History of the Universe I Planning/Sign-up thread

[Deity Dude]

I would consider playing but I don't like a "scoring system" and I prefer an absolute ban on tech trading.

But don't change what you want to do because of me - these are the same reasons I haven't been getting in diplo games lately.

[Pinchak]

Actually Deity, I agree. I find the scoreing system faulty because it rewards things that are rewards in and of themselfs. It give points to the first to found Liberalism for pete sake... I think the game already does a good job of rewarding for that.

I dislike the scoring system as it stands now for regular diplogames. Some parts of it have merit. The voting in particular is good IMO.

As with all aspects, we could vote on what to keep and what to ditch regarding a scoring system.

[OzzyKP]

Its your game so you're of course free to do whatever you wish with the point system, but in the system's defense there were definite reasons behind rewarding things like liberalism.

First the point system endeavored to reward both in game achievements (building wonders, tech, etc) and diplomacy/story telling stuff. For the in-game achievements my goal was to look at the entire game and have a comprehensive look at all the various parts of one's game.

Tech is, undoubtedly, an important part of the game. But how do you reward that? Give out points based on GNP? That changes and is harder to track. Give out points to the first person to complete the tech tree? Eh... I wanted the system to be applicable throughout the game. Since in a good diplogame civs rise and fall and how do you reward the tech leader in 500 AD who is now in last place by 1700 AD.

So the best, and only, way I could think to give points out for tech was to pick a few techs and give points to the first to invent them. As for which techs to pick, I didn't want to make the point system artificial. I didn't want people to radically alter their game play just to score points. So I picked techs that everyone beelines for anyway as the best gauge of who is leading with tech at that point.

Use it or don't use it, it won't hurt my feelings. But that was my reasoning.

[Pinchak]

I am sure that when it was being developed your score system was debated to the ends of the earth, so I'm not going to go into detail about what I would change.

Overall, I think it is well thought out, and does add another dimention to the game besides, "ohhh, I built the spaceship first I am the winner!"

My main critisism is that it makes a very non-liner game (arguably one of the best features of Civ), and makes it more liner. In many ways it is like the difference between playing poker for matches, or playing for actual money. It changes the dynamics of the game.

My other citisism (sp?) goes back to the rewarding of tech with points. Tech is the ultimate means to an end in Civ. When tech "firsts" are rewarded with points, this gives the tech leader a huge point advantage due to; 1.) The leader will be closer to the next point elegable tech, often resulting in many "firsts" in sucession. 2.) Being in the lead opens doors for other point generating oppertunities (and it should be this way, but IMO THIS should be the motivation for getting a certain tech, not for points).

Basicly my argument is that tech is a means to an end, and doesn't need a seperate point reward. Doing so gives the tech leader an unfair advantage scorewise primarily due to the two reasons listed above.

[OzzyKP]

Well tech is the means to the end of winning the game. So to criticize it mean criticizing awarding points for any objective in-game criteria. You should just do the spaceship launch then.

[Pinchak]

So to criticize it mean criticizing awarding points for any objective in-game criteria.

No, I think you are oversimplifying it.

Things like largest population, most culture, most land, religion, etc... are in my mind legitimate measures of a civs "value" if you will. I have absolutely no issues with awarding points for these objective in-game criteria.

But giving 4 points for things like being the first to discover Facisim??? Or Music??? I just don't get it. It just doesn't seem to fit as well as some of the other point awardable achivements. Seems out of whack. A civ being the first to discover music is worth as much as a civ building 8 world wonders?

Maybe I wouldn't do away with points for tech firsts, but I would certainly change it up. Less points, and more techs. I would probably bump it up to 15 key techs, and lower the points to 1 per tech. The way it is now, there are too few of these "award techs" and they are worth too many points. Causes artificially influanced tech paths IMO.

You should know me by now though Ozzy... I don't often totally agree with anything.

As I said before, it is a very comprehensive system, well thought out and most importantly balanced (for the most part). I just like to debate is all.

[Pinchak]

Ok, I just realized why the "award techs" are what they are.

These are the techs that the game awards for being first to discover... hence, easy to determine who actually got it first.

This realization however makes me even more against awarding points for it.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I would consider playing but I don't like a "scoring system" and I prefer an absolute ban on tech trading.

But don't change what you want to do because of me - these are the same reasons I haven't been getting in diplo games lately.

Well, I've been thinking since this is the first diplo game ever in this mod, we might forgoe parts of the score system that aren't vote related. Since how would we balance the score system when we don't know what is over and what is underpowered?


Now I think no tech trading is a bit extreme, what about a 5 tech cap similar to the 10 tech cap we use in HOTW12?

[Pinchak]

Although I was the one to first suggest the "10 trade cap", I am now opposed to it after seeing it's effects in HOTW12.

It did completely destroy alliances based on tech trading, but also as a side effect doomed civs who fell behind in tech.

Another idea that I think would work better would be a limit on how many times you can trade tech to any individual civ. This would prevent tech blocks, while still allowing civs to gift tech to a backwards civ without penalty.

If not that I would vote for no tech brokering, without any other tech trade limits.

All in all though, this issue will probably come down to a vote.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Pinchak
Although I was the one to first suggest the "10 trade cap", I am now opposed to it after seeing it's effects in HOTW12.

It did completely destroy alliances based on tech trading, but also as a side effect doomed civs who fell behind in tech.

Another idea that I think would work better would be a limit on how many times you can trade tech to any individual civ. This would prevent tech blocks, while still allowing civs to gift tech to a backwards civ without penalty.

If not that I would vote for no tech brokering, without any other tech trade limits.

All in all though, this issue will probably come down to a vote.

I don't know I still think the voucher system would be a simple and easy to understand fix.

And backward civs are not stagnating in HOTW12, look at Russia, remember where they started?

[Heraclitus]

If anyone is wondering about the pitboss diplo FF game. We still have room for 3 more players.

Players that have signed up:
1. Heraclitus
2. OzzyKP
3. Vampgelus
4. deity
5. dacole