HOTWXII Testing and Organisational thread

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

8) plenty of coffee & alcohol, according to individual tastes & the time of day .

Aussie_Lurker.

[LzPrst]

as deity says, the 10 tech trades we are allowed to make should be part of the story thread so that they are not simply a game mechanic routine act done recklessly.

for example, if japan and russia are fighting a war (obviously hypothetical) it may be in a third parties interests to sell weapons tech to one side. secretly. but later in the game the nation in question (or the receving part) would "release the files". that's one way of doing it.

OR

the more obvious, "our metalworkers taught the arabs how to work metal and they in turn shared with us the secret of the compass".

though hopefully, and obviously a bit more elaborate. remember, this is something that your civ is doing only ten times during 6000 years. it's a big deal, make a big deal out of it.

WRITE STORIES DAMMIT!!!

[Diplo France]

Time for some Pareto efficiency.

The more I think about the 10 tech rule the less I like it, but thus far I have enjoyed myself very much. I want to point out that there is a critical flaw to the "not broken, don't fix it" mindset. People are selfish and after a session or two will start activley lobbying for rules that suit their civ.


Ok, I propose a change that will leave no one off worse, than with the current system:

Vouchers:
-each time you give a tech in diplomacy you lose a voucher
-you start with 10 vouchers
-you can give away your vouchers but only if you get a tech in the trade

optional:
-at the start of each session the civ with the lowest score gets a voucher. Once the UN is built players can vote to give the poorest civs extra vouchers.


What this solves:
-It enables charity
-It allows a civ that is behind in the tech race for the entire game, to trade *something* for techs since, as it gives the big civ the voucher, the big civ rights to trade tech would remain the same even if they gave the little one the tech. SO the little one can beg, give gold, cities, ect.

The Optional rule: I think its a good adition, it could be a simple rule mehanic to simualte tech leakage and development aid.




Before criticising please clearly say if you prefer 10 vouchers (even ever so slightly) to 10 tech.
Before acusing me of spreading dissent think about how small a change this is. It basicaly let's civs trade their rights to trade techs, with the limit I described.

[LzPrst]

it's a great suggestion.
I'm not going to say anything about except, if you can get all the other players to agree to implement it before next session, then we can do it. if not, we're sticking with what we have.

also, a minimum amount of turns must be played for a session to be counted as a session. a 3 turns session giving one civ a voucher and another 3 turns session give the same civ another voucher and then we solve our hypothetical tech difficulty and sessions are back to 50 turns. regardless, the chairman is uncaring. if you guys want this, take it. but only if EVERYONE agrees.

I would be ok with it.

[Diplo France]

Originally posted by LzPrst
it's a great suggestion.
I'm not going to say anything about except, if you can get all the other players to agree to implement it before next session, then we can do it. if not, we're sticking with what we have.

also, a minimum amount of turns must be played for a session to be counted as a session. a 3 turns session giving one civ a voucher and another 3 turns session give the same civ another voucher and then we solve our hypothetical tech difficulty and sessions are back to 50 turns. regardless, the chairman is uncaring. if you guys want this, take it. but only if EVERYONE agrees.

I would be ok with it.

Extra voucher every one hundred turns starting at turn 200? The vouchers are given after the session in which the 100 turns times X have been reached. The vouchers are awarded to the civ that has teh lowest score at sessions end no matter what its status was when the X times 100 turn mark was reached.


Easy fix.

Optional: The civ that gets the free tech voucher has to make a story about it in the story thread...


If anyone can find a flaw with this system other that it dosen't go far enough. Please tell me, don't drop a good idea because of petty squabble or personal issues with some of the diplo players.

People who think it dosen't go far enough, if you don't support this we will very likley be stuck with the 10 tech rule. I can see it ruinning the late game already. It's almost inevitable!



If this gets two voices of suport we ALL should vote on the question: Would you prefer the 10 vochers system to the 10 tech system? YES/NO

[Diplo France]

Originally posted by LzPrst
it's a great suggestion.
I'm not going to say anything about except, if you can if you guys want this, take it. but only if EVERYONE agrees.

What about 8 versus 1?

[deity]

LMAO

[Diplo Carpathia]

No

[The Capo]

Jesus.

This is getting out of hand. I have a few suggestions to make and things to say in general about all of this, so everyone get ready to start yelling at me...

1) I have always said, and continue to say, that I think tech trading, alliance-limitation, and any other thing you guys can think of to screw the game up is stupid, and doesn't belong in Diplogaming. Diplogaming has been going on for, I think, nearly ten years so far, and only in the past few have we started to try and do this. I'm sorry if the word stupid offended anyone, but its stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid....

2) The reason we wanted to do this is not to preserve the sanctity of the game, because the main people responsible for the tech whoring are the very same guys who are in all the games and are always on top, and I am guilty of this too, the REAL reason we wanted to do this is because the lower-ranked guys always seemed to quit or argue over how unfair it was and ruined games. So let's cut the crap and tell the REAL reason why this is even an issue.

3) Of course a secondary reason is because, and again I consider this a relatively new concept in diplogames, we wanted to maintain "realism." In essence, we wanted to maintain a normal or slower pace of development so we can enjoy the game a bit more, and we felt that limiting tech trading would help to do this. But as I have said before, even then I was against it. Another thing we did was try and mingle alliances because we felt that the alliances stuck for the majority of games (this is sort of true, however I think I can find numerous examples to the contrary).

4) Can we NEVER EVER EVER EVER AGAIN have a "chairman"? Please?

5) And no, I am not saying you did a bad job Lz, I've organized games, its hard to do and its thankless, in fact sometimes it makes you feel like people hate you, but I assure you that is not the case. The reason I don't want a chairman is because its easy to lose sight of what everyone wants because you have to read every post and then remember them all, and even after you do there are still people who didn't/couldn't post and they get angry later, so I understand that you've done a lot, but I don't think we should thrust that job on one person's shoulders. Even if they want it.

6) If we are going to do anonymous play, which as you all know I think is unnecessary, we have to agree to talk in these forums as our Diplo names or as our real handles. The problem is that it is hard to voice your opinion without giving up your identity from either login. And I pretty much know who everyone is right now anyway, but I will not try and list it out so as not to ruin the (stupid) plan.

7) I am pretty much suggesting that we get back to basics, as it were. I like the new ideas, I think the voucher idea has merit as well, but that's only if you think limitation is a good idea. I think diplomacy will naturally occur, I don't think we need to limit tech trading, I think a better solution would be to make the techs cost more...

I don't know, just some random musings. And now that I think about it, I have no idea why I numbered them...

Peace

BTW Asmo, I like the way you think, keep it up, don't let these guys get you down.

[The Capo]

Now that I re-read what I said, point 2 (maybe that's why I numbered them) wasn't really explained well.

Basically we want to prevent tech whoring, but not because we think its wrong. If we thought it was wrong deity wouldn't have done it all this time, i wouldnt' have done it all this time, Ozzy wouldnt' have done it all this time, and there is a list of others who we consider great diplogamers who have been guilty of tech-whoring. We're still around. The reason we wanted to change it was because we had too many complaints, and we kept losing new diplogamers over the issue. That is why we are really trying this, if nobody complained about it we wouldnt' think it an issue. Now this may be oversimplified, but this has never been suggested as a reason, it is always a much more moral issue about fairness, and the reality is that if we never got complaints we wouldn't do anything about it.

Personally, I don't mind the tech-whoring, if that is what you want to do as a nation that's fine. The other nations should do something to counteract it though, and that's where the problems begin; the only reasonable reaction is to tech-whore yourself. So its a conundrum, and I never said it was going to be an easy fix, but I also think we've gone far beyond where we should be on this issue, and and simply limiting tech whoring is probably not going to work.

Examples are all well and good, but I think the one used before, but Lz or deity, I forget, was a bit too specific. What happens normally is that Tribe A will switch solely to creating money, while Tribe B boosts his research as much as possible. Tribe A basically splits his money with Tribe B, and Tribe B gives Tribe A any tech he discovers. This is what we are talking about, BTW, just in case anyone was confused. Now, I'm thinking that if we increase the cost of the techs that may make it less enticing to be Tribe A than it would be to be Tribe B, in that Tribe A is paying out more money. Now the other method is simply that Tribe A and B both do research and cooperate with eachother as far as what techs they research and then after discovering them they share them. This one is probably not going to be fixed by increasing the cost of techs, but hopefully political realities will effect this set up (one country may need more money, and thus fall behind so that the other one no longer deems the deal fair).

But, being someone who disagrees with any changes to the game, I think simply increasing the cost of techs is the best way to do it.

As an aside, is there a way we can change the year ticker? Basically, can we remove BC altogether and just start from 0? I think we are too hung up on our level of technology compared to what year it is, with this issue removed I think we'd be a little less likely to try and suck up as many techs as possible. Just a thought.

Peace.

[Toni]

Lz I think you are doing an amazing job helping this community stay focused. Not sure what’s Capo’s problem – he is the only one against the chairman thingy. Well Capo if we go without a leader to organize this, it will be so much more chaotic, so at least give us some options not only the critic. You are dead wrong that being a chairman is thankless; I have seen already dozen times where people are thankful for Lz’s work. Having him has speed up the whole process of organizing the game and getting people organized. Without Lz, this game would have taken ages to start and get people to decide on issues.

Also I’m starting to really appreciate the anonymous play – I personally feel that it has made the game more interesting for me at least. “And I pretty much know who everyone is right now anyway” Capo come on – this is so far fetched. How can you know who is who when you have only played with only 2 players from this group before (Deity and Lz) you got another 6 who u never met and played with. So you stating this is simple ridiculous. And even by some kind of a miracle you are right – why bother. Don’t try to figure out who is who – kills the fun of the unknown factor.

[Toni]

The major PROBLEM with tech whoring is that it creates huge alliance blocks and thus kills the game turning it into a boring drama – the whole world sits back and just watches how this alliance runs away with the game. And don’t tell me oh others will rise to challenge the block – well not sure how you can fight a strong alliance with superior technology.

[Toni]

I am ok with either tech rule Vouchers or the 10 tech limit thing.

But we need to decide before session 2 - because people will be getting alphabet and start trading.

Repeating myself here - but will say it anyway - i really like the idea to incorporate the techs trades in your personal stories.

[The Capo]

I've played with you before.

[The Capo]

And you have no proof that it would have been more chaotic, in fact I would say it was chaotic, and there have been complaints that people's ideas weren't heared. So I disagree with you completely Toni, there's no need to have one person run it, there's no reason not to delegate jobs to different people, and there's no reason that Lz has to answer to everyone. That's all I'm saying, I never said I had a problem with what Lz was doing, I just have a problem with the fact that some people didn't get a chance to speak their minds before decisions were made or at least were assumed to have been made.

The only thing that was different and beneficial by having a chairman was the game started earlier than it probably would have, but we also wouldnt' still be arguing either if the game started this weekend or next, so there are different ways of looking at it.

And BTW, its not hard to tell who people are, some people have given up on using their normal log-ins to talk in these forums, and I'm sorry for noticing that but I did. Dont' get mad at me just because I noticed. I like the anonymous play, I think it is fun, but its useless and doesn't accomplish anything.