New diplo game: big discussion needed

[deity]

Also, players could start at different game levels: Noble, Monarch etc.

[The Capo]

Personally I'd like as little OOC changes as possible. Although I understand the reasons behind them. Also I think BtP had a problem because it had 18 players trying to post. With around half that amount of players the posts should be less daunting. Also part of your etiquette assumes that we are going to play anonymously, again. I'd like to bring up the anonymous play aspect again and challenge it on the grounds that its pointless, a waste of time, and makes it more difficult to communicate.

[St Jon]

Personally I'd like as little OOC changes as possible. Although I understand the reasons behind them. Also I think BtP had a problem because it had 18 players trying to post. With around half that amount of players the posts should be less daunting. Also part of your etiquette assumes that we are going to play anonymously, again. I'd like to bring up the anonymous play aspect again and challenge it on the grounds that its pointless, a waste of time, and makes it more difficult to communicate.

I pretty much agree with all this. If Ozzy plays he will have a City called 'Black Sabbath' somewhere around even if the avatar is anonymous so it won't ever be hard to guess. Most people have pretty distinctive writing styles - even their spelling mistake can be a dead giveaway - so I already knew the real names of most the BtP players long before they started being given out and I am new to forum.

I would be totally opposed to the idea of any kind of 'seeding' system as it rather degrades the efforts of those ranked lower. We really should all get an even start and let the best player win

[MNGoldenEagle]

I'm kinda new here, but have loved Civilization since I first played the second major release and have played it religiously since. The concept of a diplogame is extremely appealing to me, and I would love to join in a game and see what it's like (and put my story-making skills to practice more!). As for some of the issues you guys have been having, I do have a few suggestions. Being new, I will completely understand if the ideas are shot down immediately for some reason or another.

For starters, by no means do you guys want to cripple story-writing. It's fun to do, it's fun to read, and can add a lot of depth to a game that would otherwise be missed. But you probably should use a system that makes it both easier to judge and simpler to follow. Here's some ideas I thought up:

1) Give each civ its own thread to post in instead of a combined feed. It makes no sense for these posts to respond to each other, so they can be separated without much of a problem. Con: You still have to deal with the scoring/voting mechanism.
2) If 1 isn't too appealing, then use both: a short abstract posted in a combined feed that's voted on, and a separate thread to post a larger story if desired. Con: Some people don't write abstracts well but write large posts beautifully, which can possibly raise ire. Also, it'll take up more forum retail space.
3) Fiddle around with the scoring system so that the length/depth of the post is less relevant to the overall score. I can't really suggest much on this, though, since I don't know the scoring system and haven't experienced it to understand its possible faults.
4) Determine how important the story aspect is to a diplogame. Is the crux of a diplogame being what it is the story? Or is it what goes on behind the scenes? Whichever it is, emphasize that in the score. The other, design it so that it becomes a small booster, or make it "for fun".

Personally, I love the idea of involving storytelling in a Civilization game and think it adds a powerful dynamic to an already extremely dynamic game, but I understand not everyone's going to see it that way. Some people have difficulty writing stories, others don't have the time. I know that either way, I'll be doing what I love, but the game should try to be as inclusive as possible while still remaining true to its name.

[The Priest]

Just caught up with the fact that this thread exists!

I would certainly be very interested in a new Pitboss Game. As folks know I came into this part way through (thanks Heraclitus), its been fun and I think I've made a contribution.

A couple of thoughts on the discussion so far:

1. Yes a clear rule set is a good idea. Two aspects though:
(a) we need to avoid having unwritten 'values' which different people appeal to in different ways 'that's not diplo'. That has lurked underneath this game - various people acting IG in certain ways because they think that is what is appropriate in diplo, then feeling aggrieved when others don't share the same sense. So we needs rules yes, but we also need I believe a sense of values - short and to the point, expressing things like relationship between large powers and small. Otherwise you 'old-hands' always appeal to an inner sense 'the spirit of diplo' which might be OK ifyou all agreed. Deity made some good suggestions earlier about not accusing people of cheating etc.

(b) I understand the appeal, but its naive to think you will ever write in advance a set of rules which will cope with every circumstance. We can get a long way with it, and immediately pausing is right. But even so we have to have a process for dispute resolution. Surely nobody thinks that in practice over a year of a game with all these players, there is not going to be a dispute, where both sides think the rules are on their side? A system for dispute resolution is a must (whether binding majority voting, judges etc.).

2. Story posting.

This is tricky. There were certainly posters whose posts I didn't read because they were long and I didn't find them interesting. People probably say the same about some (all?) of mine. Rules restricting length are tricky though since story posting is also part of diplomacy, and if you have just been invaded you probably need to do lots of it. I'd say don't restrict but people shouldn't feel at all bound to vote for the most prolific as a reward for someone bothering to write and enclose pictures etc. People should vote for what they admire - and that may be clear well written occasional updates. Otherwise on voting, I wonder if there are too many categories - in particular I think military isn't good (though IG I am doing well on it) since in almost every case it overlaps with story since you only know because of what people do or don't say in the stories.

3. Elimination/Handicaps etc.

Tricky. Certainly you don't want someone eliminated who is enjoying playing. On the other hand, I wonder what sort of end-game we imagine the games will have. Perhaps others can describe end-games that they think have been successful. The impression I get is that these are very rare. I wonder if there is a lesson there, and maybe there is some need to look again creatively at the end game.

Handicaps - I wouldn't agree with these. New players to Pitboss aren't always bad; experienced hands aren't always good. I would change the tech rules system though to allow techs from old ages to be traded freely (we just need a definition of what constitutes an old age - such as when four nations have reached the one two on e.g. classical is free from restrictions when two have entered renaissance). Argue about the details but something like this would keep a floor on the tech. Maya solved this temporarily with the voltans in BtP but a permanent, known about, solution would be better.

I would also go further and wonder if we can replace the vouchers with a different system. Its a very arbitary system and there are real issues about reporting. If the reason for it is to stop two players dividing up the tech tree and just researching half and swapping with each other, why not resrisct the number of tech trades a player can make with each other player. This will stop the problem, and force people into wider diplomacy. You can only give (for reward or not) one tech from each era to any given player.

4. Map

A more compressed map would be a help I think. Fewer players, yes probably, though I don't think that is a panecea - whatever number of players you start with you will get the same issues of interest and disinterest emerge I am sure.

5. Anonymous Log-ins

A good idea, if you ask me. OK maybe they don't need to be strictly anonymous, but I think a lot of the heat of the arguments is restricted if we can separate IG from OOC. Country related log-ins are a help to this. It means we keep IG conflicts as between the IG leaders and countries and not relate them immediately to rows in games four games ago. We should all be acting for the best interests of our civilisations, not pursuing rl vendettas etc. against individuals. Civ-related log ins helps with this.

The Priest.

[The Capo]

Some great posts guys, I have a few responses to the Priest's post though...

1. Yes a clear rule set is a good idea. Two aspects though:
(a) we need to avoid having unwritten 'values' which different people appeal to in different ways 'that's not diplo'. That has lurked underneath this game - various people acting IG in certain ways because they think that is what is appropriate in diplo, then feeling aggrieved when others don't share the same sense. So we needs rules yes, but we also need I believe a sense of values - short and to the point, expressing things like relationship between large powers and small. Otherwise you 'old-hands' always appeal to an inner sense 'the spirit of diplo' which might be OK ifyou all agreed. Deity made some good suggestions earlier about not accusing people of cheating etc.

I agree with much of this. While I have my own concepts of what is appropriate or correct in a diplogame I realize they don't fall into line with what is the "general consensus" or what is expected by many of the 'old-hands' as you call them (though it can be argued that I fall into this category, having been around off and on for nine years). Even amongst the older players (deity, CS, Ozzy etc.) there are disagreements about certain aspects of diplogaming. The only problem I have with rules like "don't accuse people of cheating" or things where you are given an order (I can probably come up with another example of a similarly worded rule; don't accuse someone of lying). The reason I am not too keen on this is, frankly, the potential for someone to actually CHEAT (or actually LIE, or whatever else you come up with). Simply hiding disagreement under the rug, or in the closet, or what have you is NOT going to fix it. The phrase "silence is golden" comes to mind here, and in my outlook this phrase is only helpful to dictators and school-teachers. Having said that, keeping a rule like "don't accuse people of cheating" is not going to prevent that from happening. Its like saying "no fighting." Its as futile as legislating morality, if someone feels appropriately aggrieved they will be drawn to argument. A better idea, I think, would be to disallow personal slights and name-calling. If someone makes a post like that (and we all know I am guilty of doing this) it should be removed or edited. Of course we need to make sure that certain posts which I personally think SHOULD NOT fall into this category (i.e. Pinchak's Noobs/Vets post) are not affected by this rule simply because a certain moderator or a certain player thinks its insulting.

(b) I understand the appeal, but its naive to think you will ever write in advance a set of rules which will cope with every circumstance. We can get a long way with it, and immediately pausing is right. But even so we have to have a process for dispute resolution. Surely nobody thinks that in practice over a year of a game with all these players, there is not going to be a dispute, where both sides think the rules are on their side? A system for dispute resolution is a must (whether binding majority voting, judges etc.).

I agree with this. All we need is a simple rule for double-moves (which we basically already have) and a regularly-followed procedure for dealing with it. The biggest problem in BtP was that nearly every instance of a double-move was handled differently. I think pausing the game once a double-move is reported is a good first step, because the second reason these debates lead to difficulties was that the game continued on during an argument.

2. Story posting.

This is tricky. There were certainly posters whose posts I didn't read because they were long and I didn't find them interesting. People probably say the same about some (all?) of mine. Rules restricting length are tricky though since story posting is also part of diplomacy, and if you have just been invaded you probably need to do lots of it. I'd say don't restrict but people shouldn't feel at all bound to vote for the most prolific as a reward for someone bothering to write and enclose pictures etc. People should vote for what they admire - and that may be clear well written occasional updates. Otherwise on voting, I wonder if there are too many categories - in particular I think military isn't good (though IG I am doing well on it) since in almost every case it overlaps with story since you only know because of what people do or don't say in the stories.

I don't think we need to make it that complex. People should vote for whoever they think had the best stories. When I vote I consider how the posts relate to what they are doing in game, how creative they make this link between in game events and what they're stories report, what information they are spreading, foreshadowing of other events, the diplomatic aspect, and of course the quality of the posts (as far as entertaining stories, well-edited posts, images etc.) I don't vote for people based on the length or amount of their posts, and I wouldn't suggest people vote based on the quantity of posts either.

3. Elimination/Handicaps etc.

Tricky. Certainly you don't want someone eliminated who is enjoying playing. On the other hand, I wonder what sort of end-game we imagine the games will have. Perhaps others can describe end-games that they think have been successful. The impression I get is that these are very rare. I wonder if there is a lesson there, and maybe there is some need to look again creatively at the end game.

Handicaps - I wouldn't agree with these. New players to Pitboss aren't always bad; experienced hands aren't always good. I would change the tech rules system though to allow techs from old ages to be traded freely (we just need a definition of what constitutes an old age - such as when four nations have reached the one two on e.g. classical is free from restrictions when two have entered renaissance). Argue about the details but something like this would keep a floor on the tech. Maya solved this temporarily with the voltans in BtP but a permanent, known about, solution would be better.

I am still in favor of maintaining the no-conquest rule. I don't think there is any evidence to support the fact that, by disallowing total conquest, you somehow ruin the game. The point of this rule when it was started (which was back in Civ2) was to ensure that the game doesn't deteriorate into a regular MP lobby game. As far as an example of how the games end with no-conquest; HOTWV ended with a space victory by India. There was a lot of industrial sabotage to stop them from doing this, which lead to a pretty interesting mystery as to who was behind the bombings until my ally (China/Dangime) got caught. We probably would have declared war on India to stop their SS but the game had gone on for a long time and we decided just to let it end and give Ozzy is victory. As far as I can tell there was no problem in that game at all as far as conquests or no-conquests went. I am pretty sure there have been a few other CivIV diplogames with the same rules that ended perfectly fine and don't see a reason why this should change. The only possible reason I can see for this coming up now is that certain civs in BtP were clearly bored, or never seemed to care in the first place, and some of the other civs thought it would have been better if they were conquered or had never played to begin with.

Which leads me to this...

4. Map

A more compressed map would be a help I think. Fewer players, yes probably, though I don't think that is a panecea - whatever number of players you start with you will get the same issues of interest and disinterest emerge I am sure.

I agree completely. I think we need to have a smaller map, with more oceans, less civs, and more unclaimed territory (i.e. a vibrant New World with lots of resources). This creates more room for competition, and thus more diplomacy.

5. Anonymous Log-ins

A good idea, if you ask me. OK maybe they don't need to be strictly anonymous, but I think a lot of the heat of the arguments is restricted if we can separate IG from OOC. Country related log-ins are a help to this. It means we keep IG conflicts as between the IG leaders and countries and not relate them immediately to rows in games four games ago. We should all be acting for the best interests of our civilisations, not pursuing rl vendettas etc. against individuals. Civ-related log ins helps with this.

The Priest.

I have never beena fan on anonymous log-ins. I think they are generally useless and clearly do not help with arguments or vendettas (as BtP can attest). It makes it difficult to communicate as players are trying hard to keep their identities hidden (even if when it has already become very clear who they are), so you can't really talk in IMs with them. IM conversations about diplogames have always been helpful to me, and I may be nostalgic here, but I think in the days before Anonymous log-ins came to be we had much better games with more diplomacy and a much stronger "team mentality" than we have had recently.

[Pitboss Celts]

Can someone delete this post please?

[Rasputin]

I think people who join the diplo based games have to remember that story posting and character play is part of the deal.

I understand not all want to do it and some jsut want a small part of it.

But DIPLO is Story posting and role playing. not just In game activities.

Having said that, trying to keep the stories to in game activities or subtle hints at future palns or events is what i have always tried to do.

To manage this and get some control back, i think we need to keep our posts in the time scale of the game.

Leaders do not live for a thousand years.

Meetings can not be posted about that wont happen for 100 years in the future.

So many of the posts in BtP were out of sync in time.

keep them in sync keeps them in line with the game and may keep interest up.

[St Jon]

I thought, from what I had read, that Diplo was a Game around a story such that you might not simply creep up and attack without having built a rationale up for it openly. From what I read the story was the most importent thing.

I may be wrong.

[deity]

Diplo is diplomacy first, story second.

It is NOT a role playing game.

It is a diplo game.

The stories can get out of hand which kills game dynamics. Take care with this discussion. I am an old hand and have a good lateral overview and historical perspective.

A diplo purist approach is fine if ALL players are roughly equal in their diplomacy and role playing.

OTHERWISE listen to what I'm saying for the sake of getting a good, interesting and dynamic game with full involvement by all.

A top level thread is essential to distill the dipolomacy. The great writers we have who get deep into the history and role playing of their civ need to create a link to a detailed story thread for optional reading. It may result in more getting read!

The great writers also have the ability to distill their story/diplomacy for the top level thread.

Come on let's compromise here.

[The Capo]

I agree with deity. The diplomacy is more important than the storylines. What I try to do in my stories is give different perspectives on issues. For instance you may notice many of my characters will have differing viewpoints on a subject. The characters are there to represent an outlook on a particular issue and when they discuss a topic, or when there is a "scene" in my story it is basically a narrative on my own thoughts on the issue. So you'll see a character who would be pro-Greek for example and a character who was pro-Maya (or sometimes anti-Greek or anti-Maya to use an example from BtP). These characters would discuss the different decisions I, as a player, would have to make. Its like an inner-monologue set to a scene with the characters representing advocates for decisions I had to make as the leader.

Sometimes I use them to display international issues. If you remember I had Harald Hardrada and Jumong discussing the war against Rome. If you remember that post at all I had Harald representing the call towards war against Rome while Jumong was representing the more isolationist approach. My stories always attempt to augment my diplomacy, even if something seems long and drawn out (the civil war between Wonsan and Seoul) they are there to explain a change (the rise of the peasants). This has traditionally been the purpose of the stories in diplogames. Not so much to "roleplay" but to give an explanation for what is happening within my empire.

Having said that, I don't know if there is a way to legislate equality in diplomacy and story-telling. Some players will naturally be stronger in one area than they are in another. I don't think an individual thread for stories (no less a "top level" thread) is necessary, or as you put it "essential." I think part of the problem we had in BtP was that many players didn't fully realize what they were getting into, many players posted which lead to a large amount of posts which made them daunting to read, and then of course there was competition for the story-vote which prompted players to attempt to out-do one-another. I am quite confident that with around ten players per game this will make the story-thread easier to deal with. I will also do my part to attempt to keep my stories shorter .

[bamf226]

deity, are you proposing that people post in two separate threads if they want to write a detailed history and story?

[St Jon]

Would there be a winner at the end?

If winning the game is considered meaningful, I assume it must be or there would be no motivation to try, then there must be some weighting to even the playing field. Playing 'kill or be killed' or SP is very different. It is quite possible to stop short of killing a Civ but leave it totally impotent. This has happened in BtP and if only 'end game' victory conditions count you will have quitters. People also will get duff starts which will leave players disheartened, even on a custom World it will rarely be truly equal, and lose interest.

I realise you are an 'old hand' deity, and respect you for it, but while BtP is my first CivIV MP game ever I have played a very large number of other MP games. I will write little stories in a straight PBEM Thread to justify what I am doing and why I am doing it. I like story telling, even though BtP is the first game I have played where you got points for it, as it adds a little bit of flavour to what would otherwise just be a straight war-game.

[mzprox]

I agree that emphasis should be first on diplomacy then on storytelling, but both are important (most of the diplomacy happens in PMs anyway).

I think we should change the voting system a bit. No need the 3 categories: story-diplo-military it's too hard to get a good picture of these anyway especially if you are not involved. I think a single score would be better: you can decide who you reward with your points and why: can be interesting story, great diplomatic/military achievement whatever..

In diplogames winning is not my first priority (I'm subbing Japan.. ), but it wouldnt be the last either a good balance needed. I think it's the actual top players' responsibility to do something to keep the game more interesting. Instead of sitting home and building the spaceship (while the backward civs cant do anything with their macemen against the top players' stealth bombers.. ) they could plot against each other, do charity missions to help those less fortunate civs etc.

I also think that we should help the less advanced civs time to time but it should be objective and with exact rules. (and no handicap system, especially not some subjective deciding before we start the game)

Some technical things:
If we choose to use a mod, and if these are possible i would like to see the following changes:

-Hidden scores- i think it's too artificial to see how strong your opponent is by looking at the lower right corner. The game would be more interesting without it.

-Higher maintainance for cities after some point (in current game there are empires which are simply too huge. They are researching modern techs in a few turns and i think that's bad.

-Using complete mods? I'm fine with it but it should be finished and well tested

[deity]

deity, are you proposing that people post in two separate threads if they want to write a detailed history and story?

Yes. You could post they key stuff in the main diplo/story thread and then post detailed stories in another thread. You could easily provide a hyperlink from your top level post to the relevant detailed post/s.

Basically this structure allows you to post as much as you like in the detailed thread.