Team Opinion on huts/events/vasssal states/barbarians/tech trading?

IamJohn

IamJohn

(was)?
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
674
Location
Out there, somewhere, anywhere...
Sullla said:
Far be it from me to tell you how to run your game, but isn't this something that should be decided on a team-by-team basis, and not a poll of individuals?

Ideally, I'd like to hear the opinions (yes/no) from each of the five teams on the following settings:

- Huts
- Events
- Vassal States
- Barbarians: None, Normal, or Raging
- Tech Trading: Normal, No Tech Trading, No Tech Brokering

Those are the five key settings to decide upon. The best solution, IMO, would be to have each team cast their vote on each one. Majority rules, 3/5 teams or more.

But again, I'm just the map maker and not the game's organizer. :)
Click to expand...
We don't really have a representative for the forum or anything (that I'm aware of), but I figured we might as well get a collective opinion on what we want for the map. So in a quite non-official sort of way- what's our opinion about:
- Huts
- Events
- Vassal States
- Barbarians: None, Normal, or Raging
- Tech Trading: Normal, No Tech Trading, No Tech Brokering
 
Huts and Events...In a single player game I go with these options on for the purpose of creating an element of surprise. In this context, however, it is a bit akin to taking a vacation to Las Vegas...shall we pull the lever or shall we leave it alone and never know?

I interpret Vassal States to mean making a Player Team a Vassal and not Spawning them? If we enable it then someone would be capable of spawning a new team?

I like barbarians...100%. They provide easy (mostly) early experience for your units to get Ranger upgrades, etc.

As for the trading of technology...I like this idea. In single player games I almost never trade with the AI but I think it is a good diplomatic tool and helps to integrate teams through interdependence.

Huts: no
Events: no
Vassal States: no
Barbarians: yes
Tech Trading: yes
 
Do we know what happened with huts last game? Did we have them?

They can't do too much that's damaging, especially if we are careful in the early game, and they do provide the chance to have something interesting happen, such as a tech we can trade around.

I do agree on the rest though.
 
Huts are good. Usually I like vassal states, but for a multiplayer game, i don't think so.


Barbarians should be normal, anything else makes it too hard or too easy.
You can't play a BtS game without events, that takes the fun out of everything....

As for tech trading, last time Epsilon won with a Piffle alliance, so I don't want that to happen against us.
 
Huts: off (popping tech from a hut is just too unbalancing)
Events: off (again, fine for single player but not for competitive multiplayer)
Vassal States: off
Barbarians: on
Tech Trading: Normal (after all it is supposed to be diplomacy heavy game, so techs play major role in that)

mh
 
- Huts Yes
- Events No
- Vassal States No
- Barbarians: None, Normal, or Raging, Normal
- Tech Trading: Normal
 
Hi,

same opinion here as m_h, so copy&paste from him: :)

Huts: off (popping tech from a hut is just too unbalancing)
Events: off (again, fine for single player but not for competitive multiplayer)
Vassal States: off
Barbarians: on
Tech Trading: Normal (after all it is supposed to be diplomacy heavy game, so techs play major role in that)

-Kylearan
 
:agree: with m_h and Kylearan and Memphus.

Except for Random events. I think we should play with them on.
None of the random events are nearly as game changing as popping a free tech. IMO, they just add a layer of fun, and a little extra help or a minor extra obstacle to overcome.

In my experience, random events introduce less randomness to the game than the combat system. Losing one 95% odd-to-win battle (or vice-a-versa) can often have more far-reaching consequences than discovering black-pearls in the clams off your coast :)
Same goes for barbarians. Having a barbarian axeman show up (randomly) at just the wrong place and time is usually a bigger deal than 90% of the random events in the game.

I think we should keep them on, because they do add significantly to the fun factor without adding significantly to the amount of exposure to the RNG.
 
I agree with General_W; not only are random events less game-breaking than combat outcomes, they are also part of the game balance as e.g. slavery becomes less of a no-brainer due to slave revolts.
 
Theoden said:
I agree with General_W; not only are random events less game-breaking than combat outcomes, they are also part of the game balance as e.g. slavery becomes less of a no-brainer due to slave revolts.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer events off, but are ok either way.
And out of interest, would you really not revolt to slavery because of the remote chance you might suffer a slave revolt?

mh
 
mostly-harmless said:
And out of interest, would you really not revolt to slavery because of the remote chance you might suffer a slave revolt?
Click to expand...
Considering a typical early empire of 3+ cities, I wouldn't think twice of running slavery. However, there are certainly cases, and not just in theory, where the risk of a slave revolt outweighs the benefit of whipping, which for instance is trivially true if you don't have any cities capable of gaining an advantage by whipping. Even if no such cases are relevant, there is still a bit of strategy in deciding when to switch, since it at least isn't a switch-for-later-use civic.
 
No opinion on vassals or events.
Huts: Abstain - kind of like them, but if they really are unbalancing, we shouldn't have them
barbs: Normal.
tech trading: normal, absolutely.
 
Well, you guys are a little ahead of the ball, having created a thread on this issue before I did! Here's the message I've posted in the other team forums:

Hello, and greetings to Team 3! I've been asked to create the map for the Demogame, and before I get started I need to hear a consensus from each of the teams on some of the game settings. I would like you guys to discuss the following options, and come up with a team answer to the following six settings:

- Huts: On/Off
- Events: On/Off
- Vassal States: On/Off
- Barbarians: None, Normal, or Raging
- Tech Trading: Normal, No Tech Trading, No Tech Brokering
- Difficulty Level: Low (Noble/Prince), Medium (Monarch/Emperor), High (Immortal/Deity)

Be aware that difficulty level affects three main issues with no AIs in the game: research costs, inflation/maintenance, and barbarian strength. It might sound cool to be playing on Deity, but... the game balance frankly is not as good at the highest setting, and the game just generally runs better at the more moderate settings. And while I don't want to prejudice the voting, I would strongly recommend turning off Vassal States, which add little to the gameplay while opening up a number of gamey exploits. Of course, this is YOUR team, and you can tell me to screw off if you like. :D

I'm asking each team to come to a decision on these six settings by Wednesday, November 19th of next week. You can decide in any fashion your team chooses - how to go about doing so is up to you! Once all five teams have voted, I'll tally them up and see which options won. Each team as a whole has one vote, and 3/5 majority wins. For non-binary options like difficulty setting, I'll pick whatever setting is closest to the group vote (e.g. if there are three "Medium" and two "High" votes, I will choose Emperor as the difficulty level). Assume that any setting not listed here will be turned off for the game. Thus you won't see "No City Razing" or "Always War/Peace" or anything like that.

Good luck and happy voting! :king:

Based on what I see in this thread, the settings look like:

- Huts: Off (7:1 vote, not close)
- Events: Off (6:3, a little closer)
- Vassal States: Off (8:0 by my count!)
- Barbarians: Normal (7:0); I'm assuming "yes" votes were for normal barbs
- Tech Trading: Normal (8:1, or something like that)

You guys still need to discuss difficulty level, since I didn't mention that in my earlier forum post. I also don't want to put words in your mouths, so please confirm that my summation of the discussion was accurate. Thanks. :)
 
I believe Sullla is right when he mentions game balance being better at moderate levels of difficulty. Noble-Monarch sounds gtg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
[BTS] Earth 18 civs - How to Win (Monarch-Emperor) : 4th game - Japan (Immortal :eek: ) - many calculations, I would appreciate replays from the pros
6 7 8
Replies
155
Views
3K
sylvanllewelyn
S
AcaMetis
Nobles' Club 383: Isabella of Spain
Replies
10
Views
743
Nick723
N
AcaMetis
Nobles' Club 381: Augustus Caesar of Rome
Replies
8
Views
638
0urBall
0
AcaMetis
Nobles' Club 382: Lincoln of America
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Implo
Implo
AcaMetis
Nobles' Club 379: Gilgamesh of Sumeria
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Jellybug
Jellybug
Back
Top Bottom