Mapmaking for Dummies [Mapmaking Thread] [Yes there are spoilers] [lurkers only]

[GermanJoey]

Just my opinion, but the reload asked by DTG can't be given. That has nothing to do with me being gsorel dedlurker, but just from a general rule that a reload can't influence on another player so directly.

People make way more innocent mistakes than that and don't ask for reloads (I misclicked and razed a key strategic city in PB 27, for instance). If we give every reload asked for, this just creates an environment where the ones who ask get a very big advantage against the others.

It shouldn't be given, but it still has to be given because if gsorel razes DTG's capital the game is straight-up over.

This is the worst reason to grant a reload I've ever seen.

How is that the worst reason? I'm pretty confident the decision is either reload the game now, or the game is over because half the players are going to quit. How can you possibly justify not reloading?

[GermanJoey]

Could you perhaps impose some cost on them if they are to have a reload? Like perhaps worker to city, quecha to 1NE, all else as the picture? That way they cannot loose the city, and an archer comes next turn, but it penalises them a bit...

I don't understand what you mean or why they need to be penalized. People (including yourself) have gotten reloads for stuff like this all the time.

[scooter]

How is that the worst reason? I'm pretty confident the decision is either reload the game now, or the game is over because half the players are going to quit. How can you possibly justify not reloading?

Because if gsorel has earned a win, he's earned a win. The game is a total sham if a reload is granted, and someone comes from behind and beats them.

Side note: people quitting because they're losing a self-proclaimed "casual" game is my favorite thing. Especially when those quitting are veterans with a history of sharking lower-skill games.

[GermanJoey]

How is that the worst reason? I'm pretty confident the decision is either reload the game now, or the game is over because half the players are going to quit. How can you possibly justify not reloading?

Because if gsorel has earned a win, he's earned a win. The game is a total sham if a reload is granted, and someone comes from behind and beats them.

Side note: people quitting because they're losing a self-proclaimed "casual" game is my favorite thing. Especially when those quitting are veterans with a history of sharking lower-skill games.

It's not a win though. It'll just be a collapse. People will quit not because they think the Zulu are too far ahead, but because they're already complaining that the map is bullshit (e.g. forested copper w/ 10 tile spaced capitals) and even more so because Zulu should have been banned on a map like this. It's simply not fun to play against stuff like this when you're signing up for a big epic pitboss game on a > 200 tile/player map.

Also keep in mind that this is a 12 player game, and there's 8 players who have not had any interaction with the Zulu at all. Six of them will not even have had any interaction with any player who has had interaction with them! So, how can those players be said to have "lost"?

[scooter]

It's not a win though. It'll just be a collapse. People will quit not because they think the Zulu are too far ahead, but because they're already complaining that the map is bullshit (e.g. forested copper w/ 10 tile spaced capitals) and even more so because Zulu should have been banned on a map like this. It's simply not fun to play against stuff like this when you're signing up for a big epic pitboss game on a > 200 tile/player map.

Also keep in mind that this is a 12 player game, and there's 8 players who have not had any interaction with the Zulu at all. Six of them will not even have had any interaction with any player who has had interaction with them! So, how can those players be said to have "lost"?

"Players will quit if Player X isn't prevented from doing a good thing" is never grounds for a reload. The map and meta issues are a different issue, but that shouldn't affect your judgment on whether or not this is a valid reload. It's just not, and the fact that the primary rationale for it is literally to impact the outcome of the game, that should be a sign that it's not valid.

And if players quit, they lose, regardless or whether or not they met the winner. You can lose to someone you have no or almost no contact with if they win their area more than you won yours. That's Civ.

Anyway, if the game collapses, it collapses. Once the game starts, the lurkers' job is not to find a way to artificially extend it.

[Krill]

And start a new islands pb...

[scooter]

An example. I lost PBEM34S on a commando raze off a brain glitch on my part. The game "collapsed" the very next day and another turn was not played. Should we have reloaded to prevent the game from collapsing? The stakes for me were way higher. If I had gotten a "reload," I probably would have won that game. What's the difference? In both cases it's just someone punishing a mistake.

[The Black Sword]

Nobody has objected, so I think a reload should be given. Where possible I don't think people should be punished for things like that. Regarding your point Ichabod:

If we give every reload asked for, this just creates an environment where the ones who ask get a very big advantage against the others.

For smaller matters, I agree people should just get on with the game, but this is literally game-losing for DTG so I think it warrants an exception.

To be clear, by the rules there should be no reload. If somebody objected or there was combat that had to be replayed there should be no reload. But we play these games for fun, not just to follow the rules.

[The Black Sword]

Btw, I don't agree that Zulu have the game in the bag without a reload. I doubt they can hold the city.

[GermanJoey]

It's not a win though. It'll just be a collapse. People will quit not because they think the Zulu are too far ahead, but because they're already complaining that the map is bullshit (e.g. forested copper w/ 10 tile spaced capitals) and even more so because Zulu should have been banned on a map like this. It's simply not fun to play against stuff like this when you're signing up for a big epic pitboss game on a > 200 tile/player map.

Also keep in mind that this is a 12 player game, and there's 8 players who have not had any interaction with the Zulu at all. Six of them will not even have had any interaction with any player who has had interaction with them! So, how can those players be said to have "lost"?

"Players will quit if Player X isn't prevented from doing a good thing" is never grounds for a reload. The map and meta issues are a different issue, but that shouldn't affect your judgment on whether or not this is a valid reload. It's just not, and the fact that the primary rationale for it is literally to impact the outcome of the game, that should be a sign that it's not valid.

And if players quit, they lose, regardless or whether or not they met the winner. You can lose to someone you have no or almost no contact with if they win their area more than you won yours. That's Civ.

Anyway, if the game collapses, it collapses. Once the game starts, the lurkers' job is not to find a way to artificially extend it.

It's not artificially extending it. It's the opposite. It's preventing the game from artificially dying for a really stupid reason because the lurkers can never give a fucking rat's ass about giving map feedback[1] *BEFORE* the game starts. So cut it out with your empty self-righteous moralizing. We've had this problem with nearly every single one of the last 20 pitbosses and it's getting truly infuriating to me.

And it sure as hell won't be a win for Team Zulu. Their position is not very good at all (although it certainly looks a hell of a lot better with +150 raze gold) and I don't see them doing well in the long run, if this game were to continue. Rather than a concession, what will happen is one (or two) players will quit because they won't think the game is fun anymore (e.g. not what they signed up for, bad morals, etc) and then no permanent substitute can be found.

([1] and yes, I didn't say anything about the capital closeness or banning the Zulu before the game started either, but that's because greenline had already made 4 revisions of his map because of my complaints and I already felt like a huge asshole criticizing another guy's volunteer work so much when nobody else is saying anything.)