rkduke wrote: (I use http://www.dipbounced.com/). They have been doing this for many years and there are a set of best practices in place including post-game debriefs, player rankings, rules about disclosure, etc.

Great site, esp the http://www.dipbounced.com/help/anonymous.html page.

I wish it included consequences and/or preventative measures more thoroughly. That's the tough part of implementation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to work by having some kind of game master/judge, and by the good ol' fashion honor system.

I'm wary of relying on the honor system in a game that has thousands of players (though I suppose its better than no rules at all). And I'm not sure if using judges would be proper fit for this game.

Kevlargolem (great name!):
You are correct in that there is nothing within the online Diplomacy communication systems which prevent players from disclosing their true identity (other than a game master). But I must say, in all the years I've been playing I've never seen anyone do this! The reason is very simple—it is not to a players advantage to reveal their identity during a game. Doing so allow others to learn a lot about the player and adjust their strategy accordingly. As a result, everybody keeps their true identity secret until the game is over.

kevlargolem wrote:Out of context? I quoted your entire post.

Yes, what you quoted was in response to what someone else had said.

kevlargolem wrote:The "strategy" you are talking about is just an unfair advantage due to a quasi-multigame deal (against the rule, thus cheating). I've done it too, because there is almost a magnetic draw to it. I didn't plan to play with them specifically, but there's only so many higher rated players/games. And once we're both there... and if you want to win, why would you not go with a sure thing presented on a platter?

No. I'm not saying that two people who have previously played together allying up is a "strategy". I'm saying its diplomacy. The strategy part comes later when two+ players work together in a way that simply would not have happened if they were anonymous. Even if it doesn't directly benefit themselves. Which will never happen in an anonymous game because there is no risk for players to do so.

kevlargolem wrote:Is playing with a premade alliance an advantage that most would want to have? Yes.
Does it make for a more competetive/fair game? No.

(1) It's not a premed alliance. It's Diplomacy.
(2) Is it an advantage? Yes. - However, this game is not based on fairness. And after 1 game that new player should have an idea how the other players played. So its a non-issue.
(3) This game has nothing to do with fairness. I believe it's purposely designed not to be fair as a way of encouraging Diplomacy.

topkilla wrote:Yes, what you quoted was in response to what someone else had said.

So, I'm not going to quote the entire thread any time I'm replying to someone's statement... Sorry if that bothers you.

topkilla wrote:(1) It's not a premed alliance. It's Diplomacy.
(2) Is it an advantage? Yes. - However, this game is not based on fairness. And after 1 game that new player should have an idea how the other players played. So its a non-issue.
(3) This game has nothing to do with fairness. I believe it's purposely designed not to be fair as a way of encouraging Diplomacy.

1) Yes, its a kind of Diplomacy I guess. Just not the kind that makes for a competitive/compelling game. Maybe "premade" was the wrong word to use, because someone first has to say "remember me?". Let me change that to "automated," as in, its so systematic in its ease and regularity that it virtually happens automatically.
2&3) It is a game based on fairness. Everyone starts equally. Same number of drills, same number of outpost, same ratio of gens:factories. Any variations (specialist options, outpost distances from each other) are purely random for everyone. This is fair. What you do and how you interact with other players might make you stronger or weaker, but that is a result of how you and everyone else plays, not a matter of fairness. If this were not true, no game in which there is a determined winner would ever be fair.

What is not fair, is having access to something in the game that other people do not, before the game even starts.

topkilla wrote:(2) (...)And after 1 game that new player should have an idea how the other players played. So its a non-issue.

I have no clue what you mean by this part. Are you saying that by playing 1 single game, that a new player will have equal potential to have these automatic "diplomacies" as someone who has played for years?

kevlargolem wrote:

topkilla wrote:(1) It's not a premed alliance. It's Diplomacy.
(2) Is it an advantage? Yes. - However, this game is not based on fairness. And after 1 game that new player should have an idea how the other players played. So its a non-issue.
(3) This game has nothing to do with fairness. I believe it's purposely designed not to be fair as a way of encouraging Diplomacy.

1) Yes, its a kind of Diplomacy I guess. Just not the kind that makes for a competitive/compelling game. Maybe "premade" was the wrong word to use, because someone first has to say "remember me?". Let me change that to "automated," as in, its so systematic in its ease and regularity that it virtually happens automatically.
2&3) It is a game based on fairness. Everyone starts equally. Same number of drills, same number of outpost, same ratio of gens:factories. Any variations (specialist options, outpost distances from each other) are purely random for everyone. This is fair. What you do and how you interact with other players might make you stronger or weaker, but that is a result of how you and everyone else plays, not a matter of fairness. If this were not true, no game in which there is a determined winner would ever be fair.

What is not fair, is having access to something in the game that other people do not, before the game even starts.

(1) I'm going to assume you are refusing to attempt to look at the ideas I presented in different perceptive than the one you believe is correct. As such, theres nothing else I can say that I haven't already said.

(2&3) Again, nothing about this game is "fair". Yes, everyone starts out with the same amount of Drillers, Bases, and Base Ratio types. But starting out on an equal playing field is not equivalent to "fairness".If things were truly "fair", maps wouldn't be auto generated and specialists wouldn't be random.

kevlargolem wrote:

topkilla wrote:(2) (...)And after 1 game that new player should have an idea how the other players played. So its a non-issue.

I have no clue what you mean by this part. Are you saying that by playing 1 single game, that a new player will have equal potential to have these automatic "diplomacies" as someone who has played for years?

What you're saying is the problem occurs because people who play one game end up trusting each other in the next. As such, it only takes one game for the "new" player to also develop such relationships. Meaning this "problem" isn't really a problem.

Anonymous play is coming in the next update, scheduled to arrive in about a week.

stefan wrote:Anonymous play is coming in the next update, scheduled to arrive in about a week.

I saw.

The problem is that anonymous play by itself solves 0 of the issues mentioned in this thread. AND makes those problems way worse.