Game 156: 2014 Championships

[DuPont]

Yeah, I found my way here having been playing Diplomacy online for the previous two years. It took something of an adjustment to not backstab (or be constantly expecting one).

[Lord Thanatos]

Yeah, I found my way here having been playing Diplomacy online for the previous two years. It took something of an adjustment to not backstab (or be constantly expecting one).

And isn't the Alamaze world a so much better place?

[Wynand]

The problem is actually not that complicated to solve and doesn't specifically require new game mechanics.

People adhere to NAPs because of the existence of cross-game personas and forum reputation. It's the Gas Station Negotiation game...the threat of multiple transactions with the same entity within a closed community forces adherance to a certain code of conduct....as Honcho has already noted, "when in Rome..."

If all communications were game dependant (i.e. you communicate with the WI in game 101, versus the persona that is controlling the WI), then the issue of having ones' reputation potentially tainted by misconduct would be resolved. Kings would have to decide who to trust in each game, without knowing which persona was playing a particular position. Diplomacy would still be very important, but betrayal and turncoats would be more common.

To enable this, a forum-based kingdom/game # communication system would be required. Personas would need to sign in as their kingdom and would then be allowed to communicate with other kings by sending messages to specific kingdoms in that same game. This would be similar to in game messaging, but would not be turn-based.

Thoughts?

[The Broken]

The problem is actually not that complicated to solve and doesn't specifically require new game mechanics.

People adhere to NAPs because of the existence of cross-game personas and forum reputation. It's the Gas Station Negotiation game...the threat of multiple transactions with the same entity within a closed community forces adherance to a certain code of conduct....as Honcho has already noted, "when in Rome..."

If all communications were game dependant (i.e. you communicate with the WI in game 101, versus the persona that is controlling the WI), then the issue of having ones' reputation potentially tainted by misconduct would be resolved. Kings would have to decide who to trust in each game, without knowing which persona was playing a particular position. Diplomacy would still be very important, but betrayal and turncoats would be more common.

To enable this, a forum-based kingdom/game # communication system would be required. Personas would need to sign in as their kingdom and would then be allowed to communicate with other kings by sending messages to specific kingdoms in that same game. This would be similar to in game messaging, but would not be turn-based.

Thoughts?

Very nice. Only one thought, how would you handle Valhalla?

[Jumpingfist]

If treachery and dishonesty are encouraged within the game the why would someone not email there buddy and see who they are playing. The format also encourages others to drop as there is no penalty, no reputation.

[Wynand]

The problem is actually not that complicated to solve and doesn't specifically require new game mechanics.

People adhere to NAPs because of the existence of cross-game personas and forum reputation. It's the Gas Station Negotiation game...the threat of multiple transactions with the same entity within a closed community forces adherance to a certain code of conduct....as Honcho has already noted, "when in Rome..."

If all communications were game dependant (i.e. you communicate with the WI in game 101, versus the persona that is controlling the WI), then the issue of having ones' reputation potentially tainted by misconduct would be resolved. Kings would have to decide who to trust in each game, without knowing which persona was playing a particular position. Diplomacy would still be very important, but betrayal and turncoats would be more common.

To enable this, a forum-based kingdom/game # communication system would be required. Personas would need to sign in as their kingdom and would then be allowed to communicate with other kings by sending messages to specific kingdoms in that same game. This would be similar to in game messaging, but would not be turn-based.

Thoughts?

Very nice. Only one thought, how would you handle Valhalla?

Personalities could be revealed once the game is complete. Since you start out the game not knowing what personality is playing a specific kingdom, betraying someone in one game won't impact your reputation in the next contest.

[Ry Vor]

If all communications were game dependant (i.e. you communicate with the WI in game 101, versus the persona that is controlling the WI), then the issue of having ones' reputation potentially tainted by misconduct would be resolved. Kings would have to decide who to trust in each game, without knowing which persona was playing a particular position. Diplomacy would still be very important, but betrayal and turncoats would be more common.

To enable this, a forum-based kingdom/game # communication system would be required. Personas would need to sign in as their kingdom and would then be allowed to communicate with other kings by sending messages to specific kingdoms in that same game. This would be similar to in game messaging, but would not be turn-based.

Thoughts?

I agree. We kind of accomplished this in Fall of Rome, as all communication was handled through in-game communication (not email), and a player could have three different personas, so three different reputations. Yes, Valhalla was the problem there, as most players didn't want their hard won points divided up in three different personas.

We might be able to do something similar in Alamaze in 2015, if I gauge correctly what Uncle Mike might be able to do. We actually could do it soon as it is now so easy to establish free email accounts. So you can have a graymouser@yahoo.com, and a zalkalzar@yahoo.com, etc.

[Wynand]

If treachery and dishonesty are encouraged within the game the why would someone not email there buddy and see who they are playing. The format also encourages others to drop as there is no penalty, no reputation.

On the first point, my answer is: how do we police this in an anon game...the same rules of honor from a meta-gaming perspective would apply. To the second point, hey...you can't have everything. If you want people to have the ability to act without fear of community-based reprisals, you need to give them the right to drop anonymously.

[Jumpingfist]

If treachery and dishonesty are encouraged within the game the why would someone not email there buddy and see who they are playing. The format also encourages others to drop as there is no penalty, no reputation.

On the first point, my answer is: how do we police this in an anon game...the same rules of honor from a meta-gaming perspective would apply. To the second point, hey...you can't have everything. If you want people to have the ability to act without fear of community-based reprisals, you need to give them the right to drop anonymously.

this should probably be its own topic. I would like to see it as a variant but feel if it became the mainstream I would stop playing. not necessarily because I dislike all the dishonesty which i would, but because no attachment, no meeting other gamers talking about games we are playing. if you did that in game you would know who was playing that personality and that would be cheating. of course almost any message i sent, other would figure out rather quickly who i was I spell like crap and have terrible grammar.

[DuPont]

I agree that this should be a separate topic, but isn't it already possible to set up a 'no contact' game where the only way you could communicate was by sending messages via the turns? I mean, yes, it's on the honor system and there's not a lot of backwards and forwards as you can only send one message a turn but I think without that you'd be able to figure out who people are without trying hard. People often have very specific ways of writing.