Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[Beta]

My two cents worth - from a reasonably new diplo player.

Anonymous log ins - Awesome idea Deity.

Timeslot - I am easy. I like Friday's, as many soical events end up on teh Saturday. But I could probably do Saturday if that was the choice of all.

Keeping everything in character. can do. Just not aware that it was a goal, but no probs with it.

Number of players - thinking about it. CS raises a good point about the more the merrier (ie more permutations for alliances). OTOH - tech issues are real as we know.

Regarding the tech and connection issues - I would like to speak up on this as one who started last year while playing from Florida on my back-up PC and over a questionable connection. Diplo gaming was one of the main reasns I switched to a very fast and reliable cable ISP when I got back up north - and run the game on a new machine. But it is hard to be holier than thou on these matters - as to be honest - it is never clear whether it is the ISP, the machine, the router, or cyber gremlins. I just can't figure out why we have so many issues when thousands are playing MMOG and other more demanding on-line games just fine. Then again - my technical knowledge is limited - so over to someone who knows more than me.

Now - alliances and techs. Been thinking about this one. I know where CS and Deity are coming from with the current game - but they also need to realize that is the sitauation at this point in the game. Alliances and factions change - and don't underestimate others' ability and desire to ensure that the diplo game is fun and interesting for all.

I agree that it would be good if you could limit the tech trading - say to only one trade. That would truly limit the gifting, as a civ would no doubt shop for the best deal before trading. It would also limit the tech blocks - where one science -strong civ keeps feeding the others. But then we would be into manual book-keeping again. Still thinking about how this would best work.

As to the game speed - not sure either. I lean towards sticking with marathon - as that is what makes these games unique - along with a few other things. And I am not sure if you modify the 'package' to appeal to more 'mainstream' players, that you are doing diplo gaming any favours. Again - this is one that needs to rattle around in my head for a bit.

Anyways - that's my thoughts. Will add more as I follow the discussion.

[LzPrst]

we should all use a standard format. such as Diplogamer-A, Diplogamer-B, etc.

or something like it, though perhaps something that is a bit more distinctive. but you get the idea.

even though I agree with deity in principle, our games often take as long as 6 months. and the odds that something will come up in that time that will forcefully change someone`s schedule or similar is just vast. with epic it would be way shorter, and with a limited tech trading policy things wouldnt progress quite as fast. I am not suggesting we make it a permanent standard, just a one-time try to see whether it works or not. no worries though, marathon is the standard and it is for the hardcore players, I am just suggesting we experiment a bit.

but do people agree that tech trading happens a bit too often, under too easy circumstances and that it propels the game too fast forward?
and I am specifically referring to tec-blocs.

[Toni]

I fully agree with Deity - we need to use Ozzy's score system for HOTW12 and even maybe add some more things.

Lz i will be in Hawaii starting the 8th - we even may not be on the same island - but i will hold you to that beer you offer when back in Europe!

[Robert]

Regarding Ozzy's score system: as long as we don't even have the results for HOTW VII, I don't think the system works.

I think that everybody knows at the end of the game who's the winner (and who are the sub-winners, ie. the allies of the winner)
Score lists only make things more complicated.

Regarding the poly-game-id's, we figured that it should be something like:
Diplo_America
Diplo_Germany
Diplo_Holland

etc. etc.
That way things are generetic, but also easy to recognize. (you don't have to figure out what nation is writing what message).
The id's can be maintained by Ming, and at the beginning of every new game we need to contact Ming to tell him which player should get the password of which diplo-id.

The ID CAN NOT be used anywhere else on apolyton, except in the diplo-game threads!

Regarding epic/marathon speed, I'm always in favor of marathon. Games that last long get a boddy.
Those games are in your mind. There's really something going on. Those games are the huge games you remember.

Maybe we should just enforce the rule: 3 players missing, skip the session. (missing = left note of absence, not just not showing up)

I don't have a problem with games that last for months.
I think those are the best

[draethor]

I'm pretty new here, and am speaking from the perspective of someone who would be interested in giving these types of games a shot.

I really like the idea, and the fun you guys seem to be having even if it gets intense at times.

However, I know I'd have a problem committing my Friday nights for six months or more to play the same game. Even people who are really interested must, at one point or another, feel burnt out or not be excited to log in.

Why not try going for epic instead of marathon speed? I know it's different for a lot of you guys, but it would give you a chance to try out a new ruleset (sounds like tech brokering off might be different?) as well as try out potential new players (like myself, who wouldn't have a problem committing to showing up every friday night for a couple months).

It just seems that after reading this thread (and the story thread, which I LOVED, great work so far :P ) that there are a lot of issues that have arisen at least due in part to people being bored and wanting something different. With new, shorter games you guys could even hype it up on other forums (like the BtS tri-league tournament) and inject a lot of new life into it. At the least, you wouldn't be out much time.

Anyway. Sorry to pitch my opinion when it wasn't asked for (I hate when people do this!), but I figured maybe the opinion of an outsider looking in might have at least some value.

[OzzyKP]

My suggestions for the next game (taken from all your suggestions):

1. Limit it to 8-9 players.

2. Anonymous play? I'm not entirely convinced, but it is worth a shot.

3. Be open to trying Epic.

4. Perhaps try a real world map, I know for me it helps me get in character and focus more on the storytelling and diplo when I have Earth geography around me. A world map, or a Europe map, or maybe even a full scenario would be a fun change of pace and how we did many successful diplogames back in Civ2.

5. The single most important thing is to use the diplogame victory condition we created. That was created exactly to overcome this kind of thing. To put the emphasis on general gameplay so we don't all stress out over who is gonna launch the ship first. Everything factors into it. If someone keeps an ally for the entire game when it doesn't make sense to do so, then they lose points in the diplomacy section. If someone plays nice all game, makes friends with everyone and never builds an army, they lose points in military, if they don't explain things in the story thread they lose points for storytelling. All the problems we identify are addressed in the points system.

The trick is to really get us to accept the points system in our gut. I'd recommend turning off the score altogether. Maybe that could be done with a mod. Looking at the damn thing all game gets us focused on that instead of the point system like we should be. We need to break out of the mindset that the person with the most points and who launches the ship wins. That isn't how it works with the point system.

We just need to fully accept that.

Doing a better job of voting on time and posting the results is easily fixed.

[Robert]

1. The problem is never with the # of players, but with 1 (or more) of the players whoms connection is failing. It's obvious that with more players there are more changes that someone's comp is starting to hick up. But if people configure their settings right, things should be ok. Test-session(s) may avoid problems like these.

I've had games with 7 players that had a lot of problems and I've had 11 player games that ran perfect.

4. Real World keeps America / Europe totally seperated till astronomy.
It would only work if all civs start on eurasiafrica

5. No
- it's not simple (still waiting on results HOTW VII)
- it's not fair
- the real in-game winner is the real winner anyway
- we've never had end-game problems sine civ4
- Space Ship wins have never been weird or out of place
- all your arguments are incorporated in a Space Ship win. If someone doesn't build an army, he'll be invaded before his ship reaches AC.

The score-list is a nice idea, but it's just not going to work. We never even used it, because it was too complicated.

[OzzyKP]

Every single one of our problems stem from people wanting to win in the traditional sense.

Why does Toni "manipulate" everyone? Because he is smart. Having a huge alliance where everyone helps each other is the best way to advance in this game, it keeps you safe and gets you lots of tech so you can focus on expanding like crazy and building up a strong enough base to launch the ship. You can't get mad at Toni for playing smartly. That is how the game is set up and that is how he and Deity and others are gonna play it.

People like you, CS, who will roleplay even if it isn't in your best interests in-game, and who will risk wars and backstabs because it makes the game more interesting and fun generally do not do well in the game, because Toni & Deity and such play to win. When they play to win, they get everyone else caught up in it as well and people are less likely to bother with storylines or diplomatic agreements that don't help them win. When the situation looks unbalanced those on top who are playing to win are going to defend their lead and the ones on the bottom are going to see the game as helpless and start whining about ethics and cheating and "manipulation" and such.

All our arguments stem from this. I've seen the situation from both sides, and I see what is going on clearly.

People want to win, that is unavoidable. That is the point of this game, or any game, to win. Diplogaming screws with that system because we put an emphasis on elements that don't help people win. That creates a lot of tension between people's natural urge to win and the goals of diplogaming. Simply telling people to ignore their desires to win may work with some, but not enough to solve the problem.

What we need, and what we have, is a way to reconcile the urge to win with the "higher ideals" if diplogaming. So we can channel people's urge to win into making the diplogame better for all of us. So that is why I created the point system so the way you win the game is to write engaging stories, be diplomatically cunning, etc. It is a balanced, comprehensive look at the game. With this system you don't have to strive to be first in the game, a small backwater civ that is far behind in tech and has poor land can WIN THE GAME if they are an expert roleplayer and storyteller. That is the ultimate way of keeping everyone in the game and keeping everyone interested in it.

That solves our problems.

Lets see, when everyone was complaining about Kuno (Russia) and I (India) being allied you were mad because we were both powerful civs and we were allied. Of course we were, we wanted to win. Of course you were mad because you wanted to win too.

In the next game when I (Arabia) was allied with Toni (Bulgaria) everyone was mad because we were both powerful civs and we were allied. Of course we were, we wanted to win. Of course you were mad because you wanted to win too.

In the next game when Toni (Germany) was allied with Mike and Kuno and Nolan we were mad because it felt like the game was unbalanced, they were too powerful. Why did they stack the deck? Because they wanted to win. Why did it seem unfair to the rest of us? Because we wanted to win too and recognized that we weren't going to.

Same thing with this game.

The only solution is to change our definition of winning.

[Beta]

Very interesting debate - and one I can sincerely relate to. Oz - where are the list of victory conditions/scoring that you established. I read it once, but cannot find it now. It is not with the FAQ thread.

[Robert]

Ozzy, yes, people do want to win.
There's no problem with that.
We just need to set the right rules.

Rules to limit alliances
Rules to enforce people to live up to their story and their role
Rules to avoid power blocks

Some rules could be:
1. No unit gifting (to avoid secret behind the scenes stuff that can't be tracked down)

2. No alliance between the #1-3 strongest nations. (according to both the powergraph and the scorelist! If 2 allied nations approach the 1-3 position, they must make up a story to split up, or drop their power/score. Which will be very interesting! Big nations need loyal small nations. It'll be an interesting ballance of power)

3. One nation can never be at war with more then 3 other nations.

4. Only have alliances that make sence. (based on religion, civics and/or geographical location)

5. Alliances must always be reported to one game-leader who's not involved.

6. The winning alliance grands the #1, #2 and #3 position. #1 obviously to the real winner, and #2 and #3 to his allies.

7. Only trade techs within your alliance.

These rules are easy and add much much depth to the game! It makes things more formal, it avoids powerblocks. It removes hidden stuff.

The most important rule obviously is: all live up to the spirit of the rules. Don't try to find wholes in the rules.

I'm sure that this will both gives dept the the story and the game, and gives many new interesting roleplaying possibilities and tactics to consider!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

What we need is the Mastery Mod-that had a whole host of new & interesting methods of determining score. Just not sure if there is a BtS version lying around!

Aussie_Lurker.

[Toni]

Well i'm with Ozzy on this!

I don't think we should spend another game HOTW12 and just conclude what he just said.

After all he has been on both sides top and low civ and knows best what we all think and feel.

I think CS your rules are helpful but they do not solve the issues. Making rules just kills the creativity of the game - what ozzy offers will give each person a chance to win via many possible paths.

I feel that the score chart will bring the fun back to the game to many of us.

[OzzyKP]

BUMP

The point list is on page three:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4600586#post4600586

[OzzyKP]

Ok, I bumped the Diplogame victory thread, but here is the point list:

Objective Points

Traditional victory options:
First to Launch Spaceship 20 points.
Allies of First to Launch Spaceship - 10 points (to be divided up by launcher)
Spaceship Part - .5 point
Winning diplomatic victory - 20 points
Voting for civ winning diplomatic victory - 5 points

General Acheivements
Highest population - 6 points
Highest land area - 6 points
Owning a wonder (either built or conquered) - .5 points
First to circumnavigate the globe - 2 points
Highest Civ Score - N points
2nd highest Civ Score - N-1 points
....
Lowest Civ Score - 1 point
(n = number of players in the game)

Religion:
Founding a religion - 3 points
Holding the Holy City of a religion with over 25% distribution - 5 points

Technology:
First to invent liberalism - 4 points
First to invent fusion - 4 points
First to invent economics - 4 points
First to invent physics - 4 points
First to invent music - 4 points
First to invent fascism - 4 points
First to invent alphabet - 4 points

Culture:
Having the top cultural city - 5 points
Haivng the 2nd most cultural city - 4 points
Having the 3rd most cultural city - 3 point
Having the highest total culture - 6 points
City with legendary culture - 6 points


Subjective Points

When the game ends we will take a private vote, each player will rank the other players in the game in the following three categories:

- Military Acheivements
- Diplomacy
- Storytelling/Roleplaying

Each category would give out N*6 points total. 3 categories will add a total of (N*6)*3 points.

(N = number of players)

So for example, with Diplomacy:

India: 1. America (3pt) 2. Germany (2pt) 3. Russia (1pt)
England: 1. India 2. America 3. Spain
China: 1. England 2. Germany 3. America
Spain: 1. India 2. America 3. China
Russia: 1. China 2. Spain 3. India
Inca: 1. England 2. Germany 3. India
Germany: 1. America 2. England 3. China
America: 1. Russia 2. England 3. China

America: 11 points
England: 10 points
India: 8 points
Germany: 6 points
China: 6 points
Russia: 4 points
Spain: 3 points
Inca: 0 points


My Explanation

I tried to accomplish the following things with my proposal:

1. Strike a balance between objective and subjective points.

Some elements such as storytelling or military acheivement are very difficult to represent objectively, and require some subjective voting. However to make the entire victory based on voting would deny the real in-game mechanics that are important in this game. So in my opinion the only viable system strikes a balance between objective and subjective points.

2. Doesn't Affect Gameplay/No Point Sleeze

I think it is important that when we develop a point based victory condition that it is based on goals we currently have. If we create new goals and people start changing their game play and making irrational decisions just to win points then the game is irreversably changed and imho damaged. Cyber says this is awarding stuff that already awards players in game. Is the alternative to reward players for doing things that don't affect the game at all? That would result in unnatural decisions that would mess up the game.

Ideally, and I feel strongly about this, I think people shouldn't change their play style in order to win points. Points should reward players for doing what they are inclined to do anyways.

3. Look at the Full Scope of the Game

My system includes religion, and culture - two elements that are very important to Civ4, and indeed elements that set it apart from earlier versions of the game. They should not be left out. I do put an emphasis on traditional victory conditions and general measures of success (population, civ score, etc). So religion & culture wouldn't be unbalancing, but they are and should be factors.

Also, my system attempts to represent the full 5,500 year length of the game. The emphasis is clearly on the last several turns, but not exclusively like other proposals. A civ that is successful in 1700 AD should get more points than a civ successful in 200 BC, however a civ successful in 200 BC should get more points than a civ that was never successful in any age. I attempt to have more measures of our varied successes and failures that span the full period of this game.

[Beta]

Thanks OZ!