PB 59 organizing and tech thread

[AutomatedTeller]

I'm fine with whatever. To me, it's just a set of challenges to spend some time thinking about, then ignoring my thoughts on for first 3 weeks, then paying the price in 3 months when I get attacked by knights and don't have LB yet.

[Lewwyn]

Just woke up to this. This is something I've raised in the lurker thread and general consensus was that if picks have been made then it would be unfair to change the stated map size. If there was a consensus I could change the reported map size easily. I would remind people that if teching is slower that means units obsolete slower and relative to how "fast" the game is going units now move quicker. If you want domination to be a viable win condition, huge is probably imperative.

From what I've seen there are some people happy with Huge, some people unhappy with Huge and many people in the middle, which tells me it's probably fine. In the future we could add it to the settings to be voted on.

I'll also say that I believe no one is "dead" T0 due to their civ and start.

[superdeath]

i prefer Huge.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

CTH rebalanced starting techs in an acceptable way, I vote huge, not that we're voting on it?

[Lewwyn]

Okay going to send out the next round of choices for picks. And in the interest of not screwing anyone, in the final third round I will remove any civs that have been rejected twice in the first two rounds. So if you dislike the civ in this second round and want to reject it, you can do so knowing I will remove any civs that have failed to be taken twice.

[Lewwyn]

BTW in case people are curious, mapmaking is continuing and I still think we're on schedule for a March 1st start.

[Serdoa]

Okay going to send out the next round of choices for picks. And in the interest of not screwing anyone, in the final third round I will remove any civs that have been rejected twice in the first two rounds. So if you dislike the civ in this second round and want to reject it, you can do so knowing I will remove any civs that have failed to be taken twice.

Lewwyn, do you mean rejected twice by anyone? So if player A got offered India and didn't take it and then player B got it offered and didn't take it than nobody will be able to get India in the third round?

It might not be the best idea to change the way the pick works after players have decided based on what the pick method was announced to be because it does make a mathematical difference if "rejects" are sorted out or not in how likely you are to get a civ that you want. Basically you should be more likely to get a viable choice which means everyone that took his civ reluctantly, fearing he could get screwed otherwise with getting Byzantine, could now be more inclined to reject his choice anyway.

[Tarkeel]

FWIW, I think Huge is the right size.

Out of curiosity, are you able to divulge how many locked in choices in the first round? Just rough numbers, like "X of 25 players selected a leader and Y of 25 players selected a civ".

[Commodore]

FWIW, I think Huge is the right size.

Out of curiosity, are you able to divulge how many locked in choices in the first round? Just rough numbers, like "X of 25 players selected a leader and Y of 25 players selected a civ".

Last time we did this all of that was revealed after everyone did their final pick, it was interesting but waiting until the final round made sure it didn't influence anyone.

[Lewwyn]

Okay going to send out the next round of choices for picks. And in the interest of not screwing anyone, in the final third round I will remove any civs that have been rejected twice in the first two rounds. So if you dislike the civ in this second round and want to reject it, you can do so knowing I will remove any civs that have failed to be taken twice.

Lewwyn, do you mean rejected twice by anyone? So if player A got offered India and didn't take it and then player B got it offered and didn't take it than nobody will be able to get India in the third round?

It might not be the best idea to change the way the pick works after players have decided based on what the pick method was announced to be because it does make a mathematical difference if "rejects" are sorted out or not in how likely you are to get a civ that you want. Basically you should be more likely to get a viable choice which means everyone that took his civ reluctantly, fearing he could get screwed otherwise with getting Byzantine, could now be more inclined to reject his choice anyway.

Hmm you might be right. I'm not sure how many people will be left to pick civ in the 3rd round, but it will be few. One of the things about the last round though is that by virtue of already rejecting 2 civs, players picking in the final round will already reduce the pool based on their previous rejections. So i probably don't have to worry.