Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[MMC]

3.14... points per religion?

[Robert]

0,5 points per wonder may solve it indeed.
Though I think that founding a religion may be rewarded with 3 points as well.

I'd say that the way the religion has been spread shouldn't give any additional points since that player is already hugely rewarded in the game itself and got much gameplay and diplo benefits for that.

[OzzyKP]

Ok. .5 points works.

Any other changes people suggest? If we are going to start in a week, lets get a point structure finalized before then.

[Prussia]

Read my suggestion before: Person who wins the game by Space Race gets, lets say, 40 points. Person who wins the game by domination or conquering gets 60, and 55 points respectively.

Person who is voted best Diplo player gets 50 points.
That way, everyone is happy.

[OzzyKP]

Well for the space victory we should either give points out to allies, or continue playing past the first launch and give points out to runners up.

I don't care which one we do. Though I'd prefer not playing after the first victory condition is met.

[Robert]

I think that points must be given to allies as well.
It's a 13 player game, nobody can win without allies. Alliances must be formed at least to protect the builder of the spaceship. It must be limited though, perhaps up to 2 allies at most. Or give the space race winner a number of points to give to his allies, ie. 7 points. That's 7 times 1 point to 7 allies or 4 and 3 points to 2 allies.

[OzzyKP]

Ok, time for a new proposed point list. Please look this over. Lets get this approved so we can get on with the game. Lets also not wait till the last minute to decide on this, it is much easier to do now than in 1700 AD, trust me.

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.


My Changes Since Last Time

Since there were many complaints with the idea of playing after the first launch I have taken that out of my point scheme. And since even its main proponents didn't really push to continue playing after I launched in HOTWV. I do however note that it doesn't make much sense to give a bunch of points to the first launcher and zero to someone who missed it by a turn or two. So I have included half a point for everyone who builds a spaceship component.

Also I have added Cyber's idea to give points out to allies of the person to launch first. I have also added Lz's idea to give .5 points out per wonder, and not just a number of points for who has the most total wonders.

Since Fascism now with Warlords gives out a free Great General I have added that to the list of techs that give points.

I am finding it difficult however to balance between the objective & subjective points since they scale based on the number of players. The more players the game has the more the points are tilted to the subjective category. If anyone has any suggestions for a better way of doing this, please suggest it.

Otherwise I strongly encourage us to finally agree on this list of points for HOTW7. The earlier we agree to it the less issues and *****ing we will have down the road.

[Frank Johnson]

The only problem that I currently have with your system is that certain civs are balanced to perform better (or have a jump start) in certain areas of the game. Which is fine. The problem currently is that some civs can earn their points definatively very easily. For example, founding a religion/culture bonuses slant heavily (for example ) to say Arabia and India.

While other civs might have a better time in other areas to make up points there's are left up to people subjectively. As a result, things like culture have a "hard" bonus, which can never be lost, while things like war success only have a "soft" bonus, if and only if others reconize it. Currently I feel the hard bonuses definately favor certain builds and strategies (culture whoring, religion founding, Great Person developing) while ignoring conventional growth and progress (GNP, MFG, etc) which can toss the whole balance out the window.

Personally I would argue that religion's and culture's benefits are already imbedded in other areas of the game (gold from shrines, hapiness from multiple religions, wonders already worth points, land area expands from culture solely, etc.) So counting them twice isn't really needed.

[Colonel_Treize]

I don't care who you guys want to call the winner, or how you will arrive at that conclusion, but I must insist we continue to at least 2050 AD. I am playing to complete a sci-fi story, and that story requires me to continue at least until that year that the score is naturally taken in-game.

[Frank Johnson]

Well under the last tech trading scheme the game ended in the 1700s, although completing the full tech tree w/ space launch...

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
The only problem that I currently have with your system is that certain civs are balanced to perform better (or have a jump start) in certain areas of the game. Which is fine. The problem currently is that some civs can earn their points definatively very easily. For example, founding a religion/culture bonuses slant heavily (for example ) to say Arabia and India.

While other civs might have a better time in other areas to make up points there's are left up to people subjectively. As a result, things like culture have a "hard" bonus, which can never be lost, while things like war success only have a "soft" bonus, if and only if others reconize it. Currently I feel the hard bonuses definately favor certain builds and strategies (culture whoring, religion founding, Great Person developing) while ignoring conventional growth and progress (GNP, MFG, etc) which can toss the whole balance out the window.

Personally I would argue that religion's and culture's benefits are already imbedded in other areas of the game (gold from shrines, hapiness from multiple religions, wonders already worth points, land area expands from culture solely, etc.) So counting them twice isn't really needed.

Well sure we can just get rid of everything and just decide it based on game score, cause in theory that includes everything. Or just get rid of everything and just decide it on victory conditions since that is built up off of everything in the game, but that defeats the purpose of this whole effort.

The whole point was to have a balanced, wholistic view of the game. Religion & culture are just as much a part of the game as war. If we start debating which parts of the game we should cut we'll have endless debates that'll just betray people's play style.

And while you say that including religion in the points favors civs like India & Arabia, but you also started with mysticism, and better yet were financial. So I think it has more to do with what strategy we all chose to persue. The point of Civ4 is to diversify game strategies and not reduce every game to the same dependable path to victory. We should honor that with a point scheme.

Like it or not, religion & culture are important parts of this game.

[Frank Johnson]

So I think it has more to do with what strategy we all chose to persue.

Its not about me Ozzy, but at the end of the day if you have a religion and a shrine and some bonus gold, and I have finanical and got down to, I dunno markets or something first, and we end up with the same overall GNP, why do you get a bunch of reward points while I get nothing? It's an honest question. If the in game results are identical, why should the scoring be different?

Trying to make the early game count for too much will be a failure. Ultimately the "winner" will be determined in those last few turns. A religion, is much like a wonder, its a means to an end, not an end upon itself to be rewarded. It would be like given civs bonus points for stacking defenders in their cities and not for winning a fight. So you got a religion...what did you do with it? That's all that matters.

We aren't using the game score because it's a pretty poor scaler of Civ power. Its heavily tiled in tech/land and ignores economy and military. I tried to make this point last time, but you said the raw numbers were too easy to manipulate. But if you take GNP and MFG, if one goes up, the other goes down. Any optimizing that goes on is pretty insignifigant if you ask me.

Anyway, GNP and MFG favor no particular strategy. You can raise your GNP and MFG through war. You can raise it by running to the new world. You can raise it by developing a key religion and getting shrine gold. You can get it by making a wonder that has synergy with your economy. It's good all around. You don't need a certain trait or to beeline a certain path, you can just follow your own specific situation and still benefit, rather than looking at some other outside formula and trying to benefit.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Colonel_Treize
I don't care who you guys want to call the winner, or how you will arrive at that conclusion, but I must insist we continue to at least 2050 AD. I am playing to complete a sci-fi story, and that story requires me to continue at least until that year that the score is naturally taken in-game.

If the game ends around 2050 that may happen.
But if we end around 1750 AD (which is not that weird on Marathon speed) we'll have some boooooring sessions at the end with nothing to build, nothing to research, nothing to trade.

[Robert]

Your proposal sounds good to me Ozzy.

[OzzyKP]

You're actually wrong Frank, GNP is a poor indicator to look at. There are many things it doesn't take into consideration. In HOTWV I had one of the worst GNPs in the game yet I was still inventing pretty fast. It only looks at commerce and doesn't look at modifiers or specialists or shrine gold or many other things.

Furthermore, by your own logic, what good is GNP and MFG? They are all just ways of getting a victory condition such as the spaceship. GNP & MFG are as worthless as culture if they don't help you build a ship or conquer all your neighbors. Lets just throw out the whole point system and just determine the winner solely based on who gets a traditional victory condition, since in the end that is the only thing that matters.

But that is exactly what we are trying to avoid.

I really think that this discussion is never going to end and it is going to be impossible to satisfy everyone, so I am going to suggest we just go ahead and vote so we can move on. We've been discussing this for like 6 months now. Lets be done with it.