PDET - My Take

Compete in a Tournament game hosted on PlayDiplomacy.

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby charliep007 » 04 Nov 2015, 16:12

Honestabe I think what you say makes a lot of sense. I'm happy playing in open or anon, but the games I've played in this tournament have been so refreshing in terms of not being concerned about identity and just allowing me to focus on the game at hand.
User avatar
charliep007
 
Posts: 639
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 10:32
Location: somewhere on Her Majesty's Service
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (2340)
All-game rating: (2310)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby glyndwr23 » 04 Nov 2015, 21:51

Let me first simply say that I have had an absolutely positive experience in PDET. It was great to play against such talented folks, and meet some new gaming friends, as I am relatively new to the diplomacy scene. I learned many new things, and learned areas where I know far less than I thought. Let me add comments on a few of the issues discussed.

1) I strongly dislike the concept of subbing, as I play a very adaptive game, and dealing with a new person literally changes everything. I do, however, realize the necessity of it in some extreme cases, though less so with the option of game pause. One possible solution is a substitution penalty: if you have to get a sub, you must sit out the next round of the tournament. If you surrender, your are banned outright. Just a note for full disclosure, i did surrender once (not in pdet) for deeply personal reasons, and I am still deeply ashamed about it: just didnt want to be a hypocryte. Perhaps that will discourage unnecessary subbing, while leaving it open for exceptional cases.
2) I'm slightly opposed to the 1915 deadline, but only slightly. It does change the dynamic of the game and favors certain play types, but that simply means we need to adapt...not always a bad thing
3) I am in favor of anonymous games. I don't have a big, scary, reputation, but I do understand the concerns of those that do and think it is quite valid. I think there is a greater reason though, anonymous makes metagaming almost impossible. Let's be honest, diplomacy players will find loopholes, and all the rules in the world won't prevent a little "you help me this game, I'll help you I'm the future." Anonymous makes that much harder. As for favoring the better players, I'm just not convinced. If you are being recognized, its your own fault. Change the vocabulary, change the personality, its rather fun too! One game in PDET I played as a girl as a part of a failed, but enlightening experiment. If you don't want to be recognized, don't be recognizable. Personally, I don't bother trying to identify players. Im an analyst, and I've got far too much to do in reading between the lines of what is said to bother trying to figure out who is who. If I was inclined though, I have as much access to forum posts as anyone else. If I put in the time to do a complete analytical comparison and figure out who a person is, then I deserve to know. Anonymous takes away potential for abuse, and favors those who put in more effort at identifying others and disguising themselves...sounds pretty good to me
4) and I have no problem with charlie playing, as long as he doesn't play against me :)
glyndwr23
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Jun 2014, 00:12
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1660)
All-game rating: (1681)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby Carebear » 05 Nov 2015, 17:32

glyndwr23 wrote:2) I'm slightly opposed to the 1915 deadline, but only slightly. It does change the dynamic of the game and favors certain play types, but that simply means we need to adapt...not always a bad thing

I think the early deadline creates two goals for games and that is problematic. However, I understand the desire to ensure timely conclusions to rounds. Maybe remove the deadline and have fewer rounds next year. Something like best three out of four rounds or two out of three rounds?

glyndwr23 wrote:One game in PDET I played as a girl as a part of a failed, but enlightening experiment. If you don't want to be recognized, don't be recognizable.

I didn't recognise you. I think it failed because you had an apparent misogynist as a neighbor. OF course, I didn't think you really were female anyhow.

glyndwr23 wrote:4) and I have no problem with charlie playing, as long as he doesn't play against me :)

In F2F tournaments, the TD does not play. If he is forced to play due to a numbers issue, then he doesn't score. But, there is still the problem in these instances that the TD really doesn't "play" the game and will sometimes meta-game. From my perspective, WHSeward seemed to handle most issues, or at least he was the one with which I conversed, but I do not know to what extent he discussed or conceded to decisions by charliep007. To avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, I would prefer that once a TD decides to participate that he officially resigns and appoints someone else to take his place. Perhaps this did occur, I wasn't necessarily paying attention.
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby klsxgo90 » 07 Nov 2015, 01:09

I don't post often but I read this thread and looking back through my PDET games I see some of you were in the games I played in.

1) I was humbled and honored to be invited into the tournament given I had only started playing in june 2014. For that, thank you TDs.

2) I appreciate the anonymity and honored it by not even trying to guess who was who. I worked with whomever on the board would work. If people in other games were trying to figure out who was who, that goes against the tournament rules and general spirit of the competition.

3) I didn't mind the games being ranked vs non-ranked. To be in the tourney, you have to be good to begin with, so you would naturally be playing against top ranked players in every game, and it makes them count that much more than if it was just a non-rank tourney match.

4) Duration of 2/1/1 was perfect for me. I'll admit that I probably slowed things down though by not finalizing most turns. If future tournaments can try to encourage players to finalize more frequently, it could speed up the games, else, move to 1/.5/.5 to keep things going. Maybe 1/0.5/0.5 with weekends and holidays excluded would work for people?

It's been fun! I look forward to seeing the tourney results.
klsxgo90
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:27
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1481)
All-game rating: (1509)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby JonS » 07 Nov 2015, 06:06

klsxgo90 wrote:I don't post often but...

klsxgo90
Premium Member
Posts: 1

I'll say! First post! Great to have you share your thoughts, and glad you've had a positive experience thus far. :-) keep posting in the forum! We're mostly a nice bunch. (With some glaring exceptions.)

Although your suggestion of 24/12/12 deadlines makes me feel like I should throw up and have a heart attack at the same time. :-) you'll find many players prefer 48 hours as a minimum deadline, to allow long conversations and a bit of life away from the board.
“Find an ally who will die for you, and see that he does just that.”
The immortal Richard Sharp

Platinum Member of the Classicists Club
House Tyrell in Diplomacy of Ice and Fire
User avatar
JonS
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: 26 Apr 2013, 21:39
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1557)
All-game rating: (1606)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby Nanook » 08 Nov 2015, 03:49

JonS wrote:We're mostly a nice bunch. (With some glaring exceptions.)

Hey now, I resent resemble that remark!
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

Admin
User avatar
Nanook
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1209)
All-game rating: (1413)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby Carebear » 13 Nov 2015, 02:46

klsxgo90 wrote:4) Duration of 2/1/1 was perfect for me. I'll admit that I probably slowed things down though by not finalizing most turns. If future tournaments can try to encourage players to finalize more frequently, it could speed up the games, else, move to 1/.5/.5 to keep things going. Maybe 1/0.5/0.5 with weekends and holidays excluded would work for people?

Maybe 48/12/12? Keeps the negotiation where it needs to be and reduces where it really doesn't. Of course, I may be a bit biased as F2F doesn't have any negotiation during retreats and winter adjustments.
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby gsmx » 13 Nov 2015, 04:35

I've only played half of one game as a sub so I can only offer so much insight, but i'll throw in my two cents as somebody who's played a bunch of tournaments in the past and got to hear some of the chatter about this one during it's inception stage.

I certainly think this was a worthwhile exercise for certain. Over the past few years a lot of the PlayDip tournaments started strong and then .. never finished. A lot of justifiable reasons for that, mostly tournament directors real life stepping in the way, but to see the tournaments coming to a solid conclusion is a tremendous accomplishment and very happy to see happen. The entire purpose of the tournament as i understand it is to offer rustle up some community among the more competitive players (which i get the impression it has) and provide some excitement to our competitive climb, which i also suspect it has.

I've heard a lot of chatter lately about how anonymous favours high rankers, which i'm not quite sure I fully understand. I completely agree that public games makes it harder for them, but that it gtives them an unfair advantage seems a stretch. It simply takes away the meta aspect and forces people to play on an even playig field. Beyond the arguement of top players, i think you pretty much have to have these tournaments anonymous as otherwise you end up targetting whoever is higher on the tournament ladder then you which especially isn't that fair.

It's hard to dispute the legitimacy of the tourment as all the guys i see in the final game primarily look like people i would expect to see in a final game. I'd tend to agree that it's a bit unexpected seeing mods and especially the tournament director in the tournament.

As for replacements, i think you don't have much choice with that. I'd personally be pretty annoyed if i started losing games because somebody on the other side of the map CD'd and his neighbor got to take advantage of it. I'll tolerate that kind of flukiness in general population games, but a tournament is a pretty big commitment and would suck to get knocked out of contention because of somebody else's poor commitment. Problems with "ringers"? This tournement was intended to try to find the best players, if you can't hang with good players then you can't really justify complaints about not being able to move on to the later rounds. You're supposed to be proving you're the best around, the concept of "ringer" shouldn't apply to you if you really belong.

As for ideal configuration for the game, you'll never please everybody. You can open it up to vote at the start if necessary, but that just tends to be a can of worms and leaves those who don't get their way a bit resentful before the game even begins. No fun being a TD i have to imagine.
The first quality that is needed is audacity.
User avatar
gsmx
 
Posts: 1477
Joined: 22 Aug 2011, 14:50
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2088
All-game rating: 2424
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby Carebear » 13 Nov 2015, 04:48

gsmx wrote:I've heard a lot of chatter lately about how anonymous favours high rankers, which i'm not quite sure I fully understand.

I have heard a little chatter on it, but not a lot. I also do not understand how it would favour higher ranked players. Maybe someone with this opinion could elaborate on it?

gsmx wrote:It's hard to dispute the legitimacy of the tourment as all the guys i see in the final game primarily look like people i would expect to see in a final game.

Excluding the occasional sport (biological definition).

gsmx wrote:As for ideal configuration for the game, you'll never please everybody.

Yep. To paraphrase a great, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time.
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: PDET - My Take

Postby HonestAbe » 13 Nov 2015, 06:51

As far as I can tell, WHSeward has kept the players in each game completely confidential from everyone. So I don't see how anyone in the tournament has had an unfair advantage. Congratulations to all those who've made (and are going to make) the gold table.

My personal hope would be that once this tournament is over, it's second edition would begin soon after. I think the level of play is better. And one way to improve it is to bar players who've surrendered in the present edition. Of course, I realize running it is hard work, so those of us who like the tournament would need WHSeward or someone else to continue with the thankless task.
HonestAbe
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Mar 2010, 10:43
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1411)
All-game rating: (1587)
Timezone: GMT+8

PreviousNext

Return to PlayDip Tournaments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests