BTS game anyone?

[Ginger_Ale]

I'm not sure if I'll have time to admin this game...and I definitely can't set up a PitBoss game. If anyone is willing to run it (assuming there is a BTS game), feel free to volunteer. It's not really that hard, it's just that it can be a bit of work (particularly in the beginning). I can keep an eye on things if that's necessary...

 

[Furiey]

Unfortunately I won't be in the next game unless I get a new PC. I couldn't open the save after we patched and I can't run BTS at all. I found it really difficult to stay involved and wasn't much help at all to the team. Very frustrating.

I may offer to help admin, but I'm not sure how much use someone that couldn't open the save would be. I certainly couldn't run a pitboss.

 

[pindicator]

I find it hard to resist another game. Whether PBEM or Pitboss, it may not matter too much as my CIV time has been drastically cut in recent months, but I loved being a part of the first one!

 

[Provolution]

This has my vote... its a forced 24 hour rule. We can do the same thing as before with limiting requests for extensions. We wouldn't need an admin except for approval of extensions.

1 turn per week is a bit slow. I would much rather have 48 or 72 hour simultaneous turns, so we can get a real game. Also, simultaneous expands the potential number of teams up to a full 7 or so.

 

[robboo]

I disagree on expanding the teams to 7. With the exception of Epsilon(maybe) I doubt there were 7 people still able to play a turn. You will likely have the same attrition.

 

[Provolution]

2nd thoughts, I think there should be 5 or 6 or 7 teams, but likely it should be five teams again.

 

[1889]

So far there are 4 in favor of PBEM, 1 for pitboss and 3 don't care. Also only one poster has said BtS won't work for them.

What the next step? Can we move forward or do we need to poll these issues?

 

[DaveMcW]

I set up a test Direct IP pitboss game at 69.131.82.108 for anyone who wants to experiment with it. No passwords.

 

[Conroe]

Another option is sequential pitboss. ...... This avoids the double-move problems with simultaneous turns.

If pitboss is chosen, then I think this would need to be a requirement. There seems to be different interpretations on how "no double moves" is actually defined. Completely eliminating them would seem to be the best course of action in this sort of game.

HOWEVER - I think if we do opt for another PBEM game there must be an enforceable time limit (as in PitBoss). This can be as simple as choosing an Admin that after a certain amount of time (36 hours without an extension request?) will log in, set any cities that have completed builds to wealth, and then end the turn.

Might also want to put something in the rules for handling any possible patches that may get released during the game. There was a lot of frustration on both sides of the issue this game. Having a clearly defined procedure up front that everyone agrees to could hopefully alleviate some of that.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm in favor of simultaneous pitboss, regardless of DM difficulties. Cutting the total game time down should help with keeping people involved.

Sequential pitboss would still be better than PBEM. It would also allow for teams to preset queues, just in case they have a problem with playing.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Sequential pitboss would still be better than PBEM. It would also allow for teams to preset queues, just in case they have a problem with playing.

They can set up queues in PBEM too. Although, it's true that sequential pitboss would automatically flip the turn instead of requiring an admin.

I'm not a huge fan of sequential move pitboss, since it kind of misses the whole point (ie reasonable speed) of pitboss games. I'm leaning more towards pitboss with simultaneous moves. Really, double moves are very rarely an issue, and on the occasions when they are I'm sure as a decent bunch of players we can figure things out together. It seems such a shame to increase the length of the game by 3-4 times just because of a fear of the very rare occasions when double moves actually matter.

 

[classical_hero]

I tried Dave's IP, but it did not work for me.

 

[General_W]

Sequential pitboss would still be better than PBEM. It would also allow for teams to preset queues, just in case they have a problem with playing.

Is there some reason teams couldn't also do this in PBEM?

I'm not "opposed" to PitBoss – but this doesn't seem like a good reason to choose one over the other.

There seems to be different interpretations on how "no double moves" is actually defined. Completely eliminating them would seem to be the best course of action in this sort of game.

I agree with this 100%
I've played a couple simultaneous turns strategy games – and it almost always ends in bad feelings… even among friends who know eachother. Someone always ends up feeling cheated by the game mechanics at a critical point in the game. If you multiply this tendency for hard feelings by the relative anonymity of the internet... you have a recipe for some really nasty mudslinging, imo.

Cutting the total game time down should help with keeping people involved.

I agree with this also.

But I don't think that PitBoss is the only way to solve this issue.

Other options include all or some of the following:

• Moderator Enforceable PBEM time limits
• A smaller number of teams for faster turn-around (3 teams? 2 Teams and some AIs?)
• Using the BtS "Advanced Start" to get the game rolling faster
• Playing on a much smaller map size (= fewer cities = smaller time commitment to play = hopefully more people willing & able to act as turnplayer)

Again – I'd like to say that I'm not opposed to PitBoss – it's just been my experience that it presents more technical hurdles and restricts the number of people that can easily participate. (see: Classical Hero's challenge with Dave's server)

I prefer PBEM because it's simpler, more accessible, and still gives us plenty of options to ensure the game moves at an acceptable pace.

 

[Joe Harker]

* A smaller number of teams for faster turn-around (3 teams? 2 Teams and some AIs?)

My only worry would be that it would limit diplomacy, 1v1 would mean almost automatically that you will fight each other from the start (or at least hostile), while three means that you could and most likely will get two teams ganging up on the other one. Four evens the field better and five I would say is still the optium number.

We also have to remember that there was a delay in signing up and playing which lost players, plus now that no more patches are likely to be released in game (though better play safe and come up with a way of getting round one should it appear), so most people will be able to play and we won't lose their interest like in the last game.

On the subject of what mode to play in,

Pitboss to me is an added complication, as long as mods enforce time limits it should be fine in PBEM. PBEM also makes it easier for people to look at the save as they wish, because no matter how many screenshots people take, you always feel you don't have the full picture.

 

[killercane]

Using the BtS "Advanced Start" to get the game rolling faster

All good ideas as usual GW, but IME people complain a lot about Advanced Start. They either dont want to take the time to see how it works or screw it up and it leads to a restart of the game. If we could avoid those problems and the team can all have a looksee at what to spend your initial $$ on, that could be a good option.

That being said, PITBOSS is the best way to go about it. Its easy to use and enforces the things that need to be enforced w/o a superactive moderator, which I would be surprised if we found.

 

[peter grimes]

For the record, I'm not on either side of the Pitboss / PBEM issue.

I feel strongly that turn-timer limits have to be enforced

I've only played a couple of pitboss games, and in both games the Double Move issue came up. The way we solved it was self-policing. We didn't set unit goto orders.

PBEM also makes it easier for people to look at the save as they wish...

I would argue the opposite: that Pitboss makes it easier to check on the save. No emails to open, files to download; just open civ and type in the password.

 

[Provolution]

Yeah, PBEM is ridiculous now we got pitboss. If this becomes a pbem or a pitboss game with long sequential turns, I am simply not interested, to be frank.

 

[General_W]

I would argue the opposite: that Pitboss makes it easier to check on the save. No emails to open, files to download; just open civ and type in the password.

I suppose it's just my ignorance here (full disclosure: I've never played a PitBoss game - just talked to other who have) - but is seems like a certain % of people always have trouble connecting to the server, staying connected, or else the server itself has problems.
That's what I was referring to with my "PBEM is easier" comments.

Question: Is there any safeguard in PitBoss to prevent someone from accidentally playing a team's turn? I guess I just worry about what happens if a team gets a new member who gets over zealous? Or a wild-card member that decides on his own to seize the reins of power? In PBEM, this is unlikely to be an issue and is easily reversible. Not so much in PitBoss.

But I admit - these are minor issues, and I'm more than willing to give PitBoss a try if that becomes the group decision.

If this becomes a pbem or a pitboss game with long sequential turns, I am simply not interested, to be frank.

I think sequential turns are highly desirable to prevent any problems.
In my opinion, the appeal MTDG games have never been about speed - but rather the internal and external team interactions unfolding over a long period to allow group discussion and advanced levels of diplomacy.

The game shouldn't be allowed to drag to a halt or take more than a week for a turn to come around - but I think it would be a serious mistake to sacrifice the core reasons for even having a MTDG just for the sake of speed alone.

Players who prefer a game that will be over in under a month should probably stick with one of the many privately arranged Multiplayer games under way on Civfanatics at any given time. I just finished one of those that gone done WAY faster than the MTDG - it was very fun & much faster - but I'm looking for a different kind of experience from the MTDG.

If we're just going to smash through a game so quickly that there's little time for diplomacy and team discussion - why bother with an MTDG?

 

[Provolution]

We can just decide on an Epic Speed (turn by the day of 24 h), so that tactical situations had to be followed and scrutinized. This way, the game would not lose its edge, and players would have to think fast. Still, Epic also call for more long term decisions in building and research, as well as wonders and civics, but war would be more interesting and UUs would last longer.

I am playing an Epic BTS with 18 players, which is great fun, for example.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

I agree with Provo its is rediculous to play PBEM when we have pitboss, what I would like to know is when we might be starting this.