Ozzy's Diplogame Score System Revived

[Toni]

YES France we are using the score system in HOTW12

[LzPrst]

but are we done tweaking it for dynamic voting? by that I mean voting more than just once at the end. which I feel is a requirement for the system to represent the variations of the game.

[Toni]

I have no idea how many points to assign for the dynamic voting (the after session or once a week vote for IC play). By the way we using the Nukes points u suggested Lz? That would be intereting to have for the modern age stage

[LzPrst]

I would like to see some discussion on this so that I don't get a "we didn't get a say" issue. I would also like some advice from ozzy who is the master of the system, and I would also like people who are more math savvy to think about balance and ways to make X nr of votes correspond to Y points from static scoring.

I can't be bothered to count and add, I have enough just trying to keep things together as it is, and I have a civ to run. and I'm tired. and frustrated. I want someone to take a look at this, and give me a great suggestion which will gain everyone's support so I can say that it is officially the voting system of HotwXII and everyone will be happy.

The nukes seem like a good idea, but I need someone to count over and see if it is a fair distribution of points. If it is too much or too little it needs adjustment. that kind of stuff is not my strong side.

[Asmodeous]

I've got to look it over more in depth tonight or tomorrow when I get home, but as I said in the other thread I think the voting should be done on Friday.

Start the voting at 12am Friday and end it at the start of HOTWXI's game (these times eastern or GMT or LMNOP or whatever).

That'll give time for busy people whose work weeks take their time away to have time to post.

Me.

[Diplo France]

Originally posted by Toni
YES France we are using the score system in HOTW12

I was just asking, since very little disscusion was taking place, I don't want a game that started out great to be bogged down in arguments about rules. These things are best resolved now before civs get specific interests.

[LzPrst]

I've gone and done what I hate doing, maths. I took a look at the score system again and all in all I think it would be fairly easy to adjust the objective scores once we're finished and know how many votes there will be total. just multiply by number of session votes.

also. 18 points / by number of nuclear nations seems balanced. with 2 nuclear civs that's a whopping 9 points. with 3 it's 6, same as you get for being the biggest. with 4 nuclear nations it's 4.5 points each. 5 - 3.6, 6 - 3, 7 - 2.5, 8
- 2.3, 9 - 2.
Also rewarding per nuke seems reasonable (to make for an arms race)
0.3 for ICBM's and 0.1 for tacticals.
but possibly for a max total of 6 points (that's 20 ICBMS)

I'm also wondering if there should be a score given for having the greatest power ranking, like most standing soldiers or whatever, and if espionage should count for anything.

the list is also pre-bts and so does not incorporate corporations (sorry, i had to ). so I figure we make that similar to the reward list for religion. 3 points for founding a corporation and 5 points for holding the headquarters of a corp. with a certain spread or income. not sure what works best.

also, for religion I think we should throw in something extra for the Apostolic Palace. currently you get 5 points for having a religion with 25% spread, but with the AP you could increase those points to say 8 total if you have 30% spread. for example.

currently the objective scores are quite top dog rewarding, biggest landmass, biggest population, first to key techs etc. maybe we could add a bonus to the smallest nation since competing with big civs while being small is quite a feat. just an idea. also, rewarding some points for 2nd and 3rd largest / most populous might also be fair. it's already that way with culture.

and spaceship victory might need a wee bit of reduction. as it is launching space ship = 20 points, which is the same as having invented 5 out of the 7 techs that give points (and GP's)

I also think we should give points to the first civ that invents communism. for the same reason we award liberalism and fascism, they provide an ingame bonus. perhaps also environmentalism, but that isn't a gametracked tech, but it is of a certain "political" value.


I want some comments and suggestions, cause if I don't have any by friday I'll implement everything exactly the way I have suggested. long live the chairman.

[Diplo France]

I propose you eliminate the cap on nukes. In the real world cold war two countries each had enough nuclear weapons to destroy it several times over. Perhaps remove tactical nukes from the equation ater 20 are built? Mybe, couple this with reducing the value of ICBM's after you have more than 10 to 0,1.

Plus we should recognise the value of anti-nuke defences slightly to make players want to discourage others from building them. I think -1 for every foreign SDI project, double if owned by a nuclear power (this malus would only apply if you have ICBM's.

That way a arsenal of 20 tactical nukes and 100 ICBMs, with 2 SDI's in foreign civs would give

20x0.1+60x0.1+20x0.3(first twent ICBM's)=2+6+6=13

factor in defense 13 - 3 =10 (one of the SDI civs has nukes)

Come on people I have a Sun God curse to fullfill!

(Plus if an apocayliptic nuke war would really happen, Ozzy could modify the map, we could impliment special rules and have a Second HOTW12 (with technobarbs, loss of tech and renamed civs ). )


Secondly don't corporations get their headquarters when you found them? Anyhow I belive having the largest income from a corporation deserves aditional points.

Being the first to adopt state property should give a few extra points and you shold be rewarded for encouraging others to adopt it as well. The same should go to a lesser extent for environmentalism.
Since these two balance the drive for corporations a bit.

[LzPrst]

what diplofrance says about state property and environmentalism isn't a bad idea. the general consensus about these traits, especially state property are that they are now seriously weak compared to free market with cheaper corporations compared to earlier. of course a specialized civ may do very well with these.

perhaps we could just make ICBM's worth 0.2 and tacticals worth nothing. probably no need to put a cap on then... we want to keep it extremely simple, and each SDI possessed by other civs halves your scores from nuclear weapons.

so another example: Russia has 50 ICBM's = 10 points (0.2 x50 = 10)
Then America builds a missile shield, I mean SDI, and that halves Russia's 10 points to 5.
Then China builds a bubble over itself and halves those nukes by half again. reducing their value to 2.5.
not every civ will build the SDI, and if they do, then nukes become a bit obsolete anyway. or?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Diplo France

(Plus if an apocayliptic nuke war would really happen, Ozzy could modify the map, we could impliment special rules and have a Second HOTW12 (with technobarbs, loss of tech and renamed civs ). )

Once we had an idea for an alternate ending for diplogames where Aliens invaded the planet. We'd create lots of powerful, advanced alien units and get someone good from the ladder (like EyesOfNight) to take control and see if they can conquer the whole planet. So all the earth empires can unite around a common goal of fighting off the invaders.

[Robert]

If EoN would handle the aliens, we could be sure that the fight between the alieans and the old civs would be real!

[Asmodeous]

Once again, I would like to mention I still haven't had a chance to look over the score system in depth to comment on the objective points aspect, but I will do so tomorrow or tonight, I promise.

However, I was chatting with Toni, and something struck me, and I wanted to throw it before the group.


Why do we have to include the Subjective score (based on the weekly voting) into the Objective score to choose a single winner?

Why can't we choose two winners?

What I mean is that we'll have the Objective score that will choose the "technical" winner that won the basic concepts job, and then the Subjective winner that will win based on the opinions of the other players as to who the best writer/character builder was?

Why not? It would be cool to award victory to two different people, and even better if two victories were awarded to one, because then that person would exemplify what a diplogame is about, achieving the best possible score while writing the best possible story of everyone in the group!

And that, I would think, would be a very rare occurance.

What do you think? Dual victory paths?

Me.

[The Capo]

That would be fine with me.

[Diplo France]

Originally posted by LzPrst
what diplofrance says about state property and environmentalism isn't a bad idea. the general consensus about these traits, especially state property are that they are now seriously weak compared to free market with cheaper corporations compared to earlier. of course a specialized civ may do very well with these.

perhaps we could just make ICBM's worth 0.2 and tacticals worth nothing. probably no need to put a cap on then... we want to keep it extremely simple, and each SDI possessed by other civs halves your scores from nuclear weapons.

so another example: Russia has 50 ICBM's = 10 points (0.2 x50 = 10)
Then America builds a missile shield, I mean SDI, and that halves Russia's 10 points to 5.
Then China builds a bubble over itself and halves those nukes by half again. reducing their value to 2.5.
not every civ will build the SDI, and if they do, then nukes become a bit obsolete anyway. or?

Well SDI is the main reason why nukes are nerfed in civ, we should just give a slight incentive, SDI is overpowered to unrealistic levels in civ4.

But I do understand the need for simplicty, so I've changed the rules to accomodate:

0,3 per ICBM
0,1 per tactical nuke
The score from ICBM's is divided by the number of SDI owning nations


Simple clean fair , like all French proposals.

[LzPrst]

your suggestion has merit asmodeus. I'm too tired to make up my opinion, but it seems good.

france, sounds fine with me. get the other guy's support and we'll throw it in there.