Good point, up until now it's just been a silly contest to grab as many as possible. What can be done about it, though? I'm guessing most of the more contributing players who plan on signing up have already joined a team.
|
Settings discussion
|
|
BTW I intend to wait and join the smallest team (looking like yours or LP's) but remember how many joined during PB2 to discuss (I dont I wasn't there but I've read through them and it sounds like a lot), If they are open then lurkers join when they are ready to say something, if closed they join and then never say anything. You'll probably get more players migrating from MTDG3 if/when that crashes and burns.
@ Catwalk; I know and am glad, but if it worked in the past why not do it again? Also lurkers that are new here will be put off by a big sign saying JOIN NOW OR BE LOCKED OUT! My point was if I'm not supposed to read threads, then I automatically signed up by posting. If all teams end up with sufficient numbers then yes I'll sign up here, but if one doesn't have enough, then thats where I'll go Also how many threads are you going to use? I think one makes it easier to keep up, (Spullarise) as otherwise it loos complicated.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
I tend to like one thread for a specific reason, so 1 thread get's turn reports, one gets general discussion, one thread per enemy team for diplomacy etc, it keps the forum nice and orderly and it's easy to find what you want when you are in a hurry.
I like having multiple threads too, as long as they're made for a reason and used systematically.
Qgqqqq, I don't think lurkers will be put off by a sign requiring them to sign up. If we advertise this well it will attract a lot of interest, and I don't think a very simple signup will keep them from enlisting. Ultimately, there is no way to tell ahead of time who is right as it's one belief against another. Catwalk Wrote:I guess I'll throw a few thoughts on settings.
I've got some dirt on my shoulder, can you brush it off for me?
Quote:Topics: I'm thinking since this is demogame taking place on RB there is no reason to restrict access to lurkers.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
Results so far:
Map Seem to agree on giving the mapmaker a lot of freedom with minimal instructions. How much info do we want to be given about it prior to picking? Diplo Noone disagreeing with full diplo. Picking Fair bit of support for a system where teams jointly decide on bans Bans Agree on standard bans, but need to figure out if we want corporations banned or not.
How about instead of going through another round of snake picks, each team submits a list of 4 civs and 7 leaders to ban? Will have roughly the same effect, but will be faster than going through a round of snake picking that isn't that meaningful by itself (a pick has no consequences for the team making it).
I have no opinion on corporations. Is anyone opposed to being given a starting screenshot before picking? In spite of the agreement on full diplo, are there any takers for public diplo? It's less time consuming, it gives minor lurkers a lot more to read through and it makes dogpiling a lot harder. With just 5 teams it will be easy to keep on top of it, as opposed to the mess in PB7.
Well I think the draw of Krill's idea is that there is a bit of strategy and gamesmanship to it. Do you want to pick a leader you think others will want that you don't want, or do you pick a leader you want but think others will too? What gets left behind? Say you're last do you risk picking a crap leader to leave a good leader on the board of the second snake pick in hopes you're picking first? If you're gonna have every team hand in a list of leaders and civs to ban you might as well just outright ban them from the beginning.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
|
