Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Organization Thread IV]

[Pitboss Greece]

@#$@$#^#@$^%$ I should declare war on you for that reason alone already ^@@$#^#@$^$@%

[Robert]

According to Gramphos the attachment bug on this forum should be fixed. More info here: thread in community forum (report problems there as well!)

[Pitboss Portugal]

I think that the game is down!

[Robert]

Only civstats was down, the game is running fine, as far as I can see.

[Robert]

Just tested, I was able to login to the game.

[Pitboss Portugal]

Ok thanks CyberShy!

[OzzyKP]

Last but not least, the Mayan people have decided to propose a concept we call "Dza Ootzil Ohel Aantik" which translates into "Give Poor Tech Help". The idea was Voltans, yet he never had a chance to propose it. The concept of "Dza Ootzil Ohel Aantik" would be for the 3 weakest nations (OOC: according to ingame score in the year 1600 AD) to be granted 3 additional tech vouchers. The next 3 weakest would get 2 vouchers. The next 3 weakest would get one extra voucher. This will help ensure that despite smaller size and a weaker economy, all nations remain relevant moving into the future. Please note that the Maya would not benefit from this.

In true Mayan democratic fashion, I request that nations submit their vote for "Dza Ootzil Ohel Aantik" to the capital building in Tikal by 1600 AD.

I think this proposal should be discussed OOC since it is an OOC mechanism.

Upon first reading this I thought, "oh, great idea, I would love some extra vouchers"

Then I looked at the score list and found that I had moved up enough that I was two spots higher than the cut off for this voucher charity.

My next thought was how I could try to slow down my growth & tech advancement so I could drop those two spots and nab an extra voucher.

I don't think this makes me an especially corrupt player (no doubt Maya will disagree) I think this is logical behavior that would be created by such a system. If we were to give out extra vouchers to the lowest civs (which I still think is a good idea) we need to just do it now instead of waiting till 1600 AD. Only 64 points separates the lowest 1 voucher civ (HRE with 608) from the highest 3 voucher civ (Celts with 544), that'd be very easy to game. Setting the scores/places now stops people from gaming the system (I assure you I wouldn't be the only one).

So, two votes:

Do you support "Dza Ootzil Ohel Aantik" (i.e. giving 3 vouchers to the bottom 3 civs, 2 vouchers to the next lowest 3, and 1 to the next lowest 3)?

Korea - yes
Maya - yes
Metalheads - yes

Do you support basing it off of scores now (1460 AD) instead of 1600 AD?

Metalheads - yes

[Pitboss Rome]

I also think it is quite a good idea in principle. However, three issues for me (sorry to complicate it):

1. I would vote for a smaller number of nations getting the extra - bottom 2 getting 3, next 2 getting 2, next 2 getting 1. The original proposal would give more than half (i.e. the majority) of the countries a 'leg up'. This seems odd - how can the majority need extra help? Keep it to 6 out of the 17 and it is more targetted.

2. Agree with Ozzy on basing it on figures now, indeed figures yesterday, to avoid manipulation.

3. I think we would be better off giving 'voltans' not 'vouchers' with a 'voltan' being non-tradeable, and simple being the right to receive a tech without the donor having to spend a voucher. Why? Because otherwise we will find these extra-help being traded for other things, being extorted from people etc. We want this extra help to be translated into tech for bottom 1/3 not swept up in some way by the powerful to make them more powerful - the only way of doing this is to make them non-tradeable (which to work means we need to swap it to the right to receive not the right to give, and they then need a different name so why not honour king voltan).

[Pitboss Maya]

I think this proposal should be discussed OOC since it is an OOC mechanism.

My hope was to get some diplo votes... and of course help those in need .

Since this was my proposal, I would still request that nations give their offical vote in the story thread.

My next thought was how I could try to slow down my growth & tech advancement so I could drop those two spots and nab an extra voucher.

The mentality behind making the deadline for voting and the score snapshot 1600 AD was so noone would accuse me of trying to slip this one by before most people had a chance to vote, and also avoid accusations of me "choosing" the civs that would qualify. I do however see your point Ozzy, although I doubt many civs would handcap themselfs for the possiablity of qualifying. I would not at all be opposed to moving up the time on the "score snapshot" or even making it 1460.

how can the majority need extra help?

Majority doesn't nessasarly translate into wellbeing. It is often the case that majorities are disadvantaged.

I think we would be better off giving 'voltans' not 'vouchers' with a 'voltan' being non-tradeable

I really like this idea and the principle behind it, however, tracking it would be difficult considering we can barely track the regular vouchers.

[OzzyKP]

I also think it is quite a good idea in principle. However, three issues for me (sorry to complicate it):

1. I would vote for a smaller number of nations getting the extra - bottom 2 getting 3, next 2 getting 2, next 2 getting 1. The original proposal would give more than half (i.e. the majority) of the countries a 'leg up'. This seems odd - how can the majority need extra help? Keep it to 6 out of the 17 and it is more targeted.

Actually after looking at the scores I change my vote to wanting extra vouchers for the bottom TEN instead of nine. There is remarkably little daylight between the scores of the bottom ten. If we make the cut-off the nine lowest, then the 10th lowest (Vikings) miss out on the voucher by just 5 points. If we make the cut off the lowest 6, then the 7th lowest missed out by just 22 points.

The reality is that the lower-middle section of the game are all pretty much in exactly the same spot. The difference between the 10th lowest (8th highest) and the 3rd lowest (15th highest) is just 79 points. Those 8 civs are neck & neck. Even when you add in the more distant bottom two (Japan & England) the difference between the top 7 and bottom 10 is striking.

The average score difference between the top 7 players is 76 points.
The average score difference between the bottom 10 players is 15 points.

The bottom players are all bunched up and the top players are very unequally spread out. Since I am a geek with apparently too much time on my hands I made a chart demonstrating this. The dark purple line shows how much difference between each civ.



So... in light of this I change my recommendation for the charity proposal yet again. I propose that the absolute bottom two (since there is a respectable gap between them and those above them) each receive 3 additional vouchers, and the lower-middle bottom 8 (from Vikings to Korea) each receive 2 additional vouchers.

[Pitboss Maya]

I propose that the absolute bottom two (since there is a respectable gap between them and those above them) each receive 3 additional vouchers, and the lower-middle bottom 8 (from Vikings to Korea) each receive 2 additional vouchers.

In retrospect, I agree...partly. My revision will be 3 to the bottom 4 and 2 to the next 6. My story thread post has been edited to reflect this wise insight on your part. I also agree with using 1460 as the score snapshot. I will move the deadline for voting back to 1480 to give people a few days to be able to read the post and respond.

I still request that people respond IC in the story thread. Although the concept of "vouchers" is a mechanic, the right/ability to trade is something that constantly comes up IC and indeed shapes relations and deals (plus I still hope to get some diplo votes out of this )

[OzzyKP]

In retrospect, I agree...partly. My revision will be 3 to the bottom 4 and 2 to the next 6. My story thread post has been edited to reflect this wise insight on your part. I also agree with using 1460 as the score snapshot. I will move the deadline for voting back to 1480 to give people a few days to be able to read the post and respond.

I still request that people respond IC in the story thread. Although the concept of "vouchers" is a mechanic, the right/ability to trade is something that constantly comes up IC and indeed shapes relations and deals (plus I still hope to get some diplo votes out of this )

Excellent. Once we iron out the details I'll gladly vote IC.

Not to be nit-picky, but why the bottom 4? Lest the 1460 scores be lost, here is the score chart from last turn (1460):

Khmer 1156
Portugal 1098
Rome 955
Sparta 864
Maya 810
Spain 754
Metalheads 734
Vikings 623
Persia 618
Russia 613
HRE 608
Natives 586
America 558
Celtia 557
Korea 544
England 511
Japan 468


As you can see, the Celts (4th lowest) are just one point behind America at the 5th lowest spot. It hardly seems like a place to draw a significant line in the sand.

[OzzyKP]

Metalheads / Ozzy: Your PM box is full, I've send a msg to your Pitboss India account instead.

Read my sig:

@#$@$#^#@$^%$ I should declare war on you for that reason alone already ^@@$#^#@$^$@%

I responded to your e-mail, did you receive it? I haven't heard back yet.

[Pitboss Maya]

As you can see, the Celts (4th lowest) are just one point behind America at the 5th lowest spot.

Ugh... I misread the chart and accounted for America's purple area. Good point.

Thanks for pointing this out. Original story thread proposal has been edited... again.

[Pitboss Japan]

I'm all for giving out more vouchers