game policy question - refugees

Paddy · July 12, 2007, 04:54

what will be the policy in this game for refugees once a civ has been decimated?

think it is time this was made all nice and clear for all members of all teams before any such situation comes to pass

here kitty kitty kitty... wanna play some civ with our keshiks???

Addled Platypus · July 12, 2007, 05:02

at least join with the mercs

???

or

join a team no where near start position

still way early in game...what say you folk ???

Paddy · July 12, 2007, 05:03

start a new civ in a lost jungle and freak them all out when they find you gone native

Nugog · July 12, 2007, 05:07

Originally posted by Addled Platypus what say you folk ???

Lacero · July 12, 2007, 05:19

[quote]
join a team no where near start position
[quote]

But we're all going to interact eventually right? It would be better to only allow people to join the team that conquered them.

PJayTycy · July 12, 2007, 05:19

join the liberator or quit playing

ChrisiusMaximus · July 12, 2007, 06:32

Refugees ? dont we get to keep slaves then ?

Tiberius · July 12, 2007, 06:54

I think we could agree on a moratorium (10 turns or 25 turns or whatever) after which the members of the eliminated civ should be allowed to join any team they want (if the desired team accepts them, that is).

If you fear that bad feelings could be carried over to the new team, a public forum could be opened announcing the new membership, and the active teams would have the right to veto the move.

I'd find this as a fair solution to all parties involved.

Zoid · July 12, 2007, 08:56

Originally posted by Tiberius
I think we could agree on a moratorium (10 turns or 25 turns or whatever) after which the members of the eliminated civ should be allowed to join any team they want (if the desired team accepts them, that is).

If you fear that bad feelings could be carried over to the new team, a public forum could be opened announcing the new membership, and the active teams would have the right to veto the move.

I'd find this as a fair solution to all parties involved.

UnOrthOdOx · July 12, 2007, 09:10

Originally posted by Addled Platypus
at least join with the mercs

???

Is that meant to imply joining the mercs is embarrasing?!?!

Daddy-O · July 12, 2007, 10:27

This is a much needed thread. Thanks Paddy.

Yes. What will we do with the members of Team AC once the Banano-a Unupartiaj Teritoriaj Trupoj solidly defeat them? I'd hate to see them leave the game.

My idea - not Team Banana's -
I think the conquering team(s) should get the right of first refusal, then the remaining refugees are dispersed to the winds and free to join another team after a set number of turns.

Kataphraktoi · July 12, 2007, 12:27

Refugees can join the victors or leave. A defeated team wil have a lot of data that is really unfair to just give to another team. Sure there are RL refugees....but in WW2 the polish\french didnt just move to the UK and become policy makers in the gov! As it would be here

binTravkin · July 12, 2007, 12:29

Or rather another team they had contact with prior to conquest.

-SafaN- · July 12, 2007, 12:54

why can't we pay fees?

so since banana are about to anex AC, i'm looking for a new team.

i'm a turnplayer, so whats your team willing to donate me for joining?

UnOrthOdOx · July 12, 2007, 12:55

I've only really experienced this situation once in a team game.

In that case, the members were allowed to disperse through the teams, and there was no impact I could see with diplomacy. Team A was destroyed by Team B and screwed by Team C. They dispersed, and there was no radical shifts in the other participant's views of team B or C.

All other teams I've seen eliminated in demogames have not had members wanting to join other teams.

So, basing solely on my past experience, I would say that allowing folks to join whomever they wish would not seriously impact the game. I don't think 10 or 20 turn waiting is going to do much. If someone's pissed, they'll still be pissed.

We could make a statement of no sharing of specifics if you're worried. IE, no "hey, they have techs xyz and are researching this to build that" should be shared, but "Team banana invaded us with blackened banana peels which poisoned the streams and weakened our warriors, we were unable to repell the attack since GS refused to help and lasers proved ineffective against banana trees" type information should be ok.

The responsibility is for the team they are joining to take everything with a grain of salt. Yeah, they just got killed off, of course they are biased. Remember it's only one side of the story.

My opinion only, all that jazz.

UnOrthOdOx · July 12, 2007, 12:55

Originally posted by -SafaN-
why can't we pay fees?

so since banana are about to anex AC, i'm looking for a new team.

i'm a turnplayer, so whats your team willing to donate me for joining?

You belong over here, that's for sure.

Daddy-O · July 12, 2007, 13:53

All refugees are always welcome here.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...11#post4983106

Stop by to buy a cookie or a Rice Krispie Treat; and stick around to lurk the rest of the game.

Nugog · July 12, 2007, 15:15

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I've only really experienced this situation once in a team game.

In that case, the members were allowed to disperse through the teams, and there was no impact I could see with diplomacy. Team A was destroyed by Team B and screwed by Team C. They dispersed, and there was no radical shifts in the other participant's views of team B or C.

All other teams I've seen eliminated in demogames have not had members wanting to join other teams.

So, basing solely on my past experience, I would say that allowing folks to join whomever they wish would not seriously impact the game. I don't think 10 or 20 turn waiting is going to do much. If someone's pissed, they'll still be pissed.

We could make a statement of no sharing of specifics if you're worried. IE, no "hey, they have techs xyz and are researching this to build that" should be shared, but "Team banana invaded us with blackened banana peels which poisoned the streams and weakened our warriors, we were unable to repell the attack since GS refused to help and lasers proved ineffective against banana trees" type information should be ok.

The responsibility is for the team they are joining to take everything with a grain of salt. Yeah, they just got killed off, of course they are biased. Remember it's only one side of the story.

My opinion only, all that jazz.

Nugog · July 12, 2007, 15:17

Originally posted by Daddy-O
This is a much needed thread. Thanks Paddy.

Yes. What will we do with the members of Team AC once the Banano-a Unupartiaj Teritoriaj Trupoj solidly defeat them? I'd hate to see them leave the game.

PJayTycy · July 12, 2007, 16:08

Originally posted by PJayTycy
join the liberator or quit playing

sorry for quoting myself, but I think this sounded harsher than intended.

I'd have no problem with any body joining an other team who they've had 30+ turns of (active) diplomacy contact with. IE: they know the history of the civs involved, who invaded who, for which (false) reasons etc... If they moved to another team, that team gets information they'd normally not have.

So, when we all fall to our deaths by slipping over the banana peels on their city walls, we could join Banana, GS or Vox, but not the other teams.

Daddy-O · July 12, 2007, 16:34

sorry for quoting myself, but I think this sounded harsher than intended.

NO! I took it as your eagerness to join Team Banana.

Blake · July 12, 2007, 20:14

I personally (and that is, just personally, I don't speak for GS) think that refugees should only be allowed to join their conquerers or teams with which they shared very close relationships (before being exterminated).

But given that teams can refuse to accept refugees I don't think it's a big deal, I'd tend to accept "If it makes RP sense" - like if an unarmed party of refugees could credibly make the journey to the territory of the team they wish to join, then they can request to join that team.

I trust that there are checks and balances to prevent illegal information being dispersed, mainly in the form of the game mods and the honest players who will draw the mods attention to shady business.

Kloreep · July 12, 2007, 23:59

Originally posted by PJayTycy
I'd have no problem with any body joining an other team who they've had 30+ turns of (active) diplomacy contact with. IE: they know the history of the civs involved, who invaded who, for which (false) reasons etc... If they moved to another team, that team gets information they'd normally not have.

I might agree, except I'm not really sure what the point of trying to control such information is, given teams can already post freely in this forum.

Granted, you have more certainty that a refugee is being honest (from their PoV) than a still-kicking team; but ultimately, why try for any sort of lockdown when a team can already post what it wants before it ever gets eliminated?

I should be clear here that I don't speak for Merc. But I personally think we might as well let refugees join any team that will have them.

And as UnO says, a lot of DGs actually had a lot of refugees choose to "stay dead" so to speak. The pattern I've noticed is that each successive team to die had less and less eliminated players joining other teams - the farther into the game, the less interest in picking up again with a new team. (Of course, this DG could always buck the trend, so I suppose we should plan for all possibilities.)

ormuzd · July 13, 2007, 03:37

My expirience shows that when a team is going to be eliminated the things start to be rough, i.e. there is a lot of talk, usually very aggressive and embarassing. In these talks the people always reveal more than they should. This makes me wonder what is the problem to join any other team if you like.

fed1943 · July 13, 2007, 05:26

I had thought about the questions posted. IMO, PJayTycy last post
gives a resumee: information, knowledge.

Now an interesting point: the only ones who really know the "asserts"
the defeated team could carry to a new team are its members (and,
of course, the Adm).

In the current game, I can say to all teams that we - the Banana
players - know very,very little of AC (as a matter of fact, their attacking units) and nothing about others.

We don't even know where we are on the global map.
The only piece of valuable (if valuable it is) knoweledge we have is
our own territory and that will remain until end of the game.

I think I gave an accurate picture, without disclose data, that can
help to make a decision.

Best regards,

binTravkin · July 13, 2007, 16:54

I'm still completely ok with joining any team with which there's a contact - either be conquered or get political asylum.

Joining teams one doesn't have contact with is NOT ok imo as those teams would get all too valuable information about the happenings on the other continent and would be able to deduct where on map it is.

snoopy369 · July 13, 2007, 22:47

I think binT's point is very important; all other considerations aside, contact rules must at least be preserved, as that is in the spirit of other rules you all have chosen.

If someone's willing to suggest options we can have a poll on this... not sure what the options would be atm.

Kataphraktoi · July 14, 2007, 02:42

Poll options revised

Refugees can join the victors or leave
Refugees can join anyone
Refugees can join known teams
Refugees can leave the game and curse their bad mojo

Will9 · July 14, 2007, 16:59

I think we should be able to join any team if defeated but mentioning what we know should be strictly banned. (and we don't know very much)

Nugog · July 14, 2007, 17:22

Originally posted by Will9
I think we should be able to join any team if defeated but mentioning what we know should be strictly banned. (and we don't very much)