Everyone has the idea of Diplos spot on.

I've gone off Diplos more recently because it's too usually a very political game, and often if you get warmongers in the game with the stronger slots it can often get boring very fast.

Ultimatly it should be about fun though, like any game :)

Oh, also a good way to make diplos more about fun and less about winning is to make them practise games, stops so many war mongerers getting involved usually I find.

Edited 7/24/2015 23:55:06

im not gonna knock diplos or diplo players, cause playing any kind of game is supposed to be fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun.

Bingo. Games are played for fun. All the objectives, etc., are just things we establish to achieve that.

Diplos are equally valid in that regard because people use them to achieve their objective of having fun.

That said, I wouldn't consider them competitive. It's like skipping rocks on a lake- the kind of game you play for pure enjoyment, not to demonstrate superiority in any form of ability.

As for Eklipse, you've made some valid points. Theoretically, diplomacy games test your ability to plan ahead (build robust alliances) and work with people without fully knowing/understanding their knowledge or intentions. The issue is that there are too many other factors in the game (boots, starts, people who get bored and decide to play kingmaker) that ultimately "break" diplos as a game, causing them to run into some classical problems (like the kingmaker problem I mentioned earlier). There's ultimately just too much luck involved for the game to be "fair" or "strategic" and in the end it's just something you play purely for the sake of having fun. There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

FFA's are good classic strategic games. Diplo games are meant to be played for fun, not winning. Diplomacy games are in one way like Communism: in a perfect world where everyone follows the rules it's amazing, but this isn't a perfect world, unless you play with highly trusted friends something is bound to go wrong. They require not strategy in war, but strategy to win a war. Sometimes you may need a little bit of FFA style playing as Russia to beat back an angry Napoleon, but it is rare you will ever use FFA skills in a diplomacy game, if you ever will.

FFAs are far from strategic outside very, very few cases.

All games, including this one, are meant to be about having fun, and games provide the medium for having fun. However, because people get their fun from so many different sources, from strategic thinking, to roleplaying, to shooting anything in their path, that it's impossible for any game to cater to everyone in a one-size-fits-all fun style. As such, most games only focus on one aspect that people find fun. Warlight for example is a game catered to those who like to play strategy. Those who want to use Warlight to play roleplay and diplo games can do that, but they have to realize that the game is only catered to strategic players, and with that comes the risk of PEs, warmongerers, etc. It's wrong to consider diplos or rps inferior or superior than strategic games because they're fundamentally different, and there is really no way to objectively compare them.

I actually have a slightly different view. Diplomacy games can be fascinating and complex, and certainly require a great deal of thought, finesse, and strategy. A "diplomacy" game has a number of interesting design features (for instance, with good players it should automatically be balancing for stronger positions versus weaker positions: because, of course, you'll have to deal very differently with a player with a stronger position than one who has little strength and no good position).

However, Diplomacy games here on Warlight are stunted, crippled versions of what a Diplomacy game can be. For some reason, there is a tremendous desire in the community for hard rules surrounding alliances, peace, declarations of war, and "PEs".

All these features kill the game dead. There is no subtlety or strategy. Generally speaking, everyone allies with everyone, until someone breaks a rule, and then everyone attacks that person. There is nothing interesting about that: of COURSE they will win, there is no other possible outcome.

The bizarre rules for alliances, declarations of war, and so on completely ruin the game, making into this weird thing that everyone complains about.

Give up on this idea of unbreakable alliances enforced by the game itself, and embrace actual Diplomacy play, where your agreements are only as good as your ability to enforce them. That makes it interesting. Otherwise, it's just a weird kind of "playing house", just with Warlight armies instead of dolls.

Secondly, judging people based only on their 1v1 skills comes off as really elitist. Probably more than people who do so are even aware of. Just because somebody isn't in the top X of the 1v1 ladder doesn't make them a bad player.

The social hierarchy of Warlight is merit-based. If that is elitism, then so be it.

From lvl 1-25 I mainly played Diplomacy games. I'm now into Strategy games Turkey 1v1. My reason for this is because of people getting booted, Being PEs and Super-powers gangbanging. Diplomacy games would be amazing if people could play Diplomacy games properly..

Diploy game --> Non competitive game --> your primary goal isn't winning --> set them up as practice games.

The social hierarchy of Warlight is merit-based. If that is elitism, then so be it.

Merit-based hierarchy isn't the problem. The problem is that some people seem to think that only 1v1 has any merit. This is like saying being a doctor is the only worthy profession in the world, when there are others who contribute.

2v2,3v3,etc. all have just as much merit as 1v1.

Eklipse, many people hold merit in any even game.. *1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 5v5 etc.* the games that are non-merit held, tend to be the ones that are not even. *1v1v1, 2v2v2 ffa/diplo* simply because you can talk your way into victory, rather than your side being of greater ability.

M. Poireau.
I agree completely...
the idea of PM enabled games, is that there are loose alliances, and with that, everything that is involved in politics.. backstabbing when they are powerful/vulnerable, being included..

2v2,3v3,etc. all have just as much merit as 1v1.

2v2, 3v3 etc =/= diplomacy.

2v2, 3v3 etc =/= ffa.

FFA's [sic] are good classic strategic games.

That's grade-A nonsense. Here, I'll help explain:


Turn 0, picking stage, you have 3 options: auto dist, manual dist or custom scenario. Auto-dist is by default, not strategic. Custom scenarios are, by default, rigged. An equal start for all players does not exist in free-for-alls with custom scenario turned on.


That leaves manual distribution. That might actually make things strategic but even here there are problems:

The number of picks one must make is equal to the number of players multiplied by the number of picks given per player. Example, four picks per player * 20 player FFA = 80 picks you must make. Given that even in 3v3 Europe with only 24 picks needed it is difficult to calculate the best set of picks to ensure a good position, 80 picks is insanity. So, either you make 80 picks and most are sub-par quality because no one ever bothers to think through every single pick in a free-for-all with a 1/20 chance of winning with best play, or, you make less than 80 picks and accept that you're a lazy noob.

That isn't strategic.

Edited 7/25/2015 19:01:16

This also brings me to the next point: A strategic fight should give a 50% chance of winning with equal skill, with a higher likelihood of winning given to the player with more skill. 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 all give equal chances to both sides. Free-for-alls do not. 'Diplomacy' games do not. Assuming equal, a 4-person free-for-all has a 25% chance of winning. A 6-player free-for-all has a 16% of winning. etc.

This is not strategic.

In ffa best strategy is just to turtle up.

In ffa best strategy is just to turtle up.

Actually, the best strategies for free-for-alls, as proven by me:

1) be the host.

1a) Use unorthodox settings. ex. 0 army income with reinforcement cards every 3 turns, encouraging newcomers to not pay attention and lose on turn 1.

1b) Use extremely unreasonable boot times. 100 day autoboot or 1 minute manual boot. Most people can't keep up.

1c) Use open seat prereqs to filter out anyone who might know what they are doing. Only play noobs!

1d) Never join a free-for-all that you are not hosting.

I have tested the above settings before, and can prove their validity as the strongest free-for-all strategies. At least one of my alts has a 100% score in every single FFA % up to 11-player FFAs.

Edited 7/25/2015 19:13:49

Whatever happened to just having fun with it anyways? Not everything has to be uber-strategic by the numbers in order for people to enjoy it. The very purpose of a game should be for everyone to have fun, it's not all about winning. Fun is the whole point of gaming.

So if everyone involved in something is having fun, then it has just as much merit as any other type of game. It seems to me like some people just like to diss on those who aren't good at the things they are specifically good at. While at the same time denounce the things they themselves aren't as skilled with.

Every type of game on Warlight sans lottries and blatantly rigged custom scenarios involves some level of strategy. It doesn't matter if it doesn't meet your own rigid requirements of the word strategic.

Edited 7/25/2015 19:30:40

There's nothing wrong with having fun. And if having fun means, to you, playing a bunch of role-playing games with rigged custom scenarios, so be it... but I won't ever take you seriously if you insist that's strategic when compared to 1v1. :)

Eklipse, I agree.. I personally love auto-dist, and ffa's *non diplo* but it's a poor standard to grade skill on.

But I'm also the kind of person that will impose handicaps on myself in games I am better at than my opponent *any game, not saying warlight* to make the game more interesting/fun for myself.. *like playing jugglypuff with 100% handicap on ssb, or always using random*

Wzu, those unorthodox settings just prove that your experience on those settings are better than someone who hasn't played it..

and there can be custom scenarios that are fair fights, just need a map that is symetrical in all directions from each start location..
there are several maps on here that would do for it.. it just takes a different kind of strategy than manual picks, simply because starting locations are known by everyone for everyone.