Discussion in 'Civ4 -ISDG 2012' started by Lord Parkin, Jun 1, 2012.
Patience, man. We will work it out tonight or tomorrow.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Sample email from the website to a player: (will be more interesting once we get some wars going)
How about this rule?
prohibits the use of nuclear weapons before the vote on a UN resolution to ban nuclear weapons. If a majority against the resolution - nuclear weapons can be used.
Sorry for my bad English.
Nukes have been banned by a house rule; you can't reverse the rules halfway through the game if it's not completely unanimous.
Why? But the game has not started, home rule can be edit...
RE Admintator: Well, perhaps unanimous votes are a bit excessive - it feels like everything regarding possible rule infractions is going to end up in the admin's lap that way. Getting 9+ teams to vote unanimously on anything remotely complicated is impossible. 2/3rds vote or supermajority would be much better.
RE Finalization: Anyway, what's the timetable on finalizing these rules and starting this thing now that we're basically done with picking civs?
Filon: This rule was decided on before as the general settings. Including this in house rules (ruleset) is redundant. Take it out, there still aren't nukes allowed in the game.
The proposed ruleset that is on the table is problematic in numerous ways. Rather than needlessly post pages and pages of hurtful criticism of each and every provision, I will just point out two things. First, the ruleset proposed has already been identified as being contemplated assuming that the Spanish Mod would NOT be used. Spanish Mod ON is an already-voted-upon House rule... and as has already been pointed out... House rules can no longer be changed. So in that sense a rulset made in contemplation that the Spanish Mod would not be used is fundamentally flawed and must be totally scrapped.
Second, Teams are still engaged in picking their Civs/Leaders. It is completely unfair to be deciding the rules while some teams are distrated by debating Civ/Leader choices. Teams that are still talking about Leaders/Civs should not emerge from the process to find that the Rules have by-and-large been decided while they were understandably focused on other things. For this reason, any prior ruleset must be scrapped so that all teams can give their full attention to the drafting of the rules from the beginning of the process, rather than have some teams be able to decide the rules while other teams were distracted.
Therefore, we will wait until ALL leaders/Civs have been chosen and then move on to the ruleset. CFC, as the organizers of this event, invite all 9 Teams to either accept, or decline the invitation to formulate their own proposed Ruleset. Teams who decline the invitation give express permission to the other Teams to make the proposed Rulesets, but retain their right to vote for or against the final Ruleset proposal, as well as introduce and vote on amendments. After all the Teams have submitted their Ruleset proposals, we (I) will consolidate the rules that are common to all, and seperate the rules that are unique to certain rulesets or that conflict with house rules. I will then present these to the game admin for him to approve, along with the unique rules. The game admin can then add any of the unique rules that he deems essential to the game. The rest will be discarded.
Once this is done I will post the final proposed ruleset for all teams to vote whether to accept or not. If a majority of teams votes to accept, then the ruleset is final and we move on. If a majority declines the proposed ruleset, then we can begin to suggest and vote on amendments. Amendments will be adopted by majority team vote. Once all suggested amendments have been voted upon, we will again vote on the Final, amended Ruleset, repeating the process until the ruleset is approved by a majority of teams.
So at this time I suggest that all discussion on the current proposed ruleset stop, as this ruleset will be scrapped at the conclusion of the Civ/Leader selection. Of course, if ANY Team wishes to make the current proposed Ruleset their Official Team-proposed rulest, then that is perfectly legitimate. Additionally, any team can choose to introduce the exact same ruleset (or some version of it) but then it should be offered when all teams have their full attention on making the rules, ie after Leader/Civ selection.
I'm pretty sure this ruleset assumes the Spanish Mod is on.
With respect Darrell, I'm pretty sure it does not...
Are you specifically referring to the proposed Double Move rules or the rules as a whole? LordParkin's post was specifically referring to the DM rules he proposed on that page. The overall rules are unaffected by the DM mod.
This is indeed correct.
I don't understand any of this. What is being proposed is horrifyingly bureaucratic, insanely wasteful, and needlessly stalls the game for potentially weeks on end.
There's already a good set of proposed rules that can be tweaked and added to if needed. Do the majority of teams and players here really have any interest whatsoever in spending time writing individual rulesets and going through a massively drawn-out and convoluted process for validation? (If some already have their ideas on hand, great - go ahead and post them. No need to be shy. )
I have a hard time believing that more people here are interested in weeks of heavily involved rules lawyering and debating than actually playing the game.
Let's get on with it.
OK. I prefered waiting for everyone to be done, but I've been wrong before . We will take your suggestion and post our version now.
I guess we can take this as meaning that Team Apolyton declines the opportunity to post their own ruleset, to speed things along. Also, perfectly fine and reasonable.
Here is our ruleset (combining and shortening/simplifying the two ruleset proposals):
Guys, we're eager as hell to get this started too. But not all teams (or players) are super experienced (myself very much included), so it's actually kinda nice to be able to go through the proposed rules in a orderly fashion.
At the same time the proposed rules is a pretty good vantage point. You might be quite right that the majority of the teams don't care too much. Also there's the language barrier - something we might want to keep in mind, and simplify some of the rules a bit?
If no other teams shows any interest, then it's pretty straightforward and I'm sure we'll be in agreement in a jiffy.
Edit: haha yeah, that cross-post kinda proved my point
Yes, yes, you have the knack of pleonastics, despite using them too often leaves bad impression in the reader. Rules are important and they are not going to be decided by you or anyone else by the fast procedure.
Of course everyone have the word in creating the rules, as this is how it is fair. This or the other approach is the organizers creating the rules and the players agree to play or not. Everyone heard you, your proposals are noted.
That makes sense. I agree with you and actually think we're pretty close already. I think that's why Sommers post came as surprising.
RB will have a little think then confirm. Everyone is just eager to play and any delay, even for a positive and very justified reason, is going to be initially taken as disheartening.
Everyone here wants this game to be:
a) Up and running as soon as possible
b) A success
The best way to achieve these two things is to remember that we're all on the same page in working towards those goals. Sometimes we may not agree, but thank god for that. Life would be pretty boring otherwise. I'm sure this won't take long to clear up and we can then get on to the real spectacle- the game itself. Thanks to all those putting the hard work in and helping this get off the ground.
Note: I'm taking over for OzzyKP on this ruleset thing for Apolyton (for now).
I find it a bit odd that the guy likely to run the only espionage economy now wants to remove the rule that banned bombarding/sabotaging improvements such that a civ could never get the resource...
I don't see why that rule needed to go for the sake of, let's say, "simplicity"
Basically, I want Parkin's bombardment/sabotage rule reinstated, but otherwise we at Apolyton don't see any issues right now.
What means "the guy likely to run the only espionage economy" and how it is related to bombardment?
Also to sabotaging in this regard, as sabotaging costs about 100 espionage and anyone should be able to possibly run it without much efforts?
Well, seeing as no one's going to be bombarding until the late game, it's not really a part of the equation for the most part, therefore altering it from Lord Parkin's ruleset solely serves to allow someone to abuse this mechanic. Someone with an espionage approach, say...
In general all spy missions and detection probabilities factor in the total ESP ratio as a major component. Someone running an ESP economy has a massive advantage there over everyone, and you have to be playing totally coy to not recognize that since I know you know these mechanics better than most (ask Sommers if you don't).
Basically, if you have spent in the total game, say 15,000 ESP while the other guy has spent 500, you've got almost no chance of being detected while he is going to be lucky as hell to get a spy past you.
So, MR ESP ECONOMY is almost invulnerable to sabotage missions, while everyone else is almost helpless against him. Same goes for any old mission.
So, yeah, the cost is the same for all (actually, I think this also is highly affected by total ESP ratio), but the odds of succeeding -or hell just getting a spy onto the tile- are vastly different.
Re-read that bombardment/sabotage rule:
This affects not only the team attacking with espionage, but also the team defending against it. Removing the rule doesn't make espionage stronger or weaker. If a team had already decided to go the EE route, and was interested in making sabotage more powerful (which is far from the focus of an EE) this wouldn't be the way to do it.
The philosophy motivating the removal of this rule is simple. I consider these actions to be a minor influence on the game. Minor influences in wartime should be ignored because we can't legislate all of them (there are a lot more than just bombing/sabotage). Surely we'll miss some, but even if we didn't, you'd force the turnplayers to keep such meticulous notes about exactly when every action occurred, that making sure you weren't cheating would be a harder task than actually playing the game. It's a better strategy to let these minor effects play out as they will, and balance each other out, or become strategic considerations for the teams.
Separate names with a comma.