Posts: 1,574
Threads: 20
Joined: Aug 2013
As a non-player, my vote is always to allow the countdowns and resource trade coded diplo messages. They add a bit of intrigue, which is the nice part of diplo, without bringing all the disadvantages of diplo, like game-long NAPs and alliances and endless email correspondence.
mackoti Wrote:SO GAVAGAI WINNED ALOT BUT HE DIDNT HAD ANY PROBLEM?
Posts: 1,487
Threads: 14
Joined: Dec 2011
(April 19th, 2014, 05:25)Krill Wrote: Also, if map is toroidal, do you want the medium cost scaling that makes maintenance work like it's a cylindrical map?
I also think that's a good idea.
Posts: 3,924
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2011
(April 19th, 2014, 05:56)Dhalphir Wrote: As a non-player, my vote is always to allow the countdowns and resource trade coded diplo messages. They add a bit of intrigue, which is the nice part of diplo, without bringing all the disadvantages of diplo, like game-long NAPs and alliances and endless email correspondence.
To be fair, and I've always wanted to try a game with this but I feel this is not the game for it, there's no reason you can't just ban NAPs.
Posts: 3,199
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2010
(April 19th, 2014, 03:27)SevenSpirits Wrote: (April 19th, 2014, 02:37)wetbandit Wrote: I am dedlurking so I don't even have a vote, but am curious if No Talking includes countdowns or other such use of specific gold amounts in proposed trades as a signal. It's been brought up in other games recently, probably a Good Thing if everyone is on the same page with this.
If someone has a clear suggestion on how to codify this that doesn't leave gray area I'm interested to hear it.
I like this part of the game but maybe that's because nobody has formally codified it and used it to form actual NAPs and alliances and such. There's a lot of plausible deniability there. And I laughed a lot at your suggestion that a sheep for sheep trade offer may mean that a player is feeling sheepish.
If you wanted to take away gray areas you could say that diplo offers must be made at face value, with something to be gained by accepting. Anything made just to signal or intended to be only declined would be frowned on.
(I'm not in this game but I'd be against this because I find those offers pretty fun.)
Posts: 7,767
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
(April 19th, 2014, 07:04)WilliamLP Wrote: If you wanted to take away gray areas you could say that diplo offers must be made at face value, with something to be gained by accepting. Anything made just to signal or intended to be only declined would be frowned on.
(I'm not in this game but I'd be against this because I find those offers pretty fun.)
That still sounds like a gray area to me. If I am doing mildly well in a war and offer you peace for say, 50 gold, that is probably like 70% real offer and 30% sending you a message that I am beating you. If, in the same situation, I offer you peace for 5000 gold, that like 1% real offer and 99% sending you a message. It's not intended to be declined in the sense that I want you to decline it - I'd sure be happy if you accepted. But there's also no way in hell I expect you to accept it. So my interpretation of your rule says that I'm not allowed to make this offer. So at what amount of gold did the peace offer go from OK to not OK? That's the gray area.
Another example. We are both neighbors of Krill and I am at war with him. I offer you iron for iron. Is that legal? Well, I think a lot of people would say that according to good faith rules it should not be legal, since it's like 90% signalling. But it actually does serve some purposes. Krill doesn't have iron and if we lock our only sources into this trade, you are effectively committing to not sell or gift your iron to Krill. It can also serve a different purpose with regard to someone that you haven't met yet that I am about to: that person won't be able to tell that I own iron, because my iron won't show up as available for trade. So if I look at your guidelines, I have to admit it's not just to signal and I don't want it to be declined either.
Third example. I offer you 50 gold. Next turn I offer you 40 gold. Turn after that 30 gold. Then 20. Then 10. These offers are intended partly to signal, but also to pay you 150 gold in exchange for joining me in war with our mutual enemy 5 turns hence. And I don't intend for you to decline them. But obviously, we want our rule to prohibit this.
Posts: 7,767
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
All that said, something I could agree to is not using amounts of gold to signal numbers of something else (such as turns until an event).
Oh btw guys, don't forget we banned trading/gifting cities this game, so at least diplo offers won't be able to use those to signal things.
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 12
Joined: Mar 2014
(April 19th, 2014, 07:25)SevenSpirits Wrote: All that said, something I could agree to is not using amounts of gold to signal numbers of something else (such as turns until an event).
Oh btw guys, don't forget we banned trading/gifting cities this game, so at least diplo offers won't be able to use those to signal things.
I agree with this,but what do you think about Iron for Iron trades asking for military help?
Posts: 7,767
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
(April 19th, 2014, 07:44)Gawdzak Wrote: I agree with this,but what do you think about Iron for Iron trades asking for military help?
Well personally I think they are fine.
Posts: 1,487
Threads: 14
Joined: Dec 2011
I personally don't have any problem with any of the diplo screen concoctions I've seen on RB so far. I'd be happy to abide by a 'no signalling numbers using gold' rule though.
Posts: 3,980
Threads: 31
Joined: Feb 2010
barbs is the harder... I had so many problems with them in 13....,but still are very useful to get Heroic epic open.
So barbs yes.
improvments well yes
About diplo , evrithing is fine by me.
Tech known bonus(i realy hate that, but i undrstynd from seven is lower in this mod) so yes.
|
