Beyond the Pit -Argument and Debate Thread

[Robert]

Well, we must now just continue.
I'll keep things tight from now on. I've learned a lot.

An 18 player game is awesome, but it'll automaticly lead to 3-5 players who're that far behind that the game isn't fun for them anymore.
We could decide on a rule that after ie. 250 turns it becomes acceptable to eliminate civs. That'll help small civs who may be happy to be liberated from a game in which they have little to gain.
And it'll also help smaller civs who are still interested in the game, and gives them a chance to expand.

[St Jon]

I to am torn. I would like the chance to really build a Civ of my own someone else's inherited one. That said I reckon I have done a good job given what I had to start with also contributed to the thread. So yes I would very much like to play in a new game - if I were welcome that is - with fewer players though I don't think a smaller map. Celt, Metalhead, England were really hurt with no room to expand which made them no-hopers in the Game winning stakes, I know only 25% of pts, as it does make you lose heart if all you do is press end turn because you are stuck in a rut. Russia was much the same but I will never be content to do nothing even if I know I am unlikely to succeed - just not my style of play.

I am concerned that this incident will hurt other new players. Never invite a 'chieftain' into the game as they might be a ringer for a cheat? I would never have got into BtP if that were the attitude and although it has been a rough introduction to Diplo-Gaming I can see the fun there and have enjoyed a lot of it.

Sad to lose Capo, sorry I thought you were the bad guy from the start of that arguement, and the game has just disintegrated since. Few posts on the story thread and acrimony everywhere else. Maybe time for a fresh start.

[OzzyKP]

Well regardless what happens, I think you are a great addition to the crew, FF. So I hope you don't lose heart by all this nonsense lately. I'll be happy to play many games with you in the future.

[Pitboss Rome]

I recognise much that is being said here - there has been a collapse over the last month, though some of us have been playing and writing. There is a massive invasion of Japan going on as we speak - planned it appears over many weeks - one of the largest military operations we have seen all game. So people can over-estimate, and even talk-up, a sense of nothing happening. My inbox has been fuller this month that any other month but last November and only a tiny proportion had anything to do with disputes.

The game is evolving rapidly at the moment, both IG and in terms of understanding of how things should be handled out of game. From where I sit there is still a lot of fun to be had - I want to see that war between Khmer and Portugal that has been hanging in the wings for months now; I want to see whether Khmer dominates their continent or whether people will rise against him; I want to see whether Sparta turns New Sparta into a powerhouse and squashes us all; I want to see whether we all suffer a nuclear first-strike by a madman. Others obivously have their own opinoins and I respect that what civ you are playing will make a different, but that is how I see it.

On the issues about new games etc. my thoughts would be:

1. Sounds naive to me to think that another game will run smoothly.Yes we have learnt lots, but it seems inevitable to me that as the game progresses it gets more tense, because the divisions in power are larger, people have more invested in the game, the IG competition/wars are more signficiant - building no longer rules.

2. We can be in a self-fulfiling cycle here. People talking down the game here, giving the sense that it is on the edge, means folks don't invest in writing stories etc. and it winds down. I recognise Ras and Capo's thoughts have lots of merit, but its also important that those who have left the game don't have an inadvertant impact of talking down the game so it collapses, validating their decision to leave, so they can join a replacement. Anyone can start any new MP Civ game they want - its for those who are now playing this game to decide if they want to keep going, and if so to keep it going.

3. We have learnt a lot, but I think FF point is the main one. No amount of rules etc. is going to prevent disputes. Fundamentally what is needed is not rules, but a clear dispute resolution system. As far as I can see that does mean a 'referee' who is neutral/not involved, and whose word is law (not discussed in public threads ad nausiam by those who disargee). Rules are good and help everyone, but what was lacking here wasn't rules, but a clear swift unambigious way of dealing with disputes. It could be a fun role - make the map, ref, and post as 'God' giving the sort of 'news flashes' which civ does sometimes (highlighting GP, barbarian successes, elections, all sorts of fun).

[Rasputin]

The biggest issues raised by this game were never about people leaving the game becuae they had weak civs or were losing in PTS score.

The whole beauty of DIPLO is that even though a civ is low in PTS score it can do well in other scoring oppurtinities.

I left the game because it became impossible to form any sort of in game alliance and without one it became very boring for me. Others may be able to play this game as single players but i love the interaction of the MP gmae andespecially forming and breaking alliances as the game moves.

I also was dissallusioned with the lack of peoples care over the MAP incident and the original Japanese palyers interaction and knowledge with Pinchak. Folowing on from the Mayans double move so early in game i was of the opinion that nothinh that happend in the game as faras rule breaking going would be stopped , the game continuing was all that was importnat.

As it became more and more obvious that the DIPLO veterans themselves were wither silent or agreeing with this push to keep game going at all costs . i lost interest and left.


so i await capos new DIPLO game and will endevour to get aprpoval to join that one , but as with a few others here , i hope to see RULEs in place and agreement to PAUSE the game.

[St Jon]

Ras,

I am ignorant of the earlier incidents in BtP but have seen enough, good and bad, that tells me it could be a fabulous game but unless you have a group of people who you know and trust well then you must have a CMN!

The lack of player interaction is down to you as much as any other in the game. Any form of Civ, or Civ style game, requires positive input from the participants. It can stay interesting and entertaining, admitedly I am a newbie to pitboss but I have played in a CtP PBEM which lasted over 18 months without rancour or discord. It was not Diplo in any way but nobody was knocked out early, inside a year, because the balance of power could not allow it. That was not forced - don't be nasty to your neighbour type rule - it was just that we formed power blocks as do nation states. I was amazed to see my old posts in the archives - maybe I should ask the kiddies on high to resurrect my old character - and it was great fun. If you don't plot and conive and lie then just play SP and be done with it!

I would love to play a game from start to finish and actually be master of my own destiny. But you do have the problem in this style of game where very early on you find that you have nowhere to go. Normal game you kill your neighbour and expand but here you can't. When I took over Russia in around 1600 she still didn't have astronomy!!! How can a nation locked in a poor position advance if they are forever fighting border wars but their enemy knows that they can never go for the kill?

There are too many players on a map this size. I know Diplo-Gaming is all about player interaction but if you do not have the chance to grow and develope first then all you do is hit 'end turn' and that can become very boring. Also if you are so far down the ladder - diplo-game or not - you become irrelevent to the major powers. You serve no purpose, can offer no gain and are debarred from being knocked out. Unless, of course, you can work with other minor powers to attempt to redress the balance. That takes enthusiasm and a genuine desire to 'Play a Part' rather than just 'Play' in the game.

[Robert]

This map is defenitely not too small for 18 players!!
Every civ has at leats 14 cities I think! I have 20+ and there's still room to expand to!

[The Capo]

This map is defenitely not too small for 18 players!!
Every civ has at leats 14 cities I think! I have 20+ and there's still room to expand to!

If anything I think the map is just too big (regardless of the amount of players). The distances are so vast it makes the ability of certain nations to truly cooperate nearly impossible. I think a smaller map would be needed for a future game.

EDIT: Also Cyber, everyone has 14 cities now that three civs have been eliminated. LOL

[OzzyKP]

Yea, I don't think it is too small. Too spread out & uneven perhaps. I think the map for HOTWXII was perfect.

[Pitboss Celts]

My inbox has been fuller this month that any other month but last November and only a tiny proportion had anything to do with disputes.

Speaking of which, I've heard nothing from you regarding the PM I sent about piracy.

[Pitboss Celts]

This map is defenitely not too small for 18 players!!
Every civ has at leats 14 cities I think! I have 20+ and there's still room to expand to!

That's funny. You might want to count again. I'm standing at 10, 3 of those gifts from Khmer's dismantling of Incans. America I believe has about the same number and has some room to expand for another city or two perhaps. Except for Khmer and Spain, I'm not sure that anyone on our continent has a dozen cities.

[Robert]

On avg I meant, Celts.
Ozzy is right, the space is a bit uneven.
Especially at your continent.

[Pinchak]

HOTWXII was perfect.

Must have been the perfect person who made it.

[St Jon]

If anything I think the map is just too big (regardless of the amount of players). The distances are so vast it makes the ability of certain nations to truly cooperate nearly impossible. I think a smaller map would be needed for a future game.

EDIT: Also Cyber, everyone has 14 cities now that three civs have been eliminated. LOL

OK, I get the point but I always play SP on Huge as ancient wars are so expensive and must be won. If I am put in Celts position in BtP at the beginning I would be lost without the opportunity to kill one of my rivals - north or south - or face the destiny that they have had for centuries! I try and get my head around Diplo as much as I can but if you cannot do anything 'in game' and you are too weak for any major power to bother with then where do your points come from for story-telling, diplomacy and strategy? When nothing happens turn after turn it becomes difficult to write about hunting trips and royal marriages - you may manage it but few others could! If no nation will treat with you for your lack of worth to them where do you gain from diplomacy? If you are so weak, yet surrounded by weak neighbours where do you gain your strategy points from?

There must be a map large enough for all players to at least establish themselves and think to expand or you can become trapped. England, America, Celtia and Russia were all trapped from the start! It's very easy to lose heart and interest.

Distance need not be a problem if the game speed is slow. It allows a natural progression from oar to sail to steam to oil to air. It is ludicrous if you have a map with all Uranium on one island that half the world will never be able to reach! But a normal map with even distribution of resource is OK as there will always be shortages and wars over commodities.

You cannot have lame duck civ's with no where to go and no way to compete and expect them to have fun! You don't need to win a war but you do at least need the ability to wage a realistic one with, maybe, just a glimmer of hope!

[St Jon]

Question of pure academic interest~ Who were you in BtP classical_hero and Rising Sun? Ras was the Viking and I know original Russia and Rome as well.as that Persia, until her sad demise, remained same from the beginning.

2 x Japan's have been kicked for cheating and an Inca - not an active member in any form - gave up. So apart from Greece, Maya, Portugal, England and Ozzy how many have survived from the start?