Admin, map maker
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
The numbering? Hmmm... Its just a school thing I guess... got me used to thinking about things that way...
r20, since you said you would be interested in making the map... I am curious... What kind of map do you envision?
Right... me too, but you said you wanted to MAKE the map right?...
By way of analogy... If you were the Iron Chef and I told you the secret ingredient was mushrooms and then asked "So what are you goin to make chef?" You couldn't say... "Almost anything." I know you can do "anything," but I am curious about which "anything" you are going to do.
The mapmaker has to have a vision or idea for the map... right? So what is yours?
For example, what do you mean about combining all the map types into one? What would that look like? Could you describe it?
remake20
:)
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,901
Right... me too, but you said you wanted to MAKE the map right?...
By way of analogy... If you were the Iron Chef and I told you the secret ingredient was mushrooms and then asked "So what are you goin to make chef?" You couldn't say... "Almost anything." I know you can do "anything," but I am curious about which "anything" you are going to do.
The mapmaker has to have a vision or idea for the map... right? So what is yours?
For example, what do you mean about combining all the map types into one? What would that look like? Could you describe it?
Well I thought I was supposed to do whatever the players want. For an example I would make multiple continents all with inland seas.
Check out the last BTS MTDG mapmaker's Post Game Map Writeup As you can see, there was no agreement about what "the players want" because everyone wanted something different. So the mapmaker (Sullla) had to just make up a map with his own vision/imagination. That's one reason I ask what your vision is.
As for your idea... It sounds interesting. Would you put all the teams on one continent or split them up? One on each Continent? Two teams on one and two on another?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
An interesting variant could be having one civ from one team on one Continent and the other one on an other continent. This would be interesting since it will set up many possibilities for diplomacy, since one civ could be way ahead of the other one and be in a situation where you could have the power to overtake a civ, but the other civ is not in a situation to be aggressive, so you have to play the diplo situation carefully. This is of course if we are going for two civs per team.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Or perhaps 4 main land masses, with two different teams on each?
Lots of options with two civs per team.
Lots of options with two civs per team.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Those sound like some pretty interesting ideas, and I'd be curious to see them in play. Although the downside is that splitting up the teamed civs means you don't have the opportunity for as much synergy. For instance, you don't have the possibility to create a potent stack combining two different UU's. But it could still be interesting.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I guess I was using "silly" as a placeholder for excessive weirdness. I've seen screenshots from maps and map scripts which produce a large amount of resources, and it just seems unappealing to me. What are some of the downsides? Well, if everyone has a huge variety of resources around, there are less opportunities for trade, for one thing. It might also make technology progress too fast (units obsoleting before they can be used, etc), since it would be too easy to get big rich cities early in the game.When you say "silly," what do you mean? Since I'm mostly talking about food-rich when I say resource-rich:
1. In your opinion... What amount of food resources cross the threshold from "decent" to "silly?"
2. When you say resource-rich would be "silly" Are you saying that it would not be fun?...Or That it would not be fair? Or that it would be too easy?I'm not sure I get what you mean.. that's all.
Oh, and I think there's no hard and fast point where I'd say there's "too much" or "too little" food either side. It's a bit of a grey area, really. But I'd say when you start getting to the point where it's easy to make 15-20 food per turn in a city early in the game, it's starting to get a bit ridiculous.
azzaman333
meh
I'm not sure you're experienced enough to be game admin.
My thought was to give each starting location 2 fishing (fish, clam, crab) 2 agriculture (wheat, corn, rice), 1 husbandry (pig, sheep, cow) and 1 calendar (banana, sugar) food resource
My thinking is... I want teams to see their start location and say... "Wow this is great! What a good start location! We are definitley gonna do well in this game... As opposed to what team Saturn said in the last game:
Spoiler :
I was thinking to give each civ resource monopolies as DaveMCW suggested to encourage trade. (If I have alot of bananas, and you have alot of wheat, we can still trade).
About tech progress... Wasn't one of the reasons you wanted 2 civs per team to speed tech progress throught co-op teching?
If you are wanting 2 civ teams, it seems inconsistent to be worried about fast tech right? About big rich cities... When did that become a bad thing? Won't that make the game more enjoyable, if we have large rich cites (or capitals at least)? Should we make the map a desert to keep cities small? Wasnt that what Saturn was complaining about last game (too much desert, not enough food)?
Finally, about food rich cities making the game easy... Ease is relative... If we ALL have great capitals / cities, then it will not be easy for anyone... Everyone is in the same relative position, just with more options.
Again, when you say "excessive wierdness" or that 15 food per turn is "ridiculous"... Why? Because it is unusual? Because it is outside the norm of what we usually experience in Civ?
How do we distinguish the "wierdness" of lots of food resources from the unsusual situation of playing with 2 civs per team? Why is one "excessive wierdness" while the other is not? I think I like your statement... "it just seems unappealing to me" because I think that is really the bottom line. You just don't like the idea. Possibly, you simply don't like it because it is different from how you usually play and you are uncomfortable trying it out (kind of how I feel about 2 civs-per-team
). If so, that is perfectly fine and legitimate, but that does not make the idea "ridiculous", "excessive wierdness" or "silly" ... right?
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Remake, considering the amount you have been posting and polling lately, I think you would actually find it more enjoyable to be involved in a team rather than being an admin in this game. The thing is, after the game starts, the admin really has nothing to do until any disputes arise, which will typically be six months or even a year down the track - and there's a chance nothing will even happen at all that requires admin intervention. So after the game begins, you won't really have anything to do for a long time (if at all), since it is frowned upon for the admin to post much (or at all) because they may inadvertantly give things away - or (worse) give the appearance of favouring one team against another, which would completely destroy their credibility. Certainly the admin is not permitted to participate in or influence any polls or discussions amongst the teams, which effectively limits their presence to sitting mutely in the corner for 11 months out of 12.
Basically, I think you might find that the novelty quickly wears off and you become bored with not being able to participate at all in the game. As such, I strongly recommend that you consider joining a team because of your activity and interest. There will be others who can admin the game - we are only in the first few days of discussion after all - and you can enjoy yourself much more by actively participating, posting and polling on your team, rather than sitting around doing nothing and watching everyone else have all the fun.
Basically, I think you might find that the novelty quickly wears off and you become bored with not being able to participate at all in the game. As such, I strongly recommend that you consider joining a team because of your activity and interest. There will be others who can admin the game - we are only in the first few days of discussion after all - and you can enjoy yourself much more by actively participating, posting and polling on your team, rather than sitting around doing nothing and watching everyone else have all the fun.
I did also suggest we upped the difficulty level to slow tech progress with the double civ option. It's nice to have research going a little faster, sure, but there comes a point when it's going too fast to have a sensible game (because units obsolete before they can be fielded, and you have no time to build all the buildings you want).About tech progress... Wasn't one of the reasons you wanted 2 civs per team to speed tech progress throught co-op teching?
You're taking it to extremes. I'm just suggesting we have a "normal" game. Not deserts surrounding starting locations. Not dozens of resources for everyone. Just some standard, decent starts.
I didn't say it would make the game easy. I said it might make technology progress too fast, which can lead to problems (see above).
I guess so. Mostly I'm just worried because I fear it would throw balance (i.e. a reasonable research rate for the number of buildings and units to be produced) out the window. Whereas I've tested the "double civ" thing in many games before, and I know it works.I think I like your statement... "it just seems unappealing to me" because I think that is really the bottom line. You just don't like the idea. Possibly, you simply don't like it because it is different from how you usually play and you are uncomfortable trying it out (kind of how I feel about 2 civs-per-team
Similar threads
