Game Settings Discussion Thread

I agree, if the reason raging barbarians would be unbalanced is the presence of wastelands, then normal barbarians should be unbalanced too, just to a lesser degree. Plako says he can even things out for normal barbarians, but I'm not convinced that's true, unless he thinks he can do it for both settings. With the information that Plako has given about the map, I think it's a good idea to vote for barbarians off. I'd prefer to play it safe and not choose a rule that may result in us getting an unfair starting location.

 

I am indifferent to barbs on or off, so I have no problem going with mapmaker's choice. Since Sommers and 2metraninja are the turnplayers/captains, if they have a preference, I am ok with whatever they decide.

 

Just a quick re: our vote for the double turn mod:

As you're probably aware of (?) Manolo's mod uses a modified DLL that regrettably is incompatible with the Aspyr/Mac port of cIV. It's the same problem as with BUFFY and the HoF mod.

What's the deal with these types of games, is it just a select subset of players that actually log in to the game and plays/peeks? If so, the problem is limited to that bunch. Don't know about the other teams, but if anyone here uses a mac, we should probably reconsider.

I'm a mac user btw, so I obv would be kinda stumped if the game is played with the mod.

Just to be clear, the mod sounds awesome, and it sounds like something that can prevent a lot of drama. So it's a cost/benefit assessment i guess.

 

I was going to speak with Sommerswerd about that, but I strongly believe that using the mod and preventing "incident" logins or "just to look around" logins can justify all the real or eventual problems that the mod can happen to cause.

There are no restrictions to who logs in to look, however turn playing is usually limited to few designated players, who feel confident enough and are well informed about the strategy/tactics the team wants. To my experience it is even hard to have many players who will want to do actual turnplaying. Not to try to frighten any of you away, but it is a months and years - long commitment. Each day, you need to be aware of the situation and plans, you need to make sure the turn is played best, etc. Not many players have the time/commitment/bravery to do so continuously. After the first few months, when the initial inertia is still strong, it comes to 2-3 dedicated turnplayers who actually do the turnplaying and the other 5-10 people giving advices/arguing/proposing plans and then voting. I have seen how from a 40 players initial roster it comes down to 1 player to play the turns for months. And this is not because their team is doing bad or something, it just happens, interest wanes, other things come, sometimes players are frustrated because their ideas are not implemented or they have arguments with other. Such is the reality - it takes a lot of dedication and patience to play in a MTDG.

And the last two MTDGs had real problems with double- move accusations, players quitting the game, etc. Let us save ourselves and the other players the frustration of playing tens of months just to find the game ruined by someone actually doublemoving out of desperation, or someone accusing others in doing so in his desperation. I know this well, desperate people tend to do desperate things, which they normally would have never think they are capable of doing so.

 

I think I'm in the no-mod group aswell, although I wont be a turnplayer so it probably wont matter much to me. I'm just worried it will be harder to find turnplayers with mods. Who in our team are willing to install the mod if our first turnplayer for some reason can't continue playing? I say keep it as simple as possible.

 

I'm not huge on the mod either. I would install it if it goes through, but I'm just not a fan of requiring a mod to be installed to participate. Same logic works for the Hall of Fame.

Hopefully, plako and rolo should be active enough to catch any double-movers? It seems like the double moves of the last game could have been prevented if the Admins were more active.

 

I am not so concerned about inability to play the game with mac. This is just a guess, but I'd guess most of Civ players use PC for playing games. What I am concerned about in using this mod is the unforeseen problems. As I've said in other threads, I am a software developer and my experience is that there always are some unforeseen issues. What I am afraid of is that if we use the mod there is a real possibility that a year or two from now we bump into a random bug that effectively prevents us from finishing the game. I am especially concerned about the amount of "last minute tweaking" that's been done with this mod. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the amount of work Manolo is willing to put on this. However, last minute modifications are one major source of bugs in software engineering. Without extensive testing, I feel that the risk of something major occuring with the mod is just too high. So in conclusion, I too am opposed to using this mod in this game unless it can be sufficiently tested beforehand.

 

Installing a mod and using it is not rocket engineering at all. I play in 3 or 4 games, which use different mods and it is simple as that as installing it once and making 1 shortcut which starts Civ with the mod already loaded.

Yes, it will be unavoidable obstacle to mac users. I dont know what we can do to compensate them for not being able to act as turnplayers.

But I am absolutely sure that cheaters (or weak-will, who cant resist the temptation to give a little push to their team) are way more common than mac users.

I also count for the unforeseen problems which can arise with somewhat untested mod. But my thinking is this: I have seen players cheat with double-moving. And I've seen games ruined or almost ruined by this. So for me this is absolutely real and sure thing. While on the other hand, I've played in many games with mods and never seen game ruined by a mod.

If any of you have witnessed any of the discussed possibilities and can vouch for it, please, speak up.

 

I don't know if Plako is actually an Admin? I think he just asked for permission to view other team's threads since he won't be playing on any team. I agree it would be great if we have two active Admins in this game, though.

Personally, I'm slightly against use of a mod, but the turn players (Sommers, 2metra, and anyone else who will be willing to take the reigns) should get the final say on this, imo.

Of course, if the software experts see a real risk that the mod could bring a game-breaking bug, that seems like a pretty big deal. I have no experience in this area to judge how likely this might be, so I leave it to others more qualified than myself to debate.

 

I'd hate to have to rely on an admin to catch this. That's a lot of work for someone who isn't actually playing the game. Additionally, it can only be caught after the incident has already happened. It would be far better if we can prevent, cheating, accidents, and accusations, by making double moving impossible.

I agree with 2metraninja, installing a mod is not a big deal. Anyone that would walk away over the simple task of installing a mod certainly wouldn't stick around for all of the much more time consuming tasks associated with being a turn player. We won't lose anyone over that issue.

I also believe that Mac users, or those who don't want to install a mod, will still be able to participate in the game. These democracy games are well documented on the forums. If you look back at the old MTDG2 forums you'll be able to follow along with what the teams were doing, without ever loading a save. Additionally, teams occasionally make test saves, copies of the game as they know it, to try out strategies before deciding on a plan. These test saves do not need to be built with the mod, and could be accessible to all.

So far, it looks like the experienced turn players that we have are all windows based. If we have any experienced turn players who are on Macs, they should speak up now. Someone able to put in all that effort is not something we'd like to pass up on.

 

Why the sudden and slightly heavy-handed rush to finalize the settings for the game in the public threads, Sommer?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

Because plako tried to rush to finalize the setting with CSM banned (what RB wants) even though the votes are majority in favor of full espy ON. I think this will force Spanish poly and Civplayers to pick one or the other, so we can make our Leader choice with that info instead of without. If CSM is on I would like to at least discuss a Spiritual Leader. But if its off then we wont need that.

 

Ah! Makes perfect sense then, and is appropriately cunning.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

I confess myself impressed, too.
Still think it's a little overboard, though.

 

Yeah I think we pushed a little too hard on this one. We don't want to get a team reputation that we are annoying or difficult to deal with just because we want to quibble over stuff.

Making arguments like you would in a confrontational style system might grudingly win us a few debates. But it might also damage our reputation to the point where our debate wins are actually a net loss for the overall game sitution.

So I suggest we stop arguing and instead project an image of goodwill and fellowship with the other civ sites.

 

Because...

Result:

So yea, like I said

I hear what you are saying cav, but I think you are worrying way too much on this one and here's why... Me arguing doesent give the Team any reputation, it just gives me a reputation. But I already have that reputation, so there really is no net effect whatsoever.

The other thing to remember, is that my reputation coming out of BTS MTDG I, was much, much worse, in terms of arguing, quibbling etc, right. I mean that AFAICT was at least one of the reasons you joined Q instead of AMAZON, right? But in the end, AMAZON formed the strongest alliance and went on to win anyway, so I just think all the worries about my reputation for confrontation hurting us is a little over-cautious.

Last thing is, we don't need to tiptoe around anyone here. If we let other teams bully us around in the planning phases, trying to be all nice and sweet that attitude will carry over to the game, where they will think we are p^ssies and treat us accordingly.

Better for them to say... when we meet in game "Ugh those guys are @ssholes, better not try to get anything over on them" then say "Oh here comes the nice and sweet Mansa-Munsa/Ghandi-like CFC guys... Time for us to tell them what's what and how it's gonna be"

 

Things just got a little more interesting...

So that's 5-4 in favor of Spies fully ON, with nothing banned. I am interested to see how RB in particular deals with this, since there are about 10 of them online right now...

I think what I was suspecting was true. Spanish Poly's OFF vote was partly a protest vote against RB's vehement opposition to their Mod, rather than a genuine desire to have as little espy as possible in the game.

They take the sh!t personal, and I don't blame them. I am sure they are deeply insulted by all the chatter about their Mod "not being tested" when they have been playing with it for years... So now when they had the tie-breaker vote on RB's pet issue, they voted against RB to make a statement... good for them.

Obviously that's all just my editorial opinion... Maybe they really would rather either have spies fully ON or fully OFF. In some ways I would too... it makes leader/civ choice easier at least. Anyway, I'm sure this debate is far from over (at least in the minds of some).

 

Oh if only life worked that way and there was no such thing as guilt by association... The most visible posters will automatically become the face of our team. Not to mention that you are identified as the Team Captain.

Nah, not at all. It was solely the wonderwoman motif, wasn't my style. I think we have gotten along smashingly since MTDG 1 and we agree on things more often than not. When we don't agree we debate I unreservedly consider you a friend here at CFC. I just don't do the crossdressing thing

All good points but there is a fine line between standing up for yourself and being disagreeable. You always catch more flies with honey than vinegar... or hot sauce.

 

Fair points all. There is certainly guilt by association. I just don't think it will have as much impact in the game as you seem to. But still, I appreciate your point of view. It's valid for sure

... Love you too man

Now this is most certainly true without qualification. As an only loosely related (to our discussion) but still worth mentioning point... You as well as anyone know that you go farther speaking softly... as long as you carry a big stick

And as 2metra always quotes "You get farther with kind words AND a gun than just a kind word"

 

After some contemplation and some research, I will STRONGLY voice my opinion that the civic/religion swap missions oughta go. See Lord Parkin's post for a near-identical statement to my views.

It's ridiculously cheap for the effect and can be used for sabotage to no end, far more cheaply and effectively than missions designed for sabotage. The lovely designers gave us sabotage missions. Using this busted backdoor goes against design, intention and balance, and therefore should be removed.

I say we Oughta change our espionage vote.