Ruleset Discussion

[BCLG100]

I agree with one statement - the penalties have to be reworked. The Civ3 MTDG's "red, yellow, orange" whatever penalties are unclear and bad, simply put. However, here I also agree with peter grimes - the rules really depend on a case by case basis. Sometimes a city trade could have little consequence (ie; someone ignorant of a rule), but should they be punished the same amount as someone that blatantly defies the rule and violates the rule unfairly? I can tell you as an admin of the Civ3 MTDG each ruling we make is under different circumstances.

Well really in each team there is bound to be a civ3 MTDG'er who understands the civ3 rules as well as seeing how the rules so far are simple enough to understand there should not be a team who is ignorant of that rule, much less 2 teams, one to give and one to accept.

 

[grahamiam]

Well, I just want to avoid the admin's being placed in a situation where their judgement causes animosity by some teams or players. If the punishment is clear up front, it'll save the admin's time in explaining the punishment.

After the teams are set, each team can make a suggestion. And, since there's probably 5 teams, we should be able to some agreement beforehand what the punishments should be, at least in the most egregious cases. Some are really no-brainers, like out-of-game spying and save editing. Others may be very blurry, and we need the admins to use thier best judgement, but we should try to minimize that so we don't put them in awkward situations when applying the rules

 

[ranathari]

The anarchy exploit found by Moonsinger needs to be included in the rules because it would tilt the game far too far in favour of a conquest/domination victory.

Also, are you going to impose any limits on chop-rushing? I've noticed in other multiplayer games against local friends that civs starting in woody areas can absolutely own those without such an abundance of forests.

 

[fe3333au]

The use of a customised map should negate the chop rushing advantage of teams with a heavily wooded starting location.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

ranathari: I will research it...let me know if you come up with a good description about the prevention of it. It might also be fixed in a patch, though.

 

[Theoden]

I'd propose we use the GOTM description for the anarchy exploit. I think it covers it well.

 

[ybbor]

3.0. Reputation
3.1. Official Treaties
Teams signing a treaty with another may submit it to the administrators. When both teams agree to the treaty and its wording, it will become official. Each team now must follow the points in the treaty until its cancellation.

I liked the civ mtdg way of recording things much better. You want to make treaties 100% binding? that's not very realistic

 

[Swissempire]

I agree. Treaties should be respected, but not entirely binding. If i choose to stab you in the back, so be it. It just means people will hesistate to trust me in the future.

 

[BCLG100]

Yes allowing for backstabbing makes the game a lot more interesting.

 

[classical_hero]

I always thought that declaration of war was a cancellation of a treaty. An illegal one if there is treaty that specifically state that they were to be at peace, but when has a treaty ever been binding?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

A treaty only has to be followed (i.e. can't be backstabbed) if both teams send it to the admins. If they both agree to its cancellation, or they set special terms that end the treaty at a certain date, it will be ended. If it's an unofficial treaty, teams don't have to follow it. It's only if both teams want to make it so there's no backstabbing that there will be no backstabbing. Make sense? Any way to edit the rules? Should I just take it out completely?

Theoden: Thanks, I'll use that.

 

[classical_hero]

I really do not see any need for section three. Because Battle Reports should go with Section four, since it is a proceedure f the game that is needed for these type of games. I believe that reputation should be an in game thing and that treaties should be seen as a sign of good fatih between teams and we will be able to see if teams will break contracts or if they keep their word. I do believe that ech contract must be given to the Admins so they can be an unbiased source so that if there is a query about a contract then they can show what tha contract means and show that to the teams in question and so that other teams can get an unbiased source of teams breaking their word. Basically treaties in this game should be as good as a Gentleman's word, and if teams break that, then they are not gentlemen.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I'm going to agree with Classical Hero here. I think teams should be allowed to break treaties, even after they send them to the admins. See if they're willing to take the reputation hit for it. It'd be far more interesting, and a bit more realistic in my opinion.

 

[Swissempire]

I too think that Classical Hero brings up a good point here. Also, will all treaties presented to the Admins be made public or not? ANd can treaties be made for things that aren't able to be made in the dipolmacy screen, like say a treaty where you don't settle past these mountains, and i won't settle next to that iron kinda thing?

 

[classical_hero]

Basically treaties will remain confidential and if teams asks another team of how they dealt with that team, then we can know what they are like and all disputes can be handled by the Admins and the teams will need to abide by those rulings, and if they do not like it, then they can either suffer or do what many nations have done, and break that treaty sicne it does not agree with what they want.

 

[RegentMan]

Hmmm... I'm inclined to agree with classical_hero. I've never been a fan of forcing teams to follow a treaty verbatum. The reputation hit with other teams is punishment enough.

 

[ranathari]

Yeah, allowing back-stabbing is best. What's more, if we get Civs separated by oceans then we could potentially see back-stabbing on one continent but absolutely no idea what's happening on the other. That way when the Civs finally meet, they don't know if the other can be trusted on past form.

 

[koondrad]

ANd can treaties be made for things that aren't able to be made in the dipolmacy screen, like say a treaty where you don't settle past these mountains, and i won't settle next to that iron kinda thing?

Good point - that could make things very interesting.

 

[BCLG100]

Good point - that could make things very interesting.

these are fairly often occurances in the civ 3 MTDG

 

[koondrad]

these are fairly often occurances in the civ 3 MTDG

And I'm sure you wouldn't want to see the back of them.