Diplomacy or Not?

[Ry Vor]

PBM games or course were social in concept.

Lately on this forum, it seems we are seeing almost an uprising for eliminating diplomacy, those players favoring anonymous games, with no diplomacy.

Is this a good trend to develop players and community? What are the worst aspects of diplomatic games that need to be stamped out, and why do they persist?

Do you think "game long NAPS" are a necessity, or a problem? Do you think you have some players who will always oppose you in any game - if so, why?

[Kellenved]

Obviously, the trend towards anonymous games isn't great in terms of developing the community. That said, the majority of players in those games--especially Warlordss--are experienced players and liable to be playing one or two individual games as well.

In terms of problems with the diplomatic games: For me, most of it's self-inflicted in that I genuinely like 99% of the players in the Alamaze universe and I tend to end up in multiple NAPs. Heck, in one game, I had so many NAPs that I had to wait until I could develop teleport army in order to attack a non-napped nation on the far side of the map

From what I've seen on the forums...the biggest problem tends to be mega-alliances...which basically pits two teams against each other with minor teams/individuals scrambling to survive. Ideas to rectify: Perhaps a hard limit of two alliances per nation...and must be identical (ie. BL is allied with RA and SO. RA and SO have to be allied to each other and BL...can't have SO allied to BL and DA). Another idea: For those who enjoy mega-alliances or even large scale alliances: Make a titan game for indiviudals (like the old concept: good versus evil) with each player taking a single nation and coordinating with teammates. Likewise with Warlords.

Just my two cents.

[Hawk_]

PBM games or course were social in concept.

Lately on this forum, it seems we are seeing almost an uprising for eliminating diplomacy, those players favoring anonymous games, with no diplomacy.

Is this a good trend to develop players and community? What are the worst aspects of diplomatic games that need to be stamped out, and why do they persist?

Do you think "game long NAPS" are a necessity, or a problem? Do you think you have some players who will always oppose you in any game - if so, why?

I'll take a stab at the diplomacy question.

Diplomacy to me is the process of players organizing themselves into various teams and peace agreements to play against others.

This system often results in games that are not equally balanced for all players in the game. Had those players known what the teams would become some of them would likely have chosen not to play in that game.

The process by which the alliances were formed can become the deciding factor in the game instead of the actions the players made on the game board.

After a few of games of that result some players begin to question if diplomacy is the best way to make teams.

If players want to play with or against teams it might make more sense for them to identify those teams during the sign up portion of the game rather than in the first few turns. Then if players don't like the looks of things they can avoid it. In games like this there would simply be no communication between teams except perhaps by in game messaging.

Teams could be 2,3,4,or 6 players. Perhaps a stronger team of 5 players might even challenge a team of 6.


Other options to consider might be moving in game messaging to the tabs at the bottom of the page. This could increase diplomacy in anonymous games but maintain the flavor of the game. Messages might be altered to things like check out the unusual siting at area ___. Or you enemy has holdings at ___ and ___. These messages could be sent at no order cost.


Just my 2 cents. I think Alamaze is a fun game that can be enjoyed in a variety of formats.

Hawk

[Ry Vor]

Thanks Hawk, and no worries: you are among the most worthy citizens of Alamaze. I believe Hawk is the highest standing Chancellor, which to the future of Alamaze, is the highest honor.

I was a bit surprised the Magic format - with 4 teams of 3 kingdoms, was not popular upon our Resurgence. For those players that favor alliances immediate and permanent, this should be your game! But the first players became disenchanted if they had a less than inspired teammate.

I'd still like to see the Magic format - 4 teams of 3 kingdoms and so 12 players - come back. That seems like a partial remedy of the perceived issue with full diplomacy games and total anonymity.

[Hawk_]

Thanks Hawk, and no worries: you are among the most worthy citizens of Alamaze. I believe Hawk is the highest standing Chancellor, which to the future of Alamaze, is the highest honor.

I was a bit surprised the Magic format - with 4 teams of 3 kingdoms, was not popular upon our Resurgence. For those players that favor alliances immediate and permanent, this should be your game! But the first players became disenchanted if they had a less than inspired teammate.

I'd still like to see the Magic format - 4 teams of 3 kingdoms and so 12 players - come back. That seems like a partial remedy of the perceived issue with full diplomacy games and total anonymity.

I really enjoyed team game 116. We played it as an anon game but by turn 15 we had pretty much figured out who was on which team. We just continued to fight it out without any alliances or agreements between the teams. At turn 30 we still had 10 players active and all of the teams had at least one position in strong shape. It was an interesting contest.

[Lord Diamond]

I am a middle aged professional without a great deal of free time. I prefer to be able to do my turns when it is convenient for me and without having to worry about coordinating with other players. If I do that in a regular game, I will get my butt kicked. In an anonymous games, I am on even terms.

[Stillgard]

As a newer player, I have had a lot of fun playing games with the guys from Duelmasters. So I thought I would join a solo game (122) to see what that was like. What really surprised me was that the alliances(and naps) formed so quickly before turn one. I also found out by turn 3 or so that I was pretty much solo and had at least one team of two (possibly three) allied against me. I almost dropped out at that time, but figured why not give it all I had until turn 15 or so. I will probably never again join a solo game that is not anonymous.

[Jumpingfist]

My question is why do these alliances not player 12 or 15 player team games? Or are they looking for that edge of a team in a single player game?

[Brogan]

I am a middle aged professional without a great deal of free time. I prefer to be able to do my turns when it is convenient for me and without having to worry about coordinating with other players. If I do that in a regular game, I will get my butt kicked. In an anonymous games, I am on even terms.

I agree. Diplomacy takes time and effort, which makes working with people you already know easier than someone new. It also makes anon games appealing.

[DuPont]

I really don't think you can change people's behavior. Some simply follow the Powell Doctrine - go in with overwhelming force to make sure you win. I really don't like having NAPs all over the place and rarely seek more than one ally. The times I get involved in mega-alliances are usually in a response to outside factors (such as being the target of one of those alliances). But while it's fun to play as part of a team, I don't have the time to manage many games like that. I talk to people on an as-needs basis. Really, most of the time I don't even look to see who is playing - I just decide what position I want to work with, look up the player and then contact them. I don't think, oh, my good buddy is playing the EL and I'm the DW - lets tag-team the WI. More like, I'm the DW and I want to pound the RD - let me see if the BL will help fund me during the first winter - who is the BL again? And then when the DA comes in just as I'm getting a handle on the DW, I think, what? Who the hell is playing the DA? Oh, it's Dusi. No wonder.