Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[Frank Johnson]

The civ points aren't needed unless we get to 2050, which will only happen if the first spaceship isn't launched until 2000? Which will never happen.

[OzzyKP]

I think we are definitely on the right track. Thanks for that Frank.

I do think your plan sounds incredibly complicated however. Not only does it seem like we are gonna need accountants to calculate it all, but it seems like players will be able to make last minute adjustments to cheat the scores.

Like if we do it based on gold/beakers. Then I'd just pull all my workers off food tiles and make them scientists or merchants. Or engineers for production.

But I'm glad we are trying to figure out something that fits for everyone. So we're on the right track.

[deity]

Just all do the same on the last turn and play on a few till it registers in the stats.

All select tax rates to stay positive; all arrange workers so that cities are at least stagnant.

[deity]

You take a risk whether you emphasise production or gnp with the specialists you pick etc.

[Frank Johnson]

Its not really a risk. Just pick one or the other. The scores are all relative. Being first isn't going to score you much if you're just a couple above the next person. Although it's true you shouldn't be able to starve your cities or set your tax rate to 0 on the last turn.

If we were knocking down diplo games every week, a simple system would be fine. But for this, what....4 month expedition...a more indepth score is in order.

[Robert]

My suggestion:

1. Take the sum of all civ-scores (in-game). Every civ receives the % of the scorelist that's their in points

2. The #1 on the scorelist gets 8 points, the number last gets 1 point. (#2 = 7, #3 = 6, etc.)

3. The in-game winner receives 15 points, 7 of these points must be assigned by him to other civs, he can keep 4 of them for himselve.

4. Everyone makes a a top 3 for storytelling (excluding himself). The 1st position in every list has a value of 3, 2nd = 2, 3th = 1, The sum of all lists gives a new list. The #1 on that list receives 5 points, 2 = 4 points, etc, 3 = 3, 4=2, 5=1.

5. Simular as 4, now for diplomacy

6. Simular as 4, now for military tactics

7. Simular as 4, now for nation building

8. Simular as 4, now for general

The sum of all points it the winner.
The advantage of this system is that things that give you an in-game profit won't give you an extra score-profit. (the in-game profit will already help you to get a better civ, and therefor give you a better score. Big cities already help you to get a better score ie.)

Example:

1. Points based on your score % of the total score:
(example)
total: 14609 points

India: 2395 of 14609 = 16,3% = 16,3 points
England: 2258 of 14609 = 15,4% = 15,4 points
China 2198 = 15 points
Spain 1745 = 11,9
Russia 1688 = 11,6
Inca 1532 = 10,5
Germany 1405 = 9,6
America 1388 = 9,5

2. The #1 on the scorelist gets 8 points, the number last gets 1 point. (#2 = 7, #3 = 6, etc.)

India: 8 points
England: 7 points
China: 6
Spain: 5
Russia: 4
Inca: 3
Germany: 2
America: 1

3. In-game winner receives 15 and appoints 7 points
Example:
England wins:

England: 8 points
Inca: 5 points
China: 2 points

4. Story telling

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

Spain: 17 (= 8 points)
India: 13 (= 7 points)
Russia: 10 (6)
Germany: 3 (4,5)
America: 3 (4,5)
China: 2 (3)
England: 1 (2)
Inca: 0 (1)

5. 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 = 8 points
England: 10 = 7 points
India: 8 = 6 points
Germany: 6 = 4,5 points
China: 6 = 4,5 points
Russia: 4 points = 3 points
Spain: 3 points = 2 points
Inca: 0 points = 1 point

6. Military tactics
[voting system skipped in this example]

America: 16 = 8 points
India: 11 = 7 points
Russia: 8 = 5,5 points
China: 8 = 5,5 points
England: 6 = 4 points
Spain: 4 points = 3 points
Germany: 3 points = 2 points
Inca: 2 points = 1 point

7. Nation building
[voting system skipped in this example]

England: 8
Inca: 7
India: 6
China: 5
Spain: 4
Russia: 3
America: 2
Germany: 1

8. General
[voting system skipped in this example]

India: 8
China: 7
England: 6
Spain: 5
America: 4
Russia: 3
Germany: 2
Inca: 1


Total score:
1. India: 16,3 [score %] + 8 [rank] + 0 [game win] + 7 [story] + 6 [diplo] + 7 [military] + 6 [nation] + 8 [gen] = 58,3
2. England: 15,4 [score %] + 7 [rank] + 8 [game win] + 2 [story] + 7 [diplo] + 4 [military] + 8 [nation] + 6 [gen] = 57,4
3. China: 15 [score %] + 6 [rank] + 2 [game win] + 3 [story] + 4,5 [diplo] + 5,5 [military] + 5 [nation] + 7 [gen] = 48
4. Spain: 11,9 [score %] + 5 [rank] + 0 [game win] + 7 [story] + 2 [diplo] + 3 [military] + 4 [nation] + 5 [gen] = 37,9
5. Russia: 11,6 [score %] + 4 [rank] + 0 [game win] + 6 [story] + 3 [diplo] + 5,5 [military] + 3 [nation] + 3 [gen] = 36,1
6. America: 9,5 [score %] + 1 [rank] + 0 [game win] + 4,5 [story] + 8 [diplo] + 8 [military] + 2 [nation] + 4 [gen] = 36
7. Inca: 10,5 [score %] + 3 [rank] + 5 [game win] + 1 [story] + 1 [diplo] + 1 [military] + 7 [nation] + 1 [gen] = 29,5
8. Germany: 9,6 [score %] + 2 [rank] + 0 [game win] + 4,5 [story] + 4,5 [diplo] + 2 [military] + 2 [nation] + 1 [gen] = 25,5

[OzzyKP]

I think that sounds simplier and less exploitable than Frank's system. It does put a very big emphasis on subjective voting though instead of striking a balance between objective & subjective.

[Robert]

If we want to award a diplo-win then it should be generated through diplomatic ways, I think. Of course it could be possible to add more objective parts or give 1-3 a more heavy impact.

I still think that awarding stuff that already awards players in-game is too much.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by deity
Let ozzy finalise his system with all our feedback and see what the result is. Don't have to make it official, save that for HOTW7.

Ok, well here is a retweaking of my system incorporating some good ideas from Frank & Cyber's systems.

Objective Points - 133-164 total (realistically)

Traditional victory options: - 30-50 points
First to Launch Spaceship 15 points.
Within 10 turns after 10 points
Within 20 turns after 8 points
Within 30 turns after 6 points
Within 40 turns after 4 points
Within 50 turns after 2 points
Winning diplomatic victory - 20 points
Voting for civ winning diplomatic victory - 5 points

General Acheivements - 56 points
Highest population - 6 points
Highest land area - 6 points
Most wonders - 6 points
First to circumnavigate the globe - 2 points
Highest Civ Score - 8 points
2nd highest Civ Score - 7 points
....
8th highest Civ Score - 1 point

Religion: - 14-24 points
Founding a religion - 2 points
Founder of a religion with over 25% distribution - 5 points

Technology: - 24 points
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 alphabet - 4 points

Culture: - 18-36 points
Having the top cultural city - 5 points
Haivne 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 - 144 total

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 48 points total. 3 categories add up to 144 points.

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.


My Changes Since Last Time

I incorporated Frank's idea to not end once the first ship launches, but keep going for another 50 turns, and give out points for spaceship runners up. I think that is a good idea and I incorporated it.

I also incorporated Cyber's idea of using the CivScore as a determiner of points. And giving everyone points based on their rank is good too to ensure that no one goes empty handed.

Because of these added points I have decreased my point amounts for population, land area, circumnavigation. Plus I removed points for Longest time served as Secretary Genera, Most proposed UN votes passed, and Builder of the most missionaries. I also added a new tech acheivement, alphabet, since it is another important tech players go for, and it is an early tech that balances out the rest nicely.

[Rasputin]

As an Ex Diplo palyer and a possible returning player. i must say i hope these points are used t odetermine a winner.

Why should i be forced to research certain technologies in order to win, i might not want democracy in my civ. I might role play a Dictator. I know in game play will be affected by this decision but to me the whole point of Diplo style is to get away from having to be the best civ player and allow non experts to play and compete on a more even plaiyng surface.

If diplo becomes just about who can paly civ the best, then i will never return. I paly civ for fun and diplo is the style that allows my inability to play civ well to be ignored and i can still be competetive in the other side of diplo. The role playing.

The winner of a diplo game should not be the person who conqers the world, nor the person who escapes the world in a space ship. it should be via a vote to see who the other players beleive has fulflled the diplo role to its best.

This will be subjhective yes, and is what diplo should be about. If you want to be the best Civ player go play a standard MP game.

Diplo is aobut the role playing, being able to play as a dictator who loses all the game benifits of a bette goverment. playing as a warlord who doesnt build culture but only military. what ever role you choose it should not clash with the eventual outcome or winner. if you use the system you propose you will force everyone into the same old way of playing. reseearch the techs , launch a space ship.

BORING folks....

Lets allow subjectivity back into the game and let the players choose the BEST DIPLO player as the winner.

[The Capo]

I have to say, I agree with Ras here.

I mean, I understand the points that are being made though, I understand that there "has to be a winner," or I at least understand that mentality. But to me Rasputin has it right; the point of the diplogame was to escape the normal style of MP where you just worry about points, micromanagement, and getting the edge over everyone.

However, I was there for the discussion about the end of the game, and Frank and Ozzy made some good points. The idea here is to make the game competitive and to reward people who accomplish certain things. Not necessarily to make points, and skew the diplogame into a normal MP game. Its difficult to reconcile the two camps. On one hand we've got players who don't understand why you would play if there is no winner, or think that if there is no winner nobody will be driven to compete. On the other hand you've got guys who I would call "diplo-purists" (Ozzy please don't take offense to this term) who consider the game itself the prize, and the fact that they are free to follow their own style as the reward.

I don't know, my viewpoint is that if you've got players who want to win its fine. They can have this point system in place, but on a personal level I won't care that much about who the proclaimed winner is, so much as I got the chance to play in a great game with some good players.

So basically my position is; do whatever you guys want, I seriously don't care.

[Prussia]

At least if you're going to include points, make a BIG emphasis on Diplomacy.

[Rasputin]

WEll hopefully i am only a week asway from haivng a good fast coonection at home so soon i will return to playing thisgreat game.

This is why i hope that there wil lbe enough players who care less about winning and more about the playing.

Maybe end up with two groups, the competeitve players can play to win and another group who only want to play for fun.

[deity]

Good news Raz

Ozzy, Frank and Cyber, I like what you've come up with except for tech milestones. If we inciude them I can't for the life of me not understand Democracy and Astronomy not being there??

[Frank Johnson]

Well I mainly have 1 problem with the "diplo purist" type of player, that is when they mention that they use diplo as a crutch for not being good at civ in general.

You don't need to be a competitive ladder player to "care" about the performance of your civ. We are all well past the phaze where basic game mechanics are throwing us off signifigantly.

There will be exceptions. Spies, for instance, surprised more than one of us this game when most players proclaim their uselessness in single player. No one anticipated the whole full gold producing satilite state effect that the diplo game ended up producing.

But in general, players who "only play for fun" will ultimately cause the destruction of the game because there may very well be un-fun times for you, particularly if you rely on some arbitrary means of defense for your civ and start gabbering about diplomacy and UN resolutions in 1600 BC.

In every diplo game someone is going to be on the front lines who doesn't particularly want to be. They should make every effort to play the game as well as they can, thus the point system, which rewards players for having a well balanced, well guarded civilization that is either persueing a victory condition or following someone who does.