[Daanz-dip] Fw: Recruiting at FtF events.

[Dugal Ure]

David,

>>Goffy's usual MO is in fact to always ally with the newbie, going so
>>far as to coach him to quite a good position.
>>And then stabbing him mercilessly like he could never do had he allied
>>with an experienced player.
>>I'm not sure either approach can take the high moral ground here.
>
> I think Goffy's approach is much better. At least they get a decent length
> game, and some experience of success before it all goes wrong. They get the
> feeling that people will work with them, and that next time, maybe they'll
> be the one who manages to make the big stab at the right time.

There are different kinds of players, different results seem better to
some than others.

As a newbie, when I got shut down early in the game I could put it
down to "cartels" and people allying with friends (though actually as
you get to know people better you realise that isn't really the case a
lot of the time).  I could see my way clear to getting past that by
just coming along more often and getting to know everyone better.

But when I actually got going, got to my first few decent positions
and then had to deal with friends/allies stabbing me, I found that far
more distasteful and far more likely to turn me away.  I personally
find losing quickly to be less painful than losing after five hours of
hard work.

We've had this argument before many times too.  Some people like the
opportunities for co-operation the game offers and some people like
the opportunity to be a weasel.  New players will see both.  They will
leave if they aren't able to at least tolerate both.  Which means that
both are incidental and therefore irrelevant to the problem.  Neither
is the cause.

>>When it comes down to it, a new player should expect to have the crap
>>kicked out of him, simply because he isn't as good at the game.
>
> I think the problem with this argument is, it assumes that all players who
> are new to tournaments are crap at the game. And because people assume
> this, they never ally with them, so the newcomer always gets killed,
> regardless of how good at the game they actually are.

No.  I don't care how good you are at PBM Diplomacy or Computer
Diplomacy or Chess or Settlers or any other related game - if you have
not played FTF Tournament Diplomacy before then you are not good at
FTF Tournament Diplomacy.

Now I do agree that it is probably more difficult for someone who
knows they are good at other forms of the game to accept being
manhandled in their first FTF Tourney game.  Ideally an experienced
player could help them analyse what happened, or maybe even forewarn
them as they go in.  Your "Rep" is an essential factor to a Tourney
game and if you don't have one, you don't have one.  Asking people to
play like nobody has one is doomed to fail, because then the two
people who say screw that and play with the extra information will
win.  It's like games with optional restrictive rules, the players who
ignore them beat the players who choose to be constrained.

There is good advice you can give new players, like appearing able to
listen and follow instructions, not be paranoid, not throwing out
highly "imaginative" moves, staying away from Goffy... ok, ok, allying
with Goffy until '05 and *then* staying away.  Don't be disheartened
by early losses.  Take the first few games as a way to introduce
yourself to the hobby.  Watch what happens that is different from a
blind game where everyone is anonymous, and do that yourself next
time.

>>You need to find people who already think Diplomacy is cool.  They're
>>the ones who will stay through the beatings.
>
> But if they already think Diplomacy is cool, then they probably already
> know how to play fairly well. And if that's the case, then why should they
> have to go through the beatings?

Because every game at least 3 or 4 people get eliminated and it's more
likely to be people who know how to play but don't know anyone, than
it is to be people who know how to play and also know everyone.

> The problem is, because you can have a Tournament Diplomacy Game where
> multiple players do well, there is no need for the experienced players to
> do anything other than work together to get a good result for both of them.
> Edi has said how short C-Diplo games have worked well at building the hobby
> in France. I personally think it is not the short game length that is the
> key here, but the fact that C-Diplo removes the option for multiple players
> to get a good score, so the experienced players can't just work together
> for the entire game. So while the newcomers aren't going to get a good
> result (unless they're actually really good players), they are at least
> going to get to feel that their results reflect their play.

Yay scoring systems.  Again, you can spin this both ways.  If the
system can reward multiple players then someone can carry a less
experienced player along and let them have a good game too without
hurting their own score.  Scoring systems matter to the people
finishing first, second or third.  Most new players don't even know
how they work.

If quick C-Diplo games are helping the French hobby grow, then I would
expect it is simply because they are short and so people are spending
less time sitting around after they lose.  Or maybe they are like me
and prefer to get it over quickly if it's going to happen.

Cheers,
Dugal

PS Edi, I moved to PA in 06, FL in 07 and just moved to NC on Sunday.
It's a new large scale gaming hobby I'm in called Musical States.