So it have been considered that the sequential option is probably on average team number/2 = 2.5(assuming you are keeping 5 teams) times as slow as going simultaneous? With simultaneous you don't lose anything as long as people aren't looking to break the rules. Why was the poll closed? are you going to play this game with just 20 people? I could find 20 people for this in under a day most probably...
The New BTS MTDG turn options
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
Just have the host reload whenever anything awkward happens, still probably 2.5 times faster than sequential turns(or as fast as the turnplayers want).
azzaman333
meh
That's the point though, the game is being played slowly so as to allow increased discussion between each team. Going 2.5 times faster is a bad thing.
Please do!
The more the merrier! But as Azzaman pointed out, the game works best when there is time for discussion between teams and within teams. 3 MTDGs have been run under the PBEM format, but we're looking for something a little smoother. That's how we came to settle on Sequential Pitboss. If you'd like to see the whole discussion, check out this thread, starting around post 12 or so.
Krill
Deity
Nah, no need to move the posts
But the 3 MTDGs worth of experience refers to what we've learned about the MTDG format, and what to expect of gameplay - not about 3 game worth of pitboss experience. To be honest, I'm still worried that the 24 hour turn-timer is too fast
24 hours probaly is too fast, because if teams only have 1-2 turn players and they are busy on that day, then it means that either the game has to be paused or somebody else has to know that they have the step up and play the turn and do turn reports etc, which means that either each turn takes longer or stuff might get missed, making teams lose interest as turns get skipped/completeed incorrectly. Which as stated is one of the advantages of simul turns at, say, 72 hours. Quicker turn times all round and more time for each team to play the turn in.
And you don't have to worry so much about pauses in game (tbh I can't think of a reason to pause a game in simul turns except if, say, of a rule infraction that needs an admin to sort out quickly.)
EDIT: And I wasn't talking about pitboss games as demogames: I've played in 8 PBEM MTDGs with various levels of activity and 1 Pitboss simul turns MTDG, and I'm the neutral historian in the Apolyton BtSDG (another simul Pitboss MTDG). All the PBEM games were and are slower than the pitboss games (one PBEM game I think is still ongoing from 2005...) because turns were played in a serial fashion. The BtSDG is on turn 84, about to start turn 85, and started on the 9th of May, 191 days ago: 2.27 days per turn, with no teams complaining about the speed.
I agree with Krill.. 24 hours probably is too fast for MDTG, not everyone are as active as the most active players... By going 120 hours(it won't ever be reached though, so it might as well be untimed...) all the teams get way more time to think/consider actions...
In war it is pretty simple for the team moving second to just wait until the team moving first in the war is done, if they end the turn last ofc they are required to log out without moving further units or doing other actions. If someone somehow cheat by doing a double move this can easily be solved by a reload, and if it is intentional, it should come under serious consideration to do some reprecursion... However that is just like any other rule breaking. It is very hard to breat the rules if you don't try, so i don't see a problem with this.
In war it is pretty simple for the team moving second to just wait until the team moving first in the war is done, if they end the turn last ofc they are required to log out without moving further units or doing other actions. If someone somehow cheat by doing a double move this can easily be solved by a reload, and if it is intentional, it should come under serious consideration to do some reprecursion... However that is just like any other rule breaking. It is very hard to breat the rules if you don't try, so i don't see a problem with this.
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
24 hours isn't too, fast, they have the days inbetween their turns to discuss actions, if the save needs to be postponed, they can always ask for the timer to pause if they can't decide in that time.
Also, we have already decided this and i don't want to waste time going over things that have been decided.
Also, we have already decided this and i don't want to waste time going over things that have been decided.
You don't have days to discuss your actions if you are waring the guy right before you in the turn order, especially in a late game war with tripple digit units assuming 24 hours is enough for everything that should be done during a turn(and that is assuming everyone have a regular schedule) is just silly..
Someone arbitarly decided on this because of the 19 people who voted in the poll? That is a little more than the people on any given team. Having this as a deciding vote(where people who haven't even joined could vote), when it was closed very early by a moderator, and without much discussion on the issue doesn't seem very democratic to me.
Why do you like sequential turns better than simultanious turns? There is no issues with simultanious turns as long as double moves are handled properly...
My preference is sticking with the sequential turns; admittedly a few things outside of war could have an impact, like two teams researching a tech or building a wonder on the same turn, and the game (randomly?) chooses between one. This is less likely with epic speed but it could still be possible if two teams, say, start off researching for buddhism.
The main thing I still don't like in simultaneous turns is actually a huge artifact of the CIV combat system (this particular thing I'm not a fan of at all, btw) that has a major impact on gameplay. Namely, the way units heal is really dependent on sequential turns in the game. There are cases where it doesn't matter if you double move or not; simply having simultaneous turns can wreck a war/battle (double moving of course would make it worse). For instance, if two stacks come across each other, the one who attacks first does a bunch of collateral damage with seige. In sequential turns, the defending side would get a heal in before the start of their turn; this doesn't happen in simultaneous turns! Instead, in the very worst possible situation, the defenders can't counterattack because they are weak, then the attackers get to heal/promote and it's their turn again! The same thing applies to units being built in cities; say one team slaved a new unit; there can be a situation where the new unit is then ready the next turn, without having been damaged or attacked on defense. I know this calls for a post somewhere else, but I've always disliked how healing happens at the start of the turn opposed to the end, when everything else happens. Regardless, unless I'm wrong and the mechanic is altered in simultaneous turns, this could have some major effects (namely, the team who gets to go "first" at the start of each turn-usually the aggressor who started the war, has an advantage).
The main thing I still don't like in simultaneous turns is actually a huge artifact of the CIV combat system (this particular thing I'm not a fan of at all, btw) that has a major impact on gameplay. Namely, the way units heal is really dependent on sequential turns in the game. There are cases where it doesn't matter if you double move or not; simply having simultaneous turns can wreck a war/battle (double moving of course would make it worse). For instance, if two stacks come across each other, the one who attacks first does a bunch of collateral damage with seige. In sequential turns, the defending side would get a heal in before the start of their turn; this doesn't happen in simultaneous turns! Instead, in the very worst possible situation, the defenders can't counterattack because they are weak, then the attackers get to heal/promote and it's their turn again! The same thing applies to units being built in cities; say one team slaved a new unit; there can be a situation where the new unit is then ready the next turn, without having been damaged or attacked on defense. I know this calls for a post somewhere else, but I've always disliked how healing happens at the start of the turn opposed to the end, when everything else happens. Regardless, unless I'm wrong and the mechanic is altered in simultaneous turns, this could have some major effects (namely, the team who gets to go "first" at the start of each turn-usually the aggressor who started the war, has an advantage).
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
Perfect example of when the save could be paused
A) We actually had quite a big discussion on this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=290706&page=4)
B) One of the reasons this was decided on before the game was advertised (and note, anyone could have taken part in discussion) was so that the time between the people joining the game and starting was small cause last game game it was seriously delayed, alot of people lost interest and left and when we started the game suffered from lack of players all the way through
because of that expoilt and the potential arguements that would stem from it
You can have rules against it, but judging by previous demogames, both types, these rules will be broken somewhere, and it is best to avoid them completely.
IamJohn
(was)?
From what I've heard it goes to the person who has the most points over the target, so if I had 85 bulbs and needed 100 for a tech, and was getting 15 bulbs, but the other person was getting 16 bulbs per turn, then the other person would get credit for being first.
Krill
Deity
That isn't any better if your team is last in the turn order is it
I'll split the next paragraph into severl chunks to better answer it for you Earthling.
No, all units heal between the two movement portions of adjacent turns (so move units-> end turn -> heal -> next turn), or when you promote them, but units can't use XP gained in that turn for a promotion unless they already have much XP for a promotion (so if at the start of the turn they could promote to say, shock, then you lose a battle and then they could prmote to both shock and cover, they can take both promotions and the corresponding healing bonus). However, while you can't move units after you have ended your turn in sequential pitboss, I was under the impression that you could promote units even though it was not your turn due to game mechanics. If I'm wrong, then you have a fair point, but if I'm right there is no issue between the game types.
This would be covered by a double move; the stack that moves last would have to attack last unless they moved right at the start of the turn; however, siege units are immune to collateral, so you can collateral them back. This does favour the defender, but no more than a sequential game; the the team attacking has to move next to a stack or city before they can attack, which will always give the defenders a chance to collateral the stack in the first place.
In open field combat, stick to the hills and forests, make your opponents move next to you first (stay two tiles away, make sure all defensive positions have no forest next to them etc.
Non sequetur, the attacking stack can always attack with the catapults and immediately attack with the remainder of the troops in the same turn never giving the defending stack a chance to heal...
non sequetur; the defenders got injured by being attacked, the attacking units have to wait a turn to heal from teh promotions, so the defenders also heal at the end of the turn/start of the next turn before units are moved (unless you move them).
All units are built at the end of a teams turn, so this issue will exist regardless of whether it is a sequential or simul turn game. It's actually worse in a sequential turn game; if you are being attacked by the team after you in the turn order, you can slave a unit and it will be built when you hit end turn, so while it won't have any promotions, it will be able to defend against the other team. Healing I've already addressed.
Krill
Deity
How long do you really want this game to take? It can take 5 days for 1 turn to pass, and you'd want to pause the game to have extra discussions?
Easy way to solve this: Sulla won't start making the map until wednesday night, and will likely take a few days to perfect, so that easily gives us 5 days, maybe 7, to make polls in the private fora, gather the results and have a final decision (3/5 teams decide) by the end of the coming weekend.
So...rules will be broken without repercussions? You really believe that?
Krill
Deity
double post sorry
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
I am not saying that we should have a pause every turn for each team, but when something major happens, the team can ask for an extention to their turn.
And 5 days for a turn is quick compared to the last game.
This actually has been voted on after the game was advertised, it is in the ruleset, and passed by a huge majority (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=298688), so unless there is a majority to vote on it again i think this and the rule set agreed on should stand.
No i don't, what i am saying is that the infighting over the issue between us all could well lose players interest and damage the game, it happen in the demogame currently being played.
Krill
Deity
And I've demonstrated how simul turns can be quicker and still have enough time for everyone to play the game and discuss what to do. Your only point is how to mitigate a failing of the sequential turn system and saying something will be "good enough", basically.
- Wrong tense, the vote doesn't end until the 25th
- so that ruleset may be voted down
- I'm informing people that part of the rule set can be amended if they want it to be, and this is why we should do it.
And there won't be infighting over the use of pauses in game? Simul turns removes the need for the pause due to unforeseen events, which will cut down on infighting due to pauses. Also, I am explaining about how to handle combat in simul turns to people so that if they play simul turns at any point from now on, they will understand what to do. The understanding helps cut down on infighting due to misunderstandings.
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
But simultanous pitboss still has the problem of not having enough time, as you still have a time limit to make your choice, pauses will happen in this game, no matter what type we play.
A pause will only be allowed if a major event happens and in most, if not all cases their will be a clear choice, whereas a potential rule broken could come down to intrepation of that rule.
And you are just providing a way to mitgate the problems with simultaneous pitboss.
But making it more complex will lead to more mistakes and potential stalling with the game, the less rules, which sequential pitboss gives, means it easier to understand what to do when playing a turn, more rules need to more misunderstanding.
1) Ok, pretty convincing lead.
2-3) It should only be amended if, people say so in that poll, not because you want it to be.
Hello Krill
We can allways take a new poll.
I think, that I will only play, if we have as team a time to look and then can decide what to do, without the possibility that during the discussion the situation will change.
What you want is a single MP with spectators and commentators and sometimes a change of the single-player. That isn`t my wish in a DG.
We can allways take a new poll.
I think, that I will only play, if we have as team a time to look and then can decide what to do, without the possibility that during the discussion the situation will change.
What you want is a single MP with spectators and commentators and sometimes a change of the single-player. That isn`t my wish in a DG.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
With all due respect to those dissenting, a vote was taken and the decision finalized to use a sequential turn Pitboss format. At this point, it is not a setting that is open to debate. I'm sorry if some others wanted differently, but it's impossible to satisfy the desires of everyone in such a large endeavor. Please note that the sequential turns setting was specifically listed in the advertisement on the front page:
- Sullla
- Sullla
Similar threads
