October 28th, 2012, 21:43
Posts: 8,022
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2006
Even AI Diplo ends up with pretty screwed up results frequently - see PBEM23, PBEM38 just for two examples, though I'm sure I can come up with more. As long as it is a lever that can be manipulated to someone's advantage it will be A: Exploited and B: Frustrating to those on the receiving end of the exploitation.
Honestly, as much as there are some things lost from the game its probably easier just to run everything AW or AP. My main negative to losing full diplo is that I got to know some folks around here better that way, but the time investment and cheese potential (PB4, PBEM17, PBEM26 just for a few examples) make it impossible to suffer, IMO.
October 29th, 2012, 00:31
Posts: 10,106
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
IMHO the only extra buttons AI diplo could use are Declare War on X, and Stop Trading with X.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
October 29th, 2012, 01:27
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
I'm not expecting players who don't like diplo to like this idea. As Gaspar says, a common approach to games (especially lately) is that diplo is inherently bad. Focus should be on micro and macro skill, if I'm reading you correctly. Personally, I find diplo to be interesting and it enhances the game experience for me. I'm sure there's maybe 10% players who are also positively inclined towards diplo and have fun playing with it. I can't imagine that I'll play another full diplo game because of the time sink and creative truth aspects, those were joy killers. This ruleset comes close to dealing with all my misgivings about full diplo, and I'm hoping to sway a handful of players who like diplo that it might be a viable format. For the diplo haters I'm mainly offering a target for rotten tomatoes 
novice, negotiations are very much allowed. If you send me a border proposal, I'm free to return you another proposal with different locations and 50 gold for me. In fact, that's the intended use of the ruleset. Discussions aren't allowed, but I don't see a reason why they can't be selectively allowed for a single critical situation. This all follows a gentleman's agreement in the first place, same way you don't expect people to read each other's spoiler threads.
October 29th, 2012, 02:29
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
(October 29th, 2012, 01:27)Catwalk Wrote: novice, negotiations are very much allowed. If you send me a border proposal, I'm free to return you another proposal with different locations and 50 gold for me. In fact, that's the intended use of the ruleset. Discussions aren't allowed, but I don't see a reason why they can't be selectively allowed for a single critical situation. This all follows a gentleman's agreement in the first place, same way you don't expect people to read each other's spoiler threads.
So if I want to strike a deal with you that's not possible within the given diplo framework, such as "I gift you 3 missionaries if you let me found Hinduism", I have to first create a dispute with you?
I have to run.
October 29th, 2012, 02:32
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
It'd be easy to expand wonder agreements to include religions. And gifting missionaries would be allowed, you can trade units. But discussions would not concern compensation, merely whether or not a violation has taken place. So you'd talk about exactly what you'd agreed on, fetch relevant logs and look at what happened. Once a violation has been established, standard negotiations would be used to cover compensation. Again, people can cheat as much as they like.
October 29th, 2012, 04:19
Posts: 6,141
Threads: 10
Joined: Mar 2012
(October 28th, 2012, 17:52)Viqsi Wrote: *: There is an extraordinarily bitter and spiteful part of me that thinks that some people not liking Full Diplo is like, say, me not liking demographics C&D work - it's annoying because it potentially screws up my strategies learned from SP, and I'm bad at it so I can't counter it.  That said, that part of me is just a temperamental moody bitch and so I try to keep her gagged and tied up in my brain-attic.
lovely I agree with this footnote completely. AI-diplo/CTON is just C&D/math nerds removing one of their weaknesses from the game. Diplomacy should and *is* a part of the game, and that doesn't change in multiplayer just because we don't hate each other for having difference religions or different civics. Diplomacy plays a key faction even with Ai-diplo on, it just makes it unnecessarily confusing and creates silly misunderstandings (see relationship between Scooter/daze and pin/rego in pb 5). its ok for a change of pace but I think its silly that every RB game now turns off diplomacy. It is possible just to not sign NAP's in a full-diplo game .
That said, some strange full-diplo/no-diplo hybrid is not the answer. Sorry Catwalk.
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
October 29th, 2012, 04:29
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
Why isn't it the answer, though? What about it wouldn't be fun to you? You suggest yourself that a hybrid be used, full diplo without NAPs. If you suggest that players are free to sign NAPs but should refrain from doing so, you're asking players to sign off an advantage that's free for others to use. Look at xenu's no-NAP stance in PBEM29g, requiring him to maintain more military than the rest of us. I agree that diplo is a key factor even in CTON games, but as you say it provides a lot of room for misunderstanding. I'm in a CTON game myself right now, and I don't mind the change of pace. It's nice to spend less time on it, for one thing. But I wouldn't want all my games to be like that, just like I probably won't sign up for full diplo games again.
October 29th, 2012, 04:34
Posts: 10,106
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
FYI, im not opposed to diplo, I just think AI handles it better, and so would rather go the whole way with full as opposed to this.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
October 29th, 2012, 04:35
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
(October 29th, 2012, 04:19)Bigger Wrote: It is possible just to not sign NAP's in a full-diplo game .
The problem with NAPs is that they're a really good idea. If they're allowed and acceptable, it's almost a breach of trust not to pursue them, because the most fundamental aspect of playing a game is that the players have victory conditions and are bound to strive for them.
If a game's rules and victory conditions are causing players to fall into a pattern of unfun behavior, that is a problem with the game, and it can only be healed by changing the rules.
October 29th, 2012, 04:41
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
(October 29th, 2012, 04:34)Qgqqqqq Wrote: FYI, im not opposed to diplo, I just think AI handles it better, and so would rather go the whole way with full as opposed to this. I'm not following, are you advocating AI or full diplo?
(October 29th, 2012, 04:35)SevenSpirits Wrote: (October 29th, 2012, 04:19)Bigger Wrote: It is possible just to not sign NAP's in a full-diplo game .
The problem with NAPs is that they're a really good idea. If they're allowed and acceptable, it's almost a breach of trust not to pursue them, because the most fundamental aspect of playing a game is that the players have victory conditions and are bound to strive for them.
If a game's rules and victory conditions are causing players to fall into a pattern of unfun behavior, that is a problem with the game, and it can only be healed by changing the rules. Agree completely, and that is what (almost) happened when we met xenu. It goes without saying that disallowing NAPs is one way to fix the problem, and to many people that's a very enjoyable way to play. For me personally, I tend to find the game less enjoyable with very limited diplo measures available. If a player is running away, I think it's more fun to have some means of teaming up against him (refuse NAPs, close borders, coordinated military strike). I don't think there's any one set of diplo rules that matches everybody's preference, because people differ vastly in how they like to play the game.
|
