Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    Originally posted by oyzar View Post
    Just say exactly what you want and there is certanly some map script out there that satisfy your need. I recently played a game on arboria and as that creates very specific games i would not want to repeat that too soon. It is basically pangea but with forests everywhere and deer instead of most other resources. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=246788 here is the map guide... Just use that, it is much faster than worldbuilder. I think what you are looked for sounds like big and small: massive continents, islands mixed in...
    Sweet! You wouldn't believe how many times I've searched on CFC trying to find info like this. I'll take a closer look and it'll certainly make it easier for everyone to give feedback.

    Bernout

    |TG-MD6|

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

      Ok. This may change based on the results of the polls, but here's my proposal for the game format. Note that I'd like to try Global Highlands. I did some starts with Inland Sea and I didn't like the city placements at all. Try it with 18 people and you'll see what I mean.

      Game Format

      Team Assignments

      Teams will consist of 2 players who will be randomly paired up together.

      Nation Assignments

      Players will be assigned player numbers based on an alphabetical list of TG account names. Nations and their leaders will be assigned randomly.

      Difficulty Level

      The difficulty level being used is Emperor.

      Settings:
      • Map: Global Highlands
      • Size: Huge
      • Climate: Temperate
      • Sea Level: Low
      • Era: Ancient
      • Speed: Normal
      • Mountain Pattern: Ridgelines
      • Mountain Density: Normal Peaks
      • Landmass Size: Massive Continents
      • World Wrap: Cylindrical
      • Resources: Standard


      Options:
      • No Advanced Start
      • City Razing
      • City Flipping From Culture
      • City Flipping After Conquest
      • Barbarians
      • Choose Religions
      • No Technology Trading
      • No Require Complete Kills
      • No Vassal States
      • Tribal Villages
      • Random Events
      • Espionage


      Victory:
      • Time
      • Conquest
      • Domination
      • Cultural
      • Space Race
      • Diplomatic


      Multiplayer:
      • Simultaneous Turns
      • Take Over AI
      • Shuffle Teams
      • Turn Timer - 20 hours (approx. 24 hours of real time at game start)


      Please continue to fire away with suggestions and feedback. :D

      Bernout

      |TG-MD6|

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

        Turn of time victory because it is lame if it'll ever happen... Why is city flipping after conqest on? That option makes it way harder to keep captured cities which is no fun... Also it is kinda confusing the way you list the options... Would be better if you just listed the options you checked... Shuffle teams might be a bit weird... You might end up with someone that you have no common communication method with nor any common online times.. If i end up with someone that only communicate over these boards(no IM for example) and are only online from 3 to 6 am my time it might be a problem...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

          Yeah, I was thinking the same (especially with me (and some others) being in a very different timezone to most of you Yankee chaps...

          Might be worthwhile just choosing your team mate? Though definitely keep leader / nation as random.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

            Or Bernout could simply assign people to random teams but make sure they are from roughly the same area - USA, Europe, Oz/Far East/NZ etc so that they are likely to be online at roughly the same time. I think you should be able to work out some reasonable method of communication with your teammate even if they are not on your brand of Instant Messenger.

            The problem with picking your own teams is that the teams are then very unlikely to be balanced. Many of the power gamers are going to team up. I am not saying there is anything wrong with people power gaming. Some people will if they can whatever you do. But it will be very hard on the 'newbie' team if they are next to the cut-throat we-play-at-diety-level team. Random teams at least breaks them up a little.

            I am easy either way. But as you have gone for options that increase variability - random nations, goodie huts,barbs etc I wouldn't then undo so much of this by letting people directly choose their ally. If you do there will be some 'super' teams. Of course such teams might randomly come up. But I think that is preferable and fits better with the increasing randomness options that are being chosen.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

              Originally posted by oyzar View Post
              Turn of time victory because it is lame if it'll ever happen... Why is city flipping after conqest on? That option makes it way harder to keep captured cities which is no fun... Also it is kinda confusing the way you list the options... Would be better if you just listed the options you checked... Shuffle teams might be a bit weird... You might end up with someone that you have no common communication method with nor any common online times.. If i end up with someone that only communicate over these boards(no IM for example) and are only online from 3 to 6 am my time it might be a problem...
              Ahhh...Oyzar questions. I risk ridicule answering these first thing in the morning but let me give it a go. :row__536:

              Time victory is highly unlikely so what does it matter if it is on or not? ;) If the stars align and the game does go for that long then that IMO is as good an endpoint as any.

              City flipping after conquest is on because IMO there should be ramifications to taking an enemy city. Although I doubt it is an issue because I think I've had it on for most of the games I've hosted. Even in ACTF where I had at least one of Grizz's cities for an extended period it wasn't a problem and I only had 2 or 3 units as garrison. Maybe it needs some cultural pressure from the previous owner? And maybe it's not usually a problem because players who are losing a war usually aren't around long. :)

              I'll go ahead and list the enabled options in addition to the full option list for those who aren't familiar with the MP setup. Good suggestion.

              Sorry, but teams will remain random. In addition to Hop's excellent response which nicely addresses the theme for this game, I also view the random teams as being good for community building.

              If there is concern about timezones, perhaps we should talk about reasonable restrictions that would level the playing field? The easiest thing that comes to mind is that teammates could not be in game together at the same time to do their turns. This obviously has the biggest impact during a war. Along similar lines, you wouldn't work around this by doing alternating logins. ;)

              I've also been thinking more about the whole sub question and have decided that we will do substitutions as per normal. This means teammates can not sub for one another and a sub can only ever play one nation.

              Bernout

              |TG-MD6|

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                Not logging in at the same time during war is totaly ridicolus.. Everyone should share pws intra team anyways so just one person can do alternate login of both civs.. There are alot of things that can't be done if you are not able to log back and forth which would be rather silly... Why would people not sub for their teammates? Half the point of playing a team game is that you won't have to find subs... We should help coordination as much as possible, not hinder it.. I would hate to have to set up a proxy to be able to alternate login but if you really want to i can do it(even though it wouldn't be fear on those that doesn't even know what a proxy is!)... Team games are ment to work together, not two people each on their own who happen to not be able to attack each other...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                  I would suggest "medium and small" as a possible map type. It actually seems a little more balanced than big and small. Never played global highlands, so maybe it is perfect for this adventure. ? on the teams, will we start next to our partner, or will we be scattered?

                  EDIT: i would have to agree with oyzars post above also.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                    Originally posted by oyzar View Post
                    Not logging in at the same time during war is totaly ridicolus.. Everyone should share pws intra team anyways so just one person can do alternate login of both civs.. There are alot of things that can't be done if you are not able to log back and forth which would be rather silly... Why would people not sub for their teammates? Half the point of playing a team game is that you won't have to find subs... We should help coordination as much as possible, not hinder it.. I would hate to have to set up a proxy to be able to alternate login but if you really want to i can do it(even though it wouldn't be fear on those that doesn't even know what a proxy is!)... Team games are ment to work together, not two people each on their own who happen to not be able to attack each other...
                    Well, there are a few reasons why I don't see these restrictions as being unreasonable.

                    1. As mentioned, random teams with players who can not get online together at the same time do not suffer from a huge disadvantage from those who can. i.e. level the playing field.

                    2. If you allow that level of cooperation between team members, when does it stop? It seems to me you are only a step away from having one person on the team end up running both nations. I can imagine a whole slew of scenarios where this could happen.

                    3. There are still numerous advantages for starting the game in a permanent alliance with someone. The two most obvious that come to mind are the shared tech and full visibility on what your ally sees and what they are doing.

                    4. If you care for a realism argument you can even go that route. :row__687: What allies in real life would have that level of cooperation? I find it kind of appropriate that we could have all kinds of communication issues depending on the people involved. It also once again reduces the power play element.

                    Bernout

                    Edit: The bottom line for me is I'd like the cooperation level on a team to be closer to what players do when they team up in a normal non-team game.
                    Last edited by Bernout; 08-05-2008, 08:50 PM.

                    |TG-MD6|

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                      Bernout clearly wants to avoid the master-puppet team syndrome.

                      He also wants to avoid "power teams".

                      Oyzar wants to be sure that he can prevent his partner's mistakes (lol)

                      Combined combat is the only way to make maximally effective use of UUs.

                      Time zones could be pretty unfriendly to some teams in a random assignment.

                      Intra-team subbing does simplify a lot of vacation issues.

                      Have I forgotten any mutually exclusive issues that we face?

                      Discuss ...

                      dV

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                        I'm pretty much with Bernout on everything.

                        The idea that passwords would be shared and one player would just log in to make moves for both empires, to me, is a hideous one. That's not the game I want to play!
                        I don't think such a scenario "helps coordination" at all; It simply removes the need for it entirely!

                        I'm not overly concerned by the whole timezone issue (even though I'm probably one of the ones most likely to be impacted by it) being a hinderance to some teams and not to others. Bugger it, I say. Come what may. If we decide to deny simultaneous logins, that seems fair enough to me. If not, doesn't matter either. I'll be having fun whatever the settings and if I'm up against it I find that's often where the best fun's to be had! :D

                        Oyzar, I think responding to Bernout's suggestion that we would ban simultaneous logins with a statement that, if that happened, you would simply tech your way around it with nobody being any the wiser... well, that pretty much sounds like cheating mate, and I'm hoping it simply reads differently to what you intended. :)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                          Seems that random assignments and no cross loggins are the two biggest controversies.

                          Might want to temper the randomness with some time zone similarity (I am east coast US), otherwise a team might not find time to discuss inside their 12 hour or so play window (which is what we will have during war).

                          Also, effective planning requries seeing the map while discussing ... log in together simplifies this, otherwise it adds extra work of making screenshots, etc. Then the game becomes a matter of who has the most time, not the most skill (and a little luck)?

                          From the reality standpoint, UN forces are under unified command, and I'd say that Normandy invasion would require a simultanous play to replicate in Civ ... so I don't think unified play defies realism.

                          the oob at CFC, who hosted a few games, always said he tried not to make rules that could not be enforced ...

                          In my experience in two team games now, I can't say that unified combat has been the decisive factor in either ... but then everyone was able to do it.

                          I think that the advantage of a built in sub is pretty huge for game continuity, so if we need a time zone alignment to preserve fairness with cross logging allowed, then we ought to look into that (by lessening start randomness in some way).

                          That said, I'll play whatever is dealt out, as I am used to that as a GOTM veteran at CFC.

                          dV

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                            Originally posted by da_Vinci View Post
                            Might want to temper the randomness with some time zone similarity (I am east coast US), otherwise a team might not find time to discuss inside their 12 hour or so play window (which is what we will have during war).
                            This would be good, however I know of no way to put those kind of conditions on "shuffling" the teams without doing the team formation out of game. Now, what I could do is go back to the 24 hour timer I had proposed initially which would give everyone a bit more time to work with.

                            Also, effective planning requries seeing the map while discussing ... log in together simplifies this, otherwise it adds extra work of making screenshots, etc. Then the game becomes a matter of who has the most time, not the most skill (and a little luck)?
                            The time factor is going to be relevant regardless IMO. I've seen it in every game I've played in. Some players for any number of reasons are going to be able to put in more time and effort than others and it can have a significant impact.

                            The most intense coordination discussions I've had of course revolve around wartime scenarios and the battles that take place. As with any alliance, the easiest way to simplify this is to gift units so that only one player is controlling them. It goes without saying that this is even better than alternating logins if you take the time to make it happen.

                            In game coordination with preset teams is also simpler since you can place signs (via ALT S) that can be seen by your allies. IMO this can greatly alleviate the need to do screen shots.

                            From the reality standpoint, UN forces are under unified command, and I'd say that Normandy invasion would require a simultanous play to replicate in Civ ... so I don't think unified play defies realism.
                            Yes and no. While the joint forces might have a common high command, the individual forces themselves still have their own C&C do they not? In the case of Normandy you had distinct British, Canadian, and US forces each with their own assigned missions that were part of a common higher level plan.

                            the oob at CFC, who hosted a few games, always said he tried not to make rules that could not be enforced ...
                            Absolutely. I also believe there is no avoiding it. At some point you need to trust your players to do their best to follow the spirit of the rules and work together to create a fun and enjoyable gaming environment for everyone.

                            Take a look at subbing itself and how easily that could be exploited if someone wanted to. People can change game names on a whim. In fact, who hasn't found out about a sub using the same game name as the person they were covering? :)

                            So the bottom line for me is, yes, limit the rules that can't be enforced and trust the players not to abuse it.

                            I think that the advantage of a built in sub is pretty huge for game continuity, so if we need a time zone alignment to preserve fairness with cross logging allowed, then we ought to look into that (by lessening start randomness in some way).
                            While these issues are not completely unconnected, we are really talking about 3 things are we not?

                            1. Time zone alignment in order to facilitate coordination.
                            2. Team members subbing for each other.
                            3. Simultaneous/alternating logins of team members.

                            As per your previous post it sounds like I've communicated my intentions here clear enough. I do indeed want to avoid a master-puppet team syndrome. I'd rather each team acted as individual nations who work together rather than one super-nation. This I believe is consistent with the theme of the game.

                            Now having said that I do want to encourage discussion of these issues. Nothing is set in stone yet and if I get a strong enough consensus from people on a given issue then it can change.

                            Bernout

                            |TG-MD6|

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                              Due to the way some traits work, in many situations a super nation can be substantially more powerfull than two uncoordinated team mates. In the only team game i have finished(with 5 teams) my team ended up cav rushing the entire rest of the teams for the win.. That was occ(and hence put a huge limit on the number of strategies you can follow), but still it comes to reason that if two people are able to coordinate better they'll get much better results than if you just act totaly independant of each other. Subbing or even smallsubbing(during war with a short time frame to login where you can't actually be logged on at the same time) help this greatly. Sure alt + s and civstats / msn messages can greatly reduce the real time coordination needed(just ask dv ;) ), but real time communication(and playing together) can't really be replaced... Not being able to login simulatniously would just mean that you would each have to login separatly after each other hence using massive amount more time...

                              I agree that master / puppet might not be the best for the game but i still think that people should be allowed to stay competetive if they want...

                              As for timezones, i haven't really had problems with meeting up with people on the other side of the world. As long as you coordinate things beforehand it'll make it way easier to meet up. If you want simultanous login it would probably require rather regular schedules though(for example me and dv played together in the occ teamer, we mostly met 7 his time/13 my time. Of course since we were in war sometimes the timer had not gone to the next turn of those who we were playing against had not played yet so we still had to meet up some other time or just have one of us login instead). If you know the exact timedifference between the two of you, and have a somewhat flexible schedule it should be easy enough to meet up(if both of you have very rigid schedules with 1 hour max online time it is obviously not always possible to meet up though...).

                              I haven't ever subbed not under the name of the player i am subbing for.. The host can still check ips of the people logging in though(i think at least)... The point is still though that adding extra rules to the game that doesn't improve gameplay in any way(it just hinders it) and are totaly unenforcable doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

                                Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                                I've also been thinking more about the whole sub question and have decided that we will do substitutions as per normal. This means teammates can not sub for one another and a sub can only ever play one nation.
                                This seems odd to me, every other team game I've played my team mate would be my natural sub, it's just so simple that way, a quick e-mail - "I'm away for a couple of days, do my turn thanks" they already know what's going on so no problems with trades etc.

                                I'm largely with Oyzar on his comments on this issue & the organised logons, not that one player can't simply gift all their units to the other but then they miss out on the fun.

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X