Non-talkers on Facebook Diplomacy...

On Jun 5, 12:30 pm, Kestas Kuliukas <kes....DeleteThis@kuliukas.com> wrote:
> > > and if .net is anything to go by these updates should help
> > > pick up the level of gameplay.
> > Can you discuss generalities?
> Hmm, not sure what you mean

I don't think I do either.

Basically you're saying more talking, less drop outs, more even games.

> > Retroactive or from update?
> On phpDip I used an algorithm that started with the earliest games and
> everyone has the starting 100 points, and it tried to calculate bet
> sizes depending on who is playing. So if 7 people who already have a lot
> of points play that game will count for more points than a group with
> fewer points.

Sounds fair.

> It seemed fair enough, the person who ended up with the most starting
> points based on the algorithm is still at the top and is the most
> prolific winner

It's nice when the system seems to work.

===
= DUG.
===

> I think Chris' "Future of Facebook Diplomacy" thread has sunk to the
> depths of the forum by now, but basically Chris and me are working to
> bring all the latest updates I wrote for phpdiplomacy.net over to
> Facebook, and if .net is anything to go by these updates should help
> pick up the level of gameplay.

I think it deserves clarification that the Chris you mention is not one
who has posted in this thread and the forums to which you refer are not
Usenet or Googlegroups.

> Also it'll add points (Chris,Jim&co are probably getting tired of me
> talking about points , which have been quite effective at creating
> a way for the players to play against people at their own skill level
> on the .net site.
>
> The only way to get the points needed to join the big games with good
> players is to win, so only winners get into those games. When you
> lose you lose points, and if you go into civil disorder you also lose
> points, so only those who play well and don't go into civil disorder
> get into the good games, and there are plenty of talkers and
> diplomats in these games.

I want to make it very clear that I am not dissing your platform here
or in the article that will be published shortly. I like the concept. A
lot. It's something that I wanted to do, but it's made me realize
somethings that were missing from my original blueprint.

The economy that you are trying to create hasn't materialized yet, or
at least that economy is not governing the majority of the transactions
on the site in the way you expect. The only way to gain points is to
play below your level... and to play as many games as possible to a
quick conclusion so that you get your points back and roll them into
another game. The result is a lot of fast, low-level games.

The ideal behavior would be for good players to seek their level and
occasionally dip into the lower levels to refresh their points if they
had one or two rough games. What appears to be happening (based on
anecdotal evidence and my sources are admittedly biased) is that there
is a lot of churn.

> So it'll help people play with others at their own skill level, and
> give players a basic way to compare themselves, and once there are
> some good players around it makes it a better place for other good
> players to join

The trouble is getting the good players to start with?

> Chris is working at FB extension, and when I'm less busy in 2-3 weeks
> I'll be able to join him and hopefully it won't take too long from
> there (but experience makes me reluctant to give an estimate

A friend who is not familiar with Diplomacy, but who is familiar with
software marketing, suggested that the current state of the on-line
Diplomacy hobby is impoverished because we do not hold the ownership of
our infrastructure. Most Dip clubs run on Yahoo; Yahoo owns their
content. Now Facebook owns the traffic from the third largest single
Diplomacy server (based on games in progress) in existence - DP Judge
~800 games; PlayDiplomacy.com ~600 games; Facebook Diplomacy ~400 games.
There's an article to be written about what constitutes ownership and
about the expectations of privacy in the hobby. I don't think that
people realize how their perceptions about privacy have been inverted
from their actual needs. We protect individual privacy fiercely, but we
permit the mass exploitation of our personal information. What we give
away when we use 'free' on-line services has a real monetary value.
Those who buy that data from Yahoo and other providers re-coop the cost
from the consumers who provided the data initially.

Moving users from FB to NET through social engineering seems to me like
a sound policy.

Chris

This looks like Microsoft Game Zone Dip all over again, only on a somewhat
larger scale. Without much human interaction, and a system that encourages
easy wins over wimpy opponents (a flaw common to many points systems for
Diplomacy), sheer repetition may give rise to a bunch of tactical Dip
savants, for whatever good it will do. There are many games which give a
richer tactical experience than Diplomacy, and most of these people will
probably move on from Diplomacy to those games. Tactics is not the most
important component of Diplomacy, at least high level Diplomacy. What makes
a great Dip player, and what makes Diplomacy a great game, are negotiation
skills and a grasp of big-picture strategy. Great negotiators and
strategists will usually beat great tacticians.