HOTW V - Set Up Thread II, or The Return of the Mods

[OzzyKP]

Well we don't need to code a mod that automatically assigns the points... we can just do it here in the thread.

[OzzyKP]

btw, I confirm for this week.

The following week however I can't make. The 21st.

[Robert]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Well we don't need to code a mod that automatically assigns the points... we can just do it here in the thread.

I know I know I know

[Robert]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
btw, I confirm for this week.

The following week however I can't make. The 21st.

Same to me.

[NicodaMax]

I like Frank's proposition of a point based system to determin a winner, as I do consider the spaceship or time victories a little lame. As a matter of fact, I never use them in my SP games. It's either world domination or anihilation

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not that interested in winning. I consider having been able to play 15+ sessions of good civ with great players like you guys a victory in itself.

Still, if there's a vote, I'll vote...and I'll go along with the majority. In the end any system to determine a winner will have the same outcome...

...another CIV game after it

Cya friday, I hope

[LzPrst]

Great suggestion for score Ozzy.

As I said before, I think such a vote will give the most balanced and rewarding victory. It will do so because first of all we are all honorable men and we should base our voting and decisions on our subjective view of the situation. I have considered India an enemy\rival for much of the game, but I am objective enough to award high scores to Ozzy for his diplomacy and other things I feel he has done well. In fact, much of the reason I have considered India to be a rival is because Ozzy has been such a worthy foe. As we are all honorable men I feel we will respect our rivals and give them credit where it is due, as we in turn expect to be treated by the same standard.

The vote will be individually subjective, but the total will be the combined view of all the players, the winner will be the one who is considered to be the best when all those subjective views are added up.

It will also be easy to add a 2nd and 3rd place ranking.

The voting system will need some work and all must agree on the final result. Ozzy's suggestion is a great start.

I had in mind more than 10 points spread over just 4 denominations. The 10 points divided 4 ways was merely to illustrate my suggestion. In the actual system perhaps all civs would get a score, we're 8 players so what about the following denominations,
8th - 0p,
7th - 1p,
6th - 2p,
5th - 3p,
4th - 4p,
3rd - 5p,
2nd - 6p,
1st - 8p.

It would award a few points to those who arent among the top as well giving some credit to those who havent been among the top. Not sure what is best. Requires debate.

We could do the numbers by either getting a neutral person to receive e-mails and count it all up, as to not create disputes over votes. Or we could even create a simple website where we put in the numbers and the site spits out the results, the 3 best in each category and the 3 best total, the other results are not shown. Its something to be discussed.

If such a website was created we could even perform such a vote following each session in later HOTW's, with the winner being the player who has cumulated the most victory points throughout the entire game, creating a fairer vote since alliances will change and thus player's relationship's to eachother removing some of the risk of people giving better grades to those they like\are allied with. On the other hand I feel we are all honest enough to give a good score where a good score is due, regardless of rivalry or friendship.

And what I meant by the likelyhood of our world ending like a civgame with a largescale war (actually it isnt really that far fetched if you're a little cynical) is that in our world we dont know whats the "win", there is no specific time or event that we know of that will end the "game"\world, which will result in a desperate bid to reduce the leader by any means necessary.

it is the fact that we know that the first to get the SS off wins, or that the game will end in 2050 or whatever, that creates this mad dash for the finish. The Vote will give a full and thorough consideration of all aspects of the game and the efforts of every player giving the victory to the player who has universally been the best.

[deity]

Haven't read all this interesting stuff yet (at work) so I'll read it later on.

But one thing to consider is that we have subs and many players handling one civ so we need to tink about who votes. I'm not sure about it yet.

[The Capo]

Well, I tend to agree with Nico's "we're all winners for having played the game" mentality. I mean obviously there were the losers (Dragon), who ultimately weren't around for the end of the game. But my point is not that Space is not a legitimate victory, or an accomplishment, or stupid, or whatever else you want to say I think about it. My point is that it doesn't fufill a diplogame like a real diplo-victory should. Keeping this in mind, I suggest we use the following method.

Let's say deity gets to AC first, the game ends. Deity "accomplishes" a space victory.

But then we should vote, that's it, vote on different categories (this is similar to what was done at the end of HOTW 2, but that was of course in a non-official capacity).

Since it is a diplogame the categories should reflect that aspect, so it should go as follows.

Best Diplomacy
Best Posts
Best General
Best Culture
Best Religion
Best Scientist
Most Popular
Most Deceitful
Most Trustworthy

And I can go on, the point is nobody has to officially win the game, I mean deity will technically win but we can all gain achievements for specific events, and things that we were good at. Another thing we did at the end of HOTW 2 was to write up a little blurb about each player/civ we played against and what our secret thoughts were on it, it may not have much to do with who won the game, but it will be interesting to see what people thought about eachother during the game.

The reason I suggested playing beyond the Space Victory was simply because it would be more realistic. I don't know what the hell Cyber is thinking, but I can assure you if we have a Space victory there are at least SOME tribes out there that WILL attack people, whether conventionally or not. I've seen it a million (exaggeration) times before, it is going to happen. So I would get that out of my head if I were you dutchie.

On the same note, a way to prevent this would be to continue playing after a Space Victory, this way nobody is inclined to attack you, and if we don't have an official victory there would be no reason to do so.

The journey is the thing!

[The Capo]

So, who should Parliament vote for? Franco or Aznar?

[LzPrst]

hmmm.... Franco... I could do amazing things with that if I was fully active

anyway, Capo, my thoughts exactly. The game ends when a player achieves a victory by any of the game mechanic victories and then a vote follows, rewarding all players by giving them a score.

also, I think city gifting should be allowed for the space race, BUT the original owner should then be awarded a score for their contribution. For example, SS is 10 parts and gives 10 points, Russia sends the spaceship but Englands gifted cities have built 4 of the parts and thus receive 4 points, Russia gets the remaining 6.

[OzzyKP]

I think someone does have to win the game. It is a game, and all games have objectives. I agree that the fun and the point of diplogames is the journey not the destination, however that doesn't mean we do away with goals altogether. That would very much change the character of the game, and for the worse I fear.

I think a point system & vote like Lz, Frank & I are proposing is really the way to go. It rewards people for both in game and out of game goals. It is a balanced compromise between what Capo is proposing (ignore the game mechanics and just recognize people for their storytelling, etc) and what Cyber is proposing (first to launch wins, or first to destroy everyone else in the game).

Neither extreme is satisfactory. I think the best compromise incorporates both into a more comprehensive victory.

[The Capo]

Damn you Lz!

The Fascists could have been glorious, glorious I tell you!

[LzPrst]

hehe

they would have been if Omni hadnt stumbled in the war against america.

and they still can be...

[deity]

So, we have a Civ 4 winner determined by game mechanics which is the point the game ends.

Then we assess a diplo winner based on voting and or criteria.

I'm dead against voting. It is too prone to vague notions and we have had too many players playing the one civ.

I suggest we decide via criteria that we pre-determine.

A set number of points for certain achievements that are biased towards diplo achievements rather than the civ score itself. Like the criteria that ozzy was suggesting. Let's expand on that.

Each player should post a precis of their achievements and iniatatives as a reminder. Maybe one pont for each 'event' that is agreed by consensus as an event.

Peace initiatives, eg Russian Summit = 1 point

War successes, eg Taking Novgorad by English = 1 point

Tech milestones (hard to remember), Liberalism by Russia = 1 point

Circumnavigation, Inca = 1 point

etc etc...

Things like Wnders etc that are included in the game scroe shold perhaps be left out.

Get all the criteria tabulated and only vote on the criteria to be included; then add it up without subjective voting of other 'qualities'.

I think this will work retrospectively for the current game but I have concerns for future games where we are aware of pre-determined criteria which may formulate our strategies and dictate our choices. Eg instead of exploring the New World I probably would have tried to beat Inca to circumnavigation if it was worth a point. but if we balance out enough criteria it might work.

[OzzyKP]

Ah, but under my point scheme I rate the points of different acheivements. For example having the highest pop is worth 8 points whereas circumnavigation is worth 3. So you took the rights strategy in focusing on the new world because now you have the highest pop, and no doubt not far from having the highest land area either.

My point scheme was crafted so that current objectives we have in the game would be rewarded. Not to create new objectives. A new game with these points in mind should play out normally, since everything I gave points to is a natural objective.

Determining which events to include, how many points to give them, and remembering them all would be too time consuming I think. It can be more easily covered by the voting. Taking Novgorod is covered under military acheivements, the Russian Summit is under diplomacy. Yes it is fairly subjective, but it is impossible to take subjective ideas such as diplomacy, storytelling, & military success and make them objective.

However I don't want to make the ranking all subjective, that is why I added objective points that don't depend on voting at all. I think a nice mix is needed. We can't go too far one way or anohter. If you think the subjective voting in the categories of diplomacy, storytelling & war are weighted too much we can give more points to the objective side. But I really think this is the way to go.