Game Connection Status

[Paddy]

ok, very sadly Snoop has emailed me the save and the password

yet still has not shown up to discuss the equipment requirements or anything else as was asked

so yes great I hae the save

but no machine to put it on nor any understanding of the requirements or processes

do we really want to play on? I for one am a tad frustrated by all this

[IanDC]

There's a forum section here devoted to pitboss, unfortunately it's pretty big & I couln't find an easy guide at first glance -

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=258

As I understand it the pitboss program doesn't need much to run, a pretty low end machine will do as long as it has a decent connection.

[Rubychaser]

I too have read a few threads at various forums on the matter, and I still do not fully understand the full requirements of hosting a pitboss game. I do know that Pads is working several contracts at the moment, which translates into very long days, seven days a week, so he does not have many hours to learn a new process from the ground up. It was for this reason that he had asked Snoopy369 to discuss the setup requirements and procedures with him a while back back. Which if I read the posts correctly Snoopy369 agreed to. Hope that helps to further clarify the situation.

[Zoid]

I too feel Paddys frustration, the game is FUBAR due to all the restarts, rollbacks and connection issues. Maybe we should scrap this and start a new BtS game if/when we find a stabile host?

[ZargonX]

I'm tempted to agree. I'd suggest waiting until after the holidays, and then perhaps moving on to a BtS game.

[Niessuh]

I also agree.

[ZEE]

i would suggest leaving all forums for this game open, or at least let us keep our badges for this game, even if it does not continue. i like my pirate flag

and i will join a BtS game with yall, no problem.

[conmcb25]

moving on the BTS is fine after the holidays.

I honestly think we had too many teams and too much of the demogame community spread out.

It just makes that much more of a chance something will go wrong and the game will be stalled.

I say hold it to 6 maybe 8 teams.

Each has to have at least 3 dedicated turn players.

And we have a stable host and a back up host.

Then we move on.

Otherwise these things justy get to dam frustrating.

*con now awaits the inevitable Beta wants to resurrect the game poast*

[Nugog]

Originally posted by conmcb25
*con now awaits the inevitable Beta wants to resurrect the game poast*

Well, I for one would like to see this game continue.

[Niessuh]

Originally posted by conmcb25
moving on the BTS is fine after the holidays.

I honestly think we had too many teams and too much of the demogame community spread out.

It just makes that much more of a chance something will go wrong and the game will be stalled.

Well, I did not see any huge team problem in that game. When the game was up, everybody play without failures imo. The best part of a pitboss is the possibility of concurrent play!

We, at the spanish forums, have succesfully finished two pitboss games and we are currently playing another four (I'm hosting two of them). All of them with 10+ players, all of them with 24h timer (changeable in case of war). Some players works in pairs in case of weekends or holidays

The problem (IMHO) is the host. The host is the most vital part of a pitboss game. In my opinion, the failure of this demogame is being dumped with tons of settings threads while treating the hosting man as something secondary. A pitboss game must be proposed and organised by the host, and the host should be involved from the beginning to the end. Because of this, host being a player is not a problem (¿why?), is an advantage.

[Beta]

I can host it, if people want. Give me a day to get it set up.

The requirements are not that bad, folks. Once you get the hang of it - it is pretty starightforward. the biggest downside is needing to leave your PC on 24/7.

The question is - do people want to continue - or start with a new game. Maybe poll is needed. A player poll - not a team poll.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Paddy
ok, very sadly Snoop has emailed me the save and the password

yet still has not shown up to discuss the equipment requirements or anything else as was asked

so yes great I hae the save

but no machine to put it on nor any understanding of the requirements or processes

do we really want to play on? I for one am a tad frustrated by all this

Paddy - please send it on to me and I will get going on this.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Niessuh


Well, I did not see any huge team problem in that game. When the game was up, everybody play without failures imo. The best part of a pitboss is the possibility of concurrent play!

We, at the spanish forums, have succesfully finished two pitboss games and we are currently playing another four (I'm hosting two of them). All of them with 10+ players, all of them with 24h timer (changeable in case of war). Some players works in pairs in case of weekends or holidays

The problem (IMHO) is the host. The host is the most vital part of a pitboss game. In my opinion, the failure of this demogame is being dumped with tons of settings threads while treating the hosting man as something secondary. A pitboss game must be proposed and organised by the host, and the host should be involved from the beginning to the end. Because of this, host being a player is not a problem (¿why?), is an advantage.

Thats great BUT maybe you should read this entire thread

The Goonies had no turn player, then one turn player got recruited, it was part of the downtime.

My point being we have a LOT of teams in this game, when is the next team going to drop out?

When are we going to have to go begging for another turnplayer because some of the teams in this game didn't have the foresight to make sure they would have several turnplayers FOR THE DURATION.

11 teams is a lot for a game like this, if we continue my prediction is the game will again stagnate when the next team drops out.

More delays lead to less interest, once the ball of apathy gets rolling its awful hard to stop.

[Niessuh]

lack of players comes from apathy and apathy comes from not being able to have a regular play.

Watch these games:
http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=307 --> 12 players
http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=612 --> 17 players (48 hours timer because of a war)
http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=615 --> 14 players
http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=445 --> 13 players

See how usually everybody complete their turns in just 24h. margin. (~22 timer hours set)

I'm pretty sure that a full team of veteran apolyton players can't be slower than just a single spamyard.

The weak link in the chain is always the host. Take a good host and you will not have problems.

[Beta]

Sorry con my bro - but I gotta agree with Niessuh on this one. I can point to the Iliad - hosted over at civ fanatics - started with 15 players or so and a 16hr turn timer - and other than a two week period when the host was away - the game - AND all its players - have been very active.

I appreciate the reasoning behind the 48hr turn timer - I just don't agree with it. If someone is going to miss their turn - let them miss it in 24 hours so it does not hold the game up. This is a team game - so if RL issues arise - another player on that team should be able to play it. And as for the matter of wars and strategizing, etc and the time needed to plan all that - I say what the he11, let it be quick and messy - and maybe not perfectly played.

I really think the 48hr turn timer was/is a detriment to this game - but I will go with the will of the majority.