Admin, map maker
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
With all due respect, that seems quite backward thinking. You should really try playing on a team first, then if you don't like that (which I would be surprised by) you could consider applying to admin the next game. While it's not absolutely necessary to have had past experience with demogames to be an admin (provided there is another who has a lot of experience), it certainly helps a great deal. Aside from anything else, many people find it hard to take someone in a position of authority seriously when they don't have any prior experience or familiarity with the game or people involved. Judging from some of the sentiments floating around at the moment, it seems many people are not comfortable with trusting a person who's new to democracy games and doesn't understand many of the intricacies with a position of the highest authority.
I hope you realise that no-one can appoint themselves admin just by saying so. The usual process is that people can volunteer for the job, and then everyone else can vote for who they're happy with after that. The reasoning is that the great majority of people need to be comfortable and confident with a particular choice of admin to be able to take them seriously. If there is an admin who many of the players do not take seriously, then we will have all kinds of anarchy if a real dispute arises.
Perhaps you just miswrote that, and meant "I'd like to be admin". I just thought I'd point it out anyway.
No offence, but that's a pretty bad reason for wanting to be an admin. Wanting to be an admin just for the thrills of a position of authority where you expect people to do what you say isn't a good reason to do the job at all. A person in a position of authority needs to have respect and credibility amongst those they are in charge of, or else they won't be taken seriously. This is why it might make a lot more sense to try out playing in the teams this time around (which is good fun, after all), and then consider the position of admin once you have a better feeling for the game and the people.
An admin position isn't really something that is there to be tried out just for the sake of it by someone unfamiliar with the demogame and its players. On the other hand, playing on a team definitely is. Please understand I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to be realistic. As it stands, it seems a lot of people are rather uncomfortable with having someone unfamiliar with the demogame and its players stepping in from outside to admin just because it sounds like an exciting and authoritative thing to do. Therefore, I fear that if you were to step into the shoes of admin with no prior experience of this type of game, many people would not take you seriously, which could cause all kinds of problems. Respect and confidence has to be earned over time, it can't just be given away freely - which is why I'm suggesting that you try playing on a team this time, and maybe consider the admin position next time, once people know you better and you know them better.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Umm, Team FREE hasn't heard many of your opinions.
And don't worry about having bad opinions. Use them as a chance to learn.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I want a totally randomly generated landmass, allowing for a maximum of surprise and advantage of exploration, otherwise only a settler/worker culture will win out, and early UUs would be prematurely phased out. You need a totally random map to balance out the particular civs.
remake20
:)
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,901
With all due respect, that seems quite backward thinking. You should really try playing on a team first, then if you don't like that (which I would be surprised by) you could consider applying to admin the next game. While it's not absolutely necessary to have had past experience with demogames to be an admin (provided there is another who has a lot of experience), it certainly helps a great deal. Aside from anything else, many people find it hard to take someone in a position of authority seriously when they don't have any prior experience or familiarity with the game or people involved. Judging from some of the sentiments floating around at the moment, it seems many people are not comfortable with trusting a person who's new to democracy games and doesn't understand many of the intricacies with a position of the highest authority.
I have been in Demogames (Civ 3 II Team Free, SANCTA)
I hope you realise that no-one can appoint themselves admin just by saying so. The usual process is that people can volunteer for the job, and then everyone else can vote for who they're happy with after that. The reasoning is that the great majority of people need to be comfortable and confident with a particular choice of admin to be able to take them seriously. If there is an admin who many of the players do not take seriously, then we will have all kinds of anarchy if a real dispute arises.
Perhaps you just miswrote that, and meant "I'd like to be admin". I just thought I'd point it out anyway.
Yes sorry, that's what I meant.
No offence, but that's a pretty bad reason for wanting to be an admin. Wanting to be an admin just for the thrills of a position of authority where you expect people to do what you say isn't a good reason to do the job at all. A person in a position of authority needs to have respect and credibility amongst those they are in charge of, or else they won't be taken seriously. This is why it might make a lot more sense to try out playing in the teams this time around (which is good fun, after all), and then consider the position of admin once you have a better feeling for the game and the people.
Read first answer.
An admin position isn't really something that is there to be tried out just for the sake of it by someone unfamiliar with the demogame and its players. On the other hand, playing on a team definitely is. Please understand I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to be realistic. As it stands, it seems a lot of people are rather uncomfortable with having someone unfamiliar with the demogame and its players stepping in from outside to admin just because it sounds like an exciting and authoritative thing to do. Therefore, I fear that if you were to step into the shoes of admin with no prior experience of this type of game, many people would not take you seriously, which could cause all kinds of problems. Respect and confidence has to be earned over time, it can't just be given away freely - which is why I'm suggesting that you try playing on a team this time, and maybe consider the admin position next time, once people know you better and you know them better.
Again read above. My responses in bold. And maybe I''ll try and admin the Civ V one. Oh yeah, that was a pretty lousy comment, that may not have come out the way I meant. I do not want to be and admin just for the power. Does it kill me to want to try something new? And plus I'm not going to be the only admin (that's if I get the job), there will be others to which I will learn from so I can do better in the future.
Umm, Team FREE hasn't heard many of your opinions.
And don't worry about having bad opinions. Use them as a chance to learn.
Well, I did a lot at first.
A demogame on a new version might take a few months to get started. Many people would want to get familiar with the game first.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Yeah, I think people would want to get a bit familiar with Civ5 before starting a demogame of it - or I would, anyway. (Exciting news, by the way!) Besides, I believe there are still Civ3 demogames running, even though Civ4 was long since released. There's nothing preventing us from playing Civ4 just because Civ5 is out.
(Exciting news, by the way!) Besides, I believe there are still Civ3 demogames running, even though Civ4 was long since released. There's nothing preventing us from playing Civ4 just because Civ5 is out. 
azzaman333
meh
We can have more than one MTDG running at a time.
remake20
:)
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,901
A demogame on a new version might take a few months to get started. Many people would want to get familiar with the game first.
Yeah, I think people would want to get a bit familiar with Civ5 before starting a demogame of it - or I would, anyway.
Sorry if that came across as I want to wait for Civ V to do another demogame.
Right, but Can't we also use the same remedy to balance resource (food) rich starts? Turn up the difficulty level, change the speed to Epic, Raging barbs etc?
I never said dozens... I said 5 or six food resources. Why exagerate the numbers I said?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.
... For dramatic effect or what? Do you object to 5 or 6 food resource starting locations?And anyway, A "normal" game would be one-civ-per-team right? You don't really want a "normal" game right? You want to try something new, just the something new that YOU want... as opposed to...
Consider thinking about it this way... You have played the 2 civ-per-team thing already right? You and Sisiutil sort of tested it out against AIs right? (great write-up BTW
)So what you are really wanting if you think about it... is a something new that YOU have experience with and therefore an advantage in. That is why you are uncomfotable with the extra resource starts idea... you are less familiar with using it to your advantage... I am not trying to accuse you of being diabolical... I think it might just be sort of subconscious... everyone naturally favors the familiar.
For example, until now, I had never even thought about how I would combine two leaders, UUs or UBs for synergy... but you have right? You might already have an idea about what works best because you have trained for this already... That might be part of why you like one new idea(2 civs) and not the other (more food).
Capac with Pericles wont throw balance out the window? Double Industrious or Financial leaders wont throw off balance? What about Praets and War Chariots on the same team?
Is that balanced? How will anyone be able to reasonably defend against a Quechua/Dog Soldier choke which is possible almost immediately 
The point is... maintaining balance is not the issue here.
Exactly my point... Oh and if by "it works" you mean "double civs" allowed your 2 civs to get hopelessly ahead of 8 AI opponents by 300AD then yes I guess "it works" but I would not call that balanced. Okay so... Do we at least agree that Saturn needed more food in the last game, AND that we should give each Civ more food resources in their start location than the usual 1 or 2?
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
This is a good point and you are the first one to raise it.Double Industrious or Financial leaders wont throw off balance? What about Praets and War Chariots on the same team?
I posted that quote in the Double-Civ Set Up? thread, since a discussion on how we limit/don't limit the civ selections seems better suited to that thread than this one.
azzaman333
meh
The problem with Saturns start wasn't that they "only" got two food resources, because everyone else "only" got two as well. The problem was, their two food resources sucked. Cav, Sancta and Kaz had 10 food from their two food tiles, MS had 8 from their two, whereas Saturn only had 7 food, and they needed an extra tech that no one else needed for one of their resources.
2 or 3 food resources is plenty, as long as they're balanced.
2 or 3 food resources is plenty, as long as they're balanced.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Capac with Pericles wont throw balance out the window? Double Industrious or Financial leaders wont throw off balance? What about Praets and War Chariots on the same team?
Capac with pericles? What is that?
Double Industrious? That is rather putting yourself in disadvantage!
Double financial...we can have in the rules no dublicate traits per team..
Regaring early units that is why the map must be balanced, every choke can be prevented when you have copper and horse near.
Well for one thing, Capac & Pericles means PHI/IND but I think this post captures my reaction to your questions in the 2 civ setup thread. Remember Smoke, I will play regardless... I just want to discuss some of the less predictable ways that these trait combos might play out
before we decide whether to do a 2 civ setup... but anyway see my response in the 2 civ setup thread.Yes, but respectfully, that misses my point. See the spoiler in this post. My point is that Saturn (LP in particular) was complaining that they "only" got 2 food, even before they knew what they had relative to other civs. This is because a 2 food start is mediocre... and no one gets excited about a mediocre start. With 5 or 6 food starts, there will be less cause to complain, regardless of the resource combos. If people are very happy as opposed to feeling..meh... about their start, then we will retain more interest...right?
azzaman333
meh
How many other teams were complaining about their start locations with "only" 2 food resources. How many other teams had desert hills in their fat cross.
People aren't going to be very happy with a whole heap of food when they almost certainly know that every other team also has alarmingly good start locations.
I don't think I get what you are saying here...
Do you mean that EVERYONE else was complaining that they had only 2 food? Or are you saying that NO ONE ELSE was complaining besides Saturn? If it is the former, then I would say that is my point exactly... People would be happier with more food at their starting locations. If instead you meant the latter. I would say this also supports my point, because Saturn would have been happy to have more food at their starting location.
I disagree. I don't think people evaluate their start on an expectation of whether it is better than their rivals because Everyone assumes that their start is comparable to their opponents. People value their start based on what they got. As a result People will be much happier with lots of food then they will be with low food.
No one will say "Hmmm we have 1 food resource in our BFC... This is an awesome start, because I'm sure everyone else is in the same boat with only 1 food!"
People WILL say "Hmmm we have 6 food resources! This is awsome! Others probably have 6 food too, but whatever, awesome for them AND awsome for us... At least we have a great shot at winning."
azzaman333
meh
I don't think I get what you are saying here...
Do you mean that EVERYONE else was complaining that they had only 2 food? Or are you saying that NO ONE ELSE was complaining besides Saturn? If it is the former, then I would say that is my point exactly... People would be happier with more food at their starting locations. If instead you meant the latter. I would say this also supports my point, because Saturn would have been happy to have more food at their starting location.
Saturn was the only team complaining, because they were the only team with a crap start foodwise.
If Saturn had no desert hills, irrigated corn and fish, i highly doubt they would've been disappointed.
You're wrong then. To use Saturn as an example (again), they justified the apparent crumminess of their start by assuming that everyone else had similarly crummy starts. Even though it turned out to be wrong.
Also, what's the point of having 6 food resources with your start. You're only going to use 2-3 for a long time, because of the happy cap.
Yes you are correct of course... They justified their poor start... but they were not happy with it. That is my point. I want starts that people will be happy with, not starts that they have to justify, by hoping everyone else is similarly screwed.
Isn't that kind of like saying... "What is the point of using a civ with Redcoats since you can't use them for a long time?"
The point is, you can use them later. The point is you have a better start location overall. The point is you can choose how to micromanage your multiple food resouces... For example when you need 
you work the cow, when you need 
you work the fish. So really, you could be using all six very early, just different ones at different times.AND anyway, aren't there ways to increase your happy cap early on?
Also, with more food resources you have more to trade (with mapmaker designed monopolies), even if you cant work them.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Changing speed to Epic doesn't help in the slightest. The important thing is the ratio of tech speed to building speed. Multiplying everything through by 1.5 doesn't help a too-fast tech rate in terms of the number of units/buildings you can produce before the next tech.
I assumed you meant the land around the starting locations would also be similarly food-rich, and thus my "dozens" was not intended to be an exaggeration. I'm not sure if you meant only the capital or not.I never said dozens... I said 5 or six food resources. Why exagerate the numbers I said?
Not really. I suggested the double civ thing because I thought it'd be cool, not because of some cunning desire to somehow out-pick everyone. (And anyway, that's impossible, because there's no "best" synergy, just some that are better than others and obvious to all.)
Also, it's pretty easy to figure out a strategy for when you have multiple resources. It just seems unnecessary to me. Judging from this and your later posts, I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick from my talking about Saturn's food-poor start. It's not the NUMBER of resources that matters so much as the FOOD OUTPUT of those resources. Having "2 resources" could mean an irrigated Corn and a Fish, or it could mean a plains-hill Sheep and a Crab (like Saturn's start). The two are not the same.
Not really. See above.
None of those are unbalancingly powerful. Double Industrious is probably weaker than single Industrious. Double Financial is a choice, but you'll miss out on other opportunities (e.g. Praetorians or Dog Soldiers). Praetorians and War Chariots misses out on any Financial trait. You can attempt a Quecha/Dog Soldier rush, but if the map is anything like the last one (large distances) - or an islands-style map - then it ain't going to work. Even if people were close, Axemen and Chariots would still do a fine job of defending against Dog Soldiers and Quechas. Nothing is unwinnable (unless you have no resources at all). Basically nothing is going to be overpowered as long as the map is decently sized and balanced.Capac with Pericles wont throw balance out the window? Double Industrious or Financial leaders wont throw off balance? What about Praets and War Chariots on the same team?
That's AI for you. If you want to run your civs like the AI, then I'm sure you'll also fall similarly behind. If you run your civs like a human player though, everyone will do fairly equally well.
The two are not the same. Saturn needed more food, yes. That doesn't mean they needed more food resources; swapping the Sheep for a Pig would have pretty much done the trick. Of course, the surrounding land would have needed to be toned up a bit too, but my point is that we didn't need 4 food resources if the 2 were decent. Azzaman got it right.
The PHI/IND is not on the same civ though, they're on two different civs. Thus it's no different to playing with PHI or IND by themselves.
See above. It's the FOOD OUTPUT that matters, not the number of food resources. And it was the food output that I was complaining about.
There is no reason at all to conclude that you have a great shot of winning when you know everyone else is in the same boat. The main idea is just to balance the map and not have food-poor starts. Making sure no-one gets screwed over is the important thing. That has nothing to do with having a huge number of food resources around though.
I would have been happy if Saturn had had Crab + Pig (and the surrounding land upgraded from food-poor desert). Once again, it was the FOOD OUTPUT, not the number of food resources, that was the problem - as Azzaman correctly determined.
Similar threads
