone help me? (not someone who's in a game with me)...

email me if you volunteer...

[email protected]

4 replies

TheGhostmaker (1545

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Meta-gaming complaint

www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4224

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
11 Jul 08 UTC

As I would define it, meta-gaming is the act of playing in a way which clearly cannot be of benefit to you in that particular game, to the advantage of some other player, since so doing can only result in an alteration of the way they interact in other games, and unfairly so. In the game number 4224, this has clearly taken place, as on consecutive years, Turkey has failed to complete the game.

England is a clear beneficiary, and the language used by Turkey makes it clear that his play is purely designed to spite the comment I made about England's failiure to try for a draw. When I explained to Turkey that with 11 or fewer SCs (as should have been the case) England would be less well-off from the game than with the three way draw, his response "Ok, so we have a goal now..." exemplifies totally unreasonable play. Although he agreed to the statement "When you can get 18SCs it is the best you can do, and an opportunity which you are morally obliged to grab with both hands. Anything less is meta-gaming." emphatically: "That is true, couldn't agree more."

However his actions (Not taking an open Marseilles or Tunis) clearly state otherwise. My accusation goes directly at kiv, the Turkish player, not at the English player Yakulu, as, although I consider it wrong to take advantage of meta-gaming, it certainly is not a significant offence.

I understand also not much can be done in this or any other specific case unless we have a clear definition of meta-gaming, and a clear condemnation of the practise, in a site policy. I post this in the hope that that might be possible.

Ivo_ivanov (7545 )
11 Jul 08 UTC

Did you note that they are not partiipating in any other game together? How can it be meta-gaming then?

Maybe you pissed them off and they want to firsh exterminate you and only then finish the game :)

If this is the case this post will not help you a lot :)

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
11 Jul 08 UTC

Well, my argument is not that they have a direct deal, but the play of Turkey's is having an effect on the interaction between the two in other games, and no other effect whatsoever.

kiv (2788 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

I would have won a few years before, but your comments in the global chat were way out of line. Calling someone a 'moron' because he wants to get more points from the 1200+ pot is not in the spirit of the game.

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

Press, unless obscene is perfectly legitimate in any vein. But for the actions you have made since then, England would have been worse off than in a draw, it is purely because of the fact that you are delaying the win that he is benefiting.

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

Further, he had ignored the arguments when put in a way that was treating him with greater respect in the private channel. Thus the only means of possibly getting through to him was to try to shock him out of his zombie like state. Further, if you really think that the press is out of line, and England also thinks so, then you should have perhaps taken a different route to this. Finally, judging a person's character based on press in diplomacy, as it is bound to not be representative. So long as you are not profane all press is legitimate.

You have not addressed the issue that you have been doing something that you yourself have called meta-gaming, I call meta-gaming and ruins the game.

kiv (2788 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

It is obvious you don't know what meta-gaming means. Me and England have reached an agreement in THIS game which will give us both more points than the draw you proposed. So two players have reached an agreement that would benefit both, at the expense of the third player. This is what the game is about. Period.

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

In order to break my argument you must either refute that "meta-gaming is the act of playing in a way which clearly cannot be of benefit to you in that particular game, to the advantage of some other player, since so doing can only result in an alteration of the way they interact in other games, and unfairly so." or refute that failing to complete the game is doing such. You should not treat deals in diplomacy as binding.

Ballack (2571 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

Sorry to disturb your private conversation with a general remark. I don't think that playing in a way that only tries to maximize your profit in that particular game can be achieved. There is the emotional side---when I am backstabbed, I fight the stabber no matter what. It would be rational, of course, to shrug this off and cooperate with that guy again next turn, but few will do so. The rationalization many of us will use are "I will teach him a lesson" or "I have to show people that I don't allow being treated this way". But a lesson for what? Certainly not for this game, but maybe for future games (where I am not involved). And since many people react this way, I expect that those stabbed will react a little unrational, and will only stab if the benefit outweights the harm thee stabbed one can do to me, playing like crazy. The same may go for other situations, like insults and so on.
Therefore I don't think that the criterium for metagaming is the one you stated, ghostmaker.

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

I negotiate with a player who stabs me, but bear in mind an increased risk of alliance with them when playing. Although I do not think that the play in that game I mentioned is fair, the discussion I wanted was a general one, to the end of reaching a point where a statement on meta-gaming is made.

Cheleon (1153 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

I don't think there is such a thing as 'meta-gaming'.

Fact is, if you play a game and you're lucky enough to find an ally that works with you to the end of the game without stabbing, you may find yourself in another game with that player. You're more likely to trust that player and form another alliance.

The other way around, your ally stabs you and takes you out of a game. You are less likely to trust him should you meet in another game.

There are players, who, once stabbed by player 'A' will simply attack player 'A' in every subsequent game they are both part of.
This is not 'meta-gaming', this is human nature.

The only real way to stop this would be to remove the names from the game. If I joined a game and was allocated Russia, instead of showing 'Cheleon as Russia' let it simply say 'Russia'.
Of course, as soon as people posted here regarding games they are in, that idea falls apart.

After thought:
Perhaps 'meta-gaming' is when 'real world' friends join a game together and discuss and plan the game over a cup of coffee?
Again, I'm not sure this warrants the continous cries of 'meta gamer!' across this forum. Simply put, if two countries form a solid alliance and start to take control, surely it is up to the other players in the game to A) realise what is happening and B) form their own alliance and meet force with force, rather than C) whinge about it on the forum.

Of course, if there is such a thing as 'meta-gaming', I would also like to read a clear statement on 'it', as TheGhostmaker has suggested.

Treefarn (6094 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

And meta-gaming would be a quid pro quo thing too. There's nothing wrong with allying with someone who you allied with before. But there is something wrong with 'We allied last game and you won, so this time I get to win' seems to be distasteful, in my opinion.

Cheleon (1153 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

I see your point Treefarn, however, if two (or more) other players in that game ally, perhaps neither player from the previous alliance would win.

Just because you form a strong alliance, based on trust/friendship/love/blackmail/bribery doesn't mean the game is a foregone conclusion.

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

My problem arises when the alliance is of no benefit to one participant in it, and so the only effect can be to alter play in another game. That is what I criticise.

aoe3rules (949 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

actually, by definition, metagaming is letting ANYTHING outside the current game influence your decisions. so we're all metagamers. that includes bribing people, being bribed, blackmailing people, being blackmailed, helping someone in another game for help in this game, or knowing that Austria's fleet starts in Trieste (it's a bad definition - you learned that before the game started, so...).

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

I was looking for a practical definition, so...

aoe3rules (949 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

umm... a useful one? okay... "helping someone in one game in exchange for help in another". note that THIS type of metagaming is actually punishable on the site. also note that multiaccounting is not metagaming, since you are the same player (and person) as yourself.

Cheleon (1153 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

This could have another effect.
You ally with someone in a game. You wipe the board as an alliance. One of you wins or you decide on a draw.
You then find yourself in another game with that same player and are in a position to form an alliance, but, the 'fear' of being accused on the forum of this alleged crime of 'meta-gaming' stops you...

DarioD (2326 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

And not allying for fear of being accused of meta-gaming is of course, in itself, metagaming ;)

Cheleon (1153 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

Aye, there's the rub.

The only possible solution would be to remove the user names from the game.
If you don't know who you are allied with or who stabbed you from one game to the next, you can't be influenced by previous results.

TheGhostmaker (1545 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

I don't like that idea... My press style is so very blatant...

aoe3, I think that there can be less direct meta-gaming, the like I have seen in 4224, which warrants a tighter definition than the direct exchange.

aoe3rules (949 )
12 Jul 08 UTC

well, i wasn't trying to be specific.

22 replies

garistarch (201

)
12 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Question about Draws...

If you're playing a points-per-SC game and you draw, do you split the pot evenly regardless of how many SCs you control? Or do you get points proportionate to how many SCs you have?

2 replies

Hyperactive Jam (299

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Messing with a Multi-Accounter

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4583

Someone take over France and help.

10 replies

)
12 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

TIANMU MOUNTAIN ASCENDED IN A DREAM ---- Li Bai

A seafaring visitor will talk about Japan,
Which waters and mists conceal beyond approach;

2 replies

mindathlete (139

)
12 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

20 Point New Game

Hoping for some challengers. =)

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4612

0 replies

)
12 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

quick question

if a game is drawn with CD countries still alive, are the points split between teh active players or every single country (including CDs)?

1 reply

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Newbie Support question

In this game http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4401 I had a fleet in MAO supported by Western Med but it was dislodged by NAO supported by Irish Sea. I would've thought NAO would've bounced as it's 2 on 2. Is it because MAO had a failed move? I thought that didn't matter for defence.

1 reply

Centurian (3257

)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Ranking System

Does anyone else think that points committed into games should feature in the ranking system? Under the current system someone that plays alot of games at once will seem to be lower ranked then someone taking a break even if they are of similar ability.

14 replies

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

I am a first time internet diplomacy player

so join the game, to kick my noob arse
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4607

0 replies

DeliciousWolf (112

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Not finalizing orders = all hold ??

I entered my orders but didn't finalize, and had to miss a turn (long story involving moving an MRI), I was under the impression that orders entered but not finalized would still execute...is this wrong? Thanks

4 replies

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Changing an Email address????

Hi guys- I realise this has been answered once (at least ) before, but i cannot find a way to change my email address on here?!
It's not listed under settings so i cannot see where to change it...

Any ideas?

0 replies

Signalseven (116

)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Convoy issues. Need a little clearification.

Kestas could you take a look at my convoy from London to Belgium and tell me what exactly stopped it.

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4282

2 replies

)
11 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Two more players needed - "SummerGame"

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4600

150 buy-in.
As mapleleaf would like you to believe, this helps keep out the riff-raff, although not quite so effectively as his game might have done.

0 replies

(G)

)
07 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Most teethgrindingly hated word...

For me, it has to be...

61 replies

)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

150 bet SummerGame

18 hours left to join.

0 replies

)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Small coding problem

When this game ended, I got the following message:

Message from "Free Beer & Hot Wings"

The & did not get rendered as & as expected.

1 reply

)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New Game- Europe at War-2

This is a game with a small pot, so people with not a lot of money can start to work their way up. Great for noobs (beginners)

0 replies

)
05 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Favorite Country

I was wondering why people tend to like certain countries over others. From what few games i have played, i have liked Germany and France the best, but it might just be due to circumstance.

44 replies

)
09 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

How is the pot split when the game ends?

Let's say that when the game ends, the board looks like this:

Austria has 18
Italy has 12
England has 5
France, Germany, Russia and Turkey are all dead.

If the pot is 100, who gets how much? What's the formula? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Basically, I guess my biggest questions are:
a) As the winner, do you always get a fixed percentage, or do you get more if more players are fully dead?
b) As a survivor, do you get a bigger percentage if you have more SCs, or do all survivors get the same amount?

14 replies

Von Woestein (646

)
09 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Support

If a supporting unit, that is also supported by a third unit, is being attack by only one unit.
Does this attack cuts the support?
Example , Belgium supports Holland.
Picardy supports Belgium.
Rurh attacks Belgium without any support.
Kiel attacks Holland with the support from North Sea.
Is the Belgian support to Holland cut? Does Holland falls?
Thanks.

2 replies

)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Turn-length

From what I understand, turns are up once everybody has finalized their moves, whether there are 20 hours left, or 3 hours left, correct?

1 reply

hab1tat101 (157

)
10 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Fun Game...

Hey join this game...its fun

0 replies

Zarathustra (3672

)
03 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New Game: Beat the Bugs

In this new game, you play as Kestas looking for for bugs and then beating the bugs with a medium-sized shoe.

Can you get all the bugs before the players on the forum get frustrated and start playing on play-a-plagiarized-version-of-phpdiplomacy.sux?

17 replies

TheGhostmaker (1545

)
08 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

No Press game XXVI

All welcome,

Joining Link: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4576&join=on&gamepass=ffb61f7d3dad0c9901007888548591f8

5 replies

)
09 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Nuevo juego

Hay abierto un juego nuevo, quizá estaría bueno sumar algún hispanoparlante más. Obviamente, bienvenido quien no lo fuere también :-)
Pitias

4 replies

)
09 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Do these 2 situations come out the same output ?

A French army and an Italian army try to move in the same unoccupied country with no support whatsoever: They both bounce back

But If the army of France was convoyed by a fleet would it be the same output ?
(2 French builds against 1 Italian build)

Thanks !

2 replies

)
08 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Diplomacy without diplomacy

Can we turn the press off altogether and play with no negotiations at all?

No-Press games are a load of fun...

8 replies

DeliciousWolf (112

)
05 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Newb question: When does a country enter Civil Disorder (CD)?

We've got a situation in Metternich6 where both Italy and Austria appear to have made no moves, and are uncommunicative (of course, this could also be some sort of ruse)- I assume not entering any orders for some period causes the country to fall into disorder and allows another player to take over. When does this occur? If CD does occur, can the original player come back and keep playing? Where a player abandons his game and the game goes CD, is there a penalty (especially if that player has less than 100 points)? Lots of questions, thanks for any insights!

6 replies

)
08 Jul 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New game

Still looking for players for Torchwood. Moderate cost, should be fun.

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4562

2 replies

Page 117 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last