Game Settings Discussion Thread

[Sommerswerd]

If our team could produce a list of all of these issues related to having the turn timer split, I think it would make some of our arguments more clear to the other teams. First that there are too many issues to have a rule correcting all of them, and second that because of the large number of issues that affect both sides, balance is best addressed by not writing rules for any individual issues.

I am pretty busy at the moment, but here is a start:

First move:
1. Heal at begining of turn
2. Attack wounded before they heal
3. Counterespionage window (which cant be nerfed because nerfing espionage is not permitted under the settings)

Second move:
1. Destroy improvements at the end of turn
2. Repair improvements at the end of turn

Last thing... HUSch made a REALLY good point in the public forum that I think has been completely missed by almost everyone. The setting vote is over, and as everyone already agrees, the settings are final and cannot be changed. Espionage ON, nothing banned, no restrictions is already the voted-upon setting. So it is completely not allowed to nerf espionage in any way, period. This whole discussion (at least in terms of spy-sabotage) needs to end, because DNK has already admitted that this rule is an attempt to nerf espionage, and that is not allowed under the setting.

So plako, if you are still wanting to mediate this as you say, Then please explain to RB and everyone else to stop trying to make rules that affect espionage. Espionage is ON, no nerf, no restrictions, no nothing, its over. Let's move on.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My preference would be posting the translation publicly. Maybe putting both French and Spanish translations in one post, with a message saying that we're trying to make it easier for them to join the discussion, and apologizing to the Germans for not having a translation for them (though I'm sure someone on their 80+member team speaks English well enough to translate for themselves).

The most important thing with this is that there isn't any further delay. Thanks for getting this done so fast BTW

I'm posting this over at Spanish Apolyton now, and if you want to post it on the public forum when you get a chance, I have no problem with that.

 

[Bowsling]

I think it would be best if we post the proposed rulesets in the public threads/forums of the sites in question. That way, we can make it appear more final and authoritative than it actually is. Since we're making translations, we need to use them to our advantage. Presenting them as a more accepted and respected proposal could almost guarantee their votes.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I would go a step further than that. It not even a matter of trying to trick anyone into thinking they are more final and authoritative (I don't mean "trick" literally, I just cant think of a better word and I'm rushing out), its just basic human nature that people will sort of bond with the first ruleset and see subsequent ones as "changes" (which is why I wanted to start the whole process from scratch).

 

[Aivoturso]

It is also important for trasparency that anyone can verify that teams are playing with the same rulesets. Well anyone that speaks English and the other language, that is.

 

[YossarianLives]

I'll retreat from trying to be an temporary organizer of this game. My activities has not been considered welcome by all teams. I'll get the map out and lurk from the sidelines.

Hi plako. If you were referring to this:

And sorry, plako we can't vote on this before the leader selection is done. I have to put my foot down on this. It's just not fair to the team still discussing their Civ choice.

I didn't view it as unwelcoming of your organization attempts. I believe our team appreciates any efforts to get this game started as quickly as possible, while still giving everyone a chance to consider all the rules (I think 2metra even made a similar comment previously regarding Parkin's efforts, of all people). Besides, all selections have now been made, so we do need someone to corral together the votes finally.

I had suggested this in another thread, but maybe it would be a good idea to get plako and perhaps a third admin from another site on board to help out with this game? I clicked on CivPlayer's link to the thread where 2metra invited them to play, and it appears that "CanuckSoldier" is an admin/moderator on their site, but is not listed as playing in this game, so maybe he would be a good candidate? Or maybe someone from one of the non-English sites (although I haven't ventured to any of those, so I don't know anyone except those that are already playing and posting on this game).

 

[YossarianLives]

The most important thing with this is that there isn't any further delay. Thanks for getting this done so fast BTW

I'm posting this over at Spanish Apolyton now, and if you want to post it on the public forum when you get a chance, I have no problem with that.

Sounds good to me. Thanks! Does anyone know if the French translation has made it to the proper team yet?

 

[plako]

Yossarian - Sommerswerd sent me a personal message indicating that he would rather see me just lurking.

 

[Bowsling]

Sounds good to me. Thanks! Does anyone know if the French translation has made it to the proper team yet?

French translation is only half-done and full of errors and incorrect civ-lingo. I'll see if I can get more of it done tonight.

 

[Caledorn]

I would just like to mention that I don't like the general attitude in the public thread. The amount of veiled insults, distrust and sarcastic comments that are freely used to attack both individuals and teams are unnerving. This is a game that is meant to be fun - not a game that is supposed to prove who is the best rulemaker. While I have the utmost respect for the experience of a lot of the participants of this game, I also find it disheartening to see how much antagonism there is between the various players.

Now, I do not have the experience of in game strategy that a lot of the participants have. But I do have a lot of experience with people from various situations in life. What I do know, and I am sure most of you will agree with this, is that if we allow this to continue we will create an even stronger pre-game rift between teams that will probably end up in a lot of defaming, angry people shaming and blaming other people, and simply put a lot of completely unnecessary conflict that will most likely hinder the game progress and fun. People may leave their teams behind because of all this, and I doubt anyone but the very hardened core of players will remain in the game if this doesn't stop.

I have a few suggestions, and I hope they at least will be taken into consideration. First of all, I am very much in agreement with what Tobiasn said earlier about one person representing our team in the public discussions. If you have a lot to do Sommerswerd, perhaps someone else can do it for now (You would be the natural person, but also see my next point)?

A game organizer - that would be Sommerswerd or 2metraninja should take off the Team CFC hat completely, and state outright as the game organizer that the current attitude is not what we wish for in the game - provided of course you two agree with me.

The game admin (r_rolo) could also intervene, and try to put a stop to it.

In a worst case scenario, perhaps a moderator action could be taken.

I personally think that we strongly need to stop the bickering over details and favour of other teams before it's too late. The way I view this right now is that there is a fight between our team and team RB about who is the better rulemakers. And some people from the other teams are mingling in here and there to voice their support to either us or Team RB (DNK is an example of someone voicing support to Team RB).

Please consider this, as I would like this game to evolve into something different than Team CFC vs Team RB - both now, and in the actual game.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[2metraninja]

This is nothing, for real thrill you should read how the discussion involving a drunken profane over simple rule for double-moving settlers at RB forum ended.

 

[cav scout]

I would just like to mention that I don't like the general attitude in the public thread. The amount of veiled insults, distrust and sarcastic comments that are freely used to attack both individuals and teams are unnerving. This is a game that is meant to be fun - not a game that is supposed to prove who is the best rulemaker. While I have the utmost respect for the experience of a lot of the participants of this game, I also find it disheartening to see how much antagonism there is between the various players.

This.

We are putting together a game with a very ambitious scope- bringing together the worldwide civ community for some friendly competition. Goodwill should unquestionably be the order of the day. The Olympics analogy discussed previously really hits the nail on the head.

A multiple forum game has the greatest risk of falling apart. This thing could easily go down in flames if goodwill takes a back seat to competition. If that happens then the overall health of the general civ community will be damaged.

So lets see what we can do to get the discussion more civil and mend some fences before the game starts. There are going to be potentially game breaking challenges and controversies ahead. If we kick things off on a sour note its only going to get worse.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Now that WPC has picked their civ, the leader/civ picking phase is done. Settings are done, the map is done, and it looks like the one rule controversy is done. Is there anything else we need to do before starting? If not I'd say we should put our ruleset up for a vote so we can start the game.

Objections?

 

[Caledorn]

Now that WPC has picked their civ, the leader/civ picking phase is done. Settings are done, the map is done, and it looks like the one rule controversy is done. Is there anything else we need to do before starting? If not I'd say we should put our ruleset up for a vote so we can start the game.

Objections?

As long as we do it in good faith, and take it with a smile if someone else's ruleset is voted as the rules for the game - no objections at all.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[talonschild]

Seconded

 

[whb]

I would just like to mention that I don't like the general attitude in the public thread. The amount of veiled insults, distrust and sarcastic comments that are freely used to attack both individuals and teams are unnerving. This is a game that is meant to be fun - not a game that is supposed to prove who is the best rulemaker. While I have the utmost respect for the experience of a lot of the participants of this game, I also find it disheartening to see how much antagonism there is between the various players.

Thirded.

 

[Sommerswerd]

by the way.. there's are two important rules to take notice about the mod

1. You can not leave the game without finishing the turn if you had declare a war in that turn. Or at least, you must tell the player you had declare war to, not enter the game till you get back and finish your turn.
2. You can't declare war to a player that's online. And of course you can't stay online just to avoid someone declaring war on you.

this to make sure that the war line is the correct one

I updated our ruleset to incorporate Spanish poly's rules about logins with the Mod enabled. I think the best way forward is to call on the team Spokespersons to give an up or down vote on this ruleset. If the majority accepts then the game starts. If the majority rejects then we can vote on a different ruleset, or discuss amendments or whatever Teams want.

01. Rule Breaking

When rules are being broken the game will be reloaded to the closest previous point that undoes the rule violation. The host can reload immediately when the breaking of a rule is obvious to everyone involved. If it's not obvious to everyone, or there is a disagreement over whether a rule was broken, the game will be paused, for an admin to decide.

02. Wartime Double Moves

a. Civilizations that are at war must observe turn order. Turn order is automatically fixed by the APT Mod on the first turn of war. However, teams must also observe turn order on the turn immediately prior to the first turn of War. So if the Attacker (party Declaring War) played after the Defender (party who war is declared upon) in the turn before the war starts, then the Attacker must let the Defender play first in the next turn as well before he can declare war on him. If the Attacker wishes to have first to move during the War, he must move first in the turn prior to the beginning of the War. Attackers can always wait until after the Defender moves to login and declare war if they intend to move second in the War, regardless of whether they moved before or after the Defender in the prior turn.

b. When other players come into a war in progress, they must be careful to play into the correct half of the turn, so that then the Mod automatically places them on the appropriate side of the turn timer. Also:

b1. You can not leave the game without finishing the turn if you declared a war in that turn. Or at least, you must tell the player you declared war on, not enter the game till you get back and finish your turn.
b2. You can't declare war on a player that's online. You can't stay online just to avoid someone declaring war on you.

c. Non-Wartime Doublemoves are allowed.

d. All unit/city actions that players can engage in, including, but not limited to, promotion, sabotage, bombing, slaving, drafting, pillaging, espionage missions, rebuilding improvements, etc, are fully allowed during that teams part of the turn. Advantages or disadvantages of being first or last in the turn order are strategic considerations when choosing to declare or continue a war.

03. Rule Change Procedure

a. When the game has started, rules can only be changed if the Teams unanimously agree to change the rules, or the Admin determines that a rule change is needed.

04. Out of Game Actions

a. Team Espionage -All external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams are not allowed. Example: Entering Team Forums, joining multiple teams using different accounts, actively petitioning other players for information, looking around on the CFC (or a 3rd party website) image database for screenshots and save uploads, or anything else deemed as deliberate espionage is not tolerated will be harshly dealt with.

b. Game / Pitboss / Save Manipulation or Disruption - Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed. Intentionally disrupting access to the Pitboss host server is not allowed. Intentionally opening Diplomacy screens and then pausing, intending to lock teams out of playing their turn is not allowed.

c. Teams making diplomatic contact before they have met in-game is not allowed.

05. In Game Actions

a. Suicide Training - Knowingly sacrificing a unit to an ally in order to yield experience points to the victorious unit is not allowed.

b. City Gifting - Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are the only permitted methods of city transfer.

c. Unit Gifting - Gifting a unit with experience needed to promote to Level 4 to teams who have not built the Heroic Epic and cannot currently do so is not allowed. Gifting a unit with experience needed to promote to Level 6 to teams who have not built West Point and cannot currently do so is not allowed.

06. Administration

a. Pausing - Any Team may pause the game. Any Team may unpause the game. If a Team needs the game to stay paused, they must post in the turn-tracker thread. 72 hours after such a post is made, any team may un-pause the game. If the Admin determines a team is abusing pauses he may suspend or otherwise restrict a teams right to pause the game.

b. Game Administrator - r_rolo1 has sole authority as game administrator. Alternate and/or replacement administrators must be agreed to by all teams.

c. Bugs - The use of any bug is not allowed. Examples include, but are not limited to, Free Tech Bug, Unlimited Gold Bug etc. The decision about exactly what constitutes a bug rests solely with the admin. Consult with the admin if any action you are considering may be a bug.

d. Defeated Teams -Player on teams that are eliminated are permitted to join another team. These "refugee" players may NOT engage in team espionage by reporting information on their new team to any other team.

I will post this ruleset and contact all the Team spokespersons to vote on it unless there are objections.

 

[2metraninja]

Yes, lets move this thing forward. I am already tired of the endless attacks on us in the role of organizers and on the game itself by one and the same persons.

 

[YossarianLives]

I updated our ruleset to incorporate Spanish poly's rules about logins with the Mod enabled. I think the best way forward is to call on the team Spokespersons to give an up or down vote on this ruleset. If the majority accepts then the game starts. If the majority rejects then we can vote on a different ruleset, or discuss amendments or whatever Teams want.

Thanks Sommers for getting this moving again. I was actually going to suggest something like this since it seems like we're losing momentum and we're so close to actually starting the game!

I will post this ruleset and contact all the Team spokespersons to vote on it unless there are objections.

Unfortunately, I am sure there will be objections from some teams, so we better be prepared for them. It might be a good idea to allow voting on some of the more controversial issues in addition to straight up or down votes on the entire ruleset, just to keep things moving without as much drama?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sorry, when I said "unless there are objections" I meant objections from members of Team CFC to me calling for an up or down vote on the ruleset, not objections from other Teams.

It is precisely because there are objections from other Teams that I was saying that the way forward was to call for a vote on the ruleset. I don't think there is any more 'convincing' that is going to happen at this point. I just went to RB forums and offered to talk it out on their 'home turf' and I was advised that it was pointless because people's feelings were still too volatile about it or something along those lines. So I am thinking trying to continue a debate about this is going to be a slow, and unproductive process.

Then we can see if this is really an "Game-Breaking-End-of-the-World-We-Need-to-hold-up-the-game" issue, or if it is truly just a "we-want- to-argue-some-more-but-whatever-let's-just-start-the-game" kind of issue. If it is the latter, maybe simply putting the ruleset up for a vote will nudge us into starting the game.