Limited diplo system

[Azza]

As someone who is playing in 37, I don't really think the limited diplo system is working well, but I can't really elaborate without spoilers.

[Bigger]

As someone who is playing in 37, I don't really think the limited diplo system is working well, but I can't really elaborate without spoilers.

as someone who has read a thread or two in that game, I tend to agree.

[Catwalk]

My timing is probably poor, as much of this can't be discussed in depth without spoilers. Sorry about that. Which system would you prefer instead Azza?

[Azza]

From both 33 and 37, I think either full diplo or just AI diplo is preferable to a limited diplo game.

[Bigger]

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.

If NAP's were as advantageous as you suggest, then they wouldnt be a problem. The RB meta changed not because both parties signed a NAP typically pulled ahead of the others, but because one party was able to pull ahead more than a second party. It typically ends up being a one sided affair, which is the real problem RB has with it.

the problem here is not in NAP's, its the magical power everyone gives to them. Reading old threads, before the RB meta went AI-diplo, it is amazing how easily so many people get trapped into disadvantageous NAP's.

1. long-term NAP's that last so far into the future that you don't know if you will even want a NAP when it is over are NOT a really good idea, but they are nonetheless signed frequently. This is not a problem with the NAP, it is a problem with the people signing it (or usually, one person signing it) not understanding how and when to sign a nap.
2. There is a peculiar honor system at RB that makes people way too scared to break NAP's when the game is screaming at them to do so. Cheating (reading spoiler threads, exploiting bugs, replaying saves) is clearly dishonorable, and breaks the game and makes it unfun for everyone. Breaking a NAP or or DOW on a friend at an oppurtune time is not dishonorable, imo, its playing to win the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf04zlExM8c

two expamples to emphasize my point:

1. Pitboss 4. I only read Parkin's spoiler thread and Sulla's "hey Cervantes was me" thread, but this is my impression:
Parkin clearly understood how to exploit NAP's to his advantage, while his opponents did not. The staggering of NAP's made it so they had to wait until the last person's NAP expired before they could dogpile him, and by that time it was too late. If they weren't more concerned about honoring some silly agreement they made than they were about actually winning the game, they could have formed a dogpile much sooner and greatly decreased his chances of winning. And yes - it would have made the end game much more entertaining as well.

2. PBEM 17. Again I only read novice/spacemann's thread here, so correct me if I'm missing something from another thread:
novice, thanks to absolutely brilliant micro (and the island setup) managed to land every important early wonder. TGL on a water heavy map made it quite clear he was going to run away with the game before turn 100. His opponents, not wanting to see a repeat of PB4, pulled off a brilliant blockade of TGL - they all DOW, breaking trade routes and killing his great merchant, allowing them to catch up. I had to shake my head when the RB response to this (at least in novice's thread, maybe the response was different in the lurker thread or other spoiler threads, I never got around to reading them) was to villify Darrel, STM, and Kyan, as if they had committed some atrocity. My response was "its about bloody time." They had a choice between letting novice run away with the game and build every wonder up until the space ship, or break their NAPs and make the game competitive again. It worked out pretty well for Darrell, who ended up co-winning the thing with novice (I'm ignoring the silly AP victory by OleDavy here, I don't disagree with turning that off hehe). If more people treated NAP's with the respect they deserve (which is not much), AI-diplo wouldnt be necessary.

[pling]

AI-diplo/CTON is just C&D/math nerds removing one of their weaknesses from the game.

I'm not quite sure why it needs to be a value judgement, you know :P Some people think C&D is fun, so they do it, some don't so they don't. Some people think micro spreadsheets & simming are fun, so they do them, some don't so they don't. Diplo is only more complicated than that coz you can't unilaterally do it differently to the rest of the game (well, you can CTON in a full diplo game if you want, but not vice versa), so you have to decide collectively in advance. But it still boils down to some people enjoy diplo games, so they preferentially play them, some people don't enjoy them as much so they preferentially don't play them.

I've also got a vague feeling that lurkers seem to like diplo more than players - I could be wrong & it's certainly not true in every case but that's the impression I have.

It is possible just to not sign NAP's in a full-diplo game .

The problem is that that tends to get interpreted as hostile. When people have tried saying "I'm not doing NAPs this game", their opponents have been wary of them and assume they are planning to play a war-mongery game & so they've missed out on the secondary benefits of being friends as well as the primary benefit of the NAP. So yeah, you could just not do it, but you're shooting yourself in the foot which doesn't exactly improve the fun levels.

Crossposting with you: If you can and will break any agreement as soon as it doesn't suit you, why would anyone ever sign another agreement with you? And then what's the point of diplo?

[SevenSpirits]

If NAP's were as advantageous as you suggest, then they wouldnt be a problem.

Please try to back this up.

2. PBEM 17. Again I only read novice/spacemann's thread here, so correct me if I'm missing something from another thread:

You may have missed where the other players had an illegal group chat (including parties who hadn't met in-game) to set up the NAP-break. You may have missed how some other players claimed "NoSpace already won, now we're playing a shadow game" to justify their actions. (As you say, they do not need to justify themselves. They also do not have the authority to unilaterally start a "shadow game".) I find it really strange that you consider the real in-game diplo victory to be illegitimate while the actual rule-breaking is ignored.

So apparently your solution to a plague of mutually beneficial, trust-enforced long-term deals is for people to choose to not use them (this time, by breaking deals they do sign). I wish that worked! The fact is though that people play more than one game here. Showing reliability in past games makes you trustworthy in future games. Having trustworthy peace agreements puts you ahead of players who don't have such agreements. Isn't this blindingly obvious?

[novice]

Even if a NAP benefits your opponent more than you, you should sign it, since it benefits both of you and not your other opponents. It's a prisoner's dilemma - those tend to be unfun.

[Catwalk]

I think that was a really good post Bigger, and it underlines strongly that people have very different playing preferences. We probably shouldn't play together, as we have almost opposite preferences. That's nothing personal against you in the least, we're just not a good match. Given how many active players are around, we're in the fortunate situation of usually being able to cater to people's preferences.

Personally, I would not have fun in a game where NAPs are broken "to win", and I would personally concede if I've maneuvered myself into an unwinnable position through bad diplo. That happened in my first game, where Ceiliazul both played well and handled his diplo well, aided by my unwitting assistance. A good outcome there would have been to declare winner and then cancel all deals, allowing the three of us to see if we could catch up if we were allowed to dogpile him freely. If we succeeded and someone else won, that would not have been a genuine victory to me. But it would have been a lot of fun to play it out, even if Ceil had already been crowned.

My objective with this thread is mainly to reach players who like playing with full diplo. I think those who prefer playing AI diplo or CTON are generally very happy with that format and wouldn't get anything out of this proposal. Peace be unto that, I don't want to tell anyone they're playing wrong. For those who do like full diplo (or play AI diplo but feel something is missing), I think this system offers substantial benefits:
- Far less of a time sink
- Far less potential for tying people to agreements that turn out to be a horrible deal
- Far less need to be creative with the truth

I don't mind the thread devolving into diplo vs CTON (it's a good discussion, and an important one), but I also hope to get some constructive feedback on how this system would work and what could be improved. novice has poked at some holes, I greatly appreciate that. A few questions for those who like full diplo but find this undesirable:
1) Is it difficult to understand?
2) Is it worded poorly (examples)?
3) Do you think it would be difficult to use?
4) Do you find the measures available to you too restrictive?

[Bigger]

AI-diplo/CTON is just C&D/math nerds removing one of their weaknesses from the game.

Crossposting with you: If you can and will break any agreement as soon as it doesn't suit you, why would anyone ever sign another agreement with you? And then what's the point of diplo?

oh, that's not really what I'm saying at all. I am a bit Machievellian, but if you are known as someone who can't be trusted then you aren't a very good Prince (or diplomat) at all. I just personally wouldnt mark someone as a pariah who took the only avenue they had to get a victory. Good agreements are two sided, and if you are in agreement that means you are going to lose the game... well you probably made a mistake signing it in the first place, but I can't blame you for cancelling it abruptly rather than throwing the game away.

I do believe in trust as an essential part of diplomacy, but trust shouldnt be earned from a piece of paper. Trust is better when its achieved through having the same mutual goals or common enemies - or if worst comes to worst, mutual assured destruction. Frankly, if you're going to be brazen enough to run a skeleton military of warriors and archers in the late medieval era because we have a NAP so you can wonder-whore and tech rapidly up the military tree, there is no way I can trust you - and prudence would dictate I strike now before your military is generations ahead of mine and there is nothing I can do.

A good diplomat should have a good idea of where he stands with the world and who he can trust and what he needs to do to deter those he can't trust. C&D, graphs, etc. can help with that .