Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to General Forum   

Posts 1 - 11 of 11   
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 11:48:08

Dr. Walter Ego
Level 57
Report
I am relative new in diplo/roleplaying style, I played in only a few games, but I have dual feeling in connection with it.
Likely I cannot get the "correct" answer to the question in the title because my limited experiencies, sothis is why I created this topic, please help me :)

During my very short diplo carrier I have already played on more magnificient templates with very much and interesting possiblities!

For example this template:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9767180

In this template there are many possibilities playing "minigames" (I mean Reconquista, struggle for supremacy inside the HRE, the Frecnh vs England combat, the Crusader state survival, etc.) but because the different religions (which are well illustrated in this great template) can be interesting overall missions too like crusades or jihads! So very interesting stuff.

Or this:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10022798

Many possible minigames too (the colonization race, struggle for supremacy inside the HRE but here deeper way than in the template above, the French situation, etc.)

Or now there is an ongoing very interesting diplo project inside CORP, and so on (for example playing with secret goals (given by the host) or although I never play on them but seems interesting the GoT scenarios too, etc.)

So one aspect there is huge potential (for me) in the diplo/roleplay gamestyle with brilliant ideas and templates.

But the magnificient idea and templates only one thing, the players who played on it the other thing (imo more important), because the not "proper" players can ruin the gaming experience very easy even we are playing on the best template/scenario :(
The other questionable thing for me the rules. Untill now I cannot read a very clear and usefull ruleset, and without exact rules the gaming experience (at least for me) cannot be 100%.
The third thing is about the goal of this game type. I am fundamentally a competitive player, so need a goal (harder->better) to have to reach it for the greater joy. But maybe this gamestyle is not about this, I do not know. (And one more thing to this point, the unbalanced spots)

So summarize:
The advantage is the huge potential (very interesting ideas and templates/scenarios).
The disadvantage actually is only the players who I played with together untill now (I mean not all but many of them), because if there are 40-50 players with very similar attitude then can't be the problem neither the rules nor the game goals I mentioned above.

But this is my real question here, is it possible?
I mean are there 40-50 players with very similar attitude who can play very-very good diplo/roleplaying games? Without boots, mute players, etc.

If the answer yes then could you give me some game links where I can check the history and read the chat, and trying to get the impression how good was that game?
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 12:43:15


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
Hi clanmate!

Good to see you first joined the right clan ;) CORP is the place to be for people enjoying diplomacy games, and we have the chance to have long experienced players making great games.

Interesting participation, I totally agree with your comments. These games have a huge potential, sadly still not recognized by the Warlight staff, constantly ignoring our grievances, see the uservoice about improving diplomacy games features ignored for years by Fizzer.
Some people we know call with irony as ‘elitists’ x) like Mod or Legacy/FK would tell you diplomacy games are a waste of time and should not exist, I think these people are just stuck in their strategic games and never played at all good diplomacy games.

I agree with you about the problems you can encounter in these games, and you pointed out clearly well the 2 main problems we are facing currently:

    * People joining these games in open games do not know how to play them, they play diplomacy games like simple FFA games, not respecting some important rules (which can be easily not respected since nothing is enforcing them).

    * The creator of Warlight is ignoring for years people’s grievances, see the uservoice suggestion about diplomacy games which is one of the most voted suggestion so far, as long as no features are provided to improve these games, nothing will improve at all (like enforcing a war declaration to avoid Public Ennemies, etc.)


Everything is not necessarily black and white, I have an advice for you, to avoid diplo games with people ruining it because they are basically noobs, join clan diplo games like Kretoma’s games (he often creates games and you will never see random people joining his game, you have to be invited in the first place).

Edited 3/10/2016 12:46:09
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 12:55:11


master of desaster 
Level 64
Report
I don't think diplos are necessarily bad but great that you know better. You know me too good anyways.

I just don't enjoy them cause they often take super long and many diplos are decided by starting distribution or later on by players who just want to destroy a specific player and trough that the whole game.

Edit: easy to say i never played diplos just to prove i don't know what i'm talking about.
And yes, i would never join diplos with people of who i think got the intellect of a carrot

Edited 3/10/2016 13:07:41
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 13:15:08


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
MoD ahah yes, about 'Diplos should not exist' this brilliant statement was made by Legacy/FK, but cant find the exact quote anyway.
About players teaming up against one player, the most recent diplomacy games have new rules avoiding these general gangbangs, such as 'you should not team up with more than 3 players' or 'a superpower cannot ally with another superpower' because we indeed noticed that some groups of players (like the 'Darth' players) were clearly cheating together and ruining games. There is a great variety of diplomacy games nowadays anyway, and Mod it would be a pleasure to invite you in some of our games, I hope this would change your general opinion on these games :)
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 13:18:45


master of desaster 
Level 64
Report
Thanks i tried serious rp games with the rp clan a (long) while ago where everybody followed the rules. Still i was in a smaller spot and russia won on an europe map. The biggest country and in a corner for example

Edited 3/10/2016 13:19:35
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 13:51:29


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
Well I guess things improved since the time you played them. Anyway one factor to take in count, like strategic games, some maps aren't fit for diplomacy games, I dont know which Europe map you played with the RP clan, but few maps are well made for diplo games, the best maps in my opinion are the recent maps of zxct or Apollo.
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 14:04:02


Prabster Realm
Level 58
Report
:) happy to see a wonderful comment
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 14:45:45


Zephyrum 
Level 60
Report
Thanks i tried serious rp games with the rp clan a (long) while ago where everybody followed the rules. Still i was in a smaller spot and russia won on an europe map. The biggest country and in a corner for example


That happens everytime you play a diplomacy game on a strategic map. Russia = bigger = more income = win.

Using a map (or edited template) makes the income gravitate towards nations that are wealthy, so Russia's chances of winning generally are pretty low :p

I just don't enjoy them cause they often take super long and many diplos are decided by starting distribution or later on by players who just want to destroy a specific player and trough that the whole game.


Can't deny the distribution affects a lot (not all games, but most) but the everyone ganging on someone is something that only happens if you're playing open games (or a very bad roster for invite games). Have yet to see those big "destroy player X" coalitions in my recent invite-only games.

That aside, back on the OP:

Or this:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10022798

Many possible minigames too (the colonization race, struggle for supremacy inside the HRE but here deeper way than in the template above, the French situation, etc.)


You should commit faster on that game D= I'm enjoying it far too much.

But the magnificient idea and templates only one thing, the players who played on it the other thing (imo more important), because the not "proper" players can ruin the gaming experience very easy even we are playing on the best template/scenario :(


As mentioned before: Invite-only = less toxic players = better experience.

The other questionable thing for me the rules. Untill now I cannot read a very clear and usefull ruleset, and without exact rules the gaming experience (at least for me) cannot be 100%.


That's true. Simple and unambiguous rules are generally inefficient in exploiting all possibilities of the game, but more complex ones tend to be broken even if accidentally. It's once again less of a problem with invite-only players. More people will be willing to read the rules more carefully, and be less shy to ask when they are unsure about something.

The third thing is about the goal of this game type. I am fundamentally a competitive player, so need a goal (harder->better) to have to reach it for the greater joy. But maybe this gamestyle is not about this, I do not know.


Well, effectively, it's not about this. But that doesn't stop you from setting your own goals - in fact, having some achievements and planning your game's progress from the first turn can make it far more enjoyable. On that game you mentioned, you're England - from turn 1 you can set your own objectives. "Pioneer colonization", "Reach #1 in income", "Defeat the french", and so on.

It works with me as give a sense of accomplishment, and it's been through this that I leveled up all the way to 59 without being a competitive player or abusing lotteries - giving myself goals, I have a plot, a plan to carry on through the game, while most players either just stack or declare random wars just not to be bored or plan one war and nothing else after it. And becoming an in-game monster just comes naturally, when you take a look around you are unstoppable.

As long as you're en enjoyable player to be around, always keeping up with the roleplay and making sure your wars are well justified and eventually preferring the peaceful solution, you can even be a warmonger that adds to the game. But that takes dedication to such a match. On Ranked games (normally made in lower roleplay standards games), this always ends in points. Tons of points.

This is from a ~20-man game, which is not a lot, but still a good jump in most early levels:

Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/10/2016 15:29:36


ℳℛᐤƬrαńɋℰ✕
Level 55
Report
Two facts from my experience:
  • First of all I have not met any decent Diplomacy player in Warlight, except the ones I have invited here personally. Leaving out 1 or 2 instances.
  • Secondly I doubt that 3/4 of Diplomacy players, Template makers really understand what Diplomacy is beyond their wishful thinking and "what it ought to be" in their view. For example the the Uservoice posts: That Alliances, Truces, Agrees should be Hard-coded: this is is the opposite of Diplomacy inherently! Tautology.
Tried to gather around 12-16 players for Diplomacy Simulations, but Warlight is not just mature enough to understand basics of Diplomacy even.

RolePlay is quite interesting and fun thing to do: Again I have not seen not even 1 Real Roleplay here - most of them are childish.

The only core issue with both is that Warlight Ranking/Score system does not support them (But this does not mean it can´t be played). You can´t play diplomacy with just ONE Winner - its illogical by definition. In Roleplay it is even harder, because not performance, but The "Role" has to be judged one plays. There is 1001 variances of both version gameplay, unluckily there is just not enough ambition nor experience in average player to understand that. Thats why I have give all of that up, unless there is some Old-School Forum players who have some experience in real world: IR, ECO-POL, SOC-POL, DIPLO + Similar platforms or Simulations.

Furthermore the Chat System does not support real Discussion: external channels has to be used. You can´t even Tag players which would be the Kids Diplomacy version that could actually suit to average Warlight player. It is even funny to read that someone thinks Map determines if Diplo can be played or not. Map is Physical Environment its weight is just 1/4 of essential aspects of Diplomacy. In my opinion 2/4 would be Non-Verbal Environment like Rules-Settings-Communication and Lastly Situation you create or plan with your template! I have not even seen any decent Concept of Diplo game here, not to mention players. Sorry for being that harsh, but its just the way I see it!

CORP may be better than any average player in Role-Play, but it is far from perfection. I am always worried when I see CORP players, because in Normal games they play too much Cross-Team, so I have always been alert when seeing them! Even detected at least two Double-Teame players!
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/11/2016 08:22:10

Dr. Walter Ego
Level 57
Report
Thank you very much for the interesting answers, but what I need now rather game links.
S could you please link some interesting diplo/roleplaying games too, so I could check them. I mean game links you think about it was an interesting/good diplo/roleplaying game.

Edit:
I have created a new topic for them (better named)
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/141425-best-5-diploroleplaying-games

Edited 3/11/2016 08:29:17
Do I like the diplo/roleplay style or I do not?: 3/11/2016 09:50:25

Hasdrubal
Level 56
Report
Diplo games can be played in two different ways. The one I see it is playing (I was in few of them as active player, never booted) is set as either predefined countries or group of countries with all lands taken, so each player seeks expansion (if map is virtually empty) and then seeks allies or enemies, or is unable to do things until something is changed (declaration of war, alliance, MDP, etc.) and then after first few turns, or dozen turns, the game started looking as FFA as nobody can punish PE players or some positions, that look stronger than others suddenly perish due to boot.

Other way of playing can be achieved if game creator (the one who set scenario and start the game) can set game duration to specific number of turns, and when some of game goals are achieved, the game ends (by voting) and new game is starting with what is considered as new starting set due to change in powers due to events in previous game, and that few positions must achieve starting alliance (team game). Thus, new game can also last several turns until new situation emerges. Then new set should be made, and so on. The main difference is that new players (the ones who were not invited to continue thread) will take auxiliary positions, and later they can, by their virtue, be one of main participants.

However, other way seeks that game creator knows more about how the game is playing, so he can choose when is right moment to end the game (or we can say episode).

For first type of games, there must be army limit - everything save that very soon ruin the game, as biggest income players become impenetrable for others and virtually unvulnerable or better to say invincible.
Posts 1 - 11 of 11   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service