Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

Regis Hastur said:

What the hell? Half of a Demogracy game is reading demographics and discussing it. Why would you like to remove this?

Click to expand...

I disagree. 90% of the Democracy game is reading/writing/conducting Diplomacy. There isn't any room for "half" of it to be something else

But seriously, rather than write a long drawn out answer to this I will say that most of the general arguments that are applied against the CSM spy mission and espionage in General can be cut and pasted and just substitute "demographics" and "demographics reading" for "espionage." OP, unfair, unfun, unbalanced, game-breaking, broken, doesn't scale with empire size, etc, etc...

So you want to remove that part of espionage that are not extremely annoying and frustrating for everyone to deal with and leave only the parts that are annoying and frustrating? Sounds amazing! Where do I sign up!?

nabaxo said:

Where do I sign up!?

Click to expand...

On team RB... Oh wait you already did

BTW demographics reading is not espionage. Espionage requires using commerce to build up points to use. Demographics is using the demographics data that is available for free and decoding the numbers using formulas to gain info that ordinarily is only availabe through spending commerce to build espionage points.

And at you for just winning a game on an EE team and praising espy the whole time and then flip flopping to the RB anti-espionage religion

I realised two things during the last game:
1) Tech-trading is ass
2) Espionage is ass

I realised this because we f*cking won because of them, not in spite of them. It showed to me beyond any doubt that they have no place in a competitive game.

So you prefer to win through what? Commerce? So if someone wins because of high commerce then it's @ss? I don't get what your point is.

Anyway, you're on the right team if you hate espy that's for sure GLHF

On another note, thanks Krill for the heads up on the known tech bonus thing in the V2 Mod.

I really feel that while Manolo's mod is intriguing and worth trying out in future games, introducing it to the wider world in a massive-scale democracy game where the vast majority of players are completely unfamiliar with it is probably not the best idea. I think it just seems too much like tempting fate, jumping in the deep end on such a huge game (quite possibly the largest international Civ4 game ever in terms of number of players involved!)... and the general consensus at RB is much the same. Even if the mod works exactly as intended - without a single oversight or unintended consequence - there are still significant issues with the known features which would be detrimental to the environment of a large-scale democracy game.

Some of the issues considered most problematic:

- The mod is completely inflexible when it comes to real game situations which call for human judgment. One example would be switching turn orders in the middle of a war for convenience, or to group allies together to avoid needlessly long turns.

- The mod imposes heavy-handed restrictions on logging in for the sole purpose of preventing double moves. This is a rather extreme solution to a problem which is just as easily solved (with far more flexibility) by a simple combination of Civstats and a rule against double moves.

- The additional requirements just to log into the game, not to mention the lengthy enforced lock-outs, will not come without a cost. By putting up more barriers to getting into the game, the number of players that are able and willing to check up on the game will naturally dwindle. Every last person who has been thinking about/talking about/discussing this game already has Civ4 BTS 3.19 on their machines... but if another layer of requirements and restrictions are added, a significant chunk of casual players won't bother to check in on the game due to the added complexity. For a democracy game whose primary appeal is that it brings dozens more people to the table than any other game setup, this would be a great shame. It just doesn't seem at all like the kind of environment we should be setting up for this particular game.

It's a matter of considering whether it's worth adding significant inconvenience to try to fix something which, really, isn't broken. Double moves can be fixed quite easily with a much neater and more flexible solution (Civstats and a rule). The fact is that even if the mod works perfectly with no hiccups, it comes with significant costs in a game this large which - in my opinion - greatly outweigh any benefits. (Additionally, unless I've missed it, we don't have full documentation of exactly what information will be available on the website and who can see it... and it concerns me that the mod allows players to change some things inside the game without logging in.)

This game should be about enjoying the rare convergence of a large number of civ sites; the gathering together of a great number of people from all around the world to play the game they all know and love. It shouldn't be about testing out a mod. Of course, it would be brilliant to try out the mod in a different environment - I'm sure a large number of people including myself would be very interested to see a more casual game using it. This particular game just doesn't seem like the appropriate place for the vast majority of players to be encountering a new mod for the first time.

I agree very much with all points made by LP, and must say that I am not in favour of this mod for this particular game. I would be very interested in trying the mod, and heck, I can even set up a PB (as the host machine I am using is MORE than capable of running 3 PB's with the resources available) so people can test a game with it.

But for the MTDG itself, I would prefer that we use only the noscore mod if we are to use a mod. People are familiar with this mod, and know all the aspects about the mod, so if the majority vote is in favour of using it it's won't be a potential issue lategame (which I am afraid may be the case with this mod we have little to no experience with as of now).

On that note, how difficult is it to remove the BUG part of the mod, manolo? And how about the translation of the webpage into english (unless that is already done and I missed a language changer somewhere on the page when I opened it)? If I am provided with a modified version of the mod without the BUG part, and the webpage is available in english, I can set up a PB on short notice for people to test.

Caledorn said:

But for the MTDG itself, I would prefer that we use only the noscore mod [...] if the majority vote is in favour of using it

Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that there have only been two votes in favour of NoScore, which does not constitute a majority. For a start, two sites voted against all mods which were originally proposed, which suggests that they would prefer a completely unmodded game.

Yuufo said:

Hi,

The UniversCiv community would like to participate.
I registered a team in the roster thread.

Regards
Yuufo

Click to expand...

Great to have another team on board!

Just a reminder to the Spanish team - you still haven't posted your team roster in this thread. You need to do this today!

Lord Parkin said:

It's worth pointing out that there have only been two votes in favour of NoScore, which does not constitute a majority. For a start, two sites voted against all mods which were originally proposed, which suggests that they would prefer a completely unmodded game.

Click to expand...

Indeed, LP. My point was only to say that if we are to use mods, my personal preference is that we limit it to the noscore mod as that is a known mod. The majority vote is still what matters, regardless of my personal preference though.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

ToxoXI said:

Hi folks. Beta from WPC here. I had this name registered a number of years back with CFC and do not want to create a DL. So, if Ok with you, I will continue using it.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest PMing the admins (Thunderfall, Padma, Plotinus, Ainwood) for a name change, and mention you're well established elsewhere.

Does this game have a defined meta-ruleset? I'd think that would be a prerequisite for starting.

Caledorn said:

I agree very much with all points made by LP, and must say that I am not in favour of this mod for this particular game. I would be very interested in trying the mod, and heck, I can even set up a PB (as the host machine I am using is MORE than capable of running 3 PB's with the resources available) so people can test a game with it.

But for the MTDG itself, I would prefer that we use only the noscore mod if we are to use a mod. People are familiar with this mod, and know all the aspects about the mod, so if the majority vote is in favour of using it it's won't be a potential issue lategame (which I am afraid may be the case with this mod we have little to no experience with as of now).

On that note, how difficult is it to remove the BUG part of the mod, manolo? And how about the translation of the webpage into english (unless that is already done and I missed a language changer somewhere on the page when I opened it)? If I am provided with a modified version of the mod without the BUG part, and the webpage is available in english, I can set up a PB on short notice for people to test.

Click to expand...

This maybe might be true for players here.
Please don't forget all the other teams participating.
Civforum for example has huge concerns about double moves as it was one of the reasons the last Inter Site Demogracy Game wasn't finished.
On the other hand we never use "no score" in any Demogracy Games.

But we'll accept the votes on this points from all the other participating teams of cource.

Lord Parkin said:

I really feel that while Manolo's mod is intriguing and worth trying out in future games, introducing it to the wider world in a massive-scale democracy game where the vast majority of players are completely unfamiliar with it is probably not the best idea. I think it just seems too much like tempting fate, jumping in the deep end on such a huge game (quite possibly the largest international Civ4 game ever in terms of number of players involved!)... and the general consensus at RB is much the same. Even if the mod works exactly as intended - without a single oversight or unintended consequence - there are still significant issues with the known features which would be detrimental to the environment of a large-scale democracy game.

Some of the issues considered most problematic:

- The mod is completely inflexible when it comes to real game situations which call for human judgment. One example would be switching turn orders in the middle of a war for convenience, or to group allies together to avoid needlessly long turns.

- The mod imposes heavy-handed restrictions on logging in for the sole purpose of preventing double moves. This is a rather extreme solution to a problem which is just as easily solved (with far more flexibility) by a simple combination of Civstats and a rule against double moves.

Click to expand...

Hi,
Only one pair of words about that:
Now the admin can push a button at the web and the game will be changed to no restrictions to login . Teams at war can be login at the game out of their turn.

And if you want, the teams can be switch theirs turns, its at mi mind and its a 2 days development more or less

And I could do any development you want. By examplo I can merge with the noscore mod without any problemas, and remove th BUG mode (although this would be more expensive)

But maybe I agree with you. Maybe some of you could play a game with my mod ( I can host it if you want) only for funny.

and please .. sorry for my very poor english

Sommerswerd said:

I don't get what your point is.

Click to expand...

You never seem to get what my point is.

Regis Hastur said:

This maybe might be true for players here.
Please don't forget all the other teams participating.

Click to expand...

Remember that the official position of Team CFC on this issue is that we are in favor of the Anti-Doublemove Mod. There are some of our team that aren't fans of using it, but most of us are.

Double moves can be fixed quite easily with a much neater...with... (Civstats and a rule).

Click to expand...

It has been my experience that Doublemove rules work best in relaxed non-competitive MP games, where there is one player controlling a team. In that environment, a Doublemove is usually an accident and it goes kinda like this... Player A- "Um you DMed me", Player B "Whoops sorry dude, you totally get a reload"

In competitive games, particularly MTDG games when a turnplayer gets accused of a DM he is shamed and embarrased in front of his whole team and there is a tendancy to get defensive... "I was just logging in to look around", "I didn't move any units", "You DMed me before and I didn't say anything!" and a litany of other excuses. Then the teammates of the Turnplayer rally behind him and start quitting in protest when the admin enforces the rule... Game ruined. This has happened now in BTS MTDG I AND II!!

It absolutely dumbfounds me that we would be foolish enough to go down this same road of "Oh we just need a rule and the admin can enforce it and everything will be fine" NO IT WON'T! That approach has FAILED in two MTDG games in a row. Please stop this madness and accept that we NEED this Anti-Doublemove Mod... For the Love of Heaven

The mod is completely inflexible when it comes to real game situations which call for human judgment. One example would be switching turn orders in the middle of a war for convenience, or to group allies together to avoid needlessly long turns.

Click to expand...

This comes up when there is only ONE player on a team, not in MTDGs. AFAIK, there hasnt ever been a situation in an MTDG where this has happened (Whole teams needed to switch places in the turn). Surely team RB, with their 70+ players can find one person to play their turn in their 24 hour phase of the turn timer.And Allies can group themselves together by attacking during the correct phase of the turn.

- The additional requirements just to log into the game, not to mention the lengthy enforced lock-outs, will not come without a cost. By putting up more barriers to getting into the game, the number of players that are able and willing to check up on the game will naturally dwindle. Every last person who has been thinking about/talking about/discussing this game already has Civ4 BTS 3.19 on their machines... but if another layer of requirements and restrictions are added, a significant chunk of casual players won't bother to check in on the game due to the added complexity. For a democracy game whose primary appeal is that it brings dozens more people to the table than any other game setup, this would be a great shame. It just doesn't seem at all like the kind of environment we should be setting up for this particular game.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you just said that... I am speechless (Well not literally of course I'm never "speechless")

But seriously... I can't believe you "fixed your mouth to say that" as the saying goes. That sentiment is soooooo rich coming from Team RB. WTF?!? YOU guys are the ones who started this whole mess of excluding new players.

CFC is getting innundated with RB refugees because YOU decided it would be nice to add some "additional requirements just to log into the game" and "put up more barriers to getting into the game"! Becacause of your restriction policy the "number of players that are able and willing to [play] the game will naturally dwindle." YOU GUYS (Team RB) have "added another layer of requirements and restrictions" so now "a significant chunk of casual players won't bother [or be able to play] the game due to the added complexity. "

But this statement is the most frustrating of all:

For a democracy game whose primary appeal is that it brings dozens more people to the table than any other game setup, this would be a great shame.

Click to expand...

Yes Team RB, it is a shame and no the climate of exclusionary practices don't "seem at all like the kind of environment we should be setting up for this particular game" does it?.... It is a shame that you don't realize that recruiting new interest in the game is one of the goals of a Democracy game. It is a shame, and SHAME ON YOU for forcing us down this road

It's ironic that you would say that the DM thing can be controlled with "a rule" plus admin enforcement, but you can't or wont accept the idea that the "double-account-spying thing could be controlled the same way... a rule against it plus admin-enforcement

Regis Hastur said:

Civforum for example has huge concerns about double moves as it was one of the reasons the last Inter Site Demogracy Game wasn't finished.

Click to expand...

The last ISDG was played with sequential turns, such that double moving was impossible. The problem there was missed turns, which can happen regardless of any mod.

Manolo65 said:

But maybe I agree with you. Maybe some of you could play a game with my mod ( I can host it if you want) only for funny.

Click to expand...

I'd certainly be very curious to see it in action in a casual game. I'm impressed with the amount of work you've put into it, and are willing to keep putting into it.

Guys, guys, lets not go there. I am fairly sure those who want to actually play the game will find a way to do it. To those who it is impenetrable problem installing a mod or sending a simple 5-lines motivational PM to the team captains to make them see their real commitment and allow access to the private forums, I wont be sorry they will miss the game.

On the other hand, I am 100% positive that a mod which prevents double-moves will be great for the game. And if those guys say they have 20 games with it and no problems arose till now, to me this sounds OK.

Sommer, I believe most teams - including CFC - are using some form of common-sense judgment when it comes to completely unknown players signing up. After all, a certain low threshold of caution makes sense... it's like choosing to lock your house, rather than leaving the door open and hoping that no-one with ill intent will opportunistically wander inside.

I'm really not sure what your purpose is in trying to call the kettle black... seems a bit pointless, but ah well.

LP,
CFC's "common sense judgement" is a response to RB's "common sense judgment" We are restricting because in our judgment, you guys must have had a good reason for doing so. So when RB faithful show up here asking for access, we say "Well RB must have had a good reason for excluding you so we should follow their judgment"

Then another prominent RB player shows up here and starts lambasting us for just imitating what RB is doing. Then another prominent RB player starts bemoaning us "adding a bunch of restrictions and barriers to access".

My point is why can't RB just accept their lurkers and have a rule against cheating?