Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

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

  • New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

    With TGS ending I've already had a few people step up who were eager for the next game to get rolling. This is a good thing. :) However, let me make the purpose of this topic clear...

    This is NOT a signup topic.

    This topic is intended to throw around ideas regarding the format of the next game.

    Since I will be hosting, the following are a given:
    • No more than 18 players.
    • 24 hour timer.

    Everything else is up for debate.

    I have a couple of ideas to start things off.

    1. There is a mod which basically removes the scoring system from the game by making everything worth 0 points. I love the potential fog of war aspect of this since it has a huge impact on the demographics. IMO, people can gleam far too much information from that. I just need to double check the mod and make sure it works as advertised if we decide we want to use it. It will also of course affect the end of game victory conditions. CivStats can continue to be used to monitor logins and end of turn conditions.

    2. Permanent alliances (actually this is Oyzar's idea). This would do away with the only 1 winner philosophy that has been used in the majority of the games I've hosted. However, I'm not clear on how these kind of alliances are handled in game. I think it would be silly, for example, if you could form a block of 6 nations or something like that. We would want to put some kind of restrictions in place.

    3. Range of difficulty levels. I've dabbled with this in the past and as much as I am normally against any kind of handicap system, I think it would be a good idea to revisit this. I've played in enough games now where the range of skill levels is huge in the player base. I think we should increase the range (such as Noble -> Deity) and come up with a reasonable system to get everyone assigned a level. For this I'm thinking everyone picks their own level based on where they think they are skill wise and then I take private comments in order to tweak as needed.

    Bernout

    |TG-MD6|


  • #2
    Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

    hmmm how about the Final Frontier mod?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

      Originally posted by Levgree View Post
      hmmm how about the Final Frontier mod?
      Does it support MP and Pitboss in particular? In my past mod travels that seems to be a rarity since most of them focus on SP.

      Bernout

      |TG-MD6|

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

        Personally, I don't like the handicap idea. If a player is a better player, that player wins. There's also a significant amount of luck going on anyway. Newer players should just accept the fact that they are unlikely to win. It's not because you don't win that the game can't be fun.

        As for permanent alliances, I'm not sure. I think blocks will tend to form pretty quickly in the game, and it will be the same thing as a teamed game, but the difference will be that you choose your teammate(s). This is worse than having handicaps: the best/luckiest players get together and are sure to win. I'm all for experimentation, but the risk of this "ruining" the game is rather high, IMHO.

        If the mod works about 0 score, it would be nice, I think. It would make espionage even more important. As for victory condition, as we can see with TGS, there's usually a consensus emerging, so I don't think that the lack of score will be a problem

        I would like to bring the subject of "roleplaying" religion. I'm not talking about real roleplaying here, but it occurred to me that the importance of the Free Religion civic is greatly reduced in MP. In SP, I usually want to get to that civic ASAP (unless I have reasons not to) because it enhance relations with other civs. So maybe that, while not strictly enforced, we should have some kind of "take state religion in account when doing diplomacy" policy.
        Last edited by hsoft; 01-18-2009, 04:14 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

          The above ideas was mostly to add a twist to the game. I realize that in any standard game better people have more chance to win, not only for their technical skill but often also for their ability to better use other people in their favour.

          If permanent alliances is on, so certainly should some form of tech trading. Otherwise the game option is so wastly unbalanced it is not funny... Permanent alliances is only ever possible between exactly two people. To enable this option there should be at the very least several strong people(of course it is also possible to mix it with difficulty handicap).

          If permanent alliances are not on i don't like tech trading on as it unbalances the game(meaning a game with permanent alliances is less balanced than one without, but without tech trading and with PA is more unbalanced than with tech trading and without PA).

          The mod also removes all demographics so i am not sure espionage work much if at all...

          There are a lot of other things than just religion that can be RPed. I don't think enforcing religious diplomacy does in any way enchant the game. It is just added to sp so the AI ever actually attack someone, given the right circumstances. I don't see how this can be translated to MP given that humans generally have no problem declearing war...

          I really don't like barbarians. You can argue about unbalance and how the rng royally screws over some people while leaving other unscattered. However my main point against barbs(though i don't like the unfairness aspect as well), is that they make the game way less fun. There is nothing as unfun as losing your archer defended hill town to a wandering barb warrior or gettin run over by 5 archers on turn 30. Other than that they also limit expansion which for me at least is one of the most fun parts of the game.

          I don't see any reasons to have vassal states on in a game between humans given that it just opens the door for plenty of exploits but add nothing to gameplay.

          Huts have the potential to vastly unbalance the game(think popping AH and HBR from huts by turn 10 and starting with horses in bfc), as such i don't think having them on is a good idea(and certainly not if barbs are also off). Only problem i see with this is that it nerfs civs starting with huts.

          Difficulty: I like the idea of handicaps, though it might be incredibly hard to implement correctly as such i am not sure it is the best thing to have in the game. Even with quite a handicap the better players are still going to come out better, but it might make the game more fun for the weaker players and more challenging for the stronger(a weakness of this system is that it helps people identify who is strong and who is weak, though normally the strong players have no problem identifying this anyways).

          If there is no handicap through difficulty i would at least suggest a higher difficulty(that is if barbs are off) so that things do not progress too rappidly. Problem with this is that it might scare of some players(if they don't understand how difficulty works), though I would perfer more stronger compared to weaker players again so i am not sure how much of a disadvantage this is :p.

          I think final frontier would support pitboss, however i am not sure how compatibable it is with the latest set of patches, and i heard it have some early game kinks anyways. I don't much like the ideas of mods for pitboss given the extra hassle and compability issues it adds so i would say i am not in favour of this unless you present some strong arguments in another direction.

          Maps: There are only so many maps that are fun for a large amount of players. This series have been through several of them already. May i suggest big and small, normal continents, islands, islands mixed in as an option? This map seems to produce a somewhat balanced option with varying amounts of terrain. Though it might still produce unsuitable starting locations i guess, would probably have to go with a costum script if you didn't want that... If not fractal will always work out some way i guess...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

            My thoughts:

            Score removing mod: Assuming the mod works exactly as it should (not disabling any aspects of the game other than scores), then I think it could be very interesting to try out. :)

            Permanent alliances: I think at least having the option of them would be interesting. Like oyzar says though, it would require having tech trading on, or else it would be too unbalancing (players entering into a permanent alliance effectively get a 25% discount on all techs from that point, not to mention the many free techs when initially signing the alliance). With tech trading on, permanent alliances are much less powerful, and actually have negative aspects (slowing down the progress of previous tech partners by 33%).

            Barbarians: I'd prefer them on, but don't mind too much if they're off. Something should certainly be done about the "barbarian army" event though - it's unfun and unfair to be eliminated by a massive barb spawn in the very early game. Perhaps the admin could log in to delete the barb army if this happened, I'm not sure.

            Events: I think they add a bit of flavour, so I'd be inclined to leave them on. However, I'm okay if people prefer to have them off. I would definitely want at least one of barbarians and events on though - not both off.

            Huts: The chance of them being majorly unbalancing are very slim, and personally I find they add interest and flavour. (Plus civs that start with Scouts are rather hard done by if huts are turned off.) Even if the huts are somewhat unbalancing, IMHO they are no more (in fact probably much less) unbalancing than initial starting locations. However, I'm aware that some players prefer to keep the game as rigidly balanced as possible, so I guess I'm okay if the majority votes for huts to be off.

            Tech trading: The main problem with having tech trading on is that the game often progresses too fast for units of an era to get their fair time in the game. Also, tech trading tends to lead to games ending up as one super-alliance against another super-alliance. However, the diplomatic aspect of having tech trading on is really great, so I always find it a bit of a shame to turn it off.

            There's a couple of ways that we could potentially work around this that I see. Firstly, we could use Epic speed instead of Normal to prevent units from becoming obsolete quite so quickly (not everyone's cup of tea, I realise). Alternatively, we could increase the overall difficulty level to increase tech costs (although this has potential problems - see below).

            But here's another option I just thought of. We could attempt to find a mod (or more ambitiously, make a mini-mod ourselves) that limits tech trading without removing it completely. For example, one thing that I can think of that would really help would be to increase the "time delay" for trading techs. Currently the default is set to 1 turn (eg if you get Mysticism, you must wait 1 turn before trading for Polytheism, or trading Mysticism away). However, what if we changed this - for instance, from 1 turn to 10 (or 20) turns? This would prevent people from being able to set up alliances where everyone researched different techs and immediately traded them around, because they'd each have to wait 10 (or 20) turns after getting their techs to be able to trade them around.

            I'm not sure if this is even feasible, but I thought it was an interesting idea anyway. :)

            Overall difficulty: Ideally this should be set as high as practical in a game with tech trading on. The main problem with setting it too high (eg Deity) is that when players switch themselves to AI, they suddenly get massive building and research bonuses. There are other issues too, such as increased barb levels (assuming we have them on), but the AI issue is the main one as I see it. Perhaps we could have rules about players not being permitted to be set to AI, unless they're fairly insignificant to the outcome of the game?

            Alternatively, we could just have a lower overall difficulty level (such as Monarch).

            Player-tailored difficulties: I'm really not in favour of this. To me, starting location and surrounding neighbours are the two primary factors in influencing the outcome of a game. Not necessarily determining, but influencing. A player who wins one game by a very large margin may be obliterated early on in another game simply due to changes in luck. I think that adding a further variable (difficulty level) without someone actually going through the map and the starting positions beforehand would be a very bad idea. And having someone go through the map and evaluate each position like that would just be tedious (plus of course there'd be a few differences of opinion as to the ranking of the locations, which might spark a few unnecessary arguments). And then there's the issue with the people on really high difficulties of them setting themselves to AI, as mentioned above.

            Besides, I suspect that many (if not most) of the people here are reasonably experienced players anyway, so there's not really a massive difference in skill level.

            Originally posted by hsoft View Post
            Personally, I don't like the handicap idea. If a player is a better player, that player wins. There's also a significant amount of luck going on anyway. Newer players should just accept the fact that they are unlikely to win. It's not because you don't win that the game can't be fun.
            Completely agreed. :)

            Originally posted by hsoft View Post
            I would like to bring the subject of "roleplaying" religion. I'm not talking about real roleplaying here, but it occurred to me that the importance of the Free Religion civic is greatly reduced in MP. In SP, I usually want to get to that civic ASAP (unless I have reasons not to) because it enhance relations with other civs. So maybe that, while not strictly enforced, we should have some kind of "take state religion in account when doing diplomacy" policy.
            Sorry, but I think this is a terrible idea. It'd also be impossible to enforce.

            Sure we should make an effort to play fair, but we shouldn't bend ourselves around backwards to try to play exactly like the AI. We're humans, not computers. ;)

            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
            The mod also removes all demographics so i am not sure espionage work much if at all...
            Espionage should be separate to scores and demographics, shouldn't it?

            I would be very reluctant to use the mod if it removed *all* demographics, even the ones for the people that you have met in the game (and have the required espionage points in). Demographics are useful and fun to see. Removing them in their entirety would be kind of lame, IMHO.

            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
            There are a lot of other things than just religion that can be RPed. I don't think enforcing religious diplomacy does in any way enchant the game. It is just added to sp so the AI ever actually attack someone, given the right circumstances. I don't see how this can be translated to MP given that humans generally have no problem declearing war...
            Agreed.

            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
            I really don't like barbarians. You can argue about unbalance and how the rng royally screws over some people while leaving other unscattered. However my main point against barbs(though i don't like the unfairness aspect as well), is that they make the game way less fun. There is nothing as unfun as losing your archer defended hill town to a wandering barb warrior or gettin run over by 5 archers on turn 30. Other than that they also limit expansion which for me at least is one of the most fun parts of the game.
            I don't see it that way at all. It seems to me to be almost cheating when you can just expand obscenely without retribution (providing you play your cards right in diplomacy). In my opinion, the damping effect that barbs have on expansion is a good thing. It prevents players from building (almost) non-stop Settlers while only having a warrior or two spread over their entire empire - a la Civ3. ;)

            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
            I don't see any reasons to have vassal states on in a game between humans given that it just opens the door for plenty of exploits but add nothing to gameplay.
            Agreed.

            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
            Huts have the potential to vastly unbalance the game(think popping AH and HBR from huts by turn 10 and starting with horses in bfc), as such i don't think having them on is a good idea(and certainly not if barbs are also off). Only problem i see with this is that it nerfs civs starting with huts.
            As I mentioned above - do you really think huts are that unbalancing when compared to the unbalancing effect of each civ's starting position?

            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
            I think final frontier would support pitboss, however i am not sure how compatibable it is with the latest set of patches, and i heard it have some early game kinks anyways. I don't much like the ideas of mods for pitboss given the extra hassle and compability issues it adds so i would say i am not in favour of this unless you present some strong arguments in another direction.
            I'm also not in favour of mods in pitboss.

            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
            Maps: There are only so many maps that are fun for a large amount of players. This series have been through several of them already. May i suggest big and small, normal continents, islands, islands mixed in as an option? This map seems to produce a somewhat balanced option with varying amounts of terrain. Though it might still produce unsuitable starting locations i guess, would probably have to go with a costum script if you didn't want that... If not fractal will always work out some way i guess...
            I really like Big_and_Small, normal continents, islands, islands mixed in - so I'm with you 100% on this one.

            Wow, that was quite a long post... I hope I didn't lose anyone halfway through. As you can tell, I'm quite excited about the prospect of this game, and look forward to (hopefully) playing when it gets started. :)
            Last edited by emperor; 01-18-2009, 08:02 AM.
            Emperor / Lord Parkin

            Want a private forum for your Civ4 alliance to chat easily? Then come to Parkinsworld - I'll be happy to set you up with whatever you need.

            Link: http://z14.invisionfree.com/Parkinsworld/index.php?act=idx

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

              Score mod: Great idea, as long as it does not completely remove the demographics graphs for players you have met and have the proper EP towards. Gathering information from score and global demographics is simply meta-game espionage, which I agree would be nice to remove, but it should not nerf the in-game espionage.

              Permanent Alliances: Not a bad idea. And do people who argue against them because they would be too powerful actually realize how they work? As emperor pointed out, there are ingame penalties for signing a permanent alliance (higher tech costs, trade routes yield less since they are now domestic), but few benefits ((some) wonders working for both). It also requires the research of Communism or Fascism, so it won't be an early thing.

              The main problem as I see it is if some players agree to be allied with the idea to sign a PA as late as possible, just to share the win. That kind of thinking would effectively allow two players to decide to ally from the very start, to share the win at the end. Still, the glory of a solo win should be tempting for any player. Regardless, if we do allow shared wins in any form (thinking back on TGS), then it makes more sense to have PAs on in-game and force the players in question to enter one, rather than handle it meta-game wise.

              Difficulty level: I prefer Deity, but emperor raises a valid concern. I like the restriction he suggested for kicking nations to AI, if we think that's feasible. The idea with player specific handicaps is interesting, but I don't think it's practical for a long game like this. It makes it a lot harder to find (fair) subs when needed.

              One thing we could consider is creating our own mini-mod with a custom difficulty. This is Truly Easy To Do (tm), you only need to edit some XML fields. That means we could remove all the AI bonuses to research and building, while still increasing tech costs (and maintenance) to Deity-like levels. Best of all worlds? :)

              Barbies/Huts/Events: What I think about these depend a lot on what game it is. If I play a one-off solo game, I like them all on, as I'm not competing against anyone except the AI. In a CFC (S)GOTM, where everyone plays solo games from the same start, I hate them all since they make it much harder to compare games and strategies. And I hate the barbies most of all. But for a MP game like this, I agree with emperor that starting locations likely make much much more of a difference. If it were up to me, I would play this game with huts and events on and barbies off.

              Tech Trading: I love tech trading, and I would hate for it to be turned off. I realize it is unbalancing, and all the reasons and implications for that. But I would still sorely miss the diplomatic component it adds to the game. The rubberband (or "catch-up" if you like") factor in CIV is also far too low for no TT to be balanced either. The bonus to research for contacts knowing a tech is capped at 30%, compared to almost 100% in Civ3 for instance. So in CIV, once behind you stay behind. It's a pity that games go so fast with TT on though, so Deity would be preferable. Or possibly a modded difficulty, see above. I'm less prone to Epic, since it affects not only research times but also build times.

              Map: Anything that is balanced and not too symmetric is fine in my book. The map type suggested by oyzar sounds like a lot of fun.

              Civilization choices: This is something I think we should discuss as well. I don't know if it's customary at TG to go with random civs, and if it is then I don't mind it. If we have a choice though, I would really like to see no duplicates allowed. I've seen C&C2 and I simply don't like it, it makes the whole game a far less immersive experience for me. Random assignment is nice because it's totally unpredictable, but it can also be quite unbalancing, though starting location should still make a larger impact.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                Very insightful post, emperor, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. I'd like to add that I really like barbarians. In the game I created, "The Angry Barbarians", the difficuly is Emperor and the Raging barbarians option is on. So far, it's quite interesting. You can't "settle obscenely" (as emperor wrote) with this setting. It changes the game's dynamic. Elkad has been unlucky and unleashed 5 barbs from a hut and was destroyed, but well... I don't think it makes barbarians an inherently bad thing, it was just bad luck.

                EDIT: I have to add, if it's possible to do that "10 turns before tech trading" thing, I think it would be really, really nice.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                  the mod certainly removes all demographics as well as having some security flaws that really don't work well with piutboss.... I don't think it is a good idea but i'll listen to the majority.

                  You think it is cheating to expand freely? I think that is the way the game should be played... It is just so much more fun than have to limit your expansion because there can randomly spawn bears that **** up your plans...

                  The point against barbs is that they add more to the possiblity of getting this bad luck. Ideally we'll play a script where you can't land in the middle of the thundra, but sadly most scripts aren't made with regards to MP.
                  Last edited by oyzar; 01-18-2009, 11:08 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                    I don't like tech trading at all in MP games, and for that reason I'm also against permanent alliances.

                    Difficulty: I definitely prefer a high difficulty setting, especially if we decide to remove barbarians. If the setting is something like noble and a player gets a large area to himself that's just too big of an advantage. On noble you can expand everywhere without feeling the costs at all whereas on deity you'd have to be more careful. A high difficulty level is a nice way to help balance the luck/bad luck of starting positions.

                    Barbarians: I feel barbarians off and a high difficulty level is very good.

                    Huts: I'd go with off, but this isn't very important to me.

                    Events: Off please. They're just too unpredictable and most of them are completely out of your control. You can't leverage them actively (very few exceptions).

                    Map: Big & Small sounds ok to me. The only problem I have with this map is that when crowded up some civs get bumped into the tundra (sometimes even on small unplayable islands. Something like Hemispheres (with more than 2 continents) could be interesting as well.

                    Civ choices: Again, not a very big deal to me, but I'd prefer being given the choice rather than having them assigned randomly. If it's customary to have them assigned randomly here that's no problem.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                      Wow! Nice discussion going here...great comments all around.

                      No Score Mod - I really, really like Niklas' idea of playing around in the XML files and seeing if we can expand the no score mod to also create a custom difficulty level which slows down tech progression. If anyone else wants to play around with this don't let me stop you. ;) As far as the no score mod goes, I understand the concern about espionage being nerfed and I'll make sure I take a look at that. Although it seems like it would be ok since you can still send your spies in for recon and be able to do all the regular sabotage actions and such. Here's the link for the no-score mod:

                      http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=299054

                      Tech Trade - the discussions seem to center around having it off or on. How does no tech brokering fit into this or is that the assumed option if tech trading is on?

                      Permanent Alliances - it is good to know that it can only be limited to 2 people. Also as was mentioned it can't possibly happen until fairly late in the tech tree and in order for it to be militarily helpful, the 2 nations have to at least be somewhat close to each other, right? It also sounds like we want some form of tech trading if we go this route.

                      Difficulty Levels - excellent points made here, especially about nations who are turned over to the AI. Let's just go ahead and scrap the idea. It's especially a no brainer if we can come up with a custom difficulty level.

                      Barbarians - I'm in the camp that likes 'em. For those who have their growth hindered they at least have some easy experience available to their military units so I think it's a fair trade off there.

                      Events - I completely agree that the Barbarian Event is the most unbalancing thing I've ever encountered in this game. For that reason alone I'd be fine with turning them off. I would want Barbarians OR Events on though and my preferences is to have Barbs.

                      No Vassal States - we can mark this one down as a done deal.

                      Huts - I have no real preference here. If we were doing a range of difficulty levels it might have been more meaningful.

                      Maps - seems to be a consensus for big and small? I'll take a closer look at that as well. I'm always a bit leery of islands because being stuck on one by yourself is a pretty big hit IMO. Maybe it's not possible with that one.

                      Civ Choices - I'm a big fan of random but I can go either way with this. I also like the idea of not duplicating nations.

                      Bernout

                      |TG-MD6|

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                        The way the difficulty work would be very different. An AI that is set to diety and turned over to AI would have handicaps of a human on diety level(+ the bonuses of the average of the human players), and is not that scary. That said if everyone goes something like emperor there won't be any problems with AI and there is very little to gain by increasing the difficulty level further. What would be dangerous would be to have a player with difficulty set to settler turn to AI since that AI would likely be better able to handle the given bonuses than the player...

                        Easy experience to their military units? We are not playing the same game are we? I am not talking about the times where you get just easy experience against barbs, then they are obviously nothing more than a minor nucience, i am talking when they win at incredible odds and totaly destroy your army... It is not any more fun if you do win, but it is so much less fun if you do lose to them. Adding a game element just to make the game less fun, seems plain wrong to me(however i'll be able to live with them if they have to be on). Due to how expected value of return on expansion you have to defend "poorly" if you want to keep up with the stronger players leading to way more luck based game than it otherwise would be(though i guess there is a skill in measuring the expected value of expanding faster vs safer). In the matter of barbs vs events i would much rather have events than barbs.

                        I really don't like the idea of a costum difficulty given that it requires modding of the game, which might lead to some unforseen problems, not to mention extra hassle actually joining the game every time.

                        Civ choices - if you are going with not duplicate civs you should have some sort of random method to determine who gets each leader other than first comes get it as that is hardly fair...

                        Maps - Given that you want to mod so many other aspects of play, it wouldn't be very hard to just remove most of the thundra and ice from any standard map, or just use a costum script with the option of no ice and thundra... This requires way less effort than actually creating a mod...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                          Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                          No Score Mod - I really, really like Niklas' idea of playing around in the XML files and seeing if we can expand the no score mod to also create a custom difficulty level which slows down tech progression.
                          Famous last words, but it shouldn't be hard at all. I'm pretty sure I could fix that easily. :)

                          Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                          As far as the no score mod goes, I understand the concern about espionage being nerfed and I'll make sure I take a look at that. Although it seems like it would be ok since you can still send your spies in for recon and be able to do all the regular sabotage actions and such. Here's the link for the no-score mod:

                          http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=299054
                          Elucidus notes in that thread that all demographics are still around, only score is set to 0. While I think it would make sense to shut off global demographics as well (this should be doable just by removing that tab from the python), it's good to know that normal espionage-based demographics still work.


                          Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                          Events - I completely agree that the Barbarian Event is the most unbalancing thing I've ever encountered in this game. For that reason alone I'd be fine with turning them off. I would want Barbarians OR Events on though and my preferences is to have Barbs.
                          Well, if we're already digging around in the XML, it's easy to turn off the events we don't want. :)

                          Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                          Huts - I have no real preference here. If we were doing a range of difficulty levels it might have been more meaningful.
                          ... and again if we're already digging around in the XML, we always have the option of deciding just what distribution we want of things popped from huts. That's already a part of making a custom difficulty level, same file to edit. If we think free techs are too unbalancing, we could make that far less likely, or remove it completely. We can even change which techs are possible to pop from a hut, if we're so inclined.

                          Maps - seems to be a consensus for big and small? I'll take a closer look at that as well. I'm always a bit leery of islands because being stuck on one by yourself is a pretty big hit IMO. Maybe it's not possible with that one.
                          Being stuck on your own island without a chance for pre-Optics contact is definitely a big hit. But my experience is that that's not possible with this map type. Definitely not with 18 players. Several people will likely end up on their own islands though, but that can obviously be a bonus too.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                            Nice discussion. My only strong preferences at this point are for
                            • barbs ON. I enjoy the early military action and it introduces some more interesting early decisions other than just flat out REX.
                            • Normal game speed. Epic is rather slow otherwise for a 24h pitboss game.
                            • Random civs (no duplicates) - this just makes life more interesting. :) And also introduces a little extra balance to stop the more experienced players all chosing financial civs. Huts ON works best with this though to help balance those civs starting with scouts.


                            Other than that, I have a mild preference for
                            • events OFF (especially given my strong preference for barbs ON)
                            • tech brokering OFF (unless we can figure out the 20-turn tech trade delay, which soudns interesting)
                            • teams of two - very very useful for covering for short absences, and finding subs when required; it also makes things more interesting IMHO (but allow players the option of chosing their own teammates to avoid unnecessary risk of frustrations)
                            • permanent alliances ON - IF we end up with tech brokering ON as well
                            • tech brokering is preferred over tech trading


                            All that said I would be very interested to play in the next game regardless of settings chosen.

                            One last thought - how about the lakes map script (with high water level) for a possible map choice? High water levels makes the lake features more relevant, and the lakes themselves make for some interesting terrain topology, choke points etc. And no risk of isolated starts... ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

                              I had a quick look in the Python code for the demographics screen, and just as I expected it is really easy to remove that information if we want.

                              Regarding a tech-trading delay, I believe that would require changes to the C++ source code, and I don't think we want to go there. Unfortunately, as I agree it would have been a very interesting option. I'll have a look at it some time when I'm not as tired though.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X