Game Settings Discussion Thread

[Sommerswerd]

My suggestion would be to just scrap that rule and use whatever rule Spanish Poly usually uses with their Doublemove Mod. LP said that he wrote this rule assuming that Spanish Poly's Mod wouldn't be used. WTH?

As I understand it, the way they handle all that attacker advantage/ defender advantage stuff is they just treat it as a strategic concern. I like that approach better because it requires less (or no) admin enforcement.

But I am concerned with the leader choice right now primarily. I can't be bothered with debating the whole RB team again right now

 

[grant2004]

Also, now that I think about it, some of this stuff (in a paranoid sort of way) could be interpreted as being directed at us. More specifically at fast workers and spies.

It's ok to be paranoid with LP. I really feel like he's the Napoleon of Civ (that's right forget entirely about that other guy ) When you look back at his moves in hindsight everything looks so well orchestrated to achieve his goals, but all presented in a way that makes people who don't know him think he's the most calm, rational, and non-partisan person around. Add on top of that his tremendous skill in micromanaging, and actually playing Civ, and you've really got something terrifying.

I do think it would be a good idea for us to present an alternate ruleset. One of LP's tactics seems to be that the person who writes the first draft gets 90% of what he wants because amendments are hard to get pushed through. Starting from scratch might allow us to avoid that issue, or swing it in our favor.

I think we need to ignore settling races entirely because there is no objective way to say who's right in a dispute. The 12 hour rule is great, if everyone keeps a time log of all of their unit moves, and shares them with the other teams. More likely than not two settlers will approach each other out of the fog and meet right at the city site. The first team to notice the enemy settler won't remember how long ago their last settler move was, and certainly won't know when the other team's last move was. With that level of uncertainty there's sure to be accusations of cheating one way or the other, forcing a pause, an angry debate and a moderator decision.

The idea that teams should join a war on the same side of a turn timer as their allies is good. I'm not sure how that works with the mod though. Obviously, we shouldn't build a set of rules that's contradictory with the mod's mechanics. Unless of course we want to say "Oops, the mod doesn't work this way? I guess we'd better just not use it after all, too bad!"

As for the little details of bombing, and worker activity during wars. That's getting into such nit picky detail you're bound to have a dispute just because of an accidental move. It's better to just chalk that one up to a small defender advantage, or let it balance out with other effects of the turn timer that favor the attacker.

 

[tobiasn]

I already pointed out the weird consequences of the settler rule:

If indeed two players are going to the same spot, or an overlapping one, and are aware of each other - who should decide who gets to settle? As long as we're doing simultanious turns, isn't it fair that whoever gets there first, or is willing to settle first - in real time - gets the spot?

That then encourages clock games; deliberately trying to arrange things so you can be in the game instantly upon the turn flip to make sure that you settle first in a tight situation. Better to discourage (or outlaw) that sort of behavior.

I get that, but who decides who gets the spot? Coin-toss?

To be more precise: When REXing you probably don't know that your opponent is heading for the same spot as you. Or you know, and it's a race anyway. And then you both are heading for the same tile/tiles. Noone is the "agressor", and it's fair game - unclaimed land is up for grabs. Right? So if noone is more "entitled" than the other, what constitutes a "cheesy" move?

It's a rather specific situation, but it crops up from time to time. One example would be double moving a settler to "bump" rival units out of position, especially where you could not have safely moved and settled the city without a double move.

But if both teams move their settlers more than 12 hours before the turn flip, it's fair game.

So yeah, I agree that is is specific, but it's not uncommon. Basically what I can read out of this is that if you just move your settler in the first 12 hours, it's all good all the time. As this rule is the same for everyone, I guess that's fair, but I don't see the point of this rule at all. It's the same race, it's just a race with less time. So if anything, it's encouraging "clock games" even more. Paradoxical? Or have I missed something?

My MP experience is very limited, so please fill me in if I did misunderstand anything crucial.

When it comes to the rest of the ruleset, I have no past experience with pitboss games to draw at. If there's any rules that you feel will impair our game in any way, do explain them to me, and I'll see how we can draw up an alternative/rewrite. Hey, maybe I actually get something out of my years at law school. Wouldn't that be nice

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hey, maybe I actually get something out of my years at law school. Wouldn't that be nice

 

[2metraninja]

LOL, we got double the lawers capacity of our team

And yes, Tobias you are absolutely right that moving AFTER 12 hours is absolutely the same as moving from the very begining of the turn if its in power for all the teams I have noticed that too, but I am too busy lately to start the ruleset discussion seriously.

Please, you or even better Sommers (he have already a history with LP and he is used to making people look bad in the forums when it comes to Civ discussions ), do make a laugh at LP's expense in the ruleset discussion thread, showing him as no good rule maker. We will need that if we come to arguing rules. Honestly, I think we must take all the good rules we had from previous games, discuss them here in private includint Rolo and then go and ANNOUNCE the rules rather then PROPOSE them. CFC if the organizing site and unless there is obviously unfair rule, the participants must accept and be happy with the rules. Further more, they will be approved by the game admin himself

 

[Sommerswerd]

LOL, we got double the lawers capacity of our team

And yes, Tobias you are absolutely right that moving AFTER 12 hours is absolutely the same as moving from the very begining of the turn if its in power for all the teams I have noticed that too, but I am too busy lately to start the ruleset discussion seriously.

Please, you or even better Sommers (he have already a history with LP and he is used to making people look bad in the forums when it comes to Civ discussions ), do make a laugh at LP's expense in the ruleset discussion thread, showing him as no good rule maker. We will need that if we come to arguing rules. Honestly, I think we must take all the good rules we had from previous games, discuss them here in private includint Rolo and then go and ANNOUNCE the rules rather then PROPOSE them. CFC if the organizing site and unless there is obviously unfair rule, the participants must accept and be happy with the rules. Further more, they will be approved by the game admin himself

One problem other teams may have with that is that we are not just the organizer, we are also a team playing the game to win. If we try to dictate all the rules, fair or not, others will naturally say that we are trying to make everything in our favor. What I think we can do, is go on the discussion thread, and say the following (I will say it, don't worry ). Everyone already thinks I'm some kind of evil dictator so it won't be as harmful coming from me... Another thing I will avoid is making it personal to LP. It's already personal enough since I assume he drafted the proposed ruleset, and will naturally be very defensive about it, so I don't want to make it worse than it is already going to be

The proposed ruleset that is on the table is problematic in numerous ways. Rather than needlessly post pages and pages of hurtful criticism of each and every provision, I will just point out two things. First, the ruleset proposed has already been identified as being contemplated assuming that the Spanish Mod would NOT be used. Spanish Mod ON is an already-voted-upon House rule... and as has already been pointed out... House rules can no longer be changed. So in that sense a rulset made in contemplation that the Spanish Mod would not be used is fundamentally flawed and must be totally scrapped.

Second, Teams are still engaged in picking their Civs/Leaders. It is completely unfair to be deciding the rules while some teams are distrated by debating Civ/Leader choices. Teams that are still talking about Leaders/Civs should not emerge from the process to find that the Rules have by-and-large been decided while they were understandably focused on other things. For this reason, any prior ruleset must be scrapped so that all teams can give their full attention to the drafting of the rules from the beginning of the process, rather than have some teams be able to decide the rules while other teams were distracted.

Therefore, we will wait until ALL leaders/Civs have been chosen and then move on to the ruleset. CFC, as the organizers of this event, invite all 9 Teams to either accept, or decline the invitation to formulate their own proposed Ruleset. Teams who decline the invitation give express permission to the other Teams to make the proposed Rulesets, but retain their right to vote for or against the final Ruleset proposal, as well as introduce and vote on amendments. After all the Teams have submitted their Ruleset proposals, we (I) will consolidate the rules that are common to all, and seperate the rules that are unique to certain rulesets or that conflict with house rules. I will then present these to the game admin for him to approve, along with the unique rules. The game admin can then add any of the unique rules that he deems essential to the game. The rest will be discarded.

Once this is done I will post the final proposed ruleset for all teams to vote whether to accept or not. If a majority of teams votes to accept, then the ruleset is final and we move on. If a majority declines the proposed ruleset, then we can begin to suggest and vote on amendments. Amendments will be adopted by majority team vote. Once all suggested amendments have been voted upon, we will again vote on the Final, amended Ruleset, repeating the process until the ruleset is approved by a majority of teams.

So at this time I suggest that all discussion on the current proposed ruleset stop, as this ruleset will be scrapped at the conclusion of the Civ/Leader selection. Of course, if ANY Team wishes to make the current proposed Ruleset their Official Team-proposed rulest, then that is perfectly legitimate. Additionally, any team can choose to introduce the exact same ruleset (or some version of it) but then it should be offered when all teams have their full attention on making the rules, ie after Leader/Civ selection.

 

[2metraninja]

Great!

And fair too.

 

[Majic]

...formulate their own proposed Ruleset?

This sounds like it will take forever, I want the game to start.. =P

 

[Sommerswerd]

...formulate their own proposed Ruleset?

This sounds like it will take forever, I want the game to start.. =P

I imagine that some players on other teams will say something similar. To those I would respond that:

1. The game is going to take over a year. If you can't wait a few days or weeks to finalize the rules, then... bla bla blah (you get the idea)

2. If you are truly concerned that each team proposing their own ruleset will take too long, then the easiest thing you can do to shorten the process is to encourage your own team to decline to submit their own ruleset and just go with what the other teams decide. (Of course that's not going to help anyone on this Team as CFC is definitely going to be part of the rulemaking process.)

 

[Sommerswerd]

Here is a start on our ruleset proposal:

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.

c. Non-Wartime Doublemoves are allowed.

3. 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.

 

[Caledorn]

Personally I prefer if it takes a few weeks still before the game starts, as the multiple disconnects that happens only on the missed Pitboss I'm running is worrying me. I suspect the Spanish developers may need that time to iron out some bugs..

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sommerswerd]

Updated to incorporate some other rules. I deleted alot of stuff that was redundant, or making rules to "allow" things that had not been banned anywhere else (and were therefore unnecessary).

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.

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.

 

[tobiasn]

@Sommers & co - while I agree that it's fair that every team has a say, it's probably not all teams that really cares that much. The rule you proposed up there is so close to the rule that RB proposed that I'll have to double check to spot the difference. On this matter I firmly believe that it is in our best interest to get it over with as quickly as possible.

I know you want some kind of upper hand against RB, but right now they're coming off as the more sensible ones in the main forum. Meet them half way, present your suggestion/amendment immediately and be a little softer around the edges. We've already established that we're no pushovers, let's not go all the way to 'annoying' - that only hurts our diplo.

I'm serious about this, I think the good spirited tone that we had in the leader debate is a much better way to go about things - and ultimately to get what you want.

Also, remember Sun Tzu.

@Cal you should be vocal about that in the main forum. I hope you get some help to debug it. Also there has been questions about the possibility to unload the mod mid-game. Can you test that? If you can confirm that that is possible, the critics have no arguments left and we can move on.

 

[Sommerswerd]

OK tobiasn I will take your advice . Posting now with a "soft around the edges" explanation.

EDIT: I'm glad you feel that there wasn't much difference between our ruleset and the prior ones posted. If you are correct then they should accept ours no problem, as our ruleset is much shorter. I am curious to see if that will be the case

 

[tobiasn]

That was great. Good answer! I think we'll be in agreement quite quickly.

 

[Aivoturso]

I have a few questions on some details.

What about privateers? How will double moves with privateers be handled? And does suicide training (05.a.) apply to privateers that are inherently nationless units? Extreme example: if privateer is about to die anyway, is it OK to move the unit so that an ally gets to kill it instead of an enemy (or neutral team).

Is 06.d. intended to be applied fully in ISDG or is it a remnant of MTDG rules? In MTDG this is a simple question, since all activity happens in single forum. However, in ISDG things can get complicated especially for those who don't already have accounts in multiple participating forums.

 

[Sommerswerd]

On the first question, I would say its a clear no. You can't intentionally sacrifice your own units to give your allies experience, whether they are privateers or not. If your ally attacks your privateer, thinking it was a barb, that is legal.

On the second quetion I would say it is a remnant of MTDG, but you can still use it fine in ISDG.

 

[DaveShack]

I would say that the sacrifice rule applies only to units with visible nationality. Hidden flag units should be exempt. This falls under a general guideline that all rules must be enforceable.

The double move mod prevents logins on the wrong side of the turn timer, so during war all units would be equally affected. Outside war, all double moves are allowed including hidden flag units.

Sure, there are barriers to entry for refugees under 06.d. The receiving team has decision authority to accept or reject the player. All the rule says is that refugees are allowed, and if a player from team A joins team B, they can't then give team B information to team C.

 

[talonschild]

Would they be allowed to share information team A had gleaned on team C to team B?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Would they be allowed to share information team A had gleaned on team C to team B?

Yes. Nothing in the rule prohibits that.