<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 25 of 25   
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/8/2015 18:23:59


Urfang
Level 55
Report
Diplomacy games are fun, but the biggest problem with it that people can violate the rules easily, the only penalty is the PE status wich works or not.
With some simple feature a talented programmer like Fizzer can make the main diplomacy rules available as diplomacy settings.
Only need the diplomacy mode with war declaration and alliance settings and a simple table about diplomatic relations.

1.
Diplomacy mode - Turn on the other diplomacy settings

2.
Declaration settings - Activate the "declare war" button
- People can not attack other players until they use the declaration button on them
- Declaration is public, the contested player get an instant message about who declared war on him
- Perhaps an automatic note generated in public chat too in every case of war declaration
- Optional delay setting for war declaration requirement (attack available only 0-1-2-3 turns after the public declaration with button)
- End war possibility with another button wich send a peace treaty to the enemy if he accept the war status ends, if he refuse it continues.

3.
- Alliance settings - Activate the "alliance" button
- Like the "declare war" button just people can choose ally instead of enemy with this.
- Send an alliance request for another player if he accept the alliance is signed and public, if he refuse they stay neutral
- Allies with signed alliance can transfer to each other like in team games
- Maybe an automatic note generated in public chat too in every case of sign an alliance, and break up alliances are public as well
- Optional delay setting for alliance break up (declare war possibility on former allies available only 0-1-2-3 turns after exit from alliance)

4.
- Public diplomatic relations table
- A common table with the players on x and y axis
- Shows the public relations between the players (neutral, allied, or hostile)
- A simple and transparent wiev about wars and alliances

I think diplo games can be more fun with diplo settings instead of diplo rules. A few buttons and a simple table can not be barrier for a coder genius. Im affraid that this feature would be popular if there were something like this.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/8/2015 18:27:52


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Rather than pandering to a small subset of the game it would make more sense to devote limited resources and time to matters that affect the entire population of the game.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/8/2015 18:37:45


BONE
Level 52
Report
hey nooby your opinion is wrong. diplo games are for wimps and they are definitely not fun. you belong in the back of the bus, diplo player.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/8/2015 18:46:04


Martyrose
Level 58
Report
Betrayal is part of diplomacy, this would take that aspect of the game away.
So disagreed.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/8/2015 19:03:33

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
What's stopping a dedicated Diplomacy group from making their own "chart"? Open up a wiki page, or even a forum thread, and track all this stuff. You can even have great fun doing it "in character" (and errors can be a great part of that fun).

I have a lot of experience playing the board game Diplomacy. One of the things that makes the game work - and, indeed, is absolutely NECESSARY to the game - is that treaties and alliances are NOT binding. When you make an alliance with someone, they can violate it at any time (as can you). That's where the juice in the game comes from, that's where the fun is. Just like real-world diplomacy.

Mechanize these relationships and you stifle the game (indeed, you rob of it everything which makes it work, and introduce all sorts of new problems).

Breaking a treaty and attacking a neighbour (and dealing with the political fallout of that action) should always be part of the game, should always be a possible move. Anything else is immature play by people who don't have the guts for real, actual diplomacy, and prefer a stifled mode of play.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/8/2015 19:04:41


[ESP] Pablo García
Level 58
Report
I agree, but just in declarations, to avoid PEs and so. Alliances, although not honorable, could be broken, as in real life.

One setting I would add is, in diplomacy settings, the possibility to win without voting to end if only allies left in the game.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion, as diplos right now are well, but this way could be even better.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/8/2015 19:16:38


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
I think Fizzer agrees with Sharpe in policy. I mean, really, diplomacy players at most make up 40% players.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/10/2015 03:05:47


Tyrion Lannister
Level 54
Report
lol.

no. diplos make up a large part of players.

consider that 1 out of say 20 real time games is diplo. but 1 out of every 7 multiday games is a diplo. but diplos have about average 3 to even 6 times as many players as non diplos.
so: average
1/7 and 1/20 to 1/13.

multiply 1/13 by 4.5
you have minimum 33% of players.

thats just people who regularly play diplos.

also- there are many diplo focused clans, as many as there are span clans and 1v1/2v2/3v3/ focused clans. and before levels were added, the primary reason to buy premium membership was to unlock creating custom scenario diplos.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/10/2015 03:07:48


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
^ Double -edged blade. Membership also offered luck scroll. 26 player games were also cool. Diplomacy and other scenarios in general used to be so valued, now they're reduced to dirt.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/10/2015 03:09:54


Tyrion Lannister
Level 54
Report
true.
there are so many bad scenarios...

making it worse are people puposefully give themselves ridiculously OP slots.

really, that should be a punishable offense.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/10/2015 04:25:11


Μῶμος (Momus)
Level 56
Report
I'd like a diplomacy setting -- but to be effective it need a non-player "moderator"/"dungeon master" who has privileges to "enforce" the rules.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 03:05:23

iamtaller
Level 52
Report
Being able to transfer troops to your allies in diplomacy games would be extremely useful, in my opinion.

In response to M. Poireau,
"Breaking a treaty and attacking a neighbour (and dealing with the political fallout of that action) should always be part of the game, should always be a possible move. Anything else is immature play by people who don't have the guts for real, actual diplomacy, and prefer a stifled mode of play."

This could still be done with these settings, you would just have to hit the declare war button first. Thus, being in an alliance doesn't actually make it harder to declare war on someone. Most diplomacy games have rules about declaring before attacking anyways, so surprise attacks against your allies pretty much can't happen already.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 03:24:15

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
To each his own, I suppose. I find that a bit weaksauce. You want to forcibly remove a very real and effective strategy from the game? I think the possibility of those tactics being in play enriches the game - not only from a theoretical perspective, but from a game design standpoint, as well.

Being aware of the possibility of a surprise attack asks you to constantly make strategic decisions about troop allocation. You have to gauge how much you trust any given ally, and deploy armies accordingly - deploy too many, and you're less effective on other fronts, but deploy too few and you may tempt him into backstabbing you. That dance becomes a very interesting calculation, and leaves more room for different tactics and strategies.

This isn't something I'm throwing out "off the cuff". I've played years of games like Diplomacy and I have carried out a lot of analysis. All of it, in the end, has convinced me that, however counterintuitive it may seem, the possibility of betrayal is precisely what makes those games engaging, dynamic, and requiring of skill. "Unbreakable" alliances allow tactics which are so powerful that they dominate all other strategies and, ultimately, sap the game of its vitality.

It's kind of like designing a game with a strategy which is better than all others: over time, all the players learn that strategy, and then the game stops evolving.

I know very well why people want those rules to be there - it's less scary, and it absolves them of responsibility. I used to argue for the inclusion of such rules myself. But there are fundamental game design issues which make such rules ultimately impoverishing to the game, if you look enough far ahead.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 07:53:13


Urfang
Level 55
Report
We can say that rule braking is part of the diplomacy games. If Fizzer add a new feature by these settings there are still possible play diplo with only brakeable rules. Diplo settings would be just an option. And betrayal would be still possible with these settings, just the rule braking would be impossible.

And transfer to ally would be possible only with these diplo settings not with diplo rules.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 17:15:06


ps 
Level 60
Report
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 17:30:21


bdh1998
Level 58
Report
points #1&2? +1.

The others? not a fan, because in real life, as well as diplomacy, betrayal happens all the time.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 20:52:48

SteenB11
Level 4
Report
can i just say i think there is a problem with diplomacy games, and that is the lack of variety. i mean i have just seen three European diplos set in 2015. i like the historic ones and future ones as they give a different viewpoint than the average one
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 21:02:20


OnlyThePie
Level 53
Report
While I like this idea, it wont go through. Too many players oppose Diplomacy.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 21:13:39


Riveath
Level 59
Report
I kind of like it... but it should be keep limited. Fizzer should just apply the peace treaty idea and make it an option to have all players at peace at the start of the game. That would basically be diplo "mode".
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 21:35:37

iamtaller
Level 52
Report
> can i just say i think there is a problem with diplomacy games, and that is the lack of variety. i mean i have just seen three European diplos set in 2015. i like the historic ones and future ones as they give a different viewpoint than the average one

I have been trying to make more historic diplomacy games to add to the mix, but I didn't even think of future ones! Now I shall start creating those too. Thank you SteenB11, and hooray for diversity!
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/12/2015 22:54:56


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
iamtaller, let me know if you need help; I've created a couple historical diplomacies, too.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/13/2015 00:52:17


Erwin Rommel, Generalfeldmarschall 
Level 44
Report
I believe dynamic teams would be really neat. Anyway, it isn't just diplomacy games, [T4R] regularly creates our own historical scenarios with diplomatic elements and some of the suggested features would be immensely helpful.

Introducing these feature wouldn't just pander to a certain group or groups. This would give players the opportunity to create entirely new game types which could easily expand the player-base currently present on Warlight.

Here is an example of the type of games of which I was referring.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=625117

In short, it is not only just diplomacy games that would benefit from a change/feature like this.
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/13/2015 01:01:33


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
Why on Earth would you make a WW2 game...on a 1650 map (at latest)?
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/13/2015 12:45:02


Erwin Rommel, Generalfeldmarschall 
Level 44
Report
Not sure why you are focusing on something off-topic.

Custom scenarios invalidate your concerns since you can adjust any map, given if it is detailed enough, to your liking. Zxctycxz's map is exactly this. Also, given that it includes multiple theaters of war while focusing on the two most important theaters, Europe & Northern Africa, it is ideal for WWII scenarios. Most maps that include everything I have stated above are just not detailed enough for meaningful games to take place.

However, I will concede one point. It was rather annoying translating 1939 borders onto a map 300 years out of date, but it was worth it in the end.

Now I ask you, why do you think it is outrageous to use brilliantly crafted maps to create something fun?
Diplomacy rules or diplomacy settings?: 4/13/2015 13:48:08

snife
Level 55
Report
I play much more "normal" games than diplo games, just because diplos are much more time consuming.
To say there are X% "regular" players because X% of all games are "regular" games is wrong in my oppinion.

I think such rules would be great to start playing with people you dont know. Atm I will never join a random diplo again. Because it will be messed up in most cases. But always playing with the same group of players is also not that much fun. Implement such mode to improve the gaming experience for many players and make it possible for new players to meet "veterans".

I dont see the point in "Backstabbing should always be possible"
It is, if the host sets the War-Declaration-Delay to "0" (As the author already mentioned.)

I have only basis (non game related) programming skills, but it sounds doable for me.

And to all those who hate this (eventually) new settings: Feel free to not join them...
Posts 1 - 25 of 25