[NO PLAYERS] The Kibitzer Klub: PB13 Map & Lurkers

[Becko]

Note: I may be going off on sort off a tangent here. And it's long: long enough to have footnotes. You have been warned. TL;DR: how about AI-only public diplo?

My only background in competitive gaming is poker. Yes, I was a part of the poker boom of the mid naughts. I was never really much good at the game itself -- I basically broke even after the rake -- but I hung around for long enough to pick up most of the rules and the culture. IMO, a game of MP civ can be loosely compared to a poker tournament. Each player has a seat, you play to amass chips, if you run out of chips you're out, and the last man standing is the winner. Sounds familiar, right?

Now, poker tournaments (and poker in general) have sort of the same issues that you guys are talking about here. In a setting with three players left, it is always beneficial for two of them to gang up and eliminate the third. I'm not going to go through the details, but for example, those two players could just agree to never re-raise each other ("soft-playing"). Even with no further deals, this would make sure that each of them is only under threat from one player, while that player is threatened by both of them.

So, why doesn't this happen all the time in poker -- where the stakes are, you know, real money? The main reason is simple: it's called collusion, and it's illegal. It'll get you disqualified (or worse, depending on whom you're trying to rip off). Basically, you can't talk to other players about the game. I mean, sure, you can whine about bad beats and such, but you can't cooperate. Some people still try to collude by leaving messages in bathrooms, things like that, but if they are caught, they get thrown out: no talking about the game outside the game. [1] This is basically what no-diplo means at RB, right?

Given that 1) verbal communication is banned, and 2) real money is at stake, of course people also try non-verbal communication; codes. Let's say two players might have agreed before the game that "if I scratch my nose, that means I have a strong hand", or "if I bet an odd number, it means I'm bluffing". These are the sort of signals we're talking about in this game.

Now, if you have even a passing knowledge of poker, you'll see the problem in using that system. One of the main skills in poker is concealing which hand you have; to avoid giving off "tells". If your system is based on giving off these tells on a regular basis, you're going to get slaughtered (unless you're playing against rubes, in which case why even bother colluding in the first place?).

Here's the payoff -- finally! -- the key difference between non-verbal collusion in poker and AI-diplo NAP's is that the former is open for everyone to see, while the latter isn't. AI diplo is a form of outside-the-game communication, at least as long as the offers aren't accepted. The solution? Allow all AI diplo you like, but require the trade screens to be posted to the tech thread.

Yes, this is pretty much public diplo, but without a lot of the hassle of checking and posting to a diplo thread mutiple times a day. Note that I've played a lot more poker than I have MP civ, so feel free to explain why this is a stupid suggestion.



[1] The rise of online poker made policing collusion a lot harder. Now, people could just open up MSN or whatever and discuss the game, without the other players at the table even knowing that those two players knew each other. It's still being policed, but mainly through monitoring playing patterns, which is sort of ineffectual. Bottom line, if you're playing online poker, keep your eyes open.

[Zed-F]

Bob, that's not the best way, it's the asshat way. The best way is to disallow it entirely if it's that much of a problem.

[Hashoosh]

It's kind of like a reverse prisoner's dilemma, where co-operate is actually breaking no-diplo NAPs. If that makes sense.

Could we ban identical resource trades under the umbrella of 'don't be a dick'. Or just disallow trading for a resource you already have, as well as the number-based gold countdown deals.

[Gaspar]

@Becko - love the Don Mossi avatar.

I don't think we need to resolve this issue here but I do think a lot of games go down the toilet because players have differing interpretations of what "AI diplo" means. Some players take it to mean simply that written communication is restricted, others take it to mean that they should only make legitimate offers, other something in between. All of this is fine and nobody should be expected to play by an agreed upon RB standard here because I think what people want out of a game varies wildly.

What I do think we should start resolving more clearly is what the players in each individual game are ok/not ok with and resolving that at game start, rather than a game like this, because when players are playing by different ethos, the "strictest" of those are playing a disadvantage. Specifically, if Hashoosh and Becko are willing to use gpt trades to signal NAPs and I am only willing to use fish/horse/iron trades to signify things, I'm am a disadvantage. Similarly, if I'm willing to use fish/horse/iron trades but Zed-F is only willing to make legitimate offers, he's at a disadvantage to me AND Hashoosh/Becko.

That to me is the issue to resolve.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Note: I may be going off on sort off a tangent here. And it's long: long enough to have footnotes. You have been warned. TL;DR: how about AI-only public diplo?

My only background in competitive gaming is poker. Yes, I was a part of the poker boom of the mid naughts. I was never really much good at the game itself -- I basically broke even after the rake -- but I hung around for long enough to pick up most of the rules and the culture. IMO, a game of MP civ can be loosely compared to a poker tournament. Each player has a seat, you play to amass chips, if you run out of chips you're out, and the last man standing is the winner. Sounds familiar, right?

Now, poker tournaments (and poker in general) have sort of the same issues that you guys are talking about here. In a setting with three players left, it is always beneficial for two of them to gang up and eliminate the third. I'm not going to go through the details, but for example, those two players could just agree to never re-raise each other ("soft-playing"). Even with no further deals, this would make sure that each of them is only under threat from one player, while that player is threatened by both of them.

So, why doesn't this happen all the time in poker -- where the stakes are, you know, real money? The main reason is simple: it's called collusion, and it's illegal. It'll get you disqualified (or worse, depending on whom you're trying to rip off). Basically, you can't talk to other players about the game. I mean, sure, you can whine about bad beats and such, but you can't cooperate. Some people still try to collude by leaving messages in bathrooms, things like that, but if they are caught, they get thrown out: no talking about the game outside the game. [1] This is basically what no-diplo means at RB, right?

Given that 1) verbal communication is banned, and 2) real money is at stake, of course people also try non-verbal communication; codes. Let's say two players might have agreed before the game that "if I scratch my nose, that means I have a strong hand", or "if I bet an odd number, it means I'm bluffing". These are the sort of signals we're talking about in this game.

Now, if you have even a passing knowledge of poker, you'll see the problem in using that system. One of the main skills in poker is concealing which hand you have; to avoid giving off "tells". If your system is based on giving off these tells on a regular basis, you're going to get slaughtered (unless you're playing against rubes, in which case why even bother colluding in the first place?).

Here's the payoff -- finally! -- the key difference between non-verbal collusion in poker and AI-diplo NAP's is that the former is open for everyone to see, while the latter isn't. AI diplo is a form of outside-the-game communication, at least as long as the offers aren't accepted. The solution? Allow all AI diplo you like, but require the trade screens to be posted to the tech thread.

Yes, this is pretty much public diplo, but without a lot of the hassle of checking and posting to a diplo thread mutiple times a day. Note that I've played a lot more poker than I have MP civ, so feel free to explain why this is a stupid suggestion.



[1] The rise of online poker made policing collusion a lot harder. Now, people could just open up MSN or whatever and discuss the game, without the other players at the table even knowing that those two players knew each other. It's still being policed, but mainly through monitoring playing patterns, which is sort of ineffectual. Bottom line, if you're playing online poker, keep your eyes open.

Considering I think of Civ as a combination of both Chess and Blackjack (thanks to the wonders of probabilistic instant-kill combat), I wouldn't mind more insights from the gambling world. Civ is a more complicated game, but the poker world has probably input significantly more man-hours of thought into poker than all of Civ.

[SevenSpirits]

I think the situation in poker is very different, because of the different effects that information has in those games. In poker, if two of you coordinate with each other but have to play with face up hands, I will crush you. In civ, if two of you coordinate with each other but have to fully reveal your in-game positions, you will crush me. The information itself isn't worth much if you simply have a numbers advantage. And you can get that advantage by teaming up with someone. It would be like in poker if you had to bet the same amount each hand instead of having control over it, and people could combine their hole cards to form the best hand from them.

In civ, making diplo public tends to encourage and enforce agreements rather than the opposite. That's because of two things. First, sticking with your agreement with one player is more beneficial because it means all other players in the game can see it and will trust you more in the game. That's instead of only the person you had the agreement with trusting you more. Second, if people can see your deals, then they can also see when you have bad diplomatic relations with someone - information that is difficult to convey through the trade screen privately, and which isn't very trustworthy even when it is so conveyed. If everyone can see that you are blowing off a certain other player's offers, threatening them, etc., they know with much greater confidence that you will sincerely be their ally against this player.

[Ceiliazul]

if literally everyone except, say, Ceiliazul is breaking NAPs, it's still a good idea to trust Ceiliazul if he's proven himself reliable. Obviously.

[Becko]

Considering I think of Civ as a combination of both Chess and Blackjack (thanks to the wonders of probabilistic instant-kill combat), I wouldn't mind more insights from the gambling world. Civ is a more complicated game, but the poker world has probably input significantly more man-hours of thought into poker than all of Civ.

Sure, I think there are a bunch of other analogies that could be useful. For example, the discussions that have been going on around here about playing out the string -- whether it's important to finish one place higher, even if that place is 7th -- have a lot of echoes from endless arguments I've had about payout structures and early aggression. But I imagine those types of questions show up in any field of competition, so I'm not saying that poker has any particular similarities to MP Civ.

I think the situation in poker is very different, because of the different effects that information has in those games. In poker, if two of you coordinate with each other but have to play with face up hands, I will crush you. In civ, if two of you coordinate with each other but have to fully reveal your in-game positions, you will crush me. The information itself isn't worth much if you simply have a numbers advantage. And you can get that advantage by teaming up with someone. It would be like in poker if you had to bet the same amount each hand instead of having control over it, and people could combine their hole cards to form the best hand from them.

Hey, that sounds like Omaha Hi/Lo!

Yeah, the analogy does break down on a gameplay level since it's difficult to translate specific game actions from one game to the other -- what does a raise-call on fourth street mean in Civ speak? I do agree that poker is first and foremost a game of (imperfect) information, which makes information asymmetries more powerful.

That said, the point of public diplo is to eliminate information asymmetries, not to create them. In your examples, the two colluding players are giving the third player an information advantage as a trade-off for enabling their agreement; in public diplo, they would merely be neutralizing their own advantage of knowing that there is an agreement. If you translated a public AI-diplo NAP into poker, you'd simply have two players informing the third one that they're cooperating to eliminate him. And that type of information wouldn't be very helpful, even in poker.

But I'm not saying I'd want to play with public AI-diplo, merely offering it as a suggestion. It seems that the real discussion here is whether NAP's are tolerable, and I was thinking that requiring them to be official would tend to make them less popular. Your explanation why that probably wouldn't work is much appreciated, thank you!

Also, agree with everyone who's said that rules or norms need to be set at the start and apply to everyone. Otherwise, the people following the stricter but implicit set of rules are basically playing a variant game.

[Krill]

There is a certain point where information just doesn't matter, and being 2v1'd is usually past that point. Material matters more than information.

[Gaspar]

Yeah, its one of the reason that spoiler threads here are generally harmless. It would be naive to think with the amount of bad behavior we've seen over 100+ games that there hasn't been an not insignificant amount of thread reading by opponents. But while that information can influence a game on the margins, it pales compared to things like playing better and luck.

Also I'm not sure if that was a triple or quadruple negative up there. Clearly I've channeled my inner Dan Dierdorf and I'm not sure that I shouldn't just not edit it out.