Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[Beta]

Thanks Ozzy. Reviewing it.

An initial comment ... any thoughts to removing the space ship victory all together - although I do like the laternative of allowing multiple launches.

[OzzyKP]

I take that back, the most updated list is on page THREE:

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

[OzzyKP]

Well we need to have some way of ending the game. We shouldn't just play on forever.

[Beta]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
We shouldn't just play on forever.

And why not?



The endless diplo game.

[LzPrst]

We discussed removing the SS Victory option before and it was kept in, as the game in so many ways is a preparation for it. I dont think we should remove ANY of the victory conditions, but that we should reimplement the point system for victory. Having it fail once is not reason for dismissing it completely. it was designed for a purpose and we have seen in diplogame after diplogame that the troubles that led to its creation remain.

I think Ozzy's rule system is a viable and effective way of solving our problems.

It will contribute to all the problems present, without a long list of complicated and unintuitive rules. Sorry cyber, but your ideas for rules are simply too many and too restrictive for a diplogame, IMHO,

i find it strange that the most powerful nations keep friends with eachother so often. yes, it makes sense, but only one player will win, and so keeping your strongest rivals (even if they were/are your friends) down would make sense. i know i would support weaker nations against nr.1 or nr.2 if I was in the lead. but then again, I'm a devious bugger....


However, two of cybers rules seem very necessary.

4. Only have alliances that make sense. (based on religion, civics and/or geographical location, STRONG STORY BASIS)

7. Only trade techs within your alliance.

this would hopefully help reduce tech trading enough.

[deity]

Yes, I'd like to give ozzy's points system another go (maybe trial it in HOYW11).

It seems there is consensus for anonymous play and Apolyton are helping us with that! Thx CS. We have nothing to lose by giving it a go.

The points system in combo with anonymous play could be the answer.

Even better if we can hide the points display with a mod but wary of modding with new players coming in and out of the game.

[deity]

I think tech trades should be part of the storylines but I got howled down last time this was mentioned - ie civs not wanting to expose stuff...

I seriously think 9 players is the max; with alliances/defence pacts that make story sense.

I think tech trading might take care of itself with anonymity.

[Robert]

Sorry cyber, but your ideas for rules are simply too many and too restrictive for a diplogame, IMHO

Diplogames are restricting the 'normal mp games' with many rules. That's the exact idea behind a diplogame.
The scorelist will not let people change their game behavior since it's too abstract.

Some simple rules (and my rules are simple) can do a lot to the game.

The scorelist is:
- subjective, voting is never going to give a fair winner

- unfair, since it adds points to stuff (first to liberalism) for which the player already got rewards in the game, and thus extra points

- abstract, while playing you're not in touch with the scorelist, it's just some numbers that won't matter in the end.

More rules is always unpopular. People don't like rules. And it's obvious that people like a scorelist, because it's something we understand.
But good games always come with rules and restrictions. If we are busy shaping diplogaming then we obviously need new rules.

Rules to bend the diplo aspect of the game.

And I don't understand either why Toni and Ozzy allied in HOTW XIII (or 7?) but they did anyway. Maybe because they had the intention to cheat on each other later, maybe just because they could help each other to stay on the top. Fact is that they never went against each other.

I think we just need a rule to avoid too strong alliances, and no alliances between the top 3 players will help a lot to get that.

[Toni]

Well i will just repeat what ozzy said once!

People are going out of their way to stage that my alliance with ozzy wasn't fair to the rest or the game, Well!

He was the first one that i met that game and we started cooperating long before any of us was a top civ that game.

What we did better then the rest is that we worked hard and well to become top civs, SO please give us the credit we diserve!

[deity]

I still think the concept of allying game long is an unrealistic parallel with history and not good for diplo games.

However in terms of playing the game it's going to work every time if you ally game long with one or many civs. It's a no brainer whether you work hard at it or not...

[deity]

And this is why I refuse to automatically cooperate with Toni and a few others because how boring is it if I'm added to the list of their game long allies.

However, with anonymity it will be unknown and easier to both cooperate and backstab!

[Toni]

However in terms of playing the game it's going to work every time if you ally game long with one or many civs. It's a no brainer whether you work hard at it or not..

Funny then why did it only work out for me and Ozzy that game - there were other alliances out there - luck of brain functionality i guess!

[Toni]

Well the anonymity concept has a problem.

To use Deity's words:

It's a no brainer to figure out who is who. Even the so called Newbs (CS words) will be able to tell in no time.

Maybe we should implement some kind of a rule - that if people find out they shouldn't share with the rest of us.

[Toni]

Well Deity you were allied with (Lz/Kuno's friend then) all game long, and he was on the other side of the map. Maybe you should follow your own advices as well

The point i'm trying to make here is that no one is flawless,

[Robert]

Exactly, no one is flawless, and therefor we need some rules.
Toni and Ozzy played a good game, and there was no rule against their alliance.

But in a 'top 3 players can't be allies' rule environment, they would've been forced to split up, which would've made a better and more interesting game.

It's realistic anyway, that friends who become powerfull become enemies.

And alliances between civs on large distance is no problem, if they share something, a religion or an ideology (civics). Not just for the sake of it.

Why not make rules for that? It's not as if those rules are far stretched?