Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Tech Trade Thread]

[Robert]

And I don't see how you can agree with Cyber's contention that simply because nobody disagreed with it makes it a rule, that isn't a very good argument at all

It's not a perfect situation indeed.
But if about 60% of the players doesn't comment/vote/complain and the grand majority of the 40% agrees, then that's the only way to get something decided.

We're with 18 players on different continents.
We can't wait forever untill everyone has voiced their opinion and all opinions match and we have debated every single detail.

Someone needs to take lead and make decisions, based on the opinions voiced in the threads.
So far I get the idea that most people are fine with me being that guy.

If you disagree, I have no problem to give the lead to you. To me it means nothing more then taking care of the game. I'm from Europe, we don't get ticklings in our belly for being in charge. (ok, the French actually do get many good feelings, but they're not really European, they're French.)

For me it's important to have a solid and fair game.
If we decided something, then we should stick to it unless nobody voices against changing it.
But we can't start a game based on a 24h promise, and then change it to 12h resulting that one of the players can't make his moves.

If all players agree, then we can change it.
There's no problem with changing.

And now Ozzy has stated that a 12h timer for now is ok, I'll revert it back to a 12h (11h) timer this afternoon.

[Pitboss Rome]

Originally posted by Pitboss Vikings
As i said mate , i went back and re read the whole 2 threads on the game setup and NO VOTE was ever taken on the Tech Voucher system.

It was agreed to at same time as no Double move. In fact most people during the discusiion stated the DOUBLE MOVE was the only issue with PITBOSS games and was a CHEAT.

For normal CIV MP games the Black and white rules are fine and work well as everyone has the same intention winning. The reason DIPLO style tries to avoid rules and allow the community to decide what is right or wrong is to prevent lawyers being involed if you know what i mean, where the law is argued to death by technicalties, perhaps a word or two not stated correctly etc etc. Community Rule overcomes this problem but hasnt been allowed to be used in present game.

I will reiterate my point above though, I will not have any TRADES to make so i wont be breaking any rules by not posting. I am already well behind tech wise and city count wise. still enjoying playing my little role, i dont need to be the winner of CIV MP to enjoy.

If all 18 CIvs played the samw way it would be better, at present only 5-6 are getting into the passion of it being a DIPLO game.

I would request that Cyber cut and paste all the above posts into the now closed Argument thread. I have made my point regarding the double standards used.

Go ahead post away your tech trades.

Dude, you do realise the voucher system was designed to help people like you have interesting things to do.

Even if you do not have a single tech to trade you can trade your right to trade tech.

[Pitboss Rome]

Originally posted by Pitboss Vikings
you misread what i posted. I would love to see someone give me some modern techs, but i realise that as this is being played as mostly a normla Civ MP game people will only trade not give.

Unless i have something they need i wont get anything in return.

At present i still have not got a lot of techs many others have, and the civs my size are al lresearching similar techs.

So basically what will happen is the bigger civs will trade amongst themselves and the smaller civs will fall faller behind. that ok, it just not normal in DIPLO games. only normal for Civ MP games.

Dude, the voutcher system allows charity. A civ gives you a tech and you give that civ a right to trade a tech.

It just limits the theoretical maximum of easy charity to 15 techs, and I'm sorry but if you need more than 15 techs in handout you are a very very poor player.

[Pitboss Rome]

Originally posted by The Capo
We tried to stop it by only allowing trades of techs you created (aka no tech brokering), but this just made it so that the minor civs stayed that way. So then we tried a cap, but now the cap has problems. Personally I am against any extra rules and think you should be able to trade whatever techs you want/have. But I am one of those civs that normally sucks (just like you ras), so I am being a little biased in that.

I must disagree with you on this. With unlimited tech trading you get tech blocks and game long alliances.

Now those are things easily exploited by better Toni/diety/Ozzy/other uberplayers.

HOTW12 has demonstrated beyond doubt that a tech trade cap kills those. And backward civs have despite this managed to catch up.


And the voucher system makes it even easier for backward civs by limiting the amount of tech trading big powers can make amongst themselves, while providing a way for backward civs to catch up(the trading of tech trading rights) by recieving charity or even trade techs for other stuff.

[Pitboss Rome]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Regarding the 4 civs teaming up, I think we have agreed as well that everybody should live up to the gentlemans agreement that the top 3-4 players will not allie together.

I actually think we don't need this kind of gentelmans agreement since the dynamics of the tech cap has nearly eliminated such alliances.

Example: HOTW12

[Pitboss Rome]

Originally posted by The Capo
I don't think you can just say period and its magically over with Ozzy.

And I don't see how you can agree with Cyber's contention that simply because nobody disagreed with it makes it a rule, that isn't a very good argument at all.

But, if the majority of people are in agreement that this is a rule it should be a rule. Problem is that there isn't even a majority of people speaking their mind on the issue, what six out of 18? That's merely a third, and they can't all agree.

So I wouldn't go around getting all high and mighty over such a slim majority.

Nobody is saying anything about tech brokering though, we are talking about just a trade cap/voucher system. Each country gets fifteen, and you may trade them or whatever (take them as spoils of war) and I think, considering the game has already begun, that we should stick with that to avoid further discussion.

I don't like that people like Cybershy and Ozzy get to "decide" things though, it sets a bad precedent and that kind of behavior should stop.

The MP forum does not have a constitution.
There is no rule to say that a % of people must speak their mind.


If 10 people don't care, 6 are for the rule and 2 are against I say the rule has been passed with a fair margin.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Someone needs to take lead and make decisions, based on the opinions voiced in the threads.
So far I get the idea that most people are fine with me being that guy.

And can we stop having discussions in this thread? We have an org thread already, this one is supposed to just be for posting which tech trades we've made. Since no one has alphabet yet (I hope!) there is zero reason there should be posts here.

[Pitboss H Roman]

I thought the 15 tech trade rule was agreed to.

I'm for it.

[Vampgelus]

Just for the record, Mayans aren't Fin and Ind... they are Fin and Exp.

Oh... and yeah, Vikings are Fin, so why the hell do you complain about never being able to win any techrace ? O.o

[Pitboss Vikings]

umm casue i suck at CIV simple answer i guess. you see i have no idea what FIN actually gives the player except it is financial. but as my gold is lowest of all the civs at present i guess it comes back to i suck. imagine how bad i would be without it.

[Pitboss Persia]

If the oldonian people have discovered pottery yet, you will soon realize the advantage of the trait you have chosen.

On the other hand, if i remember correctly, the voucher system was announced to be a rule of the game from the very first post about it, even if the details had still to be discussed. Kinda the same thing as the 24h turn rule.

PS: I am concerned about the lack of penalties attached to the rules too. They should be heavy, or the rules will be broken anyway. And please, do not take "pausing the game until promise of correction" as a penalty, because it penalises 17 innocent players.

[Pitboss Maya]

it comes back to i suck. imagine how bad i would be without it.

You know, your gamescore isn't exactly at the bottom of the list, so i wonder how much truth there is to this.

I am concerned about the lack of penalties attached to the rules too. They should be heavy, or the rules will be broken anyway.

[Vampgelus]

Yeah Persia is right, get some cottages to work, and you will win alot of tech races !

Maya... too funny

[Pitboss Maya]

Maya... too funny

Yes, I can see why you find this humorous.

But on a very serious note, had the "rules" been spelled out clearly with clearly defined and tough penalty perhaps that situation with the double move and worker would have never occurred.

So in all seriousness, to having rules and having penaltys, as opposed to these gray area whinefests that happen when we leave it "up to the community" to decide.

[Robert]

The problem most probably is not that there are no rules, but that the rules are burried somewhere in a thread.

Maybe we should list them in the first post of the game, as with the voting rules.