Here's my reasoning:

1) In a practice game, players are focused on RPing their characters accurately (which could still involve winning) and generally care more about the fun of the game than winning.

2)In a ranked game, this changes. Most players (generally) join a ranked game for the points, with the expectation of winning. And this affects their mentality of how they play. Instead of focused on RPing to their character accurately, they start RPing to win instead. This can take some fun away from those who genuinely just want to RP and ruin a game.

3) Lastly, it makes voting to end annoying since there's usually just one guy who wants the points too much to quit.


Any thoughts/criticism?

well kindda unrelated but it took me ages to find out that games were under either ranked or practice i always played diplos and ffa for the lulz.

I agree, but this goes along with the "Make diplomacy a gamemode" issue in that you can't just make a game unranked by checking the name for the word "Diplo" or "RP" or "Diplomacy" it would need an entire setting, which too many people seem to object to for it to work.

too many people seem to object to for it to work.

My understanding is that Frizzer just doesn't want to take time to do it

Definitely agree. Diplo isn't about the points. It's about pretending to be someone you aren't (but that's just my opinion) and when it is a ranked game there are too many warmongers and PEs ruining the fun :/.

Also on the topic of diplo, I don't like playing real world diplos, as most people have no idea what the nation they are playing as.

---

So if Fizzer implements a diplo game mode, I really hope it is mandatory to be unranked, in the sense of points for levels.

Or... Add a whole new stats category for diplo win rate. But I agree, no points should be given for a diplo.

I always make them ranked, bit only because I forget to turn points off :$

Anyway, as long as it is not an open game, it doesn't really matter, I think.

Would there be betrayals when you cant gain anything... I must admit the fact that you can gain something gives a nice effect to alliances... becuase you cant trust anyone....

Edited 12/11/2015 01:40:51

For open games or test games, I would definitely advocate no points, but certain clans are built around this, and as such for those clans, the points do make sense.

As most people playing are reasonable and not extremly point hungry.

Edited 12/11/2015 02:02:54

People who are obsessed with winning to the point where they don't have fun anymore bother and confuse me.

The issue with no points is Diplomacy-only players wouldn't be able to level up and access Custom Scenario hosting.

By the way, one the things we are developing is being able to enforce rules, such as not being able to attack allies and not being able to attack a player without declaring, etc.

It's going to be client-side, so it should bypass Fizzer entirely, so we won't need him to change anything in the game to make it work.

Is that something that the Diplo community be interested in? Personally I'm getting sick of PEs ruining games, but if the rules are enforced would they truly be Diplo games?

Edited 12/11/2015 04:06:19

That would be interesting.

Yeah, that would be interesting! Best review ever! I'm quoting you on all the launch day posters! ^_^

Pretty pointless idea. The game creator can choose for it to be ranked or unranked depending on the style of gameplay they want.

I rarely bother with diplo games anymore,
but I especially avoid ranked diplo games...

Thus staying away from a stressful experience,
and also doing my part for the demand-side of the equation. :-D

Edited 12/11/2015 06:29:05

I usually play with them as ranked, I honestly don't mind them as practise, but honestly, I find that some players are arseholes no matter which it is, I don't think it makes a difference, only playing with better players makes a difference, and that's what my black list is for ;)

there is the problem that, Diplo-heavy players want to create custom scenario and need a lot of points to do it. anyway i find rule-breakers, booted players and quitters far worse then those who act greedy to get points. i think we need more severe punishment against being booted.
a diplomacy setting in the creation of the game is however not needed, unless you have a way to enforce the diplo-rules on a game.

I assume that would be the point?

But... If the rules are enforced would they truly be Diplo games?

I guess it depends if the game is more diplo or RP orientated. "There can be only one" suits some hc diplo struggles, but is not very suitable to real world rp scenarios.

I think one way to solve it would be the possibility to make teams during the game, and to share the victory points within those teams. Of course there are many ways to exploit that kind of rule, but on the other hand people who just want exp points have ways of doing it already.

Fleece, your idea of making enforceable rules on diplo would be amazing. PEs are probably the biggest ruiners of game, definitely surpassing greedy diplo players..

Yeah, I agree... We're a long way off, but that's one of my personal goals in the project :)

One of the things we won't even be able to do client-side is change how points are given out. If it's a "FFA" we cannot change it to a team of 3 winning and sharing points, for example. Best we can do is make the game auto-vote to end once certain conditions are met, say, if 3 allies are the last players remaining.

Obviously, that means no points though, shame but that's why best we can hope for with what we have atm.