What Rules (Metagame) Do We Play With?

[notyoueither]

You could of course be referring to mini map trades that were abused in the PtWDG. Teams lined up to trade those to aid contact. That was not good.

OTOH, the C3C intersite DG tried the ban on all sshot trades, for the first round. Far too much time was wasted on words. The rule was reversed for the second round.

The solution is to deny any discussion of the game between teams pre contact. Not even any words like 'we have tundra, come North and we might meet'.

[Paddy]

I will make myself available - need a more definite time frame

also what is on the agenda for such meeting?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I severely disagree, and actually, I take issue with your having an opinion on the matter.

You're a ref, not a player. Please conduct yourself as such.

Cool off, NYE. That's way beyond civil. I'm entitled to my opinions, and will share them as I see fit. Listen or not at your own free will, I'm not forcing anything on you.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You could of course be referring to mini map trades that were abused in the PtWDG. Teams lined up to trade those to aid contact. That was not good.

OTOH, the C3C intersite DG tried the ban on all sshot trades, for the first round. Far too much time was wasted on words. The rule was reversed for the second round.

The solution is to deny any discussion of the game between teams pre contact. Not even any words like 'we have tundra, come North and we might meet'.

Actually, it was based on the C3CDG, which regardless of its failures, did fine with banning SShot trades until mapmaking, which wasn't really much earlier than in Civ4, again if it's something worth going after.

It's my personal opinion, like Rommel's has been, that MP games tend to ignore most of the SP-things, like map trading, alliances, etc., that make certain techs much more valuable. Thus, requiring them rebalances the game, and adds a bit of interesting strategy.

However, that is up to you all, whether you'd rather simplify dealings regardless of tech (and thus devalue map and whatnot related techs), or deal with difficult negotiations prior to the appropriate tech. And of course, you can compromise somewhere earlier in the tech tree, like we did in C3CDG.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Cool off, NYE. That's way beyond civil. I'm entitled to my opinions, and will share them as I see fit. Listen or not at your own free will, I'm not forcing anything on you.

I am being civil.

Why do you insist on making rules and not just interpreting them?

If you want to play the game, you are in the wrong position.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Actually, it was based on the C3CDG, which regardless of its failures, did fine with banning SShot trades until mapmaking, which wasn't really much earlier than in Civ4, again if it's something worth going after.

Mapmaking in Civ3 is earlier than Astronomy in Civ4?

And again, the last major tourny of sites tried the no sshot trades, and then chucked it. What do you think that says?

[UnOrthOdOx]

I'm with NYE on the screenshot trading. Pretty sure team Merc would vote for allowing it if it were to be put up as well. All it does is speed any number of diplomatic situations. Border agreements, delivery of troops, etc.


On the side, I will say to NYE that snoopy is just doing his best to get the game going. I'm sure he just wants rules down and hit the start button. It was the norm in his demogame experience and would seem natural to him.

[Golden Bear]

The game will take care of restricting tech trading and resource sharing until the appropriate time.

Screenshot sharing certainly needs to happen sometime in the game. Are we proposing to allow it from the start? That would ruin some of the fun of the initial exploration.

Are teams allowed to converse at all if they have not met?

I can probably be available for a chat if someone will someone will guide me through getting into the site - unless you're going to use MSN.


GB

[UnOrthOdOx]

No, no screenshots before meeting each other, but trading once met is allowed. I doubt everyone will be doing it 'to explore' but rather to determine border agreements and etc.

And, don't always trust screenshots you're traded. Don't know if anyone other than Ghengis ever doctored any, but ya never know...

[Kloreep]

I agree with NYE and UnO. Any contact before in-game contact is of course a no-no, but after contact I think screenshots should be immediately tradable.

[PJayTycy]

Just restating my previous opinion on this matter: I agree with NYE, UnO and Kloreep. No contact before in-game contact; after contact screenshots are fine.

I had a more lenghty post describing my reasons behind this somewhere in this forum.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

simple solution to this is to poll the issue, seven teams means a two option poll will always have a winning option ! 1 vote per team that is.

[UnOrthOdOx]

You kidding!?

If NYE, Kloreep, and myself agree on ANYTHING it should be written in stone and signed into universal law! Heavens must be aligned or something!

[BigFree]

Originally posted by Kloreep
I agree with NYE and UnO. Any contact before in-game contact is of course a no-no, but after contact I think screenshots should be immediately tradable.

I agree with Kloreep, who agrees with UnO who agrees with.....ah forget it...you know what I'm getting at.

What I'd actually like to see is that the game be modded so that once the requirement is met to allow teams to trade screen shots that the game would allow you to actually trade maps.

How many people from past and current DG's have copied and pasted together "complete" maps? What a pain it is. Why not just allow map trading at the same point that screen shots are allowed?

[PJayTycy]

Originally posted by BigFree
What I'd actually like to see is that the game be modded so that once the requirement is met to allow teams to trade screen shots that the game would allow you to actually trade maps.

How many people from past and current DG's have copied and pasted together "complete" maps? What a pain it is. Why not just allow map trading at the same point that screen shots are allowed?

No, now you are fuelling the no-map trading folks.

The point is to keep the in-game map trades usefull. On a in-game map, you can see the location of resources etc... A screenshot can be doctored to only show the info you want the other team to know.

This whole discussion is based on the question:
screenshots ~= talking about map features
OR
screenshots ~= in-game maptrading


If you say it's more like the first one => screenshots are allowed the same moment as talking is allowed.
If you say it's more like the second one => screenshots are allowed the same moment as in-game maptrading is allowed.

It's pretty weird to say "allow screenshots" (by which you state they have the same value as talking, nothing like in-game maptrades) and then plainly state you'd rather have in-game map trades too at that moment.