The Dance of Civilizations [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread Pt1]

[Robert]

But maybe there are in the end only two categories in games like this, role playing and gamescore. And we could give role playing a weight of 60% and gamescore a weight of 40%.

[Rasputin]

But maybe there are in the end only two categories in games like this, role playing and gamescore. And we could give role playing a weight of 60% and gamescore a weight of 40%.

, even the storys voting is biased , becaue some love pics and the back storys , some hate forigen language. . will never be perfect

[Robert]

Well, following the logic of The Priest, if we vote on role playing/story telling, we all vote on the same knowledge.
If it's about attitude/military/diplomacy, none of us know the entire picture.

The fact that different players rate on different criteria is not the problem, according to The Priest (and others). Their problem is that we vote while we all lack information.

[India (DoC)]

For the first session I left diplo and attitude scores at default 4 for all civs. For diplo I don't think I will give less than 4 (unless someone won't check our pm diplo letters for forever ) and I will reward diploamtic accomplishments. As for attitude: I see it more like a punishing tool.. and I'm too nice (but maybe not forever )

[India (DoC)]

Us all liking different things is one thing, but if one player gives out lots of 1s and 2s if it doesn't know you have been doing anything interesting, while others see 4 as default and give a bonus one or two to the odd nation, its going to be very distorted.

Those who give 1s and 2s will get potentialy better position than those who give 4s-7s, It's quite easy to see, but I don't think we can do anything about it. ( I still won't give low score-except you deserve it )

[Rasputin]

wel ldone natives,

[Persia (DoC)]

I also use attitude for penalty or reward. It's a 4 for civs where nothing special happened. If a civ loses a war but stays cool and won't start an ooc fight, they can expect a good attitude rating from me. And if they do start a fight, I'll give them a bad attitude rating.
Same with the victor civs, if they push too far and crumble smaller civs, I'll hit them with the attitude stick. But if they're offering acceptable peace turns, I'll reward them.

I don't think we should judge the system based on 1 month. I should grow over time.
I'm happy that I go a very very good story rating! That's in the end more important to me! Thanks all!


edit: I removed the whining

[Persia (DoC)]

I just realized that the score-vote we did last week was really really bad for me!
I am 4th on average rating and 10th (!!) on score-points!

That stupid rule change made me drop 6 places! I'm glad that I abstained

[Rome (DoC)]

Yeah,

I earned more votes too. I should be first by now

[Orb (DoC)]

I also use attitude for penalty or reward. It's a 4 for civs where nothing special happened. If a civ loses a war but stays cool and won't start an ooc fight, they can expect a good attitude rating from me. And if they do start a fight, I'll give them a bad attitude rating.
Same with the victor civs, if they push too far and crumble smaller civs, I'll hit them with the attitude stick. But if they're offering acceptable peace turns, I'll reward them.

To me it's a way to compensate in-game wrongs.
That's also why I was a but disappointed for getting a low attitude myself.
I tried to be very reasonable and fair towards both Russia and Britannia, but I fear that I got a low attitude rating from many civs only because I was stronger.
The truth is that Russia got a settler and military help to compensate their loss, and Britannia got 2 workers and military help to compensate their bad luck. My civ would be more advanced now if I would have just been bold to them. I would most probably have received the same low attitude score anyway.

But now I gave away 2 workers and 1 settler to smaller civs to help them to compensate their bad luck! (which is quite a huge gift at this stage of the game!!!) And I sent many armies to help them. But I got one of the lowest attitude scores
If anybody can explain that to me, please do.

But I won't complain, this is the system. Perhaps next month I'll be lucky.
I don't think we should judge the system based on 1 month. I should grow over time.
I'm happy that I go a very very good story rating! That's in the end more important to me! Thanks all!

If it makes you feel any better I gave you a high attitude score

[Persia (DoC)]

Thanks Britannia.
I've removed the whining from my own post, maybe you can remove it from your quote of me

It was a moment of weakness. I'm sorry.

[Mali (DoC)]

But maybe there are in the end only two categories in games like this, role playing and gamescore. And we could give role playing a weight of 60% and gamescore a weight of 40%.

[Rome (DoC)]

always one more than you!



(I do agree that Mr. Plomp is not on the right track, by the way... just boredom here)

[Rasputin]

always one more than you!



(I do agree that Mr. Plomp is not on the right track, by the way... just boredom here)

perhpas jsut drop the voting all together and go with only in game score ?

[Rasputin]

Well, following the logic of The Priest, if we vote on role playing/story telling, we all vote on the same knowledge.
If it's about attitude/military/diplomacy, none of us know the entire picture.

The fact that different players rate on different criteria is not the problem, according to The Priest (and others). Their problem is that we vote while we all lack information.

Anyway, here are the vote statistics. (the avg rates every civ gave to others)



NB: the ratings from Russia and England have not been included yet in any of the rating statistics! I'll wait for them (WarningU2 has to send them to me) before I'll publish anything new.

i see persia compalining about a low Attitude vote but he has one of the higher ones, so what is the problem ?