There's been a general feeling of retreat across a lot of the diplomacy sites of late. Playdip is having something of a lull, with the forum showing far less action than usual, and the numbers of people online in prime time on webDiplomacy has declined by around a third.

This doesn't seem to be a summer holiday thing, either. It has been apparent for some time.

Oh, this is perhaps a really stupid question, but why are webDiplomacy and vDiplomacy run as separate sites these days?

Mr. Ambassador, for me it is a collection of things, but mostly I just needed a break from the daily attention to maps and orders and writing. I've had a long sabbatical, and found my love for the game again. I'm playing two games at Redscape now (even though Tomahaha had me banned there because I beat him in a game here), and having good fun. Part of the reason it's fun is that there are no rating systems. I tend to do pretty good regardless of the scoring system, so part of me just wants to say screw it, and ignore the points. But as we are all competitive, we care about these silly ratings, and eventually we start playing our games for the ratings rather than the games themselves. I try to avoid this, and for the most part I can. But the biggest obstacle to fun is where you are assigned points on a progressive scale, and most particularly so negative points for losing. In my case every game I play in I risk 70 or more ratings points while only able to add 15 with a win. I cannot play the game correctly (or enjoyably) if I'm afraid of losing.

The Vdip points are fine. They are for fun, and reward longevity as well as success. They do not punish unsuccessful participation though. If people play to these it can be annoying, but sticking to WTA games solves that problem. Unfortunately the PPSC model allows players to score points while losing. I think when you make the game punitive for honorable and dependable participation, you chase people away. Punish players for NMRs and CDs. Punish players for cheating/breaking rules, etc. Don't punish players who invest time and compete.

I'll cite the Rinascimento variant as an example. I'd love to try this game out, and put to test many of the myths about the starting positions. I'd love to take on impossible mercy replacement positions just for fun. I'd love to lead by example and point out that game can be fun even when you lose, and that you can learn a lot by losing games. The incentive to do any of that is removed when you apply the negative ratings scoring.

My recommendation is to leave the Vdip scoring/Hall of Fame as is, and to scrap the Elo ratings algorithm system, or at least modify the thing to a point where players do not risk years of accomplishment by losing one game.

@Octavious - I heard a rumour mentioned on one of these threads (so no idea how true or not it is) about the two sites being collapsed into one. Provided the variants and people merged wouldn't be a bad thing.

Of course how the ratings between an amalgamated site would work is anyone's guess!

RUFF - good points and have never heard of Redscape. Just checked the site which looks interesting although it seems you can't see the games available unless you sign up.

I love Rinascimento too, but have tended to hold back on it due to the unratedness of it (that said I LOVED soloing once as the Ottomans!) I have the same issue with 1066 which for some reason has its points you can play at only 5 vDip points.

Ruffhaus has a good point. I have avoided joining some games for fear of losing points. Although I do like the vdip scoring system, if it prevents players from playing games, it is not good for the site.

Perhaps, there should be some penalty for inactivity. If players lost points for every month they did not participate in a game, they might join games just to maintain their position.

Yes yes, Devonian! I agree with that. I was typing up some thoughts but had to go out. I'll post them when I get home.

There are a lot of overlapping issues to tackle here, and as always the myriad ways in which players value different aspects makes any clean, perfect solution impossible.

vDip *seems* less bustling than in previous years, a trend that I have observed over considerable time now. Maybe it’s my faulty perception, though several others have noted it as well. Ambassador, your active player figures are encouraging – does the same trend hold across active games, games per player, etc.? I have seen numerous new players come in, use the forum, start some games, often abandon them and disappear. Some have stuck around and shown themselves to be quality additions. Occasionally a Ghost of vDip Past graces us with a return to action. Given the dormancy of many high-caliber players and the revolving door of at least some of the new members, do you think there is really a net increase or decrease in total activity for the site? I look forward to what Amby and kaner produce – I was happy to contribute to brainstorming and will always support efforts to grow the site and the hobby.

I believe ELO ranking has had a detrimental effect on vDip. Sure it’s nice to have a measure of play, but I think we must at least discuss some of the problems and potential solutions, now that it has been in use for a while:

• From ELO system inception, it seemed as though some players would target and even gang up on high-ranking players, a clear problem that only serves to exacerbate reluctance of top players to join more games.

• I get the strong impression that some of the top players cease playing once they attain a high ranking, so as to avoid risking it and falling back to the crowd. This serves to greatly reduce the availability of top-quality games for all.

• It also robs new players of opportunities to learn from the best. Here’s an example: When I joined, I tried to find games that included the best players on the site. I was hungry to learn and improve my game quickly. RUFFHAUS was among several players who were willing to play with me and who took considerable time to discuss strategy, etc. I improved rapidly, and in return I was sooner able to contribute quality back to the site. I’ve always tried to look out for new players in the same way. If we had the ELO system when I started, would RUFF have been as willing to join games with me? I think the system creates levels of isolation that hurts the site. School of War-type games are great, but nothing beats playing against the best over and over.

Some potential tweaks:

• RUFF is right, the penalty for a top player losing to a new player is substantial, with the reward for winning insignificant in comparison. I get it, on some level this is as it should be. After all, if I’m playing someone with a ranking of 750, then I should beat them. However, this is not chess. Games involve numerous players and run over the course of several months. I would be in favor of smoothing out the degree of penalty/reward so that a 1100 player beating a 2200 player results in strong reward but not as significant a penalty.

• I would also be in favor of rankings moving less as the total number of games played increases. A player with 200 games played should probably not see their ranking move the same as one who’s played 5. Maybe the system already factors that in, I don’t know.

• Most of all, I would really like to see a “use-it-or-lose-it” component to the rankings. Players should be encouraged to play. Can we install a program that would determine whether a player is active or inactive (has been active in a game within previous 3 months, or 6 – just throwing numbers out there)? If a player becomes inactive, they lose ELO points over time. 5 per week? We could also split out a separate HoF page with players ranked by their all-time highest rating, and/or an active players ranking page, etc. Just looking for simple ways to give different people what they want. Ultimately though, it comes down to removing the disincentive for top players to join games with newer/lesser-ranked players.

I’ll play with anyone, as I’ve said and done throughout. I feel I owe it to the community. When at first I cared more about points and rankings, I found myself enjoying the games less. That’s just me, and it’s not a statement in judgement of anyone else and how they value their ranking. I don’t know how much higher I’d be if I was more selective in choosing games and opponents. To the extent that I care about that, I just figure I should remain willing to put my position on the line and that it will all balance out over time. Really I’m just here for some fun games and interesting discussions with a broad mix of people. And to occasionally bury the forum under massive blocks of text.

OK, quick question... *If* (and I stress that if) the two sites merged, would players banned from one site be welcome or would they be told to shove off? Everyone here who was on webDip 2 years ago pretty well knows who I was and the stuff that went down (saying terminate a mod was calling for someone to kill him in their puny, oblessed with Ahnuld and never worked in the real world where terminating employ.entry is the term used for ending an association with a company), but I digress. Would good ol' Draug just be SOL and persona non grata? Or would YCHTT be welcomed to the new site?

Just curious how anyone sees that playing out. I'm not even certain the I would want to continue post-merge with "intellectual" elitists that took over at webDip, but it would be nice to know if I had a choice or not.

Oh, and I have to second everything RUFF said. Funny thing is, I have been taking a break too and even now don't want to play anything that requires daily attention.

+1 RUFFHAUS
+1 Dr. Recommended

Great points guys and I pretty much agree with all of them, and especially the points about Rinascimento-type of variants, and the Doctor's tweaks and last paragraph.

Thanks G-Man.

Randy - I say screw it and ignore the points. You'll be just fine, and the community will be better for it. Think of it as giving back 10% (since you're humble - but we both know it'd be 25, easy) to the game in return for what it has given you. As a bonus, it's not even close to socialism and yet it's still a productive and more than fair compromise ;) Give it 5 games and let's reevaluate, OK? Et tu, Mapu.

YCHTT, for whatever it's worth -- I've got no say in the matter. But as long as we're talking in a thread ostensibly about the health and sustainability of this site, your question gets a response from me.

I've played some games (I think, not looking it up right now) with you on webDip and here. We've got some differing views, but I think you're a capable Diplomacy player who loves the game and respects a worthy opponent, and I wouldn't hesitate to join a game with you. I paid little attention to your webDip ouster but noted your subsequent shift here. Based on my experience, I would vouch for you.

YCHTT I would think surely that two years in the wilderness of VDip - and doing so on good behaviour - should count for something. But I was only commenting on a rumour. Still haven't heard of any evidence one way or the other.

I can't foresee any merger happening if the webDip banned lists were to be continued. The idea's probably a non starter to be honest. It's a shame, though. Webdip could really do with a boost at the moment. There's no ratings system to speak of anymore and the forum seems to only exist for mafia. It was a little depressing.

Yup, as far as I know, there isn't any merging planned for the future. We had some thoughts on moving a bit together and for example work together on maintaining the two websites, but currently we are just preserving the status quo. A merge is generally quite unlikely, since vdip always was the more experimental platform while webdip stayed unchanged after the main development was finished by Kestas. Things changed a bit since development was revived over there on webdip and some of our features from here were taken over. However, since we still encounter some bugs here and there it is probably quite unrealistic, that webdip will implement all of Oli's features in near futures. Therefor a real merge stays unlikely.

Anyway, quite interesting thoughts on improving vdip and its player number and quality. As Ambassador mentioned, one of our current problems is the lack of an active head of this website who can decide on changes and deligate tasks. So improvements of our rating systems and other changes connected to development are currently quite unlikely. However, Oli will be able to return at some point and then we can profit from the thoughts mentioned here. So, please, don't hesitate to share your thoughts on improving.

Not sure where the rumor came from but no, there's not going to be any merger. We have always had a mutual relationship and if either site ever needed a hand, obviously we can depend on each other, but vDip and webDip are two very different places with different attitudes and ideas. We work well as two independent but closely allied platforms.

^

I can't foresee any merger happening if the webDip banned lists were to be continued. The idea's probably a non starter to be honest. It's a shame, though. Webdip could really do with a boost at the moment. There's no ratings system to speak of anymore and the forum seems to only exist for mafia. It was a little depressing.

Different how? Back in the day the forums used to be quite different in atmosphere, but that doesn't seem true anymore. VDip has always been variant focused, but variants aren't exactly alien to webDip these days. webDip used to have quite a competitive feel, but that's largely vanished along with the ratings system. What are the differences now?

And whilst the sites' leadership are cooperative, and a number of members are well aware of both places and happily pop back and forth between the two, I'd be surprised if most members of one are aware of the other's existence. It doesn't seem an ideal way to deal with what is quite a small pool of diplomacy players.

Apologies for a repeat of the first post. Really have no idea why that happened.

I'm talking about gameplay, not the forum. The forums may be different but mafia has completely overrun whatever forum nonsense we could come up with over there. The forum here has always been more tame but the forum over there is fairly tame nowadays too.

The sites are different in that we have different ranking systems, different points systems, a wide variety of different game options, different game scoring systems, and different ways that the staffs operate behind the scenes. vDip has always been a laboratory for new variants and the few that webDip has have mostly been snatched from here after extensive research and testing and if my memory serves me right public polling. I don't know that vDip codes would be entirely compatible with webDip's and vice versa because of those differences, which makes a merger more of a chore than it would be worth if it were even necessary for anything other than keeping the sites alive and both sites are surviving just fine right now. Most of the improvements discussed in here are relatively minor, which is a good thing, as are most of the improvements we discuss on webDip.

There are ways to interconnect the two sites more visibly, but ultimately merging the site is not and has not been on the table.

Connecting the sites more visibly does seem an obvious win for both sides :)

Adding to what was said about rating systems (where I fully agree), is interface and accessibility a factor?
I know many people who once worked and played on their desktops and laptops, now relying almost completely on mobile devices, be it tablets or phone, as they have come a long way and often are just good enough in many cases today. These people have left the computer/browser platform they were forced to use as there was no alternative.
Now diplomacy is by nature an always-on our don't play it game ... These people are always on, but the interface they get to play the game is far from being good, in fact is just somehow working by mere chance, because mobile browsers adjust, but the interface is doing nothing for those players to make the game enjoyable. Also it's not using any features that make mobile special over most stationary devices, like push notifications or direct input instead of "forms" to fill out.
Active Players may be lost by not following them on their new devices, but more likely new players will leave the game fast, realising they will be bound to a oldschool computer if they seriously want to play and succeed.
I'm aware diplomacy by nature is no mobile casual game and the maps and chat require space and time, and finding solutions to this may require more manpower than available, but still it's better to name this dilemma than ignoring it.

Or in other words: a diplomacy app may be better than a mobile optimised site, and that again may be better than what we currently have, which is UX design from the early 2000s. It's not about being responsive only, or look modern, it's about how the site can be used conveniently for new and for long term players on classic and modern devices (I don't mind about that myself too much and many active Players don't, but new players actually do, and some I tried to convince to join were or almost were driven away by this).

Not to hijack this threat, and it's old and unfinished(!) work and by far not the solution to this aspect yet, I did this draft 3 years ago as a small step to improve usability across platforms:
http://gestaltungssache.at/dip/index2.php
And some information and thoughts about here: http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1696&sid=a355bd3c989ed2b69cf44d61d33843d3

I'm probably a minority viewpoint, but the reason I went away was the feeling that every game seemed to have collusion in it. The more that we can do to ensure good and fair games, the better. I don't think I disagree with any of the points being made about rating systems. In fact, I agree with flattening out the ELO curve.

I'd be surprised if most of the evaporation wasn't because of cheating or CDs that make endings disappointing.

CDs are indeed frustrating, but from my impression the take over motivation to restore bad rr ratings actually works okay. We had a game lately that was set to nmr serious, and we had 3 nmrs and surprisingly players joined - I would have never expected that this game would continue and be brought to a actually reasonable end.

Cheating ... I don't think there is much real cheating going on by regulars ... Newbies may try their luck with multiple accounts, but this game ain't fun to play that way. There's a lot situations where a game end may still be frustrating to players, like when alliances stay loyal into a solo instead of interfering the right moment etc, but that's not cheating, just good or bad diplomacy or different levels of real interest in a game and in game theory, when people just lose the motivation to fight on when a win is not reachable anymore for them and they want to end it quick instead of good.

agreed. The RR rating completely eliminated the problem of CD's affecting the final outcome. CD's still occur, but are invariably picked up by someone else. Case in point: there are no available games to take over right now.

It's almost impossible to stop cheating, but I don't think its a problem here. The appearance of collusion can occur; I only play anonymous games for that reason. But, realistically, it think it is more appearance than real cheating. I blame it on the PPSC game scoring methods where someone may be playing for points and not game outcome.

I've contacted mods almost every time I've suspected cheating, and I must have decent radar because it's been true in every case (or at least the majority, I may be forgetting a couple). Probably 12-15 total cases, and I'm not sure I've ever done so on this site despite over 300 games. I'm not naive enough to think it's not happening at all, or that I'm not oblivious to many cases. However, it's with much greater frequency that I hear vigorous accusations of cheating that are usually unfounded. I'll leave aside the discussion of full-press games with large draws leading to "care bear" complaints, as that is its own Pandora's Box and veers out of cheating territory and into the differing values and approaches of individual players versus spirit of the game. Most of the pure cheating accusations I am aware of come from gunboat games in which multiple nations coordinate effectively over multiple moves, something that seems beyond the capacity for some to understand can and does happen without communication or any other form of cheating.

So, I think Hirnsaege and Devonian have valid points regarding this. Or if there really IS that much cheating, the cheaters are no better at it than they are at fair Diplomacy play. Scooby, it's a bummer that cheating drove you away, but I would try to determine how much of what you suspected was valid. Then I would be more selective in choosing games and opponents.

+2 Devonian!!

PPSC and care-bear play cause legit issues, but I don't think they're cheating instances. Likewise, groups of players who know or are very familiar with each other can give the appearance of cheating, but so far I've only been in one game with a real cheat (multi-accounts). And I have to hand it to the mods at the time for catching it and closing those accounts.