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

[Rasputin]

fortuanlty i not playing to win in any category, but seems that a lot of civs changed the way they vote for korea compared to how they vote for all other civs. you may not like my stiyle of voting but it is the same for all the civs, i dont change it agaisnt another civ.

so voiting me low doesnt make me change but it does show how petty some of you are in voting korea much lower than others.

people should vote using whatver sysmte they want provided it is consistent for all civs.

[St Jon]

BtP scoring was imperfect - to say the least - but it is intriguing how different people value different things. Lots of pretty pictures and nothing to say or an essay. We have even had some sonnets and eulogies, not to mention the blank verse, chucked in as well!

Raz, you are wrong about Diplomacy. By its' very nature the best diplomacy is done behind closed doors or what would it be worth? Story is so subjective that it just comes down to what people like. Game attitude can mean anything from being a bellicose git ready to start an Org Thread argument to just playing every Turn. Priest is right about Military, mainly, but again it becomes very subjective in a Diplo type setting whereas in a straight game it is nothing more than who won or lost. Which is better?

I had thought all this nonsense had been dealt with before we started anyway, so why are people bleating now?

[Russia (DoC)]

Bleating is what Raz enjoys most.

[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.

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 ?

Just for the record, the chart you included shows the ratings civs have give to others. Not the ratings civs received from others.
In this graph Persia gave away a heigh attitude rating.

Please no misunderstanding about my charts

[Robert]

fortuanlty i not playing to win in any category, but seems that a lot of civs changed the way they vote for korea compared to how they vote for all other civs. you may not like my stiyle of voting but it is the same for all the civs, i dont change it agaisnt another civ.

so voiting me low doesnt make me change but it does show how petty some of you are in voting korea much lower than others.

people should vote using whatver sysmte they want provided it is consistent for all civs.

And thus for the record again, This chart doesn't show that Korea received low ratings, it shows that Korea gave away low ratings.

Please no misundestanding about my charts

[Ottoman Empire (DoC)]

Ok, some clarification please.

Is original Russia back?

I know at one point there was a replacement (who's character was VERY different from oiriginal Russia) and the replacement was proposing deals and actions which I don't know if I should act on or not in fairness to the original Russia.

Is there a way we can differentiate between the two?

Is there also no rule that says a sub can't make any major strategy shifts for the civ?

Very confusing...

[Robert]

It still says "Russia (sub)" at civstats.
As far as I know Russia's 1st sub will return October 19th. Right now Ozzy is subbing.
Original may or may not return at the end of the month. That's not sure.

If subs can or cannot do major stuff depends on their agreements with the original owner. If the sub is going his own way then we should consider that as if suddenly someone else took charge in the country.

[Robert]

deleted.

[Mali (DoC)]

Guess I need to rethink how I score diplomacy from here on out. I thought 4 was the neutral rating for civs that haven't been encountered. Seeing as I've only met India and Native Americans, I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that neither of them gave me low diplomacy scores. My enthusiasm for this game just hit the ground.

[Russia (DoC)]

GOOOO RUSSSSSSSSIAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

(mali, 1 month down. many more to come. take it as a challenge to beat the mighty Russians in diplomacy and storytelling )

wheel, deal, steal, threaten, bluster, plot, rot, knot and deceive. make friends of your enemies and enemies of your friends, then brag about it in the story thread. if you haven't met more civs, perhaps that should be a priority, build some chariots for exploration and send them to the four corners of the earth. or galleys if you're seabased. use your internal politics to influence your external politics. (i.e. your stories should blend and mesh with other nations' stories). that's what I try to do and it seems to be working.

[Robert]

I've looked at the Mali stats, it's two civs that gave very low diplo score numbers to everyone.
Mali's problem is that it only met 2 civs which made it harder for the Mali to compensate the low diplo rates it received from civs it had not even met yet.

Looking at the stats of all >4 civs (on diplomacy), they're all hit by the 1's and occasional 2 of two civs without getting enough positive ratings from others (mainly 4's).

I'm eager to just remove the ratings handed out by these two civs.
They disballance the entire rating system.

Al alternative solution is that every player will also receive the avg rating he handed to others as an extra rating. Maybe a combination of both. (b/c this solution won't help the Mali and other low-receiving civs)

Anyway, people, hand out fair ratings please!
People are investing in this game. It's really dissapointing to receive something you do not deserve.

A 4 (FOUR) is the basic rating you give out if you have no knowledge or think the other performed average.
1,2 or 3 is when somone performed poorly and an 4,5,6 is when someone performed very good.

That's the system. You can define yourself what's good and what's poor, but handing out 1's to almost everyone or, <4 to everyone is really not good sportsmanship.

[OzzyKP]

Awesome graphs/stats, CS.

[England (DoC)]

AGREED!!!

A 4 (FOUR) is the basic rating you give out if you have no knowledge or think the other performed average.

That is what I do. 4 is the min rate I give out. I have no idea why would someone rate below 4 someone they have never met.

[Rasputin]

AGREED!!!



That is what I do. 4 is the min rate I give out. I have no idea why would someone rate below 4 someone they have never met.

if you want 4 as the minimum then why do we have avaialble 1-3 votes...

the minimum vote should be a minimum vote not a middle of the score rank.

if thatwas how things ahd been set up then we would not be having this discusion now.

rating syasmte should not e 1-7 if people using 4 as minumim

why not lets do the vote again with a 1-5 rating. 1 being minimum for bad or no diplo wityh anyone showing better attitude or storys or diplo scoring higher than 1 upto a high of 5

if we stay as is then the follwoing applies.
people seem to think i only gave low scores to civs i have not met. I rated everyone by what i see in the storys, how other people react to you.

you want more than my below 4 vote then make sure others react to you.

i will not give a civ civ 4 jsut because i see nothing about them. that would be giving a bonus to some civs jsut because i havent spoken to them and experience their diplo towards me. that quiet civ may be the worst diplo civ in game , but by keeping it quiet and only tlaking to a couple of civs getting 4s from everyone.

[Toni]

Well said