Setting Expectations in Full Diplomacy Games

[Ry Vor]

Some times getting write ups after a game seems like a fading thing of the past.  I looked at some of the older games and in my option, more players did after game write ups, now its hit or miss if you get them in any meaningful numbers.  If no one writes up after a battle, they sure are not offering there vote for an after game award.

So is there something I should do on that front?  I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm sincere - I agree.  I just don't know how to get folks back to that aspect.  I think those subjective titles in Valhalla helped, but I don't really know what else can be done to encourage that return to role playing.  All I think I can do is keep making the game more vibrant, more rich, more engrossing, with more options and opportunities.

[VballMichael]

I continue to do write-ups, just haven't had a game end in a while. Someone just did a nice write-up in a finished game, can't remember where that was.
But yes, there are fewer in-character write-ups with boasting and taunting and condolences.
Next game I finish I will do all of those things, whether I am first or last.

Like HH, I generally play to win, despite the 1:12 or 1:15 odds against that happening. Once I see I cannot win, I make other goals (like making sure the mean person who kept me off the podium also does not make it there).
I am in 7 games right now, and have legitimate podium shots in 4 of them, so I like my odds of always going for a win where it is available.

[Lord Diamond]

I always try to win as well, but have only managed it twice now. I do have other goals I set for myself in addition to winning; they keep the games interesting and fun even after my chances of a podium finish are shot. Valhalla is good for that.

Regarding the role playing. I'm generally just not comfortable with that. I'd like to be, but I'm just not good at the dorky stuff.

[HeadHoncho]

Ha!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLliJpGB...redirect=1

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Some times getting write ups after a game seems like a fading thing of the past.  I looked at some of the older games and in my option, more players did after game write ups, now its hit or miss if you get them in any meaningful numbers.  If no one writes up after a battle, they sure are not offering there vote for an after game award.

So is there something I should do on that front?  I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm sincere - I agree.  I just don't know how to get folks back to that aspect.  I think those subjective titles in Valhalla helped, but I don't really know what else can be done to encourage that return to role playing.  All I think I can do is keep making the game more vibrant, more rich, more engrossing, with more options and opportunities.

Here's my idea..... when a 12/15 player game ends, have a standard time allotment (say 2 weeks from that date) in which players are encouraged to post their kingdom write-up. Anonymously select 3 players (rotate through the player base each time) who were not in that game to review the end-of-game write-ups and select the best one. The player chosen as the winner by the panel, gets a small prize (perhaps their next set-up is free, or they get first choice of kingdoms in their next game, a 15K chivalry bonus in next game... you get the idea). Even the last place player could win if their story was the best.

[Madmardigan]

Some times getting write ups after a game seems like a fading thing of the past.  I looked at some of the older games and in my option, more players did after game write ups, now its hit or miss if you get them in any meaningful numbers.  If no one writes up after a battle, they sure are not offering there vote for an after game award.

So is there something I should do on that front?  I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm sincere - I agree.  I just don't know how to get folks back to that aspect.  I think those subjective titles in Valhalla helped, but I don't really know what else can be done to encourage that return to role playing.  All I think I can do is keep making the game more vibrant, more rich, more engrossing, with more options and opportunities.

Here's my idea..... when a 12/15 player game ends, have a standard time allotment (say 2 weeks from that date) in which players are encouraged to post their kingdom write-up.  Anonymously select 3 players (rotate through the player base each time) who were not in that game to review the end-of-game write-ups and select the best one.  The player chosen  as the winner by the panel, gets a small prize (perhaps their next set-up is free, or they get first choice of kingdoms in their next game, a 15K chivalry bonus in next game... you get the idea).  Even the last place player could win if their story was the best.

I'd definitely vote for this.  Great idea.  

[Lord Diamond]

As co-creator of Valhalla, I want to see something that can be measured by the program and doesn't require someone to mine the forums and manually update a file somewhere.

[Frost Lord]

As co-creator of Valhalla, I want to see something that can be measured by the program and doesn't require someone to mine the forums and manually update a file somewhere.

Good point.

We built Valhalla 14 months ago, and since then we have processed 70+ updates to it for the games as they concluded.  The only part of Valhalla that is manual (and requires the mining of data off of the forums) is the Peer Commendations.  In this same amount of time, we have only received 3 updates to the Peer Commendations (Aug 2014, Feb 2015, & Jul 2015).

I am not placing fault anywhere other than it is really difficult to consistently mine data from all of the threads in the forum.

[Ry Vor]

How about this: we make the subjective things like Iron Willed, Chancellor, Infamous and anything else we might like, independent from Valhalla.  So Valhalla remains, let's say "perfect". and we still have another format that recognizes the players that make Alamaze special that can't be measured.  This would still require of course peers to acknowledge peers and for someone to pick it up, but perhaps in a different forum thread.

[Jumpingfist]

As co-creator of Valhalla, I want to see something that can be measured by the program and doesn't require someone to mine the forums and manually update a file somewhere.

Good point.

We built Valhalla 14 months ago, and since then we have processed 70+ updates to it for the games as they concluded.  The only part of Valhalla that is manual (and requires the mining of data off of the forums) is the Peer Commendations.  In this same amount of time, we have only received 3 updates to the Peer Commendations (Aug 2014, Feb 2015, & Jul 2015).

I am not placing fault anywhere other than it is really difficult to consistently mine data from all of the threads in the forum.

I had actually tallied them up more frequently but many times there are no changes.  Every game can be updated but not every game gets nomination mostly due to so many anon games.   The Peer commendation seemed to have faded anyway.  They were so infrequent that the new player do not really see a value in them. 

There are ways to somewhat auto capture the peer awards.   Most likely would need to start with 3rd cycle
-Iron willed could be tallied by giving someone 1 point every time they finish a game in the bottom 5 but not on the podium.
-Infamous could be a point every time someone claims a new item in Valhalla.  This could also help keep players in games as they can shoot for those little goals.   I know some already do this.
-Chancellor could be 1 point for each game you are a mentor.  This would be preset as the game starts and need to be coded to reconize maybe a check like giving 25k to chivalry if it is important to Rick

Gold to highest point total,  Silver next two players and bronze the next two.  Ties both get award at higher level.  So there could be multi gold but still only 5 total players listed.  Ties on points for bronze would go to player who got the point most recently to keep the rankings with new names.