ISDG 2012 - Server Announcements, Connection Issues and Questions

[mzprox]

Well I misunderstood that list as i've said. I thought it's somekind of order in which we should vote about either call it now by score or have always war/peace which options I don1t like.

what if we call it a draw for the top 3 players as obviously we all still have a chance in this game even if it last forever and we all had our ups and downs (don't want to write it long what i mean by it). (btw i'm honored that you suggest us as victor, I just don't like to accept it w/o ever having a real fight )

 

[Caledorn]

Diplomacy is always part of a multiplayer game, even at always war settings I guess, but i can see the point to use that settings to get a more fair game.

That's not exactly true - it's the common way of playing on CFC, Apolyton, etc - but in other Civ communities any form of talking between the players are actually prohibited. Realms Beyond for instance have a strict no-talk policy in their games where the only form of diplomacy allowed is what you can do by in game diplomacy, like offering trades etc - but even then you are not allowed to type anything in the in game diplo window. So no NAPs, no alliances, and so forth, except what the game offers (resource trades, forced 10 turn peace treaties, cease fire, gpt and gold trades is basically it, since city trades usually are also forbidden in most MP games). With Always War on even that aspect is removed, and there is no diplo whatsoever. Some players feel that this is the purest/fairest form of Civ MP, as it eliminates possibilities like an average player allying with a good player, and that team eliminates the best player because they form a 2 vs 1 alliance - thereby leaving the players (or teams) relying purely on their skills at managing their civ. Don't get me wrong here, as I am not advocating that this is a better way of playing the game than with diplo - personally I enjoy both, and I can easily see how some players prefer one of these ways over the other (that goes for both playing with and without diplomacy allowed). One of my favourite forms of Civ MP gaming is the diplo-style gaming Apolyton is known for with RPing, but that is a completely different way of playing Civ from e.g. the ISDG.

However changing the settings in an ongoing game is problematic. Diplomacy and strategy created the current situation, we can't just change it in one turn. I can see the benefits for you, but not for us for sure.. except I too wish to not continue this game for too long.

Altering the settings/rules of the game at this point is not just problematic, but pointless. The game so far has been played under certain terms and conditions, where diplomacy is the deciding factor in how the current state of the game is. If we remove diplomacy now, that doesn't change anything about what happened earlier in the game - where the current situation in the game would have been completely different now if diplomacy/talking between teams had been disallowed from the very beginning.

It's better to either finish the current game under whatever terms you players agree on, with the already established rules and settings, or take up my offer on a new game with more to-the-point rules if you want to fight it out with more fair conditions.

 

[Caledorn]

Dont take it personal I didnt meant that admin ruling was unfair and I never asked for a one. Game is unfair because everyone plays against CP. Remember even three musketeers scheduled duels one by one but not at the same time. If you are seeking for a fair revenge you know what to do

I never thought it was a personal thing where you implied I haven't done my job as admin, but thank you for mentioning it

I suspected that what you meant was the diplomacy part, as I believe you prefer games without any form of agreements between players, like what I wrote in my previous post, or even duels? And as I wrote in my previous post, I understand why some players think that makes for a more fair game.

---

On a completely different note, I have been talking to magno about swapping turn orders around, and he explains to me that it is possible to modify the turn order from the current one (1: Apolyton -> 2: CP -> 3: CFC -> 4: CivFR) into 1: Apolyton & CFC -> 2: CP & CivFR.

If you guys wish the game to continue for X amount of turns, and there is no objection to performing such a change, it would reduce the turn timer per turn dramatically if we did this. However, if someone sees a problem with this, please say so. I have told him that he should not perform a turn order change like that until I have conferred with you players that it will not cause any problems.

Finally - there is also the option of disabling the forced turn order part of the mod entirely, but that leaves the possibility of double-moving a reality again. I believe all the players who are now playing the game are honourable players who would not sink to the depths of performing a double-move, but I also believe that if we end up doing that the game will most likely be paused - a LOT - so there probably isn't much time to save on that move (and time saved is the only thing I think matters here, for the sake of player interest).

 

[YossarianLives]

Now I am quite busy man of 28. I was 26 when we started this game. I dont want to wait till I become 30 just to discuss peace terms.

 

[Caledorn]

Due to an unexplainable server freeze, I had to reload from CP's autosave. I attempted to generate a new savegame by logging in to CFC, but apparently tyat didn't work as the savegame demanded I restart the game without any mods enabled - so some kind of corruption happened.

 

[Veter]

or we can accept always peace and play space race. (after we bild 300 tanks for all ).
Maybe i need talk about that 5 turn ago or 15. it is biggest problem our team, nobody note like diplo.

ps. before always peace we need finished CivFR. who faster )))

 

[2metraninja]

After internal discussion, our team supports MZ's proposal to call the game a draw between the 3 top teams - CP, Apolyton and CFC. We think that those are the teams who invested most in the game, had biggest impact on the course of the game and do have best chances to win if the game continue normal. So each and every of those teams deserves to call themselves winner if we are to end the game prematurely.

Otherwise we will keep playing until an in-game victory condition is achieved.

 

[Veter]

I need say, right now UCiv have real good chance to win. They have weak power and can't defence from CP, CFC or Apolyton, but now nobody can't attack tham and they can do what they want. with top gnp.

 

[Arabplayer]

I need say, right now UCiv have real good chance to win. They have weak power and can't defence from CP, CFC or Apolyton, but now nobody can't attack tham and they can do what they want. with top gnp.

I'm with the UCIV team and i totally agree

One point is very weird for me. You can't criticize a team because of the time they spend to play their turns (when it is short of course).
No real argument can be used to say so.

On the other hand our leader zioun is doing the maximum he can to continue this difficult game (for everyone) at least, this deserves a little bit of respect i think.

I hope we will continue till the end but this is my only personnal opinion of course.

 

[mzprox]

Problem is none of us wants to continue this game for years. We too could spend only a minute per turn, but it's not our style. it's not rare that making a turn takes 5-8 hours and then having strategic discussions outside the game. it1s ok if the game is alive, all player active, turns happening at steady pace, but it's not the case here. And there is no point continuing if we just play half assed.
The 25 turn solution is not really good either, because some teams wants always peace or war other just normal game. That's why I think a draw is a good solution now, there could be settings/outcomes which could favor each of the top 3 teams. (As for Uciv: they played every turn diligently, but were not really active in the entire game. not in diplomacy nor in big events, and while they have nice economy not damaged by war, the inactivity has it's price too. They might have a chance if the other 3 would go on a destructive war while only one stays, but as one of those 3 i can tell that it's not the plan)

 

[2metraninja]

As I said, we are OK to continue the game.

In this regard, while we talk and discuss possible endings of the game, maybe Bemep will just finish CP turn so the game keeps going if we cannot come to a way to end the game prematurely which suits everyone's feelings.

Also, if we are to continue, we will need agreement on how to switch turn order to 2-way split instead of the 4-way split we have now. And we will need a way to guarantee against uncontrollable pauses which span for a week or even more.

edit: crosspost with MZ

 

[Veter]

My proposition

1. accept draw between 3 teams.
2. play before 250 turn, include. (now 244 turn). becouse really interesting situation.

3. give me under control CivFrance for that time !!!

 

[2metraninja]

Are those numbered in order of your preference or a list of things which goes together in one bundle?

 

[mzprox]

I think it's a bundle and i like it.. though giving control of maya to aztec would be nasty .. even if it's just for 'see how it would go' purposes. But I1m not against it to try it.

 

[Veter]

1 and 2 together. 3 add or not to tham.

 

[Hulkmusclor]

Whatever happens, Civfr will be played by Civfr.

 

[OT4E]

Let's accept draw among all 5 teams then.

1) We could have a good draw between us 3 on turn 180, but we have created UCIV and now imho it is not fair to drop them from the account.
2) And though I dont praise how Civfr played it out, it seems that they have resisted for a significant period of time against outnumbering forces. They also didnt gift army to us or fall into desperate revenge.

Seems fair, doesnt it?

We can still play it on with allways war with no pauses just for fun.

 

[Veter]

i am declaine prewiew proposition )))

i am note interesting in allways war with no pauses. for fun i play multiplayer with blazing timer.

i am think draw for 3 team more fair than draw for 5 team.

maybe UCiv note accepted that. but i agree with mz arguments

ps. about CivFrance it is joke. they do northing last 25 turns (at really last 50 turns). we save tham first time beginned war against india. they can easy defends from Apoliton 1vs1. "outnumbering forces" ? 1:1,5 in defends it is equal. but he just leaves 10 city for northink. looks like wpc. we save tham now beginned war vs turcia. they have 150 units fortifay in cap and 25 workers which just ****ed my brain.

pss. CFC yuo turn now,yuo see?

 

[mzprox]

i really think this game can not be played out normally and ending it in 25 turns wouldn't make much difference (We would probably got the score lead back, but that doesn't mean we would be in winning position, and this game is not about the score, but ingame victory). So, while I don't quite agree with Ot4e about uciv being in a really strong position for winning, I can accept to include all living team in the draw, it doesn1t make much difference... it's between us anyway.. not that we played for world championship or something

 

[Caledorn]

Due to another of those infamous server freezeups, I had to reload the game again. I am pretty sure what the cause of these freezeups is now, so it should be possible to eliminate them. The game was reloaded from CFC's autosave (and thankfully I believe CFC has gotten into the good habit of logging in twice if they've actually done a decent amount of stuff ingame, so it hopefully shouldn't be a problem).