1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

BtS MTDG - Game Settings & Map

Discussion in 'Civ4 - BTS Multi-Team Demogame' started by General_W, Oct 16, 2008.

  1. General_W

    General_W Councilor & Merlot Noble

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,197
    Location:
    Washington State (GMT -8)
    We're a small enough group right now, that I think we can talk about what kind of map settings, size, climate, difficulty level, resource distribution, etc. as one big mash.

    I think this is a better place to start than just trying to poll each option separately.
    Just for example – I might vote for “standard” for the map size and for “continents” for the map script.

    But if “terra” (that’s the one with an old world and a new world, right?) wins the map script – I’d probably rather play that on a “large” map.

    Basically – I think certain settings tend to go together. There are also certain settings I’ve never even tried. If someone wants to argue that a certain setting would be really great for the MTDG, I’m certainly willing to try it if it’s explained.

    Here’s a link to some info I found on the various map scripts:
    http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/reference/map_scripts_guide.php


    When you post your opinion, please try to address the key settings:
    1. Difficulty Level:
    2. Map Script:
    3. Climate:
    4. SeaLevel:
    5. Era:
    6. World Wrap:
    7. Resources:

    Off the Top of my head – I think it might be fun to do…
    1. Difficulty Level: Noble or Prince
    2. Map Script: Hub (great fighting for the center!)
    3. Climate: Temperate
    4. SeaLevel: Medium
    5. Era: Ancient
    6. World Wrap: Cylindrical
    7. Resources: Standard




    What do others think?
     
  2. Vandal Warlord

    Vandal Warlord Nazgûl

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,750
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    I'm ok with those. Preferably, Prince.
     
  3. civplayah

    civplayah fronter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Noble
    Terra
    Temperate
    Medium
    Ancient
    Cylindrical
    Balanced
     
  4. dutchfire

    dutchfire Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,381
    Location:
    -
    1. Difficulty Level: Prince / Monarch
    2. Map Script: Map maker please! Something that allows some fighting early, but doesn't allow rushing. Hub-like sounds good.
    3. Climate: To be determined by map maker. Pretty green I suppose.
    4. SeaLevel: Don't really care
    5. Era: Ancient, obviously.
    6. World Wrap: civ3's MTDG donutshape is, well, interesting :)
    7. Resources: Balanced. I wouldn't be opposed to making a perfectly symmetrical world.
     
  5. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    How do you make early fighting possible but not rushing? It's not a bad idea, just don't know how to do it.

    Random vs map maker has some good arguments both ways. It could be argued that quality of start affects the game so much that one team is destined to win from the 1st turn. But, if that were the case then playing in enough pitboss games should guarantee that every player wins at least once, and we know that's not really the case. A really good start can make it easy for a good player, or boost a poor player up to the point where it's competitive. A really bad start can make a great player easy pickings. But everyone starts with the same chances.

    But it's also pretty clear that if all the starts are equal, the poor player really doesn't have a chance at all. And in a team game, the argument that there are a mix of skills on a team only holds for the first few months. In the end it boils down to what kind of player is left as the remaining turn player.

    A created map also carries the risk of unintended consesquences. For example, miscalculating the path length between civs for some pairings can result in a lopsided game in favor of both closely connected teams if they cooperate, or the victor if they fight. It can also cause the game to degrade due to endless exploration before contact.

    Balanced resources makes everyone equal but takes away trade. I'd really like to see a lot more diplomacy in future games, and standard resources would help with that.

    Another critical set of options -- tech trading and tech brokering. On one hand, if these options are off then each team must focus on its economy. On the other hand, diplo is a lot more interesting if you have something to trade. My preference is for the standard options -- both trading and brokering allowed.
     
  6. General_W

    General_W Councilor & Merlot Noble

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,197
    Location:
    Washington State (GMT -8)
    Good points Daveshack!

    My 2 cents:

    I think Random maps are fine. Yes there's the possibility that you can get a crummy start location - but the Civ4 startlocation-balancing algorithm prevents this disparity from being too immense (in my experience).

    Not to mention - in a competitive multiplayer game like this - a team with a crummy start is less of a threat and therefore a more attractive ally. Played smartly - this can be a powerful advantage.

    Bottom line - I think it balances out.
    But I'm fine with a custom made map also... as long as we can get it done quickly so that it doesn't hold up the start of the game.


    And I agree with you on allowing all forms of trading. Makes MTDG diplomacy much more interesting. If you want to forbid tech-brokering... then write it into your trade treaty!
     
  7. Memphus

    Memphus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    5,233
    Location:
    Canada
    hmmmm ineteresting....my team better get a good start location ;) or we is in trouble....

    My Vote:
    Difficulty Level: Immortal....(but any level is fine by me)
    Map Script: Inland Sea. (fighting early but added strategy required...)
    Climate: Temperate
    SeaLevel: Medium
    Era: Ancient
    World Wrap: N/A
    Resources: Standard
     
  8. robboo

    robboo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,123
    Location:
    Cajun Country
    my 2 cents based of a pitboss.. inland sea becomes unbalanced due to the difficulty in sending ships and the "single front" nature of the sea. At most you fight on two fronts and it makes this all but a out tech to military race.

    Hub has similar problems but more fronts that are chokepoints more than anything.

    I prefer a "real map" as for the rest of the settings... doesnt matter to me. Without AI the map is the main variable.
     
  9. Kylearan

    Kylearan compound eye

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,538
    Location:
    Bonn, Germany
    Hi,

    there have been several votes for different levels of difficulty, but no reasoning why these votes were cast. This is how I understand this issue:

    Since no AI players will be present, the only real impact the level of difficulty has is tech pace. From Noble on upwards, health and happy caps stay the same. (Minor differences like barb spawning don't really have that big of an impact, IMHO) We will probably play on Normal speed, so to make the lifespan of units last a bit longer, my proposal would be to choose a higher level - Emperor would be my vote.

    Regarding the map: I'm against balanced resources, as I too like to see some trading going on. But I'm heavily in favor of someone at least looking at the map to ensure the starting positions are roughly equal, and if not, tweaking them a bit! It has to be someone who knows what he is doing though. In the Apolyton BtS demogame, we have some ridiculously different starting spots: No happy resources vs. two(!) gold at the capital, for example. Even the diplomatic advantage (if there is such a thing) General_W has mentioned won't balance that out...

    -Kylearan
     
  10. dutchfire

    dutchfire Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,381
    Location:
    -
    Agreed. Or, instead of tweaking them, just rolling a couple of starts, a pick a "fair" map out of them.
     
  11. General_W

    General_W Councilor & Merlot Noble

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,197
    Location:
    Washington State (GMT -8)
    :agree: I like the sound of that.

    And that's far less work for a "map maker" to just look at some randomly generated maps and then tweak them if necessary.

    But do we have anyone who's not wanting to play that'd be willing to do that for us?
     
  12. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I did an informal survey of standard size hub maps with one area per player, and the maps look enough like each other that tweaking might not even be necessary.

    I used hub, standard, tropical, medium sea level, standard resources. The toroidal wrap looks interesting because it opens up contact in all directions instead of immediate neighbors and the center. Temperate maps looked pretty dry on average, with lots of ice in the center and desert patches. Tropical seemed more like what I'm used to for temperate, and it doesn't look like you can get a true tropical setting.

    There are additional things to tweak, like isthmus width and center shape, any thoughts on those?

    Edit: The toroidal is interesting because for hub maps it opens up close contact in all directions... that there was contact was not surprising. ;)
     
  13. peter grimes

    peter grimes ... Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    Queens, New York
    How close was close?...
     
  14. General_W

    General_W Councilor & Merlot Noble

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,197
    Location:
    Washington State (GMT -8)
    This would be GREAT news Daveshack!
    Getting a map to play on is what seriously held up the first MTDG.

    Could you provide some more specifics so that we could maybe just vote on playing a non-adjusted map?
     
  15. AutomatedTeller

    AutomatedTeller Frequent poster

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,529
    Location:
    Medford, MA
    I think that hub was specially designed for multiplayer, just to make a balanced map, wasn't it?
     
  16. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Close enough for Galley / Trireme contact, most of the time.
     
  17. oyzar

    oyzar Have quit civ/forums

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    6,923
    Location:
    Norway
    Hub? That is basically just a hack and slash map... It is very little interesting. Would be better to create a map that is more interesting... To take away the possiblity of rushing you just need to make the map a tiny bit larger...

    I am sure finding a person to generate the map will not be hard at all, i got a couple in mind already.

    It really depends on what you want? For me an ideal world would be one with plenty of room(at least 5-10 cities per team), somewhat balanced resources(someone not having any of the early resources could lead to not much fun), contact with all civs possible before astro(not required to be one continent though, could just be boat contact), but also with unpredictable terrain. I don't like the huge mountain ranges and wast deserts and plains areas tectonics generate. Several fractal maps or snaky continents on medium or big and small could definatly be interesting though.

    What about barbs, huts tech trading and vassal states? They are all settings that are largely unbalancing for mp but i assume they are on?


    As for level my experience is that most people have no clue what changing the level means. Since there are no AI's the impact of higher levels will be much lower. Noble if you want a fast and easy going game where interactions with players will be a factor. Diety if you want barbs to be a factor, limit the brokeness of huts and limit the general tech pace(probably better with tech trading on).

    What about speed? I personally perfer normal, but i can see people wanting epic as it gives more time to do diplo. Marathon both takes too long and weight the game to heavy towards bloodbath. Quick changes the dynamics of the game too much in a bad way for me to like it.
     
  18. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,209
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    We should wait for the teams to decide this, not indivuals.
     
  19. remake20

    remake20 :)

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,901
    1. Difficulty Level: Don't care
    2. Map Script: Islands
    3. Climate: Don't care
    4. SeaLevel: Medium
    5. Era:Ancient
    6. World Wrap: Don't know what it is (Just own civ 3)
    7. Resources: Standard
     
  20. Joshua368

    Joshua368 Warmongering builder

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,072
    I'm not sure if I like the hub type... it seems a bit too unnatural. It's allright, but I think more dynamic and fluid borders with the other nations would be more interesting, though we don't want early rushing.

    Large pangaea, with someone checking to make sure everyone is far enough away to be safe? So there's some early peaceful expansion until borders get too close or your economy can handle more distant cities?

    As for ballance, I'm fine with standard resources, definitely don't want everyone to have the same of everything. Though it would be nice to have a third party go through and just make sure no one is completely screwed, make sure no one completely lacks metal/oil/whatever else is vital.
     

Share This Page