BLCG100 suggested that in cases of a tie, that the default option should be the one we play with. Lord Parkin seconded this sentiment, and then DaveMCW made it final by saying that when there was a tie, the default option would be the "tiebreaker".
Game Settings - Final Results
- Thread starter DaveMcW
- Start date
Sherlock613
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 38
I assume:
- Teams which only provide one civ choice (type "A") get that civ choice
- Teams which state a preference to have a unique leader (type "B") submit a list of civs BEFORE knowing what the other teams have
- If one type "B" team has the same first choice leader as a type "A" team, "A" automatically gets their civ choice as desired, and "B" automatically gets their next-highest pick that isn't a duplicate
- If two or more type "B" teams have the same first choice leader, but no type "A" team has that leader choice, a coin is flipped by the admins; one "B" gets their first pick and the other "B" gets their next best pick that isn't a duplicate
- If two or more type "B" teams have the same first choice leader as a type "A" team, "A" automatically gets their civ choice as desired, and both "B" teams automatically get their next-highest picks that aren't duplicates (coin flip if necessary if same pick in this stage, etc)
Hope that makes sense.
Not exactly...
Lord Parkin's proposal states that there are 2 types of teams. Type A teams always get their preference. Type B gets the next highest pick that is not a duplicate.
Since we are playing WITH duplicate, restricted civs, I suggest a much more simple system.
Each team picks 2 civs, designated as a first and second choice.
That's it.
If 2 teams pick the same civ, both teams have the option of switching. Yes, that leaves the possibility that both teams will not choose their original civ, and yes both teams could feasibly end up switching to the same 2nd choice, but that is their choice.
So, you have 2 really easy phases.
1) Teams submit their 2 choices to admins. Admins email teams that have a duplicate civ.
2) Teams with duplicate civ decide whether or not to keep their 1st choice or switch to their 2nd choice. They do not discuss this with other teams.
The end. Start playing already!
^^^.....That's still almost exactly what Parkin says; you guys are describing the same things in two different ways.
If a team wants a specific leader and only gives that choice, they get it (duplicates don't matter).
If a team wants to have a unique (non-duplicate) leader and they give a second choice (to the admins) they get switched to the second choice if there is a duplicate.
This is all fine by me, to be clear, and this is how I thought it was all along anyway, too, so that's great.
If a team wants a specific leader and only gives that choice, they get it (duplicates don't matter).
If a team wants to have a unique (non-duplicate) leader and they give a second choice (to the admins) they get switched to the second choice if there is a duplicate.
This is all fine by me, to be clear, and this is how I thought it was all along anyway, too, so that's great.
The situation can get almost arbitrarily complicated and none of the suggestions so far completely cover every possible case in a satisfactory way.
However I trust the admins to apply common sense and figure it out. It's really not that hard to come up with the right rule given the specific situation, for all that it appears nigh-on impossible to come up with a rule that covers every case in advance (as evidenced by everybody's failure* to do so).
All we should need to do is:
- Submit a preferred leader
- Optionally submit a preference list of leaders we would prefer to play if the preferred leader is taken by someone else. Only do this if you would genuinely prefer to play the other leaders rather than just being a duplicate. This makes sense for instance if it was a tight decision between two leader choices in the first place.
People like me who don't want duplicate leaders in the game at all have already lost a vote. The only people who might not be happy are those who apparently want to force other civs to use their first choice duplicate, which I can't understand at all. Surely avoiding duplicates is an aesthetic decision not a strategic one? In which case why would you want to force another team to make a choice that's strategically better but aesthetically displeasing to them? It sounds like everyone loses in that situation.
* not everyone was neccesarily trying to cover all cases, so 'failure' is a bit harsh, but you get the point.
However I trust the admins to apply common sense and figure it out. It's really not that hard to come up with the right rule given the specific situation, for all that it appears nigh-on impossible to come up with a rule that covers every case in advance (as evidenced by everybody's failure* to do so).
All we should need to do is:
- Submit a preferred leader
- Optionally submit a preference list of leaders we would prefer to play if the preferred leader is taken by someone else. Only do this if you would genuinely prefer to play the other leaders rather than just being a duplicate. This makes sense for instance if it was a tight decision between two leader choices in the first place.
People like me who don't want duplicate leaders in the game at all have already lost a vote. The only people who might not be happy are those who apparently want to force other civs to use their first choice duplicate, which I can't understand at all. Surely avoiding duplicates is an aesthetic decision not a strategic one? In which case why would you want to force another team to make a choice that's strategically better but aesthetically displeasing to them? It sounds like everyone loses in that situation.
* not everyone was neccesarily trying to cover all cases, so 'failure' is a bit harsh, but you get the point.
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
Well i admit i haven't read every post on every thread, so if its already been agreed then fine, but i still think its an odd arrangement.
While there is an agreement to do so your agruement is still fallacious. I along with a lot of other people voted for no tech trading, so by your reasoning we are being forced into tech trading. Does this mean we now have the right to call for the setting to be somehow be changed to accomodate our wishes, like make some rules that restrict tech trades? And its irrelevent whether the reason is for strategy or aesthetics, because i can also agrue that having no tech trades is aesthetically pleasing for me since the much slower tech pace in the game opens up a lot more options to win.
The simple fact of the matter is that we DID NOT VOTE on any such option. If you or people on your team you can convince are so unhappy that you want to vote on the method of selecting leaders, then if there's enough of you with a concern there could be a team poll on how to select leaders. Currently it was already proposed that leaders would be selected by specifying to an admin in advance, with switching in case of duplicate/etc... allowed. Yes, I know we didn't vote on it - but anyone saying otherwise hasn't had their preference voted on either.
You have completely missed the point of my argument. To address your points first:
Yes, you are being forced into tech trading. By the same measure people are being forced into allowing duplicate leaders to be present in the game.
If the vote was to "Force all teams to use their first (and only) choice leader, regardless of whether it is duplicated", then what you say makes complete sense.
If the vote was to "Allow duplicate leaders to be present in the game", then giving people the option to give second choices for civs in no way conflicts with "Allowing duplicate leaders to be present in the game", in the same way that you can choose not to trade technologies at all despite tech trading being on (not that you would).
The dispute really then is what the vote was for.
The point which I was making, that you have labelled falacious, is entirely tangential to that issue, if somewhat relevant anyway. My point was that I could see no motivation for wanting to "Force all teams to use their first choice leader".
While this certainly undermines the case that that was what the vote was for, it's still an entirely separate issue. It's also entirely separate from all the issues you have raised in response, which don't address it at all. What would address it is an explanation of your motivation for wanting to "Force all teams to use their first choice leader", other than the, on it's own someone pedantic, position that it's what you (possibly mis-) interpreted the vote to have been about in the first place.
SilentConfusion
Emperor
I do see from DaveShack's link that it was talked about before the vote and it is my own fault I did not read that then. If I had, I surely would have had issue with it. As such I do not seek any further vote. I also don't want to slow the start of the game any more.
I still wish to present my argument clearer than I did in the past, but I will put it in spoilers so that people who don't want to hear it can just skip it:
If we do go with Lord Parkin's proposed selection process that some people are heartily applauding, we need to consider what to do in some situations which his post did not account for. The first situation is when two A teams (who have listed only 1 civ) choose the same leader. Although this is not stated here, I think it is obvious that in this case both teams would get their chosen civ and we would have duplicates, since if either of those teams didn't want duplicates they would have listed alternates. The other situation I can see arising is when teams "who don't want duplicates" (type B) have their lists exhausted by type A teams or type B teams who have won a coin toss. Say a team lists 3 leaders, and all three of these leaders are chosen by type A teams... Do we slow the game down waiting for that team to choose a new list of leaders? Aside for slowing the game down, it would be patently unfair for that team to get to choose a new list of leaders already knowing several of the chosen leaders. So to avoid this we would have to ensure that every type B team submitted a list long enough to guarantee a suitable selection (6 civs would need to be listed to guarantee this), or we would have to make some kind of rule that if all their chosen leaders are duplicated then they get their top leader. All other situations that I can see are accounted for in LP's proposal.
I still wish to present my argument clearer than I did in the past, but I will put it in spoilers so that people who don't want to hear it can just skip it:
Spoiler :
If we do go with Lord Parkin's proposed selection process that some people are heartily applauding, we need to consider what to do in some situations which his post did not account for. The first situation is when two A teams (who have listed only 1 civ) choose the same leader. Although this is not stated here, I think it is obvious that in this case both teams would get their chosen civ and we would have duplicates, since if either of those teams didn't want duplicates they would have listed alternates. The other situation I can see arising is when teams "who don't want duplicates" (type B) have their lists exhausted by type A teams or type B teams who have won a coin toss. Say a team lists 3 leaders, and all three of these leaders are chosen by type A teams... Do we slow the game down waiting for that team to choose a new list of leaders? Aside for slowing the game down, it would be patently unfair for that team to get to choose a new list of leaders already knowing several of the chosen leaders. So to avoid this we would have to ensure that every type B team submitted a list long enough to guarantee a suitable selection (6 civs would need to be listed to guarantee this), or we would have to make some kind of rule that if all their chosen leaders are duplicated then they get their top leader. All other situations that I can see are accounted for in LP's proposal.
I assume:
- Teams which only provide one civ choice (type "A") get that civ choice
- Teams which state a preference to have a unique leader (type "B") submit a list of civs BEFORE knowing what the other teams have
- If one type "B" team has the same first choice leader as a type "A" team, "A" automatically gets their civ choice as desired, and "B" automatically gets their next-highest pick that isn't a duplicate
- If two or more type "B" teams have the same first choice leader, but no type "A" team has that leader choice, a coin is flipped by the admins; one "B" gets their first pick and the other "B" gets their next best pick that isn't a duplicate
- If two or more type "B" teams have the same first choice leader as a type "A" team, "A" automatically gets their civ choice as desired, and both "B" teams automatically get their next-highest picks that aren't duplicates (coin flip if necessary if same pick in this stage, etc)
Hope that makes sense.
Correct, in order to use the next best pick method, a list of 6 must be submitted by each team that prefers to have a unique leader.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
If two type "A" civs pick the same leader, they both get it. I thought that was obvious. 
And yes, teams who want to be type "B" will have to submit a list of 6 leaders. This shouldn't be too difficult, and it's their responsibility to do it if they want to be able to switch. If they don't bother to come up with a list of 6, they get their first pick regardless. Tough bikkies for them.
And yes, teams who want to be type "B" will have to submit a list of 6 leaders. This shouldn't be too difficult, and it's their responsibility to do it if they want to be able to switch. If they don't bother to come up with a list of 6, they get their first pick regardless. Tough bikkies for them.
SilentConfusion
Emperor
If two type "A" civs pick the same leader, they both get it. I thought that was obvious.
And yes, teams who want to be type "B" will have to submit a list of 6 leaders. This shouldn't be too difficult, and it's their responsibility to do it if they want to be able to switch. If they don't bother to come up with a list of 6, they get their first pick regardless. Tough bikkies for them.
The first situation was obvious and maybe didn't need to be said, I just wanted it said.
The other situation wasn't as obvious and should be stated so that it can be considered as teams are going through their leader selection processes.
Not exactly sure what a bikkie is or if it's even appropriate to say in a forum.
I guess the moderators will let us know if it is.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
"Bikkie" = New Zealand slang for "biscuit", or "cookie" as I believe it's called in America.
Thanks for the translation. I had assumed it was something like that...
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
Well it was my understanding (which Daveshack pointed out was incorrect) that by voting for duplicate leaders would mean we all pick a leader and get on with the game regardless of who else may have picked that same leader. Although I would bet that anyone who didn't read the thread Daveshack pointed out would have the same implied understanding of "Allow duplicate leaders" that i did.
You ask for my motivation for forcing all to have one choice only, well that's because i beleive it is possible to gain an advantage from it in this way;
-Each leader has a unique set of advantages to be utilised ie. traits, starting techs, UU,UB.
-Therefore each has a slightly different optimal way to play which will gain them advantages over other leaders in specific areas
-As these advantages are specific they can't be nullified completely by a team(s) with different leader
-However by having a neighbour with with the same leader then their specific advantage is nullified which could force a change of tactics midgame, which is more costly then having planning for different tactics from turn 1.
-Therefore teams who come up with six alternate leaders can come up with six optimised strategies before the game starts knowing their leader can't be duplicated
I'll preempt some of your possible counter agrument by saying;
-I have played enough MP game to know players are more then capable of coming up with ways to use the fact they'll know beforehand their leader wont have a dupicate to gain an extra advantage.
-Yes this advantage is at most small one, but it is an advantage. The point is that it should not exist.
-And yes this small advantage can be negated if all teams provide 6 alternates, but then that defeats the entire purpose of voting for duplicate leaders in the first place, and by default brings about a game setting that was voted against
It sounds like the problem at its core really is that there's a leader-choice metagame, which some people like yourself take seriously (or at least take the existance of it seriously), and other people range from being unconcerned to entirely unaware of. At the same time a lot of the votes and opinions relating to it are made based on personal preferences without consideration for the design (or removal) of the metagame.
If a team does get some relative advantage by ensuring their choice is unique though as you say, is it really that they're gaining an unfair advantage, or are they just avoiding an unfair disadvantage? Forcing teams to try and second guess whether someone else will pick their choice that they want to be unique in isn't really avoiding having a metagame, it's just changing it to a different metagame. One in which teams can be unlucky and get lumped with something they don't want, right from the start. At least the proposed way people will be happy with what they get themselves, which is much more important than being happy with what everyone else gets and what risks they had to take to get it.
More importantly though there's a lot of factors that are more important in leader choice than metagaming, and hopefully those will take precedence.
It reminds me of a magic card draft some friends and I did. It was a large draft of a lot of cards, and we made three decks of 60 cards at the end of it. The second time we did it, there was a huge discussion about the possibility of making two decks of 90 cards instead, or other combinations. We had a massive discussion about how to account for it in a balanced way, and how to arrange the tournament and score it, wrote it all down and went ahead. Then when we'd done the draft, we all went and made 3 decks of 60 cards, which all of us considered to be optimal in the first place. It was quite amusing coming back later and seeing the detailed rules we'd written for something that no-one bothered doing anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens here, we spend pages and pages arguing about how to resolve preferences and whether people should be allowed have them and so on, then everyone's going to go away and pick one leader and no preferences, probably all pick something different, and we'll just start playing some civ and forget about it. Hopefully anyway.
If a team does get some relative advantage by ensuring their choice is unique though as you say, is it really that they're gaining an unfair advantage, or are they just avoiding an unfair disadvantage? Forcing teams to try and second guess whether someone else will pick their choice that they want to be unique in isn't really avoiding having a metagame, it's just changing it to a different metagame. One in which teams can be unlucky and get lumped with something they don't want, right from the start. At least the proposed way people will be happy with what they get themselves, which is much more important than being happy with what everyone else gets and what risks they had to take to get it.
More importantly though there's a lot of factors that are more important in leader choice than metagaming, and hopefully those will take precedence.
It reminds me of a magic card draft some friends and I did. It was a large draft of a lot of cards, and we made three decks of 60 cards at the end of it. The second time we did it, there was a huge discussion about the possibility of making two decks of 90 cards instead, or other combinations. We had a massive discussion about how to account for it in a balanced way, and how to arrange the tournament and score it, wrote it all down and went ahead. Then when we'd done the draft, we all went and made 3 decks of 60 cards, which all of us considered to be optimal in the first place. It was quite amusing coming back later and seeing the detailed rules we'd written for something that no-one bothered doing anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens here, we spend pages and pages arguing about how to resolve preferences and whether people should be allowed have them and so on, then everyone's going to go away and pick one leader and no preferences, probably all pick something different, and we'll just start playing some civ and forget about it. Hopefully anyway.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Is this a philosophical discussion? If it is, great, I love philosophical discussions, I will read all the long posts and I can go on for ages. I might even come up with a side game where we pick leaders and see who wins...I picked Inca, you picked mali..bam you are dead I win! I picked Persia, you picked maya, bam I lose..it could be fun!
On the issue at hand though things are simple. It was voted to allow dublicate leaders plain and simple. Now if some team has a desire to play a leader than noone else has they can submit 6 choices and instruct the admins to give them the first available free leader..plain and simple, case closed.
On the issue at hand though things are simple. It was voted to allow dublicate leaders plain and simple. Now if some team has a desire to play a leader than noone else has they can submit 6 choices and instruct the admins to give them the first available free leader..plain and simple, case closed.
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
@Irgy, I'm not suggesting any rewrite of the rules since the process was already agreed to. It my fault solely for missing the thread, otherwise i would have raised my concerns at the time. So for me the issue is done and dusted. I have however responded to some of reasoning put forward by some people that this arrangement is not an issue, because i found the arguements flawed, so as Indiansmoke asked yes this is entirely a philosophical arguement so we don't need to devote any more post to it other than to fill time while we wait for the game to start.
I'm know we don't see eye to eye on the issue and this debate has no effect on the game setting so we can agree to disagree and move on
I'm know we don't see eye to eye on the issue and this debate has no effect on the game setting so we can agree to disagree and move on
It's philosophical to me. I like philosophical discussions.
I don't think we even disagree that much any more anyway. I now know where you're coming from, the only point of difference is the precise level of how big a deal it is, and on a broad scale I don't think we're as far apart as we sound on that either.
If someone else would like to make a controvertial statement to keep me busy until the game starts I'm happy to change the subject.
I don't think we even disagree that much any more anyway. I now know where you're coming from, the only point of difference is the precise level of how big a deal it is, and on a broad scale I don't think we're as far apart as we sound on that either.
If someone else would like to make a controvertial statement to keep me busy until the game starts I'm happy to change the subject.
IS did you catch that?
Music to my ears! Happy to oblige...The following statements give me incontrovertible proof of the intentions of certain teams:
This statement, undisputably proves that Sirius wants to have a unique leader and will be submitting a list of 6 to the admins.teams who want to be type "B" will have to submit a list of 6 leaders. If they don't bother to come up with a list of 6, they get their first pick regardless. Tough bikkies for them.
This statement undisputably proves that Merlot is considering the following leaders... in the following, exact order of preference. Mali, Inca, Maya and Persia.
I am willing to share my reasoning to any who are interested in more philisophical discussions. I will not share however, how I got to be such a consummate mentalist.
Indiansmoke
Deity
This statement undisputably proves that Merlot is considering the following leaders... in the following, exact order of preference. Mali, Inca, Maya and Persia.
I am willing to share my reasoning to any who are interested in more philisophical discussions. I will not share however, how I got to be such a consummate mentalist.
The only thing this statement aimed to get across is how ridiculus the idea of counter civ picking is.
Similar threads
