Another game? Focused discussion

[Krill]

No Tech Trading generally prevents tech alliances from forming.

the amount of time each tech itself can be traded.

Which is exactly the same as what I said previously: just set the amount of times a tech can be traded to zero.

Tech alliances and alliances in general decide the games, that is why playing with no tech trading is essensial and banning any communication between teams also would give us a hugelly better game.

As long as there is at least one person in every team willing to honor the rules, it should be no problem.

Which is basically a CTON but with teams controlling individual civs. And in a longer term game (ie with no turn limit) the leading team will still likely get ganged up on.

Not that such a game is unplayable; I agree with you that it is the "most balanced" way of playing, but you may have problems getting enough players to fill out the teams. Ultimately, if you can't get the required amount of players to fill the teams then such a game may not be feasible. "Better" is a relative term: if players want diplomacy, a game with none is definitely not, "Better".

If you want to attract as many people as possible, only figure out some basic ideas of the game now: simul turns, maybe number of teams, and the tech trading/diplomacy situation. Then advertise as widely as possible to get as many people as possible. Depending on the size of the teams you could have alot of teams playing.

Personally I feel that smaller teams of between 4 and 8 players would allow more players to have an impact in the game and actually play, compared to lurking in the private fora. That keeps players involved in the game instead of having an inactive shell around the outside of the core that don;t participate.

 

[CommandoBob]

Having a "No-Quit" rule seems a bit silly though... if people really don't want to play anymore, they won't. A rule saying they can't quit won't stop them doing so.

Well...not neccessarily. First of all, I was talking mostly about turnplayers, not lurkers. I think if turnplayers commit up-front not to quit, and play to the end (or find a sub), they will honor their word. I read the Civ 4 ladder rules, and they basically ban quitters. Maybe we could do the same... ban folks who quit from turnplaying in future MTDGs... just an idea

I don't think it is possible to keep people from quitting. I think the problem is having enough Turn Players, so that if one does go missing another team member can do the job.

Some of the teams had their own pit-boss game, which is the best for someone to get a feel for how to be a Turn Player, by doing it themselves. I know the first time I was Turn Player in the Civ3 MTDG 2 I was very nervous about what to do. But the second turn was much easier.

As a Turn Player, the most important thing I feel I do, in addition to playing the turn, is communicating to the team a) what I've done and b) what I plan to do. Since I've been TP for a while and don't see that changing anytime soom, sometime I move units and don't explain why I am moving them. If I knew someone else was the next TP, I would do better on this.

So if teams had mutiple potential turn players and a good method of communicating what was the TP was expected to do and report on, it seems like the team members would be less likely to lose interest in the game.

I feel like I am stating the obvious, but am I connecting the right series of dots?

 

[DaveShack]

I'm completely against turning off tech trading. Without trade there are fewer reasons for alliances, which turns it into a game of which team's turnplayer is better at micromanaging and battle. Get a deity turnplayer and your team wins, go with someone like me who can't master prince and you're doomed from the start.

 

[azzaman333]

Tech trading should be decided by a team vote, IMO. But that requires teams first.

 

[Indiansmoke]

I'm completely against turning off tech trading. Without trade there are fewer reasons for alliances, which turns it into a game of which team's turnplayer is better at micromanaging and battle. Get a deity turnplayer and your team wins, go with someone like me who can't master prince and you're doomed from the start.

So instead of having the team with the best microers/strategists win, you want to have the team with the best diplomat win?

 

[BLubmuz]

I already gave my "i'm in" in the other thread, but just to be safe...

My comments on the rules:

I agree that in a long game is important to keep the players interested and the game goin' fast.

So, a small map can be what we need.

No tech trading can be an option, or no tech brokering, to seriously limit the trading but keeping some diplo between teams.

Not clear to me what the "preserve random seed" means in those games. I'm fine with what more experienced players decide.

No espionage can be good (i hate use it) even if it generates some problems on the GPersons chances and in culture.

When some of you spoke about "balanced starts" does this mean that the mapmaker will not participate in the competition?

I also agree to avoid to pause the timer, unless something very particular happens.

Last: my experience in SGs tells me that a team captain is always a good thing. When there are different opinions he take the decisions.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

No espionage can be good (i hate use it) even if it generates some problems on the GPersons chances and in culture.

Even with this option, teams will be actively spying via demographics. It also removes a lot of options for warfare and general gameplay while bringing in some issues as u said... not sure we wanna use this.

And yeah, if there is a map designer/supervisor, he won't play (see Sula for last game).

 

[Sommerswerd]

I happen to think SANCTA had the best diplomacy/diplomats in the last game, but really... Without some kind of anti-quit rule/policy there will probably be no real winner anyway... Everyone might quit again before the winner is really decided.

So in light of that, we should probably just choose (whether or not we have trading on) based on what will be the most fun, for the most people, for as long as the game lasts.

Highest skill level players might prefer a game that is more like an RTS game (ie. no trading, FFA, Deathmatch, etc.). There is less room for lower skill players to be involved in that system (although they can probably learn alot by just lurking).

So IMO, the real question is... Will the folks who want no/less tech trading enjoy the game, even if tech trading is on? Will the folks who want tech trading still enjoy the game if tech trading is turned off?

 

[Tinkerbell]

So instead of having the team with the best microers/strategists win, you want to have the team with the best diplomat win?

That's basicly where it will all be about, micro or diplo?

First is losing interest then ...

That is so true!

Tech alliances and alliances in general decide the games, that is whyplaying with no tech trading is essensial and banning any communication between teams also would give us a hugelly better game.

It will make the game less time consuming, not sure if it will make the game better.

 

[Tinkerbell]

I think we must first set the rules, and then make the teams. I want to prevent just one team voting for tech trading, and then losing interest before the game because they lost the vote.

So have the rules first, then sign up so people know what they are signing up for.

 

[donsig]

I agree that we should determine the parameters of the game before forming teams. I think it's possible to settle some questions by vote before we form teams. We could have an open vote on a question with determine later by team vote as one of the options. We can also require a supermajority on some questions and / or allow a team to call for a team vote on any question already decided before teams were formed.

 

[azzaman333]

Last: my experience in SGs tells me that a team captain is always a good thing. When there are different opinions he take the decisions.

The turn player usually makes the executive decision if necessary.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I agree that we should determine the parameters of the game before forming teams.

settle some questions by vote before... We could have an open vote... determine later by team vote... require a supermajority... allow a team vote...

 

[BLubmuz]

The turn player usually makes the executive decision if necessary.

Even if this goes against the team decisions? I agree that the turn player can need to take decisions on unplanned events, but i meant strategic decisions, like which research path to follow, if build a new settler, where to settle, give in to demands, declare war and so on.

 

[azzaman333]

Even if this goes against the team decisions? I agree that the turn player can need to take decisions on unplanned events, but i meant strategic decisions, like which research path to follow, if build a new settler, where to settle, give in to demands, declare war and so on.

Rarely would the turn player go against the team decisions. If they don't fully agree with a plan they might argue to change it and convince the rest of the team that they have a better way, but they won't ignore the team's will.

 

[Indiansmoke]

After a while when empire grows you cannot discuss every single micro decision in forums...inevitably the turn player makes the most micro decisions.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Even if this goes against the team decisions? I agree that the turn player can need to take decisions on unplanned events, but i meant strategic decisions, like which research path to follow, if build a new settler, where to settle, give in to demands, declare war and so on.

As Indiansmoke says, typically many of the micromanagement choices later in the game might be made by the turn player. However, I would be very surprised if any turn player was put on the spot as to what to research / where to settle / whether to declare war. Those are kind of major decisions, and if they haven't been discussed in advance by the team in question then there must be something very wrong with the internal dynamics of that particular team. (After all, if you aren't discussing that stuff, then what the heck are you discussing? )

As for a demand, that's about the only thing which might come up out of the blue (although in this type of game I'd still expect some kind of diplomatic forewarning). But even so, the turnplayer can cancel the demand and then discuss with the team as to whether to re-offer it or not. Nobody in their right minds would blindly accept a demand without consulting their team, I would hope.

I agree that we should determine the parameters of the game before forming teams. I think it's possible to settle some questions by vote before we form teams. We could have an open vote on a question with determine later by team vote as one of the options. We can also require a supermajority on some questions and / or allow a team to call for a team vote on any question already decided before teams were formed.

Sure, sounds good to me. But first we need... a place to discuss this stuff in... which isn't going to clutter up the previous game's forum!

So what happened to this new forum? DaveShack, you said a while back that you'd put in a request... anything new on that front yet? I'd kind of been waiting in the sidelines the past few days for the new forum to open, so I can start a whole bunch of discussion topics. So, what's the status?

 

[HUSch]

You can discuss all, but there must be some with interest for that, without the TP must decide. In GWT we discuss often the mm in every town, only a TP with good luck (LP knows it). In the ISDG quali there was allways after the moving of units The save for the team-member to look at, and decide. Now in the final often I look at the play before eot.
That interest is the most important for DGs.
And so the question is: where does your interest lie longtime. and remember most time there is only day to day doing, especially if you are not fight for victory..

 

[Hercules90]

Registering interest here in this thread too.

 

[classical_hero]

I agree that we should determine the parameters of the game before forming teams. I think it's possible to settle some questions by vote before we form teams. We could have an open vote on a question with determine later by team vote as one of the options. We can also require a supermajority on some questions and / or allow a team to call for a team vote on any question already decided before teams were formed.

Will there be a filibuster option?