New diplo game: big discussion needed

[St Jon]

There are truth's and logic behind what both of you are saying but I think the Turn before war has to be considered. In MP it actually isn't merely the 'quickest to click' as the game is still sequential. You cannot move your unit before it turns green. The Turn is still there it is just that by mid-game you miss it because so much is happening around you. A double-move is still illegal just much harder to detect.

Cyber's description of the naval attack is the most confusing of all to deal with as it only matters early to mid-game. Movement ranges for Transports and Destroyers are so huge that unless the defender has a very large fleet on really quite distant off-shore patrol there is no way - double move or not - that they will detect the invasion fleet approaching. Land war is different, particularly early game, as that 1 turn can make or break a defender's chances. You still need a 6hr Rule or you could have the situation where one player game actually time another player by delaying their move.

[Robert]

You wrote in a post "I booted Capo from the game" or something along those lines.

This is what Maya asked:

Permission to play koreas turn?

There is about an hour left on the timer.

If he has a pass, I will need it.

@ Capo: I hope you do not take offense to this. I know I said I would quit if you do, but right now there isn't any other game going on. If you miss this turn, our war is severely compromised.

to which I responded:

CyberShy: @Maya: you can play Korea's turn now. Maybe that's the best solution till we have a perm-solution.

I have kicked him from the game (saved first) so you can grab his civ now. That's the only way to get into his civ without his password.

Since you weren't playing your turn and Korea and Maya were at war with Sparta, and everybody (including me) agreed that Sparta should not wage a war against an unplayed Korea, we finally, after expressing many times (see links in last post) that we prefered you to continue playing, decided to allow Maya to play your turns, at least till you returned or we found a sub. I even made a save to undo this if you would show up.

So you were not kicked from the game, I only gave the Maya the possibility to move your units to avoid me having an advantage against Korea while you weren't playing.

[Robert]

Capo: The three judges did not judge if our rule was a good rule or not, they judged if your action and my action were within our rules. They judged that according to our rules yours was within the rules and mine wasn't.

That doesn't mean that these judges expressed their opinion on the issue if the turn should or should not be incorporated in the rule.
It's as with politicians and (real) judges. The politicians make the rules and the judges decide if the rules were obeyed. Judges have (as a judge) no opinion on the question if it's a good or a bad rule.

I know that you are against including this pre-war turn, but my question is: why?
I get the idea that you don't want to only because of the situation we had 2 months ago. But that is totally unrelated. You did nothing wrong when you made that double move, and if we change the rule now then you still didn't do an illegal double rule. If we change the rules for the future then those rules do not apply to the past.

[bamf226]

I know you guys are throwing a lot of energy into the double move stuff. I want to add some comments about another issue I have with BtP. I really don't like the voting aspect. There is so much going on in the game that to read through all of the posts to vote on story, diplomacy and military is a bit much. I realize that determining a winner based on victory conditions alone in the game isn't very fun for the "noobies". The "vets" will win pretty much every time. However, the "vets" are pretty much running away with the voting in BtP.

The main issue I have in voting is the story aspect. I don't have time to write stories about what's going on, inventing characters and scenarios to populate the threads. I'm all for talking to neighbors and plotting things out. If people want to write stories, go right ahead. Don't let the writing or lack of determine who wins a game.

Diplomacy in most cases is a private matter between nations. Voting for diplomacy is difficult to do unless you are diplomatic involved with all nations. Again, without time to read every post and pick out diplomatic situations made public, it is difficult to make a vote.

The only thing that is easily discernible in-game is military. It is easy to see what is happening by reviewing the logs. Not all people play a militaristic game though. Yet another piece of voting that is not fair to all.

What is a good system for determining a victor other than in-game criteria? I don't know. To me voting doesn't seem to even the field for the vets and the new guys and therefore the new guys can give up halfway through.

[St Jon]

I know you guys are throwing a lot of energy into the double move stuff. I want to add some comments about another issue I have with BtP. I really don't like the voting aspect. There is so much going on in the game that to read through all of the posts to vote on story, diplomacy and military is a bit much. I realize that determining a winner based on victory conditions alone in the game isn't very fun for the "noobies". The "vets" will win pretty much every time. However, the "vets" are pretty much running away with the voting in BtP.

The main issue I have in voting is the story aspect. I don't have time to write stories about what's going on, inventing characters and scenarios to populate the threads. I'm all for talking to neighbors and plotting things out. If people want to write stories, go right ahead. Don't let the writing or lack of determine who wins a game.

Diplomacy in most cases is a private matter between nations. Voting for diplomacy is difficult to do unless you are diplomatic involved with all nations. Again, without time to read every post and pick out diplomatic situations made public, it is difficult to make a vote.

The only thing that is easily discernible in-game is military. It is easy to see what is happening by reviewing the logs. Not all people play a militaristic game though. Yet another piece of voting that is not fair to all.

What is a good system for determining a victor other than in-game criteria? I don't know. To me voting doesn't seem to even the field for the vets and the new guys and therefore the new guys can give up halfway through.

I think this is incorrect as can be seen from the historic voting patterns. Korea, sadly departed, was never a great power. Indeed in any other sense iof the game it was a total loser having poor land, hemmed in by 2 major powers and teching at a snail's pace. You look at the points gained via story-telling and under the BtP scoring system it was doing incredibly well. Compare that with much stronger powers which don't put in the same effort into constructing amazing posts and you see the impact. Japan, another minnow, Seems to have always been involved - in one way or another - and though rather tainted by the last players expilsion for cheating - nobody could have accused him of losing interest. Greece, still only a petty distant 4th in game score, is joint leader in BtP. Diplomacy is much harder to jusdge but the pts will come also from the behind the scenes negotiations and plotting and planning as well as public announcements. Like real life, what you say in public very often has little to do with what you are actually doing. Military is easiest but it's not just winning and losing a war it's also how well you did with what you had and how good the plan was, even if it failed.

There hasn't been any action on the Meduian continent in centuries therefore very little to write about and no pts to be gained for diplomacy or military. If you are content to sit and do nothing then you cannot expect to prosper, in game or via the BtP scoring system, so really the choice is there for the players to make. If nothing is happening and you are going nowhere then it is down to you to make something happen. I would be bored rigid playing as some choose to do but you have try and do the best you can with what you've got. I repeat - if it's boring and nothing is happening then just MAKE it happen - you then get something to write about and get in some diplo and military as well.

[bamf226]

Where did you get that I was complaining of boredom? The people winning in the voting system are those that have time and energy to write a book. Those that don't, regardless of continent, don't stand a chance at winning. If you aren't one of the storytellers, you have no chance at winning. Even if someone never said anything at all and won the game on a space victory, that person doesn't "win" because he (or she I suppose) never got any votes.

[St Jon]

Where did you get that I was complaining of boredom? The people winning in the voting system are those that have time and energy to write a book. Those that don't, regardless of continent, don't stand a chance at winning. If you aren't one of the storytellers, you have no chance at winning. Even if someone never said anything at all and won the game on a space victory, that person doesn't "win" because he (or she I suppose) never got any votes.

Then play 'Kill or be Killed'! Very simple, but even in a straightforward PBEM I love the stories. OK it's not the same as a diplo-game but it is much more fun if you are playing a character not just a login name for Poly. Probably my age but I grew up playing board games and RPG games and you had to build your own stories or the game was just rolling dice. You didn't have clever game designers and advanced AI, come to think of it you didn't have PC's!

It's a matter of what you actually like doing. I will happily play 'Kill or be Killed' and it's a lot more straightforward as all that matters is the end game score/winner. None of the weaker Civs in BtP would have have existed for over 3-5 centuries if that was the case in a diplo-game. They do and some make a good contribution to the fun of the game. There are other games out there if that is what you like, sadly fewer than there are people who wish to play, but you do have a choice.

[Robert]

I think bamf226 raises some very valid points.

[St Jon]

Joint 1st in BtP scoring are 2nd and 4th in Power. In my positon, I can't win either way, what point is there for me to bother to continue? In any MP game, regardless of skill, you will get dumped in a hopeless starting position sometimes. Nothing you really can do as your rivals around you grow larger and qucker than you do. Simple in 'Kill or be Killed' - you will be conquered and whether or not you quit makes no diffrence to the result.

How do you make the game interesting for the lesser powers if only a conventional win holds any merit? True, why are players who do nothing and are going nowhere not allowed to be eliminated?

I don't think it that unfair as story-telling is only 25% but so are Military and Diplomacy. If you do nothing at all then you cannot gain any votes. If your Diplomacy is done by PM/email it will still gain you votes and even if you want to sit quietly and research your space-ship you will have to deal with Military as nobody is just going to let you happily move along to victory without some attempt to stop you.

[bamf226]

It's a matter of what you actually like doing. I will happily play 'Kill or be Killed' and it's a lot more straightforward as all that matters is the end game score/winner. None of the weaker Civs in BtP would have have existed for over 3-5 centuries if that was the case in a diplo-game. They do and some make a good contribution to the fun of the game. There are other games out there if that is what you like, sadly fewer than there are people who wish to play, but you do have a choice.

Kill or be Killed is not my play style. This is why I don't play normal multi-player. I hate that people turned Civ into a War game. Civ is not all about wiping out the world. I came into BtP for a different experience, one that I have been satisfied with thus far. I think diplo gaming is where I fit in because it is Civ in it's purest form. I don't have to worry about the AI bullying nor other players. If I get attacked, so be it. However, I know that it's not just about who can amass the biggest army and march across the fields.

Apparently I have offended you FF in suggesting that a different scoring mechanism be utilized. This isn't about play style or type of game, but a better way to determine a winner that doesn't require secret ballots. I would like to know I stand a chance at winning as a non-vet and without developing an alternate universe. That isn't to say that one should never create stories to explain what is going on. Yes it is fun to see what others are up to. However, I got the sense that story became more important than the game. I think some folks are trying to get a publishing deal out of this with such lengthy and detailed stories and pictures. All that can certainly add to the game. Too much can hinder the game.

[bamf226]

I don't think it that unfair as story-telling is only 25% but so are Military and Diplomacy. If you do nothing at all then you cannot gain any votes. If your Diplomacy is done by PM/email it will still gain you votes and even if you want to sit quietly and research your space-ship you will have to deal with Military as nobody is just going to let you happily move along to victory without some attempt to stop you.

Diplomacy with a couple people might net you a few votes where storytime can net you oodles of votes. Yes, it is 25% of the score, and that is 25% someone can be missing out on because they aren't good story tellers or prefer to play the game instead of creating a new universe.

I know that I won't win BtP and wouldn't stand a chance even if I did write a bunch of stories. Why am I still playing? Because I want to. I'm watching myself creep up the score ladder. How high will I get? I don't know. If I can get to the top half, I'll be proud of myself.

The point is, voting isn't a perfect system and shows favoritism to a particular group playing (at least the current system does). Is there a better way to handle it? I don't know.

[Robert]

I think that we should refrain from commenting on the votes of the current game, just because it's still running. We should defenitely evaluate it after we're done.

But in general I'd say that every winner-determining system will have it's flaws.
Like it's not possible to be among the 'best players' in every game as well.
And sometimes a goal apart from winning the entire game can be interesting as well. Korea, despite being a smaller nation, was on it's road to success in the story telling category.

I feel bad about now winning this category. Korea pushed me to keep coming up with ideas for new stories and story styles.

Diplomacy is hard indeed. Much diplomacy happens behind closed doors.
Though it should be possible to see which civs are apparently good diplomats despite knowing what's exactly happening. If you see that civ x gains his goals without warmongering then that's a sign that he's most probably doing some pretty good behind the scenes diploing.

But perhaps it's too hard to cast detailed and thought through votes every month for that many players. I still think it's a nice system, but not perfect. I doubt that we'll ever find a perfect system though.

In the end I think we should evaluate it after this game is over, then we can speak up about the votes, about fair or unfair votes, etc. We should no do that while the game is running because we then start to influence each other's votes.

[St Jon]

So bamf226 are you actually in BtP?

You haven't in any way offended me, please I am no Vet as BtP is my 1st MP CivIV game ever of any kind, Also, I am by nature a builder rather than a conquerer, so I want time and space to exploit and build up a viable Civ without wasteful early bloodlust. If I had been in from the start I would have asked for an island start and let the rest of the world ignore me for a millennia.

If you cannot allow Civ's to be eliminated then you can never truly secure a border. If your neighbour wants nothing other than you have already seized then the only option is to take some more. You end up with a totally emasculated Civ that has no hope and therefore no interest. Why not just let them be killed?

[The Capo]

If you cannot allow Civ's to be eliminated then you can never truly secure a border. If your neighbour wants nothing other than you have already seized then the only option is to take some more. You end up with a totally emasculated Civ that has no hope and therefore no interest. Why not just let them be killed?

There is a good reason for this, the first one is that we want the game to progress to the end of time. Or in a simpler sense; we want to play the game out to the end (through all eras). Because it gives each player a period of time to dominate - if you don't do so well in the ancient era maybe you can pick up the slack in the medieval or renaissance era with a new strategy and new "leaders" with a new government in place. You can form a new national identity. If a civ is getting stomped and replaced it is not unheard of in past games for them to receive land, techs and alliances when the new player arrives so they can be reformed into a viable civ again. This always occures with plenty of politics. If you read through BtP's threads you'll see players mentioning their PM box being full, or telling eachother their PM boxes are full. You can literally see the diplomacy happening, in the threads and in the PM boxes. People spread rumors and false information behind the scenes as well, as I have seen it happening myself (and possibly engaged on such behavior). So there is plenty of evidence of diplomacy occuring, its very apparent and is usually easier to vote on than military or story-posts (because its a lot more obvious who is winning the diplomatic side of things). In fact I think the diplomacy aspect is the strongest in these games, more than storylines and military.

So by leaving all civs open what you are furthering diplomacy. Unless of course the civ is just chopped into parts and doled out. I think its always the duty of the players to get the civ replaced and, in time, viable.

[bamf226]

So bamf226 are you actually in BtP?

You haven't in any way offended me, please I am no Vet as BtP is my 1st MP CivIV game ever of any kind, Also, I am by nature a builder rather than a conquerer, so I want time and space to exploit and build up a viable Civ without wasteful early bloodlust. If I had been in from the start I would have asked for an island start and let the rest of the world ignore me for a millennia.

I am in BtP, although I'll refrain from identifying my Civ. I've probably said to much already. I think you and I are the same type of player.