Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

I spent 8 years at a company where the building/buying a fancy/fast/basic/economical/flying car metaphor was beat into the ground beyond submission.

please make it stop

I dont have much comment to add - other than to second what pindicator was saying - this is like running a software project and putting your product directly into production instead of dev/uat first.

Sommerswerd said:

(Not @ azza)I would also like to say, that I find all the complaints that the Mod hasn't been tested enough a little bit disrespectful to the Civ community that has been using it all this time. I mean they have been really good sports about it, but those of you saying that its "untested" and similar things... "Untested" by who? You? The FEW Civ clergy that you happen to worship? To say that it's untested because "Oh those noobs over at Spanish community don't know how to properly test a Mod?" Is that what you mean? It's not truly tested unless the high and mighty all knowing english speaking sites test it first?

Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's how it sounds to me.

Click to expand...

Awww, poor widdle u!

I would suggest you actually debate the issue rather than debating the integrity of people you've never met, but, honestly, I don't think you've either the intelligence or the bravery to do the honest and decent thing.

NVM-not worth it

@jbob - Same point as plako. Good point as I said before.

Do we have any thoughts on Difficulty Level? That hasn't been discussed, and it is actually pretty important.

On Topic: A quick pitboss game to test any suggested mod should be a must.

Off Topic: Is this the planning thread or the bar-room thread? If it is the planning thread, feel free to create a bar-room thread and take the non-planning posts there.

Sommerswerd said:

Fair point Catwalk. Maybe borrowing your friend's expensive car to take an extended trip is a better way of putting it. Afterall youre not "buying" anything here, literally or figuratively.

Click to expand...

But we all are buying a major asset here. In this community, a 1-2 year game commitment is a very large asset. Do you think it should be treated any differently? This game is set up to be a large-scale Civ event. Do you agree that erring on the side of caution is prudent?

ruff_hi said:

On Topic: A quick pitboss game to test any suggested mod should be a must.

Click to expand...

100% agreed.

Off Topic: Is this the planning thread or the bar-room thread? If it is the planning thread, feel free to create a bar-room thread and take the non-planning posts there.

Click to expand...

Also a good point. Perhaps another thread could be used for the debate that is raging here about trust issues?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Taking off my moderator hat and putting on my mod-user hat...

What's wrong with BUG and other similar mods? The name means unaltered gameplay after all, so what's the issue?

I think it's an overstatement that casual players will be scared off by running a mod. An actual poll would be convincing, the assumption is most certainly not convincing. In my case, I'd be more likely to be actively involved if it is used than if it isn't.

DaveShack said:

What's wrong with BUG and other similar mods? The name means unaltered gameplay after all, so what's the issue?

Click to expand...

There have been reports that some sections of the BUG mod doesn't play nice with pitboss games. I am totally the wrong BUG author to ask about this - all of my code was SP focused and python in nature. Emporer Fool might know the answer better than I do.

Daveshack beat me to it but I'll just repeat his thought as my reponse to plako's concern (the one I said I would have to think about).

If the main concern/objection that people have to the Spanish Mod is that we cant be sure it works with modifications, as it hasn't been tested with modifications, then we can just use it with BUG, and without No-Score, as-in ... use it in the form that it has been tested and proven to work.

Here is a list of settings which have not yet reached consensus, or which require votes from multiple teams.

House Rules:
City Gifting - Banned outright, or restricted (if so, how)?

Game Settings:
Game Speed - Normal?
Difficulty - Prince, Monarch, or something else? (Bearing in mind increased Toroidal maintenance costs.)
Vassal States - Off or on?
Barbarians - Off, normal, or raging?

Mod Requirements (if any):
Double Move mod - or Civstats plus an admin-enforced double move rule?
No Score mod - yes or no?

Map Settings:
Size - Leave it to the mapmaker's judgment, or request something specific?
Allow all teams pre-optics contact - Yes or no?
Fair/balanced starts - Yes or no?

Choosing Civs and Leaders:
Selection method - Snake pick?

Here is an excel table listing everything that sites have and haven't yet voted for.

I suggest the deadline for all settings votes to be submitted should be 4 June 2012. Let's try to get this sorted out over the weekend - team leaders, please start any necessary polls in your forums ASAP.

My apologies, I missed Civfr on the excel table. Your preferences are welcome too.

Please can everyone take a look at the Ruleset Discussion thread. Anyone from any team should feel free to contribute to this discussion (but please stay on topic). The purpose is to get all the ideas in one place so we can finalize a good rule set as quickly and efficiently as possible - so please suggest any thoughts on alterations to the old ruleset in that thread.

So, the 31st of May has come and gone, and we have 9 teams confirmed to play. A good show.

1 - Team Civforum.de
2 - Team WePlayCiv
3 - Team Apolyton
4 - Team CivPlayers
5 - Team Spanish Apolyton
6 - Team Realms Beyond
7 - Team Civfanatics
8 - Team UniversCivilization
9 - Team Civfr

As the deadline for team signups has now passed, this will be our final team list for the game. The Team Roster thread has been closed.

The next step is to finalize settings and finalize a ruleset. This process should be completed by 4 June 2012. A rewritten ruleset should be presented for voting by the next day.

Then while the mapmaker (Plako) prepares our map, the teams can vote on the ruleset and make their official civ/leader choices. I would like to see this completed by 10 June 2012 (1006/2012).

All going well, we should be able to start the game shortly after that. Let's get to work and make it happen!

I have been asked via PMs what settings have been decided and which are still not final. To respond, NO settings are final, as Teams could always change their mind before the deadline/Map is made etc... However to be clear, some things already have reached a majority vote and so are final UNLESS a team changes their vote (which is unlikely). The rest of the settings are still undecided.

Things which have already have a majority vote (as per LP's spreadsheet)

Corporations - ON (5 agree, 2 disagree)
Huts - OFF (5 agree, 1 unsure, 1 disagree)
Always War - OFF (5 agree, 2 disagree)
Tech Trading - OFF (unanimous)
Mirrored starts - NO (6 agree, 1 disagree)
Engineered starts - NO (6 agree, no disagreement)
Multiple or exclusive leaders - EXCLUSIVE (6 agree, 1 disagree)

ALL other settings are still undecided. Even the above settings could change if a Team changes their minds before the game starts.

BTW, a note on WPC's vote regarding civ/leader selection, as I think the note in the spreadsheet could be mistaken: we vote for teams to be able to select. In a random order, but we do think teams should choose rather than just getting luck of the draw.

If Unrestricted Leaders is on, I think it's probably safe to say we'd support a snake draft - certainly more than we would letting the top draft slots get choice picks of both civ and leaders, as our whole objection to Unrestricted Leaders is that we think it's more likely than not to result in some very unbalanced combos. (Consider that many leaders will have a potentially desirable tarit, and that we only have 9 teams. Do you really think teams are going to make "denial" picks that don't really work great for them, just to ruin the day of another team?) We urge the other teams to vote against Unrestricted Leaders, but whether or not that passes, we don't support random assignment - just a random order of teams for when they make picks.

Yeah, I could have worded that better. Perhaps "simultaneous picking of civ and leader" conveys the meaning better.

Regardless of which method we use, there will definitely be a random order of selection. I suggest the admin (r_rolo1) uses a random number generator website (e.g. this one) to generate a random order for the 9 sites listed here, corresponding to the order which will be used for picking civs/leaders.

If we use "simultaneous pick", then the team at the top at the list will be far better off... getting their first choice for both leader and civ. Meanwhile, the team at the bottom of the list will be much worse off, and could potentially be stuck with their #9 preference in civ/leader. (Think: would your team be happy if it got allocated the #9 spot?)

If we use "snake pick", then the team at the top of the list will get their first choice for either leader or civ, BUT will get last choice for the other option (picking 1st and 18th). Meanwhile the team at the bottom of the list will get one of the last picks for civ or leader, but one of the first picks for the other option (picking 9th and 10th). So it will be much more balanced, and there will be no way to easily pick a "power combo" regardless of your position in the random sequence.

I also agree that it makes sense to use a snake pick if we have unrestricted leaders.

Lord Parkin said:

So it will be much more balanced, and there will be no way to easily pick a "power combo" regardless of your position in the random sequence.

Click to expand...

I guess our teams will have to disagree on that. But yes, simultaneous civ & leader picks would be terrible indeed.

Ok, random.org tossed this out

So according to this...

Lord Parkin said:

1 - Team Civforum.de
2 - Team WePlayCiv
3 - Team Apolyton
4 - Team CivPlayers
5 - Team Spanish Apolyton
6 - Team Realms Beyond
7 - Team Civfanatics
8 - Team UniversCivilization
9 - Team Civfr

Click to expand...

The order is this one:

Team WePlayCiv
Team Civforum.de
Team Apolyton
Team Spanish Apolyton
Team Civfanatics
Team CivPlayers
Team Realms Beyond
Team UniversCivilization
Team Civfr

Team WePlayCiv will choose civ first / Team Civfr will choose leader first?

Or not?