Simultaneous or Sequential turns?

[Lord Parkin]

Cast your vote! Brief explanation:

Simultaneous = Everyone makes their moves at any stage. Turns go much faster (3-4 times faster). We have special rules for war to make sure no-one abuses moving twice in a row.

Sequential = Everyone has to make their moves in order. The game takes 3-4 times longer to play as a result.

For me the choice is obvious (in fact I thought we'd already chosen it). The 3-4 times quicker turns with Simultaneous are just so good that there's not really a question. I'd much rather spend 2 days waiting for the next turn than a whole week between turns.

 

[BLubmuz]

I voted sim, trusting

We have special rules for war to make sure no-one abuses moving twice in a row.

I stopped play in an italian ladder 'cause many people abused that.

 

[grant2004]

I trust this is the kind of environment where those rules will work well. So I'll absolutely go for a fast game.

But while I also see this as a fairly straightforward question. I feel that this poll is unfairly leading in the way it's phrased. By including the number of days for turns in the poll question, but ignoring other potential issues (such as people double moving) this poll tends to skew the results in favor of quicker turns. Poll questions should be neutral with discussion of pros and cons limited to the body of the thread. This isn't a big deal right here, but I remember a few DGs back that issues of poll neutrallity, among other things, ended up sinking the game. Two sides fighting over which direction to take the game, and using misleading polls to get their way eventually made the game so poisonous that it wasn't worth playing. I'd hate for us to make a similar mistake here.

 

[azzaman333]

Sequential is boring.

 

[Irgy]

I'm going to abstain. I'm not convinced sequential will really be that much slower, but I don't have much experience with it and am kind of neutral on the issue.

I agree with grant2004 about the poll phrasing.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Irgy, look at it this way:

Assume every team has someone who can log into the game and play every 12 hours. Then with 6 teams, it takes 3 days to play one turn with sequential turns. With simultaneous turns, it would take 12 hours per turn.

You might be right that the turn times will become closer as the game progresses and wars start up, but that's still a long way in the future. For the start-up stage of the game, simultaneous turns is IMMENSELY faster and less tedious. And it's probably still faster on the whole even once the nitty-gritty wars begin.

 

[BLubmuz]

So, the Simultaneuos can be changed to sequential once the game progresses if some abuse will be reported?

And how can we report an abuse and who will take care?

 

[Trystero]

The arguments for simultaneous seem convincing to me. I've voted accordingly.

 

[Lord Parkin]

So, the Simultaneuos can be changed to sequential once the game progresses if some abuse will be reported?

Unfortunately I don't think this is possible. But still, in my opinion it's far better to start with simultaneous turns because it just shaves so much time off the game.

And how can we report an abuse and who will take care?

We PM the admins. It should be obvious (via Civstats amongst other things) whether or not there has been a double move, and the turn can be reverted as necessary.

 

[BLubmuz]

OK, thank you.

BTW who are tha admins for this one? And the mapmaker?

 

[DaveShack]

DaveMcW and classical_hero are admins, one or both are mapmakers. krill also volunteered for map making. I think all the map folks will work together on verifying relative balance.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Yeah, it should be 2 or all 3 of them making the map, so we should have a fairly good chance of it being well balanced this time around.

 

[Methos]

I voted 'Sim'. I fear the one week/turn will lose cause players to lose interest in their team.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Simultaneous turns have been voted in by the team vote! This is great to see. So the game shouldn't drag along as much as the last one.