Maybe it's the right time for a second RB Pitboss?

[Sullla]

I would like to state for the record that the game settings for the current Pitboss game were agreed upon by all participants before starting, and everyone seemed pleased with them at the time. If things did not go as expected after the game actually started, well, don't go blaming sunrise (the organizer) or me (the map creator) for unexpected developments in-game!

As far as Mortius' points go:

#1 is overly complicated and unenforceable. Honestly, if you guys are tired of No Tech Brokering, try playing with unrestricted tech trading, or No Tech Trading period. Attempting to put complicated metagaming rules in place is barking up the wrong tree in a competitive game. (I have some experience in this regard, and I don't see it panning out at all.)

#2 is even worse. What is the point of having a game between humans if you're going to eliminate diplomacy? Besides, Krill has already elegantly pointed out how easily those rules can be worked around. Seriously, I recommend against these ideas in the strongest possible terms. These games are all about communication - don't eliminate that!

#3 and #4 are actually good suggestions. Higher difficulty and the normal "restricted" leaders would both get my approval. A gold auctioning system would not - overly complicated and unnecessary again. For the record, if I do another MP map, I also plan on making a smaller one next time. (Although I got some complaints that the PBEM map was too small, so maybe folks are never entirely satisfied!)

Also, let's try to avoid spoilers for the current ongoing games, alright?

[Mortius]

In all the multiplayer games I were lurking, the tech trading became the centre of the game. From one of the features it advances to the main element, and everything else become less important or not important at all. The players main concern was not the shape of theirs empires, economy or military strength but the possibility of being locked out of tech trading.

The tech trading and diplomacy corrupted the game to the point, that the way you handle your civ is irrelevant, as long as you are a part of a bigger alliance and they back you with techs. It’s not the game I would like to play.
I would like a game, where your position depends on what you build, how you balance your growth, how you move your units, and not what alliance you are part of, and to have such a game we really need to put some restrictions to tech trading.

[Mortius]

#1 is overly complicated and unenforceable.

Complicated?
What is complicated in allowing players trading only one tech with one player?

Unenforceable?
First, it's RB and we trust each other, don't we? Second, it's pretty obvious when somebody trades a tech, it's visible in a civstat and in a tech trading screen. What's the problem if all the players keep trades record in their own threads (first post). Example:

Sulla
receive: Alphabet (turn 70) give: Mathematics (turn 70)

Krill
receive: HBR (turn 74) give: ..............................

Athlete
receive: ........................ give: ..............................

Sunrise
receive: ........................ give: Mathematics (turn 75)

LiPing
receive: Monarchy (turn 71) give: Mathematics (turn 71)

[Sullla]

If you don't want tech trading and alliances to be important, then in all honesty it sounds like you should be running an Always War free-for-all ("cton") game. In any other situation, success when playing with humans is going to be determined as much or more by diplomacy than by in-game actions. There's no way around this.

You could also simply turn off tech trading entirely, if you feel it's something that corrupts the gameplay.

[Krill]

Attempting to put complicated metagaming rules in place is barking up the wrong tree in a competitive game. (I have some experience in this regard, and I don't see it panning out at all.)

Care to explain further? I've seen the above rules work before in closed environments such as this (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered explaining them here), but I've not seen (pr can't remember) any other types of modifications to the rules.

[Mortius]

If you don't want tech trading and alliances to be important, then in all honesty it sounds like you should be running an Always War free-for-all ("cton") game. In any other situation, success when playing with humans is going to be determined as much or more by diplomacy than by in-game actions. There's no way around this.

You could also simply turn off tech trading entirely, if you feel it's something that corrupts the gameplay.

Sulla, you propose extreme solutions. I don't want a game without diplomacy, or without tech trading, but a game where is a balance between all the elements. I know my proposal isn't the best, but I only want to start a discussion on "what to do to achive such a balance".

I want a game, where the final succes depends on your good decisions, the overall performance in diplomacy, empire management and military actions and not on diplomacy alone. I want a game, where weedy decisions will be punished (not covered by allies) and good decisions awarded.

[LiPing]

Well... I wouldn't mind no tech trading...

Mortius, in case you missed what I asked earlier, using your example above, does it mean that under the proposed ruleset, I would:

a) not be able to trade 'player X' for example, Writing + Iron Working = Monarchy
b) having gotten Monarchy from 'player X' and given 'Mathematics' to player X, I can no longer trade anything else to 'player X' or get anything else from 'player X' for the rest of the game.

Is that correct?

[Mortius]

Well... I wouldn't mind no tech trading...

Mortius, in case you missed what I asked earlier, using your example above, does it mean that under the proposed ruleset, I would:

a) not be able to trade 'player X' for example, Writing + Iron Working = Monarchy
b) having gotten Monarchy from 'player X' and given 'Mathematics' to player X, I can no longer trade anything else to 'player X' or get anything else from 'player X' for the rest of the game.

Is that correct?

a) yes - only one tech. I know it can be a little hard to even the beaker costs, but there are several workarounds i.e. IW + worker or other unit = Monarchy, IW + some gold later = Monarchy etc.
b) exchange "anything" with "any tech" and your statement will be true. The rule is here to prevent establishing trading alliances. You can still cooperate with a player but you can't exchange techs anymore. You will need to be more self sufficient, than in the first RB Pitboss.

[Mortius]

Realism < gameplay, when creating rules.

Completely broken by lots of emails sent consecutively. All that does is annoy the players. And is completely unenforcable. It's probably possible to say that only x messages can be sent every turn, but I can see that being an absolute *&^&* of a rule that no one enjoys playing with.

I suppose the best question, is whether your opinion that diplomacy is flawed is due to the creation of the UTA/NUTA, or for some other reason? If the former, then that is fixable...but not by altering hte rules of diplomacy.

2. Leave it as is

I must agree You are right, my proposed restrictions on contact between players were not very realistic

[athlete4life10]

#1 is overly complicated and unenforceable. Honestly, if you guys are tired of No Tech Brokering, try playing with unrestricted tech trading, or No Tech Trading period. Attempting to put complicated metagaming rules in place is barking up the wrong tree in a competitive game. (I have some experience in this regard, and I don't see it panning out at all.)

#2 is even worse. What is the point of having a game between humans if you're going to eliminate diplomacy? Besides, Krill has already elegantly pointed out how easily those rules can be worked around. Seriously, I recommend against these ideas in the strongest possible terms. These games are all about communication - don't eliminate that!

I'd have to agree with Sulla on both of these points. I'd much rather play with no tech trading then try to keep track of some side set of rules. A no tech trading, always war FFA sounds kind of fun!

On a side note about maps...I don't know who complained about map size for the pbem but I think it suits 5 players just fine...course if I had only known how to use my land properly earlier... oh what could have been

Anyways I think you do a great job at creating a map Sulla and sure somebody can always find something to complain about but it really shines through that you did the best you think you can (especially such a large task in the pitboss one I think) and that's all anyone can ask of someone. Unfortuneatly the map creator will probably always get flack much the same as a referee, no matter how well the job is done.