MichaelHoward comments on Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Yvain 12 November 2010 10:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (93)
Tags: games

Comments (93)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 13 November 2010 12:42:41AM 12 points [-]

The game of Diplomacy I won, I won through an enforceable side contract (which lost me a friend and got me some accusations of cheating, but this is par for the course for a good Diplomacy game). I was Britain; my friend H was France... A lot of people made fun of me for this, including H, but in my defense I did end up winning the game.

I strongly agree with this Newbies' Guide:

You must always play each game fairly to give each player an equal opportunity to do well… don't sign up for a game with your best friend and have an unbreakable alliance from turn one... winning in these situations does not say anything about your skills as a Diplomacy player, only that you can win by cheating (well duh).

Comment author: thezeus18 14 November 2010 09:15:33AM *  1 point [-]

Doesn't iteration cause this strategy to be balanced out? After it becomes clear that two players have an unbreakable alliance, it's in the best interest of the rest of the players to destroy those two first in all future games.

This passage from the TV Tropes page on the Scrub is relevant:

The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The Metagame can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort at learning the tactic. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning the practice without making a good faith effort in actually getting around it with the in-game rules.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 14 November 2010 02:05:58PM 1 point [-]

Doesn't iteration cause this strategy to be balanced out?

The games described in the post were online - they're normally played against different opponents each time. The game that's about to start is only planned to happen once.

After it becomes clear that two players have an unbreakable alliance, it's in the best interest of the rest of the players to destroy those two first in all future games.

Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, that argument could be applied to most forms of cheating.

This passage from the TV Tropes page on the Scrub is relevant

Only if iteration was a factor, and even then, only in a sense that could be applied to most forms of cheating.

Comment author: thezeus18 14 November 2010 11:32:28PM 1 point [-]

It's really only applicable to forms of cheating which can be countered by non-cheaters ganging up on the cheaters. If the cheat causes an automatic win in every game, the scrub argument against its banning doesn't apply.

But I agree, I was assuming iteration. Obviously, the scrubbiness of the rule against unbreakable alliances (and thus the cheatiness of the tactic), would depend on metagame circumstances.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit