Diplo game thought experiment

[WilliamLP]

Step 1: mod the game to remove the power graph
[edit] heck remove the graphs all together - no objective measure of strength in game

I'm not sure if serious, but the unintended consequences of this would be massive and may seriously unbalance the game. Right now, the power graph is what makes it possible to do anything but mass axes and chariots in the opening game, and actually build settlers, because you can be sure you'll have several turns of warning if a rival starts to do that. Without the power graph starts and relationships would be even _more_ dependent on trust which is the wrong direction.

[suttree]

@Krill - NH's description is only accurate if all players share the assumption that past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour. This is a convention, not part of the game. It's a habit for most of us, but it can be broken in the context of a game. And its a useful exercise for social situations where the assumption doesn't hold.

[Krill]

@Krill - NH's description is only accurate if all players share the assumption that past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour.

Einstein wants a word with you.

[Cyneheard]

Step 1: mod the game to remove the power graph
[edit] heck remove the graphs all together - no objective measure of strength in game

I'm not sure if serious, but the unintended consequences of this would be massive and may seriously unbalance the game. Right now, the power graph is what makes it possible to do anything but mass axes and chariots in the opening game, and actually build settlers, because you can be sure you'll have several turns of warning if a rival starts to do that. Without the power graph starts and relationships would be even _more_ dependent on trust which is the wrong direction.

Go read PBEM4V for a game with no graphs.

[suttree]

@Krill - NH's description is only accurate if all players share the assumption that past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour.

Einstein wants a word with you.

I'll be sure to Hume-or him

[edit] More seriously, Poker is an example of a game where cooperation is possible but doesn't occur because the whole point is to abuse the folk psychology of your opponents.

[suttree]

Step 1: mod the game to remove the power graph
[edit] heck remove the graphs all together - no objective measure of strength in game

I'm not sure if serious, but the unintended consequences of this would be massive and may seriously unbalance the game. Right now, the power graph is what makes it possible to do anything but mass axes and chariots in the opening game, and actually build settlers, because you can be sure you'll have several turns of warning if a rival starts to do that. Without the power graph starts and relationships would be even _more_ dependent on trust which is the wrong direction.

Go read PBEM4V for a game with no graphs.

That sounds interesting, I'll check it out!
I'm just brainstorming here, which means I'll probably throw out some dumb ideas...

The idea is to suggest variants that kick people out of the meta assumption that they can trust their neighbours.  In this case, the variant would make for a very different game which is probably not the goal of the project. Just to make the diplo game more interesting.

Note however, that increasing the viability of rush strategies is not necessarily "unbalancing" its just different. Real time strategy games get by just fine without "power graphs." It just means players need to gather information and build units as if a rush were possible. Defense is still cheaper than offence so growth/investment would still occur.

[NobleHelium]

@Krill - NH's description is only accurate if all players share the assumption that past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour.

Einstein wants a word with you.

I'll be sure to Hume-or him

[edit] More seriously, Poker is an example of a game where cooperation is possible but doesn't occur because the whole point is to abuse the folk psychology of your opponents.

I can't think of any situations where cooperation is possible in Poker (at least in Hold 'em which is the dominant form at the moment) except in the case where someone is all-in with more than one opponent. In that case the optimal thing is for all opponents to call so that there are more hands available to knock out the all-in player, and everyone does that.

[Krill]

Honestly, you just want AI diplo...but with the ability to chat, right?

I'd say that you need to re-use the PB7 concept but be picky about who plays in the game.

The problem is that you are trying to influence gameplay decisions, which aren't that easily altered, not through the means you are considering.

[suttree]

I can't think of any situations where cooperation is possible in Poker (at least in Hold 'em which is the dominant form at the moment) except in the case where someone is all-in with more than one opponent. In that case the optimal thing is for all opponents to call so that there are more hands available to knock out the all-in player, and everyone does that.

The players are cooperating already in the implicit agreement that they aren't going to play as random number generators. A bet needs to communicate some information at least some of the time in order for there to be a game. After that, the game could be about devising new and clever ways to share information (cooperating) with some players but not with others though betting conventions or somesuch, like a player works with his partner in bridge. The goal would be to work together with a subset of the table to fleece the remaining players. But that doesn't happen - either its considered "cheating" if planned out ahead of time or, even if it's spontaneous, there's always incentive to fuck over your teammates by communicating according to the convention until that one juicy pot when you lie and take everything for yourself.

Poker is an example of a game where cooperation is possible (and necessary to get the game started) but the incentives built in to the game corrode trust between the players. Again, a player wins only because, over many hands, the other players assign meaning to his bets - cooperation is possible. But no cooperative scheme is stable because only one player can win each individual hand.

[Qgqqqqq]

What about always war with diplo?