New diplo game: big discussion needed

[Robert]

I completely agree with St Jon. (though the 'idiot' part would be mellowed down a bit if I would phrase it )

And I'm certainly not saying that Rasputin can't be in the next game, but he needs to convince me that he won't quit again for invalid reasons.

[St Jon]

Substitute 'somewhat foolishly' then.

[OzzyKP]

The other one is done./...


So rules that need deciding on


1. Is ANON posting the way to go.
2. Number of players
3. Who makes map.
4. Who host ( Robert Plomp has volunteered)
5. Voting system
6. Story posting, is it necessary? Boundaries/ guidlines for posting

More to come

I'm not playing, but...


1. I support what Anon tries to achieve (getting rid of the many OOC personal grudges) but I'm not sure it ever works. The main grudgers are always the easiest to identify.
2. I strongly suggest a smaller number. 10 at most, but probably 7-9 would be ideal. Too many players means a gigantic map, which means you will only ever have much hope of affecting those in your immediate neighborhood. Plus it sucks up the pool of players, so if someone quits there is much less likelyhood of finding a sub. I also think the way civs were randomly placed on the map in BTP was ideal too. Great idea CS.
3. I volunteer to make the map. And Toni, I don't know what you are talking about, HOTW12 had a pretty balanced map imho.
4. Sadly there doesn't appear to be many options.
5. The one from BTP was excellent.
6. ---

Also, in light of the many problems in BTP I highly recommend you guys find some neutral arbiter to just make a decision when a conflict arises. Someone not playing in the game who might have a bias. I volunteer, but even if you guys don't want me for it I highly recommend you find some dedicated judge. Because it really fouled up BTP.

[Robert]

Also, in light of the many problems in BTP I highly recommend you guys find some neutral arbiter to just make a decision when a conflict arises. Someone not playing in the game who might have a bias. I volunteer, but even if you guys don't want me for it I highly recommend you find some dedicated judge. Because it really fouled up BTP.

BtP was fouled by people not wanting to compromise.
The one time we had outside judges, we lost people even when we followed up the judge rulings.

In theory I agree that judges (plural) are good, the problem though is that if a problem is that complex that it can't be handled by the participants, it's defenitely too complex for outside judges who aren't into the game and hardly know what's going on.

#1 = clear rules
#2 = people must be willing to compromise

A system with 3 judges from inside the game may work better.
Something like: the 3 top-players (diplo-vote-score) that are acceptable to both parties.

I also think the way civs were randomly placed on the map in BTP was ideal too. Great idea CS.

It was Pinchak's idea and map.
I think we can use a map 60% of this size and still have 16-18 players
Like Toni said: all players should start closer to each other. ie. 2 sea-connected continents. (Connected on 3+ spots)

I think it all depends on the nr of available players.

[Toni]

And Toni, I don't know what you are talking about, HOTW12 had a pretty balanced map imho.

Well I am talking about the fact that you purposefully placed some civs in a weaker land starts to hold them back, for example in my case my only choice to settle my 2nd city was on tundra or desert in the immediate proximity to my cap. Strange when you have a pre-build map, that you will be hit by sub average land immediately.

Yes map was good and interesting and made for much diplomacy.

[St Jon]

I think Pinchak's map for BtP was brilliant but my problem still lies with Start Points. Russia was a dead duck from the start and I can understand the original player's disenchantment with it. You cannot allow Civ's to be effectively 'blocked in' from Turn 0. Khmer had a dream of a start with 2 Rivers and masses of fertile land. That's not dealing from an even deck.

Selectively choosing to give experienced, in the Poly community, a poor start likewise is unfair in the first place and is also rather an insult to players new on the scene. Just because I have never played any PitBoss game before does not mean that I am not an able Civ player. Whether or not you are a fantastic story teller or can construct wonderful graphical images does not alter the fact that you still need to be competent at the game itself or you will be so marginalised as to have no active 'Diplomacy' or 'Military' involvement.

3 total side issues.

I think that a refusal to knock out moribund Civ's is stupid. Meduian Civ's should have long ago been given permission to eliminate England. If someone plays 1 turn in 10, at most, but will not offer to resign and allow a sub then just kill them off. They contribute nothing but occupy lands that could make a huge difference to others.

Next thing is 'Hidden Subs'. If a Civ is being subbed long term then it should be known to all. How else do I ever know who I am talking to? I could be plotting against their neighbour but never know that their neighbour is one in the same person as they are.

Subs in general need to handled better. You cannot have a traditional 'in game' enemy become your closest friend overnight because you happen to be mates with them 'out of game'. Why should someone get 100 turns worth of points for great stories and military success when they have contributed nothing?

[OzzyKP]

Well I am talking about the fact that you purposefully placed some civs in a weaker land starts to hold them back, for example in my case my only choice to settle my 2nd city was on tundra or desert in the immediate proximity to my cap. Strange when you have a pre-build map, that you will be hit by sub average land immediately.

Yes map was good and interesting and made for much diplomacy.

You had a ridiculously good start in the last game, you must be confusing things.

[Heraclitus]

no huts in BtP was a mistake. huts are fun
And since we also have events, I don't see why we won't have huts.

+1

I also think we should have huts on peaks like we did in HOTW12 it is a neat reward for expanding your culture. A smart map designer could use that for very interesting ends.



Also I still think we should consider making the next game something other than vanilla BtS. I mean isn't anyone tired of rewinding history over and over and over and over again? Can't we take a break and talk about wars between Elves and Men instead of Russians and Metalheads? Or if fantasy isn't up to your tastes, what space settings? Or if we are really conservative why not just cool mods, I mean sure its still a rewind of history but an endgame with the Endwar mod (with Mechs ) is something completely different than vanilla BtS. Or even that Diplo mod Capo made.


Also we really really really need a better UN! I mean Jebus at least a blank resolution is in order!


Also I fully support Toni's proposal that we should remove the in-game scoreboard. This will force people to actually rely on intel and have to think about their situation. Its also more realistic and makes good propaganda easier to sell. Overall it brings only good to the game.

PS Actually there is one problem how do we reward good ingame performance if we don't know the score? I mean someone really good at civ but who sucks at story and diplomacy will be completely squashed.

[St Jon]

I am sorry Heraclitus but I am not altogether sure as to where you are coming from. I am sorry if this seems rude but any new game you will most likely decline to play. Also, I have also read some of the old Story and Org Threads from Btp and I could not believe someone actually posting that they felt they must quit as they were too much better than their opponents for it to be fair to continue! How anyone could say that absolutely stunned me.

[Rasputin]

I completely agree with St Jon. (though the 'idiot' part would be mellowed down a bit if I would phrase it )

And I'm certainly not saying that Rasputin can't be in the next game, but he needs to convince me that he won't quit again for invalid reasons.

tis ok remvoe my name from interested to play.

I am not going to be able to ever make a reason that is valid in Roberts eyes.

So rather than casue probelms , i will step aside.

Have fun

[St Jon]

tis ok remvoe my name from interested to play.

I am not going to be able to ever make a reason that is valid in Roberts eyes.

So rather than casue probelms , i will step aside.

Have fun

Then be daring and provide an answer to the rest of us.

Robert may be master of Poly but he does not control the World.

[Heraclitus]

I am sorry if this seems rude but any new game you will most likely decline to play.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean I probably won't join up or that I won't be welcomed?

Also, I have also read some of the old Story and Org Threads from Btp and I could not believe someone actually posting that they felt they must quit as they were too much better than their opponents for it to be fair to continue! How anyone could say that absolutely stunned me.

... that is not the reason I quit. The reason I quit is because Rome instead of being an underdog or average power civ (like France was in HOTW12) turned out to be a major power. It was too stressful. I found myself spending more on more time on it... it became precious to me. My precious.




And everyone wanted it... the nasty Russians and Greeks and Portuguese too. Fitly thieves. I founds it glittering in the deserts of Egypt and the fertile planes of the Tiber river. Its mine. Golum. Golum.

Ahem.

It was healthier for me to stop playing. The stress of runing a top civ wasn't worth it. I never claimed I was some kind of master strategist responsible for making it a top civ! A lot was dumb luck (I only later realised how incredibly good the starting postion was or how lucky I was to grab so much good land before the Russians expanded) and a lot was being a really tough and bastardy guy when negotiating. I really didn't like being that guy. I'm a very average player who tries to do his best. And due to circumstances I got something that was too much for me to handle.


But I would ask you don't accuse me of not trying hard to live up to the diplo ethos. I could accept such criticism from any of the players who have played with me (Ozzy, Toni, ect.) and I do ask them to voice it openly... maybe I wasn't doing good diplo in HOTW12 and in BtP and I simply didn't notice it.

[Heraclitus]

Also regardless if I am a good diplo player or not. Or whether I play or not. Are my suggestions and questions not worth any attention and can be simply dismissed because of it?

I want the Diplo community to be strong. That's where I'm coming from. And I dare say I've already contributed to making games better just by debating the rules.

Example: Do you like the use of Vouchers for tech trading? I suggested that rule.

[Heraclitus]

Also: Unnatural lust for fish

[St Jon]

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean I probably won't join up or that I won't be welcomed?

That you probably won't join up. I have also seen the Story Threads and you were very creative and fun. I will halt the plaudits but you are obviously a very witty and intelligent guy and I would welcome the chance to play against you.

... that is not the reason I quit. The reason I quit is because Rome instead of being an underdog or average power civ (like France was in HOTW12) turned out to be a major power. It was too stressful. I found myself spending more on more time on it... it became precious to me. My precious.

If I misinterpreted your posts then I apologise but they did sound exactly as I descibed.

And everyone wanted it... the nasty Russians and Greeks and Portuguese too. Fitly thieves. I founds it glittering in the deserts of Egypt and the fertile planes of the Tiber river. Its mine. Golum. Golum.

Ahem.

It was healthier for me to stop playing. The stress of runing a top civ wasn't worth it. I never claimed I was some kind of master strategist responsible for making it a top civ! A lot was dumb luck (I only later realised how incredibly good the starting postion was or how lucky I was to grab so much good land before the Russians expanded) and a lot was being a really tough and bastardy guy when negotiating. I really didn't like being that guy. I'm a very average player who tries to do his best. And due to circumstances I got something that was too much for me to handle.

I can understand that everyone was after a slice but they did a pretty poor job of it. You appear to have driven Toni close to hysteria by defeating Portugal, a superior power in Tech and Military, quite so easily.

It is also bizarre that when I joined BtP Rome was way behind Portugal and Khmer and fighting it out with Greece for 3rd place with Maya coming up close behind. Was Rome ever really top dog?