Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[Robert]

That's true.
But like Arvcran's password last session...... it wasn't there!

LzPrst:
B) Furthermore, every player will do the same with an account here on Apolyton. We have green light from mods to do this, BUT WAIT UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE!!

Be aware: we don't make these accounts ourselves! We ask MING to create them by PM.
I'll coordinate this.

[LzPrst]

that's why I said wait until further notice... in screamingly capital letters...

[deity]

Originally posted by CyberShy
That's true.
But like Arvcran's password last session...... it wasn't there!

That's the same as when I tried to add a password mid-session - it was gone.

BUT I think if you create passwords when setting up the game I'm sure they work fine.

[Robert]

Originally posted by LzPrst
that's why I said wait until further notice... in screamingly capital letters...

It's against the rules to state good arguments that support your position

[LzPrst]

the main question deity, is why do we need passwords?

[Robert]

Because some people accuse other people of cheating.
To be honest, I don't think that people who play multi-session diplogames will cheat.

In the end you only cheat yourself. "Yeah, I won!" but there's a voice in my head that says: "loser, you cheated!"

To be honest, I don't care if people cheat. I do care, but I think that if people want to cheat, they'll find a way to cheat anyway and it's useless to try to avoid it. Thus I don't care.

I trust all diploplayers. I don't think any of them cheats. And if they do........ I hope that they'll be hunted in their dreams

[LzPrst]

so, since noone discusses my rules I assume they are wise and wonderful and all accept them without objection...

I'll do a bit more thinking on the sections I have marked for 'discussion' and then I'll announce what I've decided. all hail the lawgiver!

(i'm being sarcastic so that you'll contribute. unless of course you DO all agree with me)

[Pinchak]

Personally I think it is too restrictive. I see what these rules are trying to foster... a more dynamic game rather then the usual deterioration in which everyone chooses one of two sides. Although I am confident it will achive this effect, i think it will at the same time limit the "intregue" if you will, since things will pretty much be cut and dry as far as who is helping who. In my short experience with Diplo gaming, this is one of the more fun factors of this format.

I forsee permenant alliance being formed early on, since no one will want to be left out once alliances reach their three civ limit.

A noval way of dealing with the alliance problem without setting artificial rules would be to somehow award points to civs who don't ally (or limit their alliances). Alturnatly, you could pentalize civs for alliances (perhaps this penalty could somehow be tied into the total score of all alliance members per session, thus huge alliances with powerful members brings big final score penaltys, while a few weak civs banding together for mutual protection from megapowers would suffer very little penalty).

Passwords could be handled through a non-playing mod who knows all idenitys, and can thus give passwords out as needed to subs. Ozzy perhaps if he is not playing? All in all however I agree with Cyber... I don't see cheating as a major issue with this crowd, although if there is an easy way to eliminate the possablity why not?

The tech trading limitations could be circumvented by having a low score player gain tech from another "team", then have it traded to the higher score players within the low scorers alliance. Since all alliances are declaired, this would most likely happen as a mutual agreement between two "teams". Unfortuantly, teams who do not participate in this loophole will suffer from the same problem these tech trade rules were designed to prevent in the first place.

Not trying to rip the rulebook apart. I think it is quite progressive as far as addressing past issues with Diplo games. But taking the diplomacy out of the Diplo game isn't the answer either IMO.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Pinchak
Passwords could be handled through a non-playing mod who knows all idenitys, and can thus give passwords out as needed to subs. Ozzy perhaps if he is not playing? All in all however I agree with Cyber... I don't see cheating as a major issue with this crowd, although if there is an easy way to eliminate the possablity why not?

Heh, I'm becoming the universal diplogaming Dungeon Master.

[LzPrst]

we are not taking the diplomacy out of the equation, we are forcing it to be more adaptive and dynamic. at least that is the intention of my rule system.

as you may have seen, one rule (2B) states that the top 3 leaders may NOT be allied with eachother. and as such, if nr. 2 and nr. 4 are allied and nr.4 moves to position nr.3, then the alliance must be broken off. this will add immensely to the dynamics of alliances, and especially at the top tier where we have seen stable game long alliances too many times. people move up and down the scoreboard constantly for various reasons. as such, that will destabilize alliances.

it will make alliances far less stable, especially in early game, and hopefully it will create a stronger sense of paranoia. Imagine the alliance between nr.2 and nr.4 again. player nr.2 would see that nr.4 is gaining in the scorechart and as such, will begin to mistrust him since he knows that they will not be allied much longer. nr.4 will highly unlikely try to keep his score down just to stay in the alliance. as such, trust between alliances will be far weaker than currently, and that will hopefully create a bit more mistrust, paranoia and dynamic diplomacy.

remember, the current system has repeatedly produced the game long alliances at top tier level resulting in a no-contest victory.


part of the reason I am suggesting we play HOTW10 as Epic is to use it as a sandbox for trying out our new rules system. we are most of us agreed that something needs to be done. tech trading is far too prevalent. and your example of gifting a tech to a bottom tier player who would sell it on to the other alliance is actually, impossible since we will have No Tech Brokering checked. if alliances are less stable, then tech trading will be less prevalent.

I believe these rules will work to our advantage. but I value your input. we should discuss it further. I am not God handing Moses his commandments, I am suggesting a new set of laws and we should discuss them democratically.

[deity]

Good work here guys... I think maybe the rules need to be really simple to start with in HOTW10 and then maybe make them more complex in future games.

I'd just say have one rule:

The top three in the scoreboard can't ally and can't trade techs to anyone.

That's it - powerful and simple.

Then we just trust common sense for story constructs justifying game sactions.

[Pinchak]

and your example of gifting a tech to a bottom tier player who would sell it on to the other alliance is actually, impossible since we will have No Tech Brokering checked.

True.

[Pinchak]

The top three in the scoreboard can't ally and can't trade techs to anyone.

So if you are in the top three basicly you are on your own... since there is little motivaiton to ally with someone who cant trade tech.

[Robert]

No, you can't allie with others in the top 3, but you can allie with nr 4. (though you have to end that alliance when #4 becomes #3, which gives interesting story plots )

[Robert]

Originally posted by LzPrst
so, since noone discusses my rules I assume they are wise and wonderful and all accept them without objection...

Well, since most of 'your' rules were 'mine' anyway, I accept them :P

I just only disagree with the 'ozzy rules sheet' (not b/c of Ozzy, it was a "collaboration" as well), but just because I don't have faith in such a way to determine a winner (anymore).

I'd say, make it easy, the person who won the game (in-game mechanics) won the game, and his allies are the co-winners.