Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]

[Robert]

Just waiting here to give people a chance to signup.
No progress on the no-score mod yet.

But it seems like some people want to continue to include the score...

[Robert]

Just waiting here to give people a chance to signup.
No progress on the no-score mod yet.

But it seems like some people want to continue to include the score...

[Hercules]

I 'm in favour of the no score mode option.

[Dubhghlas]

I'm in favor of a game, score or no score.

[Black Knight 427]

I'm in favor of a game, score or no score.

[Rempedaalops]

Same here, score or no-score, whatever the majority prefers

[Hercules]

Whatever for this game, I think we need to sort out the no score mod option.

[Robert]

I'll try it asap.
I now have a pitboss server running on two servers. So I need to figure out how to run 2 pitboss servers on 1 server so that I can test it. And in the meanwhile I'm working on Apolyton 2.0, and pretty busy with other stuff, so it's not going to happen really soon. BUt there are a couple of free days coming up! (Queen's day, liberation day, ascention day, pentecost)

[The Priest]

I'm in.


My thoughts about rules and settings:

The rule set we developed in DoC generally worked very well, together of course with people's attitude and commitment.

But there are a few situation/possible rule changes which I think are worth pondering.

1. I think the game would be made more fun if nations could choose to go down paths which might not bring them in-game victory but which have a real logic to them and would be fun. For example someone focusing just on one city, making it into the switzerland of the world (or vatican state). One city can be wealthy and prosperous, and ok in science, but is never going to win in any fashion. But that 'neutral state' status could make it great in diplomacy. Or a nation could decide to become some great naval power based on its island base. Some players may wish to aim for something like this from the start - to give a different game. Others may mind that after a bit they are clearly not going to win in game, and so focus on another goal.

If we want to encourage this and make it a real option, then we should (a) remove any score component from the overall points calculations and (b) if we can remove any visibility of in-game score. Then everyone is freed up to play creatively throughout the game regardless of how they are doing in-game (after all if there are 16 players, only a quarter can be in the top 4! and on past performance it doesn't change much from mid-game onwards).


2. We want the game to be as open as possible to new players. It seems that in DoC the tech trading rules didn't really achieve this. Some seemed to make them work well in their favour (nothing wrong in that), others understood the vouchers but didn't make that much of the free trade stuff, some according to what they said themselves weren't confident they understood the voucher stuff and so suffered.

I wonder if we should try no tech trading. Or, only the free tech trading in the way we had it in DoC. It feels a bit like the double-move in wartime. Previously there were all sorts of rules about allowed after x hours etc. but in the end we were better to cut through the complexity and just ban it.


3. I think that there is a problem with secret unit gifting. Generally there is a rough and ready but good system preventing large nations attacking small ones. If Byzantium attacked the Greeks in DOC it woudl have been thought bad and other large nations would/should have stepped in. If the arabs attack the greeks, in general that is fine. But what if the Byzantines gift some key units to the arabs secretly and then arabia attacks. It looks like an acceptable equal'ish nations against each other war, but in fact it isn't. That kind of thing happened in DOC and in BTP (though Byzantium didn't gift anytihng to arabia!) and i think it distorts things, and creates bad feeling.

Its the secret part which is the problem, because it undercuts the ability of the game to regulate itself. The troops going to India in the last game wasn't a problem (well it was because it was probably crucial for keeping that evil shrine alive!) because we all knew, and if we wanted to we could have attacked Indians allies etc.

It could be worth just going for no unit gifting (or no combat unit gifting if we want to allow settlers and workers). Or if people find that too draconian, just a rule taht every unit gifted has to be reported immediately ona suitable thread. So if Byzantium does gift troops to the arabs, other nations can see its right for them to support the greeks. And lets be honest, in the real world, such unit gifting is hardly going to be secret.


4. Voting. I understand RP desire to encourage role playing, but I worry that most of the time it will be hard to make any real assessment on this. I think the old pattern of 'story' and 'diplomacy' works ok in a rough and ready way. People story in different ways - fair enough. Sometimes you feel aggrived because you have done lots of clever diplomacy but it was secret and most people don't know. But you can live. The attitude one was interesting. I wonder if it did contribute to the smooth running of the game, people feeling that being known for being bolshy and awkward wouldn't do them any good. It could easiliy be misused or misunderstood though - it was licence if people used it that way to express their likes and dislikes of other players.

I would reduce the impact of the attitude bit, but keep it in some way. So if there are say 10 points to allocate in story, 10 in diplo, then just give people 3 points to allocate each time for attitude. Positive points, like with the others, so you can't do someone in, but if still gives people incentive to be helpful and reasonable.

5. Map. Yes map in DoC worked well. If we have a 'new world' care does need to be taken over it being equally accessilbe to all, or that the more landlocked are compensated in other ways. The main problem with a 'new world' is that it is always colonised by the already powerful because they are the ones who will get the techs to get there first. So while we migth say it gives new room to expand for the ones who are squashed for space, in truth it adds power to the already powerful. So i would go without it personally - either just one continent or multiple continents but without a major new world - some islands are a different matter.

6. Speed. I would go for normal. Lone voice I know, but the games are long enough particuarly for those who find themselves not in the best position. DOC would have go on much longer if it wasn't for the cultural victory. I know lots of civ fanatics think epic / marathon is the only way to go, but guys these game take long enough. The sky doesn't fall in on normal you knew :-)

7. Huts. I think the argument that its unfair to have huts on a quick early game timer is a good one. Lets go without them.

8. Timer - fast early moves are a must.

[Rempedaalops]

Yeah, regarding score I was actually thinking, leave it in. I mean, it is only a reflection of progress, and I doesn't bum me out at all when I am at the bottom, in fact, it provides me with other storyline options. And it's good to see who's big and who's small reflected in score, right? Just another tool for game analysis, nothing more. Or did you mean, leave out game score in the final tally of overall scores? In that case, it doesn't really matter to me

[Robert]

I think that we should leave the score out of the gametally, but leave it on in the game.
It's indeed a good way to see who's big and who's small. NoScore will also remove the demographics, which is imho a big loss.

But without the score used in the final calculations all players have a chance to win the game.

Welcome in, The Priest!
I'll respond to your extended post later, but for now; my suggestion to have this 'role playing' category is just to support your #1 remark!
The better players will do according to your #1 paragraph, the more role playing points they will get.

Diplomacy is unratable. I am sure about that.
People mostly rate the stories people have written about their diplomacy. Or they only rate the people they are in contact with.

[The Priest]

People mostly rate the stories people have written about their diplomacy.

That is true - the Persians were masters at saying things in the stories to make it sound like they were doing successful diplomacy.

[The Priest]

Maybe you are right about storytelling and roleplaying - I was perhaps interpreting role playing in a rather narrow way about giving personalities to leaders, which is something which some do, and some don't and while it might be good, I don't think its that crucial and most people clearly don't want to story that much to create those personalities (and I don't think we want to create pressure for more stories).

However, maybe what we are talking about is:

1. Role-playing / characterisation of your civ.

The definition of a diplo game is "A Diplomacy Game is a game in which all players lead their civilization as if they're leading a real nation". Under 'role-playing' people are given votes for the degree to which they do this. Is there a consistency and belieability about the actions of that civ - its in-game actions, its diplomacy, what it says about itself. What nature a civ has is up to the player to decide and to evolve as the game progresses - but they get votes for the believability and consistency of this, and the interest it gives to the game. If you act as if you are 'playing a game', you won't get many votes; but if you can give the rest of us the impression your nation actually exists, you deserve to get lots.


2. Storytelling.

A great part of the fun of a diplo game is the creation of an amazing story thread. This contains everything from national epics to diplomacy, newspaper articles to lies, text, screenshots and images. A player gets votes for storytelling for their contribution to the story thread. There are no rules as to what marks out a good contribution - we all have different tastes - what is too much detail for one person, may be exactly what another person values, some people will give more votes to one brilliant piece than to someone who produces lots of mediocre material, someone else will value quantity more. When voting its simple - give people votes if you personally enjoy their contributions.


I can see that kind of division working. As you say, it strengthens my point 1, since we are in the process removing the sense before that you got votes merely for succeeding diplomatically (which inevitably tending to mean the nations who were 'winning' in game found it easier to get diplo votes since they had more weight to throw around).

[WarningU2]

Any idea when this will start?

June sometime?

[Toni]

All OK here?