Game Tracking Thread

[DaveMcW]

The problem is Sommerswerd accidentally built a city in the wrong location.

I am generally against giving reloads for mistakes, but if three other teams express support within 24 hours I'll allow the reload to go through.

 

[Ronnie1]

Does our rule set address this type of issue?

 

[DaveMcW]

Does our rule set address this type of issue?

The ruleset only gives me authority to order a reload if one of the other rules is broken. That's why I need a majority of the teams to agree to it, sort of an unofficial amendment. There is a rule for AMAZON's pause, they can stop the game for up to 24 hours if they want.

I can tell you that there aren't any unrelated spoiler/combat benefits for AMAZON to reload right now.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I feel that a reload is warranted.

It was not just settling a city in the wrong place it was a mis-click that had the Settler settle on the tile he was on.

I agree with DaveMcW and I wouldn't ask for people's support for this reload if it was to correct a mistake. We all will make mistakes in this game at different points and we may all have made mistakes already that we wish we played differently. But this was not a mistake it was a mis-click. And not only that, it was a mis-click that will have significant consequences for the rest of the game if we are forced to live with it.

We all know what hard work people put into this game and I would not want anyone's effort negated by a mis-click. If it were a mis-click that had a unit move to a square that it was not intended to go to, I would not feel that strongly that the game needed a reload, but it was a mis-click that will have significant game-play consequences for the whole game.

 

[Robi D]

Just a few quick thoughts on the issue.

If we would go ahead on with a reload for a misclick where does the line get drawn, do we do one for moving a scout the wrong way, clicking the wrong worker action? Would it be done in wartime becuase an accidental attack loses you units?

While i'm sorry for Amazon the problem is a reload does open up a can of worms on a number of levels, because once one team gets it, other teams will feel hard done by if they don't get one for a misclick somewhere along the way. Are we going to have to work out required critera for misclick reloads because that would be a long discussion in itself

 

[SilentConfusion]

Just a few quick thoughts on the issue.

If we would go ahead on with a reload for a misclick where does the line get drawn, do we do one for moving a scout the wrong way, clicking the wrong worker action? Would it be done in wartime becuase an accidental attack loses you units?

While i'm sorry for Amazon the problem is a reload does open up a can of worms on a number of levels, because once one team gets it, other teams will feel hard done by if they don't get one for a misclick somewhere along the way. Are we going to have to work out required critera for misclick reloads because that would be a long discussion in itself

Right now the rule as communicated to me is if a majority of our opponents agree to a reload then we'll have one and if not, we are unfortunately forced to live with the consequences. As a rule this is perfectly workable. If a situation comes up where a mis-click sends a unit the wrong way, as it stands now they can pause the game and ask for a reload and if the majority of teams agree to reload then we reload and otherwise we do not. This is a situational rule that requires us to decide each time it happens. If we want to make a universal rule such as "There will be no reloads except for crashes." or about which situations warrant a reload and which do not, then we won't have to consult each time, but we will have to decide where to draw the line and as you say that could take an unwanted amount of discussion, although it could be useful in future games to have those rules clearly in place.

I understand that someone might be upset if we get a reload now and they don't for a later mis-click. I know that I will feel upset if we are not allowed a reload for this and later someone else gets one granted to them for something else. I think we need to decide to have a hard rule on reloads and never allow them or agree to allow them in some situations and outline those situations. If we agree on this policy whatever it is any future instances can look to the rule. Leaving things the way they are with a vote every time it happens seems like it will invariably end up with some people unhappy that they didn't get their reload when others did.

I think if you do allow reloads for mis-clicks that early city placement should be deemed significant enough to qualify.

If we end up agreeing to not grant a reload for any mis-click, then I know I'm going to have to be hyper careful when logged in to the game and make sure the little ones aren't anywhere near the computer and that I don't accidentally double-tap the laptop mouse-pad to click instead of scroll. I, personally, think that this makes the turn-player's job more difficult.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is just a repeat of what is in galdarian's poll thread, just in case the thread gets moved into Quatronia's forum or deleted.

Since it was my action that caused this, I am the one who really owes everyone an explanation.

I logged in at the beginning of the turn, and while I had my computer in my lap my baby started crying, and my wife tried to hand him to me... "Here see if you can get him to stop" I did not have time to exit out of the game or put the laptop down. TBH I'm not exactly sure what happened, my finger may have brushed the mousepad button when I reached for my son, or maybe his little feet hit the button, or maybe when I tried to lift the laptop out of my lap to sit my son down, I accidentaly pressed a button... I mean my son was screaming, so I just wasn't paying close attention to what was going on with the Civilization IV game. I am really sorry for inconveniencing everyone. I truly am.

I will just say this and let the chips fall where they will with the team voting going on... One of the reasons I like this kind of game, is because you get to play at a slower pace and talk things out, and carefully plan things like where you build a city. I play MP games occasionally, and I understand in MP games, how its Blazing speed, and you make mis-clicks and forget to do things, and make mistakes... and its just too bad, because that is the nature of blazing speed...

But this is not a Blazing Speed MP game. The location of the city that I screwed up was carefully planned over weeks and weeks. It was painstakingly voted on. this is not a wrong scout move. We have already made wrong scout moves this game and not asked for a reload, because we know the difference between that and something like this,... that is a small matter to fix... but a HUGE deal if we are asked to just accept it. I mean this is the very beginning of the turn and no one has ended/played their turn yet. I think that alone should make a huge difference to people.

Robi asked "where do you draw the line?", and I think that was galdarian's sentiment too. Well I have to draw the line in the sand somewhere too. If this is how you guys want to win the game then OK, you win. I would rather wait to play the next MTDG on Civ V then continue under these conditions, because TBH the game would be a farce if we are forced to keep a city founded in some random location because people are trying to exploit the situation.

When we were planning the game, DaveShack was brave enough to say 'Look, if you guys are not going to allow pauses then I'm not going to participate, because that's not reasonable'... Indiansmoke was brave enough to say 'If I find out this map is on tiny isolated islands then it will be a farce and I won't participate any longer' and now I'm saying it, forcing us to accept a randomly founded city is a sham and a farce, and totally unreasonable under the circumstances, and I honestly can't see how we can be expected to continue after that. I don't know if SilentConfusion wants to continue alone, but if not then I am the only available turnplayer on AMAZON at the moment. So there it is.

 

[Earthling]

I think I'm cleared up on confusion from other threads but anyway discussion here speaks for itself.

I would certainly be IN FAVOR of allowing a reload in this situation, it's entirely understandable, an unfortunate accident, and not something a team or individual player should have to live with. That is only my personal opinion though, so I guess we're looking for team votes eventually (in this thread or another?)

 

[Irgy]

If we would go ahead on with a reload for a misclick where does the line get drawn, do we do one for moving a scout the wrong way, clicking the wrong worker action?

To me, the sensible place for the line is between things other teams would accept in a vote and things teams wouldn't. If it misclicks happen a lot then we can talk about general rules for how to deal with it, but I'm not expecting this to happen too often. Reload should be no substitute for taking care, but now that it's happened we just need to decide what we think is fair.

Deciding on a general rule and a specific line would be a good idea if it was happening a lot and we were sick of voting all the time.

 

[BCLG100]

CDZ is of mixed opinion regarding a reload. Taking it from a general point of view first of all; were a reload to be allowed then this would be a precedant that would be completely open to abuse, this game is supposed to be played in good nature but throughout the mtdg's it can be seen that one team does something that another team believes is skirting/breaking the rules.

Just a little example, what if one team settled a city without fully knowing the borders surrounding it, then settled notice a resource just outside the bfc and from there asks for a reload due to a misclick.

But if we allow a reload for a misclick due to settling where do we stop it? for instance during a war if someone misclicks with a stack of units and sends them into the wrong tile are we allowed a reload then? if someone sends a worker on a wrong tile can it be reloaded then?

The job of the turnplayer is to correctly play the turns.

Now specific to this case, it leaves a bitter taste that you are threatening not to play because you made a mistake (regardless of the circumstances) before getting angry at the world because of this mistake, then going on to suggest that others are simply trying to win by suggesting where to draw the line in the sand. Obviously nobody wants to win on a technicality but the wider picture has to be viewed first and its effect on the game before a reload should simply be granted.

(You=Sommerswerd throughout)

 

[nabaxo]

BCLG100, in this case it's fairly easy for Dave to check in our team forum and see where we actually intended to settle the city as we have been polling and discussing it for quite a while.

 

[BCLG100]

BCLG100, in this case it's fairly easy for Dave to check in our team forum and see where we actually intended to settle the city as we have been polling and discussing it for quite a while.

You may have missed my point here, my point was that before a reload should be done a general method of play should be established. Where a reload for things such as this can be allowed, regardless of your reasoning and from there it should be established whether this situation fits into that. Simply making a mistake should not be reloaded everytime obviously.

 

[Robi D]

@Silent Confusion, I personally am not upset at the request, its within your rights to ask. I'm not against a reload as such in this circumstance, especially as has been explained that the city position was planned long in advance, something thats easily verifiable. However I feel loathed to say yes to a reload without laying down a set of guidelines about what misclick errors are or arn't acceptable for a reload to firstly avoid possible explotation and secondly not have vote on each and every reload request, which in my opinion isn't 100% reliable because other teams votes could be coloured by the circumstances in the game.

I believe we are better off discussing and voting for a ruleset amendment for reloads due to misclicks that can be applied equally by the game admins for all teams throughout the game.

 

[nabaxo]

You may have missed my point here, my point was that before a reload should be done a general method of play should be established. Where a reload for things such as this can be allowed, regardless of your reasoning and from there it should be established whether this situation fits into that. Simply making a mistake should not be reloaded everytime obviously.

That is only fair and I agree with that sentiment. I am however not particularly qualified to put forward a proposal for an amendment, I can just point out to the urgency of the situation.

Can we, instead of bickering, start putting forward proposals for an amendment? Where do we draw the line for a reload? Myself, I think this qualifies as a situation where it may be needed. A wrong worker move or something similar is something the team only have to deal with a delayed turn, city placement because of an honest mistake however we have to deal with for the rest of the game. What other times are there when a reload is warranted?

 

[Robi D]

My suggestion would be this;

1. A reload for a mistakenly placed city will be granted by the Game Admin(s) given that;
a. It can be verified that the city is incorrectly placed via discussions and screenshots in the team forum prior to city being placed

b. It doesn't effect another teams placement of a city on that turn

c. It has not been a regular occurrence

For part (a) the onus is on the teams to have well documented decision process in their forum.

Part (b) stops a possible expoilt in a settler race were the loser could claim a mistake to cause a reload and a second chance at placing a city in their preferred location.

For part (c) if a team is mistakenly placing cities throughout the game then they should get a better turnplayer

2. A reload for mistaken unit movement (including a settler) will not be granted by the Game Admin(s) as these can be undone in the following turns. A unit killed in combat due to a mistaken move can not be cause for a relaod as the result has an effect on another team.

If people are happy then a team captain can put it up for a vote, we can call it the Amazon Amendment

 

[grant2004]

I don't like that rule because it seems inflexible. If some other equaly catostrophic, and easy to fix, mistake occurs in the future that does not involve city placement, a reload could not be considered under that rule.

I believe that requests for reloads will be very infrequent, people are careful in these games and don't want to trouble the other teams with a delay over a trivial issue. Because these requests will be infrequent it doesn't seem unreasonable to leave this either as something teams can vote on, or which mods can decide, using a basic set of subjective guidelines.

The guidelines I would propose would be:

For a reload to be granted it must meet the following criteria:

1. The mistake is of a serious nature, and can not be easily rectified, resulting in serious long term consequences
2. The request for a reload is made promptly
3. It can be demonstrated that the move in question was not intended, through prior team discussions and pre-planning.
4. The team making the mistake has not gained usable information through their mistake

A request for a reload may be rejected even if it meets the above criteria if it is determined that the impact on the game would be too severe, for any reason.

The difference between the proposals is that I leave the rules subjective and allow for the common sense and good judgement of moderators and/or teams to solve the problem rather than relying on a hard and fast rulebook. Such guidelines require that we trust each other not to abuse them, but also allow us more flexibilty when a future issue arises.

Under either of the rules currently proposed the current situation does seem to warrant a reload. If the team vote agrees, I hope we'll be able to make that reload quickly and start playing the game again while we hammer out the details of what kind of rule we want to have.

 

[BCLG100]

That is only fair and I agree with that sentiment. I am however not particularly qualified to put forward a proposal for an amendment, I can just point out to the urgency of the situation.

Can we, instead of bickering, start putting forward proposals for an amendment? Where do we draw the line for a reload? Myself, I think this qualifies as a situation where it may be needed. A wrong worker move or something similar is something the team only have to deal with a delayed turn, city placement because of an honest mistake however we have to deal with for the rest of the game. What other times are there when a reload is warranted?

You're as qualified as anyone to suggest an amendment of the rules.

Robi's suggestion seems to make sense, perhaps with these changes.

1. A reload for a mistakenly placed city may be granted by the Game Admin(s) given that;
a. It can be verified that the city is incorrectly placed via discussions and screenshots in the team forum prior to city being placed

b. It doesn't effect another teams placement of a city on that turn

c. It has not been a regular occurrence

d. A request must be made on the turn of settling or the immediate turn after if that team was the last team to play.

 

[BCLG100]

I don't like that rule because it seems inflexible. If some other equaly catostrophic, and easy to fix, mistake occurs in the future that does not involve city placement, a reload could not be considered under that rule.

I believe that requests for reloads will be very infrequent, people are careful in these games and don't want to trouble the other teams with a delay over a trivial issue. Because these requests will be infrequent it doesn't seem unreasonable to leave this either as something teams can vote on, or which mods can decide, using a basic set of subjective guidelines.

The guidelines I would propose would be:



The difference between the proposals is that I leave the rules subjective and allow for the common sense and good judgement of moderators and/or teams to solve the problem rather than relying on a hard and fast rulebook. Such guidelines require that we trust each other not to abuse them, but also allow us more flexibilty when a future issue arises.

Under either of the rules currently proposed the current situation does seem to warrant a reload. If the team vote agrees, I hope we'll be able to make that reload quickly and start playing the game again while we hammer out the details of what kind of rule we want to have.

The problem with that is that there is a constant discussion on what constitutes 'serious'. Reloads for mistakes should only be granted at most for settling so this should really be the only thing which warrants a reload. If you make a mistake you have to live with it, such is life, there should not be continuing reloads for possibly trivial matters.

 

[Robi D]

With regards to my earlier suggestion, i agree with BCLG changes.

1. The mistake is of a serious nature, and can not be easily rectified, resulting in serious long term consequences

Well what would classify as a mistake of a serious nature? That will just lead to another debate. Apart from the settling of a city which can't be reversed what other mistake would you suggest that there should be a chance of getting a reload for?

 

[azzaman333]

Personally, I'm opposed to all reloads.