Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[Robert]

Role playing and trying to win doesn't have to exclude each other. The idea is that you want your role to win.

[Robert]

Anonymous playing is an option in civ4:bts.
We should have to ask the admins if we could create anonymous apolyton id's. I like the idea. I'll ask the admins.

Assigning civs could be done using the anonymous id's, just in the thread.

I think that the map we use right now is pretty neat. We are all in contact with each other, but some are in different islands. I like it.

I think the # of uses doesn't matter, what matters is that all players will be able to play 90% of the sessions, are reliable, have good connections, etc. (maybe even have a pilot session, just for connectivity reasons)

I think that tech brokering works pretty good as well. It's still possible to give away techs, but only if you invented them yourselves.

A max on alliances is unmaintainable. How are we going to fix that? There are many ways to support a civ in a war anyway.
I still think that limiting alliances to in-game conditions is a must. Like: (not all, but one of these options below)
- same religion
- same ideology (3 civics should match, ie.)
- same island
- something else.

Maybe you can only exchange techs under one of these circumstances.

Only IC chatting during the game is a good idea, I wonder if it's unmaintainable. But if it's anonymous, people will try to stay low profile anyway.

One problem is: who's the leader. (ie. who makes the final decision when a problem arises)

[LzPrst]

wow. looks like poop has hit the fan in my absence. luckily you seem to have stabilized the situation again.

I see alot of the issues discussed and fought over here are the same concerns I have had for many diplogames. that ooc issues shroud ic interests. that lack of story posts result in annoyances and irritations since nations seem to act in a vacuum. in addition people still take the game too seriously. remember people, despite the vast amount of time and effort and emotion you invest in this game, it is still a game. we play the game to have fun! losing isnt very fun, but diploing is all about flexibility! there are so many potential untraditional strategies available. tec blocs however limit these as the competition of the game becames far fiercer than they should be.

mistakes happen. technical situations arise that are most certainly not in your favours. wars are lost by accidents, flukes and mistaken decisions. but that's the way the real world works. the most important factor is that people act like adults. winning is not everything. enjoying the game is. ALWAYS keep that in mind.

the anonimity option seems extremely interesting! I would definitively like to try it out. and just so that it is perfectly clear. I want to be in the next game.





and finally, I agree that tech trading should be limited, tech brokering is good, but tec blocs are BAD. they force civs to cooperate to keep up forcing people to enter semi-permanent alliances. we should ban tec blocs. possibly also demand that all tech trades be revealed in the story thread. for 2 civs to trade their secrets should have a very HIGH treshold. it should not been done lightly.


ps. hey toni. I'm in hawaii now, I am leaving the morning of december 7th. contact me here in PM if you have time for a beer.

[deity]

I think we might be on to something here guys!

Let's all contribute to this discvussion and come up with a game paradigm that works.

I think we should also adopt ozzy's rules for winning and update them.

You must not reveal your identity. If you do your text will be copied to the game keeper (Nolan perhaps?) and you will lose points in ozzy's revised sysatem that I'm yet to tell him about

[deity]

Originally posted by CyberShy

One problem is: who's the leader. (ie. who makes the final decision when a problem arises)

Number 1!

But with set rules regarding disconnections its a no brainer.

Wait 30 mins; check the thread; play on.

Nolan migt like to be the game keeper whether she's subbing or not. It may not be so bad knowing if Nolan is in the game; trhen again she could always have line up any of a number of subs! She's good like that so we wouldn't know who came in to the game.

Use cryptic unidentifiable language in IC chat. Like I won't say "yo" for example...

[deity]

Originally posted by LzPrst
wow. looks like poop has hit the fan in my absence. luckily you seem to have stabilized the situation again.

I see alot of the issues discussed and fought over here are the same concerns I have had for many diplogames. that ooc issues shroud ic interests. that lack of story posts result in annoyances and irritations since nations seem to act in a vacuum. in addition people still take the game too seriously. remember people, despite the vast amount of time and effort and emotion you invest in this game, it is still a game. we play the game to have fun! losing isnt very fun, but diploing is all about flexibility! there are so many potential untraditional strategies available. tec blocs however limit these as the competition of the game becames far fiercer than they should be.

mistakes happen. technical situations arise that are most certainly not in your favours. wars are lost by accidents, flukes and mistaken decisions. but that's the way the real world works. the most important factor is that people act like adults. winning is not everything. enjoying the game is. ALWAYS keep that in mind.

the anonimity option seems extremely interesting! I would definitively like to try it out. and just so that it is perfectly clear. I want to be in the next game.





and finally, I agree that tech trading should be limited, tech brokering is good, but tec blocs are BAD. they force civs to cooperate to keep up forcing people to enter semi-permanent alliances. we should ban tec blocs. possibly also demand that all tech trades be revealed in the story thread. for 2 civs to trade their secrets should have a very HIGH treshold. it should not been done lightly.


ps. hey toni. I'm in hawaii now, I am leaving the morning of december 7th. contact me here in PM if you have time for a beer.

Good to hear from you lz! You are a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black... LOL

Late January is the likely start date for HOTW12. But maybe we can get the start map organised before then with all of us anonymously going into the game.

I prefer Terra but Big and Little isd OK (bit of a cop out though - minimises Astro line; disadvantages Portugal; Assists Colossus builder etc). With huge Terra you cover all optons.

In fact I'd love a huge Earth map guys.

[deity]

The Nolan as game-keeper would work patricularly well if she wanted to be online regardless of whether she was subbing or not. We just need Number x in the game to tell her that number y has dropped...

Nolan can liase with all numbers in the game to or througfh Number 1 to give status on reconnects etc.

Maybe a bit honorous; are you interested Nols?

[condor223]

LOL that sounds like lots a work without any of the fun.

Also let's get somethings straight. A broker is a second hand salesman.. so Tech trading is fine, it is no brokering allowed that means you can't sell someone elses tech.

BTW, Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive.

What has broken or lagged the game is to have the final call for last min folks to stuff the starting session. Any and all commers.. and not remembering that certain folks are more likely to have problems showing up. How do you know that a student would like to play, then has a reality check that exams are a little more important, or having a Friday night date now and then are a higher importance than showing up for a "guy's night out?"

It would have been so much fun for me if I'd had a different set of allys with every game. I have to admit, I took allys that were closest to me first and then added others at a distance. The ones at a distance were islolated and started to fall back in tech, and some of the closer ones became AI and I was forbidden to trade with them as AI. You figure?

Ok, how about this.. No permanent allies? We were getting there, but its VERY hard to get some consistency with AI players.

So.. Keep it simple. 8-9 players you know have had regular participation. Allow two players to agree to share a civ, for consistent roleplay. No tech brokering, meaning only stuff you research yourself is fine. Keep the low end guys alive so they stick around. It is no fun to be last in life or game, not if it is a permanent condition. Subs are proving their reliablilty... If they sub when they say they will show up, they would be considered for the next diplo game as regulars.

Making the game smaller is going to enable quicker connections/resumes.

Trial members would be those who wished to show their reliability. There should be a rule that if you expected a sub, you'd warn the group... and the subs would have some idea of how to plan their lives.

I have no wish to tie down my friday night and never get to play. After all MY subs are my friends who I'd be having games with if we had no diplo game.

Subbing is not an issue of you keep the player list under 8-9. Remember it is the same folks game after game that come as they please, or have a busy friday night schedule. Keep a list of names for subs. Maybe you will strike it lucky and get them on their day off.

Ive discussed the diplo group in a poly cast session. having more female players and perhaps after the holiday poly cast, you might have more players.

YOu defineltly will get and keep more players if you make the settings NOT on epic and marathon speeds. Folks can't committ a part of the year to show up and keep hitting end turn. THose subs I've found for you were used to faster play, didnt return cause it was boooooring to sit to make a tech in 100 turns. THey might show up for an epic type game that lasts a month, which will get around the issue of unreliability. I know you might prefer the marathon setting, but its not the norm, so you'd better adapt if you need MORE subs and to have players who show up. Perhaps someone is saying.. I know the game will last half the year, and I will show up when it gets interesting??

I'd love an epic game, would write a story readily if I had more TO write about. THese long games tend to get us more emotionally involved, so a quicker speed would help us get on with it before we invest more time during the week cooking up various plots. (then get totally pissed off when things don't evolve our way)

It looks like you have a set of 8 epic-marathon players. So keep your games that size. Maybe there will be a group who would be more reliable if they committed to shorter games on the normal setting.

Anyway, I am interested in finding a Friday night game myself but at faster settings, a month off of play to have a life, a month with a new game, rinse and repeat. That means I'd be avail to sub every other month IF contacted so I can make plans to have a life too.

nolz is rambling.... we have the same issues game after game, maybe this time we can fix things and actually complete a game.

[deity]

Thanks Nols. Stuff to think about...

[deity]

The other thing is time slot.

Late USA Sat night would get a lot more players (Frank, Trev, Vile perhaps) but who might we lose from the current group?

[Asmodeous]

I think you're insane if you think the number of users doesn't make a difference, CS. How many games have been called because we couldn't get it to launch?

The game has issues when it's trying to handle too many connections. I've found the peak that the performance drops considerably tends to be 8.

Me.

[Asmodeous]

Durr. I should've replied to all this at once.

* Max 9 players with IC attitude

I'd even err towards 8, strictly from a technical standpoint.

* All players to provide technical quality of their network connections

I don't really see this as ultimately useful, honestly. I would not be surprised if half of the people currently playing have a clue about the technical quality of their network connections. It's dicey stuff, and let's be honest, a home network can seem fully functional if it's half-broken.

* Anyone drops we wait max 30 mins then play on (luck is luck with storms etc)
* Have reserves on standby

Agree with both, which would be the secondary advantage of an 8-person max.

* Terra or Earth map to advantage all traits

Only if it allowed starting points within the New World. Let's be honest here, the way Terra squishes 16 players into the Old World kinda blows, especially in situations where the Civ obviously doesn't belong there. :| Sure, it promotes colonization, blahblahblah, but you can get that without. . . Meh. I would suggest Big and Small or Medium and Small, as they're terra-like, but with a wider varient between maps, and people can end up starting everywhere.

* Maximum 3 civ defensive pacts

Ehhhhhhhh. I think that it should be more dependant upon goings on, which of course means more people need to post and whatnot.

* Tech Brokering needed to help some players
* No tech gifting (otherwise it totally brings OOC into the game)
* Tech bloc limits? Maybe not...

I think all of these are the same thing. If you take out tech gifting then you greatly hamper tech blocs.

* If AI must take over a civ you make no contact other than to keep the peace (go with the flow if you temporarily lose resource deals as the AI often cancels these)

Mmkay.

* All in chat dialog is IN CHARACTER (NO EXCEPTIONS)

Furthermore you should not be interacting with people you've never met.

Me.

[Robert]

sure, more players, more problems. But it gives more in-game depth.
8 or 9 players limits the number of alliances.

If all people get their connections right, there shouldn't be any problems. Not to mention that with 8 players you'll most probably still get problems. We've had problems when 3 players weren't available as well.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think you're right, Cyber. I am willing to risk the problems if it means more depth of play & interaction. Trust me, I've played enough 3-ways to know how boring that can be .

I would also like to give a HUGE tick to the anonymity approach. It would be REALLY interesting to see what alliances form if people don't know who they are allying with-instead acting purely on shared trade or ideology or such-like. If it can be done, then that is the way we should do it.

Aussie_Lurker.

[Robert]

It'll be even more interesting if people will start to act different, to keep covering their identity! Thus forcing people to play different each game!