New Diplomacy Game in need of two more.
post by saliency · 2010-11-30T20:34:56.861Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 11 commentsWe have five people from the NYC division of LW. We need two more players
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=42765
passcode: streetlight
11 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by JGWeissman · 2010-12-01T06:30:07.230Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We have five people from the NYC division of LW. We need two more players
Replies from: Zvi, KevinWhen the five SIAI Fellows allied against my two friends, they ensured there was a five-against-two alliance with themselves on the winning side, and successfully reduced the gameboard from six opponents to four. Although they could have done this with anyone (eg Jasen could have selected two other Fellows and my two friends, and forged an equivalent coalition of five), Jasen would have been at risk of five other people having the same idea and excluding him. By choosing a natural and obvious division in which he was on the majority, Jasen avoided this risk.
↑ comment by Zvi · 2010-12-01T12:59:55.502Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I put Jasen on notice for that, and have made it clear this is somewhere between Cheating and Very Bad Form. Also, it's Anonymous communication, so we won't know which 5 we are unless we compare notes. We have 6 and the game starts in 6 hours.
comment by Zvi · 2010-12-02T18:28:04.555Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The game has started and both France and Russia appear to be MIA. The site does NOT send emails to notify players of communications or the game starting! Sending multiple players into S1901 civil disorder is no way to play, especially these two (Germany + Italy being out is still a decent game).
If you guys read this, whoever you are, please enter placeholder orders and start talking; no doubt your diplomatic positions are deteriorating by the minute.
comment by saliency · 2010-12-02T18:09:41.836Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Non-NYCers. If you are playing make some noise.
http://groups.google.com/group/lw-diplomacy
Replies from: skeptical_lurker↑ comment by skeptical_lurker · 2010-12-02T23:09:20.056Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why is that discussion on google groups rather then LW?
comment by skeptical_lurker · 2010-12-01T14:50:41.179Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hey, I've been lurking on LW for ages, and I though this would be a good time to make my first post.
So, while the game is anonymous now, are we going to compare notes afterwards? I just want to know if I am playing the prisoner's dilemma or the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Replies from: Zvi↑ comment by Zvi · 2010-12-01T15:58:23.992Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you think you're playing the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma when you play Diplomacy, and you don't mean subsequent years of the same game, it's a sign that you are very much doing it wrong. Diplomacy is at its best when all players play to win the current game; doing something this game to make your position stronger next game is Metagaming. And That's Terrible.
Replies from: skeptical_lurker↑ comment by skeptical_lurker · 2010-12-02T23:07:36.300Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't mind agreeing not to metagame, but I don't see why metagaming is terrible. You may prefer an absence of metagaming, but that's a subjective opinion, not a fact. Personally I would have thought that metagaming would make for a more interesting game, unless players start refusing to play more games after backstabbing everyone, but that would be frowned upon.