Ruleset Discussion

[DaveMcW]

Some people have a life and will have times they cannot play their turn. It's possible (likely if you take the last game as an example) that some team will be in a position where nobody can play. Are we going to allow a team in that position to pause, or are we going to just throw them out of the game by either letting their turns skip?

I'm not sure I can be a part of this if we're going to allow a team to effectively lose the game because of RL circumstances that are out of their control. Life, family, and job come first.

I have no sympathy for a team that runs out of turn players.

If it looks like a team might get into this situation, they should disband before the game starts.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think we need a rule that protects against truly frivolous pausing, while allowing teams to pause whenever and however long they have a true need.

At the risk of being told... "Um Sommer everyone ignored your idea because it: has been tried... dosen't work... etc" I will repeat my previous suggestion that allowing teams to pay for their timeouts addresses both of DaveShack's concerns.

 

[BCLG100]

No it doesn't. It adds needless complications, where does the money go? who gets the money? when do they get the money? if a civ hasn't met everyone yet how is it fair that someone gets a gold bonus a lot earlier where it would make a larger difference.

It also adds to the option that every turn could be paused, thereby making us all worse off.

edit- that's not to say don't think of anymore ideas, just on this case i find the proposition unworkable but perhaps i am alone.

 

[champinoman]

Can someone provide an example of a single turn that would require more than 24 hours of discussion time? I'm having trouble thinking about any move I have spent that long on in a game ever. Sure, I've spent an hour trying to figure out where to place all my cities and the best way to continue with a game but even that is a bad example as it would not have mattered if 3 more turns had passed before this decision was made. And those 3 turns equate to 3 days with a worst case (worst case based in time restrictions not mode selection) 24hour simultaneous turns timer.

I'm not saying there will be no times where the pause is needed but I just can't think of any without coming back to 'well we could have planned for that' or 'let the timer run out its length and the decision will be made by the end of the next turn in 40 or so hours'.

The only reasons given above are that we might need more time to discuss tactics and important moves. Well an ACTIVE team solves both of these issues with planning (not always possible) and activity on the forums daily.

I hope someone can give me a good example because unless there is a good example I see no reason to have any pauses as all they do is delay a game and encourage people to leave.

 

[Sommerswerd]

where does the money go? who gets the money? when do they get the money? if a civ hasn't met everyone yet how is it fair that someone gets a gold bonus a lot earlier where it would make a larger difference.

I explained my idea in a little more detail here but I can try to quickly respond.
1. The money gets gifted to the other civs in the game
2. Every other civ gets the money, evenly divided
3. A pausing civ still owes money to teams they have not met. They just pay later... same goes for when you dont have currency tech yet.

It also adds to the option that every turn could be paused, thereby making us all worse off.

I don't think anyone would do this. Even if they did, the admins could step in then.

I'm not saying my idea is perfect, all Im saying is the concerns you raised I already adressed. Maybe you have alot more concerns that you did not mention. Again if you are just saying "Look I am more experienced, and I say it wont work" then I will respect that.

 

[BCLG100]

No of course not experience is one thing, i did read your post thoroughly before i posted but it doesn't address my concerns enough.

I.e you have 5 civs A B C D E

A has met B & C
A pauses the game and lets say under your rule has to give 20 gold
so A gives 20 gold to B & C and according to your rule holds 20 gold for both D & E (i.e. 40)

However, B & C has an immediate benefit, D & E wont get this benefit until they meet and what if it's a contenants map- then they are infact put at a disadvantage by this pause because by the time they may get the gold the 20 wont be as valuable?

Does all that make sense?

Then the ability to pause and pay all the time, if an admin steps in then that just brings us back to the original problem of how do we sort out how many times you can pause/when you can pause/if you can pause at all, thereby rendering the original idea defunct.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Can someone provide an example of a single turn that would require more than 24 hours of discussion time?

Not everyone can log in the instant the turn flips. For instance: someone playing from Europe ends their turn in the early morning, but it is the middle of the night for you in America. You happen to have a particularly busy morning at work, so don't have time to get to the game until after you get home. Thus, by the time you even get to the turn, 16-18 hours have passed on the timer. Then you log in to find another team has declared war on you with a stack of Horse Archers you couldn't see before.

Now granted that's an extreme example, but do you see the potential issue? The team needs a chance to discuss their reaction to the move - otherwise it's not a team game. But the turn player has only 4-5 hours before they head to bed, and then they need to wait until the next day. During those 4-5 hours it's unlikely that more than a few players will be online to discuss the move, since everyone has different schedules.

Granted, teams need to have more than one turn player, but still, since the great majority of people are from either America or Europe, it can still end up that no-one even gets a chance to look at the turn until halfway through (or later), or that the discussion needs more time so that everyone has a chance to respond.

 

[champinoman]

Well the 1 thing that I hadn't considered out of that example was that if the turn player hasn't logged in then nobody else knows whats happening yet. I had just presumed that the rest of the team could have already been discussing everything while they were sleeping/working and forgetting that a report is needed first from the turn player.

I guess the decision then is which is better between pauses (and the complication in rules) or a 48 hour turn timer. Sure its longer but teams won't use the full 48 on 'most' occasions. And this allows for the possibility of at least 24 hours between the turn player giving his/her first report and when the turn is actually taken.

 

[BCLG100]

I think a longer turn timer makes the need for pauses in a game redundant. I mean what can you really do after 72 hours or whatever that you could have done after 48?

 

[Chimera1804]

I think i'll be a fence-sitter on the turn timer and pausing issue. I definitely think that because of time-zone differences and unforseen things in real life getting to the game or the forum to discuss moves can be quite an issue. At the same time I can understand how pausing could very easily be abused. Maybe one way to go about it would be to have the admins check the reasons behind the pause...i.e. if the turnplayer can't get to the forum or something they should be able to check to see when their last logon was...if it was 20 hours ago the pause was fine but if the turnplayer has been on in the last, say, 10 hours the team is penalized or something...I don't know how though...just an idea.


As another note, and since I'm not sure where else to put this and haven't seen it, what gamespeed will we be playing at?

 

[slaze]

I have no sympathy for a team that runs out of turn players.

If it looks like a team might get into this situation, they should disband before the game starts.

I'm with Daveshack on this. In the last game, 2 out of 5 teams ran into this when both started with an abundance of capable if not willing turnplayers. I wouldn't want this to be a game where teams don't play their turns. Stuff happens and not everyone is able to come through everytime.

Can someone provide an example of a single turn that would require more than 24 hours of discussion time?

I mean what can you really do after 72 hours or whatever that you could have done after 48?

But I believe a flexible timer can alleviate muched of the complications centered around pausing. For a standard 2-sided alliance waging say an industrial age war, I think a democratic process needs a 96/120 hour turn timer. How else can players of differing time zones (as has been mentioned) communicate and perform a democratic process unless all members are your hardcore-devoted, log in every turn kind of players. Updates and response and revision cannot be forced into a 24 hour window and a system that strictly enforces this sort of timing only narrows the play towards a one turnplayer per team atmosphere which is just repeating the failures of the last game.

I understand the intention of placing restrictions on pause and I wholeheatedly agree with that sort of attitude. But every team needs a veto - the consequences a missed turn would have on game interest is just too great.

 

[DaveMcW]

In the last game, 2 out of 5 teams ran into this when both started with an abundance of capable if not willing turnplayers. I wouldn't want this to be a game where teams don't play their turns. Stuff happens and not everyone is able to come through everytime.

Those 2 teams should have been eliminated, instead of dragging the whole game down.

Since no one on the 2 teams cared enough to play, they wouldn't care about losing either.

 

[Lord Parkin]

If you eliminate 2 of 5 teams, that basically ends the game. Especially when alliances are in place, and one team who was playing happily suddenly loses an ally.

While I can see where you're coming from, Dave, I think being overly harsh will kill the game just as fast (if not faster) than being overly lenient. There needs to be some kind of a balance struck.

 

[Robi D]

Although the convention is for 24hr turns given its a team game i think it shoud be 48hrs to give team a chance to talk over actions and keep the game flowing, and its not like every turn will last 48hrs, most will probably be under the 24 hour mark.

With time outs i think they should be limited, say 1 timeout for every 50 turns of the game. That way if a major unexpected situation comes up teams can have a chance for extra discussion, but it ensures its not a regular thing.

 

[Indiansmoke]

My suggestions:


2.3 -- Ignore Negative Events
(Delete this if the teams vote to turn off random events.)


3.4 -- City Gifting
The admin must approve all trades and gifts involving cities before they are offered.
Reasons to reject a city trade include but are not limited to:
- The city is about to be captured in war
- Abuse of game mechanics
- Denying right of conquest
- Keeping a civilization alive indefinitely


4.1 -- Pausing The Game
Each team gets three timeouts.
To use a timeout, post your intention in the turn tracker thread, and then press the [Pause] key to pause the game.
Timeouts last 24 hours, or until the pausing team presses the [Pause] key to unpause the game. After 24 hours, any team may unpause the game.
The admin might publicly ask a team to pause the game while reviewing an issue. Pausing the game without admin permission uses up one of your timeouts.


4.5 -- Punishments for Violations
Violations of these rules will be dealt with through the use of various in-game sanctions decided upon by the admin. Possible punishments include: Gold Payment, exclusion of a team member for a certain amount of turns, a formal warning, a reload, or anything else deemed appropriate.


5 Double Moves
From the top google search for "civ4 team double move rule"

5.1
No double moves during a time of war, except as noted below.

During times of war all concerned Civ's should allow for 1/2 the turn timer to pass between moves if the other Civs involved in the war have not moved since a concerned Civ has moved.

In other words: You cannot make moves during periods of war until either one of two things have occured:
i. All other concerned Civs in a war (being at war in game) have made moves/completed one turn since you have made your moves/completed a turn.
ii. 1/2 the turn timer has passed since you made your moves/completed your turn.

The reason "made your moves/completed your turn" is worded that way is that a team can log in make some moves, log out, log back in and make more moves. Once a team makes ANY moves the requirement that says a team must make a move/complete a turn is fullfilled.

5.2
No moving of units after you have pressed 'End Turn'

5.3
No double moves of a Settler, at any time, if an opponents Settler is in the same vicinity as yours, and visible, except as in point 5.1.ii. above.

5.4
No double moves of a unit, at any time, if a goody hut is nearby, and an opponents unit is in the same vicinity, and visible, except as in point 5.1.ii. above.

5.5
Double moves should be allowed at all other times in order to help speed game play.

5.6
Play fair, be a gentleperson. We are all here to have fun and enjoy ourselves. Let's do just that and not screw our fellow gamers over by bending the rules to give ourselves an unfair advantage.
​

2.3 It has been proven that you can dodge a random event by closing game with ctrl alt del. So random events in this game should of course be off.

3.4 City gifting should be disallowed to avoid lame situations that happen pitboss after pitboss with someone gifting all their cities...and to avoid abuse with buildings in alliances.

4.1 pausing the game should be allowed, a team should have a specified number of timeouts IMO.

5. Double moves should be well defined. My opinion is banned in war or peace as well...gaining a settling spot with double move is lame. But there should be notable exeptions. For example in war, in a massive battle the player whop plays first in turn will get to upgrade his units with promos before he attacks again while the player second in turn will not get a chance to upgrade....giving the player first in turn a massive advantage in battles. Thsi should not be allowed and we must allow the second player to log in upgrade without moving and then let the first player play....of course non simul turns is preferable in view of all this.

 

[classical_hero]

Hopefully most teams will put in place a system where they can have some play in case of an emergency, plus if we have a 2 day timer, then things would be able to e done in that time.

 

[Lord Parkin]

5. Double moves should be well defined. My opinion is banned in war or peace as well...gaining a settling spot with double move is lame. But there should be notable exeptions. For example in war, in a massive battle the player whop plays first in turn will get to upgrade his units with promos before he attacks again while the player second in turn will not get a chance to upgrade....giving the player first in turn a massive advantage in battles. Thsi should not be allowed and we must allow the second player to log in upgrade without moving and then let the first player play....of course non simul turns is preferable in view of all this.

This is true, but it's not as if the second player doesn't get any bonuses as well. For instance, the person who plays second gets all his builds/whips completed immediately after playing, which is not the case for the person who plays first in a simultaneous turns game. So the second player gets to counterattack and then whip out extra troops before the first player can respond, whereas the first player's whipped units are delayed by an extra turn before they arrive. All I'm saying is that both the first and last person in the war turn order have respective advantages and disadvantages, so you can't compensate for one but not the other. It has to be both or neither, and frankly neither sounds easier since there's no way to get around the whip issue. The way you've proposed it, everyone will want to go second because that gets the advantages without the disadvantages.

 

[Indiansmoke]

This is true, but it's not as if the second player doesn't get any bonuses as well. For instance, the person who plays second gets all his builds/whips completed immediately after playing, which is not the case for the person who plays first in a simultaneous turns game. So the second player gets to counterattack and then whip out extra troops before the first player can respond, whereas the first player's whipped units are delayed by an extra turn before they arrive. All I'm saying is that both the first and last person in the war turn order have respective advantages and disadvantages, so you can't compensate for one but not the other. It has to be both or neither, and frankly neither sounds easier since there's no way to get around the whip issue. The way you've proposed it, everyone will want to go second because that gets the advantages without the disadvantages.

What are you talking about? You must be confused with something else.

Both players get whatever whips/rushes/builds at the beggining of each turn, so even more advantage to the first player as he gets to move the new units first.

 

[champinoman]

What are you talking about? You must be confused with something else.

Both players get whatever whips/rushes/builds at the beggining of each turn, so even more advantage to the first player as he gets to move the new units first.

I think you are both explaining the same thing.

Take this 2 sided war and ignoring any other teams that are not involved for ease of explanation:

Team A logs in first and whips a unit and ends the turn. The unit does not appear yet.
Team B logs in and also whips a unit and ends the turn. Their unit appears instantly along with Team A's unit because the next turn rolls over.

So yes they appear at the start of each turn (Indiansmoke's argument) and yes the 2nd player has their whip appear immediately whereas the first teams doesn't (Lord Parkin's argument).

 

[Lord Parkin]

Exactly. So if B is in a defensive war, they have a considerable advantage in terms of unit whips compared to if A is in a defensive war. Team B's reinforcements appear immediately after their battles, while Team A has to wait for Team B to play (and attack them) before their reinforcements appear. So, for instance, if one more unit would make the difference between keeping a city and losing it, Team B keeps the city while Team A loses it in an otherwise identical situation.