Game Settings Discussion Thread

Nah... I don't want people's animosity towards me clouding the issue.

And more importantly, I am not going to undermine the efforts of my teammates publicly while they are still trying to make this shuffleboard rule work. I don't like it, but Team unity is more important than my personal instinct on the issue.

 

What about this rule as a replacement to 3c (shuffleboard):

This gives both sides equal ability to perpetually deny resources. So it does not get rid of resource denial (which is an intended part of the game anyway) but it gives everyone equal opportunity to deny resources. Plus it's easier to enforce, here's why:

Spoiler :

First, the team who lost the resource knows they lost it, and they know what turn they lost it. So they know that they cant restore it that turn.

Second, If Two teams are at peace, the one who destroys the resource can screenie it, and if the opposing team logs on later in the turn, he can log in after and screenie the repaired resource.

Third, exhausted workers give away when a resource was restrored. If the resource was repaired on the current turn (as opposed to the prior [illegal] one), there will be exhausted workers on the tile (probably labeled as to what they are doing). If the resource was [illegally] restored in the prior turn, there wont be any exhausted workers from restoring the resoure.

This is still a Second move advantage nerf, but if it helps get the game started, sobeit...

 

Even though your suggestion is a bit cumbersome, Sommer, I prefer your suggestion way more than the current 3c suggestion. Your point about exhausted workers should render screenshots unnecessary - but I prefer the suggestion as it stands to avoid any potentials.

We've probably lost this one though, as the main rule discussion thread is moving along.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

Somehow this suggestion seems oddly familiar to me

Spoiler :

 

Wasn't that the original Lord Parkin suggestion?

 

Only half of it, his suggestion also included a rule that a resource can't be disconnected the same turn it's (re)connected.

 

This statement shows that he really isnt sure that 2nd move is actually so super-powered that this nerf is justified.

Here is the paradox of ruff's suggested shuffleboard rule... The only reason you would need to give teams equal right to switch to 1st position and 2nd position and back again, is if BOTH positions are relatively equally desireable.

But if BOTH positions are equally desireable... THEN WHY DO WE NEED SHUFFLEBOARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

I suggest the whole rule to prevent perpetual denial of resource to be formulated like: "If in 5 consecutive turns a team is deprived from strategic resource via the "last in turn order advantage" then this team can ask the admin they to be moved last in turn order."

I dont see anything else to be desired here. 5 turns without a strategic resource is still good effect for someone's efforts and yet, it wont be "perpetual denial".

We are starting to discuss things which will matter or not in the big picture, while postponing the start will for sure have negative effect. I propose we ask r_rolo1 to collect all the rules which seem to have general agreement on, set this

solution to the possible "perpetual denial", then the admin post the combined ruleset and we PM all the teams captains to come and vote. If the combined ruleset gets majority of "YES" we have ready ruleset and we can start the game the very next day.

 

I have requested to r_rolo1 that he step in and do what he thinks is best to get the game started without further delays.

 

Cool. Hope he gets the show on the road soon.

 

Here is the latest version of the shuffleboard rule in ruff's ruleset (this thing keeps getting longer and more complicated

Here are some problematic hypotheticals... some of which will almost certainly come up:

Spoiler :

1. What does "3 turns have elapsed" mean? If I invoke shuffleboard on turn 100 does that count as one of the 3 turns? So I get to invoke it again on turn 102? Or is turn 1 of shuffleboard cooldown actually Turn 101? If it is turn 101 then clearly turn 103 is the third turn. But do I get a new shuffleboard then? Or do I have to wait until Turn 103 has ended, so really I cant ask for a new shuffleboard until Turn 104?

Understand that this MUST be clearly understood before the rule can be used, because IT WILL come up in the game and obviously everyone will try to interpret it to their own advantage so there will be no resolving it then. So do we wait to start the game while we iron this out or just scrap the shuffleboard rule and start the game?

2. Someone is going to request a turnorder shuffle 1 turn after someone else gets a turnorder shuffle. One side is going to say that the rules only allow 1 shuffleboard every 3 turns by any team in the game. The other side is going to say that the way to interpret the rule is that there is 1 shuffleboard allowed per team every three turns. So theorhetically, you could have 9 shuffleboard requests in 9 consecutive turns

- Now before you say "Oh that would never happen!" recognize what is also true. A neverending stream of spies with successful sabotage missions that perpetually denies Oil will also never happen... So you can't make a rule addressing one impossible hypothetical while you simultaneously try to dismiss the hypotheical problems your rule creates as "impossible."

3. How do you decide who gets "priority" when two players are both in the same position in the turn? Example:

A and B are at War. A has 1st move. B is denying A's Oil.
At the same time, C and D are at War. C has 1st move. D is denying C's Oil.
A is not at War with C, but A and C hate each other, and are denying each other's Oil.
Both wanting to get their Oil back, A and C both ask for shuffleboard on the same turn. Both will suffer catastrophic losses if they don't get Oil immediately.

Who gets to shuffle to last position and thus survives the game?

Another example, same situation, but also:

E is not at War with A or C, but E is at war with F. E moves 2nd. E is also helping B and D against A and C by helping to deny A and C's Oil with spies. A declares war on E, intending to invoke shuffleboard the following turn. However C anticipates this and also declares War on E on the same turn, also intending to invoke shuffleboard. Now E actually anticipated this, and pre-emptively invoked shuffleboard against F before anyone declared war on him, and asks B and D to declare phoney war on F and on each other, to frustrate A and C, which they do. After declaring War on F, B also declares War on D and takes 1st move.

New turn - Now since B and D moved after F to Declare War, F is now in 1st position and must move before B and D. And because E invoked shuffleboard E gets a doublemove and E must move before F. And since A&C declared War on E they move before E. So The order this turn is A&C have first move then E has his own period, then F has his own period, then B has his own period, then D has his own period. 5 different movement periods.

But wait!... E will claim that since he invoked shuffleboard against F last turn, that he is supposed to get a doublemove into First move, as in BEFORE A&C. Is that right? Does E get to move before or After A &C? Confused yet? There's more...

Now, this turn A and C both want to invoke shuffleboard to get into last position but E is going to say that they can't because they were just shuffled out of First and the rules say you cant shuffle the turn after you were shuffled. A and C will start arguing that that only applies to the person requesting the shuffle not the "victims" of the shuffle. Game paused, r_rolo1 ruling... drinks all around!

Then, even if we do grant the shuffle to A and C, we need to decide who actually gets to shuffle into last position, because they are both cutting each others Oil and who ever is last will continue to do so... So that's another argument.

Don't forget that B declared War on D, and B is going to say that he is entitled to shuffle into last place too. We will say he loses priority to A&C this turn because they are earlier in the turn than he is, but then he will say, "Fine, then shuffle them both to the end of the turn this turn, and give me shuffle priority to the end of the turn next turn." Of course then whichever of A&C doesent get absolute last move (and thus still has his Oil cut) will complain about that, saying that this effectively denies him absolute last move AGAIN. Game paused... r_rolo1 ruling, drinks all around ...

Now stop here for a moment... If you are going all and cant figure out who moves when with all the different complex wars and shuffling all around then put yourself in Caledorn and Magno's shoes. They are the ones who will have to be sorting out this nonsense every turn, and r_rolo1 will have to pause the game and make a ruling everytime someone disagrees with someone else's interpretation of how the shuffle is applied. Also remember that everytime we do a shuffle, Magno will have to turn the APT auto ordering off then back on again, and if someone accidentally logs in at the wron time for the purposes of the shuffle, there will be an argument and the game will have to be paused and reloaded... again

Also don't forget that English is not Magno's first language so unless Caledorn is fluent in Spanish, this is going to be very interesting... and not in a good way

The worst part is this is just some of the stuff I can think of. What about all the snafoos that I can't imagine right now?

4. Team A appeals to the Game Admin that the shuffle order is unfair. The game admin is out of town or can't respond quickly for whatever reason (maybe he needs to review all the evidence/arguments before deciding). The game is paused waiting for a decision while the involved teams flamewar each other over it. Uninvolved teams complain about the pausing and players start quitting

Also, as an aside, I notice that 3c contains an "acceptance of doublemove" clause while 3d does not Since switching order will always require a doublemove by someone... Who gets the doublemove in 3d? What a mess...

Please, again, I suggest we state that our official position is we accept ruff's ruleset minus the shuffleboard rule, and move that the game be started with that as the ruleset. As an alternative we can even suggest that the game start with the ruff rules minus the one controversial rule, and continue to work on it as the game goes along. At least that way we can start.

 

Agree on that.

Or even better repeating my idea of "Team can ask for a turn order shuffle after being 5 consecutive turns deprived from strategical resource via the second half timer advantage."

This way the admin will have way less job to do - how many times there will be 5 consecutive turns where a resource will be sabotaged/bombed?

 

I am worried about the rules 3c and 3d. In particular 3c worries me. The reason why this worries me is because we have agreed upon using a mod that handles the double move problem - and these two rules are in effect nulling out/nerfing the mod, declaring it void, as the rule 3c explicitly states "The team moving ‘down’ the order acknowledges that they are giving the team moving ‘up’ a double move against them."

Based on previous experiences with games like this, dealing with double moves is the most potentially game-wrecking thing there is. If this rule is to be used, there is little to no point in using the mod we have all agreed upon using at all. Sure, the mod will make sure nobody logs in at a wrong time - but instead we are now moving to allow teams to make a double move, 100% in accordance to the game rules!

I strongly implore everyone to reconsider this rule, and to reject it, as I fear this rule may actually be so game-wrecking that the game will collapse as a result of including it in the ruleset. At the very least I expect this rule will lead to me having to reload the game several times, as the host - which I don't mind, but which should not happen as a direct result of one of the official game rules (totally counter-productive! The rules are there to avoid disputes that may lead to reloads...).

If perpetual resource denial of oil is so big a fear, then I strongly suggest asking the map maker to instead include oil on the start tile of every single team, so that every single capital can be built upon a source of oil. Or make a different rule, that does not entail double moves, like what 2metra is suggesting.

Oh, and I do not understand much Spanish at all. And it is difficult to communicate with the aptmod-team. So yeah .. What Sommerswerd wrote above in his long spoiler is most certainly also something I really implore you guys to take into consideration.

 

Please somebody post this if you guys agree:

 

I agree with Sommerswerd's proposed response. Anyone object if I post it?

 

Surprise, surprise: No objections from me.

 

I agree with the Sommerswerd proposal.

 

Again, having no experience with demogames, I have no preference as to which way we vote here. But I will say that if Sommers, Caledorn and a number of other team members are in agreement with this, let's put up our position sooner rather than later. We don't want to start suggesting alternatives after other teams have voted one way or another regarding rules 3c, 3d and 3e.

 

You changed your mind? Yay!

At present we have 5 people in favour, and 1 who doesn't want to vote either way. And as Yossarian says, we need to get this posted asap if there is a team consensus. I suggest a deadline of 12:00 GMT tomorrow if we get a majority consensus for this suggestion.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

I think there is already a majority in favor of posting this among the CFC "Senators" who have posted in this thread in the past week. So I would say go ahead and post it.