(January 15th, 2014, 13:03)Sullla Wrote: I'm sorry, not trying to embarrass anyone, but many of these reports were barebones.
If I can take this as a criticism of my apologies for writing such a
long report - and therefore as a quiet endorsement of one so long - I'll accept the criticism and happily report the rest of my game as I play through it as well!
Quote:Also, if you can't find the time to finish one of these games in four weeks, then you probably weren't going to finish. It's the same thing as setting the Pitboss timer to longer settings: give everyone 24 hours and they'll play in 24 hours, give them 72 hours and they'll take 72 hours. Adding more weeks to an event would not noticeably change the participation.
Individually, I think some of us (haphazard and I are both playing on in spite of the event being over, for instance) would have played further into the game and might even have finished given another couple of weeks, but for the community as a whole, I agree that extending the available time for an event would not be a good idea - we'd probably lose at least as much as we gain.
For my part, the realities of my schedule limit the time I can play civ each week, and the truth is that, even though I may yet finish this one in another week or two (or not; if it gets to the point of tedium, I honestly don't care if it's "fundamentally imncomplete" - it was fun while it lasted, and that would mean it's done. Even at this point, I could retire to AI and the AI Asoka would win the game, even with player-like Emperor penalties. Which is why I've gone off on another crazy lark instead of playing optimally.)
I probably wouldn't have participated had stopping before in-game victory not been specifically condoned for the event though, knowing my schedule as I do, so....
