Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

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

  • Bernout
    started a topic New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    Well, with ACTF done and FFH not panning out, I have a potential server sitting there doing nothing. It's also all updated and ready to go with BTS 3.17.

    Is there interest in starting another game? What would you be interesting in playing?

    Personally I like the flavor of the Chaos & Civility II game except I'd knock it down to 18 players to eliminate the need for a mod and I'd make it random leaders again; otherwise you get the power players stepping up and grabbing nothing but Financial civs. ;)

    I think it would also be a good idea to follow up on the teams possibility. 2 man teams maybe? Random?

    Bernout

  • Bernout
    replied
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    Originally posted by Snarlin View Post
    Can we get some "TG Home Page News" lovin' for the sign up topic? That AoC news has been up for a week. Props for Civ4!!! W00T
    If someone has the energy to come up with something really impressive, go for it! I can submit it or you can. All I know is it shouldn't be hard to beat what I posted last time. ;)

    Bernout

    Leave a comment:


  • Snarlin
    replied
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    Can we get some "TG Home Page News" lovin' for the sign up topic? That AoC news has been up for a week. Props for Civ4!!! W00T

    Snarlin

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernout
    replied
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    The signup topic is now open!

    I was hoping for a bit more discussion, especially from people we hadn't heard from yet, but for now I'm going to with as few restrictions as possible and we'll see how it turns out.

    As per normal, I'm going to let signups proceed here for a few days before I go cross post to any other sites. Please feel free to direct your friends here and let's get another good game going! :D

    Bernout

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernout
    replied
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    Let me take a final crack here at some of the comments that have been made and give everyone a chance to respond before we proceed with the game signups.

    Originally posted by oyzar View Post
    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...
    This is certainly the power gamer perspective and cuts to the heart of the issue. What kind of team game do we want? With no restrictions and maximum coordination, you get what we have been referring to as a "super nation". There's no argument that such a team will have an advantage and will be very competitive.

    The restrictions we are discussing have the effect of levelling the playing field by forcing both nations to have to act more independently. This is similar to two nations forming an alliance in a normal non-team game. It also allows two players who can not achieve "maximum coordination" to still be competitive. Remember that this whole discussion was started when the timezone issue was raised. As I stated in my previous post, I also believe it more closely suits the theme of the game that I am driving for.

    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.
    I brought up the subbing example to illustrate the point i was trying to make that there are going to be unenforceable rules that you rely on the players to be honest about. I haven't played in a Civ4 MP game yet that did not have some kind of restriction on subs. If I trust everyone to sub correctly in a normal game then I extend that trust to a team game where we don't want team members to sub for each other.

    I also understand that allowing team members to sub for each other is very convenient. However, if we didn't allow it then it is business as usual. If we were doing this next game as a non-team game then each of the 18 players would be expected to have to find a sub anyhow.

    One possible compromise here is to allow a sub to be able to sub for either teammate.

    Originally posted by oyzar View Post
    Also one player might be in pacifism or vassalage or even be carismatic/imperialistic... Gifting units back and forth, but it shold be for strategic and tactical concerns, not because you need to out of convinience(although you can gift for that reason too, but if you gift from cyrus in vassalage to peter in pacfism that might potentially cost you quite a bit...).
    As with an advanced start, there are pros and cons to any strategy. ;) Gifting units can make military operations easier to carry out but there is a cost associated with it. I only mentioned it as one possible option to make coordination easier during times of war.

    Originally posted by Ebenezer View Post
    I don't see an issue with teammates subbing for one another either. It is by far the easiest thing to do, especially in wartime. Yes, you'll have players logging in both civs at once. Consider it troops under unified commands if it makes you feel better.

    And, as was said above, its unenforceable anyway. (server IP logs are useless to a real attempt to deceive)
    Having both teammates in game at once or doing repeated alternating logins is certainly enforceable via CivStats. One teammate logging in as the other is obviously not enforceable as I mentioned earlier.

    While it is good to be aware of potential exploits or situations where people may "cheat", and to try to minimize such situations, I refuse to be held hostage by them. Based on what I've seen from the Civ4 Pitboss players so far, I have no reason to not trust any of them. You are all the most patient and for the most part easy going gamers I've seen. :)

    So my philosophy is lets set up the type of game we want to play and if someone ever betrays our trust then they quickly lose their membership in this community.

    Bernout

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoplosternum
    replied
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    In the team game I play in we can sub for each other and it certainly helps to keep the game moving. I am also used to gifting stuff to and from my teammate although I would sometimes do this out of a team game too if trust was high.

    I don't really have a problem with subbing, although I think the Sub should log in with a name making it clear they are subbing at that point. And definitely have no problem with logging in at the same time.

    If you get paired with one of the very good players I suppose it would be foolish to completely ignore what they suggest. But at the same time we are all playing for the enjoyment and there is little fun in being told exactly what to do at every stage even if it improves the teams position. I would expect the good player to respect that. And don't intend to become anyones puppet. I can always switch MSN off ;)

    I am happy with restrictions but I suspect it will just make it harder to coordinate and slow the game without really stopping a puppet/master situation if both players are keen on that.

    Hopefully all players would respect that even an inexperienced team mate wants to make his own decisions not just be bossed about even if its in his own good :) And as long as a team isn't completely taken over by one player I don't see the problem. But whatever you decide :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ebenezer
    replied
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    I don't see an issue with teammates subbing for one another either. It is by far the easiest thing to do, especially in wartime. Yes, you'll have players logging in both civs at once. Consider it troops under unified commands if it makes you feel better.

    And, as was said above, its unenforceable anyway. (server IP logs are useless to a real attempt to deceive)

    Leave a comment:


  • oyzar
    replied
    Re: New Pitboss Game? (Jul 18/08)

    Also one player might be in pacifism or vassalage or even be carismatic/imperialistic... Gifting units back and forth, but it shold be for strategic and tactical concerns, not because you need to out of convinience(although you can gift for that reason too, but if you gift from cyrus in vassalage to peter in pacfism that might potentially cost you quite a bit...).

    Leave a comment:


  • IanDC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • oyzar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernout
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • da_Vinci
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Twahn
    replied
    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. :)

    Leave a comment:


  • da_Vinci
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernout
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Connect

Collapse

TeamSpeak 3 Server

Collapse

Twitter Feed

Collapse

Working...
X