BTS game anyone?

[robboo]

regardless.. I think we have to have rules with punishments and admins that are willing and able to exact punishment. Whether that is turn timer or double moves.

 

[Empiremaker]

Has anyone been able to connect to Dave's test Pitboss game?

 

[DaveMcW]

Apparently I'm a n00b at configuring firewalls.

Does 69.131.82.108 work now?

 

[General_W]

Hey Dave - that worked for me - no problem

Are you willing / able to host a MTDG pitboss game?

 

[Empiremaker]

Regarding Pitboss, do I have to have the unoffical patches as a mod instead of installed to the main files? Will I have to do this regardless if the game is PBEM or Pitboss?

 

[1889]

Okay here's the deal, there are something like 6 votes for PBEM, 6 for sequential pitboss and 2 purists for simultaneous pitboss or thereabouts - its not always so easy to just tally all the votes in a discussion thread.

I think many people have technical questions about Pitboss and a few want enforcement of PBEM time limits. So I think we need to get one of those issues resolved before we move on to a poll that can be taken seriously. Dave are you offering to host a pit boss game? Is anybody volunteering to be the hard nosed PBEM admin?

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

regarding the double move issue, you could try to make a ruling against it. For example, the Apolyton BTS Pitboss Demogame that started some time ago uses these rules:

The Double Move Rule : 48 hour turns

1. No double moves during a time of war, except as noted below.

During times of war all concerned Civ's should allow for 1/2 the turn timer (24 hours) to pass between moves if the other Civs involved in the war have not moved since a concerned Civ has moved.

In other words: You cannot make moves during periods of war until either one of two things have occured:

i. All other concerned Civs in a war (being at war in game) have made moves/completed one turn since you have made your moves/completed a turn.

ii. 1/2 the turn timer (24 hours) has past since you made your moves/completed your turn.

The reason "made your moves/completed your turn" is worded that way is that a team can log in make some moves, log out, log back in and make more moves. Once a team makes ANY moves the requirement that says a team must make a move/complete a turn is fullfilled.

2. No moving of units after you have pressed 'End Turn'

3. No double moves of a Settler, at any time, if an opponents Settler is in the same vicinity as yours, and visible, except as in point 1.ii. above.

4. No double moves of a unit, at any time, if a goody hut is nearby, and an opponents unit is in the same vicinity, and visible, except as in point 1.ii. above.

5. Double moves should be allowed at all other times in order to help speed game play.

6. Play fair, be a gentleperson. We are all here to have fun and enjoy ourselves. Let's do just that and not screw our fellow gamers over by bending the rules to give ourselves an unfair advantage.

There's still a loophole in it (I think) regarding double-moves on the turn you declare war, but still...it's a beginning.

Also, we agreed to use dynamic turn lengths: 24 hour turns in the beginning, and extend the time per turn later on, for example to 48 hours, when empires get bigger, diplomacy more complicated or war breaks out. We're not far into the game yet to see how it works out though.

-Kylearan

 

[Provolution]

We can say 24 hour simultaneous turns during the first 4000 years (epic), where 1 turn= 25 years.
Then we move to 48 hour turns during the next 2000 years.

 

[peter grimes]

So far I'm still coming down on the side of Pitboss - especially since it enforces the turn-timer without the need for a strict game admin.

But I agree with General_W that a major part of the fun of these MTDG's is the inter-team diplomacy. As long as we go with a dynamic turntimer (modelled on Kylearan's post) I think we'll keep the spirit of the game.

 

[classical_hero]

I was able to connect also.

 

[General_W]

I've certainly warmed up to the idea of PitBoss... but I'm still highly skeptical about the simultaneous moves.

Imo - Kylearan's post demonstrates what a potential mess Simultaneous moves creates - and at first glance, it sounds like that system could be a little bit difficult to monitor/enforce.
I'd really like to think rule 6 would cover any grey areas... but I seem to remember a big fight over "spirit of the game" in the first Civ3 MTDG.
To me - this smacks of that multiplied by 2.

What if we went with PitBoss - Sequential turns, but started with a 15 hour time limit for the first 50 turns, then 24 hours for the next 100 turns, then 36 hours after that... with an option for the teams to vote the time limit higher if they want?

 

[Memphus]

Simultaneous moves is almost impossible to enforce. The Best Way is Sequential Pitboss, with Turn time at 24 hours. you can still see you nation when it isn't your turn, but you can't move your units.

Really if this last game had a guaranteed cycle every 5 days we would have been done in 2/3 the time. Additionally if the 5 turn players can agree to meet for the first 30 turns it can get the game rolling really fast.

 

[classical_hero]

So who would be willing to admin this game?

 

[peter grimes]

Well, do we really even need an admin? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we go with Pitboss, the pitboss hoster would be responsible for setting up the game and such. Once the game is set up, I dont' think we really need an admin.

After all, we're all adults here

For that matter, I'm ok with not having private forums in the manner of the SGOTMs.

 

[Conroe]

There's still a loophole in it (I think) regarding double-moves on the turn you declare war, but still...it's a beginning.

Seems to be a rather huge loophole to me! Basically, rule 2 states that DMs are allowed so long as you don't press the end turn button. And that basically comes from the fact that these rules don't actually define a double move.

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.

This actually raises a good point. How would diplomacy work in a pitboss environment? As I understand pitboss, the first person to log on will be forced to answer any diplomatic messages. Does the first person go ahead and make the decision for the entire team? Or is it possible to exit (gracefully) from the game without answering the dialog?

And it seems to me that with all teams running on a 24 hour timer (assuming simultaneous turns), it would be quite difficult to negotiate some of the treaties that we saw in the previous game. The game situation could change quite a bit while the merits of a proposal are being debated. It seems to me that pitboss was designed for 1 person to play another person, rather than a team environment that we see here in the MTDG.

 

[killercane]

Well you could post the dialog and you can also pause the turn timer with spacebar (if it works the same as normal pitboss). I guess you would just note in the turn tracker you paused the game.

 

[General_W]

As I understand pitboss, the first person to log on will be forced to answer any diplomatic messages. Does the first person go ahead and make the decision for the entire team? Or is it possible to exit (gracefully) from the game without answering the dialog?

Excellent question!
I have no real experience with PitBoss (as noted before) - but this is potentially problematic. Although, it's less of a problem with sequential turns, since it'll allow more time for diplomacy (and for team to hopefully warn the others that an offer is coming so that a decision can be made).

Well you could post the dialog and you can also pause the turn timer with spacebar (if it works the same as normal pitboss). I guess you would just note in the turn tracker you paused the game.

If people can pause the game - wouldn't this kinda defeat the point of having a turn timer?

Well, do we really even need an admin? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we go with Pitboss, the pitboss hoster would be responsible for setting up the game and such. Once the game is set up, I dont' think we really need an admin.

Maybe it'd be a good idea to pre-select an "arbiter" if some problem does come up that the teams can't mutually agree on a solution. In that case, a 3rd party (Rik? Ginger Ale?) could be turned to for settlement.
Hopefully we wouldn't ever need that - but it could be a good addition to the rule-set just in case.

Simultaneous moves is almost impossible to enforce. The Best Way is Sequential Pitboss, with Turn time at 24 hours. you can still see you nation when it isn't your turn, but you can't move your units.

Really if this last game had a guaranteed cycle every 5 days we would have been done in 2/3 the time.

I agree 110%
Participation should stay high if people know that it's always going to be worthwhile to check in at least once a week.

Not to mention - if the game goes TOO fast (especially at the later stages) that can kill participation also! People will feel like they can't keep up and therefore can't contribute. A game that goes too fast also kills participation by discouraging "small" jobs (like diplomacy, role-playing, newspaper making, & story writing type activities) since there's really only time to get the turn played.

I think sequential turns with a 24 hour time limit (no pausing, except for extreme circumstances) will ensure there's a save to play at least once a week - keeping the game moving and interesting - without going so fast that it chokes out participation, diplomacy, and all the fun little things that make an MTDG different from every other multiplayer game.

 

[Memphus]

that's my vote

 

[robboo]

I agree the whole point isnt speed but rather a game where joint decisions and discussions can be made. That's why I also think the sequential turn pitboss has merit.

It is the hybrid of the two types. Its a limited time frame and it forces a turn. IF we forbid the pause usage to once every x number of turns or for other exceptions....host issues, major events that impact one team, patches, UN discussions.

Another pitboss bonus....live chats while in the game without having to have a chat program. in theory...all teams could log on and blitz 10 or so turns. Say we play in turn order then we set a 10 to 15 turn blitz with everyone logged on. Granted time factors may make it less turns. The turn player can shoot pics and forward them to another player or possible post in the forum while in this blitz turn setting. Granted its only good for the early stages.

I like the idea of arbiter BUT think this should possible be one in the same as the host. Correct me if I am wrong since i havent been a host...BUT doesnt the host have some "godlike" abilities in the way of reading messages.

I understand the need for speed but it looses the "feel" if its too fast.

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

How would diplomacy work in a pitboss environment? As I understand pitboss, the first person to log on will be forced to answer any diplomatic messages. Does the first person go ahead and make the decision for the entire team? Or is it possible to exit (gracefully) from the game without answering the dialog?

Well, that is simple to solve. Just don't make any diplomatic messages in-game before ironing out the details with the other team via email. That's how it was done in this demogame as well most of the time, wasn't it?

And it seems to me that with all teams running on a 24 hour timer (assuming simultaneous turns), it would be quite difficult to negotiate some of the treaties that we saw in the previous game.

I disagree - details can be ironed out in a couple of days, and a couple of moves don't change the situation that drastically. Most of the time, you're planning way ahead anyway, and upcoming treaties normally don't effect the current turns. The notable exception would be a surprise attack, where the victim seeks help with other teams. But even then, a chat could speed up the process (as had been happening in this game on several occasions), and in Real Life you cannot freeze time to seek help if you're under attack either. ;-)


I think an important point about this is level of participation. More time per turn means more time for diplomacy, but also dropping levels of participation as nothing exciting happens in the game for several weeks. I'd rather prefer more active players, especially after seeing what happened with this demogame.

Turn timer duration can easily be increased to 48h, 72h or even more later in the game, if teams feel they need more time. But especially in the beginning, a quick (and guaranteed!) turnaround keeps up the level of interest.

-Kylearan