Community Feedback

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Out of curiosity, what's the average game sizes for those games? How many players?
Also, could you please use the Quote Original button? If you choose not to, it's not that big a deal, but it makes following the conversation easier.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: All I ever play is strategy games. Command and Conquer, R.U.S.E, Age of Empires, Sins of a Solar Empire, Total War, etc. I can honestly tell you that I have played dozens of these types of games, and I have never found one that didn't have a diplomacy system that didn't require players to either 1) set unbreakable alliances (teams) or 2) just verbally agree to peace (which opens up the possibility of backstabbing).
These things are just part of playing a massive multiplayer strategy game. Now I was thinking that maybe we could implement a better, more visible player review system in order to self police players who are known for backstabbing. That could help weed out the types of players who cause others to leave.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Smaller games are a very poor version of the 30 player games. You break out of the first wave to find yourself and the game is over. Not nearly as rewarding as the larger games that we used to have...
But options abound and there is room for both.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Ya know, perhaps the idea should be smaller game sizes on average.
Strategy games, from what I know, do tend to work better either when you have teams or when the number of people fighting on the map are small. Sure, the diplomacy is still there, but when you only have 4-6 people in the ring, it makes for a very different dynamic in the diplomacy and will keep you from being able to make too many NAPs or become too attached.
Also, if we made the game have other winning conditions beyond "grow big, cast final BB", this could help to alleviate some pains in the diplomacy area. While some players can't win the big battle royale where diplomacy is key, they may be really good in other types of games that require a different approach like capture the flag, team, treasure hunts, etc.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't play a lot of strategy games, but I do know there are many PvP strategy games out there. Surely there are some that include up to 4+ players on the map at the same time that aren't team based? I'd be interested in how they handle things.
I'm going to google!
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: How could they do that though? I've been sitting here thinking about possible ways to implement a revamped diplomacy system while still maintaining that Evernight feel we've had for years and I honestly can't.
The truth is there will always be players in any given game that will be "ganged up" on. It's unavoidable. Usually its the one who either neglected to speak to his neighbors early on or its a player who seems to be growing to large. And the only way I can think of preventing "backstabbing" when two players align is to have some sort of "ally" button located in the Citadel that, when both push the button, the alliance becomes permenant. But that's highly contengent on whether or not people would even use it, seeing as how a way to easily circumvent having to form permenant alliances would be just to verbally agree to peace.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: Ah, one of the stubborn ones Lunar was talking about.
Simply put wrym, strategy gaming has evolved so much since I was last here years ago. The fact that Evernight has not adapted to keep up is one of the reasons it is currently sitting with very few subscribers. Evernight can modernize while still keeping the core of diplomacy intact.
I know most old school Evernighters are going to fight any changes, but unless Evernight evolves to a point that it appeals to gamers today, then I'm afraid it will not make it. This includes changing the diplomacy system.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: Diplomacy is part of what makes the game great. If you do not wish to have that as part of your game play expderince... there is to be more single player to few player duel formats.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't play a lot of strategy games, but I do know there are many PvP strategy games out there. Surely there are some that include up to 4+ players on the map at the same time that aren't team based? I'd be interested in how they handle things.
I'm going to google!
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: How could they do that though? I've been sitting here thinking about possible ways to implement a revamped diplomacy system while still maintaining that Evernight feel we've had for years and I honestly can't.
The truth is there will always be players in any given game that will be "ganged up" on. It's unavoidable. Usually its the one who either neglected to speak to his neighbors early on or its a player who seems to be growing to large. And the only way I can think of preventing "backstabbing" when two players align is to have some sort of "ally" button located in the Citadel that, when both push the button, the alliance becomes permenant. But that's highly contengent on whether or not people would even use it, seeing as how a way to easily circumvent having to form permenant alliances would be just to verbally agree to peace.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: Ah, one of the stubborn ones Lunar was talking about.
Simply put wrym, strategy gaming has evolved so much since I was last here years ago. The fact that Evernight has not adapted to keep up is one of the reasons it is currently sitting with very few subscribers. Evernight can modernize while still keeping the core of diplomacy intact.
I know most old school Evernighters are going to fight any changes, but unless Evernight evolves to a point that it appeals to gamers today, then I'm afraid it will not make it. This includes changing the diplomacy system.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: Diplomacy is part of what makes the game great. If you do not wish to have that as part of your game play expderince... there is to be more single player to few player duel formats.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't play a lot of strategy games, but I do know there are many PvP strategy games out there. Surely there are some that include up to 4+ players on the map at the same time that aren't team based? I'd be interested in how they handle things.
I'm going to google!
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: How could they do that though? I've been sitting here thinking about possible ways to implement a revamped diplomacy system while still maintaining that Evernight feel we've had for years and I honestly can't.
The truth is there will always be players in any given game that will be "ganged up" on. It's unavoidable. Usually its the one who either neglected to speak to his neighbors early on or its a player who seems to be growing to large. And the only way I can think of preventing "backstabbing" when two players align is to have some sort of "ally" button located in the Citadel that, when both push the button, the alliance becomes permenant. But that's highly contengent on whether or not people would even use it, seeing as how a way to easily circumvent having to form permenant alliances would be just to verbally agree to peace.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: Ah, one of the stubborn ones Lunar was talking about.
Simply put wrym, strategy gaming has evolved so much since I was last here years ago. The fact that Evernight has not adapted to keep up is one of the reasons it is currently sitting with very few subscribers. Evernight can modernize while still keeping the core of diplomacy intact.
I know most old school Evernighters are going to fight any changes, but unless Evernight evolves to a point that it appeals to gamers today, then I'm afraid it will not make it. This includes changing the diplomacy system.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: Diplomacy is part of what makes the game great. If you do not wish to have that as part of your game play expderince... there is to be more single player to few player duel formats.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't play a lot of strategy games, but I do know there are many PvP strategy games out there. Surely there are some that include up to 4+ players on the map at the same time that aren't team based? I'd be interested in how they handle things.
I'm going to google!
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: How could they do that though? I've been sitting here thinking about possible ways to implement a revamped diplomacy system while still maintaining that Evernight feel we've had for years and I honestly can't.
The truth is there will always be players in any given game that will be "ganged up" on. It's unavoidable. Usually its the one who either neglected to speak to his neighbors early on or its a player who seems to be growing to large. And the only way I can think of preventing "backstabbing" when two players align is to have some sort of "ally" button located in the Citadel that, when both push the button, the alliance becomes permenant. But that's highly contengent on whether or not people would even use it, seeing as how a way to easily circumvent having to form permenant alliances would be just to verbally agree to peace.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: Ah, one of the stubborn ones Lunar was talking about.
Simply put wrym, strategy gaming has evolved so much since I was last here years ago. The fact that Evernight has not adapted to keep up is one of the reasons it is currently sitting with very few subscribers. Evernight can modernize while still keeping the core of diplomacy intact.
I know most old school Evernighters are going to fight any changes, but unless Evernight evolves to a point that it appeals to gamers today, then I'm afraid it will not make it. This includes changing the diplomacy system.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: Diplomacy is part of what makes the game great. If you do not wish to have that as part of your game play expderince... there is to be more single player to few player duel formats.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't play a lot of strategy games, but I do know there are many PvP strategy games out there. Surely there are some that include up to 4+ players on the map at the same time that aren't team based? I'd be interested in how they handle things.
I'm going to google!
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: How could they do that though? I've been sitting here thinking about possible ways to implement a revamped diplomacy system while still maintaining that Evernight feel we've had for years and I honestly can't.
The truth is there will always be players in any given game that will be "ganged up" on. It's unavoidable. Usually its the one who either neglected to speak to his neighbors early on or its a player who seems to be growing to large. And the only way I can think of preventing "backstabbing" when two players align is to have some sort of "ally" button located in the Citadel that, when both push the button, the alliance becomes permenant. But that's highly contengent on whether or not people would even use it, seeing as how a way to easily circumvent having to form permenant alliances would be just to verbally agree to peace.

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: LOL. We should start including TL;DR's.
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: What he said.
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I've had a problem with a certain aspect of dilpomacy that is seperate from what we have been discussing, however I am going to post it in the diplomacy thread to keep everything diplomacy related together.
Basically, pre-game communication and the effect it has on players joining a game late.
It seems as if players who join a game when it is almost filled are at a disadvantage due to the fact that most players who are already in the game have already communicated with their neighbors on peace agreements. It's almost as if the game is punishing these players for not joining fast enough.
Imagine someone joining a game as the last player needed to start. After joining, they send out e-mails to perspective allies, only to find that most of them (if not all) decline the request, stating that accepting would completely box them in. Before the game has even ran it's first tick, that game has already been decided against that player. They know that, because they were one of the last players to join, they will be attacked from all sides.
Should this really be the case? Should last slot players be "punished" because they were not able to join a game earlier? Who knows what caused them to not join before? Maybe they just became a subscriber, or a game slot just opened for them?
I remember when I played years ago, I made it a case not to join any games where 75% of the field was already filled. I could tell others would do the same, as it seemed like a game would fill up quickly up until there were only a few spots left. At that point, it took FOREVER for the game to fill those last spots, and usually it filled with either newbies who didn't know better, or respected (and feared) veterans who would have no problem gaining allies no matter when they joined. I supposed after all these years I forgot my own rule, as I recently joined my first game in years, a MAG 7 game, as one of the last participants. I immediately was reminded why I never join games that were almost filled, as almost every peace agreement I sent out was rejected due to those players not wanting to be "boxed in." One player even responded to my request saying, "I shouldn't have joined so late." Hmmmm...
I never brought this up before since we had plenty of players back then and I really didn't care if a newbie was turned off of Evernight because of being shunned in this way. But since we are now looking ways to attract new ones (as well as ways to PREVENT them from leaving, which this could be one), I would suggest that we change this dynamic of diplomacy. One immediate response to this that I think would work would be the restriction of communication before a game started. Wait until a game has been completely filled before opening the communication lines between players. Also, to prevent people from circumvention this restriction by just communicating through other means (such as personal e-mail or the lobby), do not reveal the world map or where other players are placed until the game has started (or, just don't place the players in the map until the game is filled). By doing this, you give every player a much fairer chance at diplomacy.
The Knockout Kid
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: I wholeheartedly agree. I've expressed my opinion concerning diplomacy in a different thread. let me copy paste it in here. I advocate different types of diplomacy games.
The normal standard dipomacy games allows for deceit and betrayal. A crucial ingredient for some but Im assuming not many. The other types of games do not condone or allow for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-----copy
Diplomacy also restricts EN. You need to be political to succeed but more often then not it becomes a tedious chore. During my EN days Ive encountered numerous players who went into 'quick diplo' with very short emails such as '5tick NAP?' or 'Accepted' and this after a few months of playing. The question is, who is driven away by the diplomacy part of EN? Non-English speaking players would be most obvious, the silent types (Remember tomb123 or River? Although River wasnt very silent in the NG's odlly enough), the purists focusing on the mathematic side of EN and many more. EN is very time consuming and mainly because of the diplomacy part. Whenever players start to feel 'burn-out' they will leave.
Diplomacy also has a nasty side effect. Grudges and hurt feelings. This shouldnt be underestimated. A game in EverNight is a huge time investment for atleast a month. Watching your game getting trashed without getting any sort of compensation can be the nail in the coffin. You dont even have to be wronged to lose enjoyment of the game. Getting 'outplayed' (notice the quotes) in the diplomatic area by for example a sudden gangbang orchestrated by a player 150 regions from you can be enough to close EverNight and to never return. In a nutshell, the loss of players due to diplomacy shouldnt be dismissed.
Im not advocating removing diplomacy from EN. Certainly not. I suggest the possibilty of fixed diplomacy games enforced by code to allow for games in which talking is not a necessity along with normal diplomacy games.
I also put forward the construction of a Codex containing the Law of EN. Some games might require players to adhere to that Codex.
Failure in doing so should get them before a Tribunal of Elders which can and may exact a punishment such as transferral of his XP to the wronged party.
In summary you would have 3 types of games ;
- the normal diplomacy games in their current form - fixed diplomacy enforced by code - Codex enforced games.
-----paste
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel this needs to be discussed. And I'm interested to hear the management's stance on it.
You have said you wish to widen the appeal of the game a bit. But how far do you intend? I accept the fact the game will not appeal to everyone and you have no intention of making it do so. However, diplomacy is an extremely niche market.
I have always been of the mindset that the diplomacy of the game is a double edged sword. Unfortunately, it's not a double edged sword that's been working in EN's favor.
The level of communication and cooperation the game encourages is fantastic and requires a certain level of dedication and player thinking. However, if you desire a larger player base, you will have to tone it down some.
The communication between gamers has led to many bouts of bad blood in the community. Especially when one feels cheated or ganged up on by the people around them. And it creates tension. Or even worse, it causes people to leave. In droves. Some return, but many do not.
I personally feel that cooperation and communication can stay in the game, but much of it needs to be brought down to a mechanical in-game level instead of relying on the words of a human being. This also helps remove a lot of other potential real world problems like someone's life falling apart, time zones, language barriers, and more.
Can deceit still be in the game? I personally don't think so if you want it to thrive more than it has. Or perhaps you can find a way to implement it mechanically so it's viewed as less venomous among average players.
Lunar Savage

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Can't please all the people all the time?
What people say is one thing.
What they do is another.
It can be stunning how often one bears little relation to the other.
That's big reason why I'm generally in favor of making things options.
Then observe which get used, which get ignored.


-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: That is why the blind start option was created..
We did a few games with it. Didn't get a lot of support..
-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I've had a problem with a certain aspect of dilpomacy that is seperate from what we have been discussing, however I am going to post it in the diplomacy thread to keep everything diplomacy related together.
Basically, pre-game communication and the effect it has on players joining a game late.
It seems as if players who join a game when it is almost filled are at a disadvantage due to the fact that most players who are already in the game have already communicated with their neighbors on peace agreements. It's almost as if the game is punishing these players for not joining fast enough.
Imagine someone joining a game as the last player needed to start. After joining, they send out e-mails to perspective allies, only to find that most of them (if not all) decline the request, stating that accepting would completely box them in. Before the game has even ran it's first tick, that game has already been decided against that player. They know that, because they were one of the last players to join, they will be attacked from all sides.
Should this really be the case? Should last slot players be "punished" because they were not able to join a game earlier? Who knows what caused them to not join before? Maybe they just became a subscriber, or a game slot just opened for them?
I remember when I played years ago, I made it a case not to join any games where 75% of the field was already filled. I could tell others would do the same, as it seemed like a game would fill up quickly up until there were only a few spots left. At that point, it took FOREVER for the game to fill those last spots, and usually it filled with either newbies who didn't know better, or respected (and feared) veterans who would have no problem gaining allies no matter when they joined. I supposed after all these years I forgot my own rule, as I recently joined my first game in years, a MAG 7 game, as one of the last participants. I immediately was reminded why I never join games that were almost filled, as almost every peace agreement I sent out was rejected due to those players not wanting to be "boxed in." One player even responded to my request saying, "I shouldn't have joined so late." Hmmmm...
I never brought this up before since we had plenty of players back then and I really didn't care if a newbie was turned off of Evernight because of being shunned in this way. But since we are now looking ways to attract new ones (as well as ways to PREVENT them from leaving, which this could be one), I would suggest that we change this dynamic of diplomacy. One immediate response to this that I think would work would be the restriction of communication before a game started. Wait until a game has been completely filled before opening the communication lines between players. Also, to prevent people from circumvention this restriction by just communicating through other means (such as personal e-mail or the lobby), do not reveal the world map or where other players are placed until the game has started (or, just don't place the players in the map until the game is filled). By doing this, you give every player a much fairer chance at diplomacy.
The Knockout Kid
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: I wholeheartedly agree. I've expressed my opinion concerning diplomacy in a different thread. let me copy paste it in here. I advocate different types of diplomacy games.
The normal standard dipomacy games allows for deceit and betrayal. A crucial ingredient for some but Im assuming not many. The other types of games do not condone or allow for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-----copy
Diplomacy also restricts EN. You need to be political to succeed but more often then not it becomes a tedious chore. During my EN days Ive encountered numerous players who went into 'quick diplo' with very short emails such as '5tick NAP?' or 'Accepted' and this after a few months of playing. The question is, who is driven away by the diplomacy part of EN? Non-English speaking players would be most obvious, the silent types (Remember tomb123 or River? Although River wasnt very silent in the NG's odlly enough), the purists focusing on the mathematic side of EN and many more. EN is very time consuming and mainly because of the diplomacy part. Whenever players start to feel 'burn-out' they will leave.
Diplomacy also has a nasty side effect. Grudges and hurt feelings. This shouldnt be underestimated. A game in EverNight is a huge time investment for atleast a month. Watching your game getting trashed without getting any sort of compensation can be the nail in the coffin. You dont even have to be wronged to lose enjoyment of the game. Getting 'outplayed' (notice the quotes) in the diplomatic area by for example a sudden gangbang orchestrated by a player 150 regions from you can be enough to close EverNight and to never return. In a nutshell, the loss of players due to diplomacy shouldnt be dismissed.
Im not advocating removing diplomacy from EN. Certainly not. I suggest the possibilty of fixed diplomacy games enforced by code to allow for games in which talking is not a necessity along with normal diplomacy games.
I also put forward the construction of a Codex containing the Law of EN. Some games might require players to adhere to that Codex.
Failure in doing so should get them before a Tribunal of Elders which can and may exact a punishment such as transferral of his XP to the wronged party.
In summary you would have 3 types of games ;
- the normal diplomacy games in their current form - fixed diplomacy enforced by code - Codex enforced games.
-----paste
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel this needs to be discussed. And I'm interested to hear the management's stance on it.
You have said you wish to widen the appeal of the game a bit. But how far do you intend? I accept the fact the game will not appeal to everyone and you have no intention of making it do so. However, diplomacy is an extremely niche market.
I have always been of the mindset that the diplomacy of the game is a double edged sword. Unfortunately, it's not a double edged sword that's been working in EN's favor.
The level of communication and cooperation the game encourages is fantastic and requires a certain level of dedication and player thinking. However, if you desire a larger player base, you will have to tone it down some.
The communication between gamers has led to many bouts of bad blood in the community. Especially when one feels cheated or ganged up on by the people around them. And it creates tension. Or even worse, it causes people to leave. In droves. Some return, but many do not.
I personally feel that cooperation and communication can stay in the game, but much of it needs to be brought down to a mechanical in-game level instead of relying on the words of a human being. This also helps remove a lot of other potential real world problems like someone's life falling apart, time zones, language barriers, and more.
Can deceit still be in the game? I personally don't think so if you want it to thrive more than it has. Or perhaps you can find a way to implement it mechanically so it's viewed as less venomous among average players.
Lunar Savage

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I agree that the issue is not a major issue nor did I state that it was so in my last comment (nor are you accusing me of doing so). What I am saying is that if we are looking for potential road blocks in retaining new players, this could be one. Normally I would not be championing for this change in the old days. However, since we are pretty much revamping our diplomacy experience to better welcome new ones, it is atleast worth discussing. Because even though it might not seem like a huge issue to some, it was obviously a big enough issue at some point that it warranted a new game type and discussion in the NG's.
The Knockout Kid

-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
This is another good topic. And it's definitely not a new one. Many ideas have be discussed as possible ideas.
Curiosity for a first hand view on this very question was a major reason I joined under a new alias.
-- <anecdotal observations> --
My personal experience however, and I understand this is very unscientific and potentially skewed for a whole boatload of reasons, is that the perception of this issue is far worse than the reality of it.
Back when I was actively playing it was actually my preference to join late/last. Sometimes I would even totally ignore in-game emails until I actually had borders with someone, and that would be my cue to open talks.
At best though, all that tells us that an experienced player who at least doesn't have a reputation as a pushover, shouldn't have a terrible fear of joining late.
So with a completely new alias, I joined four games. I joined all four relatively late, and at least one dead last. I actually joined that one because someone posted a message in the chat saying only one more player was needed to start the game.
In all four of those games I did not find it problem securing naps.
In two of the games I sent a nap offer to every player in the game just to see what would happen. I got back far more acceptances than declines in both.
In one, at first I only contacted my immediate neighbors. In the last, I went the mostly silent approach. Mostly waiting for borders to approach before making diplomatic contact. And mostly all I did there was simply inquire whether they wanted peace or wanted to fight, and then went along with whatever their answer was.
So far the results of my little 4 game test run suggests there may be an argument that over-napping can be a bigger problem than under-napping.
-- </anecdotal observations> --
All that being said, I do agree that it is an issue worth time and effort to address, I just not sure that it's quite as dire as some think it is.
One idea that has been discussed in the past is to wait until a game fills before creating the map, or at least before placing the players in the starting positions.
Then everyone gets an equal opportunity to figure out who their neighbors are and to open their initial diplomacy.
Other ideas that have been discussed were variations on some sort of blackout. Either a blackout on seeing who has already joined, or a blackout on communications.
In theory, good ideas, but as a practical matter I think it would likely result in some/many players going out of their way to circumvent the rule.

Personally I lean towards simply waiting until the game fills before placing players in their starting positions.
Either as the default way games are created, or at least as an option for the game.

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I've had a problem with a certain aspect of dilpomacy that is seperate from what we have been discussing, however I am going to post it in the diplomacy thread to keep everything diplomacy related together.
Basically, pre-game communication and the effect it has on players joining a game late.
It seems as if players who join a game when it is almost filled are at a disadvantage due to the fact that most players who are already in the game have already communicated with their neighbors on peace agreements. It's almost as if the game is punishing these players for not joining fast enough.
Imagine someone joining a game as the last player needed to start. After joining, they send out e-mails to perspective allies, only to find that most of them (if not all) decline the request, stating that accepting would completely box them in. Before the game has even ran it's first tick, that game has already been decided against that player. They know that, because they were one of the last players to join, they will be attacked from all sides.
Should this really be the case? Should last slot players be "punished" because they were not able to join a game earlier? Who knows what caused them to not join before? Maybe they just became a subscriber, or a game slot just opened for them?
I remember when I played years ago, I made it a case not to join any games where 75% of the field was already filled. I could tell others would do the same, as it seemed like a game would fill up quickly up until there were only a few spots left. At that point, it took FOREVER for the game to fill those last spots, and usually it filled with either newbies who didn't know better, or respected (and feared) veterans who would have no problem gaining allies no matter when they joined. I supposed after all these years I forgot my own rule, as I recently joined my first game in years, a MAG 7 game, as one of the last participants. I immediately was reminded why I never join games that were almost filled, as almost every peace agreement I sent out was rejected due to those players not wanting to be "boxed in." One player even responded to my request saying, "I shouldn't have joined so late." Hmmmm...
I never brought this up before since we had plenty of players back then and I really didn't care if a newbie was turned off of Evernight because of being shunned in this way. But since we are now looking ways to attract new ones (as well as ways to PREVENT them from leaving, which this could be one), I would suggest that we change this dynamic of diplomacy. One immediate response to this that I think would work would be the restriction of communication before a game started. Wait until a game has been completely filled before opening the communication lines between players. Also, to prevent people from circumvention this restriction by just communicating through other means (such as personal e-mail or the lobby), do not reveal the world map or where other players are placed until the game has started (or, just don't place the players in the map until the game is filled). By doing this, you give every player a much fairer chance at diplomacy.
The Knockout Kid
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: I wholeheartedly agree. I've expressed my opinion concerning diplomacy in a different thread. let me copy paste it in here. I advocate different types of diplomacy games.
The normal standard dipomacy games allows for deceit and betrayal. A crucial ingredient for some but Im assuming not many. The other types of games do not condone or allow for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-----copy
Diplomacy also restricts EN. You need to be political to succeed but more often then not it becomes a tedious chore. During my EN days Ive encountered numerous players who went into 'quick diplo' with very short emails such as '5tick NAP?' or 'Accepted' and this after a few months of playing. The question is, who is driven away by the diplomacy part of EN? Non-English speaking players would be most obvious, the silent types (Remember tomb123 or River? Although River wasnt very silent in the NG's odlly enough), the purists focusing on the mathematic side of EN and many more. EN is very time consuming and mainly because of the diplomacy part. Whenever players start to feel 'burn-out' they will leave.
Diplomacy also has a nasty side effect. Grudges and hurt feelings. This shouldnt be underestimated. A game in EverNight is a huge time investment for atleast a month. Watching your game getting trashed without getting any sort of compensation can be the nail in the coffin. You dont even have to be wronged to lose enjoyment of the game. Getting 'outplayed' (notice the quotes) in the diplomatic area by for example a sudden gangbang orchestrated by a player 150 regions from you can be enough to close EverNight and to never return. In a nutshell, the loss of players due to diplomacy shouldnt be dismissed.
Im not advocating removing diplomacy from EN. Certainly not. I suggest the possibilty of fixed diplomacy games enforced by code to allow for games in which talking is not a necessity along with normal diplomacy games.
I also put forward the construction of a Codex containing the Law of EN. Some games might require players to adhere to that Codex.
Failure in doing so should get them before a Tribunal of Elders which can and may exact a punishment such as transferral of his XP to the wronged party.
In summary you would have 3 types of games ;
- the normal diplomacy games in their current form - fixed diplomacy enforced by code - Codex enforced games.
-----paste
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel this needs to be discussed. And I'm interested to hear the management's stance on it.
You have said you wish to widen the appeal of the game a bit. But how far do you intend? I accept the fact the game will not appeal to everyone and you have no intention of making it do so. However, diplomacy is an extremely niche market.
I have always been of the mindset that the diplomacy of the game is a double edged sword. Unfortunately, it's not a double edged sword that's been working in EN's favor.
The level of communication and cooperation the game encourages is fantastic and requires a certain level of dedication and player thinking. However, if you desire a larger player base, you will have to tone it down some.
The communication between gamers has led to many bouts of bad blood in the community. Especially when one feels cheated or ganged up on by the people around them. And it creates tension. Or even worse, it causes people to leave. In droves. Some return, but many do not.
I personally feel that cooperation and communication can stay in the game, but much of it needs to be brought down to a mechanical in-game level instead of relying on the words of a human being. This also helps remove a lot of other potential real world problems like someone's life falling apart, time zones, language barriers, and more.
Can deceit still be in the game? I personally don't think so if you want it to thrive more than it has. Or perhaps you can find a way to implement it mechanically so it's viewed as less venomous among average players.
Lunar Savage

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I agree that the issue is not a major issue nor did I state that it was so in my last comment (nor are you accusing me of doing so). What I am saying is that if we are looking for potential road blocks in retaining new players, this could be one. Normally I would not be championing for this change in the old days. However, since we are pretty much revamping our diplomacy experience to better welcome new ones, it is atleast worth discussing. Because even though it might not seem like a huge issue to some, it was obviously a big enough issue at some point that it warranted a new game type and discussion in the NG's.
The Knockout Kid

-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
This is another good topic. And it's definitely not a new one. Many ideas have be discussed as possible ideas.
Curiosity for a first hand view on this very question was a major reason I joined under a new alias.
-- <anecdotal observations> --
My personal experience however, and I understand this is very unscientific and potentially skewed for a whole boatload of reasons, is that the perception of this issue is far worse than the reality of it.
Back when I was actively playing it was actually my preference to join late/last. Sometimes I would even totally ignore in-game emails until I actually had borders with someone, and that would be my cue to open talks.
At best though, all that tells us that an experienced player who at least doesn't have a reputation as a pushover, shouldn't have a terrible fear of joining late.
So with a completely new alias, I joined four games. I joined all four relatively late, and at least one dead last. I actually joined that one because someone posted a message in the chat saying only one more player was needed to start the game.
In all four of those games I did not find it problem securing naps.
In two of the games I sent a nap offer to every player in the game just to see what would happen. I got back far more acceptances than declines in both.
In one, at first I only contacted my immediate neighbors. In the last, I went the mostly silent approach. Mostly waiting for borders to approach before making diplomatic contact. And mostly all I did there was simply inquire whether they wanted peace or wanted to fight, and then went along with whatever their answer was.
So far the results of my little 4 game test run suggests there may be an argument that over-napping can be a bigger problem than under-napping.
-- </anecdotal observations> --
All that being said, I do agree that it is an issue worth time and effort to address, I just not sure that it's quite as dire as some think it is.
One idea that has been discussed in the past is to wait until a game fills before creating the map, or at least before placing the players in the starting positions.
Then everyone gets an equal opportunity to figure out who their neighbors are and to open their initial diplomacy.
Other ideas that have been discussed were variations on some sort of blackout. Either a blackout on seeing who has already joined, or a blackout on communications.
In theory, good ideas, but as a practical matter I think it would likely result in some/many players going out of their way to circumvent the rule.

Personally I lean towards simply waiting until the game fills before placing players in their starting positions.
Either as the default way games are created, or at least as an option for the game.

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I've had a problem with a certain aspect of dilpomacy that is seperate from what we have been discussing, however I am going to post it in the diplomacy thread to keep everything diplomacy related together.
Basically, pre-game communication and the effect it has on players joining a game late.
It seems as if players who join a game when it is almost filled are at a disadvantage due to the fact that most players who are already in the game have already communicated with their neighbors on peace agreements. It's almost as if the game is punishing these players for not joining fast enough.
Imagine someone joining a game as the last player needed to start. After joining, they send out e-mails to perspective allies, only to find that most of them (if not all) decline the request, stating that accepting would completely box them in. Before the game has even ran it's first tick, that game has already been decided against that player. They know that, because they were one of the last players to join, they will be attacked from all sides.
Should this really be the case? Should last slot players be "punished" because they were not able to join a game earlier? Who knows what caused them to not join before? Maybe they just became a subscriber, or a game slot just opened for them?
I remember when I played years ago, I made it a case not to join any games where 75% of the field was already filled. I could tell others would do the same, as it seemed like a game would fill up quickly up until there were only a few spots left. At that point, it took FOREVER for the game to fill those last spots, and usually it filled with either newbies who didn't know better, or respected (and feared) veterans who would have no problem gaining allies no matter when they joined. I supposed after all these years I forgot my own rule, as I recently joined my first game in years, a MAG 7 game, as one of the last participants. I immediately was reminded why I never join games that were almost filled, as almost every peace agreement I sent out was rejected due to those players not wanting to be "boxed in." One player even responded to my request saying, "I shouldn't have joined so late." Hmmmm...
I never brought this up before since we had plenty of players back then and I really didn't care if a newbie was turned off of Evernight because of being shunned in this way. But since we are now looking ways to attract new ones (as well as ways to PREVENT them from leaving, which this could be one), I would suggest that we change this dynamic of diplomacy. One immediate response to this that I think would work would be the restriction of communication before a game started. Wait until a game has been completely filled before opening the communication lines between players. Also, to prevent people from circumvention this restriction by just communicating through other means (such as personal e-mail or the lobby), do not reveal the world map or where other players are placed until the game has started (or, just don't place the players in the map until the game is filled). By doing this, you give every player a much fairer chance at diplomacy.
The Knockout Kid
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: I wholeheartedly agree. I've expressed my opinion concerning diplomacy in a different thread. let me copy paste it in here. I advocate different types of diplomacy games.
The normal standard dipomacy games allows for deceit and betrayal. A crucial ingredient for some but Im assuming not many. The other types of games do not condone or allow for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-----copy
Diplomacy also restricts EN. You need to be political to succeed but more often then not it becomes a tedious chore. During my EN days Ive encountered numerous players who went into 'quick diplo' with very short emails such as '5tick NAP?' or 'Accepted' and this after a few months of playing. The question is, who is driven away by the diplomacy part of EN? Non-English speaking players would be most obvious, the silent types (Remember tomb123 or River? Although River wasnt very silent in the NG's odlly enough), the purists focusing on the mathematic side of EN and many more. EN is very time consuming and mainly because of the diplomacy part. Whenever players start to feel 'burn-out' they will leave.
Diplomacy also has a nasty side effect. Grudges and hurt feelings. This shouldnt be underestimated. A game in EverNight is a huge time investment for atleast a month. Watching your game getting trashed without getting any sort of compensation can be the nail in the coffin. You dont even have to be wronged to lose enjoyment of the game. Getting 'outplayed' (notice the quotes) in the diplomatic area by for example a sudden gangbang orchestrated by a player 150 regions from you can be enough to close EverNight and to never return. In a nutshell, the loss of players due to diplomacy shouldnt be dismissed.
Im not advocating removing diplomacy from EN. Certainly not. I suggest the possibilty of fixed diplomacy games enforced by code to allow for games in which talking is not a necessity along with normal diplomacy games.
I also put forward the construction of a Codex containing the Law of EN. Some games might require players to adhere to that Codex.
Failure in doing so should get them before a Tribunal of Elders which can and may exact a punishment such as transferral of his XP to the wronged party.
In summary you would have 3 types of games ;
- the normal diplomacy games in their current form - fixed diplomacy enforced by code - Codex enforced games.
-----paste
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel this needs to be discussed. And I'm interested to hear the management's stance on it.
You have said you wish to widen the appeal of the game a bit. But how far do you intend? I accept the fact the game will not appeal to everyone and you have no intention of making it do so. However, diplomacy is an extremely niche market.
I have always been of the mindset that the diplomacy of the game is a double edged sword. Unfortunately, it's not a double edged sword that's been working in EN's favor.
The level of communication and cooperation the game encourages is fantastic and requires a certain level of dedication and player thinking. However, if you desire a larger player base, you will have to tone it down some.
The communication between gamers has led to many bouts of bad blood in the community. Especially when one feels cheated or ganged up on by the people around them. And it creates tension. Or even worse, it causes people to leave. In droves. Some return, but many do not.
I personally feel that cooperation and communication can stay in the game, but much of it needs to be brought down to a mechanical in-game level instead of relying on the words of a human being. This also helps remove a lot of other potential real world problems like someone's life falling apart, time zones, language barriers, and more.
Can deceit still be in the game? I personally don't think so if you want it to thrive more than it has. Or perhaps you can find a way to implement it mechanically so it's viewed as less venomous among average players.
Lunar Savage

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Players shouldnt be placed on the map before a game starts. They should be kept in a 'Waiting Room'.
The Knockout Kid hit the nail on the head. Games fillup rate stale at a certain point because the majority does not want to join a game late.
Ive had numerous accounts. It was a bad habit. It did give me the impression new players should not join a game late. It is deadly.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
This is another good topic. And it's definitely not a new one. Many ideas have be discussed as possible ideas.
Curiosity for a first hand view on this very question was a major reason I joined under a new alias.
-- <anecdotal observations> --
My personal experience however, and I understand this is very unscientific and potentially skewed for a whole boatload of reasons, is that the perception of this issue is far worse than the reality of it.
Back when I was actively playing it was actually my preference to join late/last. Sometimes I would even totally ignore in-game emails until I actually had borders with someone, and that would be my cue to open talks.
At best though, all that tells us that an experienced player who at least doesn't have a reputation as a pushover, shouldn't have a terrible fear of joining late.
So with a completely new alias, I joined four games. I joined all four relatively late, and at least one dead last. I actually joined that one because someone posted a message in the chat saying only one more player was needed to start the game.
In all four of those games I did not find it problem securing naps.
In two of the games I sent a nap offer to every player in the game just to see what would happen. I got back far more acceptances than declines in both.
In one, at first I only contacted my immediate neighbors. In the last, I went the mostly silent approach. Mostly waiting for borders to approach before making diplomatic contact. And mostly all I did there was simply inquire whether they wanted peace or wanted to fight, and then went along with whatever their answer was.
So far the results of my little 4 game test run suggests there may be an argument that over-napping can be a bigger problem than under-napping.
-- </anecdotal observations> --
All that being said, I do agree that it is an issue worth time and effort to address, I just not sure that it's quite as dire as some think it is.
One idea that has been discussed in the past is to wait until a game fills before creating the map, or at least before placing the players in the starting positions.
Then everyone gets an equal opportunity to figure out who their neighbors are and to open their initial diplomacy.
Other ideas that have been discussed were variations on some sort of blackout. Either a blackout on seeing who has already joined, or a blackout on communications.
In theory, good ideas, but as a practical matter I think it would likely result in some/many players going out of their way to circumvent the rule.

Personally I lean towards simply waiting until the game fills before placing players in their starting positions.
Either as the default way games are created, or at least as an option for the game.

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I've had a problem with a certain aspect of dilpomacy that is seperate from what we have been discussing, however I am going to post it in the diplomacy thread to keep everything diplomacy related together.
Basically, pre-game communication and the effect it has on players joining a game late.
It seems as if players who join a game when it is almost filled are at a disadvantage due to the fact that most players who are already in the game have already communicated with their neighbors on peace agreements. It's almost as if the game is punishing these players for not joining fast enough.
Imagine someone joining a game as the last player needed to start. After joining, they send out e-mails to perspective allies, only to find that most of them (if not all) decline the request, stating that accepting would completely box them in. Before the game has even ran it's first tick, that game has already been decided against that player. They know that, because they were one of the last players to join, they will be attacked from all sides.
Should this really be the case? Should last slot players be "punished" because they were not able to join a game earlier? Who knows what caused them to not join before? Maybe they just became a subscriber, or a game slot just opened for them?
I remember when I played years ago, I made it a case not to join any games where 75% of the field was already filled. I could tell others would do the same, as it seemed like a game would fill up quickly up until there were only a few spots left. At that point, it took FOREVER for the game to fill those last spots, and usually it filled with either newbies who didn't know better, or respected (and feared) veterans who would have no problem gaining allies no matter when they joined. I supposed after all these years I forgot my own rule, as I recently joined my first game in years, a MAG 7 game, as one of the last participants. I immediately was reminded why I never join games that were almost filled, as almost every peace agreement I sent out was rejected due to those players not wanting to be "boxed in." One player even responded to my request saying, "I shouldn't have joined so late." Hmmmm...
I never brought this up before since we had plenty of players back then and I really didn't care if a newbie was turned off of Evernight because of being shunned in this way. But since we are now looking ways to attract new ones (as well as ways to PREVENT them from leaving, which this could be one), I would suggest that we change this dynamic of diplomacy. One immediate response to this that I think would work would be the restriction of communication before a game started. Wait until a game has been completely filled before opening the communication lines between players. Also, to prevent people from circumvention this restriction by just communicating through other means (such as personal e-mail or the lobby), do not reveal the world map or where other players are placed until the game has started (or, just don't place the players in the map until the game is filled). By doing this, you give every player a much fairer chance at diplomacy.
The Knockout Kid
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: I wholeheartedly agree. I've expressed my opinion concerning diplomacy in a different thread. let me copy paste it in here. I advocate different types of diplomacy games.
The normal standard dipomacy games allows for deceit and betrayal. A crucial ingredient for some but Im assuming not many. The other types of games do not condone or allow for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-----copy
Diplomacy also restricts EN. You need to be political to succeed but more often then not it becomes a tedious chore. During my EN days Ive encountered numerous players who went into 'quick diplo' with very short emails such as '5tick NAP?' or 'Accepted' and this after a few months of playing. The question is, who is driven away by the diplomacy part of EN? Non-English speaking players would be most obvious, the silent types (Remember tomb123 or River? Although River wasnt very silent in the NG's odlly enough), the purists focusing on the mathematic side of EN and many more. EN is very time consuming and mainly because of the diplomacy part. Whenever players start to feel 'burn-out' they will leave.
Diplomacy also has a nasty side effect. Grudges and hurt feelings. This shouldnt be underestimated. A game in EverNight is a huge time investment for atleast a month. Watching your game getting trashed without getting any sort of compensation can be the nail in the coffin. You dont even have to be wronged to lose enjoyment of the game. Getting 'outplayed' (notice the quotes) in the diplomatic area by for example a sudden gangbang orchestrated by a player 150 regions from you can be enough to close EverNight and to never return. In a nutshell, the loss of players due to diplomacy shouldnt be dismissed.
Im not advocating removing diplomacy from EN. Certainly not. I suggest the possibilty of fixed diplomacy games enforced by code to allow for games in which talking is not a necessity along with normal diplomacy games.
I also put forward the construction of a Codex containing the Law of EN. Some games might require players to adhere to that Codex.
Failure in doing so should get them before a Tribunal of Elders which can and may exact a punishment such as transferral of his XP to the wronged party.
In summary you would have 3 types of games ;
- the normal diplomacy games in their current form - fixed diplomacy enforced by code - Codex enforced games.
-----paste
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel this needs to be discussed. And I'm interested to hear the management's stance on it.
You have said you wish to widen the appeal of the game a bit. But how far do you intend? I accept the fact the game will not appeal to everyone and you have no intention of making it do so. However, diplomacy is an extremely niche market.
I have always been of the mindset that the diplomacy of the game is a double edged sword. Unfortunately, it's not a double edged sword that's been working in EN's favor.
The level of communication and cooperation the game encourages is fantastic and requires a certain level of dedication and player thinking. However, if you desire a larger player base, you will have to tone it down some.
The communication between gamers has led to many bouts of bad blood in the community. Especially when one feels cheated or ganged up on by the people around them. And it creates tension. Or even worse, it causes people to leave. In droves. Some return, but many do not.
I personally feel that cooperation and communication can stay in the game, but much of it needs to be brought down to a mechanical in-game level instead of relying on the words of a human being. This also helps remove a lot of other potential real world problems like someone's life falling apart, time zones, language barriers, and more.
Can deceit still be in the game? I personally don't think so if you want it to thrive more than it has. Or perhaps you can find a way to implement it mechanically so it's viewed as less venomous among average players.
Lunar Savage

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Players shouldnt be placed on the map before a game starts. They should be kept in a 'Waiting Room'.
The Knockout Kid hit the nail on the head. Games fillup rate stale at a certain point because the majority does not want to join a game late.
Ive had numerous accounts. It was a bad habit. It did give me the impression new players should not join a game late. It is deadly.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
This is another good topic. And it's definitely not a new one. Many ideas have be discussed as possible ideas.
Curiosity for a first hand view on this very question was a major reason I joined under a new alias.
-- <anecdotal observations> --
My personal experience however, and I understand this is very unscientific and potentially skewed for a whole boatload of reasons, is that the perception of this issue is far worse than the reality of it.
Back when I was actively playing it was actually my preference to join late/last. Sometimes I would even totally ignore in-game emails until I actually had borders with someone, and that would be my cue to open talks.
At best though, all that tells us that an experienced player who at least doesn't have a reputation as a pushover, shouldn't have a terrible fear of joining late.
So with a completely new alias, I joined four games. I joined all four relatively late, and at least one dead last. I actually joined that one because someone posted a message in the chat saying only one more player was needed to start the game.
In all four of those games I did not find it problem securing naps.
In two of the games I sent a nap offer to every player in the game just to see what would happen. I got back far more acceptances than declines in both.
In one, at first I only contacted my immediate neighbors. In the last, I went the mostly silent approach. Mostly waiting for borders to approach before making diplomatic contact. And mostly all I did there was simply inquire whether they wanted peace or wanted to fight, and then went along with whatever their answer was.
So far the results of my little 4 game test run suggests there may be an argument that over-napping can be a bigger problem than under-napping.
-- </anecdotal observations> --
All that being said, I do agree that it is an issue worth time and effort to address, I just not sure that it's quite as dire as some think it is.
One idea that has been discussed in the past is to wait until a game fills before creating the map, or at least before placing the players in the starting positions.
Then everyone gets an equal opportunity to figure out who their neighbors are and to open their initial diplomacy.
Other ideas that have been discussed were variations on some sort of blackout. Either a blackout on seeing who has already joined, or a blackout on communications.
In theory, good ideas, but as a practical matter I think it would likely result in some/many players going out of their way to circumvent the rule.

Personally I lean towards simply waiting until the game fills before placing players in their starting positions.
Either as the default way games are created, or at least as an option for the game.

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I've had a problem with a certain aspect of dilpomacy that is seperate from what we have been discussing, however I am going to post it in the diplomacy thread to keep everything diplomacy related together.
Basically, pre-game communication and the effect it has on players joining a game late.
It seems as if players who join a game when it is almost filled are at a disadvantage due to the fact that most players who are already in the game have already communicated with their neighbors on peace agreements. It's almost as if the game is punishing these players for not joining fast enough.
Imagine someone joining a game as the last player needed to start. After joining, they send out e-mails to perspective allies, only to find that most of them (if not all) decline the request, stating that accepting would completely box them in. Before the game has even ran it's first tick, that game has already been decided against that player. They know that, because they were one of the last players to join, they will be attacked from all sides.
Should this really be the case? Should last slot players be "punished" because they were not able to join a game earlier? Who knows what caused them to not join before? Maybe they just became a subscriber, or a game slot just opened for them?
I remember when I played years ago, I made it a case not to join any games where 75% of the field was already filled. I could tell others would do the same, as it seemed like a game would fill up quickly up until there were only a few spots left. At that point, it took FOREVER for the game to fill those last spots, and usually it filled with either newbies who didn't know better, or respected (and feared) veterans who would have no problem gaining allies no matter when they joined. I supposed after all these years I forgot my own rule, as I recently joined my first game in years, a MAG 7 game, as one of the last participants. I immediately was reminded why I never join games that were almost filled, as almost every peace agreement I sent out was rejected due to those players not wanting to be "boxed in." One player even responded to my request saying, "I shouldn't have joined so late." Hmmmm...
I never brought this up before since we had plenty of players back then and I really didn't care if a newbie was turned off of Evernight because of being shunned in this way. But since we are now looking ways to attract new ones (as well as ways to PREVENT them from leaving, which this could be one), I would suggest that we change this dynamic of diplomacy. One immediate response to this that I think would work would be the restriction of communication before a game started. Wait until a game has been completely filled before opening the communication lines between players. Also, to prevent people from circumvention this restriction by just communicating through other means (such as personal e-mail or the lobby), do not reveal the world map or where other players are placed until the game has started (or, just don't place the players in the map until the game is filled). By doing this, you give every player a much fairer chance at diplomacy.
The Knockout Kid
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: I wholeheartedly agree. I've expressed my opinion concerning diplomacy in a different thread. let me copy paste it in here. I advocate different types of diplomacy games.
The normal standard dipomacy games allows for deceit and betrayal. A crucial ingredient for some but Im assuming not many. The other types of games do not condone or allow for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-----copy
Diplomacy also restricts EN. You need to be political to succeed but more often then not it becomes a tedious chore. During my EN days Ive encountered numerous players who went into 'quick diplo' with very short emails such as '5tick NAP?' or 'Accepted' and this after a few months of playing. The question is, who is driven away by the diplomacy part of EN? Non-English speaking players would be most obvious, the silent types (Remember tomb123 or River? Although River wasnt very silent in the NG's odlly enough), the purists focusing on the mathematic side of EN and many more. EN is very time consuming and mainly because of the diplomacy part. Whenever players start to feel 'burn-out' they will leave.
Diplomacy also has a nasty side effect. Grudges and hurt feelings. This shouldnt be underestimated. A game in EverNight is a huge time investment for atleast a month. Watching your game getting trashed without getting any sort of compensation can be the nail in the coffin. You dont even have to be wronged to lose enjoyment of the game. Getting 'outplayed' (notice the quotes) in the diplomatic area by for example a sudden gangbang orchestrated by a player 150 regions from you can be enough to close EverNight and to never return. In a nutshell, the loss of players due to diplomacy shouldnt be dismissed.
Im not advocating removing diplomacy from EN. Certainly not. I suggest the possibilty of fixed diplomacy games enforced by code to allow for games in which talking is not a necessity along with normal diplomacy games.
I also put forward the construction of a Codex containing the Law of EN. Some games might require players to adhere to that Codex.
Failure in doing so should get them before a Tribunal of Elders which can and may exact a punishment such as transferral of his XP to the wronged party.
In summary you would have 3 types of games ;
- the normal diplomacy games in their current form - fixed diplomacy enforced by code - Codex enforced games.
-----paste
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel this needs to be discussed. And I'm interested to hear the management's stance on it.
You have said you wish to widen the appeal of the game a bit. But how far do you intend? I accept the fact the game will not appeal to everyone and you have no intention of making it do so. However, diplomacy is an extremely niche market.
I have always been of the mindset that the diplomacy of the game is a double edged sword. Unfortunately, it's not a double edged sword that's been working in EN's favor.
The level of communication and cooperation the game encourages is fantastic and requires a certain level of dedication and player thinking. However, if you desire a larger player base, you will have to tone it down some.
The communication between gamers has led to many bouts of bad blood in the community. Especially when one feels cheated or ganged up on by the people around them. And it creates tension. Or even worse, it causes people to leave. In droves. Some return, but many do not.
I personally feel that cooperation and communication can stay in the game, but much of it needs to be brought down to a mechanical in-game level instead of relying on the words of a human being. This also helps remove a lot of other potential real world problems like someone's life falling apart, time zones, language barriers, and more.
Can deceit still be in the game? I personally don't think so if you want it to thrive more than it has. Or perhaps you can find a way to implement it mechanically so it's viewed as less venomous among average players.
Lunar Savage

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Players shouldnt be placed on the map before a game starts. They should be kept in a 'Waiting Room'.
The Knockout Kid hit the nail on the head. Games fillup rate stale at a certain point because the majority does not want to join a game late.
Ive had numerous accounts. It was a bad habit. It did give me the impression new players should not join a game late. It is deadly.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
This is another good topic. And it's definitely not a new one. Many ideas have be discussed as possible ideas.
Curiosity for a first hand view on this very question was a major reason I joined under a new alias.
-- <anecdotal observations> --
My personal experience however, and I understand this is very unscientific and potentially skewed for a whole boatload of reasons, is that the perception of this issue is far worse than the reality of it.
Back when I was actively playing it was actually my preference to join late/last. Sometimes I would even totally ignore in-game emails until I actually had borders with someone, and that would be my cue to open talks.
At best though, all that tells us that an experienced player who at least doesn't have a reputation as a pushover, shouldn't have a terrible fear of joining late.
So with a completely new alias, I joined four games. I joined all four relatively late, and at least one dead last. I actually joined that one because someone posted a message in the chat saying only one more player was needed to start the game.
In all four of those games I did not find it problem securing naps.
In two of the games I sent a nap offer to every player in the game just to see what would happen. I got back far more acceptances than declines in both.
In one, at first I only contacted my immediate neighbors. In the last, I went the mostly silent approach. Mostly waiting for borders to approach before making diplomatic contact. And mostly all I did there was simply inquire whether they wanted peace or wanted to fight, and then went along with whatever their answer was.
So far the results of my little 4 game test run suggests there may be an argument that over-napping can be a bigger problem than under-napping.
-- </anecdotal observations> --
All that being said, I do agree that it is an issue worth time and effort to address, I just not sure that it's quite as dire as some think it is.
One idea that has been discussed in the past is to wait until a game fills before creating the map, or at least before placing the players in the starting positions.
Then everyone gets an equal opportunity to figure out who their neighbors are and to open their initial diplomacy.
Other ideas that have been discussed were variations on some sort of blackout. Either a blackout on seeing who has already joined, or a blackout on communications.
In theory, good ideas, but as a practical matter I think it would likely result in some/many players going out of their way to circumvent the rule.

Personally I lean towards simply waiting until the game fills before placing players in their starting positions.
Either as the default way games are created, or at least as an option for the game.

-------Original Message-------
The Knockout Kid wrote: I've had a problem with a certain aspect of dilpomacy that is seperate from what we have been discussing, however I am going to post it in the diplomacy thread to keep everything diplomacy related together.
Basically, pre-game communication and the effect it has on players joining a game late.
It seems as if players who join a game when it is almost filled are at a disadvantage due to the fact that most players who are already in the game have already communicated with their neighbors on peace agreements. It's almost as if the game is punishing these players for not joining fast enough.
Imagine someone joining a game as the last player needed to start. After joining, they send out e-mails to perspective allies, only to find that most of them (if not all) decline the request, stating that accepting would completely box them in. Before the game has even ran it's first tick, that game has already been decided against that player. They know that, because they were one of the last players to join, they will be attacked from all sides.
Should this really be the case? Should last slot players be "punished" because they were not able to join a game earlier? Who knows what caused them to not join before? Maybe they just became a subscriber, or a game slot just opened for them?
I remember when I played years ago, I made it a case not to join any games where 75% of the field was already filled. I could tell others would do the same, as it seemed like a game would fill up quickly up until there were only a few spots left. At that point, it took FOREVER for the game to fill those last spots, and usually it filled with either newbies who didn't know better, or respected (and feared) veterans who would have no problem gaining allies no matter when they joined. I supposed after all these years I forgot my own rule, as I recently joined my first game in years, a MAG 7 game, as one of the last participants. I immediately was reminded why I never join games that were almost filled, as almost every peace agreement I sent out was rejected due to those players not wanting to be "boxed in." One player even responded to my request saying, "I shouldn't have joined so late." Hmmmm...
I never brought this up before since we had plenty of players back then and I really didn't care if a newbie was turned off of Evernight because of being shunned in this way. But since we are now looking ways to attract new ones (as well as ways to PREVENT them from leaving, which this could be one), I would suggest that we change this dynamic of diplomacy. One immediate response to this that I think would work would be the restriction of communication before a game started. Wait until a game has been completely filled before opening the communication lines between players. Also, to prevent people from circumvention this restriction by just communicating through other means (such as personal e-mail or the lobby), do not reveal the world map or where other players are placed until the game has started (or, just don't place the players in the map until the game is filled). By doing this, you give every player a much fairer chance at diplomacy.
The Knockout Kid
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: I wholeheartedly agree. I've expressed my opinion concerning diplomacy in a different thread. let me copy paste it in here. I advocate different types of diplomacy games.
The normal standard dipomacy games allows for deceit and betrayal. A crucial ingredient for some but Im assuming not many. The other types of games do not condone or allow for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-----copy
Diplomacy also restricts EN. You need to be political to succeed but more often then not it becomes a tedious chore. During my EN days Ive encountered numerous players who went into 'quick diplo' with very short emails such as '5tick NAP?' or 'Accepted' and this after a few months of playing. The question is, who is driven away by the diplomacy part of EN? Non-English speaking players would be most obvious, the silent types (Remember tomb123 or River? Although River wasnt very silent in the NG's odlly enough), the purists focusing on the mathematic side of EN and many more. EN is very time consuming and mainly because of the diplomacy part. Whenever players start to feel 'burn-out' they will leave.
Diplomacy also has a nasty side effect. Grudges and hurt feelings. This shouldnt be underestimated. A game in EverNight is a huge time investment for atleast a month. Watching your game getting trashed without getting any sort of compensation can be the nail in the coffin. You dont even have to be wronged to lose enjoyment of the game. Getting 'outplayed' (notice the quotes) in the diplomatic area by for example a sudden gangbang orchestrated by a player 150 regions from you can be enough to close EverNight and to never return. In a nutshell, the loss of players due to diplomacy shouldnt be dismissed.
Im not advocating removing diplomacy from EN. Certainly not. I suggest the possibilty of fixed diplomacy games enforced by code to allow for games in which talking is not a necessity along with normal diplomacy games.
I also put forward the construction of a Codex containing the Law of EN. Some games might require players to adhere to that Codex.
Failure in doing so should get them before a Tribunal of Elders which can and may exact a punishment such as transferral of his XP to the wronged party.
In summary you would have 3 types of games ;
- the normal diplomacy games in their current form - fixed diplomacy enforced by code - Codex enforced games.
-----paste
Cortex
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I feel this needs to be discussed. And I'm interested to hear the management's stance on it.
You have said you wish to widen the appeal of the game a bit. But how far do you intend? I accept the fact the game will not appeal to everyone and you have no intention of making it do so. However, diplomacy is an extremely niche market.
I have always been of the mindset that the diplomacy of the game is a double edged sword. Unfortunately, it's not a double edged sword that's been working in EN's favor.
The level of communication and cooperation the game encourages is fantastic and requires a certain level of dedication and player thinking. However, if you desire a larger player base, you will have to tone it down some.
The communication between gamers has led to many bouts of bad blood in the community. Especially when one feels cheated or ganged up on by the people around them. And it creates tension. Or even worse, it causes people to leave. In droves. Some return, but many do not.
I personally feel that cooperation and communication can stay in the game, but much of it needs to be brought down to a mechanical in-game level instead of relying on the words of a human being. This also helps remove a lot of other potential real world problems like someone's life falling apart, time zones, language barriers, and more.
Can deceit still be in the game? I personally don't think so if you want it to thrive more than it has. Or perhaps you can find a way to implement it mechanically so it's viewed as less venomous among average players.
Lunar Savage