Is that character a variant? (I just love getting asked that in channel.) - Charis
Create an account  
Realms Beyond Forum     Gaming     Civ Game Reporting     Completed Games     Completed Civ 4 Pitboss     Pitboss2     Maybe it's the right time for a second RB Pitboss?

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

#21
September 30th, 2009, 12:23
sooooo Offline
Member
Posts: 1,404
Threads: 53
Joined: Apr 2006
Errr ... I don't think it's wise to start a new RB pitboss before the first one has ended.
Find
Reply

#22
September 30th, 2009, 17:34
sunrise089 Offline
Not that good
Posts: 6,507
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
I admit I've not read all of the above posts in detail, however...

*I'm happy to hose another RB Piboss.

*I'm also happy to manage the organization thread, if Mortius doesn't want to and people were satisfied with my last attempt.

*I think most of the suggestions re: improvements have been gamey and won't add to the fun. Restricting communication sounds crazy - I enjoyed chatting through email and IM with all of the players in the first Pitboss, and continue to do so. The no contact until in-game contact rule served us fine, although I could see the argument for a less restrictive rule.

*I don't necessarily disagree with Krill's proposal re: tech trading, however I would suggest that "no tech trading" is a much easier solution that accomplishes the same goal re: rigid diplo blocs designed to exclusively trade techs. For what it's worth, my own interest in a second Pitboss game would be much greater under a no tech trading scheme than anything else.
Find
Reply

#23
October 1st, 2009, 03:08
Mortius Offline
Member
Posts: 493
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2007
sunrise089 Wrote:*I'm also happy to manage the organization thread, if Mortius doesn't want to and people were satisfied with my last attempt.

I am more than happy if you take care of the organization thread smile

sunrise089 Wrote:*Restricting communication sounds crazy - I enjoyed chatting through email and IM with all of the players in the first Pitboss, and continue to do so. The no contact until in-game contact rule served us fine

Yeah I know. My idea was smoke

sunrise089 Wrote:*I don't necessarily disagree with Krill's proposal re: tech trading, however I would suggest that "no tech trading" is a much easier solution that accomplishes the same goal re: rigid diplo blocs designed to exclusively trade techs. For what it's worth, my own interest in a second Pitboss game would be much greater under a no tech trading scheme than anything else.

The "no tech trading" was the first option I have thought of, but after a while I started to afraid of a situation, when everybody beeline to the same military techs and immediately start the World War. It will make the game more shallow. I think the “no tech trading” option strips the game of the important element, and that’s the reason I opt for a limiting tech trading, that prevents establishing trading blocks, but on the other hand enables players to exchange some techs and make the world tech situation more diverse. Maybe my proposal wasn’t the best, but I think there is a solution we can work out.
Of course, if the majority choose “no tech trading” option I am happy to play with this rule too.
Find
Reply

#24
October 1st, 2009, 09:39 (This post was last modified: October 1st, 2009, 12:38 by Broker33.)
Broker33 Offline
Regular User
Posts: 879
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2008
I wouldnt mind seeing another game. May even play in it not sure. To prevent locked in tech blocks I would think either no trading or full trading would work.


Edit: Also in light of the issues with the first pitboss I think everyone should give the admin or a 3rd party your civs password.
Find
Reply

#25
October 9th, 2009, 19:47
athlete4life10 Offline
Regular User
Posts: 1,927
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2008
Quote:When and if there is a second game, I'll make sure to set an admin password if I'm hosting.

Is there any further interest in people participating in a 2nd pitboss? Or are there only the few of us?
Find
Reply

#26
October 9th, 2009, 23:30
LiPing Offline
Regular User
Posts: 232
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2009
How many of us are there currently?
Find
Reply

#27
October 10th, 2009, 00:09
Kodii Offline
Member
Posts: 855
Threads: 26
Joined: Jul 2006
I might be interested to play a fun relaxed game on the side.
Website Find
Reply

#28
October 10th, 2009, 04:13
sunrise089 Offline
Not that good
Posts: 6,507
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
I'm interested if we either go no tech trading (preferred option) or full tech trading.
Find
Reply

#29
October 10th, 2009, 06:38
Dantski Offline
Headscratcher
Posts: 1,836
Threads: 34
Joined: Feb 2006
I'd be interested in a more relaxed, less serious game.

I like keeping tech trading but not if everyone forms big trading blocs.
Prefer 24hour turn timer.
I'd also be interested in a game without NAP's as they tend to rule out 'opportunistic' (is that a word?) wars.
"We are open to all opinions as long as they are the same as ours."
Find
Reply

#30
October 10th, 2009, 16:20
athlete4life10 Offline
Regular User
Posts: 1,927
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2008
Well by my count we have 3 sure in's:

Mortius
Athlete4life10
LiPing

as well as 4 possibles (if settings favour their wants):
Sunrise089
Kodii
Dantski
Broker33

My opinion is that's enough to atleast discuss settings for the potential game right? Maybe we should have a vote on some stuff and see what the interest is.

Both Kodii and Dantski mentioned a "relaxed" game. What's relaxed? I always find civ relaxing lol! Maybe a longer time span for turns so there's no real pressure to play quickly? My big thing is I would really prefer something like "NO TECH TRADING" or "ALWAYS WAR" or something which cuts down on the diplomacy side somewhat.

*edit* but I am ammeniable to differing settings as per consensus */edit*
Find
Reply



Forum Jump: