Pitboss 18 Organizing Thread (RB Mod 34 Civs)

[spacetyrantxenu]

Yeah, I really don't like tech trading or brokering. But I imagine with 34 players we'll have no trouble coming to a consensus on settings!

[DMOC]

I would definitely at least lurk this map. I have no idea if I'd play or not (would never play with tech trading on). With 34 players, too much can go wrong.

I think a while back there was a Chaos and Civility pitboss game (?) that had 32 players. I wonder how that went...

[WilliamLP]

Tech trading scares me. It's a fact that with it on, some players can get get a main cost in the game paid for free (or nearly so) in some situations. There's a lot of play pre-paper, but still. If I manage to form a de-facto tech sharing cartel with a few other players through signaling with trades, and you're not in something like the same, you probably won't win. Either that or tech prices just race to the bottom for everyone and the whole world advances extremely quickly with the same techs regardless of anyone's actual beaker rate.

There will be so many contacts, even disabling the RBMod map Big Bang where everyone gets free Satellites on T50, that the chances of a fiasco ala PB3 seem high.

That said if this insanity actually gets going, sure sign me up. But I'd prefer a game without tech trading and on a plausibly realistic map type. (Like PB8, 11, 13, not quasi-pangea like 9.)

[SevenSpirits]

Hope it's not rude to throw out a different idea, but what would people think of two sister games with 15-17 rather than one with 30-34, using the same map? You'd still have the excitement of a massive event with pretty much everyone playing in it, but you wouldn't have so many logistical pitboss problems, you could maintain a slightly faster turn pace, and the ratio of available wonders/religions to players would only be unreasonable, and not ludicrous. Also you could run different rulesets on the same map which I think would be interesting and make settings easier. For example you could have one game with tech trading (eww) and one without (yay).

For me, the appeal of a giant game like that is the amount of participation, and not necessarily the fact that *everyone's* on the same map (but might not ever meet each other). Don't know if that's the case for others too.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I'm intrigued (in a moth to flame sort of way) based on the size and near certainty that the game will be an utter train wreck. I hate tech trading in all its permutations and that ruins the fun for me. Despite that, I would be inclined to sign up for this game. My concern, though, is that the game would be played mostly casually by many and would be even more imbalanced than you would typically see. This is not going to be a competitive game really in any respect, just a butterfly effect of pure madness and random happenings after a certain point. I'm worried that this may lead to a large number of players becoming hopeless and discouraged and the entire event becoming a massive chore from that point forward.

A HUGE game is exciting, but it needs to be well thought through before starting or this could be a net negative experience.

Tentative sign up.

Edit... Another concern: In a game this large, how will we ever find enough subs for the eventual vacations and unexpected time away from a civ-worthy computer? As of this moment, I will be away four days in March, another four in May, and around ten days in June. I doubt I'll be the only one. Just thinking ahead a bit here, not trying to ruin a good idea before it gets off the ground.

[Azza]

I'd be interested in the mammoth 30+ player game. Not so much in a "regular" 15-18 player game.

[Dhalphir]

I was thinking that it might be nice to have...not a ban per se, but a "strong discouragement" for people NOT to sim or do extensive micro plans for the game. It'd only be enforced on the honour system, but I think it would be nice to enforce the supposed casual nature of the game a little.

[Dhalphir]

I also like Seven's idea of two games. Although it does take away from the novelty a bit, 15-17 players is still a mammoth game but the logistical issues are far less likely.

[Nakor]

Interesting...

[Cheater Hater]

Very interesting...

How about another idea to try and constrain the madness a bit while still being crazy: 3 10-11 player games split among skill level (expert/intermediate/greens) on the same map, but the three people sharing a start are on the same team and can communicate with each other. That avoids a lot of the logistical problems, while still having 30/33 people each controlling their own civ.