1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Game Settings Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by Sommerswerd, May 23, 2012.

  1. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I will supply the trouts. You guys can just line up in a queue and I will have a go at each of you. :D

    Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
     
  2. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    Hehe. Let me bring my trout.. :D

    Sommers, most importantly:

    I'm not. That one you took out of context. As I've said multiple times: there's risks with the shuffle, but it's a fair thing, strategically interesting too. I obviously assume seasoned cIV players see the same consequences as you and me.

    Also, your example is like a "perfect storm". It's a scenario where everybody knows everything, even if and when a war party will want to shuffle, as well as assuming that the defender did not prepare for the worst at all before allowing a double move. I think there's better players in this game.

    Caledorn,

    I understand your concern. If you fear mayhem from a rule like this, a rule exclusively about meta stuff like turn orders, I can hardly imagine the horror you expected from a rule like the one RB started with.

    In the rules that ruff edited, it looks much better in that regard. More power to the admin, and a better process around wanting to change turn order.

    If this worries you, you should voice your concerns now, and put on whatever hat you want, but as the game host your concerns should carry some weight.

    I have never been in a demogame before. Do people really act like children when they start losing or get caught by surprise?
     
  3. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    I think the idea is to "trick" everyone into accepting the ruleset so that we can start the darn game already. If our team is ok with this rule since it does not introduce artificial unenforceable rules to unit actions and RB is ok with the ruleset since it gives them a way out of a perpetual denial of a resource, I don't seem where the harm is. As you said, the other players are not idiots. It is possible they see a scenario we have missed where order shuffling is entirely viable option. Although I agree the general sentiment that unnecessary rules should not be added to the ruleset, I believe this is not unnecessary if it is sufficient compromise that lets us move on and start the game.
     
  4. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    But if we trick them like that, their consent is an illusion. As soon as they realize they have been tricked... here comes the game killing, accusation flinging, never-ending argument:(
    Right but the original proposal is an illegal nerf on espionage, so its an irrelevant proposal. Plus the game is designed to allow perpetual denial. Look at all the ways you can deny resources. Its obvious that you are supposed to be able to deny indefinitely. If anything is 'broken' its the fixing of the resource the same turn its destroyed. So if LP said that, I would say the only rule needed is to disallow re-connection on the same turn a resource is destroyed. Then its all even for both players. Its still a nerf on 2nd move though...as is the shuffleboard rule:(
    We dont need RB to "allow" the game to start. You guys are really giving them too much power. Just call it to a vote. 1. Start the game with the ruff rules minus the 2nd move nerf, or 2. Continue to discuss the 2nd move nerf untill we reach full agreement.
    :eek:Are you kidding?!? YES! they do absolutely. Especially when they get caught by surprise and especially when they are losing:cry: That's why complex rules with multiple, ambiguous or vague interpretations are just like ticking timebombs. Eventually there is going to be a disput where one interpretation means a team loses or suffers some irreversible defeat, and another means they stay in the game... And its not a pretty sight when this comes up.:(
     
  5. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    :lol:

    So it seems somebody is thinking the same thing we are talking about. I think this latest statment kind of sinks all the expectations that this rule was going to work. Can someone please explain how shuffleboard can work without a doublemove?!?:confused: Even if we skip a turn... someone still has to Doublemove for the order to be switched. Theres no other way to do it.

    And ruff is wrong about something. Nobody is saying there is no difference between first and second move. There are differences, pluses and minus that vary depending on the particular circumstances. What people (at least me) have been saying is its not possible to balance those pluses and minuses out. Especially because they are dependent on a myriad of variables and circumstances. You can't say for sure which one is "better" because it depends on the situation. But they certainly arent "the same."

    Also... Remember what all this is about... why the game hasn't started already... RB is terrified that the CFC Espionage economy is going to run never-ending spy missions that deny them from Oil That's it!:lol: That's why we are discussing re-coding the game, hacking the DLL, constant shuffling around turn-order, allowing wartime Doublemoves and editing the Spanish Mod to allow switches between forced turnorder on and off and adding 200 words to the ruleset, and all this nonsense. It's really funny when you think about it... in a bad way:cry:

    Just vote to start the game. Turnorder advantages are what they are. Resource denial is just part of the game and lets go...
     
  6. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I can't do that at the present time, as I am also a member of Team CFC, and I do not want to let the other teams perceive any form of disunity in our Team at this point, as that may stall the game start even further. That is why I am voicing my very strong opinion about inside the Team forums, in a hope to sway you guys to not let this become the offical position of Team CFC on the rules.

    And yes - there was one major and very very nasty incident in the previous demogame where a person was caught cheating. And the discussions around that said incident was not pretty. Nor the situation leading up to it, which the Team in question had put themselves in and could not really blame anyone else but themselves. They did try to blame someone else though - and they tried hard to do so, as it quite possibly cost them the victory. Now imagine the same situation in this game where 8 of the teams are not affiliated to CFC at all, and where at least 1 of those teams are known to be fond of below-the-belt discussion already before the game has started ...

    I don't mind the reloads, really, if it comes to that. What I mind is the potential game-ruining situations that may arise as a result of this rule.
     
  7. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    I just read the latet edit to the ruff_hi ruleset. I propose we offer to accept the ruleset and start the game if clause 3c is just deleted entirely. I think accepting the entire ruleset with one small deletion (the turn shuffling nonsense) is a good compromise for all our compromise seekers right?:)

    I propose we as a team agree to make the following statement as the official CFC position:
     
  8. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Agreed, with strong reservations against 3c, but in the interest of getting the game started no use in debating it.
     
  9. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    That's just unfair. You and Caledorn have been the only ones to argue against 3c, which was initially proposed by Team CFC. Everybody else seems to be in support of it.
     
  10. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    To be honest, it was proposed by that guy from Apy, and put forward again by talon (or was it you Bowsling?), and then put into rule form by me. On unofficial business.

    But apart from that, yes, from our team there's two players that have voiced their opinion against this solution, and at least five that has voiced their support for it.
     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    But support of what? That's the question. ruff says the rule includes no double moving when you shuffleboard.

    I have shown you guys many hypotheticals that show that shuffleboard does not work. I recognize there is some compromise-for-the-sake-of-compromise value in it, but we are trading a compromise now for a potential disaster later.

    Can anyone say what the actual final shuffleboard rule is so we can vote on it or voice our final consent/disagreement whatever with it?
     
  12. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    In the latest ruff draft:

     
  13. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    There's no "final" turn-shuffle rule - the one I proposed is a one-sided thing where basically any team that played before other team(s) with whom they are at war can ask to be shuffled last in the turn order, at any time before the turn clock runs out (to comply with apt mod), at a maximum of one shuffle per 5 turns per war.

    I have not defined what "a war" means btw ;)

    My proposal did not grant anyone the privilege to ask for a double move, but rather pits the risk of a double move against you versus the possible gains of being last in the turn order.

    This is in my understanding a pretty balanced solution, a fully enforceable rule, and a rule that needs no further interpretation (other than, possibly, defining what "a war" really is, when multiple parties can enter and leave). Sommers has pointed out several scenarios where a double move against would be pretty darn disastrous, but there are a multitude of other scenarios where such a move would make sense.

    The discussion around the rule has now derailed a little, I think - mostly due to the fact that ruff altered my proposal to say "any team can request any position", thus giving teams the possibility to request a double move. That's obviously more exploitable, for reasons that Sommers has outlined perfectly in his rebuttals to the shuffle rule.

    The other way around is less exploitable - because, while there's still a double move going on, the choice of timing and risk rest solely with the party that is at the receiving end. Thus, imo, being more balanced, easier (more controllable) to defend against - and something that would address these "desperate" situations that RB used a lot of elaboration on earlier.

    The whole reason we are at this impasse is indeed because RB sparked the resource denial discussion early on. But since then, we've identified that the reason for this debate is that there are indeed differences between being first and last in the turn order. And with a locked turn order, much, if not all, of the power of choosing turn order lies in the hands of the agressor. This can give some strange results, and be the source of much grief. And from an objective standpoint, alleviating this by means of functionality already present in the mod, makes sense - as long as it's balanced and leaves little to interpretation after the fact.

    I hope that r_rolo1 has time to step up his administration - I've read he's been busy lately - and takes some kind of decisive action on this. Actually, much as Sommers called for earlier.
     
  14. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    So, I have voiced strong support for this rule, and from my standpoint it still seems to make the most sense to get this game started quickly with most parties as happy as they're going to get. And again, getting the game started is a bigger priority to me than having any particular ruleset over another.

    However, this is the first mp game I have participated in, let alone the first demogame. If Sommers and Caledorn are saying that this rule is likely to cause the game to break down and end halfway through, I think we need to seriously reconsider this rule. This game ending early is the last thing I want. While I still don't see that happening from this rule, I know that Sommers and Caledorn have a lot more insight into this than I do. So at this point I will abstain from either supporting or opposing rule 3c.

    I'll just ask everybody to have these three goals in mind: 1. starting the game as soon as possible, 2. Having the game sustained through it's natural conclusion without anyone ragequitting, and 3. Maintaining an atmosphere that encourages all parties to have fun. If there is any rule that accomplishes these things, I support that rule.
     
  15. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Just so you guys know, I have spoken privately to both plako and r_rolo1. Both are fine with the following solution:

    Put Oil in every teams capital.

    This simple solution ends the Oil denial controversy so we can start the game. No elaborate rules, no shuffleboard, no doublemove controversies...

    Please tell me what is wrong with that?
     
  16. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    I can't be bothered to go back and check this, but has this shuffleboard rule or anything like it EVER been used in ANY game in the history of all Civ 4 BTS MP gaming? Are you guys seriously wanting to go with a totally new, totally untested rule for a game of this magnitude? I ask this because I remember alot of wailing over the supposedly "untested" Spanish Mod and a bunch of people saying things like "I'm a programmers, or software engineer so I know what I'm talking about:gripe:... We should not be using this new untested blah blah blah for a game of this size and scope! Who knows all the things that could go wrong from stuff we can't even anticipate!"

    If this rule has never been used before then nobody has any clue whether its going to work...
     
  17. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Well, for one, it doesn't address aluminum, oil, iron, uranium, etc.

    Personally, I agree with you that we don't really need a rule to mitigate going last. However, RB seems to be hell-bent on making a rule for it, so we might as well compromise. If they accept the oil-in-the-capital solution, then fine, but what I want to see most of all is the game starting with everybody feeling at least semi-satisfied.
     
  18. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Oh yea and before I forget... Who is going to execute the actual "shuffle?" The APT admin? That's Magno, right? What if Magno gets called for active duty, or gets drafted, or has a family emergency or has to get surgery, or runs off with his long lost love?
     
  19. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    It does address Oil. Everyone gets Oil in their capital. RB isnt worried about the other resources. Plus nukes are off so uranium doesnt matter either.

    At the beginning of this whole mess LP said...
    So clearly, this is about Oil denial.
     
  20. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I think Manolo can do that too. Not exactly sure though.

    And I suppose you are right about the oil. Why not post it in the public thread and see if the other teams agree to it?
     

Share This Page