PB9 Post-game Thread

[Serdoa]

Well that's a bit mean isn't it Serdoa? I don't understand what 2metra said to deserve that, the same as I didn't see snark where Bigger did. Aren't we allowed to have different opinions about what makes the game fun?

By the way there are a few full-diplo games going on at the moment - the Demogame, Erebus in the Balance PBEM XXVIII and PB14, so I'm sure you'll find another one eventually if you want to sign on 2metra.

Just to re-quote myself, as you somehow felt like cutting half of my post:

I think joining a community that has decided over nearly a hundred games of Civ4 and FFH2 that full diplo isn't working the way the want it and telling them that they are wrong because you personally want to have full diplomacy isn't really a great showing of your social skills.

But feel free to offer such a full diplomacy game. If you find enough people and have fun with it, who am I to tell you differently.

I'm not sure where I was mean in that post? I even told him to go ahead and try to set up such a game. It is not me to decide what others want to do. What I did was just pointing out that he told others who invested quite a bit of time to debate and analyze stuff that they are wrong without any argument given. Particularly in this sentence (which I quoted and which you also didn't re-quote):

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed.

Stating that dogpiles are cured with full diplo when our experience shows the exact opposite (and dogpiles actually being a reason why we moved away from full diplo) and doing so without giving any reasons is presumptuous and I think my answer was pretty calm considering that.

[Krill]

It’s actually a pretty complex area, and there aren’t really any absolutes in the discussion.

First of all 2MN, there is basically one important point that you might have misunderstood, which is the rules in PB9 are actually very different to all of the AI diplomacy games run on RB. The rules for PB9 included that “war against X” option, but this is the first game that used such an option, PB9 isn’t actually an AI diplomacy game. On top of that there was No Tech Brokering, which also affected the decision making processes for attacks. PB9 isn’t a useful indicator of how AI diplomacy games play out.

Now regarding the point about player interactions for timing with gpt offers, the problems you highlight don’t exist in true AI diplomacy games because of that lack of war against X offer. The whole “What does war with X mean?” problem doesn’t exist. Resource trades though, I agree that there are many different ways to interpret different offfers including demands. For example:

1. Someone offers you a sheep for sheep trade. This basically means “I don’t want to fuck with you”. It does not mean that there is an NAP in place. That meaning is not even necessarily true, and it is definitely not a reason to drop your gaurd.
   
   
2. Someone asks for a resource from you without offering anyting in return. I agree that to me this always seems like a demand, but you can always decline and then give a counter offer. The negotiating position has to be judged on a turn by turn basis with knowledge of unit positions, power, pretty much the entire game state.
   
   
3. gpt countdowns. IIRC, there are basically 2 schools of thought with this. One is that it’s not kosher and shouldn’t happen, and another that is fine with it. However, in AI Diplo games, there is no ability to request a war against a third party, so a countdown is not always...coherent.

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed. We cant avoid the fact we are playing humans and everyone will attempt to win. So his/hers social and political and diplomatic and planning ahead skills to a test. If we want to simply test pure civ4-game mechanincs skills, tactics and strategies, I think this is best tested in duels, or in GoTM games style.

What do we even mean by winning? Or player skill? You’ve already mentioned that some communities think that it’s better to finish 2nd than 3rd, but how do they differentiate between 2nd and 3rd? Do we mean score? Because that system is almost completely disconnected from skill: it measures population, land, tech and wonders, it doesn’t measure a players ability to plan, conduct diplomacy, it only indirectly measures mechanical skill as it ignores different gambits and strategies. And if a game is called before a victory condition is reached, does score even mean anything?

At RB we do expect players to play for 1st place, but I’d say we don’t actually value the win. We value the mechanics and the strategy that enables players to improve their situation. For example, Plako didn’t win PB2, but his play during that game was the most impressive part of that game.

I for myself find that AI deals only have not less imperfections than full diplo. And I being human want to use my social skills in a game against other thinking and social humans.

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed. We cant avoid the fact we are playing humans and everyone will attempt to win. So his/hers social and political and diplomatic and planning ahead skills to a test. If we want to simply test pure civ4-game mechanincs skills, tactics and strategies, I think this is best tested in duels, or in GoTM games style.

The skills you mentioned are part of the skillset required to play an effective Full Diplo game. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. What the majority of the players on RB want though, is to play FFA games that don’t involve those skills, or that time sink to play it well, or with the effects I discussed in the previous post. We still experiment with rules variations fairly often, and we have found that AI diplomacy and NTT are enough to manage some of the problems. These are the games we want to play, so we play them in a manner that we find enjoyable.

Also, I don’t even know why there are those that are questioning Serdoa’s post #56.

[Serdoa]

Btw:

I think you miss the fact that without me bringing Commodore to attack Cornflakes and send our armies to die just to give you a chance to bring Cornflakes down, you had no chance to conquer the ex-Azza almost empty cities which made you the new superpower. I am not a fortuneteller, but I like geopolitics and for me this was the necessary evil to stop Cornflakes running away with the game. Do not take is as some self-denial great deed of feast, I was doing it mainly for myself, not much to help you. I had plan to try to bring you down too, but alas, there was this unfortunate illegal offer I made to Cf, and we missed the opportunity somewhat. Then the others did not saw my appeal to attack you as something important and they passed on this. I was giving the game on a silver plate to Cornflakes and he refused :D (OK, I was not :kingmaking", I already had a plan to bring Commodore later to attack together Cf, of course it was not from some sudden philanthropist incentive.

Imo the above illustrates why dogpiles / full diplo is not only unnecessary but actively detrimental to the game. The above happened in Civ4 but it is not Civ4. That could be any game, diplomacy for example. When we play a PBEM or PB we invest hours over hours for months into the game. What is the point of doing that when whatever we do in the actual game is completely meaningless? Where is the appeal to think about worker-moves or city placement, about micro or which wonders to build? It becomes a minor aspect while the actual game is diplomacy. Now, I don't say that's bad necessarily and anyone who has fun with that, go ahead. But I personally don't understand why you would want to do that in Civ4, investing hours into a game that gives you merely the bordering for what you actually want to do. Seems unnecessary to me and again, I personally would rather not invest hours over hours into that.

(And imo that also explains very well why most players that do like full diplo are actually not as good at Civ4. Not necessarily because they can't, but because they simply are not interested to invest the time necessary because - see above - Civ4 itself plays just a minor part in the game they actually want to play.)

[Old Harry]

Well that's a bit mean isn't it Serdoa? I don't understand what 2metra said to deserve that, the same as I didn't see snark where Bigger did. Aren't we allowed to have different opinions about what makes the game fun?

By the way there are a few full-diplo games going on at the moment - the Demogame, Erebus in the Balance PBEM XXVIII and PB14, so I'm sure you'll find another one eventually if you want to sign on 2metra.

Just to re-quote myself, as you somehow felt like cutting half of my post:

I think joining a community that has decided over nearly a hundred games of Civ4 and FFH2 that full diplo isn't working the way the want it and telling them that they are wrong because you personally want to have full diplomacy isn't really a great showing of your social skills.

But feel free to offer such a full diplomacy game. If you find enough people and have fun with it, who am I to tell you differently.

I'm not sure where I was mean in that post? I even told him to go ahead and try to set up such a game. It is not me to decide what others want to do. What I did was just pointing out that he told others who invested quite a bit of time to debate and analyze stuff that they are wrong without any argument given. Particularly in this sentence (which I quoted and which you also didn't re-quote):

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed.

Stating that dogpiles are cured with full diplo when our experience shows the exact opposite (and dogpiles actually being a reason why we moved away from full diplo) and doing so without giving any reasons is presumptuous and I think my answer was pretty calm considering that.

Thanks for the clarification, I just get annoyed at the "if you're coming in here you'd better respect our sacred cows" attitude people have about things that are personal preference (such as diplo and tech trading). So your "isn't really a great showing of your social skills." felt like a poke. Looks like it wasn't meant that way though.

BTW the ISDG is a good example of both good play being punished because of diplo and a successful dogpile.

[Krill]

Not really, but that's because RB made a couple of strategic mistakes.

[plako]

Good points has already came up concerning diplo games. I think an average RB game is better without diplo. However I also see that there are circumstances where it can work e.g. when players are mostly unknown to each other or there is a very heterogenous group playing. This does not nescessarily mean just civ skills, but e.g. the amount of effort everyone is ready to devote to an online game. For weaker/busy players it is mainly a learning/having fun experience that is potentially quite rewarding when they can be part of the winning alliance, even if they don't have a civ skills really to win the game on their own. However this does not correspond the typical setup of pretty competitive RB games that typically has lots of potential winner candidates and most of the players are known from past games.

[2metraninja]

Initially I thought I was being "purified" by the inquisition and was ready to silently accept it. But then I thought it will be non-respectful.

Good day, sir Serdoa. They call me 2metraninja and since I dont remember we met earlier and because I will be mainly answering to you, I decided it will be nice if we are properly introduced. Nice to meet you.

I for myself find that AI deals only have not less imperfections than full diplo. And I being human want to use my social skills in a game against other thinking and social humans.

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed. We cant avoid the fact we are playing humans and everyone will attempt to win. So his/hers social and political and diplomatic and planning ahead skills to a test. If we want to simply test pure civ4-game mechanincs skills, tactics and strategies, I think this is best tested in duels, or in GoTM games style.

I think joining a community that has decided over nearly a hundred games of Civ4 and FFH2 that full diplo isn't working the way the want it and telling them that they are wrong because you personally want to have full diplomacy isn't really a great showing of your social skills.

But feel free to offer such a full diplomacy game. If you find enough people and have fun with it, who am I to tell you differently.

I did not knew it is canon that full diplo games are bad, I had joined in only one game before RBPB9 and this was the RB Demo game, where full diplo is allowed. I have also heard about the 2 most infamous pitbosses in the RB pitboss history (arguably of course) and those were RBPB2 where Sullla and Speaker won, and then RBPB4, where LP won. Both of those were full diplomacy games. So, for me it is not that clear AI diplo is the preferred (or orthodox) type of games at RB. Thank you for your input on the matter.

On one thing I will have to tell you you are obviously not right, I never said someone who believe full diplomacy is wrong. I was only telling my arguments why I prefer to play games with full diplomacy.

Well, if I would have to read "you don't seem to have much experience" along with the claim "that players were just lacking meta-gaming skills" from a player who just lost the game (and according to my understanding was not in an especially strong position at any time during the game) I think I would be a lot more pissed off than Bigger was..

On both my quoted sentences I think I got proved right. Bigger himself said this was his second game, which to my understanding is fitting in the "not much experience". About "that players were just lacking meta-gaming skills" 2 out of 3 said themselves they were not aware of how far Bigger is running away with the game. The third was not happy with his awareness on the big picture too I think.

And what is so big about losing a game? Because I lost this game I have no right on opinion on what happened in this game? My opinion insults your fine eardrums? I was at least in that game and I have as you like to say "invested a lot of hours", so I can have my impressions first-hand.

Well that's a bit mean isn't it Serdoa? I don't understand what 2metra said to deserve that, the same as I didn't see snark where Bigger did. Aren't we allowed to have different opinions about what makes the game fun?

By the way there are a few full-diplo games going on at the moment - the Demogame, Erebus in the Balance PBEM XXVIII and PB14, so I'm sure you'll find another one eventually if you want to sign on 2metra.

Just to re-quote myself, as you somehow felt like cutting half of my post:

I think joining a community that has decided over nearly a hundred games of Civ4 and FFH2 that full diplo isn't working the way the want it and telling them that they are wrong because you personally want to have full diplomacy isn't really a great showing of your social skills.

But feel free to offer such a full diplomacy game. If you find enough people and have fun with it, who am I to tell you differently.

I'm not sure where I was mean in that post? I even told him to go ahead and try to set up such a game. It is not me to decide what others want to do. What I did was just pointing out that he told others who invested quite a bit of time to debate and analyze stuff that they are wrong without any argument given. Particularly in this sentence (which I quoted and which you also didn't re-quote):

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed.

Stating that dogpiles are cured with full diplo when our experience shows the exact opposite (and dogpiles actually being a reason why we moved away from full diplo) and doing so without giving any reasons is presumptuous and I think my answer was pretty calm considering that.

I will again say that I never said someone is wrong for wanting to play without making diplomacy and you keep repeating it and presenting it as a fact. Why is that? How I deserved this? What I have done to you?

Your (cumulative) experience shows exactly the opposite to my belief and you already have reason to not answer me calm? If me not giving reasons (why I need to give reasons when I state my belief on something at all btw? if you want to know why I believe so, you can simply ask me!) you consider presumptuous, how about giving me examples? I said already with which RB games I am familiar. How it happened that in all 3 games with full diplomacy allowed, no successful dogpile took place? Was it random luck? Please tell me.

BTW, I asked but had no definitive answer so far, was there ever a successful dogpile in the RB history of "almost hundred games"? Here I must acknowledge I never played a PBEM and there the dynamics and proportions could be different - smaller map, fewer players - so I can only really speak about normal pitbosses.

It’s actually a pretty complex area, and there aren’t really any absolutes in the discussion.

First of all 2MN, there is basically one important point that you might have misunderstood, which is the rules in PB9 are actually very different to all of the AI diplomacy games run on RB. The rules for PB9 included that “war against X” option, but this is the first game that used such an option, PB9 isn’t actually an AI diplomacy game. On top of that there was No Tech Brokering, which also affected the decision making processes for attacks. PB9 isn’t a useful indicator of how AI diplomacy games play out.

Now regarding the point about player interactions for timing with gpt offers, the problems you highlight don’t exist in true AI diplomacy games because of that lack of war against X offer. The whole “What does war with X mean?” problem doesn’t exist. Resource trades though, I agree that there are many different ways to interpret different offfers including demands. For example:

1. Someone offers you a sheep for sheep trade. This basically means “I don’t want to fuck with you”. It does not mean that there is an NAP in place. That meaning is not even necessarily true, and it is definitely not a reason to drop your gaurd.
   
   
2. Someone asks for a resource from you without offering anyting in return. I agree that to me this always seems like a demand, but you can always decline and then give a counter offer. The negotiating position has to be judged on a turn by turn basis with knowledge of unit positions, power, pretty much the entire game state.
   
   
3. gpt countdowns. IIRC, there are basically 2 schools of thought with this. One is that it’s not kosher and shouldn’t happen, and another that is fine with it. However, in AI Diplo games, there is no ability to request a war against a third party, so a countdown is not always...coherent.

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed. We cant avoid the fact we are playing humans and everyone will attempt to win. So his/hers social and political and diplomatic and planning ahead skills to a test. If we want to simply test pure civ4-game mechanincs skills, tactics and strategies, I think this is best tested in duels, or in GoTM games style.

What do we even mean by winning? Or player skill? You’ve already mentioned that some communities think that it’s better to finish 2nd than 3rd, but how do they differentiate between 2nd and 3rd? Do we mean score? Because that system is almost completely disconnected from skill: it measures population, land, tech and wonders, it doesn’t measure a players ability to plan, conduct diplomacy, it only indirectly measures mechanical skill as it ignores different gambits and strategies. And if a game is called before a victory condition is reached, does score even mean anything?

At RB we do expect players to play for 1st place, but I’d say we don’t actually value the win. We value the mechanics and the strategy that enables players to improve their situation. For example, Plako didn’t win PB2, but his play during that game was the most impressive part of that game.

I for myself find that AI deals only have not less imperfections than full diplo. And I being human want to use my social skills in a game against other thinking and social humans.

I understand your reasons behind "dogpiles = punishing players for good play" Krill, but I think this is easier cured with full diplo allowed. We cant avoid the fact we are playing humans and everyone will attempt to win. So his/hers social and political and diplomatic and planning ahead skills to a test. If we want to simply test pure civ4-game mechanincs skills, tactics and strategies, I think this is best tested in duels, or in GoTM games style.

The skills you mentioned are part of the skillset required to play an effective Full Diplo game. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. What the majority of the players on RB want though, is to play FFA games that don’t involve those skills, or that time sink to play it well, or with the effects I discussed in the previous post. We still experiment with rules variations fairly often, and we have found that AI diplomacy and NTT are enough to manage some of the problems. These are the games we want to play, so we play them in a manner that we find enjoyable.

Also, I don’t even know why there are those that are questioning Serdoa’s post #56.

Thank you Krill for the thoughts and explanations, I will comment on them later in details if you are interested to hear it. For now in the spirit of my post I will only comment on your last line and ask you to read again what was said, maybe you will find the reason others have found to question.

Btw:

I think you miss the fact that without me bringing Commodore to attack Cornflakes and send our armies to die just to give you a chance to bring Cornflakes down, you had no chance to conquer the ex-Azza almost empty cities which made you the new superpower. I am not a fortuneteller, but I like geopolitics and for me this was the necessary evil to stop Cornflakes running away with the game. Do not take is as some self-denial great deed of feast, I was doing it mainly for myself, not much to help you. I had plan to try to bring you down too, but alas, there was this unfortunate illegal offer I made to Cf, and we missed the opportunity somewhat. Then the others did not saw my appeal to attack you as something important and they passed on this. I was giving the game on a silver plate to Cornflakes and he refused :D (OK, I was not :kingmaking", I already had a plan to bring Commodore later to attack together Cf, of course it was not from some sudden philanthropist incentive.

Imo the above illustrates why dogpiles / full diplo is not only unnecessary but actively detrimental to the game. The above happened in Civ4 but it is not Civ4. That could be any game, diplomacy for example. When we play a PBEM or PB we invest hours over hours for months into the game. What is the point of doing that when whatever we do in the actual game is completely meaningless? Where is the appeal to think about worker-moves or city placement, about micro or which wonders to build? It becomes a minor aspect while the actual game is diplomacy. Now, I don't say that's bad necessarily and anyone who has fun with that, go ahead. But I personally don't understand why you would want to do that in Civ4, investing hours into a game that gives you merely the bordering for what you actually want to do. Seems unnecessary to me and again, I personally would rather not invest hours over hours into that.

(And imo that also explains very well why most players that do like full diplo are actually not as good at Civ4. Not necessarily because they can't, but because they simply are not interested to invest the time necessary because - see above - Civ4 itself plays just a minor part in the game they actually want to play.)

I think you are going to extremes which are not even supporting your cause. I wont name names, but I know many good civ players who win most of the games they play in, despite being full diplomacy or AI diplomacy or outright AW CTON. And they do so consistently. I hope you are not serious when saying players who like doing diplomacy, do so because they are weak at civ game mechanics? If you wanted to insult me, you could have said so directly to me, but generalizing in such manner insults wide number of players, only because you dont like diplomacy, which -allow me to say it - is not nice from your side, good sir.

...
BTW the ISDG is a good example of both good play being punished because of diplo and a successful dogpile.

Not really, but that's because RB made a couple of strategic mistakes.

I will like very much to hear your thoughts on that too. But maybe it will be better when the time comes.

[Serdoa]

I did not knew it is canon that full diplo games are bad,

Nowhere said. They are not what the majority on the site plays and we have reasons for it. If full diplomacy is good or bad is completely besides the point I made.

I have also heard about the 2 most infamous pitbosses in the RB pitboss history (arguably of course) and those were RBPB2 where Sullla and Speaker won, and then RBPB4, where LP won.

That shows pretty well that you know pretty much nothing about RB Maybe you should inform yourself instead of assuming.

I will again say that I never said someone is wrong for wanting to play without making diplomacy and you keep repeating it and presenting it as a fact. Why is that? How I deserved this? What I have done to you?

I never said what you imply I did. So maybe after informing yourself also read again what I actually wrote, understand it and then I'm happy to discuss it with you.

Your (cumulative) experience shows exactly the opposite to my belief and you already have reason to not answer me calm? If me not giving reasons (why I need to give reasons when I state my belief on something at all btw? if you want to know why I believe so, you can simply ask me!) you consider presumptuous, how about giving me examples? I said already with which RB games I am familiar. How it happened that in all 3 games with full diplomacy allowed, no successful dogpile took place? Was it random luck? Please tell me.

As you say we have experience vs believe. You know, as we say where I come from "If you want to believe, do it in the church."

BTW, I asked but had no definitive answer so far, was there ever a successful dogpile in the RB history of "almost hundred games"? Here I must acknowledge I never played a PBEM and there the dynamics and proportions could be different - smaller map, fewer players - so I can only really speak about normal pitbosses.

I know I probably sound like a broken record, but please read what I wrote, understand it and if you have questions we can then discuss it. I stated already some reasons why full diplomacy leads to issues. It's - again - besides the point if dogpiles are successful or not. And no, I'm really not interested to repeat myself over and over again. If you really want to discuss the topic, read what I actually wrote, try to understand what I mean, ask about what you don't understand, present arguments for points you disagree with etc. I'm honestly interested in those kind of discussions. However, I'm not interested in what you currently do, which is mostly inquiring in an accusing way about stuff that I never said.

(And imo that also explains very well why most players that do like full diplo are actually not as good at Civ4. Not necessarily because they can't, but because they simply are not interested to invest the time necessary because - see above - Civ4 itself plays just a minor part in the game they actually want to play.)

I think you are going to extremes which are not even supporting your cause. I wont name names, but I know many good civ players who win most of the games they play in, despite being full diplomacy or AI diplomacy or outright AW CTON. And they do so consistently. I hope you are not serious when saying players who like doing diplomacy, do so because they are weak at civ game mechanics? If you wanted to insult me, you could have said so directly to me, but generalizing in such manner insults wide number of players, only because you dont like diplomacy, which -allow me to say it - is not nice from your side, good sir.

I said players who like doing diplomacy are more often not as good at Civ4. That doesn't mean all of them are (see your examples...), but I certainly met more players who like diplomacy that are just not invested in Civ4-game mechanics to get really good at them then I met players that are good at both. Funnily enough some people seem to think that is an insult. It is not. I'm not good at soccer. If someone tells me that, it is the truth. I have never invested much time into it, so I wouldn't expect anything but.

[Ichabod]

I'm not good at soccer. If someone tells me that, it is the truth. I have never invested much time into it, so I wouldn't expect anything but.

Tough luck, my friend. We brazilians are born good at soccer, no need to invest time in it.

[Ichabod]

I'm not good at soccer. If someone tells me that, it is the truth. I have never invested much time into it, so I wouldn't expect anything but.

Tough luck, my friend. We brazilians are born good at soccer, no need to invest time in it.

Just like norwegians are born good at Civ, by the way.