 |
| |
|
|
|
To get the ball rolling :
I'd like a shuffle map, or a custom made map designed by a non-playing member of the community willing to do it. If a custom made map, I'd like it to be designed without any form of team/player input other than :
Difficulty Level
Team Civilization
Map size
Game speed
Starting era
Game Options
Victory Conditions
Multiplayer Options
i.e. The process of making the actual geography of the map is left entirely to the map maker. Teams choose their civilization without knowing the map geography and must base their decision on their preferred style of play, not what fits the map type best......
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Wainwright AB
|
Nov 2002
time: 15:10
| |
|
|
Just one question right now, how many civs are we planning on using, all 18? and therefore 18 teams? Just wondering as it is quit possible that the competitive MP community could probably organize more than one team/civ.
CS
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Vaasa, Finland
|
Nov 2005
time: 22:10
| |
|
|
As for difficulty level, I think Monarch would be suitable? I don't know the general concensus but I'd think either that or Prince.
Map Size depending on the number of teams; If there are 18 teams as suggested by CanuckSoldier, Huge would be a good size. If less, then Large.
I don't care about map type. I personally play RandomScriptMap with every setting except Archipelago so I'm happy to play anything. The start locations should differ from each other to some extent but not so that someone would get a clear advantage from the get-go based on their location alone.
I like Marathon as the game speed so my vote goes there. Either that or Epic.
Ancient start
No tech Brokering
Raging Barbarians
City Flipping After Conquest
Choose Religions
Random events are on
Goody huts are on
All victory conditions except time. It's unlikely for anyone to get a diplo win but atleast you could tinker around with the AP and later on the UN, which would be nice.
My initial thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CanuckSoldier
Just one question right now, how many civs are we planning on using, all 18? and therefore 18 teams? Just wondering as it is quit possible that the competitive MP community could probably organize more than one team/civ.
CS |
There is no plan as of yet CS, we are making it as we post.......
The only concerns shown (via PM) have been that it would be better to have fewer stronger teams with a good stock of active posters and potential turn players, rather than more weaker teams who decay into one man teams after the first couple of millennia......
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
of Spam
|
Dec 2003
time: 22:10
| |
|
|
My suggeston is that we play pangaea, so that we we get diplo moving asap. Early warfare is a possibility, sure, but as teh entire game was balanced for that possibiity, early warfare is a good idea...
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator
De Hel van Enschede
|
Nov 1999
time: 23:10
| |
|
|
My only concern is the number of teams -- as pointed out let's make sure we have fewer but stronger teams. The Warlords DG has 8 Poly teams (excluding teams from other sites and the staff team), which I think has clearly proven to be too much: almost all of those are one-person teams now.
For this DG so far 6 people signed up as team leaders and I'm pretty sure the Spanish guys plan on joining us as well, that's 7 teams already. Too much, we should restrict it to at most 5 teams IMO (plus teams from other communities, if enough people sign up for them I have no problem with having multiple teams from the Ladder/MP community).
|
|
| |
|
|
ACS Staff Member / Hosted Site Admin
|
Jan 2000
time: 00:10
| |
|
|
I'll agree with RobWorham and Locutus on this.
Keep the number of teams as low as possible.
I would suggest giving the opportunity to people, preferably (candidate) team leaders, to present their team concepts within a time frame, and then people vote for the ones they find better. Having agreed from the beginning on the total number of participating teams, the ones that will receive the less votes will be disregarded.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator
De Hel van Enschede
|
Nov 1999
time: 23:10
| |
|
|
Been thinking about this for a bit, I like Keygen's thought. I think we should strife to have at least 10 people on each team, but of course you can't really enforce this because if people are forced into teams they don't like they'll just drop out, so some teams will inevitably be larger than others. To compensate for that we should IMO allow 1 team for every roughly 15 people that sign up for this DG by a certain deadline (let's say March 1st?) So for example if 50 people sign up we should have 4 teams, if 100 people sign up we can have 7 teams.
I propose that in the time between now and the team deadline the team leaders should post their team concepts (should be in a new thread so that these threads can also serve as team sign-up threads). Around the time the deadline passes we'll start voting on these: any team concept that gets at least 15 votes is accepted and will get a private forum so the team can get themselves organised. If needed we'll hold further run-off polls for the other team concepts where the least popular ones are eliminated until the team limit is reached. If we end up with very lopsided teams this way we might have to see if we can move some people from the strongest teams to the weakest ones, but that's something we can worry about when the time comes (at least we'll have the team structure set up then).
Thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator
De Hel van Enschede
|
Nov 1999
time: 23:10
| |
|
|
No, it's not my decision, actually. It's up to the community to decide what the rules will be -- I'm posting here merely as an interested player, not as a Poly admin who intends to lay down the law.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator
De Hel van Enschede
|
Nov 1999
time: 23:10
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AAHZ
i disagree with having 15+ people on a team, only 4 teams, nothing would get decided or accomplished without tremendous hassle. Plus i like more teams. |
The problem is that many people are always inactive and teams will inevitably whittle down over time. You might have 20 people at the start, but even the largest C4W DG teams had no more than 4 or 5 active players by the time BtS came out (and several teams were already down to a single player) -- BtS had little to do with that. Plus, that's the whole point of a team DG, the earliest DGs had dozens of players on each team.
I like many teams too, but we just don't have the community to support that. The only way I can see us really having a lot of teams is if we get CFC involved (which would be fine by me, but probably means a fair bit of hassle to set up -- would pretty much make this an Intersite DG).
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
of Spam
|
Dec 2003
time: 22:10
| |
|
|
The problem with Earlier DGs were tahat they were PBEM, so it was roughly 1 turn per week, and the lack of stuff to do lead to inactivity. If we have a turn time of 48 hours (which I think is about right) then there is no reason to be inactive because enw stuff is always happening.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Williamsburg, Virginia
|
Aug 2002
time: 17:10
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AAHZ The problem with the Warlords DG was that is was Warlords then BTS came out, think a patch or two, then the holidays hit, not the teams themselves. |
I can back this theory up, in my case at least -- after BtS came out I lost all interest in the Warlords DG (sorry Keygen,)
In any case, back to the main topic of the thread -- game settings. My votes, with justifications, are the following:
Map: Custom-made with the specs as Rob sets out, for the reasons given by him.
Difficulty: Prince (I usually play Noble, but with the more advanced players here Prince shouldn't be too problematic.)
Civilizations: Chosen by the teams, no duplication, but either first-come-first serve or random draw determining any conflicts. (It seems more realistic not to allow duplicates, and also promotes different playstyles, but we ought to have some method of resolving it when two teams want the same Civ.)
Map size: Determined by the number of teams we end up with; if only, say, five teams, for example, a Small map might be best.
Game speed: Marathon (It's what I usually play on, plus it makes things more realistic; i.e. takes fewer decades/centuries for a Classical Age army to reach a faraway city.)
Starting era: Ancient (I don't think there'll be too much disagreement on this; we want to get the full Civ4 experience.)
Game options: Standard except:
Raging barbarians (make things interesting)
City flipping after conquest (ditto; forces you to keep a city close to your opponent's cultural power centers garrisonned)
I'm possibly open to the other two nonstandard options Fleime suggested but would like to hear justifications for them.
Victory conditions: Standard
(We're unlikely to run into a Time victory in the first place, but if we do, it seems fairer to run things with all victory conditions enabled.)
Multiplayer options: Withholding vote for now as I'm inexperienced with multiplayer.
So those are my thoughts, at least. Anyone else want to share theirs?
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator
De Hel van Enschede
|
Nov 1999
time: 23:10
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
The problem with Earlier DGs were tahat they were PBEM, so it was roughly 1 turn per week, and the lack of stuff to do lead to inactivity. If we have a turn time of 48 hours (which I think is about right) then there is no reason to be inactive because enw stuff is always happening. |
C4W DG was Pitboss game with a 48h turn time as well, yet it died faster than any previous DG. Clearly that alone doesn't remedy the problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
ACS Staff Member / Hosted Site Admin
|
Jan 2000
time: 00:10
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Might as well enable them all.....