Announcement

**Dinner** · June 10, 2012, 21:25

I like most of them but the gift of units rules are right out horrible and I really, really, really don't like it. Gifting units is part of the game even if they don't like it or it gets in the way of their war mongering. They need to learn to play the game, the whole game, and stop being whiny little *****es. Every type of unit should be able to be given, I'm not even sure if that would ever happen but it's an utterly, completely unacceptable rule for me.

Either the game is worth playing, the WHOLE game, or it isn't. It's part of the game, it's how the weaker teams team up to defeat the guy who is about to destroy them all, and, yes, we MUST be able to maintain the balance of power using the normal game rules. Anything else and I really become a whole lot less interested in playing.

Next, **** their admin getting sole authority to decide if something is an exploit or not. All the teams vote if it is working as designed or if it is an exploit. Democracy rules.

Speaking of democracy, majority must rule, the game is unplayable other wise, their "every vote must be unanomous" rule is designed to kill part of the game which people have already voted to include so they're trying to back door something on a vote they already lost. **** that. This is another red line for me.

The rest seems acceptable.

**Dinner** · June 10, 2012, 21:40

Seriously, what's the point of people voting to allow all victory conditions if you're going to set up secondary rules which make a diplo victory impossible to achieve? (I'm specifically talking about every member of every team must agree; democracy is how decisions like this should be made) Also, yes, there simply must be NO RESTRICTIONS what so ever on the gifting of units because if someone is trying to militarily conqueror the world the weaker players need the ability to cooperate in every fashion possible in order to stop them. It's part of the game even if the war mongers cry about it making it harder for them to conquer the world.

**DNK** · June 11, 2012, 04:11

The unit gifting seems to be only limited to preventing HE exploits and something about boats (I don't understand the issue there). Not a big issue, I'd not argue over it.

I do share Dinner's issues with the admin having full say. Not the admin's job, imo, and it should be left to a majority team vote if any serious issues arise. This needs serious reworking wrt rules issues, double moves (not included?!) and the admin's position (server admin and issue mediator, not judge&jury). A game like this is too big to have one random person deciding issues. That's totally unacceptable.

**Hercules** · June 11, 2012, 07:53

4.5 -- Voting
All votes on during the game require unanimous agreement by all teams. If teams cannot reach unanimous agreement the decision will be decided by the game administrator.

This may refer to the case for example late in the game when nukes would be available that the settings rule could be changed by majority vote, which may be of detriment to a small alliance or civ. That is a game setting changed by majority in game, say 18 months from now. However votes regarding a halt over Christmas / New Year, which wouldn't effect gameplay would be by simply majority.

Other instances may refer to when exactly the game is restarted after a double move war start proof.

in the last MTDG on CFC, the issue arose early in the game when a turnplayer accidently settled on the wrong tile (his team had all agreed on another nearby tile, verified by the game admin). It was argued that genuine mistake could ruin the team's development. A vote was taken and the majority (mostly his alliance partners voted for a retake) What way would we have voted?

**Dinner** · June 11, 2012, 18:00

2.3 -- Spy Missions
The 'Switch Civic' and 'Switch Religion' spy missions are not allowed.

Those are the two best espionage moves so why even bother having espionage if those two legit in game moves are not allowed? Once again the people who didn't want a legit game feature to be used are trying to outlaw the effective use of the feature after they lost the vote. This is like saying all units are in but you're not allowed to build tanks, it's just arbitrary, these are legit game features and I don't want them removed.

2.4 -- Nukes
ICBMs and Tactical Nukes are not allowed.

I want them in. They're the great equalizer which allows a smaller, weaker country to defend itself against the giant militarists. Literally, they're trying to make it so conquest is the only viable victory condition. No, a thousand times no.

3.4 -- Heroic Epic Unit Gifting
Gifting units with the experience required to build the Heroic Epic to teams that do not already have unit that unlocks the Heroic Epic or have not already built the Heroic Epic is not allowed

Once again this is completely arbitrary and simply designed to benefit war mongers in order to prevent weaker powers from using legit game features to effectively defend themselves. I really don't like it and want this rule gone.

4.2 -- Game Administrator
r_rolo1 has sole authority as game administrator. Replacement of the game administrator must be agreed to by all teams.

As I said before, no, absolutely not. This is a game breaker for me. The douche bag doesn't get to be judge, jury, and executioner. Teams vote and he just moderates the discussion. Especially since who ever wrote these proposed rules has already proven he has serious bias issues. I have the same issue with 4.3.

4.5 -- Voting
All votes on during the game require unanimous agreement by all teams. If teams cannot reach unanimous agreement the decision will be decided by the game administrator.

I want clarification about what exactly requires a unanimous agreement and what we can do with majority rule. Personally, I don't think there is a single, not ONE, thing which should require unanimous agreement.

The rest is ok but these proposed rules are so terrible it's clear the admin is not up to the job and cannot be trusted with any authority at all. He needs to be nothing more then an neutral arbitrator as it's clear he's personally biased towards conquest victories.

**OzzyKP** · June 11, 2012, 18:04

It looks like those missions are now in.

**Dinner** · June 11, 2012, 18:38

What do you mean by that? You mean the espionage missions?

**Hercules** · June 11, 2012, 19:08

Personally guys I think we are handicapping our main turnplayer by the choices being made.

I am also concerned about votes from team members who originally claimed to want to be observers and from those with little if any recent BTS MP experience.

The overall reason for my concern is that over the course of the 12-18 month period of the game, a significant number of the people voicing opinions here will cease to participate in the game. I am also concerned about the lack of comment and votes from members such as Jobe, Toni and Lz Priest and some others.

Please tell me my concern is not warranted.

Lastly I recognise we all want to have fun but I do not want the Apolyton team to end up with just 1, 2 or 3 active members carrying on to the end living with decisions made by those long gone elsewhere after the initial enthusiasm.

**Ben Kenobi** · June 11, 2012, 20:14

I am also concerned about votes from team members who originally claimed to want to be observers and from those with little if any recent BTS MP experience.

You mean me? Well, if you're concerned I can always just leave.

**Dinner** · June 11, 2012, 20:35

I think he was talking about me.

**OzzyKP** · June 11, 2012, 20:36

Originally posted by Hercules View Post

Personally guys I think we are handicapping our main turnplayer by the choices being made.

I am also concerned about votes from team members who originally claimed to want to be observers and from those with little if any recent BTS MP experience.

The overall reason for my concern is that over the course of the 12-18 month period of the game, a significant number of the people voicing opinions here will cease to participate in the game. I am also concerned about the lack of comment and votes from members such as Jobe, Toni and Lz Priest and some others.

Please tell me my concern is not warranted.

Lastly I recognise we all want to have fun but I do not want the Apolyton team to end up with just 1, 2 or 3 active members carrying on to the end living with decisions made by those long gone elsewhere after the initial enthusiasm.

I don't think any bad decisions have been made. Let's not discourage anyone's participation. That is one way to be sure people leave. We are committed to mzprox's strategy of going for a specialist economy civ. He first suggested Elizabeth and we all went with that.

**OzzyKP** · June 11, 2012, 20:59

Also, based on his pictures posted on Facebook, it looks like Toni is on vacation. Hopefully he'll have some time for this when he gets back. I'm not sure where Lz is.

**DNK** · June 12, 2012, 01:48

I don't understand how we can "handicap" ourselves by playing by the same rules as everyone else.

**Calanthian** · June 12, 2012, 13:02

And it is a democracy game after all.. and you know what Churcill said about democracy:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

AND

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Announcement

Ruleset Discussion

Ruleset Discussion

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment