I'm getting kind of annoyed with some of the comments here. This is a demogame, we are supposed to discuss things as a team. There are some players in our team that probably haven't even seen the discussion that happened due to timezones and real life. I know this was a minor decision, but it was a decision anyway.
The only thing that will be achieved by this "pick fast" posts is turn this game into a normal game with a lot of ded-lurkers, where only a few players decide things.
We don't plan on sitting a week to do our pick, but we ask for a little pacience so we can discuss it. I signed up for this game knowing that it'd have a slower pace than usual. Hopefully I haven't made a mistake on my judgement and the other players/teams have a similar view. Of course, it's a slower pace due to the need for discussion, not just for the heck of it. But it's a slower pace nonetheless.
Ichabod Wrote:I'm getting kind of annoyed with some of the comments here. This is a demogame, we are supposed to discuss things as a team. There are some players in our team that probably haven't even seen the discussion that happened due to timezones and real life. I know this was a minor decision, but it was a decision anyway.
The only thing that will be achieved by this "pick fast" posts is turn this game into a normal game with a lot of ded-lurkers, where only a few players decide things.
We don't plan on sitting a week to do our pick, but we ask for a little pacience so we can discuss it. I signed up for this game knowing that it'd have a slower pace than usual. Hopefully I haven't made a mistake on my judgement and the other players/teams have a similar view. Of course, it's a slower pace due to the need for discussion, not just for the heck of it. But it's a slower pace nonetheless.
FWIW Ichabod, I understand your position, but also look at it from others PoV. TEAM has nothing to discuss at all, because we have no control over where we pick, and so we can't even discuss different picking strategies for different positions without trying to figure out literally every possible permutation. You guys can figure out what you want to pick and where you need to be in the pick order to get what you want. Most of us on TEAM would prefer to have something to do, but we accept that we don't. We do appreciate knowing when this is likely to be finished though, instead of being told it might take up to a week.
Krill Wrote:We do appreciate knowing when this is likely to be finished though, instead of being told it might take up to a week.
It might take two weeks. 14 decisions to be made by teams spread out over multiple time zones. I don't expect anyone to rush the most important decision in the game.
Then don't expect us to sit quietly at the side. Anyway, the whole point of choosing where to pick is dependent on knowing what leader/civ you are likely to be able to pick up and what you want, so it should make decisions more straightforward than it appears at first sight.
I would like to join Team Gillette. I understand if I am refused, and I will make no protests or comments whatsoever about being rejected.
I would also like to discuss the current controversy over the ruleset in the ISDG 2012, but I am not sure what thread is appropriate for that. I realize that this thread is not for discussing the ISDG. If someone provides a link I will go to that thread.
On the other hand, if my comments on the ISDG 2012 are considered unwelcome here at this time, I will not make any comments.
I'm not captain (god forbid!), but I would be very surprised if any of us had objections. With you and Rego in our team thread, I should have plenty to read whilst i'm at work!
I'm not captain (god forbid!), but I would be very surprised if any of us had objections. With you and Rego in our team thread, I should have plenty to read whilst i'm at work!
I would, personally, be very surprised and dissapointed if our captains did not welcome anyone who wanted to join our team.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
SevenSpirits Wrote:Ban "everything" might be a bit of an exaggeration. But yeah, why so much banning?
For some of the typical ban list, it's because they go so far away from the core of Civilization gaming. Corporations and spies in particular are the offenders there. In Civilization, you're supposed to be gradually growing and improving the land to meticulously collect tile yields... and then all of a sudden comes this magical corporation mechanic that deluges each city with 10 or 20 food. Or you're supposed to be strategically planning your governmental civics choices... and along comes a spy to whack all your careful setup. Or you plan a war only to have the Apostolic Palace banhammer it.
You're not really playing Civilization, you're playing subsystems that were designed to sell the BTS expansion by sticking out as sharp edges. Being forced down these paths isn't fun. And you ARE forced if you want to be competitive. If you don't use corps and spies, you'll lose to somebody else who does.
All our usual bans are geared towards keeping the game fun and entertaining. Blockades fall into that category. Blockades mean that developing to use water tiles is very risky, because a single ship can come along and deny huge amounts of food and commerce. You can build a navy to defend, but once again you're getting forced down the path of dealing with particular subsystems at the expense of the overall Civilization gameplay.
Other bans are to avoid a "one right choice" scenario. Nukes mean that you must get there first or lose to somebody who does, slicing off huge chunks of the later tech tree as unviable options. Elephants are banned not just because ivory might be unevenly distributed (the mapmaker could give it to everybody), but because you must run to Construction or lose to somebody who does. The power of Financial as a civilization trait means you must have it or lose to somebody who does, making other traits unviable. These bans are more arguable, that Civilization 4 is meant to stress these areas and isn't meant to be perfectly balanced. But I and most players would agree that the game is more fun when more options are made available by cutting the tall poppies.
