Pitboss 4 Signup

[Cull]

I have time, with nothing planned for the next year or so. Sign up it is!

I do think that I will be unable to continually play a turn every 24 hours, on a clock however, so a turn-playing teammate would be amazing. Think of me as the noob sounding board. ^^

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I think it makes sense to plan for an early January start to this game. Starting up around the holidays just doesn't seem like a good idea. As long as people are still signing up, I don't want to close sign-ups. I am thinking maybe Dec. 22 for a close of sign-ups? Any thoughts? And then if we could get teams chosen by Dec. 27th, that would give the mapmakers until Jan 2-3 to get the map ready to go, and for the settings to be finalized, giving us a start date around Jan 5th. Is that too optimistic of a time table?

Do we have a person, or team of people, interested in designing a map?

I've volunteered to arbitrate disputes, but I am pretty new around here, so I am not going to get offended if people feel I am unsuited for the job. Does anyone think the idea of a 3-person panel is a good idea, or do the veterans think that is just much more likely to create delays and confusions? My general feeling is that a 3-person panel would be a pain, but that isn't really an informed opinion.

As for timeouts, I would think we would give maybe a total of 20 in the game, give or take. So if there are 10 Civs, everyone might get 2. But if we get 12+ teams, maybe everyone only gets one timeout.

Main post updated with current sign-ups.

[Bobchillingworth]

Pitboss 3 had a set number of pauses per team, but nobody bothered to actually keep track of them for anyone. Some teams went far over their allotment but were never punished or forced to waste a turn. Pause limits sound good in principle, but players are reluctant to enforce them in an at least theoretically "friendly" game, especially if their allies are affected.

[Locke]

Hey I am new here and I think I would like to sign up. I read some of sulla's games and ended up here. I dont know about all the settings yet and I dont really care that much. I am good with waiting to start this game cuz I am going to be really busy at Christmas lol. If we do like an official vote on the settings let me know. Thanks Gold Egro Sum!

[Ruff_Hi]

If you want to balance out the leaders, then you might want to consider something that some fantasy leagues do ... everyone starts with a pot of money and buys who they want ... spend all of your money on 3 great starting pitchers and you have nothing left for any hitters.

In civ4 terminology ... you could assign traits, UBs, UUs and starting techs a dollar value and people can mix and match up to their allotted budget.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

That certainly sounds like a lot of fun.

But the point of the ban list is simply for people to get to play/lurk with non-traditional leaders/civs, not necessarily to balance the game out.

Balance is certainly an admirable objective. But players in the game can decide if they are burned out and would prefer novelty, or if balance is the key. Or neither.

[Gaspar]

If you want to balance out the leaders, then you might want to consider something that some fantasy leagues do ... everyone starts with a pot of money and buys who they want ... spend all of your money on 3 great starting pitchers and you have nothing left for any hitters.

In civ4 terminology ... you could assign traits, UBs, UUs and starting techs a dollar value and people can mix and match up to their allotted budget.

Civ/Leader Fantasy Auction sounds like a blast - someone not playing would have to come up with the rules though.

[sunrise089]

I would strongly support a fantasy auction for leaders and civs.

[Krill]

Simple. Everyone gets X dollars, and the leaders/civs go in a straight up auction, order that they appear completely random. And everyone bids in a set order, starting the next bid where the last one finished.

[Cyneheard]

And any leftover dollars get WB'd into that player's account.

For simplicity's sake, allow $0 bids.

If each player gets $100, then having a minimum bid (say, $1), simply means that the maximum for leaders is $99, instead of $100. Since everyone has to buy precisely one civ and leader, a minimum bid merely narrows flexibility without adding anything to the auction.

And do consider ways to expedite the auction process. Two things I can think of:

Option 1) Have a set draft time, where every team needs a player or a certified lurker representative to act for them. A short clock for each bid (like 5-10 minutes) would mean that you could get through it in a few hours.

Option 2) Put multiple civs/leaders up for bid at the same time. Something like 5 choices, with a 12-24-hour bidding period. Would still take some time.