2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Yes, Cal, can you contact Uciv guys, they need to play their turn and they did not showed in like 1 week.
Otherwise good try on the score, Bemep.
Otherwise good try on the score, Bemep.
ISDG 2012 - Server Announcements, Connection Issues and Questions
- Thread starter Caledorn
- Start date
Caledorn
Emperor
Yes, Cal, can you contact Uciv guys, they need to play their turn and they did not showed in like 1 week.
I do not have any specific way of contacting anyone on the UCiv team, and I am uncertain about who to contact on their team... Could someone look into it, please, as I have caught a nasty cold and feel like absolute crap?
I'd totally support to end this game somehow as interest heavily dropped, and most of the players who still plays, including me, have limited time to spend on this game.
But I can't accept to settle on score 3 turns after you got my capital by using an unorthodox and very cheap game mechanic (Imo). I could accept some kind of draw and for that I'd put my plans of revenge aside. Otherwise we can resume talking about this when i see some aztec cities in ruins.
(btw I can finish the current turn about tue evening/wednesday morning)
But I can't accept to settle on score 3 turns after you got my capital by using an unorthodox and very cheap game mechanic (Imo). I could accept some kind of draw and for that I'd put my plans of revenge aside. Otherwise we can resume talking about this when i see some aztec cities in ruins.
(btw I can finish the current turn about tue evening/wednesday morning)
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
To aim for 25 turns finish on score from now sounds interesting and worth considering.
Well, considering the alternatives I think finishing this game in 20-25 turns is actually not a bad idea. And yes, civ games are seldom 'fair', but they still can be fun, but that requires that all players are equally active through the whole game.
Caledorn
Emperor
As the host and admin of the game, I am reluctant to voice my opinion here, so I've debated with myself whether I should or not. In the end I ended up with the decision that it doesn't hurt, as you all know I am impartial and ultimately will leave the decision in your hands regardless.
I would like to point out though that the turn rate is atrocious. Having a turn finish every two weeks means that this game will be left running for one more year just to finish 25 more turns, which seems extremely excessive. I have hosted several Pitbosses, where the start of the Pitbosses were actually after the start of this one, and several of those are already finished.
I understand that turns take more time at this point of the game, with a lot of unit movements, strategical decisions etc - but 2 weeks to finish one turn for a game that currently has 5 playing teams left strikes me as way too much, and the first thing that comes to mind is that you players are looking at the game more as a chore than any real fun at this point. Also, statements along the line that the game is unfair, and that strategies being employed are unorthodox and very cheap, does not strike me as something someone who is enjoying the game would say - quite on the contrary, it strikes me as a statement from someone who is not enjoying the game at all.
If the game is no longer enjoyable, it is IMHO better if we find some amenable way to end this game - preferably not in such a way that I need to keep the game up for another year so you can play one turn every two weeks to finish 25 more turns, and if you are interested I can set up a new Pitboss that you guys can have a go at attempting revenge etc, possibly with some more specific rules to avoid these problems with cheap/unorthodox tactics etc. This includes the possibility to call the current game as a draw, and then make a new game where things are settled in a more fair environment.
As for the cheap/unorthodox tactics and so forth, I am surprised that noone informed me and asked me for an admin ruling on the matters if they were truly breaking the spirit of the game.
Now, I will leave the game up if you guys want that of course, but I seriously hope that you guys can either A) call the game, or B) quicken up the turn pace to a more sensible timing if you don't want to do that.
Please don't hesitate to discuss what I have written here in this thread, as I will be very pleased with more feedback. Also, feel free to write me private messages if there is something I should be aware of which would deliver spoilers or contain sensitive information the other teams should not be aware of. I am all up for finding a solution here that works for everyone involved, including me.
I would like to point out though that the turn rate is atrocious. Having a turn finish every two weeks means that this game will be left running for one more year just to finish 25 more turns, which seems extremely excessive. I have hosted several Pitbosses, where the start of the Pitbosses were actually after the start of this one, and several of those are already finished.
I understand that turns take more time at this point of the game, with a lot of unit movements, strategical decisions etc - but 2 weeks to finish one turn for a game that currently has 5 playing teams left strikes me as way too much, and the first thing that comes to mind is that you players are looking at the game more as a chore than any real fun at this point. Also, statements along the line that the game is unfair, and that strategies being employed are unorthodox and very cheap, does not strike me as something someone who is enjoying the game would say - quite on the contrary, it strikes me as a statement from someone who is not enjoying the game at all.
If the game is no longer enjoyable, it is IMHO better if we find some amenable way to end this game - preferably not in such a way that I need to keep the game up for another year so you can play one turn every two weeks to finish 25 more turns, and if you are interested I can set up a new Pitboss that you guys can have a go at attempting revenge etc, possibly with some more specific rules to avoid these problems with cheap/unorthodox tactics etc. This includes the possibility to call the current game as a draw, and then make a new game where things are settled in a more fair environment.
As for the cheap/unorthodox tactics and so forth, I am surprised that noone informed me and asked me for an admin ruling on the matters if they were truly breaking the spirit of the game.
Now, I will leave the game up if you guys want that of course, but I seriously hope that you guys can either A) call the game, or B) quicken up the turn pace to a more sensible timing if you don't want to do that.
Please don't hesitate to discuss what I have written here in this thread, as I will be very pleased with more feedback. Also, feel free to write me private messages if there is something I should be aware of which would deliver spoilers or contain sensitive information the other teams should not be aware of. I am all up for finding a solution here that works for everyone involved, including me.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
I will start with the statement that I dont think anything done in the game so far (which I am aware of) is unfair or rule- or even spirit- breaking.
As for being chore, well, each game is hard in this stage of the game. As for increasing the turn pace, I agree we should do that for sure. Maybe we can somehow put all the combatants in a single side of the timer and not having the turn split in 4 as of now?
About ending the game, I believe calling on score in 25 turns should be OK.
But whatever we decide it must be done with the consent of the every team still alive in the game. Which leads me to other thing - Uciv are going to miss a second turn in a row.
Please, CivFR, you are also members of the Uciv forums, please PM the Uciv turnplayers Zioun and Hunter or outright post in their forum so more of the Uciv guys see this and take care of it.
As for being chore, well, each game is hard in this stage of the game. As for increasing the turn pace, I agree we should do that for sure. Maybe we can somehow put all the combatants in a single side of the timer and not having the turn split in 4 as of now?
About ending the game, I believe calling on score in 25 turns should be OK.
But whatever we decide it must be done with the consent of the every team still alive in the game. Which leads me to other thing - Uciv are going to miss a second turn in a row.
Please, CivFR, you are also members of the Uciv forums, please PM the Uciv turnplayers Zioun and Hunter or outright post in their forum so more of the Uciv guys see this and take care of it.
Caledorn
Emperor
I have looked into the matters that have been referred to (which the exception of what OT4E is mentioning where he states that "this game is unfair" - I have no idea what you mean by that OT4E - please feel free to PM me or tell me on Skype), and indeed there has been no use of any mechanic that is outside the normal game mechanics. Indeed one specific occurence of a game mechanic that was used was surprising even to me, but it's well within the game mechanics so I can only conclude that it was within the rules.
The end game turns, with lots of wars going on and a lot of units that needs to be moved, take a long time for sure. Also, the technical difficulties we've experienced this late summer/beginning of autumn hasn't helped on the turn pace, so part of it has to be blamed on that - but my personal opinion is that it would be of great help to both the game interest, the players, and me as the host if the time it takes to complete a turn is reduced greatly. It's unlikely that we can get each turn completed within a day or two - but it should be possible to complete each turn in three to five days (five being a long time though). If the turns are reduced to five days (if that is what is needed), we're looking at 125 days for 25 turns, which means the game should be finished in about 4 months. Far better than 1 year, obviously.
If any team refuses to call the game at this point, we need Uciv to play their turns and not just let the timer run out. If noone from their team is willing to play, we should find a sub for their team that will play their turns in a timely fashion. Finding a sub, however, is a real challenge for a game with this turn pace....
While the APTMod is a good idea, and I like it's control aspects, I have to admit that I find the turns take too much time when each turn split gives every team an equal amount of time on the clock. Normally we would have the timer on 48 or 72 hours at this point of the game, and the clock would run out unless some team paused the game. But when the clock runs at 36 hours times 4, obviously the turns are going to take a long time - and frankly, it's no wonder people have lost interest in the game considering the excessive time each turn takes.. The idea of a MTDG is that teams should participate in making decisions together for what the teams should do, but at this point of the game it seems that the decisions being made on turn playing are left to 1 or 2 players, and the team thing is basically a thing of the past - left behind 50-100 turns ago. The main reason for that is twofold: 1) lack of turn reporting, because just playing the turns take so much time and effort that the mere idea of reporting the turns is just too much, and 2) the turns take so long to flip that people have forgotten just about everything that happened last turn when the turn rolls, except for the turn player(s). This is why I strongly believe that games need to have a strict turn timer regime, where pauses are only used when they're actually needed - not more or less every turn - and this especially goes for games that are played like this in an MTDG setting.
As things are, if UCiv doesn't report within one week from now, I suggest we disregard them as a voting member of this decision, and that we only count the votes from teams CFC, CP, Apolyton and CivFR. It is a strong possibility that UCiv has not played their turns simply because they no longer care about this game.
Edit: About the war turn order suggestion, 2metraninja, I believe I can modify the war turn order in the APTMod control panel - but for me to be able to do that I need to know exactly who to put in what half of the timer. Could you please provide me with that information, and I will do that first and foremost, while we continue to discuss these issues?
The end game turns, with lots of wars going on and a lot of units that needs to be moved, take a long time for sure. Also, the technical difficulties we've experienced this late summer/beginning of autumn hasn't helped on the turn pace, so part of it has to be blamed on that - but my personal opinion is that it would be of great help to both the game interest, the players, and me as the host if the time it takes to complete a turn is reduced greatly. It's unlikely that we can get each turn completed within a day or two - but it should be possible to complete each turn in three to five days (five being a long time though). If the turns are reduced to five days (if that is what is needed), we're looking at 125 days for 25 turns, which means the game should be finished in about 4 months. Far better than 1 year, obviously.
If any team refuses to call the game at this point, we need Uciv to play their turns and not just let the timer run out. If noone from their team is willing to play, we should find a sub for their team that will play their turns in a timely fashion. Finding a sub, however, is a real challenge for a game with this turn pace....
While the APTMod is a good idea, and I like it's control aspects, I have to admit that I find the turns take too much time when each turn split gives every team an equal amount of time on the clock. Normally we would have the timer on 48 or 72 hours at this point of the game, and the clock would run out unless some team paused the game. But when the clock runs at 36 hours times 4, obviously the turns are going to take a long time - and frankly, it's no wonder people have lost interest in the game considering the excessive time each turn takes.. The idea of a MTDG is that teams should participate in making decisions together for what the teams should do, but at this point of the game it seems that the decisions being made on turn playing are left to 1 or 2 players, and the team thing is basically a thing of the past - left behind 50-100 turns ago. The main reason for that is twofold: 1) lack of turn reporting, because just playing the turns take so much time and effort that the mere idea of reporting the turns is just too much, and 2) the turns take so long to flip that people have forgotten just about everything that happened last turn when the turn rolls, except for the turn player(s). This is why I strongly believe that games need to have a strict turn timer regime, where pauses are only used when they're actually needed - not more or less every turn - and this especially goes for games that are played like this in an MTDG setting.
As things are, if UCiv doesn't report within one week from now, I suggest we disregard them as a voting member of this decision, and that we only count the votes from teams CFC, CP, Apolyton and CivFR. It is a strong possibility that UCiv has not played their turns simply because they no longer care about this game.
Edit: About the war turn order suggestion, 2metraninja, I believe I can modify the war turn order in the APTMod control panel - but for me to be able to do that I need to know exactly who to put in what half of the timer. Could you please provide me with that information, and I will do that first and foremost, while we continue to discuss these issues?
Hulkmusclor
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 33
Okay.
Caledorn
Emperor
@Cal,
There is no dispute from my team that the aztec move by which they got our capital was within the boundaries of the game. I consider it cheap because I think such game mecahnics shouldn't be in the game and i didn1t know about it. (if someone is interested it is about landing a unit anywhere form a transport and still moving with it using the right promotion)
I think unfairness comes from not every team doing what is best for themselves during the game, but Ot4e might have something else in mind.
There is no dispute from my team that the aztec move by which they got our capital was within the boundaries of the game. I consider it cheap because I think such game mecahnics shouldn't be in the game and i didn1t know about it. (if someone is interested it is about landing a unit anywhere form a transport and still moving with it using the right promotion)
I think unfairness comes from not every team doing what is best for themselves during the game, but Ot4e might have something else in mind.
Caledorn
Emperor
Good to know, mz
You may be right. I hope OT4E can enlighten us on the subject (or at least me, if it's sensitive information not to be shared with all teams at this point).
Sorry that Uciv did not connect these days...have a lot of work since the beginning of september. Anyway, sometimes It seems that the turn repeats and we have to replay it...I have lost the count and did not check it.
I don't care to call on score. The game is still open (not really for us maybe but for the three first civs and maybe we can play a role in it too) but Caledorn is right : the turn rate is atrocious and if we continue like that, I prefer to call on score now...I don't know if we can find a solution, for example to limit each turn at 3 days maximum ! But otherwise this is useless...
And I don't see the point to call in 25 turns or now... If we call on score, lets do it now : it just means that we all have lost interest in this game. Lets continue or lets give up now, but no third way !
I don't care to call on score. The game is still open (not really for us maybe but for the three first civs and maybe we can play a role in it too) but Caledorn is right : the turn rate is atrocious and if we continue like that, I prefer to call on score now...I don't know if we can find a solution, for example to limit each turn at 3 days maximum ! But otherwise this is useless...
And I don't see the point to call in 25 turns or now... If we call on score, lets do it now : it just means that we all have lost interest in this game. Lets continue or lets give up now, but no third way !
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 
But returning to the game and the situation. I dont feel that calling a game is fair. My proposal was to give a chance to everyone (may be except Civfr, but whatever can happen if we agree on AW) to take the lead. But it requires 'always war' or 'always peace' rule to make it being decided by the game mechanics but not the diplomatic tables.
Of course, I fully understand that this situation where everyone is seeking for a revenge on us is caused by me. Others seems to be better in diplomacy. Well done.
If you want to call it right now I can propose the following order to vote:
1) Apolyton - obviously done better than others this game. Actually we have lost the game on turn 194.
2) CivPlayers - we were heavily outplaying others before they started cooperating
3) CFC - could have been in troubles without serious help from UCIV
4) UCIV - personally I cant accept that you have done better by just being in the right place all the time.
5) CivFR - unfortunatelly didnt pay attention and give chance to our survival plan.
I honestly beleive that you can make it finish like AP, CFC, UCIV, CivFr and CP or whatever you guys want to prove to yourself. I will be happy to "autoplay" turns since the game is not interesting in its current state and I dont know the way to play it good without spending several hours on each turn. Or may be Bemep somehow manages to beat everyone, that you cant exclude completely. In my mind he deserves victory for just spending more time in game than all others combined and of course making us doing that good.
I will be happy to start some other pitboss that can be more interesting considering the following things:
- smaller map is a way to go
- my personal wish is to have less balanced map (in fact it is one of the reasons why it becomes not interesting. 4 big civs have all the resources, no istmus or anything that could make it worth to fight for except just to put someone down)
- no diplomacy or limited diplomacy
- no tricks that you cannot predict. Actually I dont beleive that keeping 1 warrior in city is good idea playing with humans, especially at the stage with commandos and railroads. Is it fair not to raze enemy's cap if you know the way how to do it? Well in spanish apolyton they dont allow to raze cities with more than 9 citizen. Just as an example, you can invent a lot of better ways to fix it.
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.
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.
I was quite aware that commandos exist and all my coastal cities were well protected against any attack. I did not know that there is a way to move a unit which was just unloaded from a transport to any land tile, but I learnt something in my probably last civ4 game, doesn't matter. This event however made quite a big change in our foreign policy, previously we wanted to see some kind of balance, now we are determined to have our revenge.
We all know that even if our lead in power is significant without sort of tricks we couldn't really make a big push against you at this stage in the game, especially in short time, so instead of tricks we rely on diplomacy which is against you. Of course even diplomacy can have sudden changes, but let's just say the prognosis for your empire is quite bad, so asking for settling for score right now and not like 10 turns ago (when i believe we were the score leader) is not acceptable. And I think it's not good to change to aw just to be more fair: if we want fairness then a new game with balanced and always war settings would be a better option. I'm not suggesting this either, just saying.
i'm not quite understand what should we vote about..
As I said I could accept somekind of draw with the living players. no victor, but we complement all players achivement.
We could accept to settle it on score in 20-25 turns As we are quite sure the score chart will be quite different then that it is now.
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.
I was quite aware that commandos exist and all my coastal cities were well protected against any attack. I did not know that there is a way to move a unit which was just unloaded from a transport to any land tile, but I learnt something in my probably last civ4 game, doesn't matter. This event however made quite a big change in our foreign policy, previously we wanted to see some kind of balance, now we are determined to have our revenge.
We all know that even if our lead in power is significant without sort of tricks we couldn't really make a big push against you at this stage in the game, especially in short time, so instead of tricks we rely on diplomacy which is against you. Of course even diplomacy can have sudden changes, but let's just say the prognosis for your empire is quite bad, so asking for settling for score right now and not like 10 turns ago (when i believe we were the score leader) is not acceptable. And I think it's not good to change to aw just to be more fair: if we want fairness then a new game with balanced and always war settings would be a better option. I'm not suggesting this either, just saying.
i'm not quite understand what should we vote about..
As I said I could accept somekind of draw with the living players. no victor, but we complement all players achivement.
We could accept to settle it on score in 20-25 turns As we are quite sure the score chart will be quite different then that it is now.
Oh dont play an aggrieved one. You told me many turns ago that "all your guns will be aimed on us". What changed now? Nothing... Finally, it were you who declared war on us. I can say that it was our small, dirty revenge...
What is it all for? 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.
What is it all for? 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.
I always said we will go against the biggest threat and that can always change. And I started the war because you did not give us a promise that one of your transport will not attack a city of ours. At that point our forces were quite busy at maya land so a war was not in our interest then, but it would have come sooner or later ofc. But it shows that you had been preparing for an attack against us for quite some time. But all this doesn't matter.. nor that we lost our cap. We are still in a very strong position and if we are to end this game we want a fair suggestion, not one which obviously favors only you.
Similar threads
