Settings discussion.

[Zeviz]

To avoid cluttering the General thread (and to have something to talk about while the game is getting started ), let's discuss what settings we want. Apparently, the polls will be conducted about the following settings:

- Map script (voting in progress)
- Game speed
- Map size
- Difficulty level (only affecta barbarians and tech costs)
- Barbarians (absent/normal/raging)
- Tech trading (unrestricted/no brockering/no trading)
- Choose religion
- Goody Huts
- Random events
- City Flipping after conquest
- City Razing
(Tell me if I missed anything and I'll add it here.)

So, what do you think about the values for above options?

[ruff_hi]

• Game speed - epic, I'm finding that normal is just too quick
• Map size - suitable for the number of players
• Difficulty level (only affecta barbarians and tech costs) -
• doesn't this affect happy cap too - suggest Noble
• Barbarians (absent/normal/raging) - don't care
• Tech trading (unrestricted/no brockering/no trading) - don't care ... but you can arrange a trade with a human with the understanding that it is not to be brokered if you want so would go with unrestricted
• Choose religion - no, just causes confusion
• Goody Huts - yes ... fun
• Random events - yes ... fun
• City Flipping after conquest - what ever is normal
• City Razing - yes

[sunrise089]

- Map script (voting in progress) - MP style map - HUB or Inland Sea are fine.
- Game speed - Quick.
- Map size - Small.
- Difficulty level (only affects barbarians and tech costs) - Noble.
- Barbarians (absent/normal/raging) - None.
- Tech trading (unrestricted/no brockering/no trading) - Unrestricted.
- Choose religion - No (denies knowing who rushed to CoL or bulbed Theology).
- Goody Huts - No - unbalanced to pop Iron Working or Monarchy early.
- Random events - Off
- City Flipping after conquest - No
- City Razing - Yes
(Tell me if I missed anything and I'll add it here.)

[Kylearan]

I'm in exact agreement with Ruff here on all options.

One vote which might come up as well: Turn timer. My vote for that would be 48 hours (or more).

-Kylearan

[sooooo]

- Map script (voting in progress) - Hub
- Game speed - Normal
- Map size - Standard
- Difficulty level (only affecta barbarians and tech costs) - Noble
- Barbarians (absent/normal/raging) - Normal
- Tech trading (unrestricted/no brockering/no trading) - Unrestricted
- Choose religion - On
- Goody Huts - Off
- Random events - Off
- City Flipping after conquest - Default
- City Razing - Allowed

[ruff_hi]

Originally posted by Kylearan
I'm in exact agreement with Ruff here on all options.

I'm fairly sure that this result is the scariest one that I have seen in a long time ... two people agreeing on all items!!

[Zeviz]

Some settings will have a strong influence on the kind of game we'll have, so it might be good to specify that, along with preferences.

The settings of speed, size, and difficulty level will determine how long the game takes. I want to finish within a year, so I'll vote:
Game speed - Normal
Size - Standard
Level - Noble (seems reasonable, although I wouldn't mind Deity, just to make things interesting )

Some settings determine whether we want to focus more on role playing, or on competitive aspects of the game. Events are fun, but bad for competition. And so are Goody Huts.

I like the role-playing aspect of this, so I'll vote for
Events - yes
Goody Huts - yes

The rest of the options seem to be just a matter of personal preference.
Barbs - normal (although Deity, Raging Barbs would be pretty amuzing )
Tech Trading - unlimited
Choose Religion - no (just causes confusion and has potential to bring real world religious disputes into the game)
City flipping after conquest - no (which is the default)
City razing - yes

[Swiss Pauli]

I'm back from my trip and although the results aren't yet known for map-type, it looks like three other categories will be up for the vote.

Thanks to everyone who has posted their preferences (and reasoning). To those who haven't posted: use it, or lose it!

[Swiss Pauli]

Map Type Disaster!

We have a dead heat between Terra and Archi-Snakey.

I'm worried about the attitude of the other teams already: Terra is one map type where there's likely to be a civ wiped out because of a lack of resources rather than by team ability

Thus, unsurprisingly, I vote Archi-Snakey. We have 2 days (i.e. Sunday night) to PM our team vote to Rob, so get a-voting!

[ruff_hi]

archi-snakey ... not so bad but will bring the navy in very strongly

[mostly-harmless]

- Map script (voting in progress) - Archi-snakey
- Game speed - Normal
- Map size - Standard
- Difficulty level (only affects barbarians and tech costs) - Noble
- Barbarians (absent/normal/raging) - Normal
- Tech trading (unrestricted/no brokering/no trading) - Unrestricted
- Choose religion - Off
- Goody Huts - On
- Random events - On
- City Flipping after conquest - Default
- City Razing - Allowed


-mh

[Swiss Pauli]

On Huts and Events:

I note that we've had many votes in favour of leaving these on. Are we sure about this: these features are inherently imbalancing and I thought the aim of the game is to pit our wits against the other teams, not to trust our luck?

Barbs is a topic to return to when difficulty level is decided.

[Sullla]

These idiots actually look like they're going to pick a Terra map script for this game. Wow... I'm wanting to enjoy this idea, but the ridiculously lengthy setup process, endless polls, and continued insistence on game settings that simply are NOT going to work is making it difficult. Seven weeks and counting now, with the game still nowhere close to starting? These guys are more inefficient than the real Congress.

I pretty much concur with everything Swiss Pauli and Zeviz have said so far, for what it's worth.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

argh - I don't like the Terra Map for such a game. I don't think the new world will have any impact, but the smaller landmass of the old world will make it very crowded and favors a military playing style IMHO. And archipelago is not very good either - naval battle is too much luck dependent for such a map.

Regarding random events and huts, my opinion on this is not very strong. Some events could be fun and more meaningful in a multiplayer game, e.g. the first to build X quests. Some others, like a unit type get a free promotion, are a but strong but I wouldn't mind this much. I won't complain if we played without events though.

I don't mind the fact that the setup process takes so long - I thought we wanted to wait on the patch anyway. But how it is actually organized lets me want to bang my head against the next wall...

-Kylearan

[mostly-harmless]

I voted Archi, since it seems the lesser evil for the run off.
Keep in mind, that there is a guy supposed to tweak the starting positions if needed.
I am also approaching this game along the lines of "play the hand you are dealt", so I would not mind if we are the first to vanish, as long as we do it with flying colors.
However, if the teams consensus is to emphasis the competetive character of the game, I am fine with turning huts and events off.

Regarding the decision making process:
We can always adopt a less democratic way of playing ourselves to get a massive advantage over other teams. ;-)

mh