New diplo game: big discussion needed

[Robert]

Why are 18 players too many?

[classical_hero]

Well first of we had a few players who did not post that often, which meant we had some players who were not really into what a Diplogame is all about. Also it means that the land is limited, but we could have done a bit better whit the placing of players in the game to help that. 18 players is a massive task to get all the egos into check and that did not happen in this game, which is why I would rather see it only a large game, rather than a huge game.

[St Jon]

I would rather see a game where people tried rather than lament bad land or lack of resourse. Not anyone wins every time in a game - diplo civ or any other - and you must make your own luck. You will probably lose but it should still be fun. Nobody would play solitaire if they knew that they would always clear the deck and the harder the challenge the greater the satisfaction if you do prevail.

This is something we do in our spare time and therefore must be fun or why else bother? I play pool with players I know to be better than I am but that does not stop me going to the pub for a game. In a game that might last a year rather than an evening with friends knocking some balls around it is even more important that it is fun.

[Robert]

@The Capo: I agree, defenitely no cap on diplomacy, only a cap on stories.

@ch: unfotunately not everyone is as much involved into the story telling and diplomacy, but I doubt that that has to do with the number of players. All games I've been in had more active players and less active players. The number of players never really mattered.

[Black Knight 427]

So if there is a cap on stories what would you say the cap would be?

[OzzyKP]

I think a cap on players would have the direct effect of limiting the number of stories, and would make more sense than a post limit.

[Black Knight 427]

What if you have someone who likes to write a lot about nothing? Even with a cap on the players a cap on stories is not a bad idea.

[deity]

Set a date...

Just a heads up I'll be overseas on holiday from August 12 till Sept 30.

I will have a laptop, Civ installed and global wireless roaming (possibly).

I can not guarantee I can play each day in this period but am happy to line up a sub and liase via MSN/email. Marcus would be ideal for this if he is interested. I think he will be playing the next game.

I think those still in the current BTP game will want a break before starting a new one but there are lots of players hot to trot now. So I think we should only have a one month break maximum and get the new game underway.

BTP should finish by end of June I'd say.

A lot of this depends on our host of course

[Robert]

I think a cap on players would have the direct effect of limiting the number of stories, and would make more sense than a post limit.

We had only a few people post stories this game, certainly not 18, and it was considered too much already.

Not to mention that I'd rather have 18 players with less lengthy stories then fewer players with very lengthy stories.

[St Jon]

We had only a few people post stories this game, certainly not 18, and it was considered too much already.

Not to mention that I'd rather have 18 players with less lengthy stories then fewer players with very lengthy stories.

I agree here. If we have the Cyber-Score System, I see nothing wrong with it, then Story-Telling is part of the Game. Even on a Custom Map there have been radical differences based, not on ability but on starting point. It's all very subjective but if you just go by the PowerGraph then why waste time on Diplo anyway.

3 of the top 4 players in BtP, PowerGraph wise, are very experienced in Pitboss and very competent players. That is not reflected in the BtP score where 2 of them are just also-ran's and will be beaten now by much weaker or less fortunate IG players.

The problem with posts is not quantity but quality. There are, or were, only 6 players who regularly posted anything. It is impossible to post, unless you have a wild and deranged mind like Capo, to write brilliant tales when nothing is happening! You cannot though, deny me the right to refute a piece of outrageous progoganda directed at me on the Thread due to having exceeded my post count for the month. That happens when something is happening IG because the Thread is also something we can use to influence events and manipulate the way others see us.

[The Priest]

My tu'pence worth:

I don't think you can distinguish between story and diplo posts. I never post anything without intending it to have an effect on the other players. Its all diplo. Nor can I see how a cap on posts works (as St Jon points out). People just need to make sure they use their votes to encourage what they want.

I am also unconvinced that there is a particular need to have fewer players than 18. What we all want is players who are active. I suppose it makes sense that you are more likely to find a smaller number of players that are active, but think we are kidding ourselves if we think that a smaller number will, of itself, mean more active players.

The way of ensuring active players is:

a. Adjust the tech rules so that old techs don't need vouchers (old to be defined but something like from era X when a third of the nations have entered era X+2). Something like this so that nations don't fall too far behind.

b. See how many active players we have who want to play, and have that number in the game (wheter 7 or 17).

c. Have some mechanism for replacing players who aren't really taking part.

I know C might be heresy, but I think that the expectation that everyone who starts should finish is unrealistic. Say in BtP - Hereclitus did a great job as Rome. Rome's success in BtP such as it is is a joint effort of Hereclitus and The Priest. We should make that kind of transition acceptable and honourable rather than being all about 'dropping out'. How about a 'check point' each time you enter a new era - at which you have to post whether you want to carry on, or whether its time you stood back and let someone else take over?

In fact, if you really want to keep everyone involved, we should redistribute all the nations every 75 turns (or so). The current points scoring system could basically be kept but the score is linked to the player not the nation (and the 'score' points would have to be the gain or loss in points ranking during that period - so taking over a low ranking nation and improving its score by 2 is as good as a high ranking nation moving from 3 to 1).

I know most folks wouldn't like it since there is fun in building up a nation over the long term, and it would mess up long term alliances perhaps. But it would ensure that nobody though the game wasn't worth playing any more. And it could be fun, taking over new countries, trying to pursue appropriate policies etc.

[OzzyKP]

Very good points. I agree about the changes to the tech trading rules. I agree about making it easier to switch players in and out. I think it is important though to have multiple games and enough players so that people who are interested in diplogaming don't have to sit on their hands if they leave the game they are in. There would be other available games to switch into.

As for the nation redistribution thing... sounds like it could be fun and interesting. I play the Fall from Heaven II mod and there is an option in there called High to Low where once your civ gets in first place you automatically switch to controlling the last place civ. It is a hell of a lot of fun. I'm not sure nation redistribution would be a good standard rule for these games, but I think it would be fun to try. It would certainly shake things up.

[St Jon]

I don't like the idea of swapping Civs. I do like the rest of Priest's ideas and it would especially help people who do take on badly managed Civs mid-game. We still have people wandering around with Pikemen whilst others are throwing Modern Armour at eachother.

[Black Knight 427]

Priest has some good ideas but I'm not a big fan of that whole switching civs idea.

[Robert]

I like The Priest's idea about tech rule addition.
Replacing players should indeed not be much of a problem and perhaps happen more often. (and sooner)

I don't like the civ switching either. But I know that some people like it, perhaps an idea for a game for people who like that.

Regarding the story-cap, I understand that it's hard to have a cap because of unexpected circumstances. I'm sure that we can find solutions for that. But he bottom line is that we should not have an unreasonable ammount of stories people have to read.

Regarding the story system, I think that we should have the 4th category remember the positions every month, so that a civ that was big first and destroyed later (like Maya) won't end up with empty hands.