Pitboss - Q's and A's

[UnOrthOdOx]

/me sits back and appreciates the irony of a democracy game being designed to limit discussion in the teams.

[ZargonX]

Ok, thinking practically about it, 60 hours is probably a good amount of time. With teams going simultanouesly, that means you are guaranteed a turn cycle every 2.5 days, which gives good padding for weekends when discussion may be slower. This is compared to a current turn around time in something like the CIVDG of a turn once a week, if you are lucky. This gives you 3 turns a week, approx, with the possiblity of more if teams are faster. And 2 and a half days seems plenty of time to discuss things, vote, whatever. Again, remember that these can be smaller teams, so you won't be waiting for Jon Q. Player who only logs in on every other Tuesday to cast his deciding vote

[astrologix]

Personally, I wouldn't play this game if the pace was different than 24 hours. For me, this game must be finished in around 1 year, no more.

The exception would be the weekends, where the turn can be set at 48 hours with the 'saveconvert' utility, by the admin guy (Aro ).

Based on my pitboss experience, these settings are the best for all. And 100% playable

[UnOrthOdOx]

24 hours is great for a PBEM. I'm not entirely sure how a TEAM game will react to that, but it's not like we can't slow it down if it's a problem later, right? The early turns at least, let's do 24 hours. I mean, how many days does it take to decide whether the scout moves 2-2 or 2-1?

[ZargonX]

I mean, how many days does it take to decide whether the scout moves 2-2 or 2-1?

3.

[proviisori]

OK,

one can't compare regular Pitboss game and TEAM Pitboss games...
The prosess of playing a turn is very different in those.
When you lead a civ alone, you can make the decision in few seconds based on your own skills and knowledge and act accordingly. There is no-one to tell you that "what about we do this instead?" ... if you are not a scitzofreniac (sp+)

In team, there is numerous people with their own opinnions that should be heard and valued as equals. There might be a need for a poll or sims. Many teams have people from different sides of the globe, so it would be a shame if someone could not input on a important matter because he/she was sleeping.

24 hours is too quick... 48 or little bit more is way better.
I don't think one team will drag the timer to the end all the time. IMO we can form solid enough teams that will have at least 2-3 "turn players"

OBVIOUSLY there will be a poll about this, but lets discuss all aspects of this matter first.

[astrologix]

If you have teams composed by 5 players max. then those players should be able to communicate quickly by email, or better, by Messenger, in order to decide what to do in any situation. And first of all the team must have a "president" who has the power of decide even if he can't communicate with the other players. The president has the final responsibility. And all the teams must have a vicepresident in case of president's absence.

With these structure, a team should be able to play at 24 hours / turn.

[UnOrthOdOx]

You are assuming all teams to be made of people who are online at the same time so they can message?

Some of the folks I've most enjoyed demogaming with are on the rough opposite of my schedule. Be a shame to exclude folks based on timezones for teams.

[Beta]

OK - I am still going to push for 24 hours, with maybe the weekend allowance as astrologix has suggested.

To start with, I am concerned about the length of time to play a game and maintaining interest.

Secondly, I think we want to create a different 'type' of gaming experience.

Thirdly, I think a democracy game format can still be accomodated. It may not look like our old style, where pics and turn decisions are posted and discussed before the team plays. And it may require smaller and more streamlined teams. But hey - we can accomodate up to 18 teams can't we.

So, what I think we are aiming for is something between the current pbem demo game format, and a single player pitboss games. However teams want to adapt to that is up to them. Personally, I can think of a number of ways.

UnO's pirate team 'chaos' play sounds good.

Another method would be a team discussing larger strategy, but leaving the playing to one person to follow that strategy as they see fit. That may involve two of the team members in a chat to give a second opinion while one plays (Remember - only one player per team can be "in the game" at a time.).

Another method could involve elections, with players proposing approaches and the team deciding which approach and player will be the 'Pres' and handle the next period of turns.

It could be played like one of the succession games - with players taking turns - building on the efforts of earlier players - with all discussing the overall strategy.

Or a team could set a period once a day where they chat, or emails are exchanged to provide input to whomever is the desigated player for tha team.

Or... you come up with an approach...

In the end, I agree parts of it will be a bit messy, a bit chaotic - and somewhat less 'clinical' and 'chess like' as with the existing pbem games. But hey, history and war and peace were and are all a bit messy as well. Sometimes famous leaders just ran out of time, and had to guess.

I acknowledge that what we are trying to balance here is the speed of the game, with the ability of folks to be and feel 'involved'. I think that can be achieved with a 24 hour turn timer.

If we go with a longer turn time - 60, or 72, or 96, - and say 10 or more teams - I can guarantee you that at least one team each turn will have a good reason to run the turn close to or to the limit. If we set the turn timer at 3 or 4 days, and expect that every one will play in short order, that is wishful thinking.

And if turns start getting delayed - and people have to wait 3 days to play a turn - I know interest will wane - and people will fade away. It happens it pbem games - it will happen here.

Inactivity kills involvement.

So, lets try something different here. Let's try something fast-paced and somewhat messy. Let's see how that dynamic plays out. As UnO has suggested, there is merit in at least starting the game at 24 hours, and seeing how we do. If we do fine, and can accomodate the more complex turns later on, then hats off to us. If it just doesn't work for the majority of teams, then we do a rethink.

24 hours...

[N35t0r]

I like the fact that having short-timed turns will also sort of mimick real life... IRL, leaders just can't discuss issues until they've got everything worked out, and then rule their nations. Sometimes, decitions have to be made with a deadline, and sometimes sub-optimal decitions are taken because of that.

This will also put a slightly stronger emphasis on diplomacy, imho...

[proviisori]

well...

I still think 24 hours is too quick because of people living on different sides of the globe.

48 hours is better.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I think, as said, 24 hours is great for the early game, I'm just concerned about later on when we all have dozens of units and cities needing input. Don't want to lose the 'democracy' part of it. But, like I said, we can always slow it down later.

[astrologix]

Originally posted by astrologix
- Alliances, teams, research, etc. : in one of the pitboss we were 14 players from the beginning. Very quickly, alliances were formed and the rest of the game "decided". The techs exchanges are currently very fast paced and are conducting towards a "paranoid" end of the game, with possibly a premature global nuclear end. To avoid this effect, I proposed to play another pitboss game with a "crescendo multiplayer" style that I can resume like this : no alliances or diplomacy until the Communism/Fascism (C/F) techs, after this point alliances or permanent alliances can be signed, and research shared. Before that, only "interface permitted agreements" can be achieved (open borders, protection pacts, map exchanges, etc), and research agreements are forbbiden. No one can say what tech he's currently investigating. No plans between players before C/F. In other words : "single" style until Communism/Fascism and "multi" style after that point. I'm very optimistic on the succes of this way of play. I invite you to particularly discuss this point.

No comments ?

[Krill]

no discussing tech trades in future until communism or fascism is fucked up.

happy now?

[Krill]

Yes, I know how to break the autocensor. Only taken me 3 years to figure it out...