> > I have not tested your Diplomacy/Facebook version, but think such
> > initiatives should be encouraged.
> > And actual players do not worry so much about how "correct" an
> > adjudicator is.
>
> Until there's something that they construe as an error. :-)
I agree, I've found quite a large pro****tion of people get very worked
up about adjudicator problems, and since having a DATC compliant
adjudicator I've gotten a lot fewer complaints, and on Facebook the old
adjudicator still receives constant complaints.
Having a "DATC compliant" adjudicator has given me fewer complaints to
respond to at least, whether or not "true Diplomacy" was a good
expression to use (probably not). :-)
> The main frustration I've seen with adjudicators would be some of the
> "gotchas" like the way coast specification is treated on the nJudge.
> One example is F Lyo S MAO - SPA. Coast specification is required by
> the adjudicator, but not checked by the parser. The adjudicator
> supplies an arbitrary coast - north - for the order then rejects the
> sup****t as invalid because F Lyo can't move to Spa/NC. Now that I think
> about it, there's probably an easy fix for that. (Now *another* item on
> my "to do" list.)
I approached this problem by letting people select options from drop-
down lists of valid orders. A lot of the DATC adjudicator issues become
invalid when you can only select from valid orders, and I do think it
has provided a safety net that newcomers have found useful.
I was actually expecting a backlash from old-style players who prefer
writing orders in full, but I've actually found that no-one misses text-
based orders or 3-letter territory names, which has been a pleasant
surprise. :-)
But it's not suitable where text orders are the only option of course.
Regards,
Kestas
|
