Shuttle diplomacy sucks

[kneville01]

We all know it. When nothing else is going on, the best use of Diplomats is to Improve Relations and immediately Recall, repeat until nearly the end of the month, Improve Relations with someone distant and don't Recall until the 1st of the next month, repeat. This happens because a relations boost occurs when the diplomat is first assigned in addition to the change-of-month.

And while this gives the attentive and patient human player an advantage -- improve relations with several other nations per month! -- it is extremely tedious and not good gameplay. I don't want to sit here hitting 'pause' every few seconds to reassign a diplomat for maximum advantage; but I also don't want to play sub-optimally, and perhaps suffer later because I can't ally the neighbor that I need to.

Heck, if you only have one neighbor that you care about, the optimal strategy is to recall that diplomat and reassign him every month; this improves relations at twice the rate of simply leaving him assigned.

The fix is easy -- eliminate the relations bonus when a diplomat is first assigned. Perhaps scale up the change-of-month effect to compensate. No more micromanaging, no more visiting all your neighbors (and timing end-of-month for best effect). Put him where he's most needed and leave him.

Yes?

 

[Xara]

Yep. Don't know why that initial tick is even there.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

I think an argument could be made that the sheer tedium of micromanaging your diplomats makes doing that to be itself a sub-optimal way to play the game. The point of games is to have fun.

If you're willing to, as you've admitted yourself, literally stop having fun with a game in order to abuse a mechanic in an entirely unintended and also pretty much unnecessary way just on the slim chance that you absolutely need an alliance a year or two earlier, then I think the problem is with you.

This isn't even a matter of me thinking I'm better than you or anything because I don't abuse a gamey strategy - this is just a matter of why in the world would you play that way if it's not fun? There are minimal gains to be made from it unless you're doing something that requires every gamey strategy in the book (and such things are already far more like work than like playing a game). Otherwise, those gains definitely do not come anywhere close enough to give me an incentive to play that way, because my god that's just a terribly un-fun way to play a game.

 

[Xara]

I think an argument could be made that the sheer tedium of micromanaging your diplomats makes doing that to be itself a sub-optimal way to play the game. The point of games is to have fun.

If you're willing to, as you've admitted yourself, literally stop having fun with a game in order to abuse a mechanic in an entirely unintended and also pretty much unnecessary way just on the slim chance that you absolutely need an alliance a year or two earlier, then I think the problem is with you.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that such "sub-optimal" moves, in the context of long-term gameplay for nations that don't have to min-max this way, is that certain countries whose imminent destruction is just around the corner (Granada, Byzantium, Novgorod, et al) greatly, greatly encourage the temporary use of such an "unintended way" to assist in mere survival.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that such "sub-optimal" moves, in the context of long-term gameplay for nations that don't have to min-max this way, is that certain countries whose imminent destruction is just around the corner (Granada, Byzantium, Novgorod, et al) greatly, greatly encourage the temporary use of such an "unintended way" to assist in mere survival.

"Temporary use" for the survival of already difficult starts in the very beginning of the game. Those are extreme cases. The way the OP was putting it, it seemed like they felt like they had to do this literally all the time for every nation, because they don't want to play sub-optimally.

If I were trying a start where I did need that strategy to survive, I'd do it. But I wouldn't mind then, because the gains outweigh the fact that it's tedious and because I'd stop as soon as it was no longer necessary.

 

[henzington]

there is a super easy fix to this just remove the tick when you send your diplomat and double the tick at the start of the month.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

there is a super easy fix to this just remove the tick when you send your diplomat and double the tick at the start of the month.

That's not a fix, because it changes how fast diplomats can improve relations.

Again, I'm not even sure there needs to be a fix. If you're willing to not have fun in order to play as optimally as possible by using game mechanics in an obviously unintended way, why should the devs put work into changing the game for everyone who doesn't do it that way just so you would feel less tempted to use a gamey strategy you don't find fun to use?

Wow, that last sentence there sounded pretty absurd, didn't it?

 

[henzington]

so does constantly resending the diplomat except it is a ton of mirco.

 

[Xara]

That's not a fix, because it changes how fast diplomats can improve relations.

Again, I'm not even sure there needs to be a fix. If you're willing to not have fun in order to play as optimally as possible by using game mechanics in an obviously unintended way, why should the devs put work into changing the game for everyone who doesn't do it that way just so you would feel less tempted to use a gamey strategy you don't find fun to use?

Wow, that last sentence there sounded pretty absurd, didn't it?

You mean exactly how they changed the game multiple times because of things like this that DDRJake and others put to use?

Founding a colony to make use of religious unity mission, abandoning the colony in order to complete the mission, and starting a new one to repeat the mission - yeah, that's unintended, not very fun, requires a ton of micro, and got canned as soon as the devs could get to it.

Same thing with accumulate money mission, rebels mission, etc. etc. etc.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

so does constantly resending the diplomat except it is a ton of mirco.

Yes, that's my point.

For one, if you wanted to fix this, the correct way to do so would not be to increase the effectiveness of improve relation, because that screws with game balance. As others have mentioned, the proper fix would be removing the improvement when you first send your diplomat.

Second, if it's a ton of micro, why would you do it and then demand that the mechanic gets changed because you're not having fun doing something that literally nobody is forcing you to do?

You mean exactly how they changed the game multiple times because of things like this that DDRJake and others put to use?

Founding a colony to make use of religious unity mission, abandoning the colony in order to complete the mission, and starting a new one to repeat the mission - yeah, that's unintended, not very fun, requires a ton of micro, and got canned as soon as the devs could get to it.

Same thing with accumulate money mission, rebels mission, etc. etc. etc.

There's a really obvious difference: those exploits were exceptionally powerful. This? This is not. You aren't getting more monarch points or resources, you are getting an alliance or starting annexation at most a couple years before you normally would.

My entire argument is why would you do this aside from the very beginning of very specific starts if it's so tedious to use? This isn't something the devs need to devote time to when they have other, far more important things to work on.

 

[Xara]

There's a really obvious difference: those exploits were exceptionally powerful. This? This is not. My entire argument is why would you do this aside from the very beginning of very specific starts if it's so tedious to use? This isn't something the devs need to devote time to when they have other, far more important things to work on.

That's not your place to judge, even if you want to move the goalposts.

 

[henzington]

personally, I don't really use it my point is more that it is not intented and it is way in which the player can game the diplomacy system. As exploits go its pretty minor as you are still limited to the normal +100 improved relations cap and it doesn't give you any like monarch points, ducats, or manpower.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

That's not your place to judge, even if you want to move the goalposts.

Pointing out how an analogy you're trying to make doesn't work is not at all the same as moving the goalposts.

And why is it "not my place to judge", and yet you're apparently totally qualified to say that they are exactly the same? Please, explain to me how getting an alliance a year or two early is anywhere near as powerful an exploit as getting infinite monarch points or gold.

 

[Xara]

Pointing out how an analogy you're trying to make doesn't work is not at all the same as moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts every time someone points out there is a situation that fits what you just said is irrelevant certainly is moving the goalposts.

OP stated an issue. You're deriding it as a non-issue. That's not your place to judge. I am not on the dev team, so how am I saying I am qualified to judge it? I'm not judging it. I just happen to agree.

 

[ringhloth]

Uh. Why not just not do it if you find it boring? Is this really such a gamey strategy that it direly needs to be fixed?

 

[ahyangyi]

Uh. Why not just not do it if you find it boring? Is this really such a gamey strategy that it direly needs to be fixed?

But the fix would be incredibly easy, so why not?

 

[clockworkBabbag]

Moving the goalposts every time someone points out there is a situation that fits what you just said is irrelevant certainly is moving the goalposts.

But I'm not doing that. You tried to say that what I was saying was irrelevant because of <insert DDRJake exploits here>. I said that your analogy didn't work, because as I've said multiple times in this thread and which you haven't ever disputed, this is in no way an extremely powerful exploit. It only becomes useful at all in very specific situations. Those exploits DDRJake did? Those were game-breaking all the time.

I have not changed my argument at all from the beginning of this thread. There is no goalpost moving going on here.

OP stated an issue. You're deriding it as a non-issue. That's not your place to judge. I am not on the dev team, so how am I saying I am qualified to judge it? I'm not judging it. I just happen to agree.

Ah I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the severity of the exploit, not to whether or not it's worthy of the dev team's attention.

But there's still something to be said about this: you're agreeing with the OP, who thinks it's an issue. You kind of have to be judging this to be an issue, if you're doing that.

Would I complain if the devs decided to address this? No, obviously not. But do I think the devs need to go out of their way to fix such a minor problem that, again, already has a pretty good barrier to prevent its misuse in that it's entirely not fun for little reward? No. I really don't think it's at all controversial to say that there are more important things on the devs' plates than this, such as tweaking mechanics that actually have a powerful effect or adding entirely new mechanics to the game.

 

[Mikalos]

I dont understand why somebody is complaining that doing something gamey is tedious

 

[Freudia]

I dont understand why somebody is complaining that doing something gamey is tedious

"Maximizing efficiency" is "gamey" now?

With that said, the game would not be worse off with the removal of the initial tick of improved relations.

 

[CommunistCookie]

"Maximizing efficiency" is "gamey" now?

With that said, the game would not be worse off with the removal of the initial tick of improved relations.

Well yeah, you're maximizing efficiency by exploiting. That's gamey by definition.