Also, Problem 13: They take too long to start.

JS0, I'm extremely offended that you think sandwiches are not important.

In response to your last post, where they take too long to start, why are you still joining them if you don't like them? Besides, thats just a thing about big games, the big team games I play take just as long.

I agree with everyone here! We should turn JS0223 into a sandwich and ban him!

I wouldn't chew HIM either.

Edited 4/12/2015 21:36:43

PS JS0223, stop trying to highjack our sandwich thread!

he starts a new forum instead of changing the subject of this one.
making a new forum is a bit extreme, no?

I nominate as the first sammich that we vote to ban:

Pastrami and Swiss Cheese on Rye

Reasons:

1. Pastrami is stringy and I don't feel like chewing.
2. Swiss Cheese has holes in it. I think that the Swiss Cheese sellers are injecting their cheese with air in order to sell you less cheese for more money.
3. Rye bread usually has seeds. As stated before, I'm not going to chew. ON PURPOSE. People who chew are boring and it's my duty to end the problem.
4. I don't like them, so logic dictates that nobody else can.
5. There are too many problems about Pastrami and Swiss on Rye

#banthesammich #peoplewhochewarebad

Edited 4/13/2015 01:03:00

I agree entirely on the chewing issue.

Four legs good, two legs bad.

(Why? They chew more, on average.)

JS0223, just because you have a very different view on diplomacy games, it doesn't mean you have to be so angry someone DARES play diplomacy games and actually ENJOY them! OH NO! What a tragedy! *scream*

Also, your whole point is invalid. As everyone said, just don't join them. All the others are avoiding the conflict, but you... you just seem to be obsessed over proving the fact diplomacy games are useless.

Let me explain why you're completely wrong. Firstly, most of diplomacy players play because they ENJOY playing diplomacies, not because they want to WIN them. I think that's the chokepoint.

In my opinion, there is a rather strong difference between diplomacy gaming and regular WarLight gaming, because in regular WarLight (FFA's and team games) you are playing to win the game, whereas diplomacy games go more in a direction of more sophisticated strategy games, with pacts, alliances, war declarations, sometimes also displaying a specific historical situation in order to see how this would work out.

Of course, there are always problems with diplomacies... especially real time ones. Why? You get to pick between open seats requirements (to prevent low level players and/or high bootrate players from joining, but then players join slower) or a less good game (lots of AFK's, some PE's probably, surrenders...). Also, I think the term "diplomacy" needs to be broadened, because there are also some team games that could qualify, for example WW scenarios (there is a great WW2 scenario by Semicedevine), simply because it's played for fun.)

I do agree there could be an option to mark your game as "diplomacy" and set up a special filter for diplos, like there is for lotteries. But then again, it might be too much... not many players seem to be disturbed by diplos showing up except The Lone Whiner we got over here.

That being said, there are casual games and serious ones. Some diplos are between them, but mostly, people play diplomacy games to have a fun time, maybe talk a bit, eventually try to win by successfully making alliances... or either invade everyone. This works too. Personally, I like diplomacies because of the arguments it produces. I really like historical, political, religious etc.. debates (mostly because of their pointlessness, but that might be just me), while playing WarLight and still doing "something". There is also the luck part, since you never know who will be out of the game (boot/surrender) or how your neighbours will really react. This is the beauty opf diplos. It's kind of a simulation of a more sophisticated strategy game (Total War, Civ, Europa Universalis...) in a more simple and easy to configurate one.

I hope I crushed your "arguments" (which you lack) well enough for you to stay quiet and stop sharing your opinion who almost no one shares. Also, I REALLY hope you have some knowledge before making any assumptions. Your ignorance is blatant... I would point out all your mistakes one by one but I don't want to waste my time for that.


Sincerely,

Death.


PS. I'm waiting for your counter arguments impatiently (of course, if they will make any sense this time)
PPS. Congratulations to Darth Grover for royally screwing that asshole! :D. You did it in such an amazing style =)

First of all, I'm stunned by Death's reply. That's the king of argument that comes from a Diplomacy player!
As someone who plays Diplo games almost exclusively, I really would be quite crushed if they were gone. I play Diplo, partially for the good talks, but also because, frankly, I seem to really suck at FFA games. It's all attack. In Diplo, while it might not take MORE strategy, it takes a different KIND of strategy.
So, JSO223, might I suggest (like everyone else) that you not play Diplo games? After all, most people assume that these games WILL be FFA. That's why almost every Diplo game EXPLICITLY says, DIPLOMACY.
Finally, what does everyone else think about the sandwiches? This topic is obviously won for the side of Diplos, so lets go ahead and recycle the thread for sandwiches!