Another Civ III MTDG?

[DaveShack]

How about this for a randomization method? Call it the "reverse draft" method.

• Open signup for n days.
• Randomly order registered players 1..#p
• In order, the players from 1 to #p choose which team they want to be on, with the restrictions that:
  • The chosen team must not have more than 2 members more than the team with the fewest members
  • The chosen team may not have more than 1/3 of its members from the choosing player's previous team, if any (except if all teams have more than 1/3 their members from a previous team)

We could do the choosing in a chat to speed things up -- if a player comes up in the order and isn't in chat then stop the selection and have that player choose in the forum. (I'll call this one the donsig rule )

 

[Vind2]

Mixing up the teams is a definat yes

 

[lost_civantares]

So then would former TNTers be considered TNT or the team they went to?

 

[Rik Meleet]

It is very important to shuffle the players a little. I joined a Civ4 MTDG over on Apolyton to see how that crowd plays. They have a few teams who have stayed together through several games, and the atmosphere between the teams seems to be permeated by personal animosity bordering on hatred.

If that is a possible result of keeping the teams as they are than that touches my Moderator responsibility. I will not have hatred in my forum-section. No way. Period.

You guys sort it out, but Dave's prediction is simply unacceptable.

 

[Whomp]

Another option is to have 4 or 5 team captains and draft (serpentine style) the first 10-15 players and the rest random.

I know how some of the idiots think and they may avoid the whole program if they can't hang out with their pals for the camraderie more than anthing else.

I can tell you for myself I don't see any animosity towards MIA for winning and wouldn't change anything regarding a relationship with them in a second game. Just my .02.

 

[peter grimes]

I dont' know how many of us are also involved in the cIV MTDG, but some of these same issues arose there. As I am most familiar with MIA names, I happened to notice their team choices. But things were kept pretty simple. Five teams were offered, Alpha, Beta,... Epsilon; no one had chosen Epsilon when I read the thread, so it seemed like a good place for me to wind up.

Most MIA people opted for teams other than the one I opted for (no doubt due to my campaign tactics!). There are a handful of MIA guys who chose to be Servants of The Leader along with me, but there is by no means an 'MIA flavor' to EpsilonTeam!

I'm not sure how mathematical and rigorous we need to be here. Things seemed to sort themselves out for the cIV game. Maybe we should just offer up five (is that the consensus?) teams, and let people assign themselves?

On the other hand, I can attest that, as an MIAer, it was pretty discouraging to see the civ3 MTDG roster dominated (in numbers, at least) by people requesting to be Idiots. I don't know how many of them were active, but it might be feasible to seed two teams from KISS.

On the other other hand, I will certainly go along with any scheme that is devised, as long as it's fun

And lastly, how are admins determined? Do people volunteer? Must they be voted on, and if not, who appoints them?

If admin selection should happen first, we should hammer that out soon.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

While I think it would really be good to mix things up, whoever gets me needs to realize I don't do government. Hell, I don't even like it in real life, why would I want to deal with it in a game I enjoy. If my team doesn't like anarchy, then oh well.

BTW, I feel no animosity towards MIA for winning. After reading the two threads about the three turns that won the game, I am completely amazed. I could learn a thing or two from Chaminix. His generalship was flawless.

 

[peter grimes]

Speaking of the potential for carry-over animosity....

Having read a bit of the KISS threads, I have a great appreciation for the motivations behind some of the decisions you guys made. Likewise with DNUTs, tho' I haven't ventured that far into their threads. To be able to go back and peer into your opponents' minds, at the very moment they are making decisions, is a priceless opportunity. And, having seen things from that point of view, no rational person would carry any ill-will into another game.

Despite having felt betrayed by a trading partner, this MIAer would certainly not hold animosity for another team (whether or not consisting of the same players as this past game); and I hope the same goes for my former teammates!

Maybe Apolyton should open the private forums after games?

 

[Sir Bugsy]

On the other hand, I can attest that, as an MIAer, it was pretty discouraging to see the civ3 MTDG roster dominated (in numbers, at least) by people requesting to be Idiots. I don't know how many of them were active, but it might be feasible to seed two teams from KISS.

First, a lot of that was due to some heavy recruiting from the SG ranks by Whomper and Tubby. We learned that playing against a human is much different than playing against the AI.

Second, probably only a dozen of us were actively participating in the game. A lot of folks were just there for the fellowship. We also had our characters. The Admiral would let Igor loose all the time. Harriet baked us a lot of cookies, I had everyone critiquing my band's CD, and of course we had Mistfit providing all our artwork. Not exactly deep civ thoughts.

 

[Rik Meleet]

And lastly, how are admins determined? Do people volunteer? Must they be voted on, and if not, who appoints them?

Admins need to meet certain qualifications, since they (besides ruling on game aspects) control certain forum actions, like granting members access to hidden fora, and -very unnoticed, but very real- block people from accessing in case there is suspicion. I cannot reveal a lot, but I can tell you that without the admins' attention, (combined with my abilities) the MTDG would have been ruined because some individuals nearly got access to more than 1 forum.

One of the qualifications for game-admin is that I approve of them and that means that I have to trust them.

Since admining sometimes means making decisions that are bound to infuriate people, admins need to be (besides able to make those decisions) in close contact with me to channel those sentiments in a correct way. That means that admins need to be able to work with me.

On top of that, admins need a thorough knowledge of the game, the rules, the spirit of the rules and the principles of a Democracy game.

- If you think you qualify - apply to me -
(Ginger Ale and Regentman need not apply - they only need to un-apply if they don't want this task)

 

[SimpleMonkey]

I (as a non-participant but consistantly confused KISS lurker) would think that some combination of mixing it up and letting teams form themselves would be a good idea. Just changing team names might do that. If the Idiots would just get another SG going (... ahem ...) then even if they don't all end up on the same MTDG team, the love will not go uninterrupted. So how about just randomly assigning anyone who doesn't insist on being in just one group?

Does this sound confused enough to still qualify me as an idiot??

Oh, and the dynamics of five teams instead of four sound much more interesteing.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

I agree with the Monkey Man that five teams does sound intriguing.

@ SM - We can get an SG going no problem. PM me and we'll set something up.

 

[peter grimes]

Back to the admin issue:

How many admin 'applicants' are preferred? 2... 3.... 5... ?

If nominations are required, I could PM a few names of people I've come to hold in high regard, both for integrity and for gameskill.

 

[Wotan]

Thanks for the invitation, Whomp!

I would play if a team of SGOTM veterans is formed. Several vets have been adversaries for so long it would be nice to play a game on the same team.

 

[Bucephalus]

I'd be interested in joining, if anyone needs a handicap.

 

[Kickbooti]

As a wise-acre of KISS let me say that I can't imagine holding any lasting animosity from the game. I will take KISS's loss adn process it like any of life's moutning dissapointments - I will shove it into the cold little ball in the pit of my stomach so that my bile production will increase. There, problem solved.

As for team selection, I think that Whomp's idea of drafting has merrit. Nominate five willing and able team captains, open the sign up for a number of days then let the captains choose.

I think that active and skilled participants will be better able to judge player skill/diplo skill/number crunching/personality issues better than random assignments.

All I ask is please, please, please don't pick me last

The portion of my bile-producing ball that is allocated for 'competative sport rejection' is all filled up from dodge ball. If I get rejected again in that area my bitterness feng shui would be thrown off...

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Back to the admin issue:

How many admin 'applicants' are preferred? 2... 3.... 5... ?

If nominations are required, I could PM a few names of people I've come to hold in high regard, both for integrity and for gameskill.

I'm not quite sure. Actually, I'm not even sure why Rik is saying apply to him - in the original game we just had a poll to confirm RM and I as admins. So really, if someone wants to be an admin (though since we already have 2, I'm not sure how useful another one or two would be), you can let Rik know but it doesn't hurt to let everyone else know two. This isn't something secret...


Rik: I think your worst case scenario will never happen - come on, look at the people playing. They aren't the type to have grudges and extreme hate built up in them. I think you're just overreacting a bit; this is only our second game!

 

[classical_hero]

I am wondering, do either of the Admins want to play this time?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I'm fine with admining.

 

[fe3333au]

Team Captains sound good ... Do we have 5 candidates?

and am I correct that 2 will be gathering a bunch of anarchists together ???


Anyone want to raise their hands for this?