https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9157817

'Diplomacy' 'games' are not real Warlight

If you don't like diplomacy games stop going onto threads about them. They are currently a legal form of gameplay (Fizzer doesn't stop people from making them, or discourage it), so they are a part of warlight.

Oh, I never said I don't like them. They're beautiful comedy! I come onto such threads to laugh at them ^__^

And why are they funny, may I ask?

Because they tend to collapse and the rules are often far too contrived to work. Diplo games very rarely function well unless they're multi-days run by clans. You'll find that playing strategic games outside a strategic clan is a lot easier than playing diplomacy games outside a diplomacy clan, and this only becomes increasingly true as the rules become more complex.

You also have to think about the sort of players attracted to diplomacy games- they're often the kind that don't know how to play strategy games, especialy if they join a diplo from Open Games. Look at the history of a diplo game, for example, and check move orders. You'll notice that most players in a diplo don't have a basic grasp of expansion, proper combat (not even the simple idea of going after bonuses), or turn order (risky moves last, stack-busters first, etc.).

Often, it's people who won't survive a 1v1 against a half-decent player (try playing a 1v1 with anyone in a big pure-diplo clan and you'll notice this) and try to make up for it by feeling "big" and "powerful" in a glorified lottery game. That's where a lot of imbalanced Custom Scenarios (e.g., ones with "host bonuses") come from. And of course, there's the kind of people that go out of their way to try and "win" a diplo.

Really, it's because most diplo players don't understand what a diplo fundamentally is. It's not like Rise of Nations or Age of Empires where it's a fair (and often strategic) game; instead, due to Warlight's lack of built-in support, it's often a set of contrived, poorly-thought-out rules overlaid on top of an imbalanced setup (very few maps work well with diplos, so often you can find a player who goes into the game with 10 times the chance of "winning" as another) where the only point is the experience.

The only good diplos are ones where people realize that- that it's all about roleplay and experience. It's fun, it's a game, but it's not strategic and it sure ain't worth bragging about when you "win."

When people don't, that's how you end up with PEs/boots/etc., leading to most diplos being complete jokes.

Even when a diplo works well, I'd take a 1v1 auto-game over it any day. A ladder game would be even better.

Edited 7/24/2015 22:57:55

really the only times i ever had fun in diplos was giving myself little goals in the game or trying to serve justice. like trying to get the annoying dude eliminated, helping the person who is getting double teamed or attacked by a much bigger opponent, or fighting pes. or having a pure 1v1 war with someone of equal strength.

i knew it was a joke of a game, but i used to be able to find ways of making it fun and challenging.

i did start playing them for a weak ass reason though. i got frustrated with myself for not being good at strategy and i didn't seek out the tools to get better.

in the end i found diplos to be mostly annoying and when i joined the 1v1 ladder i had way more fun and slowly got better. (im still not good though)

im not gonna knock diplos or diplo players, cause playing any kind of game is supposed to be fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun.

@Armin Arlert
Damn... well said.
+1

Edited 7/24/2015 23:26:49

It's good to join diplos with 10-30 people. The less people, the easier to implement more rules. Diplomacy with friends and trusted players can have any amount of rules or intricacies.

It's also smart to look for diplos with prereqs, as they will have less chance of boots.

You also have to think about the sort of players attracted to diplomacy games- they're often the kind that don't know how to play strategy games

Often, it's people who won't survive a 1v1 against a half-decent player (try playing a 1v1 with anyone in a big pure-diplo clan and you'll notice this)

'Diplomacy' 'games' are not real Warlight

I think you guys are being a bit unfair here. The whole, "Diplos don't have any strategy" argument is very false. They do require strategy, just strategy of a different kind. You have to make proper alliances, decide who you can trust and who you can't. You've got to decide when's the proper time to invade someone or whether or not it's worth getting involved in an on going war. There's a lot of factors to consider because you aren't just dealing with numbers, you're dealing with the unpredictability of people.

Secondly, judging people based only on their 1v1 skills comes off as really elitist. Probably more than people who do so are even aware of. Just because somebody isn't in the top X of the 1v1 ladder doesn't make them a bad player. There's far more to Warlight than 1v1. Heck, this game is based off of Risk and Risk is rarely 1 v 1. I'd argue that team games,FFAs, and even Diplos take just as much strategy to win as 1v1 games. It's just a matter of different kinds of strategy.

Everyone has the idea of Diplos spot on.

I've gone off Diplos more recently because it's too usually a very political game, and often if you get warmongers in the game with the stronger slots it can often get boring very fast.

Ultimatly it should be about fun though, like any game :)

Oh, also a good way to make diplos more about fun and less about winning is to make them practise games, stops so many war mongerers getting involved usually I find.

Edited 7/24/2015 23:55:06

im not gonna knock diplos or diplo players, cause playing any kind of game is supposed to be fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun.

Bingo. Games are played for fun. All the objectives, etc., are just things we establish to achieve that.

Diplos are equally valid in that regard because people use them to achieve their objective of having fun.

That said, I wouldn't consider them competitive. It's like skipping rocks on a lake- the kind of game you play for pure enjoyment, not to demonstrate superiority in any form of ability.

As for Eklipse, you've made some valid points. Theoretically, diplomacy games test your ability to plan ahead (build robust alliances) and work with people without fully knowing/understanding their knowledge or intentions. The issue is that there are too many other factors in the game (boots, starts, people who get bored and decide to play kingmaker) that ultimately "break" diplos as a game, causing them to run into some classical problems (like the kingmaker problem I mentioned earlier). There's ultimately just too much luck involved for the game to be "fair" or "strategic" and in the end it's just something you play purely for the sake of having fun. There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

FFA's are good classic strategic games. Diplo games are meant to be played for fun, not winning. Diplomacy games are in one way like Communism: in a perfect world where everyone follows the rules it's amazing, but this isn't a perfect world, unless you play with highly trusted friends something is bound to go wrong. They require not strategy in war, but strategy to win a war. Sometimes you may need a little bit of FFA style playing as Russia to beat back an angry Napoleon, but it is rare you will ever use FFA skills in a diplomacy game, if you ever will.

FFAs are far from strategic outside very, very few cases.

All games, including this one, are meant to be about having fun, and games provide the medium for having fun. However, because people get their fun from so many different sources, from strategic thinking, to roleplaying, to shooting anything in their path, that it's impossible for any game to cater to everyone in a one-size-fits-all fun style. As such, most games only focus on one aspect that people find fun. Warlight for example is a game catered to those who like to play strategy. Those who want to use Warlight to play roleplay and diplo games can do that, but they have to realize that the game is only catered to strategic players, and with that comes the risk of PEs, warmongerers, etc. It's wrong to consider diplos or rps inferior or superior than strategic games because they're fundamentally different, and there is really no way to objectively compare them.

I actually have a slightly different view. Diplomacy games can be fascinating and complex, and certainly require a great deal of thought, finesse, and strategy. A "diplomacy" game has a number of interesting design features (for instance, with good players it should automatically be balancing for stronger positions versus weaker positions: because, of course, you'll have to deal very differently with a player with a stronger position than one who has little strength and no good position).

However, Diplomacy games here on Warlight are stunted, crippled versions of what a Diplomacy game can be. For some reason, there is a tremendous desire in the community for hard rules surrounding alliances, peace, declarations of war, and "PEs".

All these features kill the game dead. There is no subtlety or strategy. Generally speaking, everyone allies with everyone, until someone breaks a rule, and then everyone attacks that person. There is nothing interesting about that: of COURSE they will win, there is no other possible outcome.

The bizarre rules for alliances, declarations of war, and so on completely ruin the game, making into this weird thing that everyone complains about.

Give up on this idea of unbreakable alliances enforced by the game itself, and embrace actual Diplomacy play, where your agreements are only as good as your ability to enforce them. That makes it interesting. Otherwise, it's just a weird kind of "playing house", just with Warlight armies instead of dolls.

Secondly, judging people based only on their 1v1 skills comes off as really elitist. Probably more than people who do so are even aware of. Just because somebody isn't in the top X of the 1v1 ladder doesn't make them a bad player.

The social hierarchy of Warlight is merit-based. If that is elitism, then so be it.

From lvl 1-25 I mainly played Diplomacy games. I'm now into Strategy games Turkey 1v1. My reason for this is because of people getting booted, Being PEs and Super-powers gangbanging. Diplomacy games would be amazing if people could play Diplomacy games properly..

Diploy game --> Non competitive game --> your primary goal isn't winning --> set them up as practice games.

The social hierarchy of Warlight is merit-based. If that is elitism, then so be it.

Merit-based hierarchy isn't the problem. The problem is that some people seem to think that only 1v1 has any merit. This is like saying being a doctor is the only worthy profession in the world, when there are others who contribute.

2v2,3v3,etc. all have just as much merit as 1v1.