Ruleset Discussion

[Lord Parkin]

btw
without this I 'd suppose EVG (the enemy) thinks/cries about cheats very often and has real cause for that.

We've certainly discussed very long and hard about your continually surprising combat results, and the times at which they occur. One is certainly inclined to think you know something we don't.

No, I did mean prospectively as in relating to or taking effect in the future, as opposed to retrospectively, which means related to or affecting things in the past.

The reason that "punishment"/sanctions should be applied prospectively and not retrospectively, is because when punishments are applied on or in the past (by reloading saves, invalidating moves, re-doing turns etc.), the game has to be paused until the admins make a ruling. This is because there is no point in continuing the game when everything might be undone with a re-do or reload.

Okay, it seems we both meant the same thing, but I was thinking of the wrong word. I certainly agree that reloading several turns to apply a punishment is not sensible - if there are punishments, they should be applied in the present and not revert the game back excessively.

 

[Darkness]

BCLG you are a veteran and a great player in this game and I am certain that this game can benefit greatly from your input and your participation.

So if you think that some short of official punishment is needed for braking the rules then I am sure you know what you are talking about and why you are requesting that.

All I said is that I have not seen someone repetedly braking the rules on purpose. If you have witnessed that then fair enough.

I will say this and rest my case like a good lad I am.....My opinion on the subject is that we need clear rules and a gentelsman's spirit as punishement will lead to unbalance and premature/unsatisfying game ending.

Silly boy...

Why is it that when BCLG says the exact same thing as I did, that you do believe BCLG and yet you patronize me?

Is it his impressive spamcount that makes you believe him or do you just think I have no clue what I am talking about?

 

[Earthling]

Even gifting all your cities to another civ is not significantly different from allying with them.

My opinion on any sort of rules is that if you can't draw a line then don't draw an ugly smudge to make up for it.

Sounds like I ought to make clear that I think this should be a decision that a lot of people should vote on - I'd be ok with results either way of course but it sounds like this needs discussion.

I still don't see ANY problem with "how to write the rule" or something myself, as I think this type of scenario could be easily and succinctly distinguished from any other regarding rules. But maybe others see differently, and others who have different viewpoints on pauses/"rules punishments" etc...

I am personally still against city gifting but having this up to a vote/team decision is great anyway. I'd rather turn on permanent alliances/vassals or something if we were going that way but such seems to always have strong opposition and I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this.

One other concern I would share - I can't say for sure how this game would be different from past demogames, but I think this concept of "surrendering/allying/vassaling" destroys a lot of the democracy feel of a team. Maybe some teams wouldn't care, and I can't speak for them - but for instance the King Merlot team in this game doesn't seem like they'd handle this option well. If the option exists to just completely default/turn over to another civ the problem I see is that it encourages infighting among the players of a team - some players want to quit/lose the war and go do something else while others may want to continue playing as a team. I just don't like seeing that encouraged.

 

[BCLG100]

BCLG you are a veteran and a great player in this game and I am certain that this game can benefit greatly from your input and your participation.

So if you think that some short of official punishment is needed for braking the rules then I am sure you know what you are talking about and why you are requesting that.

All I said is that I have not seen someone repetedly braking the rules on purpose. If you have witnessed that then fair enough.

I will say this and rest my case like a good lad I am.....My opinion on the subject is that we need clear rules and a gentelsman's spirit as punishement will lead to unbalance and premature/unsatisfying game ending.

I am not the only one saying this, as my learned friend below is also saying. Nor am i saying this because i've played the game before. I am simply saying that common sense dictates that if there are rules there has to be a punishment for breaking the rules, otherwise they are simply useless. Punishment in my mind can include a reload but this should be specified as to when this should occur, for instance would this really apply to every single rule break? having a real life member of multiple forums would not mean a reload is required so what are the consequences of this?

Silly boy...

Why is it that when BCLG says the exact same thing as I did, that you do believe BCLG and yet you patronize me?

Is it his impressive spamcount that makes you believe him or do you just think I have no clue what I am talking about?

It's because i am more awesome, i believe i have already mentioned this elsewhere

 

[Indiansmoke]

Silly boy...

Why is it that when BCLG says the exact same thing as I did, that you do believe BCLG and yet you patronize me?

Is it his impressive spamcount that makes you believe him or do you just think I have no clue what I am talking about?

First I don't know you, while I have encountered BCLG before and second he said that he has seen people doing it providing a specific argument. All you said is that if we don't put this rule it is like sticking our head in the sand, which did not make much sense to me.

If you had said that I have played in alot of pitbosses competitivelly and that I have seen people braking the rules on purpose then I would not have doughted that.

You have to understand that these are open forums for thousands of people, if you do not state your experience and why you think something on the subject then why would you be taken seriously from someone that does not know you?

I have seen alot of people posting opinions on subjects that it proved they had not much experience on...and in open forums it is a easy to lose track of who knows what they are talking about and what not...so turning down arguments is a way of actually seing if the person has any real back up on what they are saying.

So on subjects that I feel are important for this game to be more fun at the end...I express my opinion and I express is abit "authoritative" as it was mentioned. But I do have the arguments and the experience to open a discussion and I don't get offended if someone rejects what I say....I do point the obvious though that is so often missed, some do not like that...and by all means I do like the obvious to be pointed back at me...sharpness I like, indifferent "politeness" I don't

 

[Indiansmoke]

I am not the only one saying this, as my learned friend below is also saying. Nor am i saying this because i've played the game before. I am simply saying that common sense dictates that if there are rules there has to be a punishment for breaking the rules, otherwise they are simply useless. Punishment in my mind can include a reload but this should be specified as to when this should occur, for instance would this really apply to every single rule break? having a real life member of multiple forums would not mean a reload is required so what are the consequences of this?

The logic braking the rules - punishment is common logic and if you say that to someone that has never played a pitboss they would of course agree.

The problem in pitboss reality is though that any short of meaningfull punisment would lead to severe dissadvantage for the offender...leading to team inactivity, leading to quiting and to game ending.

So what I say is that if for example someone double moves, we reload explaining him the double move rules. I don't think that next turn or 10 turns after the same person will double move again...because if he does then we are dealing with a case of someone wanting to damage the game, what he could do in so many ways anyway.

I understand that sometimes reloading might prove painfull for someone else than the offender...but this is something we need to take our chances with with simul turns...but this is why ideally I propose non simul turns so we have no issues and no need for rules and punishement.

 

[BCLG100]

The logic braking the rules - punishment is common logic and if you say that to someone that has never played a pitboss they would of course agree.

The problem in pitboss reality is though that any short of meaningfull punisment would lead to severe dissadvantage for the offender...leading to team inactivity, leading to quiting and to game ending.

So what I say is that if for example someone double moves, we reload explaining him the double move rules. I don't think that next turn or 10 turns after the same person will double move again...because if he does then we are dealing with a case of someone wanting to damage the game, what he could do in so many ways anyway.

I understand that sometimes reloading might prove painfull for someone else than the offender...but this is something we need to take our chances with with simul turns...but this is why ideally I propose non simul turns so we have no issues and no need for rules and punishement.

Yes that's fine with the reload but at what point does it become ridiculous? this is what we're trying to get across, what happens if there needs to be a constant reload or somebody is constantly pausing the game? there needs to be some form of meaningful punishment to stop someone from doing this otherwise what is going to prohibit them?

I disagree with the non simul turns thing however in that would be over emphasising the problem placed on DM's, generally if someone DM's it is an accident and that's fine but you can't really 'accidently' pause the game on many occasions.

First I don't know you, while I have encountered BCLG before and second he said that he has seen people doing it providing a specific argument. All you said is that if we don't put this rule it is like sticking our head in the sand, which did not make much sense to me.

If you had said that I have played in alot of pitbosses competitivelly and that I have seen people braking the rules on purpose then I would not have doughted that.

You have to understand that these are open forums for thousands of people, if you do not state your experience and why you think something on the subject then why would you be taken seriously from someone that does not know you?

I have seen alot of people posting opinions on subjects that it proved they had not much experience on...and in open forums it is a easy to lose track of who knows what they are talking about and what not...so turning down arguments is a way of actually seing if the person has any real back up on what they are saying.

So on subjects that I feel are important for this game to be more fun at the end...I express my opinion and I express is abit "authoritative" as it was mentioned. But I do have the arguments and the experience to open a discussion and I don't get offended if someone rejects what I say....I do point the obvious though that is so often missed, some do not like that...and by all means I do like the obvious to be pointed back at me...sharpness I like, indifferent "politeness" I don't

You are playing a pitboss game at cdz with him currently iirc...

I don't think you need to judge someone by their experience if they raise valid points, for instance i know akots has played far too much civ in his time but because he isn't a prolific poster here that may affect peoples judgement. However, by reading the post you can see that valid points have been made regardless of the situation and this is what i believe Darkness was objecting to, what both of us were saying was exactly the same and simply because you have seen me post before does not mean that my posts should be taken with anymore levity than anyone elses

 

[akots]

You are playing a pitboss game at cdz with him currently iirc...

Not any longer, slaze is playing Catherine now. Indiansmoke quit without specifying any reason which IMO means a non-serious casual attitude and complete disregard for fellow gamers. At least, there is no bad feeling since a proper sub was found and for this, you have my sincere thanks.

 

[akots]

You have to understand that these are open forums for thousands of people, if you do not state your experience and why you think something on the subject then why would you be taken seriously from someone that does not know you? ...

I don't know you well enough, so I chose to completely disregard your opinion on the matter as it is stated in the quote. Therefore, I am not going to argue with that opinion of yours.

To illustrate my POV, there are other sources of information about qualification of people as experts of the genre and game mechanics. These sources include other fora within CFC and also HOF and GOTM tables. There are multiple other sites with their own qualification systems which is sometimes for some cases even more reliable.

There is also very rich history of ISDG in Civ3 and Civ4. I wish the CFC forum on Civ4 ISDG semifinal is open so that this part of information can be available. Edited: Sorry, just found that one in archive: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=193

All I wanted to say is that extensive spamming activity in this specific forum cannot serve as an indicator of any qualification except political intrigue, demagogy, and ability to insult the opponent while avoiding sanctions from the moderators. Which is a good role playing experience but useless feature otherwise when discussing particulars of the game relevant to gameplay.

I would expect these types of activists to stick to their team fora when these are eventually created to take upon themselves positions in Foreign Office and concomitant diplomatic responsibilities. Or engage in political debates over subjects irrelevant to specific of mechanics and game play.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Not any longer, slaze is playing Catherine now. Indiansmoke quit without specifying any reason which IMO means a non-serious casual attitude and complete disregard for fellow gamers. At least, there is no bad feeling since a proper sub was found and for this, you have my sincere thanks.

Haha this is hilarious..I now realize who you are...you are the guy who has taken over a whole civ (8 cities or so) by going to war when the other guy was on a trip to japan for 2 weeks and got no sub. I was the only one interested on the issue and posted in the game forum where there was 1 answer after 2 days or something in the lines of "oh I think the guy is on a trip to japan and should be getting back in a few days" ROFL.

Man you have some nerve saying I quit. I did not miss a single turn and properly turned over a flourishing civ to Slaze because of increased real life obligations....if someone damaged that game is you by your behaviour.

Now i understand...rules and punishment ...of course, what you want is to win by playing against the ai or even better against no one...what a joke.

 

[Sommerswerd]

but this is why ideally I propose non simul turns so we have no issues and no need for rules and punishement.

Amen . Thank you Indiansomke.

Seeing that the last game ended over combat-abuse-related disputes, can we not see that playing simultaneous will just invite more of these kinds of arguments?

Can you imagine what it is going to be like when a war starts in game and we are having a discussion like this AFTER EVERY TURN?

Also, when the disputes arise (and they will... it is inevitable) what will the admins do? PAUSE THE GAME indefinitely while they deliberate

And I'm sure the matter will be resolved swiftly just like the way our Private Forums got put up so swi... uhh, oh yeah I forgot

 

[obsolete]

Many, many, many moons ago I used to play ladder. And let me tell you something, when there is no harsh penalty in place, people will cross over just about every advantage they can muster, no matter how unethical it may be, no matter how obvious it appears to be cheating.

When it comes to bragging rights and make-believe ladder rating points, believe me, there are always those who will do ANYTHING to prevent a loss. I’ve seen just about every trick in the book. And this is what worries me, how many here seem to be taking it all lightly, no wonder there is so much simultaneous-turns inexperience showing.

One thing I can’t even believe to this day, is how one ladder club was actually planning at one point to play games for cash. Can you believe it?? Cash!!

We had never-ending disputes and flame threads going on when it was just for silly ladder points. Could you possibly imagine how bad the disputes would get when real money was on the line? Nuts.

I quit ladders because of all the problems, and I never went back. And I have no intention of going ladder again in the future either. I actually prefer, as dumb as it seems, to just crush deity AI’s since I don’t get any of that hassle.

Now, where am I going with this? Well, I just wanted to point out, from my own experience, there is quite some potential of trouble brewing ahead with this pit-boss.

I don’t want to have to tell you later “I told you so.”. So I’ll just tell you now before we begin, “I told you so.”

 

[akots]

..I now realize who you are...

Ok, good, at least we get to that.

Since I still do not know you, I again chose to disregard your opinion on the matters especially since you are talking and making your own conclusions on something about which you have no idea and are an absolutely uninvolved and uninterested observer. Pray continue to do so and this will make you even more familiar to those thousands of readers which frequent this specific forum.

I always thought that lack of information should caution making conclusions. Apparently, this dicussion shows that some people are being oblivious to that notion as well.

 

[Earthling]

I don’t want to have to tell you later “I told you so.”. So I’ll just tell you now before we begin, “I told you so.”

I give everyone here more credit for honesty and good intentions I hope. However, you seem particularly concerned with simultaneous turns causing exploits or perhaps other game rules in particular being exploited, while I don't see such fears as quite so founded. I think several others of course may be looking at the same background as me and with perhaps more experience - but one of the reasons I specifically want Simultaneous turns is to avoid exploits/game problems that occurred (or allegedly occurred) in the LAST Demogame. I will trust both admins and teams in policing double-moves and such and do not expect truly malicious players are out there to ruin the game, and otherwise I feel that everything considered Simultaneous turns offers a better pace and no worse threats of exploits than Sequential does anyway.

So I'm not trying to get involved in disputes between some of the above posters and hope everyone and all the teams get along well in the game; but anyway, I've made my thoughts on rule "punishments" and stuff clear -I'm in the camp who would like to give people credit for honest intentions to have a fun Demogame and have rules designed around keeping the game moving.

To move on - since I think this is an actual matter that should be discussed/voted on again - you seemed to have views regarding city gifting so does anyone else want to share thoughts or are we going to be too divided on the matter, to leave it until all the teams can vote on options there as teams?

 

[BCLG100]

If we play sequential turns we may as well play pbem and tbh who really wants to play that these days?

 

[Indiansmoke]

bah never mind whatever

 

[DaveMcW]

So when new turn rolls over player A should wait for player B to log in, upgrate troops move troops from back cities and then log out, leave player A to log in play all his moves then log in again and play the rest of his moves.

Is this possible in any realistic way?

5.7
If the second team to move during a war has any units survive a battle, the first team must wait 1 hour after the new turn begins before moving. The second team may log in during this time and promote their units, but can't do anything else until the second half of the turn.

Obviously 1 hour isn't a lot of time, but Team 2 controls when the turn ends so they can usually take advantage of it.

 

[Indiansmoke]

5.7
If the second team to move during a war has any units survive a battle, the first team must wait 1 hour after the new turn begins before moving. The second team may log in during this time and promote their units, but can't do anything else until the second half of the turn.

Obviously 1 hour isn't a lot of time, but Team 2 controls when the turn ends so they can usually take advantage of it.

Seems definatelly an improvement, 1 hour is not much but at least it gives team 2 a chance to upgrade, which is only fair.

 

[Lord Parkin]

5.7
If the second team to move during a war has any units survive a battle, the first team must wait 1 hour after the new turn begins before moving. The second team may log in during this time and promote their units, but can't do anything else until the second half of the turn.

Obviously 1 hour isn't a lot of time, but Team 2 controls when the turn ends so they can usually take advantage of it.

Well, the turn end depends on other neutral teams as well. So the turn may still tick over when people on Team 2 are asleep or at work, in which case the hour isn't going to be enough.

But it's certainly a good start.

 

[BCLG100]

Well, the turn end depends on other neutral teams as well. So the turn may still tick over when people on Team 2 are asleep or at work, in which case the hour isn't going to be enough.

But it's certainly a good start.

This would definitely be a problem if this was an individual game but as it is a team game anyone can go in and promote a unit, even if they don't feel comfortable playing an entire turn.