Diplomatic Capital: Big Beta Tester Win!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2415

Diplomatic Capital: Big Beta Tester Win!

The concept of diplomatic capital as a resource came from the beta community and WOW does it provide a lot of use.

Diplomatic Capital can be earned through the diplomacy tree as well as certain very rare resources on the map.

If you hold onto it, you gain advantages in the value of trading things.

Now, when trading with the AI, you never get a 1 to 1 ratio (you can’t trade 10 materials for 20 materials). But what happens is that as players get better diplomatic capital ratios, they get better and better deals.

But on the other hand, if you need the money right now, you can spend it:

I think there’s a lot we can do with this concept as we go forward. It definitely gives diplomacy some teeth, especially when we get into getting various players to declare war on each other.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

well from reading frogboys post much of whats being said here is in consideration... in one form or another..

I still think in MP is should have less effect to zero effect on opposing human players.. after all we do not need some metric to effect our perceived values when dealing with another player.. if your a much bigger Civ then I let me choose my selling price of items to you, based on how I perceive the threat selling them to you is not some behind the scenes mechanic.. however it should have the same effect on the AI as is does in SP that way.. I have to consider what the AI might be charging and leaves me to wonder if my enemies are using DC to pay the AI to attack me or not..

I like the idea of this unknown factor of how my opponent is using his DC in the back ground against me .. also following this method limits DC enough in MP that it is not an overwhelming deciding factor in a victory but non the less a factor...

In MP I just do not like the idea that simply because another player has more DC he wins.. which is the slippery slope this could lead to.. should it benefit them yes , use that dc to get the AI or other players to help crush me, sure.. but if i have a big enough or bad enough army well.. heh heh

at least that's my view.. however it goes into SP or MP I am sure it will prove interesting.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

DC could be balanced to where getting AI buddies every time should cost enough DC to where it would have to be your main or sole focus.

If someone's investing that much in diplomacy, they aren't investing in other things.

Successfully updated karma reason!

eobet

Join Date 11/2008

Interesting thing reading the first post and seeing this for the first time.

I do hope that Pierre Bourdieu was mentioned when this was being discussed.

Look up "cultural capital" on Wikipedia if you haven't heard of it before.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This just popped into my head: what if diplomatic capital is just converted to Gildar when trading it to another player? That'd make it useful and good for multiplayer. Quite possibly a simple solution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cauldyth,

reply 26

Quoting marlowwe, reply 14This is actually extremely disappointing. I accept (reluctantly) that you want Elemental to skew towards the singleplayer side at the expense of multiplayer (fundamentally I disagree with this). But dismissing a core mechanic of the game in such an offhand manner is premature on your part.
There are some cold, hard facts that justify Stardock's decision though. Only a tiny fraction of TBS players ever play multiplayer. In fact, I bet most people would be surprised at how small that fraction is. On top of that, the fraction of people who won't purchase a game if the multiplayer is disappointing is a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction.

It's not much consolation to the folks who are in that tiny fraction, but it's reality.

There's something else to keep in mind. The players who are visible on forums are more likely to play multiplayer. They're participating in the community and making acquaintances with whom they can play. The invisible majority are the hundreds of thousands of customers who've never posted here, have neither the time nor the inclination to take part in a game's community, and who will likely never even click on the Multiplayer button in the menu.

Since a lot of the discussion I am reading is between Single Player (SP) v. Multi-Player (MP) Diplomatic Capital ...

Does Stardock have a good stat of MP v. SP game play? I am really curious if we are working on a problem that affects 5% of the players or 50% or 95% of the players.

I tend to play on-line as do most of my friends, but that it just us ...

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem that I see with giving DC real value is that it would then benefit the person you are trading it to. That kind of defeats the purpose of getting yourself a better deal through political power.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sareln

Join Date 05/2007

+19

Canonical answer to the %SP to %MP is "a ton" to "a little".

That said, I would like mechanics to be flexible and able to handle any kind of player on either end of the window (eg. gameplay shouldn't change gianormously playing vs. humans or vs. AIs or some combination thereof).

Successfully updated karma reason!

awuffleablehedgie

Join Date 04/2009

+60

multiplayer does not always means all human, competitive and against eachother. Again, it can be a LAN with a bunch of computers and do a comp-stomp.

Because I have the desire to play this game with friends at parties I shouldn't feel gimped.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would also really like for the AI to be able to use DC against me.

A much more elegant solution to DC against players is that not accepting a fair agreement (perceived value wise) where DC is used to even out the deal would cause your people to riot depending on how much was used. This could mean losing population, units joining the other player, or maybe even a town joining the other player; it would all depend on how much political power (DC and whatever else could determine this) the other player has and used, and of course something like loosing a town would be very rare and hard for the other player to cause.

I really want to see diplomacy given some power, and DC seems to be a big step in that direction. In every 4X game that I have played I've tried to play diplomatically, but it never works. I think Elemental may be able to get it right.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting CHiZZoPs,

reply 74

Quoting Raven X,
reply 52
I think the best way to make them useful in human vs human games would be to allow the player with the most Diplomacy Points to use them to affect the costs and consumption of resources in the game.

This sounds good for all games. Those with more diplomatic capital can exert their hegemony on the rest of the world, thus affecting economies and such, creating inflation and winning the minds of others' populaces. Civs with less diplomatic capital could have a more costly time trying to wage war as it becomes expensive due to the economic and cultural influences that come with it.

That's exactly what I was thinking CHiZZoPs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting OMG_BlackHatHedgehog,

reply 83

multiplayer does not always means all human, competitive and against eachother. Again, it can be a LAN with a bunch of computers and do a comp-stomp.

Because I have the desire to play this game with friends at parties I shouldn't feel gimped.

If it's All Humans vs All AI - wouldn't that boil down to Human vs AI mechanics (since all the humans are just going coop and ally with each other)?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I still think the term "Diplomatic Capital" needs to change, so I'm going to throw a few other possible replacement names based on what others have said: faith, support, clout, allegiance, leverage, etc. Others I've suggested: dominance, legacy, power, sovereignty, prestige (although, already being used).

Like someone else said, DC is too abstract of a concept. We need a better title to fit the concept, IMHO. What is it in reality? What is its simplest, most elegant purpose or model?

You could even call it "ambassadors" which would make sense why you're giving something up for something else!

Successfully updated karma reason!

awuffleablehedgie

Join Date 04/2009

+60

Quoting VR_IronMana,

reply 86

Quoting OMG_BlackHatHedgehog, reply 83multiplayer does not always means all human, competitive and against eachother. Again, it can be a LAN with a bunch of computers and do a comp-stomp.

Because I have the desire to play this game with friends at parties I shouldn't feel gimped.

If it's All Humans vs All AI - wouldn't that boil down to Human vs AI mechanics (since all the humans are just going coop and ally with each other)?

Sins Diplomacy did a great job of developing a bunch of mechanics aimed for single player (the entire expansion pack mostly revolved on new diplomacy options to control the AI and influence their actions) that could be used in MP play as well.

Pacts were the biggest thing, and they are HUGE in team games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Question:

Is there a ceiling on how much diplo-capital you can collect? Do diplo-techs and other factors increase that max ceiling as the game progresses?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm really tickled my idea made it into the game in some fashion . Hopefully it works well and spawns further ideas in mods and future games!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi Forest,

Hello Trees.

Missed yah.

Yeah you too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm still an advocate for spending DC for diplomatic actions.

Stealing tech, spells, Assassinating NPCs, Destroying city improvements, etc.

Works for SP, works for MP... where's the downside?

Edit: grammar fixes

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm glad the concept of diplomatic capital is in the game. Now, however, I'd love to lobby for a lot more diplomatic options, only because there's an entire diplomacy tree that is currently quite bare. Some ideas:

Forcing AI players to cancel deals with other empires.
Ability to negotiate with adventurers, giving you an opportunity to steal them.
Vassalizing opponents, breaking cities into vassals, etc.
Ultimatums & Threats
Multifaceted peace treaties
Embargoes

Might also recommend a limit to the amount of diplomatic capital that can be spent on one deal? Something like only 50% of your capital can be blown in one go.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Folcik009,

reply 10

Too many solid and amazing games lost a lot of their meat due to "multiplayer balancing". I'd hate to see that happen here.

I agree!! Let me first say I'm all for game balance when it's extremely unbalanced, heck I'm the one who lead the charge in demanding Draconians were too powerful since all their heroes were flying for AgeOfWonders:ShadowMagic. I recall on the dominions3 forums where a crowd demanded Vanheim(one of the 70+ races in the game) was too powerful. I couldn't believe my own eyes when reading this on the forums considering how many different races were available! I argued the game had plenty of other races and if one was slightly more powerful it wasn't a concern because there were SO MANY other races. How many races/nations does a game need before developers are allowed to make one more powerful than the others?? Unfortunately the dominions developers who placed multiplayer balance above everything else wacked Vanheim with the nerf club. It was sad to see that no matter how many races existed inside the game the developers would kneel and bow to balancing multiplayer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well maybe you could buy units or people for it. Using it to bleed the other player dry because it represents diplomatic influence / reputation.

That also means that you can give penalties for actions. And maybe a negative value can not be used to buy.. but could be used as a fear factor.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

A large number of races does not excuse poor balance. That said, were there counters to them? That's the important thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Folcik009,

reply 79

This just popped into my head: what if diplomatic capital is just converted to Gildar when trading it to another player? That'd make it useful and good for multiplayer. Quite possibly a simple solution.

That may work, I like this.

The primary problem with Diplomatic revenue is that it is a tangible resource that cannot purchase tangible advantages. If it's a tangible but useless resource that then converts into gold when traded, that covers my desire for making trading more beneficial via substance rather than imagination.

Though I still say it should be used to create and propogate my army of doppleganger assassins to complete my spy network and eventual world domination win condition. Is there a spy mechanic I've missed?

People talking about multiplayer balance.... I almost never play multiplayer anything (misanthropist), but that doesn't mean I want to play against artificial stupidity where my enemies are willing to trade me the Spell of Making for free because they like me so much. Making an AI that reacts to diplomatic revenue the same way as a human would (and for the same reasons, like free gold) is not hurting single player, it's improving it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Kholai,

reply 97

Quoting Folcik009, reply 79This just popped into my head: what if diplomatic capital is just converted to Gildar when trading it to another player? That'd make it useful and good for multiplayer. Quite possibly a simple solution.
That may work, I like this.

When trading with another human player, you could make your diplomatic capital look like another resource, like gildar, metal... whatever. And the real deal would only be seen after the trade has been made.

For example, you could make the player think you're giving him 50 gildar, but in fact you would be giving him 20 gildar and 30 DC.

I think this would be very interesting.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

+1 to above. That looks good. Such things should worsen AI relations depending on amount. This is also something where the AI can play by human rules.

My guess is it should take into account ferocity and military might when deciding to slip in DI, and shouldn't do it too often.

There should be other uses on top of this. I still think DI should be allowed to get minor civs to join you, and force peace. (the weaker you are militarily the more DI should be required)

Also DI should be allowed for recruiting heroes, as a substitute for gold. Certain heroes would prefer one or the other.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting arstal,

reply 99

Also DI should be allowed for recruiting heroes, as a substitute for gold. Certain heroes would prefer one or the other.

Good idea, I like this. Perhaps Diplomatic Capital could also be used to recruit enemy Champions to join you if you are at peace with that kingdom, of course at a much, much increased price.

Successfully updated karma reason!