Diplomacy: Survey

[HeadHoncho]

Seems to me if Rick, Cipher and others are actively playing in games they should make the diplomacy math public knowledge. A diplomacy on a key pop center can be a huge turning point and having knowledge of what will and won't succeed would be nice to have.

Dave, I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, you make an excellent point. I think that would only be fair.

On top of that, I've always been a big proponent of leveling the playing field for newer players as much as possible.

(And many thanks to Hawk, who has already done a great job of establishing some parameters that the more experienced players have discerned over time.)

[DuPont]

Seems to me if Rick, Cipher and others are actively playing in games they should make the diplomacy math public knowledge. A diplomacy on a key pop center can be a huge turning point and having knowledge of what will and won't succeed would be nice to have.

Dave, I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, you make an excellent point. I think that would only be fair.
On top of that, I've always been a big proponent of leveling the playing field for newer players as much as possible.
(And many thanks to Hawk, who has already done a great job of establishing some parameters that the more experienced players have discerned over time.)

I'm not comfortable with that. I agree with Rick, who I think said he didn't like the idea of the game being reduced to a formula table. If we as players are able to figure things out (like I did with the politicos back in the day), I think that's fair and it's also fair that it gets shared with newbies (as tends to happen) but I would not like for the game designers to simply open the box and hand out the workings.
I've really never felt that either of those two gentlemen take advantage of their inside knowledge - certainly they do not win all the time. And some things come down to judgement about what result you want - Cypher clearly likes his shield spells, for example, but I don't think that's because any inside knowledge makes him 'know' that that's the 'best' spell to cast. I think it's just because he's a softie who cares too much about the lives of his cannon fodder troops.

[HeadHoncho]

It's not a question of taking deliberate or intentional advantage, it's the reality that some knowledge can't be easily forgotten or "un-known" and thus it becomes a potential point of fairness regarding material inside information, to use a stock term.

[Cipher]

This is an interesting line of thought. What are the boundaries? There is certainly a continuum of experience and knowledge of the game, what works, what does not. If the goal is to limit or neutralize the benefits of being on the greater end of that range - to the benefit of those on the lower end, what parameters should exist? What format does this take?
Understanding the mechanics of the game is imperative at a basic level, but this isn't what determines how well a position does in any given game, nor what separates the top ( I would say ) half dozen finishers in any given game. That is determined by alliance choices - creation, continuation, tolerance and creativity of them, additional strategic decisions and the execution of such, as well as good fortune, frequently.

[Wynterbreeze]

If your over all goal, is to make this game more attractive to new players, and eliminate new players dropping after getting their ass handed to them. Then opening up more of the workings of the game would be a step in the right direction.

Rick goes on about changing rules and making adjustments to the game in the name of "making it friendlier to new players" So this is an obvious step in that direction.

I can understand wanting to keep an advantage for yourselves. Back in the day, my groups of friends reversed engineered the real value for all troops and could calculate the losses of ANY Group to Group battle down to 300 men or so. It got trickier when lots of magic was tossed around but it was and still is, quit the advantage, that I have never shared. It's not as useful in this cycle but the tenets of the systems are still valid.

A few extra charts wouldn't hurt anyone, and would take away some of the enormous "learning curve" new players are faced with.

[Cipher]

Yes, more charts would be helpful. It seems that this is where this thread was heading before kuykendall, who isnt even playing, raised the issue that formulas should be published because the game operators/programmers are playing. For my part, removing the apprehension that goes with not knowing these components at that level would undermine and decrease the enjoyment of the game overall and actually degrade the experience for most players. Players that substitute calculating a formula versus reading the rules, learning about the positions, engaging in discussions with others to figure things out, and being creative will short change the experience for everyone.

The thrust of the changes made to reduce shock to the newer player is around reducing the impact of dramatic events that would be unforeseen by players unfamiliar with late game play and how much additional firepower and tactics appear as the game moves far enough along. Some of these changes I agree with, some I do not. I certainly offer my points to Rick, but all decisions are his in the end.

I don't see how revealing formulas addresses that goal.

Having players share information is a great feature, which magnified by the availability of a player forum really has the opportunity to help all players. So does the idea of mentoring, which in my experience has not been embraced as often as offered, but certainly has been successful in others. I have seen many examples of information sharing in these threads, and the player community is stronger for it. There have been many requests for players to contribute their guides and advice on playing in this forum. See the Game Play Basics thread, better yet, contribute - if you have advice for newer players. The tools are all here to offset the issue of advanced knowledge.

The first thing to support your specific argument, W, would be for you to publish your battle simulation tool. As far as the idea of keeping an advantage to ourselves - I find that a bit offensive actually. I don't expect that I am any better off than any of the other players that started with the game 20-30 years ago. I do however, have a much different perspective in things - not because of working with the codes or formulas - but because of having discussions about the game itself with many people that have been heavily involved in the game since day 1. Participating in discussions over 20+ years about the design of the game, changes made (and undone), and "what if" scenarios with the game designer and operators leads me to evaluate seeming oddities in light of the overall game. If I'm playing the gnome or underworld and run into a group of giants or red dragons, I don't care much what the numbers say, I'm expecting a beat down.

I've had moderate success in the game, more in the anonymous format than not, since diplomacy and in game communication isn't something that I work hard enough at. I would challenge anyone, including Rick, to name his last winning game, or string of podium finishes, and he wrote the whole damn thing.

But if this is a big enough issue, I would refrain from playing the game at all before participating in making such a fundamental, and to me, shortsighted change in the nature of the game.

Of course, if the real intent is to limit the advantage of advanced experience, maybe a forced retirement system should be considered? Once the player population expands and allows experienced based game queues, there may well be a way to protect the new players, something everyone reading this could help with.

My earlier challenge about boundaries and format for instituting some sort of 'evening things out' method was meant to prompt some more advanced thinking around game development and long term impact, and I'd love to hear responses that can lead to improvements.

[Wynterbreeze]

Yes, more charts would be helpful. It seems that this is where this thread was heading before kuykendall, who isnt even playing, raised the issue that formulas should be published because the game operators/programmers are playing. For my part, removing the apprehension that goes with not knowing these components at that level would undermine and decrease the enjoyment of the game overall and actually degrade the experience for most players. Players that substitute calculating a formula versus reading the rules, learning about the positions, engaging in discussions with others to figure things out, and being creative will short change the experience for everyone.

The thrust of the changes made to reduce shock to the newer player is around reducing the impact of dramatic events that would be unforeseen by players unfamiliar with late game play and how much additional firepower and tactics appear as the game moves far enough along. Some of these changes I agree with, some I do not. I certainly offer my points to Rick, but all decisions are his in the end.

I don't see how revealing formulas addresses that goal.

Having players share information is a great feature, which magnified by the availability of a player forum really has the opportunity to help all players. So does the idea of mentoring, which in my experience has not been embraced as often as offered, but certainly has been successful in others. I have seen many examples of information sharing in these threads, and the player community is stronger for it. There have been many requests for players to contribute their guides and advice on playing in this forum. See the Game Play Basics thread, better yet, contribute - if you have advice for newer players. The tools are all here to offset the issue of advanced knowledge.

The first thing to support your specific argument, W, would be for you to publish your battle simulation tool. As far as the idea of keeping an advantage to ourselves - I find that a bit offensive actually. I don't expect that I am any better off than any of the other players that started with the game 20-30 years ago. I do however, have a much different perspective in things - not because of working with the codes or formulas - but because of having discussions about the game itself with many people that have been heavily involved in the game since day 1. Participating in discussions over 20+ years about the design of the game, changes made (and undone), and "what if" scenarios with the game designer and operators leads me to evaluate seeming oddities in light of the overall game. If I'm playing the gnome or underworld and run into a group of giants or red dragons, I don't care much what the numbers say, I'm expecting a beat down.

I've had moderate success in the game, more in the anonymous format than not, since diplomacy and in game communication isn't something that I work hard enough at. I would challenge anyone, including Rick, to name his last winning game, or string of podium finishes, and he wrote the whole damn thing.

But if this is a big enough issue, I would refrain from playing the game at all before participating in making such a fundamental, and to me, shortsighted change in the nature of the game.

Of course, if the real intent is to limit the advantage of advanced experience, maybe a forced retirement system should be considered? Once the player population expands and allows experienced based game queues, there may well be a way to protect the new players, something everyone reading this could help with.

My earlier challenge about boundaries and format for instituting some sort of 'evening things out' method was meant to prompt some more advanced thinking around game development and long term impact, and I'd love to hear responses that can lead to improvements.

I certainty did not mean to offend you, and I don't think all formulas should be given out. You seemed to take this personally ( I chose words poorly) and that was not my intent. I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't play the game.

I'm saying, When I have a group worth 15k against a City defense of 23k and I'm suspicious in the region, I often wish I could look up whether my P6 could successfully cast diplomacy or not. Or that you could even cast multiple shield spells and have them be cumulative. That's what I'm saying.

You want to keep some things hidden I get that, you assume giving out "To Much" information is paramount to a "fundamental, and shortsighted change in the nature of the game." and that's fine, But a few extra charts would't hurt.

As for my combat tool, like I said it's mostly useless for this game version, until I figure out how RD,GI,TR and BL are distributed across the Grid and the ratio of those troops to normal troops. Ie is 20 dragons equivalent to 2000 troops of some type, etc.

The Grid being:

Infantry Cavarly Archer
Light
Medium
Heavy
Guard

[Lord Diamond]

I agree with Cipher 100%. I don't want the game to be entirely about spreadsheets and calculators. It is supposed to be about fantasy. If I want to play with stats, I'll join a fantasy sports league.

[Hawk_]

I agree with Cipher 100%. I don't want the game to be entirely about spreadsheets and calculators. It is supposed to be about fantasy. If I want to play with stats, I'll join a fantasy sports league.

I don't think we need any formulas. Having a general idea on what it takes to capture a town or city with various power level wizards is the goal of my table. I think we now have a good working knowledge and it will only improve over time.

I played against Cipher in 104 and did not feel like I was at a big disadvantage. I hope he continues to actively play in games.

There are many secret parts to the game that don't need to be revealed. Defensive values of troop types is a good example. In the beginning I thought a 100,000 point DW group could match a 100,000 point GI group. I now know that is not the case.

[HeadHoncho]

Yes, more charts would be helpful. It seems that this is where this thread was heading before kuykendall, who isnt even playing, raised the issue that formulas should be published because the game operators/programmers are playing.

As someone who's big on procedural fairness, I don't think the fact that Dave isn't playing right now undermines the thrust of his point.

I don't see how revealing formulas addresses that goal.

Because information is power, and if the goal is to level the playing field and remove some (not all, but some) of the barrier to entry, then distributing that information should help with that.

But I understand you disagree with my position, and that's totally OK.

But if this is a big enough issue, I would refrain from playing the game at all before participating in making such a fundamental, and to me, shortsighted change in the nature of the game.

I don't think anyone -- certainly not me -- is suggesting that you not play. And I don't think anyone -- again, certainly not me -- is suggesting there is anything underhanded or deliberate or intentional going on here.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, it's really about maximizing procedural fairness, which is a positive goal in and of itself, in my view.

Of course, if the real intent is to limit the advantage of advanced experience, maybe a forced retirement system should be considered? Once the player population expands and allows experienced based game queues, there may well be a way to protect the new players, something everyone reading this could help with.

I'd be all for experienced-only games.

In any event, if you're loathe to provide the formula, that's fine. I suppose if we were so inclined, Hawk and I could just start a Titan game whose primary goal would be to try to test the bounds of every single 171 scenario with differing wizard levels, reaction levels, and group strength, and then publish the results.

But I'm not really inclined to do that, because I don't want to spend the money for the slots, and besides, it sounds tedious.