Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
FirstPreviousNextLast
gman314 (1016 D)
12 Mar 11 UTC
(+27)
Winning
Oli won.
On Imperial Civilization's off-topic thread (link inside), there was a brief stint of Second to Last Person to Post Wins. Now that the thread is closed, Oli won.
10487 replies
Open
Peppapig (1129 D)
Fri 04 Oct UTC
i wanna ask a strange question
do English native speakers always follow the grammar?
or just like"oh i feel this sentence is ok"
16 replies
Open
schizo staccato (1106 D)
Sat 09 AM UTC
(+1)
Looking for a replacement in a rule variant game on discord
(but the game is played in French)
(but the variant is great)

This is the third edition of the "Espionage Dip" variant - not the old play-by-mail version with spying units, the newer discord version with spying players.
4 replies
Open
kitczing (958 D)
Sat 02 PM UTC
In person variant moves adjudicator?
My question is, is there a way to use the website or any computer program to input orders for a speedier turn resolution?
Is it 'legal' to make 10 accounts to input the orders or is there a way to solo moderate a game to help with this process?
3 replies
Open
butterhead (1272 D)
21 May 12 UTC
(+16)
Advertise your NON-live games here!
In an effort to compromise the pro-ads versus anti-ads for games: Post here for your non-live games to cut down on the number of ads but still advertise games. Post game link, WTA or PPSC, and the bet. Note: this doesn't count for special rules games.
3437 replies
Open
David Hood (976 D)
Tue 01 Oct UTC
(+1)
September 2024 Deadline News is out!
September edition of Deadline News just released on DBN - interview with frequent tournament winner Katie Gray, discussion about the Sydney Diplomacy Club with Shane Armstrong, and headlines from around the world of Diplomacy.
https://youtu.be/raUq3DVqdwo?si=IlutwKijEKmdWBX0
1 reply
Open
sgt_destruction (1000 D)
Thu 26 Sep UTC
(+1)
Can I create a sandbox?
Just got an account looking for where to create a sandbox.
2 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
Mon 23 Sep UTC
Looking for a Replacement for Europa 4 position
Hi, I wanna sub out of this game (https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=60053). I'm just in too many Dip games rn and need to focus on life stuff.

The position is quite good: Ottomans, high-table, start of Year 5 so still pretty early.
1 reply
Open
RazorPantherz (988 D)
Thu 19 Sep UTC
AI diplomacy
How do I make the AI play against me in vdip?
17 replies
Open
kaner406 (2088 D Mod (B))
08 Sep 18 UTC
(+7)
Variant Development Thread
This thread is made for the express purpose of cutting down of multiple threads that deal with new variants, ideas, concepts etc...
1135 replies
Open
Atlantic Colonies - Azores color bug
See below
1 reply
Open
JustAGuyNamedWill (1043 D)
12 Sep 24 UTC
(+1)
Anyone to Help me create a variant?
Hey yall. I have a variant design that I like but I dont really have a ton of time to make one myself. Is there someone who does that? I can credit you as co-creator.

If not thats totally cool
19 replies
Open
halfasleep (1770 D)
12 Sep 24 UTC
Looking to liquidate some positions
Hello all,

I'm planning to leave the site but want to stay in one game (not one I'm doing well in, it's for diplomatic reasons as well as it being a very, very long game, 9 months and counting). None of my positions are doomed; otherwise I'd just Civil Disorder out of them.
2 replies
Open
bbg (979 D)
12 Aug 24 UTC
Why we can’t make a sandbox
Why we can’t make a sandbox, in the WebDip I can but here no, I need most time for make a game of a big variant, for example Europa renovatio
15 replies
Open
Aserthreto (1132 D)
10 Sep 24 UTC
Does an unrated game affect reliability?
As it says, does an unrated game affect a persons reliability rating.
2 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
04 Sep 24 UTC
(+1)
Crashed game
This game is reported to have crashed just after a 10th player joined. :-(
Can something be done ? Thank you.

https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=60806
8 replies
Open
Squashywand0 (998 D)
06 Sep 24 UTC
Medieval Diplomacy A1 Sign ups are out!
Are you interested in large scale variants with lots of imbedded historical context? If so, signups for Medieval Diplomacy A1 have opened! Don't miss out on the fun! https://discord.gg/ZNjmPP6JUg
0 replies
Open
Anaika (1000 D X)
05 Sep 24 UTC
Buy Pain killers, OZEMPIC,STEROIDS Telegram ID : @Coolestguy57)
Buy Pain killers, ,OZEMPIC,STEROIDS

Telegram ID : @Coolestguy57
0 replies
Open
Anaika (1000 D X)
05 Sep 24 UTC
Buy 100% undetectable counterfeit money grade AAA+ ,SSD CHEM and CLONED CARDS FOR SALE
Buy 100% undetectable counterfeit money grade AAA+ ,SSD CHEM and CLONED CARDS FOR SALE

Telegram ID : @Coolestguy57
0 replies
Open
GOD (1883 D Mod (B))
03 Sep 24 UTC
shrinkles that dipple my winkles
people who ask us to be taken out of games
3 replies
Open
Chuttbugger (2738 D)
29 Jul 24 UTC
(+3)
Hold Trolls
I’ve noticed an influx of players who intentionally submit nothing but hold orders for years on end until they are eliminated, even when they’re not in hopeless positions. Often these players take over strong positions in large games, only to act as though their country is in civil disorder but without giving anyone else the chance to take over the position.
Chuttbugger (2738 D)
29 Jul 24 UTC
(+3)
’m not talking about players who accidentally miss a turn and remain in the game due to an excused NMR. I’m not talking about kingmakers, intentionally trying to help someone else solo. I’m not talking players who sacrifice their own position to take revenge on someone who attacked them. I’m not talking about players who give up on the brink of elimination, meeting their end more quickly by not supporting their final two or three units and disbanding their retreats. Those situations can all be frustrating, but they’re all well within the realm of fair play.

I’m talking about players who join a game and then simply choose not to play. They submit nothing but unsupported holds for years on end until they are finally eliminated. Often they’ll take over a strong position from a player who missed a turn and got put in civil disorder. A position with allies and enemies, with a good chance at reaching a draw, that suddenly becomes a black hole occupied by standing units. They won’t lift a finger to support an ally or stop a solo, even if they have the ability to create a stalemate line and force a draw. They just simply refuse to play.

I know that the moderator team is spread thin and overworked, but is there anything that can be done about these players? I’d love to see this become a bannable offense, but at the very least I would like to see these players forced into CD and blocked from rejoining the game they’re trolling. Worst case scenario, the country remains in CD until it is eliminated and nothing about the outcome is changed. But at the very least, another player has the chance to take over the position and the troll is not given reliability credit that allows them to continue ruining games with unfair play.

Here’s one of the most egregious examples I’ve seen, which ironically led to a solo for me: https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=56900 In spring of 1897, player AleChoel takes over France after an NMR. At the time, France is the largest country in the game, with a whopping 38 supply centers (12 away from victory) and successful wars being waged on two fronts, with a real opportunity to solo. Over the next NINE years, a total of 45 turns including builds and retreats, this player submitted nothing but unsupported holds, retreats and disbands, eventually leading to my solo. If at ANY point they had been replaced by an actual player, or simply decided to start playing in themselves, my solo could have been prevented - even in the final year. All of the other players in the game had been working together for years by the end, fruitlessly trying to stop me from walking into undefended supply centers.

Another example that led to a solo: https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=52930 This one was devastating in a 35-player game. In autumn of 2127, player “10321027” took over Illinois after an NMR. At the time, Illinois had more than 50 supply centers and was the largest country in the game. This player actually did submit orders for two years, but after voting concede in Spring 2129, they spent the next 6 years (30 turns including retreats and builds) submitting unsupported holds until going into CD themselves. By that time, they had just 8 centers remaining and their replacement was eliminated by the time South Africa soloed two years later, having walked into dozens of undefended supply centers despite the best efforts of the UK (Illinois’ former ally) and the rest of the board. This player “10321027” has employed this non-strategy this in several other games to date, though they have blessedly been inactive for the last two months.

These are not the only two examples I have, and I’m sure others have experienced this phenomenon as well. We can block the players to prevent them from joining future games with us, but it’s incredibly frustrating to have a large, lengthy game completely ruined by a troll. It would be very helpful if we could report these players and have them forced into CD early so that these situations can potentially be salvaged by people who actually want to play diplomacy.
G-Man (2516 D)
29 Jul 24 UTC
(+2)
Oooh. bad trend. Thanks for bringing the issue to everyone’s attention CB. Hopefully the mods can devise some sort of response to this, as this really defeats the three main objectives for playing: 1) play to win, 2) if you can’t win, play to draw, and 3) always make sure someone else can’t solo and force your loss.
GOD (1883 D Mod (B))
29 Jul 24 UTC
While I see this problem and find such behaviour obviously frustrating, I do not see a good way to police this.

If a player does not put in orders, they go CD and may be taken over.

If, however, they do put in orders, but these orders are all hold, how can we force someone to put in other orders? After all, generally resigning with all holds is a legitimate tactic i.e. when having been stabbed by player and allowing a existing front against player B to collapse.

Any thoughts welcome.
Chuttbugger (2738 D)
29 Jul 24 UTC
(+1)
Thanks for the responses. I agree wholeheartedly with G-Man’s three primary objectives, but I know others may have other objectives - most notably revenge, sacrificing any chance at victory or survival to screw over somebody who betrayed you. It’s not how I play the game, but I have threatened to do so as a desperation negotiation tactic. I recognize it as a legitimate tactic to allow a front against one player to collapse as a punishment to another player. It’s always a risk you take when betraying someone, that they’ll abandon their position to minimize your gains.

But I do not agree that resigning is a legitimate tactic. That’s why NMRs and CDs are punished via the reliability rating system, and why players who miss too many turns are automatically locked out of their account for 24 hours (increasing after repeated offenses).

The players that I refer to in my post are essentially attempting to circumvent that system, essentially committing NMR violations and going into civil disorder without punishment. I don’t suggest that someone submitting nothing but hold orders be forced to put in other orders - I suggest that they be forcibly placed into civil disorder to allow another player the chance to salvage the position. I suggest that a player who submits all holds be treated the same as one who submits no orders - they are given as many excuses as the game setting allows, and then placed in CD.
Chuttbugger (2738 D)
29 Jul 24 UTC
Also, I think it’s worth noting that these players are not employing this non-tactic in response to a betrayal. Their actions aren’t designed to punish one player or favor another. They just can’t be bothered to submit orders, but don’t want to be punished in their other games for their lack of interest.
erikip107 (2491 D)
29 Jul 24 UTC
Oof, luckily I haven't been any games where the problem is this bad! But yes it is a bit frustrating when it does happen.

For what it's worth, though it's probably mostly already interpreted this way, I think it might be useful to reframe the only-hold behavior away from "trolling" and moreso "ruining the integrity of the game". It makes a stronger argument to protect the integrity of the game than to try and remove trolling, even if the causes appear the same.

Are there other online multiplayer games that you guys play that might have a similar problem and solution?

One thing that I've seen is a "loss mitigation" type of pseudo-fix (i.e. someone leaves the game in League of Legends, which ruins the game state). Rather than implement a fix in-game, the end rank point award/deduction is adjusted so the team that loses does not lose as many rank points. I'm not sure how the math works, but I think the person who ruined the game state takes some additional rank point loss. This doesn't fix anything in-game, but it makes it feel less bad that you lost when someone wasn't willing to try to win.

Pokemonshowdown has a little flag system in their teambuilder as well, though it doesn't necessarily fix a "ruined gamestate" since it's just a 1v1 most of the time. When you are building a pokemon in the simulator, there are "EV" points that you can assign to each pokemon, up to 510. Every 4 EV points that you assign to a particular stat increases that stat by 1 point. To protect players who forget to assign EVs at all, the teambuilder does not let a team be valid unless at least 1 EV has been assigned to each pokemon. Functionally it is the same as if 0 EVs has been assigned, since you need 4 EVs to influence a stat, but it does help keep some strictly worse teams out of play. Perhaps there could be a similar implementation here where if a country is a certain size, the site won't let you save orders unless at least one of them is a non-hold order. People seriously intending on ruining the game state still can, but people who are mindlessly doing it will have a harder time.


In any case, the biggest two hurdles I think we have are:

1. identifying a ruined gamestate with a catch-all set of criteria that doesn't also catch poor play, small players giving up, etc.
2. finding a way to implement a fix that doesn't destroy our mod's time and energy, and is within technical means.

But, yeah very interesting topic and I look forward to seeing where this goes.
Chuttbugger (2738 D)
29 Jul 24 UTC
(+1)
You’re probably right that they’re not actually trolls, whose entire aim is to ruin the game for other people. “Troll” just has more of a ring to it than “ruiner of the integrity of games” ;)
Fake Al (1866 D)
30 Jul 24 UTC
I've noticed a trend of this, too. I can't say what the motivation is. Is it boredom, laziness, absentmindedness, whininess? Could depend on the context. I've picked up on some serial offenders that sometimes jump into one of my variant tests where I promptly boot them.
Frozen Dog (1788 D)
30 Jul 24 UTC
Yeah what the heck is the motivation exactly? To improve reliability rating without playing the game? It’s so bewildering!
vlgambini (1174 D)
30 Jul 24 UTC
I expect the motivation is to avoid losing by giving up. It's a variation on going into CD, but without the RR hit. These same players will play the game out fully when they're winning.

I have also wondered whether they have software code that automatically enters the orders. I was in a 1v1 game where my opponent entered all holds for several turns. The orders always came in right at the deadline. Before the deadline the player always showed the red !! for no orders entered.
vlgambini (1174 D)
30 Jul 24 UTC
Here's a possible solution: Require mod approval to take over a CD'ed position with more than [X] SCs. If X is set high enough, this shouldn't impose too much of a burden on the mods. But it could still reduce the number of situations like the ones described in the original post, where the other players have committed months to a game only to have it ruined by an all-holds replacement.
I was under the impression that entering all hold orders would count as a missed turn. Should there be a difference between not entering orders and entering orders to do nothing?

I can see a few immediate issues (what about if I have exactly one unit and it's an army on Elba during Rinascimento, for instance), but surely there's a workaround
G-Man (2516 D)
30 Jul 24 UTC
Also, the fix would have to take into account a player emerging all hold orders but one (their workaround). Ugly, I know.
G-Man (2516 D)
30 Jul 24 UTC
*entering*
Frozen Dog (1788 D)
31 Jul 24 UTC
finalizing a moveset of all holds counts as entering moves.
halfasleep (1770 D)
01 Aug 24 UTC
(+1)
@Mr. Finkelmuiyer
There's a very simple way around that issue: Be Napoleon.
My solution:

All-hold moves with at least X units count as NMR, but it can be turned off when creating a variant and/or starting a game. The default is setting it to on, and X to 2 (with who you can support-hold yourself usually).

The variant creators can check if their work can cause Elba problem and decide if they need to turn it off. And the game creators can double-check.

Yes this can't block the countless workarounds for them, but I failed to come up with something better so far.
DungDefender (1469 D)
05 Aug 24 UTC
@Hakurei, seems like the problem with that is when someone throws the game as a diplomatic strategy, rather than plain apathy. And there are quite a few situations where a 2 center power will want to hold both units.
Yeah and I still don't know how to define what's diplomacy and what's trolling with only the moves in question. They can turn out to be the same moves, trying to achieve different goals.
GOD (1883 D Mod (B))
06 Aug 24 UTC
(+1)
suggestion: you may only enter all-holds, when you are currently winning the winning thread, otherwise auto-ban
erikip107 (2491 D)
06 Aug 24 UTC
If used for Diplomatic means to punish a stabber, wouldn't that almost always mean that the person being stabbed tries to defend one side (the stabber) while throwing to the other (someone they are outwardly less angry with?)
Krzysztof1410 (1395 D)
06 Aug 24 UTC
If these people were punished for entering only holds, then they would simply add a random order to one unit, like giving an invalid order or something like that..
erikip107 (2491 D)
06 Aug 24 UTC
(+1)
true, but it is one step better than all-holds, in my opinion.

Invalid orders usually entail a failed convoy (not always available), or a support move that never happens, or a support hold on a unit that moves. If they support move an enemy unit, it might do something, if they support hold an enemy unit, it might do something, if they support move their own unit, then they'd also have to go and cancel their own unit's move since the interactive map interface automatically updates that unit to move.

It's...something, I guess. But we can't go too heavy-handed since we probably don't want to be punishing players who make mistakes in their orders or who legitimately want to hold (but not support hold) all their units.

It also boils down to feasibility. Are fixes like this (x condition is met, even though orders are saved - results in kick from game) feasible in the first place? @mod
Krzysztof1410 (1395 D)
06 Aug 24 UTC
Supports against own units are invalid also
Sky_Hopper (887 D)
08 Aug 24 UTC
(+1)
Is this behavior specific to a handful of users? If so, I feel like it would be much easier to address this problem on a user-by-user basis than imposing a sweeping ban on all-holds (which could adversely affect play for some legitimate users).
I think Sky_Hopper's way can be much easier and work better, as long as this is user-related. I'm not sure if it is though.
ubercacher16 (1837 D)
09 Aug 24 UTC
I think it would be interesting to go back to the idea of motivation. The motivation is extremely unclear to me, as I only get discouraged about a position when it is really hopeless, not when it has 50 centers. Usually when that happens to avoid having to think about the game I enter some mindless orders and then click to my next game. This is better than all holds obviously because it is something, but it might not be what some others who are more invested in the game were hoping for.

One possible solution is to allow the option for players to voluntarily abandon a game without missing any orders. In this case the game could add some time to get a new player and the old player would still receive score like with a normal replacement. That would only work if the real motivation for doing it is discouragement.
erikip107 (2491 D)
13 Aug 24 UTC
In one of my current games, I do think there is a case of discouragement. A player of roughly 20 centers, and in an important geographical region to my own interests, was stabbed by an ally and gave up on the game after 1-2 years. But they still submitted retreats. Given that the game is still going on and they are not eliminated yet, I don't want to say more, but I suspect that discouragement is sometimes the case, but different from what happened in Chuttbugger's case in that ER gunboat game that just finished.

The same player is in a different game of mine, and on the slight backfoot, but is continuing to play.

I don't mean to single out that player, but also want to make a point that making this a player-by-player criteria for action will either:

a) require multiple instances of ruining a game state, in which case multiple games would have been ruined, or
b) be very harsh for a 1-time offender. In my opinion, this is not nearly as serious as something like metagaming or multiaccounting.


Perhaps the best (and lightest) solution is for a line to be added to the site rules/guidelines along the lines of "Our community looks to maintain a fair and healthy game state within each ranked game, and the moderators may take actions of removing or replacing players hindering a fair and healthy game state at their discretion". And then it falls onto us, the community, to make reports, and also the mods, to investigate reports. I have not read the site rules in a while, so something along those lines might already be there. Without a line like that, the best reason we have to remove a player is "they are annoying/ruining the game" which could be argued against.

Pros: lots of people care about the games they are in, and potential problems would be identified quickly. No coding involved.
Cons: I can see people also getting carried away with it, asking for replacements after just a single turn, or other possible instances of people "ruining the game state" but with other criteria. Also, likely more work for the mods (though I think any fix would end up being more work for the mods, long-term or short-term)
vlgambini (1174 D)
16 Aug 24 UTC
Bumping this thread in part to bury the telegrams ... in another variation of all-holds trolling I just saw (in a game on a different site), a player entered all holds for several turns in a row, then suddenly lashed out with an attack. Not sure where this fits into the solution we might impose.
Yeah this all-hold-and-then-strike tactic really makes the whole thing complicated...
ubercacher16 (1837 D)
19 Aug 24 UTC
Its a really bad tactic though
ubercacher16 (1837 D)
30 Aug 24 UTC
I was reading over the unexcused missed turns policy. If you have 4 in a year it starts to limit the number of games you can join. However, if you replaced players who have dropped out of other games you can counteract the effect of the unexcused misses. I wonder if these people are just looking for an easy way to bump up their reliability so they can play more games they are actually interested in?
Anon (?? D)
02 Sep 24 UTC
I just send a message here to say nothing new but complain. I agree it is annoying, and I see that it has not been mentioned that it can occur on low-number-of-players maps, on which it is extremely impactful.
I was playing a Cold War, the scores were very close, and suddenly my opponent stopped entering true orders. In my Cold War games, I always put missed turns extensions, because missing a turn can be so impactful. But this player has found a way to ignore this and completely destroyed the fun.
Here is the game: https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=60526
I wonder if I have the right to ask the mods to replace this player.


33 replies
Sky_Hopper (887 D)
30 Aug 24 UTC
(+1)
Origin of sealanes
Which variant was the first to introduce sealanes? They're very popular in larger variants to allow more fleets to be in the sea at once, but I'm curious as to where they first showed up.
2 replies
Open
Frozen Dog (1788 D)
27 Aug 24 UTC
(+1)
What’s happened to the site?
I assume the site admins are looking into it; just curious if we have a sense of the issue. Fingers crossed!
19 replies
Open
Kaufen Sie echte und gefälschte Reisepässe, Personalausweise
Kaufen Sie echte und gefälschte Reisepässe, Personalausweise, Führerscheine (E-Mail: buylegitpassport@gmail.com), SSN, Geburtsurkunden, Sterbeurkunden, Aufenthaltsgenehmigungen,
Heiratsurkunde, Scheidungspapiere, Arbeitserlaubnis, Stromrechnungen
1 reply
Open
Kaufen Sie echte und gefälschte Reisepässe, Personalausweise
Kaufen Sie echte und gefälschte Reisepässe, Personalausweise, Führerscheine (E-Mail: buylegitpassport@gmail.com), SSN, Geburtsurkunden, Sterbeurkunden, Aufenthaltsgenehmigungen,
Heiratsurkunde, Scheidungspapiere, Arbeitserlaubnis, Stromrechnungen,
1 reply
Open
Fake Al (1866 D)
27 Aug 24 UTC
Nyanza Kingdoms Variant
I've come up with a six-player variant that's set in the African Great Lakes region before colonization. It features some rules like portage where armies can transport fleets across land that mean it can't be implemented here. I'm hoping to run a test game on Discord if anyone is interested: https://discord.gg/nHCducMs
2 replies
Open
Mitomon’s Gobble Earth Team Game!
Here we will start taking names for whoever wants to play Mitomon’s version of Gobble Earth Teams. The game will be anonymous and have random country assignments. These are the teams:
34 replies
Open
AleChoel (1256 D)
19 Aug 24 UTC
Um... what's this forgotten variant?
I recently noticed some "hidden" variants while looking at the variants in the game search option. This was the weirdest one by far:

https://www.vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=154
17 replies
Open
Squashywand0 (998 D)
19 Aug 24 UTC
Large Scale Medieval Variant looking for interested in players! (Discord)
Medieval Diplomacy is looking to run 1-2 games this september! It's a massive European variant set in the year 1201. Featuring very cool mechanics™️ like crusades, excommunication, multiple player holy roman dysfunction, you are sure to have a good time. Join server and check it out if you're interested! https://discord.gg/ZNjmPP6JUg

Map is on the server!
1 reply
Open
Frozen Dog (1788 D)
17 Aug 24 UTC
What’s your favourite variant for 7 players? (Public press)
I play with a group of 6-8 (currently 7) friends. We always play public press. What do you recommend for our next game?
9 replies
Open
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top