Tweet
Why even make it a choice from pre-determined options. The most flexible thing would be like the way it was in Civ II where the timer was set by the players. There is almost an underlying attitude in Gamespy that if you don't play blazing you are a wimp. I think it would be better if people agreed on turn times without labels
Having said that, what I've read here is "99% of the time I finish" - "95% of the time I finish" - "I usually have no problems" etc etc etc. Well I fall into that category too. Put another way, in a 100 turn game I will have 1 -5 turns where I have trouble finishing. The problem is the most important turns usually are the longest ones. Thus the most important turns are rushed or go unfinished.
Lets say there are 4 players. Each one of them is a competent blazer like you guys. 5% of the time they need an extra 20 secs. (middle of a war - crucial diplomacy etc) Assuming the turns that need additional time don't overlap, which is unlikely, that means that in a 100 turn game you would need 20 turns that went an extra 20 secs. That's an extra 6 mins and 40 secs. People spend more time than that arguing about the timer and settings.
I personally don't mind adding 6 mins every hundred turns if it increases the quality of the game by allowing the most important turns to be finished. I wouldn't even mind adding 10 mins.
The best however would be allowing the players to set a timer and possibly a predetermined incrementer every so many turns.
Possibility, I'd be happy to play you a standard sized game with a medium turn timer, if for no other reason, so you can see for yourself that the game will get just about as far along.
Having said that, what I've read here is "99% of the time I finish" - "95% of the time I finish" - "I usually have no problems" etc etc etc. Well I fall into that category too. Put another way, in a 100 turn game I will have 1 -5 turns where I have trouble finishing. The problem is the most important turns usually are the longest ones. Thus the most important turns are rushed or go unfinished.
Lets say there are 4 players. Each one of them is a competent blazer like you guys. 5% of the time they need an extra 20 secs. (middle of a war - crucial diplomacy etc) Assuming the turns that need additional time don't overlap, which is unlikely, that means that in a 100 turn game you would need 20 turns that went an extra 20 secs. That's an extra 6 mins and 40 secs. People spend more time than that arguing about the timer and settings.
I personally don't mind adding 6 mins every hundred turns if it increases the quality of the game by allowing the most important turns to be finished. I wouldn't even mind adding 10 mins.
The best however would be allowing the players to set a timer and possibly a predetermined incrementer every so many turns.
Possibility, I'd be happy to play you a standard sized game with a medium turn timer, if for no other reason, so you can see for yourself that the game will get just about as far along.
I was one of the original Admins within the 3 weeks after Play the World was released. Civ4's release has alot of similarities to that time, except that we are more prepared but the number of new players is much higher than for PTW.
Comment