No, other. Whomp gets overly emotional "i luv u guys, man"

I'd step in and give a new game a try. If I pick up at the start I might even be able to keep up with what's going on. Mostly. :crazyeye:

If we can have another Whomper-type anarchy, absolutely yes!!! :p

You betcha :clap:

I think the anarchy settler is allready scouting for a spot to locate the Mother of all Honky Tonks. I'm in.

who's saying you can only have one team full of idiots?

Sugestion...How about a MTDG based on the Rise of Rome scenario....

Lurk.

Unless there's a really interesting map... something like what Whomp proposed. :)

Otherwise - I'm gonna focus on the Civ4 MTDG! :thumbsup:

What would a Civ III MTDG be without dinsog? Sure, I'll play and be active. How could I pass up another chance to build the Mausoleum?

No better form of multiplayer....

I'll join a team.

For sure.

As long as I don't have to campaign against General_W anymore ;)


EDIT: I would propose an ODD number of teams, and maybe even an AI or two!

Maybe we could make it so instead of selecting teams we could be randomly put in them. I think i could get along with anyone else just as well as the doughnuts.

I agree with RegentMan. I haven’t voted because whether I play again will really depend on how the game is set up. As much as I :love: my teammates, if teams are recognizable from the first game, then it doesn’t really have as much appeal.

I agree with Nobody, randomizing would be the best option.

I would love to play, but I too would want the same band of idiots. The idiots I know are better than the idiots I don't...Trust me, I've tested this theory. Besides, I never worshiped at the temple of RNG

I agree whole-heartedly that the teams from the first MTDG should not be recognizable.

Whomp may have a good idea there, with 'expectations' being a component of team make-up. For instance, I can't play the save; so I'd have to be on a team with at least a handful of people who can.

Custom Map ... with luxes spread so that trade is a big ingredient, and what about 5 teams :mischief:

I'm more than willing to create a new scenario - if you liked the map enough.

I agree whole-heartedly that the teams from the first MTDG should not be recognizable.

Whomp may have a good idea there, with 'expectations' being a component of team make-up.
That may be so, but many of us who were on team KISS felt/feel strongly about not having much governmental structure. Perhaps, of those who express interest in playing again, it could be determined the number with a preferred government form. After seeing how many folks prefer what structure, THEN the expectations could be used in allocating people to teams with the type of government they prefer.

Since it appears that all the other teams had elections and offices, that might well mean that KISS members would mostly stay together. We idiots never heard of voting...what is it??? ;)

For the record...

I loved the structure of MIA and would have a difficult time staying active in a setting like KISS had.

I think 4 teams is the minimum, 5 is the maximum number.

does either GA or RM want to play in this one? I wouldn't ming admin-ing.

Tubby the admin!?! :eek:

Since anything is possible (no matter how crazy) let me be the first to say that Tubby, our Dear Administrator, would be wise, strong, just and good looking. I would be happy to be in the Civers Paradise that Tubby would create...

Five teams would make the teams too small IMO. Look at our civIV MTDG, our team only has like 4 active members.

No one has mentioned AIs...

I'm assuming it's been done before, but people didn't like it, and that's why no one is mentioning it.

Three teams of humans, a handful of AIs.....?

I think 4 teams on one wraped continent would be best, and teams completely random. I would participate more if I started at the beginning and knew what was going on. ;)

I am for 5 teams. It really adds another dynamic to the game and helps prevent the same teams as the last MTDG. I also like Whomp's idea that we make the teams based a criteria. NO AIs. Just like greekguy said, it takes away from the great fun of diplomacy.

Yeah-but, what criteria?
I don't pretend to know all the individuals who were on all the teams, but perhaps I can make some useful observations. The types of other games played by each individual would seem to give some indication of which people would function best together on a team.

Succession Game Players - used to working together in small groups, discussing strategies, but then each being mostly left to their own devices for 10 turns. Probably not suited to voting/discussing what should be done on each and every turn.

Demo Game Player - used to holding elections for office and each player having a specific responsibility or specialization. Requires consensus more frequently on what direction the game should take.

XOTM Player - more competitive and used to working alone for planning and carrying out strategy.

PBEM Player - more comfortable playing against human civs rather than the AI. Probably varies from one person to the next whether they prefer working in teams or as loners.

I realize these are broad generalities and some people are comfortable with more than one type of game, but with the exception of some Demo Game players, all have some experience at being a turnplayer. OTOH, the Demo Game players are more likely to excel at diplo...maybe PBEM folks as well.

Each team would need at least one turnplayer, one diplomat, and maybe one with organizational skills. More of each would be desireable, but not absolutely necessary. Since players of the same type would likely get along best as teams, let them join the team they want, and if any team is missing a needed ingredient, post a request for a volunteer of that type to change teams.

Just a suggestion. :hmm:

I would definetly be up for another one, hopefully I can progress beyond lurker status if we played another game... I think we should have 4 teams and no AIs, just like this game. I am thinking we should let players choose teams, this will likely mean similar teams, however a few people (including myself) may join new teams... The only bad (maybe it is good?) thing about this is that diplomacy and grudges somewhat carry over from the last game...

It is very important to shuffle the players a little. I joined a Civ4 MTDG over on Apolyton to see how that crowd plays. They have a few teams who have stayed together through several games, and the atmosphere between the teams seems to be permeated by personal animosity bordering on hatred. :eek:

There is a tradeoff between having 5 or 7 teams. At 5 teams, there are 5 unbalanced alliance options (4v1, 3v1v1, 3v2, 2v2v1, 2v1v1v1) and with 7 teams there are many more options (6v1, 5v1v1, 5v2, 4v3, 4v2v1, 4v1v1v1, 3v2v2, 3v2v1v1, 2v2v2v1, etc.), so 7 obviously gives a lot more potential variety. OTOH, games with 7 teams will take slightly over a week per turn, so if it goes 200 turns again that would be 4 years. :eek: We'd need to hope our CDs last that long. :crazyeye:

The key for me is being on a team with at least 3 other active members, and not being the 1st turnplayer. :rolleyes:

To encourage new players I have posted the General_W Movie Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4693791#post4693791) in the Stories Section of the Forum.

I guess it is important to allow players to choose the type of team they would want to be part of ... structured or the more relaxed KISS style.

Would it be prudent to have this option asked in a new thread ... that way we can see the numbers for each type and then perhaps have the teams assigned randomly?

I agree with Whomp about the elements for the most competitive game. Perhaps we can put together a list of the top turnplayers?

I will be the first of many to nominate Chamnix for the list.

Also, I agree with Fe that another important element is style of team atmosphere.

First new SGOTMer to show up? Thanks Whomp for the link and the headsup. :)

I've been interested in learning more about this for quite a while, but as an outsider it's hard to get a grip on the game when all the real stuff goes on in closed forums, and time has prevented me from diving into it. With a new game starting up, I'll have the chance to be in from the beginning.

I did vote "lurker" though, as I'm still unsure how much time I will have in the near future. I would still like to be on a team though, and participate as much as time permits me to.

Please please put me in a structured team. ;)

How about this for a randomization method? Call it the "reverse draft" method.

Open signup for n days. Randomly order registered players 1..#p In order, the players from 1 to #p choose which team they want to be on, with the restrictions that: The chosen team must not have more than 2 members more than the team with the fewest members The chosen team may not have more than 1/3 of its members from the choosing player's previous team, if any (except if all teams have more than 1/3 their members from a previous team)

We could do the choosing in a chat to speed things up -- if a player comes up in the order and isn't in chat then stop the selection and have that player choose in the forum. (I'll call this one the donsig rule :lol: )

It is very important to shuffle the players a little. I joined a Civ4 MTDG over on Apolyton to see how that crowd plays. They have a few teams who have stayed together through several games, and the atmosphere between the teams seems to be permeated by personal animosity bordering on hatred. :eek::eek: If that is a possible result of keeping the teams as they are than that touches my Moderator responsibility. I will not have hatred in my forum-section. No way. Period.

You guys sort it out, but Dave's prediction is simply unacceptable.

I dont' know how many of us are also involved in the cIV MTDG, but some of these same issues arose there. As I am most familiar with MIA names, I happened to notice their team choices. But things were kept pretty simple. Five teams were offered, Alpha, Beta,... Epsilon; no one had chosen Epsilon when I read the thread, so it seemed like a good place for me to wind up.

Most MIA people opted for teams other than the one I opted for (no doubt due to my campaign tactics!). There are a handful of MIA guys who chose to be Servants of The Leader along with me, but there is by no means an 'MIA flavor' to EpsilonTeam!

I'm not sure how mathematical and rigorous we need to be here. Things seemed to sort themselves out for the cIV game. Maybe we should just offer up five (is that the consensus?) teams, and let people assign themselves?

On the other hand, I can attest that, as an MIAer, it was pretty discouraging to see the civ3 MTDG roster dominated (in numbers, at least) by people requesting to be Idiots. I don't know how many of them were active, but it might be feasible to seed two teams from KISS.

On the other other hand, I will certainly go along with any scheme that is devised, as long as it's fun :)

And lastly, how are admins determined? Do people volunteer? Must they be voted on, and if not, who appoints them?

If admin selection should happen first, we should hammer that out soon.

Speaking of the potential for carry-over animosity....

Having read a bit of the KISS threads, I have a great appreciation for the motivations behind some of the decisions you guys made. Likewise with DNUTs, tho' I haven't ventured that far into their threads. To be able to go back and peer into your opponents' minds, at the very moment they are making decisions, is a priceless opportunity. And, having seen things from that point of view, no rational person would carry any ill-will into another game.

Despite having felt betrayed by a trading partner, this MIAer would certainly not hold animosity for another team (whether or not consisting of the same players as this past game); and I hope the same goes for my former teammates! :)

Maybe Apolyton should open the private forums after games? :hmm:

And lastly, how are admins determined? Do people volunteer? Must they be voted on, and if not, who appoints them?Admins need to meet certain qualifications, since they (besides ruling on game aspects) control certain forum actions, like granting members access to hidden fora, and -very unnoticed, but very real- block people from accessing in case there is suspicion. I cannot reveal a lot, but I can tell you that without the admins' attention, (combined with my abilities) the MTDG would have been ruined because some individuals nearly got access to more than 1 forum.

One of the qualifications for game-admin is that I approve of them and that means that I have to trust them.

Since admining sometimes means making decisions that are bound to infuriate people, admins need to be (besides able to make those decisions) in close contact with me to channel those sentiments in a correct way. That means that admins need to be able to work with me.

On top of that, admins need a thorough knowledge of the game, the rules, the spirit of the rules and the principles of a Democracy game.

- If you think you qualify - apply to me :) -
(Ginger Ale and Regentman need not apply - they only need to un-apply if they don't want this task)

I (as a non-participant but consistantly confused KISS lurker) would think that some combination of mixing it up and letting teams form themselves would be a good idea. Just changing team names might do that. If the Idiots would just get another SG going (... ahem ...) then even if they don't all end up on the same MTDG team, the love will not go uninterrupted. So how about just randomly assigning anyone who doesn't insist on being in just one group?

Does this sound confused enough to still qualify me as an idiot?? :hammer2:

Oh, and the dynamics of five teams instead of four sound much more interesteing.

Back to the admin issue:

How many admin 'applicants' are preferred? 2... 3.... 5... ?

If nominations are required, I could PM a few names of people I've come to hold in high regard, both for integrity and for gameskill.

Thanks for the invitation, Whomp!

I would play if a team of SGOTM veterans is formed. Several vets have been adversaries for so long it would be nice to play a game on the same team.

I'd be interested in joining, if anyone needs a handicap.

As a wise-acre of KISS let me say that I can't imagine holding any lasting animosity from the game. I will take KISS's loss adn process it like any of life's moutning dissapointments - I will shove it into the cold little ball in the pit of my stomach so that my bile production will increase. There, problem solved.

As for team selection, I think that Whomp's idea of drafting has merrit. Nominate five willing and able team captains, open the sign up for a number of days then let the captains choose.

I think that active and skilled participants will be better able to judge player skill/diplo skill/number crunching/personality issues better than random assignments.

All I ask is please, please, please don't pick me last:cry:

The portion of my bile-producing ball that is allocated for 'competative sport rejection' is all filled up from dodge ball. If I get rejected again in that area my bitterness feng shui would be thrown off...

Team Captains sound good ... Do we have 5 candidates?

and am I correct that 2 will be gathering a bunch of anarchists together ???


Anyone want to raise their hands for this?

Are you raising your hand, Fe?

I think the issue of admin appointments came up because people thought that Ginger Ale and Regent_Man might like to play. If both are willing to administer a second game, then we can proceed to the next step.

I may be jumping the gun here, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions on a couple of Ruleset issues from the last game.

There were two elements of the Ruleset that I found curious. For all I know, we are better off with them, than without them; but I wonder what other people think.
0.3.3 - Spoiler Info

Description: Upon joining a new team, you are not allowed to give out spoiler info to your new team that the new team you are on would not know about if you had not joined. If you have to give out spoiler info to prove your case, then do not post / vote in the thread.

This actually worked smoothly with the refugees to MIA, but it seemed to me that the exTNT folk should have been allowed to share anything they wanted - at least, from their own memory. I don't think that it would have ruined the game experience, and it may have even spiced up the 'recruitment' aspect of things. So, even while being overwhelmed by enemies, TNT citizens would have been wooed by the three remaining teams, for the more active members had heads full of valuable intel.



1.8 Enjoining Teams

Description: No team or individual is permitted to barter, gift, or otherwise trade multiple cities with the intent of joining teams to destroy another team and keep both teams alive to survive to the end. If a team decides to drop out however, its players are allowed to change teams as permitted under Section 0.3.

Definition: A team trading one or more cities to another team for the purpose of either granting that team an advantage (premature contact with another civ, map information, etc.), or denying an aggressor the right of conquest.


It bothered me that KISS wasn't allowed to trade / gifts its cities to DNUTs. It seems to me that gifting cities in that way is simply the corollary of MIA funding TNT in their fight against KISS. Why is one allowed and the other not? I'd like to know more about the past experiences that have led to the creation of this rule, as it seems to me to be an unnecessary infringement on a team's options of actions.

Again, if this is premature, I apologize :)

:eek: No not me buddy ... I'm not the heavy leader type :lol:

Regarding first rule
... I also think is should be modified ... as long as the defeated teams forums become locked then it would be OK ... it would also add spice to future diplomatic encounters :mischief:

Second Rule
... difficult one, I can see the pros and cons ... perhaps it could go to a vote at some stage.
What concerns me is if you are about to take a city and then it suddenly swaps hands ... and I don't want a situation where cities can be swapped and then given back just to reveal the map.

MIA sent TNT a inadvertent email that detailed their builds along with the 30 knights that were due to upgrade

:eek: :confused: Do you have a copy of this or the date it was sent or where it came from (was it our gmail or some other email)? I had no idea such a thing even happened, and I'm kind of curious about how it did.

To echo Fe and Peter Grimes' sentiments, perhaps the ruleset could allow for putting penalties in interteam contracts (the Simpsons Protocols or Green Alliance) for breaking the contract. That way, if a team were to trade technologies such as we did, and the admins agreed, the penalty would be easy to enforce as it is written into the contract signed by both teams. Teams would know the penalties with breaking such a contract, and would be less likely to deal unfairly. The admins would be the ultimate arbiters for the enforcement.

Fun or not, breaking a treaty should always remain an integral component of the diplomatic operating space... in other words - Game Administrators should not be enlisted to enforce Treaties or Agreements. Consequences of breaking a deal should not be litigated; the consequences are only real, and have verifiable force, if enacted in-game.

Don't misread me: I'm certainly not advocating a free-for-all, whereby any team may freely forsake its contractual obligations. Quite the opposite, actually! Trust is something that teams accrue in the game. Trust cannot be dictated by a game admin. That is a false god.


To echo Fe and Peter Grimes' sentiments, perhaps the ruleset could allow for putting penalties in interteam contracts (the Simpsons Protocols or Green Alliance) for breaking the contract. That way, if a team were to trade technologies such as we did, and the admins agreed, the penalty would be easy to enforce as it is written into the contract signed by both teams. Teams would know the penalties with breaking such a contract, and would be less likely to deal unfairly. The admins would be the ultimate arbiters for the enforcement.




I wouldn't oppose this. However, I think the best scenario is to leave the admins out of things as much as possible. On the other hand, if every treaty or trade had an admin penalty clause written in, that would certainly have a positive enforcement effect.


Yet, I'm still persuaded to think that each team is free to amend each agreement to make if admin-enforceable. Why not just leave it as that? Why bother to write a special rule when we are perfectly capable of doing so on our own?

I agree with Peter Grimes, there should be no penalty for breaking treaties from a party outside the game structure. Takes away from the fact that states have decided to break treaties countless of times in the past and it has been up to other states to punish them for it.

Then again I was only involved in the last game of the briefest of moments so I do not have the experience of the first game to draw upon in deciding what would make the next game more enjoyable.

I don't think having team captains is the best idea IMHO. Going from Greekguy's suggestion of captains, for example what happens if Chamnix picks BCLG but BCLG wants to be on Tubby's team. That just leads to people being unhappy and losing interest in the game.

If you look at the Civ4 MTDG it all worked out ok. Some people want to stay with the same group they were in this game others wanted to try the game with new people, plus on top of all that you had new people coming into the teams. AFAIK their have been no problems and everyone is happy.

Maybe they take things a little too seriously over at Apolyton but the civ3 MTDG was played in good spirits, sure there were a few flare up, but then most were more amusing than sinister and at the end of the day we all shook hands and congratulated each other. Considering all that i don't see any reason to change the current system. "if it ain't broke, why fix it:D"

I think that the idea of team captains was one more of the defacto leader of that team until a "government" is established

I might have misunderstood, but that would be fair enough, although i have to say i think there would be better people than me to lead a team, i mean who in their right mind would want to be on a team led by me:confused:

I think the teams are equal, as long as Chamnix's team starts on a 9 tile desert island with 30 tiles of ocean seperating it from any other land:goodjob:

Well someone mentioned my name..... did you all not notice the team i was playing died first?????

...and the team you joined died next. I have added a word to my personal vocabulary:

si-mon-ize to serve as a catalyst for misfortune, woe or destruction. simonized to have experienced inescapable destruction or woe.

I love you man :cry:

I consider myself dual role. I can be an anchor, providing a much needed drag on overall efficiency. But I also add color.

Let's face it, there aren't enough out of shape white guys represented in forums like this. Our voice must be heard!

On that same note each team should also have some, let's call them anchors.

I hope that's not Cockney 'Rhyming Slang'! (Although it would be most appropriate).

I thought we were getting team 'types.' So far I have an Anchor Team and a Doughy guy team.

I could be on either, but I found the mascot for the latter.

I'd be fine with a team of people who want to win but somehow never can :hmm:

Then you may have a future in pro sports...

I completely agree with Robi D and Regentman, some people like to stay on their previous teams, others want to change, so everyone could have it their way if we have signups.. Plus if we do add another team (I still think 4 teams would be better), it would slightly mixup teams as it did in the Civ4 MTDG

How about setting a date for this MTDM to start and then we make all the arragements to meet the deadline?

I sugest 15 November. Giving us a lot od days for team sort out and map making.

I have a somewhat different suggestion for allocating/assigning some team members.

I was on Team KISS and pretty active in posting, BUT not either a good player or diplomat. My position could be best described as a "cheerleader", which comes very close to lurker. I played one single turn with my friends walking me through it on MSN...no independent actions from me on that one.

Why not omit lurkers from the team member totals if you're trying to make them approximately even numerically. I know who I want for team mates, but I don't want to take up a spot that could be better filled with a good player/diplomat. So, couldn't the players who intend to be genuinely active be put on teams, and then allow those who just want to be sociable join whichever team they like without making the numbers appear lopsided? Keep the two types as separate counts.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? :confused:

It's getting too complicated ... I consider myself a Decison Helper and became a strong diplomat by default (and having time) although i vetoed some diplomacy options I basically followed the team's thought on issues (even on occasion when I personally disagreed sometimes).

I think leave it upto RegentMan and Ginger Ale ... they would be well aware of who is active and in what capacity as they have viewed the whole game from the beginning.

If one team is getting too strong they can place a hold on new members as they sort-of did in our previous game.

KISS being split is a given, so maybe that team can divide themselves evenly and fairly. Perhaps these two new teams would be the first to have a cap placed on them until the other teams caught up in numbers and 'experience'.

Large Man with Sid Player: Well, he will be soon, he's very good.
The Sid Player That Claims It Isn't: I'm at Chieftain.
Large Man with Sid Player: No you're not, you'll be stone Sid in a moment.
:lol: :lol:

That's priceless!

I'm ok with strategy – but I'm only a marginal C3C player. I think Monarch/Emperor level.
(Monarch is below Emperor, right? If not – then whatever that level below Emperor is!)

Don't know if it matters, since I plan to mainly lurk anyway.

:salute:

Great idea! I'm in for another.

Play skills: DG
Diplo skills: none
PBEM skills: none, except for brief period during MTDG1
Favorite government: SG-style
Shunned government: anything that involves elaborate rule sets

Hey, CB! Very funny :lol:

Who are these notorious Grumpies I keep hearing about?

Is it Bede et alia?

I´m chieftain level. Only played Civ once and was killed by barbarians, darn those guys are really good.

:lol: Trust CB to know his MP trivia ;)

As to skill level, I'm certainly a Deity player in single player mode, but I've never played a multiplayer game. But I guess no one cares if we're doing it the sign-up way. :p

In any case I agree with Whomp, we should strive to have some spread in skill level, but I'm sure we can sort that out via sign-up threads. We can always do it in two passes, first do signups and then the equalize where/if necessary.

Monarch in solo games with a good start. :rolleyes: (Sorry Bede! :blush: )
Emperor in SG's with VERY strong team mates (was carried through one DG game...good thing I don't weigh much. :p )
Love the Idiots and the Grumpys. :love:
Diplo skills: enjoy analyzing what the other teams may be thinking, but unable to do negotiating. :undecide:
PBEM experience: none :hmm:

I want to play. I was technically in Team Doughnut for this one, but I posted once or twice. I joined late in the game, and I could not get into it. I would be happy to give it another try, if Doughnut is willing to have me again.

dont forget expert in baking gma!
Ok, I brought enough to share with everyone tonight. :D

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/180352/brownies3.jpg

I'd suggest a custom map so everyone is as clueless as me.I'd volunteer as being as clueless as Tubs, but it won't help if I'm with him. I'd be damned not to be, though. However I can't be that much active nowadays so it would be a lurk for the idiots.

Play skills: D a year ago, probably strong E / shaky DG right now
Diplo skills: none - and don't want to work on it
PBEM skills: clumsy, but workable
Favorite government: AW
Shunned government: Anything with an embassy

Organized gov, as I can't hold my own if not surrounded by supporters :)

Diplo skills?.. none, as far as I can tell. I annoy everyone I work with, if that's any sign.

Skill Level?... Way less than most people here. I learned more about Civ3 in the last MTDG than I ever thought I knew to start with!! I was a wonder addict, and I had never built a settler factory nor a specialist farm. Don't laugh - you were all just like me at one point ;)

Emp--> DG level since the blind rats never got to Doc's deity challange. Diplo is fun, but am I any good...nah, ok maybe. Fav gov laid back, i.e. not to many votes.

Ah, woops.

Level: Solid Monarchy/ shaky emperor
Diplo Skills: I play a few text based games were diploing is everything. I love the realpolitik. Definitely good at manipulating and negotiating. I promise to eek out an extra tech.
Gov: Any, really.

AI's are hard coded- they will never give more than a certain amount of techs. Humans have free will, and this is our weakness. We are also susceptible to flattery and subtle threats.