Why don't you guys just allow duplicate civs and/or leaders? Ban India if you're worried about everyone going for Fast Workers. It's not FFH, there's no mechanical reason to avoid three players selecting Inca or whatever.
|
Pitboss 17 Organizing Thread
|
(December 2nd, 2013, 16:21)Bobchillingworth Wrote: Why don't you guys just allow duplicate civs and/or leaders? Ban India if you're worried about everyone going for Fast Workers. It's not FFH, there's no mechanical reason to avoid three players selecting Inca or whatever. It's a bit dull is the main reason I can think of. (December 2nd, 2013, 16:21)Bobchillingworth Wrote: Why don't you guys just allow duplicate civs and/or leaders? Ban India if you're worried about everyone going for Fast Workers. It's not FFH, there's no mechanical reason to avoid three players selecting Inca or whatever. Generally speaking it's because people don't only value fairness but also variety. (December 2nd, 2013, 16:25)SevenSpirits Wrote: Generally speaking it's because people don't only value fairness but also variety. That must be why one trait is usually banned, another is almost never picked, and several civs have barely any representation  Snide remarks aside, I understand that people like to see unique pairings in their games, but I question whether diversity for its own sake is worthwhile if the pick method is going to leave teams unhappy. (December 2nd, 2013, 15:45)Sian Wrote: ... why would anyone hate getting Sury? ... other than some semiselfimprosed challenge Damfino. But... (December 2nd, 2013, 14:10)2metraninja Wrote: I hated the pick method in PB9. Being given leader and civ did not worked well for me.
If only you and me and dead people know hex, then only deaf people know hex.
I write RPG adventures, and blog about it, check it out. (December 2nd, 2013, 16:35)Bobchillingworth Wrote:(December 2nd, 2013, 16:25)SevenSpirits Wrote: Generally speaking it's because people don't only value fairness but also variety. Are you kidding? People go to great lengths to get variety in the setup phase. Not as much once they are playing the game, to be sure, but observing people choose from the variety of traits that actually DO something, and not falling on their swords to take protective, doesn't show they're not valuing variety. FIN actually doesn't usually get banned, and many games try to make the worse civs more appealing and the better civs less great. (December 2nd, 2013, 16:41)Commodore Wrote:(December 2nd, 2013, 15:45)Sian Wrote: ... why would anyone hate getting Sury? ... other than some semiselfimprosed challenge Thats a question of the picking method, and not about getting Sury ... hence not quite what was said (or intended, or at least understood) (December 2nd, 2013, 16:43)SevenSpirits Wrote:(December 2nd, 2013, 16:35)Bobchillingworth Wrote:(December 2nd, 2013, 16:25)SevenSpirits Wrote: Generally speaking it's because people don't only value fairness but also variety. On top of that you see individual players pick different leaders in different games, so the players are attempting to increase the variety of their game, but pick order of leaders is fairly similar between games. Civs aren't but that's because of the starting techs and choice to pick after seeing the starts (picking before seeing the starts means agri/wheel uber alles).
Vote on these:
Quote:Barbarians: On / Off Picking methods: A) Snake pick: Order is randomized, then from top to bottom everyone picks a leader or a civ. Then in reverse order everyone picks the other. B) Randomized: A Lurker randomizes a bunch of combos, then removes the best and the worst of them until there are 12 left. Then he randomizes which one of us gets which combo. |
