I thought it might be fun to have a look at some types of player you're likely to come across when playing Diplomacy. Well, OK, it's not all fun in this series... but I'll do my best.
Having discussed Dippyists in the previous post, I'm going to move on to pseudo-Dippyists, those who play Diplomacy but not the way it was meant to be played.
I'm not going to get to hung up on saying more here... read on.
Having discussed Dippyists in the previous post, I'm going to move on to pseudo-Dippyists, those who play Diplomacy but not the way it was meant to be played.
I'm not going to get to hung up on saying more here... read on.
The Carebear
I mentioned Carebears in a previous post. Carebears are players who follow the philosophy of Drawmongery. Drawmongery is a philosophy that places a draw on equal parity with winning. I'm not going to go into this as being a perverted philosophy here because I'm going to analyse it in another post, but it is. Extremely perverted.
Here, we're talking about Carebears, the players themselves and the way they play. What can you expect from a Carebear?
Well, they're lovely... in a playing sense. They're not bad players, necessarily (something which all pseudo-Dippyists have in common). They do have a poor approach to the game, but they are just as capable as any other player. This isn't about the quality of play but the approach to the way the game is played.
A Carebear will look to find an ally with whom to draw the game. Ideally, they'll be looking for a player to build a game-long alliance with and be aiming for the best possible result from this - a 2-way draw.
The thing about Carebears is that they're unlikely to stab you, providing you can build an alliance with them. I mean unlikely, too: it isn't that they don't stab; it's that they don't like to stab. If you're straight up with them you've nothing to worry about. You can wait until the stab is right for you.
Here, we're talking about Carebears, the players themselves and the way they play. What can you expect from a Carebear?
Well, they're lovely... in a playing sense. They're not bad players, necessarily (something which all pseudo-Dippyists have in common). They do have a poor approach to the game, but they are just as capable as any other player. This isn't about the quality of play but the approach to the way the game is played.
A Carebear will look to find an ally with whom to draw the game. Ideally, they'll be looking for a player to build a game-long alliance with and be aiming for the best possible result from this - a 2-way draw.
The thing about Carebears is that they're unlikely to stab you, providing you can build an alliance with them. I mean unlikely, too: it isn't that they don't stab; it's that they don't like to stab. If you're straight up with them you've nothing to worry about. You can wait until the stab is right for you.
The Whittler
This is to do with draw-whittling. Draw-whittling is when players eliminate other players for the sole purpose of reducing the number of survivors at the end of the game, so reducing the number of players to share the points in a draw. re
The only time this becomes important is when games are being scored, so in a tournament with a Draw Based Scoring system or in a series of rated games. However, for some players it becomes part of their every game play.
Now there are occasions when a draw is simply accepted too early in a game, when there is play still to be had. When this happens there's nothing wrong at all with declining a draw proposal.
The problem is when it is clear that the game is going to end in a draw yet one or more players elect to play on simply because they want the chance to score more points by eliminating smaller powers.
Another situation is when one player decides she isn't going to share a draw with another player, usually because she dislikes the way they played or because she's been offended by them during the game.
Of course, anyone can reject a draw proposal at any time - there's nothing wrong with doing so... unless it's to prolong the game to try to etch out a few more ratings points or just to be bloody-minded.
Games should end when they're ready to end and not be affected by the scoring system (although it's hard to justify this argument in a tournament).
Whittlers should be shunned. If they're that determined to draw-whittle then they're going to be stubborn about other things too.
The Ordinalist
I've mentioned Ordinalists in a previous post. As with Carebears above I don't intend to discuss Ordinalism as a philosophy but what Ordinalists are like.
They have some pretty strange ideas that will see them play in some pretty strange ways. Yeh, plenty of players do this without being Ordinalists, I know, but Ordinalists will not act in their own best interests.
You enter a Diplomacy game intending to win. What do you do when that outcome becomes unlikely? Common sense says you play to stop someone else winning. No matter what, if someone else wins, you lose.
Ordinalists don't see it this way, though, especially when they're doing pretty well. They would rather grab extra SCs, breaking a potential Grand Alliance (or Stop the Leader alliance, if you prefer), in order to finish in a better position in relation to other people who are going to lose the game. Madness.
Where has this silly attitude come from? Scoring systems. There are a number of scoring systems that award extra points for finishing in higher positions, based on the number of SCs held at the end of the game. This isn't just for games that finish in a solo, but also for games the end in a draw.
Scoring in Diplomacy has a lot to answer for.
Where has this silly attitude come from? Scoring systems. There are a number of scoring systems that award extra points for finishing in higher positions, based on the number of SCs held at the end of the game. This isn't just for games that finish in a solo, but also for games the end in a draw.
Scoring in Diplomacy has a lot to answer for.
The Cherrypicker
And we're back to poor scoring systems, again. This time, it's linked to a series of games, rather than a tournament.
If you're playing online, the chances are your Dip site will feature rated or ranked games. Some systems for scoring these games are quite sophisticated. Some are pretty simplistic. Cherrypickers enjoy simplistic scoring systems.
Let's say you are playing to a scoring system that awards set numbers of points for a certain game. Something like 120 points for a win, 60 for a 2-way draw, 40 for a 3-way, etc, down to 20 points for a 6-way.
A position opens up in an on-going game. You look at the game and see that there's a decent chance of doing well, possibly even winning. In another game with an opening, the position is much less favourable - you're not likely to last more than a couple of turns. Which do you choose?
A Cherrypicker would always choose the former. Why? Well, because the reward is likely to be greater. Cherrypickers join games where they are going to score decent points; they play to the scoring system.
More than that, though. A committed Cherrypicker will look to start games with a number of newbies or poor players. Again, it's about the scoring system: she stands a good chance of doing well in this game.
You may say that there's nothing wrong with this but I disagree. If the scoring system leads to this type of play, it's a poor system. Playing Dip shouldn't be about scoring, it should be about the challenge. Where's the challenge in the scenarios above?
If you're playing online, the chances are your Dip site will feature rated or ranked games. Some systems for scoring these games are quite sophisticated. Some are pretty simplistic. Cherrypickers enjoy simplistic scoring systems.
Let's say you are playing to a scoring system that awards set numbers of points for a certain game. Something like 120 points for a win, 60 for a 2-way draw, 40 for a 3-way, etc, down to 20 points for a 6-way.
A position opens up in an on-going game. You look at the game and see that there's a decent chance of doing well, possibly even winning. In another game with an opening, the position is much less favourable - you're not likely to last more than a couple of turns. Which do you choose?
A Cherrypicker would always choose the former. Why? Well, because the reward is likely to be greater. Cherrypickers join games where they are going to score decent points; they play to the scoring system.
More than that, though. A committed Cherrypicker will look to start games with a number of newbies or poor players. Again, it's about the scoring system: she stands a good chance of doing well in this game.
You may say that there's nothing wrong with this but I disagree. If the scoring system leads to this type of play, it's a poor system. Playing Dip shouldn't be about scoring, it should be about the challenge. Where's the challenge in the scenarios above?
Comments
Post a Comment
What do you think?