r_rolo1
King of myself



That will be true of nearly every round (except the very last rounds).Had we went that way this first game, I think we would have had a vastly different look to all the saves.
I certainly didnt dismiss it, in fact, I brought it up almost immediately after playing my round.A better idea would be to make the first round longer, say 4000Bc-1000BC.
I already raised this issue before. It was dismissed then. Have you changed your mind about it?
That will be true of nearly every round (except the very last rounds).
A better idea would be to make the first round longer, say 4000Bc-1000BC.
I already raised this issue before. It was dismissed then. Have you changed your mind about it?
After seeing how "unmatured" the 2000 BC saves were, I tend to agree now that 1000 BC would have been a better time ( at least would had allowed the axerushers to show their gamble ).
I certainly didnt dismiss it, in fact, I brought it up almost immediately after playing my round.
I like the idea of turning the first 3 rounds into 2, or maybe not quite the full rounds. 4000 - 1000 BC, then 1000 BC to 300 AD ish. That may be just about right. Most players should have at LEAST gotten Alphabet by then so the trade situation wont be as one-sided, and anyone who doesnt have CS by 300 AD has no excuse.
- When does voting occur?
On a different note, I think we need to hammer out the voting system more before the upcoming rounds (and especially if we intend to shorten future game rounds at all).
First, I think we need to answer 5 questions:
- Which saves are eligible for voting? ("Are non-roster player saves eligible?")
- Who is eligible to vote? ("Are non-roster players eligible to vote?")
- Do all votes hold equal weight? ("Do roster players hold more weight?")
- Can players vote for themselves?
- When does voting occur?
Independent of those answers, we need to choose a voting system and stick with it.
Based on past input, I think 3 different preferred methods have arisen (NOTE: all tie-breakers are decided by the thread starterking
or his deputy
scan
.):
- One player, one vote, one winner. This is basically the idea we started with. Every player casts a single vote, and the save with the most votes becomes the best ball.
Pros: Simple and easily understood.
Cons: More likelihood for inconclusive tallies (ties).
- Strategy voting. This is the system we used for Game 1 Round 2. Every player votes for the strategy they prefer. They then vote for the saves which best support those strategies. The voting is then repeated for an alternate strategy and save. The strategy with the most #1 votes wins ... that strategy's individual save votes are then tallied to determine the 'best ball' save.
Pros: More control over how the game is played (Victory condition).
Cons: Difficult to explain/understand. Possibility of an inferior save winning because of a preferred strategic preference. The 'strategies' should be defined/explained every round prior to voting.
- Cumulative. This is a method not yet mentioned. Each player has n number of votes (perhaps n = the number of roster players) to distribute across all the saves. Players can distribute portions of their vote between a set of saves, fully upon one save, or a mixture. The save with the most number of votes wins.
For example, if a player has 5 votes, they can distribute all 5 votes to one save or perhaps 3 to one and 2 to another.
Pros: Simple to understand. Innate ability to "rank" saves. Allows for certain voters to hold more weight than others.
Cons: not sure yet
2) Roster Players, plus the featured player (once that becomes actual)
5) Voting occurs when there is serious doubt/debate about what save should be picked as the best ball ...
Excluding non-roster players from voting limits lurker interaction. (Which I think we want to encourage .?.?)
As long as non-roster player saves are eligible for best ball consideration, though ... I think excluding non-roster players from voting will be ok.
I think we're going to find every round will see serious doubt/debate ...
Everyone round can virtually be labeled "the first."I think we're going to find every round will see serious doubt/debate ...
... every player who wants his/her save to be considered should make ONE fairly brief statement as to why that save is a worthy contender (ie. no essays, no sustained arguments over multiple posts - a few bullet points would be perfect).
I would suggest that, in each round, every player who wants his/her save to be considered should make ONE fairly brief statement as to why that save is a worthy contender (ie. no essays, no sustained arguments over multiple posts - a few bullet points would be perfect). If anyone else asks for clarification on some point, then the player can respond. But beyond that, he/she should focus on analysing other players' saves.
I like that idea, but speaking from my own experience, I didnt really include all the information about my "plan" in my summary, and only thought of additional comments as other posters reminded me of some of the choices I made and why.That sounds like a good idea.
Perhaps this should be a separate section at the end of the Report.
It could also contain a brief summary of the overall future strategy the player has in mind for their game (including likely Victory Condition(s)).
Before we begin speculating on how a random event might have tanked Diamondeye's save, are we even sure that the spawned civ even built it?and so far he didnt get the Ramesses Colony thing that screwed up Diamonds bid at the Colossus.
I cant help but disagree. If the plan is a military move on Sal, a GE to bulb Machinery would almost lock that down completely, especially since he already has CS. Besides, its FUN that way. Boring no-wonder grinds suck and make this game too much like work. Of course, after Construction comes in, self-teching Machinery while building Cats and Galleys is also a solid alternative, but can you not understand that we are NOT trying to play Immortal level here? This is a Monarch AI, and like it or not, this stuff WORKS on Monarch, and also adds a HUGE element of "fun" to the game that I find lacking in higher level "grind-fests" where you count every hammer, every TR, and every move triple analyzed. I LIKE Wonders, and fun GP gambit moves, and such, its why I play this level and not Immortal, where most of my game isYou mention spawning a GE. While I personally wouldn't choose to run the engineer to spawn one, I wouldn't be opposed to making my save more "appealing" by running one for the chance at a GE pop. While I think there are better ways to approach this particular game, I think the cost would be low enough to me to be acceptable, provided I felt it increased the chances of my own save being chosen for the subsequent round. Presumably, I can make more out of my save than the next player, and would be in a better position to have my save continually carried forward in such a manner, with the majority of my gameplay focused on my own strategy, and a small portion focused on making my save appealing.
Everyone round can virtually be labeled "the first."
With everyone picking up the same save to start a round, I don't see how there will be significant differences between saves, excepting radically different approaches, and...RNG benevolence.
I'd hate to see the RNG be the deciding factor in which save is played, but a campaign that fails due to RNG disaster is just that, a failure.
I think this may begin touching on an issue someone else raised earlier, which was that the format encourages "risky" or "dangerous" play. If you get lucky with the RNG, then you win. If not, you've lost nothing, because someone else (hopefully) took a more practical approach.
Oh, and I think that a "no voting for your own save" rule will be necessary. As the games go on, it'll be all too easy for players not to give proper attention to other saves, because they're too wrapped up in their own pre-determined strategies. I'd like to see people advocating other players' saves, rather than just going on about how their own one is the best.
Too much self-promotion may unbalance the best ball decision, drawing attention away from the saves of less vocal/more modest players.
I would suggest that, in each round, every player who wants his/her save to be considered should make ONE fairly brief statement as to why that save is a worthy contender (ie. no essays, no sustained arguments over multiple posts - a few bullet points would be perfect). If anyone else asks for clarification on some point, then the player can respond. But beyond that, he/she should focus on analysing other players' saves.
btw, I'm not really talking about a formal rule here - just a guideline encouraging analysis and discussion, rather than self-promotion and self-justification.
That sounds like a good idea.
Perhaps this should be a separate section at the end of the Report.
It could also contain a brief summary of the overall future strategy the player has in mind for their game (including likely Victory Condition(s)).
Before we begin speculating on how a random event might have tanked Diamondeye's save, are we even sure that the spawned civ even built it?
I cant help but disagree. If the plan is a military move on Sal, a GE to bulb Machinery would almost lock that down completely, especially since he already has CS. Besides, its FUN that way. Boring no-wonder grinds suck and make this game too much like work. Of course, after Construction comes in, self-teching Machinery while building Cats and Galleys is also a solid alternative, but can you not understand that we are NOT trying to play Immortal level here? This is a Monarch AI, and like it or not, this stuff WORKS on Monarch, and also adds a HUGE element of "fun" to the game that I find lacking in higher level "grind-fests" where you count every hammer, every TR, and every move triple analyzed. I LIKE Wonders, and fun GP gambit moves, and such, its why I play this level and not Immortal, where most of my game isI am playing this as if it was Monarch, not Emperor, not Immortal, and not Deity. If this was the Prince Cookbook, you probably would cringe noticeably when I added the Mids and GW to the list I already built, LOL.
It wasnt my language, it was my tone, and I apologize if it seemed overly abrasive.I agree with the major point here, although I think you should try and watch your language a bit, sorry to say