Ruleset Discussion

[Chamnix]

Rule 2.10 is actually unnecessary now - 2.8 makes it redundant. As far as utility programs, I hope people won't object to things like combat calculators or Offa's town capture simulator? If there is any dissension, then forgot I brought it up, and let's vote on the ruleset as it is. Let's get this going!

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Added 1.7 (just for you, Whomp!), took out 2.10.



If there aren't any more comments soon, I'll put up a ratifying poll.

 

[Tubby Rower]

I hope people won't object to things like combat calculators or Offa's town capture simulator?

no Java scripts are cool with me

 

[denyd]

One final visit to the negative treasury discussion. I've had games where I had 5g in the treasury and a +8gpt cash flow only to have a current 15gpt trade end due to being declared upon. My thinking is if the team ends their turn with in a projected safe situation (ie GPT + G >= 0) then there should be no penalty. If this is not the case then maybe a suitable penalty would be loss of 1 building & 1 unit per each 10g starting with the oldest non-palace structure and the newest military unit.

 

[classical_hero]

Can we have the ruleset in the OP so that I do not have to go looking for it? Thanks.

 

[donsig]

One final visit to the negative treasury discussion. I've had games where I had 5g in the treasury and a +8gpt cash flow only to have a current 15gpt trade end due to being declared upon. My thinking is if the team ends their turn with in a projected safe situation (ie GPT + G >= 0) then there should be no penalty. If this is not the case then maybe a suitable penalty would be loss of 1 building & 1 unit per each 10g starting with the oldest non-palace structure and the newest military unit.

In a case like this I don't think there should be any penalty beyond the one unit or building that is disbanded or sold. This is not an example of a team trying to exploit game mechanics. I suggested (a few times now) that whenever a team gets a pop up saying a unit was disbanded or a building sold then they should inform the admins who could then investigate and give out a punishment if warranted. Let the admins decide if there was an infringement of the rules, how big a transgression occurred and what punishment (if any) is appropriate. Even when someone is killed in RL it could be anything from premeditated first degree murder to negligent homicide with defences ranging from insanity to self defence. We're agreeing not to purposefully run deficits to exploit a weakness in the game code, we should live to that agreement and let the admins be our judge and jury if problems arise.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Can we have the ruleset in the OP so that I do not have to go looking for it? Thanks.

Done.

One final visit to the negative treasury discussion. I've had games where I had 5g in the treasury and a +8gpt cash flow only to have a current 15gpt trade end due to being declared upon. My thinking is if the team ends their turn with in a projected safe situation (ie GPT + G >= 0) then there should be no penalty. If this is not the case then maybe a suitable penalty would be loss of 1 building & 1 unit per each 10g starting with the oldest non-palace structure and the newest military unit.

I added in the words "when they [the teams] end their turn". I think that covers anything the AI's do in the interturn (declare war to stop payments, simply end the deal, etc.).

In a case like this I don't think there should be any penalty beyond the one unit or building that is disbanded or sold. This is not an example of a team trying to exploit game mechanics. I suggested (a few times now) that whenever a team gets a pop up saying a unit was disbanded or a building sold then they should inform the admins who could then investigate and give out a punishment if warranted. Let the admins decide if there was an infringement of the rules, how big a transgression occurred and what punishment (if any) is appropriate. Even when someone is killed in RL it could be anything from premeditated first degree murder to negligent homicide with defences ranging from insanity to self defence. We're agreeing not to purposefully run deficits to exploit a weakness in the game code, we should live to that agreement and let the admins be our judge and jury if problems arise.

Makes sense and causes no harm, so I added that in as well.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Shall we take this to the polls?

 

[Tubby Rower]

I thought that this was the poll

 

[BCLG100]

I figured we'd all just get on with it now as i dont particularly care about the rules and just want to play

 

[Chamnix]

Twenty four hours went by without any complaints - I think the admins should declare the ruleset adopted and have Rik send the save to the first team as soon as it's done .

 

[AutomatedTeller]

save! save! save! save!

 

[Tubby Rower]

save! save! save! save!

crap, I lost power... we need to re-discuss everything since we decided that we should have 5 teams

 

[Ginger_Ale]

OK. I will send Rik instructions to begin making the map. If no one has any more comments posted when he has finished, we will consider the ruleset fair enough? After all, this process of suggestions/editing/more suggestions/more editing was far more productive then a series of polls would've been.

 

[Whomp]

Sounds fantastic! Let's roll 'em, baby!

 

[ThERat]

errr, do we need a discussion about the play order? Or was this decided already?
Think a week discussing this would be fine with me

 

[Whomp]

The play order would be up to the mapmaker the Great Meleet.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Yes, I have communicated with Rik, and he says he'll see what he can do this weekend. I guess the play order and save passwords are up to him...

 

[Tubby Rower]

So we should send our passwords for the save to Rik?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Yeah, if your team has decided on one (most haven't - I wasn't sure from the thread I read in BABE's forum whether or not you guys had decided on one), now would be the time to send it to Rik.