Ozzy's Diplogame Score System Revived

[LzPrst]

This will be the sort-out thread for Ozzy's Diplogame Score and Vote System.

[LzPrst]

This is the current points system.



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.

[LzPrst]

This is my suggestion to modify the system for a bit more vibrancy and vitality. Previously the interest in the endgame vote just faded away because too much had happened over too long a time span (6 months!!)

To correct that I suggest: Vote subjectively every 100 turns.

The total number of times voted would be most likely I around 8-10, for 800-1000 turns. So an increase in objective values is necessary.

As such, my suggestion is to multiply the objective scores by ca 6-8.


The result of this will hopefully reward early game efforts more than the current system. If people desire that later game efforts be counted more than early, we could add an extra point to every score given after turn 500.

Now I'm not a mathematician. That's why I need those of you who are skilled with this, especially Ozzy who is most familiar with the workings and balance of the system, help us out so that the system is workable, encompassing and balanced. Especially we need to decide if we want to reward storytelling/diplomacy/strategy MORE or LESS than objective scores. My opinion is that the subjective points should slightly outnumber the objective, so that focus will fall on storytelling/diplomacy/strategy.

[The Capo]

I think instead of voting every 100 turns we should vote midway between each session. That way there is time for diplomacy and posts to be considered.

[LzPrst]

sorry Capo, I don't quite see what you're suggesting. that every session we stop halfway and vote? or do you mean on for example every wednesday?


Most people post a few days after sessions. some do directly after (euro's are very likely this time since it's sunday morning and I for one rarely have other things to do then)

the way I see it is this. Example:
We play Session 1. 87 Turns. (Turn nr. 87)
We play Session 2. 72 Turns (Turn nr. 159) 100 turns mark reached.
After Session 2, we request a one day waiting for new posts so that everyone has time to vote. We give credit for posts made up until session start, and whatever happened in the session. After the 1 day waiting period people can start posting again.
We play Session 3. 64 Turns (Turn nr. 223) 200 Turns mark reached.
Hupp. Time to vote again. From what was written AFTER session 2 and for what happened in session 3.
We play session 4. 35 Turns (Turn nr. 258)
We play Session 5. 44 Turns (Turn nr. 302) 300 Turns mark reached.
Time to vote again. This time we take into consideration every post made AFTER session 3 (where 200 Turns was reached) and what happened in sessions 4-5.
We Play Session 6. 43 Turns (Turn nr. 345)
We play Session 7. 32 Turns (Turn nr. 377)
We play session 8. 39 Turns (Turn nr. 416) 400 Turns mark reached.
Vote. For everything written after session 5 and what happened in sessions 6-8.

The first few sessions will have alot of voting cause the sessions are usually fast with little going on. the first 50 is usually hitting end turn waiting for your first worker/warrior/settler/workboat/monument whatever to finish. after a while it will slow down a bit. then we'll have votes approximately every 3 sessions. which sounds about right in my opinion. or we could just say every session, or every other session, but sometimes a session gets lost in the void due to latecoming, technical difficulties, guinea pigs, etc etc. sometimes nothing happens and voting after such a session seems a bit wasteful. besides, then we have no idea of knowing how many votes there will be total, which will make it impossible to balance the subjective score relative to the objective score.



What do people say?

[Toni]

Sounds good

[OzzyKP]

The grand prophet of diplogaming endorses having weekly or 100 turn voting on subjective points. Though I do recommend that ultimately objective points balance out with the subjective points.

I don't have a strong opinion on Capo's vs. Lz's system. But I am leaning toward just doing a vote after every session. Probably be less confusing that way.

[The Capo]

No I meant a vote after each session. Probably like on Wednesday or something that way people have time to post to bolster their score.

[Toni]

Though I do recommend that ultimately objective points balance out with the subjective points.

AGREED

[LzPrst]

ok. sounds ok. but it's gonna make voting very frequent. can we really be bothered to vote after every session?

note that if we want objective score to be balanced with the vote score, we need to know roughly how many votes we will have. and there is no way of knowing that if we go by a session basis.

[The Capo]

Oh, no. Yeah we can stretch it into quarters, but I think this should be ruled by the amount of time played rather than the amount of turns taken. So there should be dates rather than 100 turns, like we vote each month or something.

That's what I meant, sorry I realize I wasn't very clear.

Because as the game gets more intricate less turns are used, and there is more frequent diplomacy to deal with. And that's like the best part of the diplogame, right when the diplomacy starts kicking hard. That way less turns will be taken and there will be more to cut into than following simply 100 turns. I hope that makes sense, I'm kinda out of it right now.

[Pinchak]

Im all for voting every 100 turns. Just wonder how often everyone will remember to vote.

I would also think of course that with 4 vote sessions the points would also be quartered for each session.

[LzPrst]

clarify that please?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by The Capo
Because as the game gets more intricate less turns are used, and there is more frequent diplomacy to deal with. And that's like the best part of the diplogame, right when the diplomacy starts kicking hard. That way less turns will be taken and there will be more to cut into than following simply 100 turns. I hope that makes sense, I'm kinda out of it right now.

My thoughts exactly.

As for Pin's idea, if there are 4 votes (instead of 1) there will be four times the number of points. So just add up all the votes and divide them by 4 to bring them into line.

[Robert]

If you vote (Directly) after every session, players that skip sessions will miss points. Another good reason to never miss a session!

I can create a 10th mailbox where all votes will be sent to, so it's quick and easy. I'll scramble the password, and re-set the password after the game is finished, so that everybody can take a look at the votes. (ie. I give everybody read rights to the mailbox, but not edit rights, so that everybody can check out the votes without changing them).

It's also cool to reset the passwords of all mailboxes after the game is finished, so that everybody can check out all mailboxes and read what's happened behind the scenes.