Game Settings Discussion Thread

I agree 3-way timer must be avoided.

 

I think none disagrees with you that the best solution is to scrap the whole rb proposal or the shuffle rule, but the shuffle proposal can make us have our way while throwing rb a bone by not nerfing the game, just changing how we play with the mod.

I don't think I have much more to add. Boils down to trying to compromise vs trying to .. Not. That oil at capitol idea, i dunno.. You could still lose your capitol.. And I'm actually against being all wuss about a thing like that. I backed the turn shuffling idea cause it actually sounds fair. There's a zillion different ways for a game to play out. I still think the shuffle solution is our best bet at closing the rules discussion quickly, but I'll obv back the team's decision either way.

 

Yes of course, but what about the other 3 points I raised? The 3 way timer is a side issue.

 

And the shuffle proposal is still a nerf. It's just a side door way of them trying to nerf Second move advantage. Don't forget that the Game host (Caledorn) has already said what a nightmare of reloads that shuffleboard rule is going to create... Its going to be a mess, wait and see

 

There's no mention of resource denial in my proposal. That's not by chance. Resource denial is a part of the game that shouldn't be touched. And as you point out there's several ways to do it. That was the start of the discussion yeah, but now we I proposed a rule that says nothing about resource denial, just about the mod.

 

And as magno said, turn shuffling is done in web admin.

That means Not by the host btw, so no reloading.

 

How about this... Team A has first move, but is getting denied Iron so they want to force Team B into first move. So they invoke the shuffleboard rule. This means Team B must move last, and then First in the next turn. Now Team B's ally, Team C has a fleet just out of Team A's view that can land a massive army next to A's city. Team C declares War during Team B's part of the turn, ie at the end, and lands the Army next to A's city.

But Team C has to play along with B right?

So at the beginning of the next turn, B an C play together, and C... who has just landed a massive army can now Doublemove and raze A's city.

Imagine A's suprise to log in expecting to joyously connect their resource, only to find their city razed from a Doublemove.

How do you expect that will go over?

 

Exactly. There's a huge risk in invoking a double move on yourself. Why do you think I kept it brief?
I think I even said so initially in the discussion w ruff- invoking double move is so risky that I find it hard to believe that it will be exploited much. It's a new strategic thing to think about, indeed. Part if what attracts me to it.

 

(but in that case only a fool would not cancel his wish to shuffle)

 

That's exactly why our team should just accept the ruleset as is. If RB or anyone else is so concerned that we will perpetually deny a resource that they will allow us to double-move in order to prevent that, then all the more power to them, and let's make sure we take full advantage of the double-move. Let them think they've won, while we take advantage of this new strategic consideration. If a team find themselves losing cities to doublemoves as Sommers described, well that's their own fault and completely within the rules.

That's my opinion, anyway, which is heavily biased towards getting the game started as quickly as possible.

 

Up until the point where the teams start flinging insults and crap because they believe the other team has cheated and I am forced to reload every turn because of this. And in such a situation I am positive that the game will die because of all the toes that will be stepped upon. I am strongly in opposition to this shuffle rule because of the risks involved, knowing how easy an opening like that can turn bloody in a game involving this many participants.

Also, I would like to add something. The turn times *will* be bad in a multiwar situation. If the turn timer is set at 48 hours and Teams A, B, C and D are all in wars, then that means the mod will grant 48 hours *per team* to do their turns. And yes, I will be very very surprised if this does not mean we will have single turns taking more than a week to finish mid- to lategame. Someone should really ask the Spanish developers if it is possible to grant several teams the ability to play at once like we did in the Merlot vs Amazon war when we allowed teams who were on the same side to move simultaneously. This may create a *lot* of frustration as teams will most certainly "play the clock" to frustrate other teams when they see they are losing a war!

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

It will not happen with the mod in it's current state. C will be shuffled in and take their turn *after* Team A has done their turn. Aka. Turn order B, A, C. 48 hours each.

Edit: Or not. Since the first turn of war is not affected by the mod. But any consecutive turns will be. The situation you just mentioned needs to be addressed, and quickly.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

Can you imagine the EPIC argument that will ensue the first time somebody tries to "cancel" shuffleboard after invoking it... Team B is gonna say "You can't do that! We already made our moves with the expectation that we would be given a shuffleboard Doublemove! We moved our whole stack into harms way, expecting to be able to move it again at the beginning of the next turn!" Hilarity ensues... but in a bad way

Anyway, he wouldn't have any chance to cancel. What would happen is A would invoke shuffleboard, end his turn and log out. Now its B's turn, A can't log in so he can't see that war is declared on him by C. Even if he somehow found out about it, it wouldn't matter, because obviously C is going to wait until there are like 5 seconds left in the turn to declare War and land his stack, so he can immediately capture the city when the turn rolls.

No that's exactly why we SHOULD NOT adopt this rule.

1. What you are suggesting is we "trick" RB into accepting a crappy rule so that we can exploit the rule later. That is not the right way to make rules, and it is not a sportsmanlike way to get victory. We will certainly be using some trickery in this game , but not that kind of trickery

2. The other point is that the other teams are not dummies right? If they know that invoking shuffleboard is always going to result in a devastating Doublemove attack (which it will, because everyone will obviously have it ready, for when shuffleboard gets invoked), then no one is going to ever invoke shuffleboard, at least not when it matters (ie they really need it)...

So then what is the point of shuffleboard? There is no point. Its just a waste of time putting an unusable rule on the books.

 

But then Team C is gonna cut A's Oil every turn as he moves last...

See what I mean about this shuffleboad thing

 

I do, and I am very much in agreement with you about this as well! We need to address how to deal with Team C declaring war on Team A though. Team A won't even know about it as you say, because they are unable to log in.

An even worse scenario timewise is something that I just thought about. In a scenario where 3 teams is at war, I believe the mod divides the turn into 4 bolks. Team A, B, C and then all non-warring teams. Ie. a turn may take 6 days with even just 2 teams at war. Imagine 5 teams at war where 3 teams are losing and don't bother playing in a timely manner.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

I have addressed my questions in regards to the turn timer to the Spanish developers. Since they are very helpful I expect we will receive an answer within 24 hours. I like these guys - polite, nice and helpful!

Here's a link to the post I wrote - feel free to embellish on it if any of you feels I have forgotten something.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11621520

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

But it is a rule that RB will accept and will allow us to start the game.

We have provisions to change the rules mid-game if this proves unworkable. Of course, I don't even want to imagine the bitterness of such a debate.

 

The point of the turn order shuffle suggestion is to make RB think it's a ruleset they can agree to. We don't want to bring up a whole bunch of possible scenarios.

If you tried to bring up the infinite resource connection, LP would point out that the original proposal prohibited both connecting it on the same turn it is disconnected, and disconnecting on the same turn it is connected. Perfect play by the two teams will result in one turn on, one turn off.

My personal objection to that rule is that an admin faced with a complaint has absolutely no way to know if the complaint is valid or not. Screenshots are not enough evidence, because they don't prove when the screenshot was taken. You can't tell if it was pillaged this turn, or if it was 10 turns ago at the beginning of the war. When I'm an admin, I want to actually see the rule violation -- problematic unless you want the admin to look at the resource in question several times per turn.

 

Well, I can but smile. I may want to slap some of you guys around with a trout at some point for this one, as it seems it looks as if you've managed to convince RB into accepting this rule. But of course, don't mistake me for having bad feelings or anything, as I see what you are doing and why you are doing it.

But I must say, quite adamantly: I am vehemently in opposition to this shuffling rule! I don't think you realize what you're getting me into as the game host - but I really really really hope Sommer and I am wrong, and that it won't come down to those scenarios. I'll pretend to be naive, and that they of course won't happen as this is of course a game of sportsmanship and high morals and standards.

 

I wish you the best of luck in suppressing your trout-related urges. Let's play this game!