News: SGOTM 13 Signup Thread

1. deity methinks
2. played SGOTM 12
3. no

Love the civ game, but can't commit to a game for a while. Put me down as a lurker for a team that I might be able to help, or keep me in reserve for a team with too many players dropping out.
 
"In a deal which includes a resource, a millitary alliance or a trade embargo, the human player is not allowed to pay the AI more gpt to AI than the AI demands."
This would clearly put an end to all those kind of tricks, which involve getting the money back via "proxy AIs" or by provoking the AI into canceling the deal itself, or which try to damage the AI without actually getting the money back (e.g by just waiting until they have spent it and then canceling the deal). It tackles the problem at its root, namely the point where "artificially bloated" money is injected into the system.
In addition it would have a couple of advantages:
It still allows us a wide variety of strategies which do involve breaking a deal, but in a non-exploitive manner
The rule is easy to formulate and (hopefully) hard to bypass
We don't need to use inconvenient extra measures like checking stuff via the 999 method and comparing against earlier values
It would still allow us to gift money to an AI, if we want to set him up as a "research partner" or help him to put up a better fight against a common enemy. We just would have to give him that money in a "non-breakable" deal (one which does not include resources/alliances/embargos).
Click to expand...
Alan, here is Lanzelot proposal to avoid EA. Can we use it in forthcoming SGTOM 13? Could you, please, verify it and if OK put it as rule proposal for SGTOM? we have 4 days to discuss.
Ivan
 
Is everyone who has signed up happy to work within the 'Lanzelot Ruling' as quoted above by Ivan? If so, I shall insert it into the Maintenance thread when this game starts and it will be binding on all teams.
 
I'm happy to see some kind of ruling that will prohibit such agreements. So if that's what discussions have come up with, put it in.
 
I haven't followed the discussions because imo they are rediculous, but i don't think they ever came to a conclusion or ever will.

Edit: oh wow, it seems they did :eek:
 
1. Comfortable at Monarch, fledgling Emperor
2. Yes(definitely new)
3. No preference(whoever needs an extra hand)
 
Yes, I approve of this rule. :yup:

As Niklas demonstrates in post 80 of the Exploitative Trading thread, it isn't totally watertight, but I think it is the best strict ruling that can be made without completely stifling our trading ability. Players should consider themselves responsible for observing the spirit of the rule as well as the letter...
 
We have 37 active players so far. I have assigned you into five teams of six, and one of seven players, taking account of your stated preferences where possible. Teams tao and Zoe only had two players each, so I hope you can live with being merged. I have left zerksees as an unplaced lurker, on the reserve bench, as requested.

These are draft team lists, and can be adjusted if anyone has problems with them, or if I have made any errors. I propose to open your team threads in 20 hours or so to allow time for team adjustments first, so please contact me asap if you have any requests for changes.

20013.php
 
Ah the remnants of klarius and zoe talked about merging but have not posted in this thread. Hope it is not too late.

So from Klarius: Klarius, Northern Pike and Wotan
From Zoe: Beorn-eL-Feard and ThERat (and Denyd?)

So if it is not too difficult could you merge us and add the additions to klarius to Tao instead?
 
I've merged teams klarius and Zoe, and renamed tao's team. But I've left denyd with tao and moved ahman to klarius, to avoid giving tao too many newcomers. How's that?
 
No complaints on Smurkz' roster, looking good. Othniel and donsig, welcome to Smurkzdom! And eldar, welcome back! :)
 
If no "final set yet" can we swap Hastdrubal Baca and Think Tank? Think Tank used to play with Elear and I think they'd like to stay together.
Ivan.
 
@Ivan: I'm fine to play in either team. Please ask me first before you think you know what I want.
 
I. Larkin said:
OK, it will be more comfortabale for me, ...
Click to expand...

This just reinforces my point, you were just guessing as to what I want.

I. Larkin said:
..., to play with "solid couple."
Click to expand...

Thanks, but in fact I'm playing one SG with Elear, and two with TheOverseer714, so that would actually be an argument for keeping me in tao.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion, even more so because at the very least we should factor in what Hasdrudal Barca wants.
The fact that I have no preference for the team I play in gives only one person the right to put me in a team, and that person is AlanH.
 
PaperBeetle said:
Yes, I approve of this rule. :yup:

As Niklas demonstrates in post 80 of the Exploitative Trading thread, it isn't totally watertight, but I think it is the best strict ruling that can be made without completely stifling our trading ability. Players should consider themselves responsible for observing the spirit of the rule as well as the letter...
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, there is of course
1)the loophole that when your MA rep is thrashed, the AI will still accept gpt payment but in rather ridiculous numbers. That could be an avenue into bloating the system, but it should be simple enough to ban as a corollary though.

2) Ok, I guess I'm beginning to regain my conciousness. Consider the scenario where you and the AI both have a monopoly tech, and you could get a straigh one-for-one deal. Instead you choose to buy his tech for the ridiculous luxury+gpt price he asks, then sell him your tech for the gpt back, and cut the luxury route. You didn't pay more than the AI was asking, but you've still bloated the system quite badly.
Click to expand...
1) it is like a bug and should be baned.
2) This is "one time buisiness" and in a spirit of the game it is allowed
3) more sophysticated tricks like "to buy Iron for asking price", 80 gpt, say, and cut route also allowed. It is small wingow opened remained for "limited speculations" but it is rear and very difficult to set up.
 
you could combine the two suggested rules

"The player is not allowed to actively* cancel a deal that gives gpt to an AI if the player is at the same time receiving gpt from that same AI in another deal that would not be cancelled."
*the word actively includes any method that is planned by the player.

or whatever, i don't want to restart the discussions again. I would like it most if we all just refrain from trying to find ways around whatever rule comes out. We understand what the abuse is about, and it shouldn't be so hard to simply not use it.
 
ThinkTank said:
This just reinforces my point, you were just guessing as to what I want.



Thanks, but in fact I'm playing one SG with Elear, and two with TheOverseer714, so that would actually be an argument for keeping me in tao.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion, even more so because at the very least we should factor in what Hasdrudal Barca wants.
The fact that I have no preference for the team I play in gives only one person the right to put me in a team, and that person is AlanH.
Click to expand...
I see your points. Let' things stay as it is then. Sorry for those actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nizef
Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge #13
Replies
10
Views
355
The_Black_Vegetable
T
Nizef
  • Sticky
TSG 265 Announcement
Replies
6
Views
385
Ecocrexis
E
Nizef
TSG 263 Announcement
Replies
10
Views
619
Axolaan
A
Eyswein
  • Sticky
6otM191 Announcement
Replies
0
Views
492
Eyswein
Eyswein
Nizef
TSG 262 Announcement
Replies
15
Views
749
Axolaan
A
Back
Top Bottom