December 29th, 2011, 12:39
Posts: 2,088
Threads: 31
Joined: Apr 2004
Could someone just end Team 4's turn?
"There is no wealth like knowledge. No poverty like ignorance."
December 29th, 2011, 13:13
Posts: 2,868
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2010
maybe time to consider an AI takeover?
December 29th, 2011, 14:35
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
luddite Wrote:maybe time to consider an AI takeover?
On always war? That's probably even worse than normal AI takeover.
PS - Please don't sign up for games if you won't play them through. That's not singling anyone out - I've not followed things close enough to know what members of Team 4 have been here since the beginning, who is a sub, etc. I just want to remind people and especially lurkers who may consider playing in a future pitboss that signing up is a real and serious commitment.
December 29th, 2011, 15:01
Posts: 2,088
Threads: 31
Joined: Apr 2004
Are any lurkers willing to take over on Team 4 to be nice? Any level of spoiled-ness is fine. Basically, we just need someone willing to be a team player and help the game continue, since Team 4 is pretty far behind due to missed turns? Anyone willing to help us out?
"There is no wealth like knowledge. No poverty like ignorance."
December 29th, 2011, 15:03
Posts: 4,272
Threads: 38
Joined: Jun 2011
sunrise089 Wrote:On always war? That's probably even worse than normal AI takeover.
I agree, but given the difficulty we're going to have finding substitutes, probably need to consider it.
There's always the Atlantis Event option :rolleyes:
December 29th, 2011, 16:11
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
I think we just got too ambitious, it was hard getting even 6ish civs, doing a 4x3 thing stretched our resources too thin.
I wouldn't even mind it if the lurkers just played a perfect intelligence demogame. Alternatively, we could do something silly like taking turns playing T4.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
December 29th, 2011, 18:20
Posts: 6,660
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
I disagree. We ran 10 teams in Pitboss games #2 and #4, 11 teams in Pitboss #1, and 17 teams in Pitboss #3. This game has 12 individual players, but only 4 teams. Teammates should be able to cover for one another pretty easily even if one person was off on vacation for a week or two. Again, not blaming anyone here, just suggesting that we weren't exactly going into uncharted territory in terms of player participation for this game.
Any luck so far with getting things moving? Without suggestions like using AI replacement?
December 29th, 2011, 20:39
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Looking at the actual numbers and not one pulled out of the air: PB2 was closer to 8-9 consistent turn players (Inca was the rotating door, it seems like less since Dantski and Inca never did much) and PB4 was also roughly 9-10 consistent turn players (Peacelord left). #3 was somewhat of a special case since it was after the hype of PB2.
This game as I count it has about 10 active players but it needs 12 so its the 2nd largest PB by required players which is above average for the number of players we can reliably draw upon.
How about we WB it so that all cities are gifted to 1 civ of their choice? Then we run with 1 player for that whole team?
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
December 29th, 2011, 21:54
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
This game simply does not requite 1 active turnplayer per civ (though I concede teams may have expected that when organizing themselves). This is a lot more like my RBP3 team (to use an example I had personal experience with) where 4 players worked together but one person turnplayed if they were the only person with the time and ability to connect to the game.
Here are the crazy difficult steps Team 1 took to cover my absence over a six day period without so much of a forum post:
sunrise: "sullla, will you have access to the pitboss game during the break? I may not..."
sullla: "yes, I will have reliable access"
sunrise: "since I may not have good access and since I may not get civ installed on my current notebook can you please play for me unless I show up and ask otherwise?"
sullla: "sure, no problem"
Again I understand that some players just aren't interested in covering for their teammates, and I'm not suggesting players have free reign to sign up and then disappear completely. That said, a rotating arrangement of 1 turnplayer per team with other players available for discussion should be sufficient to keep the game moving.
EDIT: And to this game's credit this is a problem that crops up at spurts. T-Hawk and I had a large disagreement about how many pauses this game would see earlier in the thread, and to a degree we're both right. This issue did crop up, but we also had a good run of turns with no issues. In fact, this current situation is just because the other teams are voluntarily acting in good faith and trying to keep the remaining dedicated members of Team 4 from playing with a disadvantage.
December 30th, 2011, 00:48
Posts: 6,660
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
Thoth has kindly volunteered to take a spot for Team 4 and start things moving again. As long as there are no objections, we should be able to start playing again very soon.
|