MP ladder?

[unmerged(11897)]

Just wondering what peoples' thoughts are on having an official ladder for Diplomacy, or at the very least a trustworthyness rating (eBay style). I think that without some way to keep track of how often people backstab the MP could be a mess. If I am regularly playing strangers I can backstab without consequence. I suspect in a real life game people will hold to alliances longer than in an online game because in real life you are playing with friends and want to be invited back again. But without a rating system, the anonymity of the internet will really destroy one of the great dynamics of Diplomacy.

 

[unmerged(40693)]

A trustworthyness rating with respect to how liable a player is to abandon a game at the drop of a hat would be worthwhile, and various approaches to this are used within different Diplomacy communities.
However, any attempt to rate people as to how likely they are to stab you would only be to the degradation of the game. This is because one of the major skills a skilled Diplomacy player must have is the ability to 'read' the other players and know just what buttons to push to get them to do what you want them to do.

 

[ForzaA]

A "ladder" for trustworthiness in the sense of playing a game through to the end/ his/herdefeat [frankly- I don't really see someone quitting when he has one center left as equal to one quitting when he has 6-7 and there's still a few players going] would (possibly) be useful (atleast for the PBEM-ing that's going on now)

 

[David E. Cohen]

In PBEM Dip, abandonment without notice, whether of promising positions, or of positions close to elimination, has been a longstanding problem. Whatever the strength of the abandoned Powers, players who abandon are loathed by the rest of the Hobby. A reliability rating might be a good thing, but its usefulness would likely be limited, since serial abandoners usually seem to use many different aliases, for the simple reason that people tend not to want to play with them.

 

[unmerged(40991)]

What?

Diplomacy is all about playing both sides against each other. That means at some point you have to .... bend the truth.

I agree with the drop out / anarchy ratings, but I don't agree with trying to give up the ghost.

I also like a rank given based on the skills of the players you're playing against. Kinda like the yahoo system of ladders.

 

[unmerged(41647)]

I used to GM some Dip games in the early 90s (among mostly beginners, who steadfastly refused to communicate) and never got into PBEM because of all the drops. Backstabbing is the *essence* of Diplomacy, unless you're playing alliance wins. However, having a ladder ranking for drops is an excellent idea.

Perhaps each purchaser of the new PC Diplomacy will have to register a "handle"/account to play MP, and this account will be automatically ranked as to frequency of drops? I'd propose that the ranking not "kick in" until the 6th game played, to allow for difficulties getting set up for Internet play.

Since real life sometimes intrudes on long play sessions, perhaps there could be a mechanism to allow for this, along these lines:
A player joins, but announces that he may have to leave before the end of the game. If this occurs, he can ask to be let go, and a dialogue box pops up for each other player, as to whether this player (who is asking ahead of time i.e. giving warning) can leave without having the drop recorded against him. The vote is taken, and majority rules. If there is only one other player, this person of course wins.

Along the same lines, since players will have a unique handle, if someone gets dropped by a bad net connection, the game could allow him to reconnect and resume his spot, if the game is still in progress.

Comments?

 

[CatKnight]

Don't the automated Dip Judges have a perfectly useful anarchy/drop out rating system? I forget the details, but it's worth investigating. There are end runs as people have noted, but at least it's a start.

If there's a 'ladder' or some other system to reflect skill, then perhaps that can be affected?

Here's how the old AOL Diplomacy Club did it:

Split 180 points among the winner(s)
+ 10 points / supply center owned.
Your rating was equal to points / games played.

If you abandon a game, you cannot earn points, though it counts as a game played.
If you join a game as a replacement, it does not count as a game played unless you share in the victory. (This was meant to be a reward for joining late.)

Along with total and average points, each player's listing would show games played, solos, wins, and drops. The drop out/total game ratio would be easy enough to build into a percentage.

Again, major holes - one being that AOL had no problem with alliance (non-DIAS) wins, which I disagree with at this point as being against the spirit of Diplomacy, and eliminating alliance wins necessitates a change in how points are handled. Second, this proved ineffective at controlling or minimizing drops.

-------
With respect, Son of Kong, if you're suggesting a rating for how likely people are to maintain alliances...then that is indeed detrimental. A Diplomacy player who isn't ready to backstab his ally if the time's right just isn't very good and will have a hard time winning. You should be watching your ally warily, it's one of the core dynamics of the game.

 

[unmerged(40693)]

...Again, major holes - one being that AOL had no problem with alliance (non-DIAS) wins, which I disagree with at this point as being against the spirit of Diplomacy, and eliminating alliance wins necessitates a change in how points are handled. Second, this proved ineffective at controlling or minimizing drops.

1. To be pragmatic here, preventing non-DIAS wins would only increase the number of drop-outs.
2. This is because playing through to elimination was of no benefit compared to dropping-out, in both instances you scored 0 point from 1 game.

 

[unmerged(34319)]

Diplomacy Rating/Ranking Systems

In the last 40 years there has been numerous attempts at Diplomacy Rating and or Ranking systems using Postal games (*pre Internet ) as well as face to face games, tournament games, tournament rankings, email play, some of the above, (but never all of the above).

There is no universal concept of what achievement recognition is. Even in the case of Wins, there is no agreement as to what the relationship of a win is to various other possible results. Nor is there an agreement as to what consists of the very definition of a 'game of Diplomacy' with major sections of the hobby playing games to a set limit of game years such as 1907 and others playing till everyone drops, or there is a winner or a declared draw or a social end to the game such as a real world time limit etc.

Furthermore the amount of effort and cost of maintaining any ranking is also
greatly varied based on the scope and interest of those that create them.

Therefore the hobby has taken the general approach of both being critical of nearly every attempt while trying to respect the efforts involved by those individuals to present and keep them up. The efforts that are continued in the face of the very fractured dynamic background of non-agreement on achievement parameters are a contribution to the hobby that is often over looked by those critical of the bias that each system creator brings to the mind numbing crunching of numbers.

For me, I find the arguements over scoring and ranking system entertaining at times as well as tedious and repetitive for the last 4 decades depending on my level of prosac consumption for the week.

Edi :rofl:

 

[unmerged(40693)]

In the last 40 years there has been numerous attempts at Diplomacy Rating and or Ranking systems using Postal games (*pre Internet ) as well as face to face games, tournament games, tournament rankings, email play, some of the above, (but never all of the above).

There is no universal concept of what achievement recognition is. Even in the case of Wins, there is no agreement as to what the relationship of a win is to various other possible results. Nor is there an agreement as to what consists of the very definition of a 'game of Diplomacy' with major sections of the hobby playing games to a set limit of game years such as 1907 and others playing till everyone drops, or there is a winner or a declared draw or a social end to the game such as a real world time limit etc.

Furthermore the amount of effort and cost of maintaining any ranking is also
greatly varied based on the scope and interest of those that create them.

Therefore the hobby has taken the general approach of both being critical of nearly every attempt while trying to respect the efforts involved by those individuals to present and keep them up. The efforts that are continued in the face of the very fractured dynamic background of non-agreement on achievement parameters are a contribution to the hobby that is often over looked by those critical of the bias that each system creator brings to the mind numbing crunching of numbers.

For me, I find the arguements over scoring and ranking system entertaining at times as well as tedious and repetitive for the last 4 decades depending on my level of prosac consumption for the week.

Edi :rofl:

LOL - Do we have another 'Lurker'?

Seriously, if Paradox do devise a ranking / rating system for Diplomacy, then:-

1. Separate ratings should be maintained for SP & MP.​

2. It's exact nature should be kept a closely guarded secret by Paradox (otherwise there will be those that play the rating system rather than the game).​