@enriador I love the newer Icons :)

I have not read every lengthy post in this thread and am also not completely aware of what was posted about the icons in other thread. So please forgive me if I mention something obsolete.

For me, the current standard unit icons never were an issue. Though if we talk about changing something I support the point of replacing the current standard unit icons with some less anachronistic ones that also resemble the ownership.

I much prefer representative icons over some geometric shapes, at least if we are talking about a standard for a broad set of variants and not some specialities of certain variants. My main concern here is not the confusion it might cause, but IMHO some sort of unit models just let the board look more interesting than abstract shapes, especially for potential new members that visit vdip the first time.

But I guess we already reached a consensus here anyway.

Now let me come to your suggestion for new icons, @Enriador. Unfortunately I never got warm with that new icon style you introduced in some of your recent variants (your third proposal, the newer ones). Reasons for this are:
1) They might be to big.
2) I do not like the extensive use of black color. This color is reserved to borders and labels in most variants and the black color being the main element of contrast for the unit icons just makes the map look less appealing to me.
3) Instead contrast and interesting look could be achieved by using different colors. I am not aware of any reason to restrict the colors for the unit to the ownership color. Of course larger elements of the icon should resemble country color. But one could e.g. take the old fleet icon and just add a colored strip on the hull and get an get an interesting and colorful icon.

We already have some variants that resemble some sort of unit model while representing ownership, as well. At the moment I have found
Pirates, Atlantic Colonies and 1066.
While the first two ones use icons that might be a bit too detailed for the small map, I especially like the icons' style of 1066. Perhaps those could serve as an inspiration.

@Enriador, I think I can speak for the majority of players here when I say that your effort in adding new variants is much appreciated and welcomed.

About the icons:

If I was in charge I would actually leave Classic(only classic, not all the derivatives, this would help distinguish them) exactly the same(sentimental value) and change all the modern variants(~1600-presant) to some form of the icons used in 1800 and Canton, or to something like that used in Divided States and WWIV. While all ancient/medieval variants could use shields/soldiers for armies and ships for fleets. And the non historical variants could simply use the tanks and ships of Classic. Haven, Mars, Germany 1648, Pirates, and Lepanto(and maybe some others I am missing) should use what they use currently.

This, I believe, would be enough to quell all possible confusion.

My reasoning for only using flags for the modern variants is the ambiguity that would result from using ancient flags that would be less recognizable, although if someone was willing to take the time to make flag icons for all the variants(even the ahistorical ones!!) is welcome to do so.

I personally think that the flags are just as, if not even more, intuitive(to me at least) then the tanks and ships. They have the added benefit of distinguishing between powers easily. Although tobi does have a point that it is possible to differentiate between powers in other ways.

Those are just my thoughts.

@tobias

>new icon style you introduced<

Just an addendum here: the second icon style is @Firehawk's work and credit must be due to him for the idea. I merely took his shapes and designed new flags for them in order to fit the variants' different powers.

The third icon style is @VaeVictis' work; I only tweaked the internal colors a bit and drawed the smallmap icons (inspired by the largemap icons he made).

>1) They might be to big.<

They can be reduced in size most easily. I will have to test them on some tiny corners before trying though, just to be sure if it's needed.

>2) I do not like the extensive use of black color. This color is reserved to borders and labels in most variants and the black color being the main element of contrast for the unit icons just makes the map look less appealing to me.<

Good point. I suppose we can have cannon/ships be less internally detailed (no big need to draw small details on a cannon's wheel for example) and apply some contrasting color (like in the third link's second image).

>3) Instead contrast and interesting look could be achieved by using different colors. I am not aware of any reason to restrict the colors for the unit to the ownership color<

There aren't any restrictions, actually. A darker/lighter shade relative to the "ownership color" can be applied to better highlight the unit and make it stand out a bit more.

>Of course larger elements of the icon should resemble country color. But one could e.g. take the old fleet icon and just add a colored strip on the hull and get an get an interesting and colorful icon.<

I don't think they would be unique enough in my opinion. That's a matter of perspective, obviously.

Here's an example of the old fleet icon with a colored strip on the hull: https://imgur.com/a/QXjF040

I still prefer replacing the old icons entirely - painting the hull doesn't make a big difference and I have no idea of what to do with the time-travelling tank.

>Pirates, Atlantic Colonies and 1066<

I played Pirates and 1066 before, and had a good look on these. Never played Atlantic Colonies just yet, but I find the icons a bit too hard to read even on largemap (though they do look beautiful).

1066 is my favorite. It has both unique shapes *and* different colors for each power's set of icons. The challenges of replicating these are 1) we have seven powers with mostly uniform weaponry/fleet composition and 2) somewhat complex flag designs.

1066 plays with different designs for 11th century shields, but can we go with *seven* different designs for early 20th century cannons? I confess I know very little about 1900s artillery.

How would we paint the icons? Flag-like designs are nigh impossible to draw on our small cannons/tanks (or anything that isn't a nicely symmetric square, hehehe). We can just paint them a single color of course, but then we go further away from 1066's design - a shame, because the style is one of vDip's best.

I toyed with Pirates' icons before. @TheAmbassador kindly allowed me to use the clipper icons for 'Manifest Destiny' (where they nicely fit the Wild West theme).

Clippers have *sails*, and it's a walk in the park to paint them, but these 20th century dreadnoughts only have bulky hulls and chimneys... Anyway, I suppose the end result (simply painting them a single color) has already been achieved by the newer icons?

Or do you mean something else entirely?

@ubercatcher

>your effort in adding new variants is much appreciated<

Thanks for the kind words @uber. =)

>I would actually leave Classic(only classic, not all the derivatives, this would help distinguish them) exactly the same(sentimental value)<

Well, that's as good a reason as any. I believe the old icons should be preserved in playable form in some way no matter what, for nostalgia's sake.

>change all the modern variants(~1600-presant) to some form of the icons used in 1800 and Canton, or to something like that used in Divided States and WWIV<

What I like about the 1800/Canton icons is that they are universal; they can easily represent anything from a Roman legion (with SPQR written inside) to a Soviet division (with a hammer and sickle in gold against a red field).

If we had to standardize all variants (hypothetically speaking) using literal representations, I would let the Early Modern variants use the Pirates' clippers (as they can reasonably represent Age of Sail galleons and carracks) and possibly add a cannon as the army icon (including Germany 1648). Late Modern variants could use the cannon/warship combo used by Edwardian.

Medieval/classical variants could also use (in fact, most of them already use) @BenjaminHester's amazing set of "generic" icons (sword & shield/boat), which you can see on Sengoku and Spice Islands.

> non historical variants could simply use the tanks and ships of Classic<

I think the 1066's icons for the Normans could fit neatly for nearly all fantastical variants. Futuristic variants (e.g. FotAE4) could have some high-resolution tanks/gunships instead of using the Classic ones.

That's just my imagination though. I don't think standardization is really necessary, and whoever ported these variants should have a say in whether their units should be changed. Still, a fun exercise.

>ambiguity that would result from using ancient flags<

I completely agree.

When I ported modern variants I went for flag icons. However, when doing Crusades 1201 and Spice Islands I didn't have flag designs for some of the powers (several cultures didn't bother to use flags as we understand them nowadays), so I went for @Hester's designs as a stand-in.

Maybe some day I will try my hand in making they look more unique than they currently do. Perhaps something with shapes, like 1066?

I love the second set of the 'newer' icons. I think those look PERFECT (esp. with the slightly offset blue).

Enriador, the reason that I wave my hand at the rubbish that you and nopun roll out here is because you both appear here with a a plethora of unsolicited change for the sake of change. You have no basis of experience playing games here to back up your claims, and what you have of it elsewhere is unsubstantiated. You both speak from a pulpit of self appointed expertise about experiences across the Diplomacy hobby, which again is pretty much fantasy.

For you to brush aside real variant designers like Benjamin Hester and David Cohen is the height of arrogance. Clearly you have some graphic skill, coding ability, and a genuine interest in history. These are all good things for a variant designer. You also have an unquenchable amount of enthusiasm for it, which is likewise applaudable. What you do not have is the necessary experience to understand the dynamics of Diplomacy game play, as evidenced by the sheer number of pointless variants tinkering with the Classic Diplomacy map of Europe. You and nopun have sought to force feed the flawed 1900 variant into VDiplomacy without understanding the disastrous effects of the ill-conceived victory conditions upon this community's already troubled ratings system. Instead of trying to understand why this is a problem you both seek to explain why points and ratings systems are really a good thing, using examples from tournament settings that do not apply to regular stand alone game play.

Why do you come here seeking feedback without actually taking time to consider what Diplomacy players have to say? If you're just looking for an echo chamber or an ego trip, that's fine I guess. But if your real intention is to develop Diplomacy variants, why would you shun opinions from players and designers with decades of experience? It's great that half a dozen millennials, still learning the game the wrong way here love all your industry, and take your opinions as gospel.

if your objective is to deliver good Diplomacy variants here or anywhere else, then I would offer this unsolicited advice to you.

1) Quality over quantity
2) See number 1 again
3) Play test the games *many* times before attempting to offer it for play as a fully developed product
4) Have a compelling reason for the variant. Calling a game Edwardian or Crusades sounds fantastic until the map looks like the same Diplomacy made with a few arbitrary changes, no special rules, no new powers, and no real connection to the implied name of the variant.
5) Experience the game of Diplomacy as a *player*, specifically other time tested variants to understand the challenges of balance, relationship dynamics, and the map's ability to hold true to still being a game of Diplomacy. Since you appear to fancy altering the Classic map so much, I'd recommend a good deal of play experience with it as well. Frankly the Classic map is a near perfect creation, and any attempts to change it are of dubious value (see #4 above again).
6) If you're going to be a creative artist, you need to learn to understand how to cope with criticism. At the end of the day the product is going to be your creation, and you can ignore or incorporate feedback as you please. There's no need to defend yourself as if every comment is a personal indictment or even of your talents.
7) Benjamin Hester and David Cohen are two of the best Diplomacy variant creators around. There are others, but both of these guys bother to poke their noses into this community at times. Learn from them, instead of dismissing them.
8) Drano is an extremely busy man, with a passion for this game, and one of the keener minds for analyzing maps, rules, and graphics that I have encountered in decades of play. If he is taking the time to comment on something here, you should consider what he's got to say. The fact that you've responded across four pages of comments here, and failed to grasp one single point form his thoughts is somewhat alarming.

I'll finish this off by saying that I have only bothered to comment on these things because I care enough to spend the time to help. My opinions may be strongly expressed, and perhaps even abrasive at times. If I'm abrasive with you, it's probably because you've been dismissive or disrespectful to me at some point. I don't wake up thinking to go be a mean nasty bastard on the internet everyday. I love this hobby, and want to see it continue. I remain extremely concerned about the decline of this community and the hobby itself as it devolves away from it's base into something about points and ratings. My offerings are always rooted in that, and that alone. I am not grandstanding here, or waging a crusade against you personally.

Can you guys both please stay on topic and stop making personal digs, this started out as a fairly simple matter up for debate, how is it become this?

--"It's great that half a dozen millennials, still learning the game the wrong way here love all your industry, and take your opinions as gospel."

Why have you started using millenial as an insult, saying people are learning the game the wrong way. Things change, board games get played on websites now, its amazing. I think we all value opinions from seasoned veterans of the diplomacy world but to say opinions are less valued when they come from someone younger than you is a bit silly. I dont mean to side with anyone in particular with this, not coming to Enriadors defence or anything because I dont think he's conducted himself well either at times, just thought this particular bit was out of line and off topic. Can we all just agree to solely argue about unit icons and related topics? That is what this post is about.

Back to the topic, I like the ships and cannons, particularly the high contrast ones, maybe change the inner lines from black to grey to avoid clashes with borders?

@ Firehawk -

While I don't necessarily think using "millennial" as an insult was the wisest choice, I think what he's referring to about learning the wrong way isn't about playing on websites, but rather, using rating systems. RUFFHAUS is a firm believer that the points and ratings systems used on websites irrevocably alters the way people play the game, and thus, it is no longer the game it was intended to be. It alters a fundamental aspect of the game and as such, people who learn to play with points and PPSC are learning "the wrong way". This goes way back into the whole PPSC v WTA v no ratings system at all debate though, which is definitely not something we want to delve into in this thread. That won't end well.

@ Enriador -

Since it seems there's been a pretty unanimous consensus on things going forward regarding the initial thrust of this thread, I'm going to call it a day and take my leave from this thread barring something drastically changing. I'm going make a couple last notes and extend an offer to you, and then I'll be out.

1) I must insist that you either call me "drano", or by my real name (Rob or Robert, whichever you prefer). With all due respect, I do not consider us "friends" in the way that I would allow people to refer to me by nicknames. I ask you to do this as a matter of respect for a fellow human being.

2) I have noted that you appear to get extremely defensive and come off as hyper-aggressive in some of your responses in ways that are not beneficial to your cause when debating a topic. Things like:

- "Whoa, clean your mouth buddy- no need to vomit shit at this cozy little thread this hour of the night."

These do not become someone who is trying to convince others of their position or who is attempting to be diplomatic. I will admit I get a bit sarcastic at times too, I need to work on that, however (and I may be wrong on this, someone correct me if I am), I try not to be the instigator, and I dont' think I come off as aggressive as other people do.

3) Regarding person details - I'm not trying to convince you of anything based on my pedigree. It doesn't matter if I'm Bill Gates, or a random homeless guy on the street, or Donald Trump. One of the most enjoyable things about Diplomacy to me is getting to know my opponents and forming bonds with them. I've met quite a few awesome people through Diplomacy that I love chatting with - about Dip and any other random topic too. Unfortunately these people live across the country, but if they ever came to Chicago, I'm totally down to have a beer with them and hang out.

Given that we are in a forum that has nothing to do with an actual specific game being played, I see no reason why people would lie about stupid details. So yes, I assume people are telling me the truth about their age and when they started playing Diplomacy. If in fact you were lying, I see no purpose to it, and begin to wonder why you would do that. I mean, instead of lying you could just respectfully decline to answer. If it's the truth, why obfuscate on the forum posts about it by being coy about the details? It serves no purpose to do so on the forum, and only muddies the waters.

So now, my offer:

I, like many of us here, love the Diplomacy hobby. Unfortunately, I also have a busy life and do not have the time nor necessary skills at this point to design and port maps to vDip or elsewhere. However, I'm more than happy to offer my opinion on anything and everything related to maps and Diplomacy in general. So if you ever want someone to look over your work with a critical eye, I offer my services. I sincerely hope you accept.

Take care all,
Rob

Something that doesn't get talked about with flag units is the underlying colors of the territories. In the latest Edwardian v3, the Turkish flag is red, yet Turkey is colored in as light brown. What I specifically like with the ships and cannons is the colored flag border around them that corresponds to my own color as I move to a new territory. It keeps me cognizant of being in enemy territory in a way that flags can't. What I'm saying is, there should be a connection between map color and unit in some way. That can easily be realized with something akin to the icons being used for the new Punic Wars variant, where if you wanted to add flags, the ships' sails themselves would create a good location to do so, but the border around the ship is clearly tied to the country color representing it.

@ RUFFHAUS 8 : +1

>Can you guys both please stay on topic and stop making personal digs<

I apologize if I offended anybody. Online discussions all too often derails from the topic and turn into an ugly orgy of insults.

I muted the offenders who insist on making stupid and badly-made personal attacks (are they still boasting about their fake ages? At least Enri-ass-dor was funny) rather than debate with their wits (?), and I advise those who dislike such bad language (including from myself, I am equally guilty) to do the same.

>change the inner lines from black to grey to avoid clashes with borders<

Hmm, that's an intriguing idea. We could avoid what @tobias disliked (too much black on the unit icons) but still keep the overall drawing of the icons.

Grey Newer Icons: https://imgur.com/a/BTOYlq1

>In the latest Edwardian v3, the Turkish flag is red, yet Turkey is colored in as light brown.<

I don't think the flags and map colors are directly connected from a *design* standpoint. Dark yellow is a traditionally used color for the Ottoman Empire, and the flag happens to have no connection with the color.

> there should be a connection between map color and unit in some way<

I do believe the map has a better overall feeling when they do connect. You should take a look at this link (https://imgur.com/a/BTOYlq1).

>the ships' sails themselves would create a good location to do so<

I mentioned that possibility before, but unfortunately it's not feasible. Dreadnoughts don't have sails!

@all or just Enriador -

Can someone ask Enriador if he can see my messages? If I got blocked I'm not sure he can, and I honestly hope he accepts my offer I made for the betterment of the community as a whole.

CALL TO THOSE WHO HAVEN'T COMMENTED YET:
We want to hear your opinion, if you have an opinion on the issue please speak up. I don't have time to summarize what has already been said. Would someone else try to do that please?

I think standardizing variant units icons is a great idea. Not sure why we shouldn't use either the shapes or the icons from WWIV.

@RUFF, Vdiplomacy is all about adding more variants and different ways to play. That's what the "V" stands for. What's so horrible about some slightly less then average variants getting published? They will just become like others that have been put out long ago and are never used again. Not that much of a blow to the community if you ask me.

I don't see why you hate adding things to the site so much, it seems unfounded.

Besides muting/blocking Ruff, YouCant and drasno will I have to mute you (@Retillion) too? =(

You haven't added anything *at all* (neither content/feedback nor crap) to the topic, and limited yourself to agree with some very disturbing viewpoints:

@drasno/@YouCant are good folks (as far as we interacted before), but I can't stand lazy people bragging about age and discarding others' opinions due to what they imagine, in their foolish thoughts, to be others' ages. For them I was a millenial, then a college graduate and recently a teenager - maybe I got upgraded further, but since I blocked these poor souls I wouldn't know.

@Ruff is damn hypocrite, to my surprise. He dared say that my voluntary work here is "rubbish" (or a similar word), but then in @Flame's thread about one of @David Cohen's variants he praised David's work. He says that to the guy who ported David's Spice Islands (with Oli's support), made the Interactive Map available for David's Maharajah (with tobias' help), and is working on bringing the massive East Indies to vDip (David helped personally with this one).

When @nopunin10did designed all by himself a scoring system that is obviously very well-done, he merely handwaved one of the cornerstones of the Hobby (obsession with scoring) as unorworthy of attention. Not to mention his senseless doomsaying about Alex porting Baron von Powell's 1900, one of the most widely beloved variants in the history of Diplomacy, as a attempt at screwing with the website.

@Enriador, can you see Drano's messages?

@Enriador, this is Drano's last post, I think you should read this.

"Since it seems there's been a pretty unanimous consensus on things going forward regarding the initial thrust of this thread, I'm going to call it a day and take my leave from this thread barring something drastically changing. I'm going make a couple last notes and extend an offer to you, and then I'll be out.

1) I must insist that you either call me "drano", or by my real name (Rob or Robert, whichever you prefer). With all due respect, I do not consider us "friends" in the way that I would allow people to refer to me by nicknames. I ask you to do this as a matter of respect for a fellow human being.

2) I have noted that you appear to get extremely defensive and come off as hyper-aggressive in some of your responses in ways that are not beneficial to your cause when debating a topic. Things like:

- "Whoa, clean your mouth buddy- no need to vomit shit at this cozy little thread this hour of the night."

These do not become someone who is trying to convince others of their position or who is attempting to be diplomatic. I will admit I get a bit sarcastic at times too, I need to work on that, however (and I may be wrong on this, someone correct me if I am), I try not to be the instigator, and I dont' think I come off as aggressive as other people do.

3) Regarding person details - I'm not trying to convince you of anything based on my pedigree. It doesn't matter if I'm Bill Gates, or a random homeless guy on the street, or Donald Trump. One of the most enjoyable things about Diplomacy to me is getting to know my opponents and forming bonds with them. I've met quite a few awesome people through Diplomacy that I love chatting with - about Dip and any other random topic too. Unfortunately these people live across the country, but if they ever came to Chicago, I'm totally down to have a beer with them and hang out.

Given that we are in a forum that has nothing to do with an actual specific game being played, I see no reason why people would lie about stupid details. So yes, I assume people are telling me the truth about their age and when they started playing Diplomacy. If in fact you were lying, I see no purpose to it, and begin to wonder why you would do that. I mean, instead of lying you could just respectfully decline to answer. If it's the truth, why obfuscate on the forum posts about it by being coy about the details? It serves no purpose to do so on the forum, and only muddies the waters.

So now, my offer:

I, like many of us here, love the Diplomacy hobby. Unfortunately, I also have a busy life and do not have the time nor necessary skills at this point to design and port maps to vDip or elsewhere. However, I'm more than happy to offer my opinion on anything and everything related to maps and Diplomacy in general. So if you ever want someone to look over your work with a critical eye, I offer my services. I sincerely hope you accept.

Take care all,
Rob"

>can you see Drano's messages?<

Nope, I muted him after further insult.

To be honest, the way we were discussing I doubt either of us could have added anything of value to each other. My patience with offense has a natural limit.

"Nope, I muted him after further insult."

This is exceedingly disappointing and I'm sorry that Enriador chose to mute me. I ask those of you who have followed the thread to consider the implications of what this means for those involved.

Enriador has chosen to mute 3 people over disagreements regarding map design. While one could make an argument that RUFFHAUS's first message on the thread was inappropriate, I would argue that YCHTT and myself have not posted anything that's "mute" worthy in this thread. What does it say about Enriador if he's willing to mute over fairly civil conversation, where he gave at least as many "insults" as he received? Should not he be blocked for his "insults" if our "insults" were so bad? And the talk about muting Retillion as well over agreement with RUFFHAUS (a post that Enriador probably never even saw because he muted RUFFHAUS)? It comes off as someone who simply does not want to hear opposing viewpoints.

I could understand ignoring our viewpoints on this thread if he feels its run its course. But with a mute, he's effectively cut off any future conversations that might arise, which, for someone who loves to design and port maps, is a terrible idea. For what it's worth, I hope Enriador unmutes me, and my offer to assist with future maps and designs still stands.

>Drano's last post<

Thanks for acting as messenger @uber, but I have no interest whatsoever in reading it. We already traded quite a few words (from compliment through advice to insult) and I doubt @drasno has anything else to add that is useful to me.

He did make some cool observations that I wrote down in my notepad. But sending me a private message asking details about my private life and snarking off that our debate was due to "age difference" (he probably learned handwaving opposing arguments with @Ruff) was more than enough for me.

For everyone who *can* see my messages -

I did indeed ask how old Enriador was and when he started playing Diplomacy. He acts like I was asking him for his SSN, date of birth, address and full name though. I truly did (and still do) think that part of the difference in opinion is due to age however, as older people tend to have a more traditional and fixed viewpoint on things in Dip, whereas younger people tend to be more flexible on ideas.

As far as not wanting to read my message that uber posted, well, that says a lot. I would have hoped that someone who plays and designs Diplomacy maps (where you have to reconcile with enemies much of the time or face failure) would understand the importance of reading things from people you disagree with. If I had called him out with racist, or sexist, or any other type of slurs, I could totally understand it. That is not the case. He himself admitted that he participated in the same type of behavior

<and I advise those who dislike such bad language (including from myself, I am equally guilty)>

so does that mean everyone on this thread should block Enriador? I'd hope we're all more mature than that.

FWIW, Enriador, I hold no grudge. I'm more than happy to discuss whenever you are. Just click the unmute button and it's all good.

The hot weather here in Europe has been turning my brain into scrambled eggs the last several days, so I'm not really up to get into all the nitty gritty details of the last pages, but to throw my 2 cents in:

I prefer the classic, naturalistic army and fleet tokens of WebDip/vDip over the abstract geometric shapes of Conspiracy et al. I could accept coloring them in the color of the respective power if it can be technically done (and might even welcome it over time, after my initial grognard grumbling about kids these days with their fidget spinners eating tidepods).

>abstract geometric shapes of Conspiracy<

Conspiracy uses cannons and gunboats though. I think you mean Backstabbr, which uses circles for armies and inverted triangles for fleets?

Yes, I have probably confused it with Backstabbr.

> I could accept coloring them in the color of the respective power if it can be technically done<

It can be technically done, for sure.

What do you think of these?: https://imgur.com/a/BTOYlq1

@Skyrock -

There has been a general consensus on this thread that naturalistic (but period-appropriate) icons are a solid choice for the maps, hence Enriador posting the link to the slightly redesigned cannon and ship icons that are being created to give better contrast to the background color.

Just a word of warning though: Be careful with your references to kids and fidget spinners and tidepods - some of us got muted by Enriador partly because of discussing age. And no, I only wish I was kidding about that.

Oh no! Enriador "muted" me. How will I sleep tonight? How will I make it into work with all the heartbreaking loss?

I may be many things, but a hypocrite is not one of them. My positions are entirely consistent. For a whiny snowflake, bemoaning insults, Enriador sure feels free to throw them around to others. My intital post on this thread was not insulting at all. I typically ignore posts from this guy, but after seeing the forum page blown up with his tit for tat, cut and paste debate style I got frustrated and weighed in. In my comments I noted my perspective of his work, while complimenting his industrious efforts. My perspective of his work is that it's not resulting in beneficial products, just numerous ones. I also noted that he's not interested in conversation or feedback about his efforts, as evidenced by his ability to even consider a differing opinion.

Enriador comes to VDiplomacy, not to play, but to post countless forum threads concerning his variants. He presents them in the fashion as if he's soliciting feedback, but he's not welcoming any comments except those praising his work. He's like a musician screaming at an audience because they aren't engaging with the music, or a artist raging at viewers who don't fawn over his painting and sculpture. This sheds a great deal of light on his credentials as a creator. The inability to absorb and process criticism of works which you put on public display for review is an arming show of narcissism.

I did "dare to say" that Enriador's voluntary work is rubbish. It is. I avoided saying this for many months because it's clear that he's passionate about what he's doing, and that passion properly channeled might one day develop something great. That will not happen without some reflection on his part, and a willingness to study his subject matter more than he has. Conversations with him clearly reveal that he has minimal understanding of the hobby and it's various communities. I did dare to say this, because I dare to say what I'm thinking. If all people want to hear here is a bunch of sycophants, they've come to the wrong place.

I did praise David Cohen's work as a variant designer. He's been at it for two decades or more, and he has created some of the most popular variants in the hobby. His Known World 901 map is extremely popular here. David is also an experience player and game master, capable of understanding the various mechanics and nuances involved in variant design. Benjamin Hester is cut from the same cloth, with similar credentials and reputation in the Diplomacy community. This isn't me saying so. Go to the Diplomatic Pouch and research the variant page. Ask people who play the game in establish and respected communities and tournaments. Yes, I said that to the guy who coded someone else's design into the Web Dip software. There is a huge difference in map/variant design, and the ability to write code. We're talking apples and hand grenades here. I'm not criticizing the design of Maharajah, Spice Islands, or East Indies variants, nor the coding of said products. I think this stuff is great. It remains unclear what exactly Enriador did, but if he was helpful in getting them coded here for play, that's great. That does *not* make this trove of Classic redrawn variants quality products.

Nopunin10did is not a pillar of the hobby. Enriador, may like the guy, but that doesn't make him a pillar, or his proposed scoring system above question or criticism. His plan was not "obviously well done" at all. nopun, rolled into a conversation here with no actual experience playing in this community, citing the need for a scoring system (like his) base upon what he says they do in tournament play. Right off the bat the fallacy that a scoring system is necessary is propped up by the comparison to tournament play. It remains unclear what tournament nopun participates in since no one actually know who this guy is. The fact remains that tournaments need a scoring system as a vehicle for playing multiple games/rounds over a weekend. The objective in tournaments is to play 2-3 rounds of shortened duration games (limited by real time constraints), determining which players to place on the final board. None of this is necessary in Diplomacy community with stand along games unaffected by such time constraints. Tournaments and community play are entirely different animals, once again apples and hand grenades. What no pun and the president of his fan club are incable of recognizing (perhaps because they don't actually play here) is that VDip games have become infected by a lust for ratings/points rather than a focus on the core concepts of the game: victory by solo/prevent others from victory by solo. When these primal components of the game are lost Diplomacy becomes bastardized or worse, and entirely different game. It's like playing chess and telling players that the objective is to kill the other player's queen, and creating a rating system that values queen captures so much that players stop trying to put their opponents in checkmate.

the 1900 variant is an established and tested product. Somehow Enriador and nopun want some credit for someone else's work there too. I criticized it's implementation here with victory conditions below 50% of the total supply centers because of the propblems that VDip already has with points and ratings. While I do not like the variant, I did not criticize it's design. I simply opined that *if* introduced to VDip, that it should be coded with victory conditions at the greater than 50% of total centers. This is absolutely possible, and not without precedent when bringing PBEM variants to the WebDip platform. Naturally Enriador and nopun shit all over the concern, in spite of having zero experience with the points and ratings issues we have here. The reality is that lowering the victory conditions below 50% cheapens the value of solos across the community. It also plays into the entire PPSC model, where players stop focusing on stopping solos because they will earn more points by losing.

This is not a matter of alarmist theory. The community has seen it's core players leave in droves over the past few years because the quality of play has become so corrupted by points/ratings driven behavior. Enriador and nopun are two chief voices shouting down any calls for fixing the cancer, although it's unclear why, because neither has any experience of note to have an educated opinion on the matter. Less vocal voices like Chumbles and ubercatcher weigh in form time to time, bemoaning the fact that they see things differently. Seeing things differently is one thing. Changing the game into something else is not perspective. The objective of Diplomacy is to solo without allowing you opponents to solo against you. If we were in a chess club with people changing the objective to queen capture, then purists... (fuck that) chess players would rise up and object, and rightly so.

As one final note to ponder for those in doubt here. When Retillion and I line up in 100% agreement, the stars are in alignment. And he like many others here, who Enriador dismisses, actually has first hand experience backing up their stated opinions.

@Enriador :

https://imgur.com/a/BTOYlq1

The symbol is not visible enough because it is about the same color than the background.
It is important to be able to grasp the global situation in a glance, even for those who study very carefully the map.

The reason why I wrote my previous message is in fact because I am rather worried that some changes proposed by Enriador (who litteraly floods the forum by the volume and the frequency of his posts) might happen and will make things worse than they are.