http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php

Someone recently said that helping another person solo in an anonymous WTA game is metagaming, which I don't really understand, especially since the comment was made by the person helping someone else solo. Can anyone explain this, I don't get it?

Doesn't make sense to me either.

MadMarx, that is clearly not metagaming.
The most complained about type of metagaming is pre-game collusion, whereby two players agree before the game starts to have an unbreakable alliance. This is cheating.

Possibly what the intended meaning was, MadMarx, was that, someone has no reason to help another solo in an anonymous WTA game unless they're metagaming. It itself is not metagaming, though, and there are other motives, such as spite towards other players, or ignorance of how WTA works.

Here's the thread where Germany claimed to be metagaming:

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=588567#588567

Perhaps what Germany meant was that in order to prevent being pushed into a situation where the German had to help another solo in a different game, that the German could point back to our game to show a willingness to help someone solo if others don't back off.

Sometimes nations in a watch will help someone solo if they are under theother nations thumb and about to die. That way at the end at least they get a survival in stats instead of a defeat

Speaking of stupid questions, I can't find where the game ID's are and how do you post them?

Click to open the game, and when you're looking at the game map, it's the last little bit of the URL.

Thank you.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=16478#game. This my worst game of meta gaming that I got to enjoy.I was playing Germany and Italy held off on taking solo to aid Russia to a 17/17 split.After Turkey left and I asked for a draw since we would end up with more points then original bet.The response i got from both was that they play together in this fashion to help each other.Italy was a replacement player and I ask how did he know to join this game unless promted by Russia to join.

podium: What is difficult to understand about

DO NOT POST CHEATING ACCUSATIONS IN THE FORUM
Instead, e-mail the moderators at [email protected].

It's not like you're new here. You've been here almost a year. No excuse for not knowing one of the sites biggest rules.

The game has been already checked by mods and deemed clean.But it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.Now I just want other players opion.

I followed the rules as soon as the game was over I emailed mods.

I think they were messing with you, it's only the second game they played together.

Mosy likely.But when your told that they like to help each other you have to file a report.
Kind of like O.J.being found innocent doesn't remove the doubt in your mind.

For example - metagaming could include two players betting that they could each lose faster than the other, this would amount to out-of-game motivations and information which altered their in-game actions.

In a gunboat (no press) game any communication with the other players is considered out of game information. (using it is therefore meta-gaming, but in this case it is clear that it is cheating anyway)

If i'm playing a game which my house mate is also in, and i see that he hasn't entered any orders yet, but i know he's just gotten on a 3 hour bus journey so will mis the deadline then this information is strictly out of game, and hence technically meta-gaming. (unless he posts it on global)

Again if i am in a game with my housemate, and i know from previous games which i've played with him that he never breaks agreements - as is the case with some people who play Risk - and i use this to my advantage in the game then that may be consider acceptable use of prior knowledge. This is however a hazy area.

If the rest of the players know we are housemates and have a prior relationship then it is closer to acceptable, if we secretly talk about he game while offline this gives us an unfair advantage and it verges on rule-breaking.

People feel the game is ruined when to house-mates ally from the start and never break their allaince.

IF however they inform (probably on global) the game that they know each other in real life then there is less to complain about...

I see.
Mostly I asked cause I was once accused of meta-gaming in a situation where I had thought I had not done anything improper. The game has long since ended and I hope I'm not breaking any rules by explaining the situation in which it occurred, I know discussing cheating on the forum is not allowed, but I don't think this counts. Here goes.
I was Turkey, the accuser in question was Russia. We had allied and as I was pressing into Austria he was attacking Germany. But then Germany went into CD and Russia would have been able to very very quickly capture more supply centres than me. I realized the danger of being allied to a significantly larger country (especially in a WTA game, which this was) I quickly forged an alliance with what was left of Austria and turned on Russia. He argued that what I'd done was metagaming, because Germany going into CD was effected by a factor out of game, ie. Germany walking away from his computer for whatever reason. (This is a live game). I figure Russia was either just being either immature or trying to scare me. Because I don't think Russia capturing a number of supply centres without facing any resistance counts as an out of game factor. I am correct right, that doesn't qualify as meta-gaming?

Errr was, this WAS a live game.

you were reacting to the in-game situation.

Just as russia invading germany would have been taking advantage of the in-game Civil disorder.

SO i don't see how that can be considered meta-gaming.

Yeah, the only way that would be considered meta is if one of the players convinced Germany to leave the game, Russia was just trying to scare you.

I don't see knowing other players' characters is metagaming. You use the knowlegde you have of a player you've played before, or ask somebody else how those players are (I did). If that's considered metagaming, then a certain part of each game involves metagaming, and checking someone profile to see their history would be metagaming too. It's all reputation. If a player checks my profile and sees most of my wins are with Turkey, he will be more cautious when I am playing Turkey. I don't think that's wrong, it rather enhances gameplay.

as a point to mention - in a role-playing game it is much clearer. If you are playing a character who has limited information it is meta-gaming to use any information you have gained from an out-of-character source.

In a computer role-playing game this might include having played the game before and thus knowing the story and what reaction you can expect. (or indeed what tactics the enemy will use)

if it is a single player game it doesn't really matter because you are the only player who will suffer loss of difficulty.

In multi-player games (like diplomacy) it is unfair to other player and thus more signifigant.

what you don't know is that you're ALWAYS METAGAMING

lol.

the definition is loose but generally if you find that out-of-game concerns are affecting your in-game decisions more than in-game events, you are metagaming

That wasn't metagaming no.

Perhaps "outside influences that ought be irrelevant to the game." That's still loose, given that irrelevant and ought are subjective, but there are some starting points. For example, prior knowledge of a player's personality, history in prior games, etc. are relevant because they're major determining factors in a player's actions; someone dissing your mom in the forum shouldn't be relevant in and of itself [though if it's done as part of some personal vendetta that may carry over to the game, taken contextually like that, that's another matter].

@Mafialligator - you are 100% clear and clean on that one. You stopped a solo (or tried too, whichever) and Russia was just being an ass about it. The player CDd for whatever reason. That knowledge was "in game" and therefore you reacted accordingly. That was actually the completely correct thing to do. even if he hadn't CDd, you should still stop Russia from soloing no matter how good an ally he is. anything less degrades your position to a survive at best.