The New BTS MTDG turn options

[classical_hero]

I suppose we're about ready to put it to a vote, at this point.
Sounds like were down to about 4 options:

1. Simultaneous Turns PitBoss - Epic Speed - 24 hr turn limit
2. Simultaneous Turns PitBoss - Normal Speed - 24 hr turn limit
3. Sequential Turns PitBoss - Normal Speed - 24 hr turn limit
4. PBEM - Normal Speed - 24 hr turn limit enforced by Moderator

I will start this thread and I have decided that I would be willing to play a part of the game moderator, should the game need one.

 

[General_W]

Thanks Classical Hero.

Looks like we've already got an informal vote going in the other thread - but this will be even easier.

Mostly -I'm curious to see how many people are even interested in playing in a new BtS game... whatever the mode.
Will help us choose how many teams we want. I know there's a lot of reasons that 5 teams is nice for diplomacy... but I think every team should have at least 3, and preferably 5, active members.

As noted in the other thread, I voted for #3 Sequential Turns PitBoss - Normal Speed - 24 hr turn limit.

 

[dutchfire]

I'd vote for #3, but I probably won't be playing (much) due to a lack of time, so I'll leave it up to those people who will be playing.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm with Dutchfire on this one - I voted for #3, but I can't be an active turnplayer until I get BtS, which is a pretty low priority for the next month or so.

That said, I'm not against any of the other options.

 

[1889]

I really like the PBEM format and I will be an active player so there!

 

[Joe Harker]

Voted for 4, though the enforced time limit is good, i fear that other problems from connections and more players not been able to enter the game and look around and accidental moves could be a source of tenison and conflict. Also if classical hero is willing to be mod and is fairly active, then (hopefully) turns not moving won't be so much of a problem. Also let's not try to have the same delay between sign up and play starting.

 

[fed1943]

Voted 2, but I'll be happy with any option
as long it is a BTS game.

Best regards,

 

[DaveShack]

My vote would be for an option which is not listed: Simultaneous pitboss, with (#teams - 1) days for the turn timer. So 4 teams = 72 hours, 5 teams = 96 hours.

Just to be different. If there is nothing going on it can fly, and there is ample time for team discussion and diplomacy when needed.

I see this as much better than sequential pitboss because even in average case sequential will take almost the whole 24 hours per team -- suppose team 1 plays at 1600 GMT and team 2's turn player can only play at 1500 GMT.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

I voted #3, and I am an Extremely active player.

 

[peter grimes]

[not to muddle the issue, but...]

Daveshack's option is fine with me, as long as there is a safeguard in the ruleset regarding simultaneous moves

 

[DaveShack]

However I should clarify: I also agree totally with the portion of the discussion in the other thread that we should not go fast merely to go fast. It is essential to have a mechanism which allows ample time for team discussion and diplomacy.

 

[classical_hero]

My vote would be for an option which is not listed: Simultaneous pitboss, with (#teams - 1) days for the turn timer. So 4 teams = 72 hours, 5 teams = 96 hours.

Just to be different. If there is nothing going on it can fly, and there is ample time for team discussion and diplomacy when needed.

I see this as much better than sequential pitboss because even in average case sequential will take almost the whole 24 hours per team -- suppose team 1 plays at 1600 GMT and team 2's turn player can only play at 1500 GMT.

That is what I would prefer as my method of playing the game, since it means that things can flow smoothly and that it what would be preferable. Also since there would be enough time for teams to make moves, we should not have DMs take place. I would say that if you are going to war that the turnplayers would work between themselves to have a systemo of when players. SO dave since you are a mod can you add a fifth optionof a variable Simultaneous timer.

 

[Conroe]

Also since there would be enough time for teams to make moves, we should not have DMs take place. I would say that if you are going to war that the turnplayers would work between themselves to have a systemo of when players.

You could still potentially have problems with DMs, as different folks have different interpretations as to what exactly constitutes a double move. You also have to be cognizant that it won't just be turn players that are logging in to the game. There could be accidental movement of units or even automatic movement of units on goto orders. The latter could be especially ugly should a worker continue its task when a turn player would ordinarily have moved the unit out of harms way.

 

[General_W]

If the vote goes towards playing Simultaneous turns, I'll still participate. But I'm highly skeptical about how this will work out.
I think it'd be a mistake that would lead to some serious acrimony, I'm afraid.

At this point, the vote looks like 8 votes for sequential turns (PBEM and Pitboss) and 3 votes for simultaneous turns.

Should we give this vote another 3-4 days maybe, and then have the run-off vote?
We could potentially add the "Simultaneous pitboss, with (#teams - 1) days for the turn timer." option at that point. It's got 3 votes, which makes it the 3rd place vote getter at this point.

I suppose it just matters if we're going to do a top-2 runoff vote, or a top-3?

 

[robboo]

top 2 runoff unless 3 are tied then all 3.

I am actually conflicted...between 3 and 4. voted 3 so enforcement is code driven instead of mod driven

 

[classical_hero]

Here is one problem that could happen if we go with a sequential pitboss with a timer of 24 hours since it could mean that if the turnplayer becomes sick and is not able to play then he will miss the turn and that would cause problems if you do not have enough back up and they are not aware of the situation, should it happen. So that is one reason why I would refer a simultaneous timer with a larger time limit so that this can make allowances. It is easy to have a some rules and enforcement of DMs,. I have been in many pitboss games and when you have well enforced DM rules you can have a well run game and also if needed you can allow for flexibility since it the greatest strength of Pitboss, which will get weakened by it being sequential, rather than simultaneous.

 

[peter grimes]

...if the turnplayer becomes sick and is not able to play then he will miss the turn and that would cause problems if you do not have enough back up and they are not aware of the situation, should it happen. So that is one reason why I would refer a simultaneous timer...

I don't understand how a simultaneous timer solves this hypothetical issue. Besides - nobody is saying that the game can't be paused for special circumstances.

 

[Conroe]

So that is one reason why I would refer a simultaneous timer with a larger time limit so that this can make allowances.

A larger time limit would certainly help your example. However, I agree with Peter, it seems that this issue could arise whether it is sequential or simultaneous. In fact, I would suspect that it would be a greater issue with simultaneous. At least with sequential it would be much more noticeable in civstats that a team has yet to log on.

It is easy to have a some rules and enforcement of DMs,.

That was my point. You are going to need more than "some" rules. You are going to need a complete and well defined set of rules to address the issue. And even then you may still run into issues with accidental DMs unless you restrict access to turnplayers or at least limit access until after the turnplayer has made all moves. As to enforcement, I'm not really sure how that can be done unless both teams have complete line of sight over the field of play.

 

[classical_hero]

Here is a sample of a DM move rule.

RULES OF THE GAME:

The Double Move Rule : 48 hour turns

1. No double moves during a time of war, except as noted below.

During times of war all concerned Civ's should allow for 1/2 the turn timer (24 hours) to pass between moves if the other Civs involved in the war have not moved since a concerned Civ has moved.

In other words: You cannot make moves during periods of war until either one of two things have occured:

i. All other concerned Civs in a war (being at war in game) have made moves/completed one turn since you have made your moves/completed a turn.

ii. 1/2 the turn timer (24 hours) has past since you made your moves/completed your turn.

The reason "made your moves/completed your turn" is worded that way is that a team can log in make some moves, log out, log back in and make more moves. Once a team makes ANY moves the requirement that says a team must make a move/complete a turn is fullfilled.

2. No moving of units after you have pressed 'End Turn'

3. No double moves of a Settler, at any time, if an opponents Settler is in the same vicinity as yours, and visible, except as in point 1.ii. above.

4. No double moves of a unit, at any time, if a goody hut is nearby, and an opponents unit is in the same vicinity, and visible, except as in point 1.ii. above.

5. Double moves should be allowed at all other times in order to help speed game play.

6. Play fair, be a gentleperson. We are all here to have fun and enjoy ourselves. Let's do just that and not screw our fellow gamers over by bending the rules to give ourselves an unfair advantage.

 

[General_W]

I hate to be a cynic, but I'm with Conroe (et al.) on this.

We've now got 3 games worth of MTDG experience under our belt. One of the main lessons that I think we've learned is this: "The less reliance on artificial rules, the better."

A little history - off the top of my head:

• Civ3 MTDG 1 = Ugly fights over meaning of the rule regarding "spirit of the game"
• Civ4 MTDG 1 = General bickering over non-enforcement of 24 hour turn rule
• Civ3 MTDG 2 = 24 hour turn rule fights, Arguments about Coastal blocking

Civ3 & Civ4 are both awesome games in my book - but one of the key features that makes Civ4 better for multiplayer (I think) is the elimination of the ability to perform many of the exploits in Civ3.
Introducing a Double-Move possibility just sounds like a nightmare to me, no matter how nice a ruleset we manage to write.

We've got a couple weeks to go on this vote yet - but at this point it looks like the top-2 runoff election is going to be between PBEM and Sequential PitBoss anyway.