[Immersioneers] 'To Boldly Go': The first Immersioneers test-game(s)

Discussion in 'Civ6 - Multiplayer' started by stiiknafuulia, Oct 22, 2016.

Tags:
  1. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    Those are some good ideas, thank you! :goodjob: Thing is, the rules can't be too complex or people won't remember them. 10 turns per conquered city would work, because it's easy for the brain to think in terms of tens. The pace will be quick enough (on Quick speed) that it's plenty enough time to mount a counter-attack. --I like the way this system curtails wars of annihilation (or perhaps humiliation :p) in the earlier ages. In wars between roughly equal players (in terms of military power), it may be common that only one city will change hands, because it would be too risky to commit to holding the conquered city for 20 or more turns before having it handed over. Thusly (if people want it), we could slightly relax the amount of conquerable cities for each government. (Although the question then might become, how soon can you declare another war and continue your conquest of that Civ? Perhaps it's better to keep the conservative numbers for now, so there's no need to think about this.)

    Good catch on the secret alliances things. I didn't even think of that, and it's a crucial point that has to be cleared before we start. I am of the same mind as you, all the more so because (unless we use sequential war turns) in two-front wars the defender will be at a massive disadvantage compared to the attacking parties, because he won't have enough time to maneuver his troops to respond to attacks on both sides of his empire. So, it would be best to ban any secret treaties, and forbid war declarations for 10 turns after declaring an alliance (so the potential target will have time to prepare -- perhaps with his own alliance). Also, imo, an alliance should last for an agreed number of turns, during which time it can't be broken. I think it's a great mechanic to lessen paranoia between players, even if not entirely historical. Ofc for such a useful treaty, a price may have to be negotiated. ;) I also like the idea of not increasing the amount of conquerable cities with 2 attackers -- although it may swing too far in the other direction and make war alliances not worth it.

    If two players do ally for war and end up taking either one city in total, two cities where one of them is clearly better, etc, there is the matter of dividing the spoils. I think this too should be declared beforehand, so that things won't get too complicated.

    I know I said we should keep the first game simple, but I also think these rules will prove agreeable to most, and would add a lot of good things to the game, with hardly any detriments. Ymmv; if so, state the nature of your grievances. I will make a Google Doc of the final rules for easy access (and better readability), so that anyone can alt-tab to it during the game if anything's unclear, just to be on the safe side.

    Adding these rules (and our intent to role-play, in general) does concern me in one regard: the short turn timer is in no way sufficient to negotiate alliances, nor for any more sophisticated comments than 'lol u suck', 'gg no re', etc. After the very early game, you can either govern your empire or talk about it; there is no time for both. I think for a good experience we must play without a timer. If afk players can't be kicked, though, we're in for a world of hurt as someone goes afk (as will almost inevitably happen). I dearly wish for a custom timer option in a patch, but for now we must do without it...

    A three-player mock-game would be needed to test how the sequential war turns work. No one will join my games if I try to make them (perhaps they can't see me, or just don't like the settings)... Perhaps we could test this tomorrow (or, better yet, the day after, as I'll have some errands to run tomorrow)? Anyone else is welcome to it as well ofc; just report back in this thread with your experience. The afk thing could be tested at the same time. With the shoddy state of the game at launch, I wouldn't be surprised if there's no option to do anything if one player goes afk indefinitely, but it should be tested nonetheless, so we won't worry over nothing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2016
  2. Magnive

    Magnive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,043
    I'm really not fond of the thought of hamstringing diplomacy this way. If you anger your neighbors enough that they all agree that you should be punished for it, while at the same time failing to diplomance your way into a position where you can afford to do so, you should get punished for it.
     
  3. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    What particular rule do you have an issue with? If it's the one denying secret alliances, then I'm not sure you've understood the point of this form of game. It's no fun to be ambushed from nowhere with overwhelming force, whether you deserve it or not (and 'deserve' can be extremely murky, depending greatly on pov). Maybe I'm worried over nothing and it would never occur, or only occur in extreme cases (like promising not to settle near your neighbors and then plopping down 2 settlers at their best spots, etc). But I'd rather be sure. Any other rule I'm willing to change, but this one needs to stay, imo.
     
  4. Skysword455

    Skysword455 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    29th works better but I could do the 30th if need be.
     
  5. LinkesAuge

    LinkesAuge Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Experience shows that this will pretty much always create an environment in which everyone is either pressured into "mega" alliances or blocks which move on from one player to the next (and this doesn't require one player to be hostile, simple geographics, like one player being in the middle of 4 to 5 others, can result in this). Games simply lack the stakes and constrictions of real diplomacy, not to mention that "real" diplomacy doesn't really lead to "fun". Unrestricted diplomacy in mp games makes the social meta aspect (especially over multiple sessions) more important than the actual game and is rarely ever entertaining for anyone that is involved ("balanced" alliances are rather the exception).
    This doesn't mean there shouldn't be alliances or diplomacy, I only suggest a few guidelines/rules and transparency to find a middle ground between being able to "punish" other players while still making it a enjoyable game overall even if you end up on the receiving end.
     
  6. Magnive

    Magnive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,043
    I've played a game similar in spirit in EU4, where we generally trusted people not to dogpile others, and it worked. Out of 20ish people, two were "killed" in that game - one which was done over the course of centuries, as he went all-out against a rival and lost while being rather diminished already, and one where the player had allied with a heathen, fought on their side against Christians for a while, and generally failed to maintain relations with player around him, which led to him getting smacked down by one of the stronger Christian nations nearby. Note that neither players were outright annexed, but rather decided that the subsequent state of their nation would be nigh impossible to recover from, and as such voluntarily moved on to another nation.

    I just personally think that having to actually do diplomancy is more immersive than relying on rules to protect you from surrounding players. If you're surrounded by other players, talk to them! Give up that sweet settler spot for a favor and friendly relations. Back down from that suzerain bonus if you're competing with a player with a significantly stronger military right on your border. Most importantly, talk to other players. What do they want? How do they plan on getting it? And how can you use the answers to those two questions to improve your own situation?
     
  7. LinkesAuge

    LinkesAuge Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    It's easier in EU4 due to the existence of actual war score already in place and the fact that the game has pretty much no win state. Also I can only repeat that it's not about getting rid of diplomacy like you still seem to imply, it's about making it transparent for all players so they can make actual decisions based on the available information and it is not fun or immersive to check all the time if there are secret alliance made being your back and/or creating those yourself because of paranoi that everyone else might. So I'm all for "immersive" diplomacy but imo that requires transparency between players.
     
  8. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    If anything, the introduction of a form of alliance that cannot be broken (for x number of turns) will result in better and more engaging diplomacy than its rl counterpart, where you can never be certain if your ally will turn on you, having secretly allied with someone else. Normally, I suspect, you wouldn't want to make such a treaty indefinite in its length (although that could be done as well, effectively teaming up the players) -- because you have to think of the win conditions as well, or may want to neutralize their threat for now and attack later when you're in a better position yourself. So you'd have treaties of varying lengths and prices, according to the situation. Sometimes both parties might agree directly to the proposed terms, sometimes they might want a reduction or increase in turn length; gold bounty; etc. To have alliances be mere words on paper (or relying on other players to 'denounce' the warmonger) is a more uncertain system, and the deals would lose a lot of their meaning. Everyone who's played Risk knows the value of non-binding alliances... This is meant to be a relaxed game and all, with no 'random' players, so maybe people wouldn't be such total jerks, but I foresee greater evils in allowing secret pacts and broken alliances than I do in disallowing them.

    Keep in mind, Magnive (and others who might agree with you), that this is just the first game and for any subsequent ones, the rules might change according to the players' preferences. I for one wouldn't want to play in a game that allowed secret alliances, but I'm sure there's players who would, even in our group. If there's enough mitigations / consequences for treaty breaks, even I might view it differently. But for now, in this first game, I suggest we go with non-breakable alliances and no secret treaties.


    EDIT: I could test the multiplayer settings today, if there's two other players online who can help me with it. Just whisp me on Steam, as I'll start up Civ VI in a moment. (To be clear: it's just a short test, not an actual game, as I don't have time for it atm, and frankly I'd rather wait for the full ruleset and all players to be present. ;))
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
  9. TeraHammer

    TeraHammer Prince

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    For inter-player diplomacy I'd like to propose this system:

    All chat between players goes in All Chat. Never message people personally.

    This gives the biggest immersion for all players, and allows the person who sees people are up against him to ask for allies himself or do other crazy diplomatic stuff.

    Personally I think well established big alliances can be a good thing, and may fit nicely in a well role-played world. Besides, we got other rules going against defeating players too quickly and general warmongering.

    (by the way, I'm fine either Saterday 29 or Sunday 30)
     
  10. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    @TeraHammer: I'll update your status. The chat rule seems fine to me; the only problem might be that different people will confuse each other if there's two on-going negotiations at the same time. But I'm sure we'll manage.

    Btw, are you online atm? I need two other players to test the multiplayer's 'no timer' and 'dynamic combat' settings. Just whisp me on Steam (I'm Vesir85 there).

    EDIT: I sent a few friend requests on Steam to people who are online atm. Just add me as a friend so I can invite you to the test game. ;)

    EDIT2: Uppercut was in my game, but we need a 3rd player for the test. It will only take like 5 minutes; we'll play on a Duel Pangaea and have two players declare war on each other to see what happens for the third one.

    Edit3: Some people have denied my friend request it seems... I hope it's only because my name is different on Steam. I'll send the requests again because we really need that 3rd player.
    Edit3.1: Ah. It's just Steam being its usual, delightful self: it doesn't show who you've already sent a request to. :crazyeye: Just look up from your industrial district spam for long enough to accept my request, people! :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
  11. Yves-Laurent

    Yves-Laurent Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Hi all :)
    I'd love to join the immersionieers Steam Group and also have time on the 29th and the 30th of october.
    I'm 43 years old and i like it relaxed :p I live in Germany and have been playing civ since the beginnings...god im getting old lol...
    Anyway, I'll check back here to see if a 3rd group forms or someone drops out.
    Cu all online i hope,
    Yves-Laurent

    Oh btw my steam name is ylpb1
     
  12. Magnive

    Magnive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,043
    I can tell already now that I disagree with quite a few people on some rather fundamental MP issues, so I will withdraw from the game, and wish you the best of luck with this.
     
  13. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    Well -- we did get to test the multiplayer last night, albeit with only 3 players, the test was a bit inconclusive. We did experience a hang-up where one player couldn't end their turn; without a timer, there's nothing you can do in that situation, so much to my chagrin, we must use the dynamic timer. :mad:

    The war rules apparently work as follows: the players who are at war with each other will take their turns sequentially, while everyone else uses simultaneous turns with each other. So there's two different 'blocks' when it comes to turns, the peaceful and warmongering players, for as long as the war will last. I think one war at a time may be manageable, but if there's more wars (or more participants in one war), the slowdown might become unacceptable. If there's less players in the game, there's less wars and participants in them, so if we do want to use this setting, imo we should decrease the amount of players per game to 6 (from 8). It'd be a bit of a hassle though, and then if a few people leave, the game is suddenly much less interesting, with only 3-4 players. So I propose we go with simultaneous turns and 8 players; we might always test the sequential turns in another game later on.

    @Magnive: That's a pity, but understandable. You're welcome back later on if you want to; as the group gathers more players, there might be enough for a game with less hand-holding in diplomacy rules. ;)

    This is good new for @Yves-Laurent , as a place has now opened for him in team #2. :) Please pick a Civ for yourself asap.
     
  14. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    There's at least one player so far who can only play on the 30th. I prefer that day as well (so I'll have more time for condensing the rules to a more readable form), so unless there are some votes to the contrary, I'm inclined to lock the date down soon.
     
  15. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    I just realized two things: to have people join the game, the host will have to invite them (afaik, there is no other way to do this). So the second game will need a host (Stroganov can host the first), and the host will need to invite everyone as a friend, to be able to whisp them and invite them to the game. So by the time the game starts, everyone should be friends with either Stroganov or the host of the second game (to be chosen asap; just post if you can be the host, and then invite everyone as friends that's on the roster of the second game). EDIT: Since some people have different nicks here and on Steam, it's safest to invite everyone that's in the group; for future games, there's no harm in everyone being on each others' friend lists, anyway.

    Also, this exploit should not be used. It's baffling how they leave such flaws in the game tbh... It can be hard to avoid this at times, so as long as you don't do it intentionally and consistently, that's good enough in my book.

    EDIT: Uh-oh... :scared: It seems like the late game might be a real mess, especially because of the turn timer. Apparently you have to keep reassigning spies and trade routes almost every turn, eating up colossal amounts of valuable turn-time. I guess we'll really *need* a world war to end the game before it becomes too tedious for everyone! :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
  16. TeraHammer

    TeraHammer Prince

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Weekend plans being settled (no pun intended), I can only play on the 30th.
     
  17. MeatThatTalks

    MeatThatTalks Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Hey there, Game #1 player here. 29th and 30th both work for me. I am on the US West Coast (PST), which means if we were to start too early in the day GMT, I'm GMT -7 right now... so, y'know, 10am GMT is 3am my time. So hopefully we can start in the afternoon GMT.
     
  18. pochesun

    pochesun Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    22
    Please write me out from the list for the first game. I will most likely will have to leave town for the weekend. I am pretty sure though any one from the queue will gladly take my spot.
     
  19. LzPrst

    LzPrst Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2001
    Messages:
    96
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    the far west of middleearth
    Hey, I can play on the 30th as well. I live in Norway, so CET-friendly timing would be nice.

    Regarding diplomacy, I suggest we make a simple set of rules and test them out in our 2 games this weekend, then revise. I would hope @Magnive would join and argue his case for rule revision based on how the two games go. I feel that he is right when he says that the social meta-game of making friends/alliances is a fun part of the game, and shouldn't be hamstrung. Though remember, countries don't have friends, they have interests ;)

    I've played Diplogames over at apolyton previously, and the rules piled up and piled up. So keeping them few and simple is likely a good idea. I expect we could all adhere to a "gentleman/lady's code of conduct". More like guidelines than actual rules :mischief:

    But a few rules I agree with, alliances should be publicly announced and have a specific duration, say 10 turns. Another suggestion would be that alliances could be limited to development levels. Maximum 1 alliance in early ages, up to 2 in medieval/renaissance, unlimited in industrial etc. Huge blocs for WW1 (& more) shouldn't show up until later (immersion, right ;) ). I think rules that define nr of turns of war allowed per captured city start complicating too much, and detract from game mechanics such as war exhaustion. I'll play regardless, but I think less is more, provided all players are gentlemanly.

    Here's a quick first draft for a Code of Conduct for maximum enjoyment for all:
    -Be magnanimous towards defeated enemies. :egypt:
    -Don't enforce demands that would completely ruin the defeated player. :(
    -Announce war goals at the start of a war. Try to be proportional in your goals, unlike: :borg:
    -Be flexible in all diplomacy/peace negotiations :shifty:
    -Fun is the goal :queen:
     
  20. fickle

    fickle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20
    I don't see a reason to affect forest chops atm, but I feel the unit selling should just be banned without reason. There is ofc no easy way to enforce that, but I think it falls within our realm of fair play and it just doesn't make sense to build a massive army and then just immediately sell it. If your building an army you should be intending to use it, and its unlikely (and unsafe) to turn around and sell the entire thing once the war is over. Selling 1 or 2 units to help with maintenance costs, or if your civ is failing financially makes sense. But if your making 200gpt then come on.

    Dynamic turns seems to be having a few issues and I would suggest against it as a result. We could create our own kind of dynamic turn timer by having the turn timer be 60 seconds for the first 100 turns, then save and reload while extending the turn timer an extra 60 seconds every 100 turns.

    As for the war weariness, and not surrendering cities, I feel that if peace is being declared, any city conquered should be ceded. (within our set limits of allowing to conquer) If a player refuses to a "reasonable" peace deal, after the winning player has taken the maximum he is allotted, then that should allow that player to continue, maybe not take the rest of the cities, but certainly destroy his walls, pillage his lands, and starve him out (an actual siege?) until he surrenders.
     

Share This Page