The two most important decisions

DaveMcW · Feb 16, 2010

These two decisions will affect everything else, so they should be debated and decided soon.

Sequential 24 hour timer vs Simultaneous 48 hour timer

Sequential
+ Absolutely no chance of double moves

Simultaneous
+ Faster
+ Can add more teams without slowing the game down
+ There are reasonable rules against double move abuse that an admin can enforce

Tech trading ON vs OFF

ON
+ Easier for small teams to cooperate against the score leader
- A losing team can screw everyone by gifting all their techs to the score leader.
- The winning strategy is to let the diplomat run your team, not a very democratic process

remake20 · Feb 16, 2010

I vote sequential and ON. I don't think having tech trading on will make the diplomat run the game.

Sommerswerd · Feb 16, 2010

Sequential and ON

However, I will play regardless of which we end up doing.

I would also like to point out that if speed is an issue, we could play Sequential with a shorter timer (12 or 8 hours for example). With multiple turnplayers on each team, that shouldn't be impossible to handle.

remake20 · Feb 16, 2010

No it doesn't sound like a bad idea for shorter turn times. Especially if we could get several turn players that could play every time of day.

donsig · Feb 16, 2010

I'm leaning towards simultaneous and tech trading on.

Lord Parkin · Feb 16, 2010

I'm all for simultaneous turns and tech trading on, as I've probably mentioned in previous threads.

As I've seen far too often before, a dragging pace kills the interest of all but the most dedicated players faster than anything else. If we want to maintain the interest of the majority of the players, we need the game to move along at a reasonable pace, and simultaneous turns is the best way to achieve that. Rules against double moves can easily be put in place, and any abuses will be very obvious to both the teams involved and any admins looking into the matter.

As for tech trading, diplomacy is one of the major fun elements of the game, and I'd hate to remove most of that by turning off tech trading. Besides, it doesn't really balance the game, and in fact can imbalance it even worse than with tech trading on sometimes (because a runaway tech leader can't be caught up to).

DaveMcW · Feb 16, 2010

How about turning off tech trading, but adding lots of resource monopolies and trade routes so teams can still set up an embargo that hurts.

And keep espionage on to enable cheap tech stealing.

CommandoBob · Feb 16, 2010

Tech Trading: On
Seq vs. Sim: Seq, to allow for better diplomacy.

classical_hero · Feb 17, 2010

What about having Tech brokering on as a variant, rather than just plain old Tech trading. I have played in many MP games where they have simultaneous and there are rules that can be enforced to make sure that it does not happen.

azzaman333 · Feb 17, 2010

Simultaneous, and off.

remake20 · Feb 17, 2010

We should make this a poll.

Sommerswerd · Feb 17, 2010

Wow r20, it seems you like polls... I wanna be on teams with you

. I love polls...so
fun.

At any rate, we are addressing two differnt questions, so If there is a poll, There should probably be two polls... one poll for each question, however:

If we are polling both choices in one poll

, the options could be:
1. Simultaneous turns and Tech Trading On
2. Sequential turns and Tech Trading On
3. Simultaneous turns and Tech Trading Off
4. Sequential turns and Tech Trading Off

Either way... If we poll this, and the winning option gets less than 51% of the vote, there should probably be a run-off.

remake20 · Feb 17, 2010

Or how about multiple choice, seq or sim, on or off. I'll start one now!

RRRaskolnikov · Feb 17, 2010

Lord Parkin said:
Besides, it doesn't really balance the game, and in fact can imbalance it even worse than with tech trading on sometimes (because a runaway tech leader can't be caught up to).

You can always build a coalition diplomatically to tackle the forming tech leader... the game is different, not really imbalanced...

I would prefer SIMULTANEOUS and TRADE OFF therefore

@r20 and Sommer: I've seen your posts in the other thread about selecting turn-players... this is way too early! Anyone on a team can do that role (with a relevant helping team) and this will be decided by motivation inside each team and/or experience and/or RL duties and/or other stuffs...

remake20 · Feb 17, 2010

RRRaskolnikov said:
@r20 and Sommer: I've seen your posts in the other thread about selecting turn-players... this is way too early! Anyone on a team can do that role (with a relevant helping team) and this will be decided by motivation inside each team and/or experience and/or RL duties and/or other stuffs...

That's Sommer's doing not mine. But I don't think it hurts to find out who is willing and plus once we get a front page announcement people will be floding in and we'll get some turn players then.

damnrunner · Feb 17, 2010

Sequential turns and No tech trading is my vote.

Lord Parkin · Feb 17, 2010

RRRaskolnikov said:
You can always build a coalition diplomatically to tackle the forming tech leader... the game is different, not really imbalanced...

You have no real hope of tackling them if they're always a step (or two) ahead in tech, though. I just have vivid memories of my first tech trading game in an 18-player pitboss, where I cruised to a ridiculously easy victory after building the Great Lighthouse and taking out my nearest neighbour, because no-one else could touch me tech-wise after that.

DaveMcW · Feb 17, 2010

Lord Parkin said:
You have no real hope of tackling them if they're always a step (or two) ahead in tech, though. I just have vivid memories of my first tech trading game in an 18-player pitboss, where I cruised to a ridiculously easy victory after building the Great Lighthouse and taking out my nearest neighbour, because no-one else could touch me tech-wise after that.

Those are fixable map design problems.

Lord Parkin · Feb 17, 2010

DaveMcW said:
Those are fixable map design problems.

I guess so. But still, you can't avoid the fact that the first team to cannibalize another team will gain a significant advantage. I guess all you can do is separate the teams as much as possible and hope for the best in the later game.

Krill · Feb 17, 2010

Lord Parkin said:
I guess so. But still, you can't avoid the fact that the first team to cannibalize another team will gain a significant advantage. I guess all you can do is separate the teams as much as possible and hope for the best in the later game.

A game can be balanced by a good admin: it's the teams aim to unbalance it enough so that they can win. A bigger worry is, can the teams be created in a balanced fashion: no point ever bothering to balance the map if another MS turns up.

The two most important decisions

Deity

:)

Shades of the Sun

:)

Low level intermediary

aka emperor

Deity

AbstractArt

In whom I trust

meh

:)

Shades of the Sun

:)

Goldfish

:)

Deity

aka emperor

Deity

aka emperor

Deity

Similar threads