[Tech Thread] For Tech Thread Threads of Tech

[BRickAstley]

Xenu asked me to resolve the picking system so I'll take over doing that, resolving that when everyone posts their preference rankings or whatever.

[Lord Parkin]

Player 4 and 5 then roll of Darius and player 5 wins, so he gets his choice.

Poor player 5...

[dtay]

Player 4 and 5 then roll of Darius and player 5 wins, so he gets his choice.

Poor player 5...

This injustice demands rectification! Give player 5 Darius! Start the whole (imaginary) game over!

[Gaspar]

This little snippet of humor brings a point...

If you picked something like thus:

Pacal of Inca
Pacal of India
Pacal of The Vikings
Pacal of China
Willem of Japan
Tokugawa of Native America

And someone else has Pacal round one and you lose the roll - are we treating Willem of Japan as your new #2 choice, or do you essentially not get to roll again until round five? More specifically, in this scenario if someone else has Willem of Japan in round two, do we roll for that or does the other player get it because they actually listed it on round two and you now move on to your #6 choice? I hadn't seriously considered this because my original idea had less leader bans and was boggle style. With the pool of "good" leaders shrunk significantly, I think this has pretty significant strategic implications.

I guess I'd say that it should be the latter option, otherwise the one right play is to run your top leader with as many possible civs before moving to your second choice, etc. But its worth debating.

[The Black Sword]

My understanding is that you wouldn't get to roll again until round 5.

The more I think about the method, the more unsuited I feel it is for unrestricted leaders.

[pindicator]

You could make a rule saying that you can't repeat leader or civ in successive picks. Or that you can't put down a repeat of one you've done before until pick #5 (or some other sufficiently distant number).

When making my list I tried to give at least 7 distinct leaders and civs, but even then I realized I could potentially lose key dice rolls and have all my choices blocked out. It'd take some bad luck but it's possible.

Any way, this is a new system and I'm sure we'll find some areas that need tweaking for next time. But I like the idea that we're trying something new.

[Commodore]

You could make a rule saying that you can't repeat leader or civ in successive picks.
Any way, this is a new system and I'm sure we'll find some areas that need tweaking for next time. But I like the idea that we're trying something new.

This makes sense. But please note, I'm in the "don't care" vote camp. Just want to be here frenetically speculating about things with everyone's pick in hand.

Basically, no perfect systems, any system works if we all understand it, I'm fearing this will drag for a week...I've got 8-9 combos I'm pretty happy with, to be honest.

[Gaspar]

I think its a little clunky as well TBS, because I think we've chosen a bit of a wishy-washy medium, but I'm with Pindicator in just wanting to try something new.

I think the punishment of not getting another roll until turn 5 is probably sufficient penalty to discourage someone from listing the same leader 4 times in a row, but saying no consecutive duplicates is fine as well.

[pindicator]

So how close are we to:

1) Finishing lists and assigning leader/civ combos;
2) Playing?

[Commodore]

Maybe we have all our picks in, but our admins are a pair of bleeding hearts?