Ruleset Discussion

2metraninja · Jun 27, 2012

Yeah, I was about to say that this game is supposed to be fun and educative, not "we will win at all costs". I will laugh my lunge off to see after all those insults and arrogance thrown at the organizers and the other participants from one particular team that this same team, who wants everything perfect and their way so they can shine the way they deserve, to be just killed in ancient times due to their neighbors frustration

I am participating in one game at RB and I liked a lot what was said to someone who tried to expressed his concerns about the rules:
"You are here to play, not discuss the rules". Well, maybe it is time this great sentence to be adopted as official stand in this game too.

All this I am saying as myself and not one of the co-organizers of the game.

ruff_hi · Jun 27, 2012

vranasm said:
my opinion on this whole matter (so not speaking for CFC which I am part of) is

how the hell you want to run at least somewhat reasonable MP game with so much hate going on now?

tobiasn said:
whs.

Manolo65 said:

I whole heartily agree and thus my desire to get a preamble drafted. It is my hope that the preamble will give all teams the framework under which we are tying to play (fun, honest competition, etc).

Can someone please knock together a preamble that reflects this?

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message: :

ruff_hi · Jun 27, 2012

@2metraninja - thanks for your post. I am drafting a response to the points that you raise and will post it later. It is taking a while as I have to separate the ball from the man (and I will explain that later too).

DaveShack · Jun 27, 2012

Lord Parkin said:
Yet now, when someone puts considerable effort into creating a decent ruleset amalgamated from the versions submitted, in order to get this dying game back on its feet, you roll your eyes in disgust. At least a token gesture of thanks might be in order; Ruff has put significant time into this of his own accord.

Several people have said the vast majority of what Ruff posted looks great. Most of them are from CFC.

Sure it's impossible to think of everything when writing a ruleset. But that's no reason to discard the things that have been thought of.

Of what Ruff posted, the only thing that resulted in controversy is 2d. It happens that 2d touches on the same subject as the other proposal which generated controversy. The reason for the controversy is that the 2d that Ruff posted and your DM rules both impose unreasonable, and in some cases unenforceable restrictions. Let's just play civ as it was meant to be played, with all of the advantages and disadvantages of first and second move intact, instead of trying to strategically alter that with unenforceable rules.

For the preamble, my personal goal is to play the entire game without any team making a rules violation claim. When I play individual MP and someone pwns me because of my own stupidity in not being prepared, I don't complain about potential rule violations, I treat it as a lesson learned. Just win baby, unless you lose and then don't :cry:

.

2metraninja · Jun 27, 2012

DaveShack said:
The reason for the controversy is that the 2d that Ruff posted and your DM rules both impose unreasonable, and in some cases unenforceable restrictions. Let's just play civ as it was meant to be played, with all of the advantages and disadvantages of first and second move intact, instead of trying to strategically alter that with unenforceable rules.

Ye all hear the wisdom.

DaveShack said:
For the preamble, my personal goal is to play the entire game without any team making a rules violation claim. When I play individual MP and someone pwns me because of my own stupidity in not being prepared, I don't complain about potential rule violations, I treat it as a lesson learned. Just win baby, unless you lose and then don't .

Manly words :thumbsup:

plako · Jun 27, 2012

plako said:
WePlayCiv email address provided to me didn't work. I've also tried to register an account there with name plako. I didn't get activaion email so, if someone can help me there, much appreciated.

I still miss email address of CivFr to send the starting location screenshots. Please send your emails to me.

I've also a problem with my WePlayCiv account that I created with same handle as here. I never got the account registration email. So I've an unregistred account there. Could someone help me out with this?

ruff_hi · Jun 27, 2012

"Play the man, not the ball" - That was one of my sport's coaches favourate sayings when I was at highschool playing sport. When you are a defensive player (and I was went I was playing rugby union, rugby league, aussie rules, soccer and any other winter sport that I played) you have two options, you can either play the man your are marking and make sure that he never, ever gets the ball (it is hard to score if he doesn't have the ball) or you can play the ball and always have it yourself (again, hard for him to score if I have the ball). I was very much in the 'ball' camp and had lots of success being the first line of attack.

That style of play can also apply in non-sports situations. As DaveShack said a few days ago ... 'Discuss the issue, not the other members'.

Spoiler :

Anyway, that is what I meant by 'separate the ball from the man'. So, my next post will be with my RB hat on and will play the ball. The following post will be with my RB hat off and will be my only post that plays the man, or more accurately, addresses some of the 'man' issues that 2metraninja raised (at least as far as I read them - because the written word is a hopeless medium for idea communication).

ruff_hi · Jun 27, 2012

To open: let me remind the reader that I am attempting to separate the ball from the man and that this post is aimed at playing the ball. I am not sure that I have fully managed that in this post but I am sure that I have made an honest attempt.

Firstly, 2metraninja discusses a double move that nothing in the game, even sequential moves, will remove ... here is the quote (note that I have edited it a bit for focus) ...

2metraninja said:
Despite technically correct (units keep their movement), there is still ways to double-move with units gifting.

DNK is absolutely right here that with gifting units there can be made a double- move. Example for clarity:

A is first in the turn order while at war with B. A plays and finish his turn. Then B plays his turn and sees there is weak spot in A's defense and A cant bring any units to defend next turn and advances to threaten that weak spot. Then C logs in, sees the situation, discuss it quick with A and decides to send him reinforcements. C is not at war, so he can move his units after B, gift them to A and those same units once under A's control will have full fresh movements in the beginning of the next turn to wreak B's plans effectively double-moving B.

... and added a further item in a subsequent post (again, edited for focus) ...

2metraninja said:
In this particular case I am pointing out a flaw in the detailed rules, which obviously was missed/overlooked by Ruff and even after pointed out by DNK, he still dont get in under attention.

2metraninja is right - I did miss the particular situation that he has mentioned above. @2metraninja - thanks for your contribution to the discussion in raising this issue. I also mentioned nixing (or removing) 2d above. Maybe that is premature. Would you (2metraninja) like to propose a rule to address this situation? Or more broadly (and directed at all teams involved) ... do we want a rule to address this specific situation? Or more broadly still ... do we want a rule that attempts to address the general situation (ie something like 'Do your best not to double move your war opponent') that is unenforceable by law but is hoped to be enforced by honour?

Secondly, 2metraninja brings up rule 4e (and by extension 2g) in the draft rule set here ...

2metraninja said:
My (personal) desire is to have as less rules as it is possible and avoid gray and requiring interpretation rules like

... and the rules he is talking about ...

02. In Game Actions (excluding sequential game items)
g. Abusing Pauses - No team should abuse the game pause rule.

04. Out of Game Actions
e. Abusing Pause Requests - No team should abuse the Game Pause Requests rule.

2metraninja said:
What abusing constitute of?
Or writing tens of lines about not allowing possible shenanigans with gifted units, where you miss the most significant of them, which I pointed?

I'm not surprised that these have been raised as points for discussion. There are two ways to set down rules, namely:
1) Do this, don't do that
2) Be Good

One is a detailed list of things that you can and cannot do (or should and should not do). It is typically used in two situations: a) when there is a small range of options and you can list all of the options; or b) with young or immature people that don't know any better ('don't touch the stove, it is hot' or 'don't play in the street').

The other is a general directional rule and basically says 'you are mature enough to know what you need to do, so do it'.

The two sets of rules that I was combining (see the draft combined set above) was more in the first camp (do this, don't do that). This was ok and they did isolate some few concrete situations. However, I don't think our final rule set should head that way. Why? For two reasons ...
1) such a rule set for civ can never be fully complete and it is pointless trying (see 2metraninja example of a double move that was overlooked)
2) We are adults and don't need to be treated like children

As such, I included some 'be good' rules that attempt to set some over arching directions that we can (hopefully) support, agree on and uphold. The two rules that I have quoted above need to be read and thought about in conjunction with the proposed section 1, namely:

01. Rule Infringing
a. Infringing on the rules is not allowed.

Now, when you wrap this with the two above (and maybe some others) it would appear that they are not defined, are not enforceable, etc. However, I would argue that is missing the point. The object here is to make people stop and think and ask themselves 'is this pause (or similar) an unnecessary delay' or 'an abuse'? Of course everybody's definition of 'unnecessary' and 'abuse' will differ, but that is why the balance of '01 Rule Infringing' is written that way ... in the end, it will be the game admin that makes that call. As the game progresses, we will all learn how the game admin thinks and disagreements will reduce as a result. Also, I expect that teams will be weary of inducing the 'boy the cried wolf' scenario.

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :

ruff_hi · Jun 27, 2012

This last post is aimed at addressing some of the 'play the man' items. It will be my only 'play the man' post in this thread.

2metraninja said:
ruff_hi said:

Thanks for the discussion guys. I'll cycle back with some examples of possible abuses that 2d is trying to address - hopefully that will bring some clarity.
In pitboss games, gifted units retain their movement points (ie if they have moved, they cannot move again ... if they haven't moved, they can move). In pbem games, they are given a completely new set of movement points. As such, I don't think this rule is aimed at any double move option.

Click to expand...

Firstly, 2metraninja combined two quotes into what appears to be one quote. One quote was with my 'RB person hoping to get a rule set up and running' hat on (the first part of the above) and that post included me RB disclaimer. The other post was a purely game mechanic post (as I understand the game, note it could be wrong) and was posted with no hat in particular on. I know people wearing multiple hats is confusing but please try to not combine such items.

Secondly, ...

2metraninja said:
Strange you did not thinked of it given your desire to address each and every situation which potentially may or may not arise.

Not strange at all - I am not trying to look for each and every loop hole in a worthless attempt to try and close them. I made reference to that in my post above. Please don't read actions into my posts. If you want to know if I missed something or why I posted something, ask.

Thirdly, If you multi-quote people, please include their name in the quote ...

2metraninja said:
DNK (this part added by Ruff) said:

Might as well just change the wording to prevent that specific abuse: giving an effective double-move by gifting units when out of order because you're not involved directly.

Click to expand...

DNK is absolutely right here that with gifting units there can be made a double- move.

In 2metraninja's post, it appears the quote from DNK is actually from me. Yes, I know that 2metraninja referenced DNK straight afterwards but I think a clear quote reference is much preferred and clearer.

And finally, ...

2metraninja said:
Not to try to wreak the whole rule-making process, but why dont you guys try to get over the fact that Civ is such a game that it never can have perfect rules. If there was to be found such perfect rules, you guys over RB could have this rule at hand years ago with your obsession of making everything fair and square. I know such rules dont exist and you are trying to make something especially for this game. We still need rules but digging in to those endless specific cases and trying to prevent anything is not the main purpose we are intending with this game, nor will give us the game starting any soon. Even if imperfect, we prefer to play it rather than arguing endlessly.

This comment is hard to parse into ball and man. It is a 'play the man' attack style post ('you guys') but it also contains some ball ('We still need rules but digging in to those endless specific cases and trying to prevent anything').

That said, I don't consider such an attack warranted as (and I have mentioned this above), I am trying to follow the directions of the game organizer (with a more public twist) in pulling together a combined rule set. Further, as mentioned above, I am not trying to articulate each and every item that could be abused (reference my comments on removing 2d but also note my post above re possible reinstatement if that is what the group decides) as well as the inclusion of some 'be good' style rules.

OzzyKP · Jun 27, 2012

DaveShack said:
Of what Ruff posted, the only thing that resulted in controversy is 2d. It happens that 2d touches on the same subject as the other proposal which generated controversy. The reason for the controversy is that the 2d that Ruff posted and your DM rules both impose unreasonable, and in some cases unenforceable restrictions. Let's just play civ as it was meant to be played, with all of the advantages and disadvantages of first and second move intact, instead of trying to strategically alter that with unenforceable rules.

Civ, as it is meant to be played, has no "first and second move". The whole idea of turn order to avoid double moves is a creation by players to address a flaw/oversight of the game "as it is meant to be played" which allows double moves. By altering the game in such a way to avoid double moves it creates other issues, which should also be addressed. Don't pretend one part of this is natural and the other part isn't.

tobiasn · Jun 27, 2012

OK guys. Putting on the official Team CFC hat for a second:

Team CFC stands behind the ruleset put forth by ruff, with the exception of 2d. If the rest of the teams can agree to that too, we'll all be happy.

That concludes my official CFC business.

Now, allow me to be slighly personal and say that I appreciate the efforts to seperate the man and the ball, from ruff, and from my teammates earlier.

There has been some "play the man" attack style posts, as ruff puts it, from us at CFC and RB both, some has been warranted, and some has been not. I think we're pretty much done with that now, and that can help us get the game started quickly.

If anybody have personal issues with each other, I urge you to take it via PM, and take the actual rules discussion in here.

When it comes to 2d:

It's my understanding that you can't really disallow what you intended in a gerenal, short and easy way. There will always be fringe cases and side effects that some will find unfair, unbalanced, etc. We have some pages with case A, B, C in here, I have been contributing to that as well. I think this might be a dead end.

That's why I think the best proposal in the whole, short saga about 2d, apart from omitting it in its entirety, is this:

ruff_hi said:
'Do your best not to double move your war opponent' [ - a rule that is ] unenforceable by law but is hoped to be enforced by honour

These things boils down to a code of conduct, a playing style. It's extremely hard to enforce by water tight rules.

I play another turn based strategy game called Football Manager. I play by a weird ethic called "LLM". Basically it's playing as realistically as possible. There are very few rules, really. But people often come in to the LLM forum and asks, "is this allowed under LLM, is that allowed"...

There's often just one good answer: "If you have to ask..."

We're probably gonna have a final vote over the section that ruff left out of the proposal too. When we do, it's my hope that we'll be pragmatic and realistic, and that we'll treat each other like adults.

Play fair, gents.

Lord Parkin · Jun 27, 2012

DaveShack said:
Yet now, when someone puts considerable effort into creating a decent ruleset amalgamated from the versions submitted, in order to get this dying game back on its feet, you roll your eyes in disgust. At least a token gesture of thanks might be in order; Ruff has put significant time into this of his own accord.

Click to expand...

Several people have said the vast majority of what Ruff posted looks great. Most of them are from CFC.

To be clear, I was talking very specifically to 2metra with this post. I know that there has been a great deal of positive reaction to the efforts so far from other players.

plako said:
I still miss email address of CivFr to send the starting location screenshots. Please send your emails to me.

Perhaps PM'ing someone from the team (Moineau?) might be best, since they may not be checking this thread regularly.

ruff_hi · Jun 27, 2012

It seems we are getting closer. Are there other teams out there that want to chip in with comments?

Also, since no one has ~~put their hand in the grinder~~, oops - I mean volunteered to draft a preamble, nor to address the simultaneous / sequential issues and my dog is barking at me for a walk ... I might take a stab at that later tonight or tomorrow.

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :

DaveShack · Jun 27, 2012

OzzyKP said:
Civ, as it is meant to be played, has no "first and second move". The whole idea of turn order to avoid double moves is a creation by players to address a flaw/oversight of the game "as it is meant to be played" which allows double moves. By altering the game in such a way to avoid double moves it creates other issues, which should also be addressed. Don't pretend one part of this is natural and the other part isn't.

Why does it need to be addressed? Why not just play it as sequential while at war, no further restrictions? What I'm struggling with here is how that's unfair to anyone. There is a difference between 1st and 2nd, and you have to make a strategic choice of which one you want. Beyond that it's logistics, and it's way more likely to come down to who is more prepared to declare.

I'm serious here btw. Right now we all have a fair start, and the gameplay should be what matters. I'd be happiest if we reach end of game without a single complaint. The easiest way to ensure that is to make as few rules as possible.

Speaking as myself.

Bowsling · Jun 27, 2012

My personal opinion:

I believe that in this ISDG game, with its multilingual nature, Rule 05 C should be modified to disallow players from defeated teams joining other teams. This rule naturally gives the five anglophone, and to a lesser extent, the two francophone teams a big advantage, due to the language barrier. If team CFC were eliminated, for example, most players would join other English teams. This influx of new information, man-hours and opinions could turn into a game-breaking advantage under some circumstances.

Hercules90 · Jun 27, 2012

Bowsling said:
My personal opinion:

I believe that in this ISDG game, with its multilingual nature, Rule 05 C should be modified to disallow players from defeated teams joining other teams. This rule naturally gives the five anglophone, and to a lesser extent, the two francophone teams a big advantage, due to the language barrier. If team CFC were eliminated, for example, most players would join other English teams. This influx of new information, man-hours and opinions could turn into a game-breaking advantage under some circumstances.

This doesn't entirely address the point you raise, but I remember in some previous demogames somewhere, there was like a 10? turn delay in accepting such defeated team members into other teams.

ruff_hi · Jun 27, 2012

OzzyKP said:
Civ, as it is meant to be played, has no "first and second move". The whole idea of turn order to avoid double moves is a creation by players to address a flaw/oversight of the game "as it is meant to be played" which allows double moves. By altering the game in such a way to avoid double moves it creates other issues, which should also be addressed. Don't pretend one part of this is natural and the other part isn't.

That is one option available in multi-player Civ 4 (simultaneous play). There there is also the option of sequential play. My understanding is that people don't want to play simultaneous turns while at war because it just comes down to better connections, faster thumbs, etc.

DaveShack said:
Why not just play it as sequential while at war, no further restrictions?

Are you suggesting playing sequential turns while using the civ4 simultaneous engine? Or are you suggesting playing sequential turns while using the civ4 sequential engine?

DaveShack said:
What I'm struggling with here is how that's unfair to anyone. There is a difference between 1st and 2nd, and you have to make a strategic choice of which one you want.

I am not civ4 master but I would think that the current advantages / disadvantages of 1st v 2nd play while using the civ4 simultaneous engine are so heavily stacked towards playing 2nd that everyone will be angling to be in the 2nd half.

While DaveS is struggling with what is unfair, I am struggling to see why anyone would ever want to be in the first half of the turn - I know there are advantages to the 1st half ... but they aren't much of an advantage.

I have posted above a break down of the turns that (I think) remove all disadvantages / advantages to going 1st or 2nd.

I've also said there is another option - use the civ4 simultaneous engine while everyone is at peace and the civ4 sequential engine while at least 2 teams are at war. Can someone with pitboss experience tell me if this is actually possible? I know that some game options can be changed mid-game ... is this one of them?

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :

DNK · Jun 28, 2012

As much as I love arguing details, I do get worn down over it after a bit...

Someone set a deadline and let's get on with it.

2metraninja · Jun 28, 2012

ruff_hi said:
... I am not civ4 master but I would think that the current advantages / disadvantages of 1st v 2nd play while using the civ4 simultaneous engine are so heavily stacked towards playing 2nd that everyone will be angling to be in the 2nd half.
...

Sequential or simultaneous makes no much difference when it goes to being first/being second advantages/disadvantages. It is even worse in sequential turns. While in simultaneous you have the chance to declare war yourself and get the spot you want for playing (first/second) then in sequential turns it is set in stone who will have the first/second advantages/disadvantages. It does not makes much difference who declares the war, because the last slot will always plays after the others, thus being deprived from the first-mover advantages and depriving all the other players from the second-mover advantages.

On the other hand, being higher in the slots gives you advantage when it comes to tie-ups for wonders, religions, tech bonuses, trade routes revenues, etc no matter if sequential or simultaneous turns. Maybe we will need a way to determine which team gets which slot if we want to address everything.

ruff_hi said:
While DaveS is struggling with what is unfair, I am struggling to see why anyone would ever want to be in the first half of the turn - I know there are advantages to the 1st half ... but they aren't much of an advantage.

I have posted above a break down of the turns that (I think) remove all disadvantages / advantages to going 1st or 2nd. ...

I did not see that break down and would be very interested to see it, so can you please provide me with a link or just quote of it here?

About the possible advantages of being first/second in war-time timer while playing simultaneous turns pitboss, I have made a thread some 2 years ago and here is what was said then. Although it is far from giving the full picture, it can give ideas for your and other players consideration. I would be glad to continue the discussion in here about it if fisrt/second mover advantages are really needed to be addressed with rules, which I personally dont think so.

Spoiler :

ruff_hi · Jun 28, 2012

2metraninja said:
Sequential or simultaneous makes no much difference when it goes to being first/being second advantages/disadvantages.

Are you sure? I don't play very much pitboss (maybe 1 or 2 games) but I play tons of pbem games. I had thought that sequential pitboss games would be very similar to pbem games in that production of units, etc happens at the end of the players turn and is not done all together at the end of the round.

I did not see that break down and would be very interested to see it, so can you please provide me with a link or just quote of it here?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11606277&postcount=239

Ruleset Discussion

Defender of Nabaxica

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Inventor

Defender of Nabaxica

Emperor

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Emperor

Warlord

aka emperor

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Inventor

Deity

Deity

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Member

Defender of Nabaxica

Live 4ever! Or die trying

Similar threads