[NO PLAYERS] Lurker Thread for lurkers lurking loudly

[Jowy]

Jowy, don't you think it's a bit early to say we're headed toward some new future when this kind of setup has now happened exactly once now?

Twice, since this is not the tides of war game. Anyway, yeah, it is early, but that's just the way I see it going based on older games and discussions on their setup. It has potential to be very unhealthy to the community.

[spacetyrantxenu]

Jowy, don't you think it's a bit early to say we're headed toward some new future when this kind of setup has now happened exactly once now?

Twice, since this is not the tides of war game. Anyway, yeah, it is early, but that's just the way I see it going based on older games and discussions on their setup. It has potential to be very unhealthy to the community.

Oh, I hadn't followed the ToW setup, didn't know it was done this way if it was. There's probably a discussion to be had about openness versus invitational events, I wouldn't want this to be the default method of player selection. But as a one off kind of thing I'm not too alarmed by it for now.

Seven, I'm honestly not 100% certain how the iteration works on the combo list selection but my understanding is that if two players both put Zara first they'd both get dropped to their next choice. So if everyone chose Zara first I guess everyone would miss on him. I'll be getting clarification on this point before resolving the list selections. The players are waiting for me to send starting screenshots before they make lists, that will happen some time today I think.

[Dhalphir]

I dont think closed invite events are a bad thing unless they adversely affect overall participation in other games. I think worrying about private invite only games is a bit silly when we have the largest pitboss that RB (and maybe the WORLD) has ever seen going on right now.

[Krill]

This game is BTS, they've been waiting on a map for about a week now. Jowy, don't you think it's a bit early to say we're headed toward some new future when this kind of setup has now happened exactly once now? And if someone wants to organize a game I don't see what the big deal is. Play against who you want to play against, obviously none of these players have a problem with it or they wouldn't have signed up. And the games are primarily for the players, after all. Don't feel left out, anyone who wants a game can organize it at any time.

Krill, do you have any alternate suggestions for how to improve the center starting location? If naval vulnerability is the problem I could block of access from one direction using a mountain chain in the water, or something else to reduce the number of neighbor interactions. Would that be fair? If so, which civs would you recommend segmenting? (They did ask for a cylindrical map).

If it has to be cylindrical, then the only type of map that doesn't leave one player in a...unique...position is where there is a single band of land that wraps around the connected axis (then add in the islands etc). Unfortunately, that's boring as all hell. 7 players is simply nasty to design for.

However, a flat map would work (it works on anything up to 10 or so, after that there is too much land in the centre unless you use specifically designed map dimensions from the Torusworld mapscript). Place everyone around the edge of the map, and can leave a ring of water on the absolute edges so there is naval action there as well as on lakes. You can then keep the centre of the map as a small ocean (or just as normal land, which IMO is preferable so people actually fight over it). I think you should offer the flat map to them, I think they would at leasts consider that with Monarch/Large keeping costs and tech reasonable, it would give them the game play they desire.

Using a flat map, the biggest issue are the corners being less accessible, having less land to expand into if you start there, but simply rounding them off with ocean is a simple solution to that. Everything else on a flat map would fit what you've already done.

[Krill]

FWIW, the central position is the only position where they have to potentially deal with every other player, but can only be invaded by 2 others. It's effectively the same series of problems that occurred in PB16, that no one has much reason to screw with the central guy unless they can take all the land. Unfortunately, the central guy is sitting behind 2 choke points, so he can be considered to be on his own island as most of his cities can only be attacked by naval units. Obviously introducing more choke points has other problems, so really the best thing to do would honestly be to cram more people onto one of the sides and then create safe little back line peninsula for each of them so they definitely had land that couldn't be stolen from them. Whatever you do is going to lead to either a the central position being incredibly strong where someone can basically build their way to victory with no interactions with the other players, or they are stuck playing on a toroidal map whilst everyone else is on a cylindrical one and have less land than others. And have to build more military to defend.

But frankly someone would screw up and expand in the wrong direction at the start of the game, so you have to place the strategic resources in specific places so that they can both settle forward into contested land, and also so they aren't fucked if they do do that. Honestly, better off going with a flat map, it would give them everything they wanted and not lead to unfair positions.

EDIT: Some numbers FWIW: 60 by 44 with 29% waterways and 10% peaks gives the numbers they are looking for per player, map can be turned flat by editing the file in note pad and there is still enough land that you can turn to water to make it look nicer. Depending on what you wanted to do with islands you could add a few tiles onto the width, but that high is OK for a flat map.

[Catwalk]

I don't think there's a problem with setting up a game privately, I'm tinkering with some plans of my own for when PB17 is over. I do think that the game should be opened up for other participants once settings are agreed on, but I don't see a big deal with this. Game setup threads have been a bit unruly at times, I can understand the desire to streamline it a bit.

I agree with Krill's notions about the problems with the map layout. It's a novel idea to try to balance multiple assymetrical factors, but putting one player in the middle is a big and very unpredictable factor to balance. I'd recommend running a toroidal and flat idea by them, as well as allowing for one more player to join to make it a much more suitable player count of 8. And I'm not suggesting that because I want in myself, I have plenty to see to with PB17 and I'm glad I was allowed to opt out of PB18.

[spacetyrantxenu]

Krill, thanks for the feedback. They did ask for cylindrical so that's what I built. I'm not prepared to redo the entire map built around a new design at this point, I have way too many hours invested in this one to start over now. I know it won't be perfect but as long as the center guy doesn't lose on T0 and has as good a chance to win as anyone else, that will suffice. I had several player designs worked out that would be fair and easy to do, until each time I realized I had eight civs placed rather than seven. The odd number is what kept throwing me off and I didn't want to...

(PB17 spoiler, players don't click)

...create the PB17 map again with basically a ring layout. I had to do it there because of them having 11 players in that game, so I didn't see a better way to balance that one either. But that game is a lower skill level than this one and everyone having two direct neighbors in PB17 seems OK (they all have neighbors along the toroidal wrap as well but that's a design constraint here with a cylindrical request).

So I wanted something fair and I thought I could work around the inherent unfairness of being the guy stuck in the middle. In the early game being in the middle is an advantage, I think, at least up until the era where attacks become more likely. You get to meet your neighbors sooner and reap those benefits, whether it's resource trades, known tech boosts, etc. It isn't a lot, but it's something at least. Later on when naval harassment is a problem, absolutely being in the middle can be a disadvantage. I don't win games because I suck at Civ but I remember from PB8 and PB11 that having neighbors all around you (when others don't have as many) is pretty terrible. But this is the design we have, we're at the point now where we need to minimize the negatives of the layout, not restart.

Regarding converting the existing map to a flat one (I'm not sure if this is what you were suggesting -- I really can't start over in any case), that would kind of leave five civs with two land neighbors each, then two with three, and still wouldn't help the center guy's naval vulnerability. I have to disagree about it being the same kind of problem as in PB16 though, this map is not a series of duels. Everyone except the middle guy has three neighbors by land. By the nature of the script (lakes) it's a choke-point filled map (see also, your PB4 map), but that's not a problem, just something to overcome or circumvent when attacking. There's quite a lot of space for everyone to expand into here, it's 200 tiles per civ, they really shouldn't be looking for blood early on unless they see a crazy opening. With that said, when someone finally does come looking for the central civ he has two neighbors, one with a front about two to three cities wide (depending on where the border settles in the south). The other front will be two sided as there are two approaches from the north leading to the same civ's home territory. One front will be a choke-point of one city, the other could be two to three cities wide again depending on where the border falls. And there's a lake big enough for naval units to facilitate an amphibious attack from the north as well. I don't think you can call the center safe from either of its intended antagonists, which is my intent. I don't want the center to be unfairly safe or unfairly exposed. I think the naval exposure is the only part that needs mitigation right now. Having one fewer neighbor by land is supposed to offset the additional naval exposure, in addition to not worsening any of the other six civs' positioning vis à vis one another by merit of one of them having a fourth land based neighbor while everyone else only has three. That's the trouble with having seven civs in a non-ringed layout, whatever I do someone has an odd number of connections to enable the others to remain even.

I could build in a "safe back lines" for the center civ by walling off the eastern shoreline with a mountain range. That would eliminate a significant number of port cities for the central player and reduce his ability to control the long eastern sea, but it would keep the two eastern civs out of his back lines so easily.

I've tried to place strategic resources in a way that helps the players expand in the "right" direction, not straight toward another player. I'm trying to encourage the central civ to go west across the center of the map, but the players will inevitably see the map differently than I have and do something different. In that event I've put multiple copies of strategic resources around their zones to try and make sure they ultimately get source of metals, horses, etc. no matter which way they expand. I'd appreciate a closer inspection of resource placement, though, because that isn't something I did exceptionally well last time. Things I've specifically avoided here: high yield commerce resource tiles near the start. No one is going to wander around and luck upon a gold or gems tile unless they're willing to risk being eaten by a panther. I've tried to encourage the players to settle in place but we'll see if they do. You'll see what I mean if you open the worldbuilder file...the capitals aren't mirrored, but they're all the same combination of tiles. If I hear complaints from the players that the capitals aren't fair I'm going to blow a gasket. (To my knowledge there are six functionally identical capitals, the seventh has a lake tile where the others have a coast tile).

Anyway, that's a lot of text, thank you for your suggestions about the kind of map I probably should have built. I just went with what they asked for because that's liable to result in fewer end user complaints than doing my own thing with their map. What do you think about some of these changes? (Mostly I guess it comes down to building a mountain wall for the center civ to protect their "back line" area).

[Mardoc]

I don't see much of an issue with the map concept, myself. Everyone has 3 land neighbors and nearly everyone reachable by sea, except the center person who has fewer land neighbors but can interact with everyone. Going to a flat design would make 2 neighbors universal, but at the cost of not being able to interact with the far people. And toroid means that everyone has to worry about everyone all the time. It's slightly asymmetrical this way, but it seems small, given all the other random factors.

I've been trying to find time to open the map and look at the details, but I've just been too busy. Maybe tonight, but more likely on the weekend sometime.

[spacetyrantxenu]

I agree with Krill's notions about the problems with the map layout. It's a novel idea to try to balance multiple assymetrical factors, but putting one player in the middle is a big and very unpredictable factor to balance. I'd recommend running a toroidal and flat idea by them, as well as allowing for one more player to join to make it a much more suitable player count of 8. And I'm not suggesting that because I want in myself, I have plenty to see to with PB17 and I'm glad I was allowed to opt out of PB18.

Other than starting over with a different map concept, are there any changes you can recommend to improve the current map? If this map is so flawed as to need to be completely replaced I can accept that, but I can't build a second map the way I did this one. My process is slow and time consuming and I don't have the energy to do another different map right now.

Without changing from the requested form (cylindrical, seven players, lakes-ish script), how can I improve this? Maybe the easier starting point is making a list of the problems and then tackling those one by one?

[Catwalk]

Well, how much balance do the players expect? If they're cool with something fairly chaotic then there isn't a big problem. They just need to be aware of that so they won't be complaining later.

One actual suggestion: How about making land access to the middle player more difficult? In your diagram of player access, both water access routes to the middle player seem to be very easy to come by. If you add a bit more space so ocean going vessels or a lot of culture is required, he'll have somewhat more defensible borders.