Pitboss 4 Signup

[Krill]

Fin is seriously overrated in MP, even NTT. OTOH, I'm not playing, so it's not like I have a say in what rules you guys play. I wouldn't be overconfident if I were you though.

[SevenSpirits]

They don't become "uber" traits like Financial though. And I don't even consider them that good by themselves. (I'd be happy to back that up by not picking either an Expansive or Creative leader if Financial is banned. )

Disclaimer: I'm not playing and I also don't know how strong traits are. (This is one reason I'd like to see an auction at some point: we'd get to see everyone's valuation of the traits in a completely comparable numeric representation.)

Your offer to avoid those traits is meaningless because if you are wrong and those traits are overly strong, you're out of the running but everyone else is still using the same freaking best traits. It doesn't solve anything!

Anyway, in general I think the people here are just interested in not playing the same game over and over again. At this point, several leaders and civs have gotten a lot more playtime than others, that's all.

[sunrise089]

I need to talk to regoarrarr tomorrow to see if we're playing or not, but I can say not I have no strong opinion about ban lists at this point. I have definite opinions about whether banning is a good idea or not (see Krill's point above) but I don't think that will affect my enjoyment of the game if I play.

[Gaspar]

I don't care a ton about banning leaders or not, but I do like the idea of a variantish game. Lord Parkin's idea about using leaders/civ that haven't been used in previous games sounds fun, or at least fun til I'm rocking Charlemagne/Portugal.

As far as signups go, I'm really not impatient about any of this. Be nice if we could get a couple more long-timers @RB to join, just so the rest of us are a little bit more confused about where to aim our 7:1 dogpile. :D

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Right now we have nine definite teams, and six of those will have either a teammate or dedlurker. sunrise and Rego would make 10. There will be no more than 10 because sign-ups ended.

Again, I'm not playing, but I do think just banning one trait does little other than creating a next best trait. The ban list is mainly meant to just get some different leaders/civs in play. I do think only allowing Financial with Wang Kon is a good idea. Interesting to see if Financial is good enough to anyone to justify taking Protective. While Protective is bad, I don't think anyone will want to be coming after a Protective civ without a massive troop advantage, which could be useful.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

So here is what is left to be decided, either through the votes of Atlas (and sunrise if he plays), or by fence-sitters making a decision:

1. Leader/Civ: Ban List + HC/Vicky v. Unrestricted

6. Barbs: On v. Off

7. Map-trading: Contact v. Tech dependent

10. Ivory: Yes (but no W'Phants) v. No

11. Pauses: 0 v 1

Everything else has been decided due to the size of the voting margins. I think for ease, we'll just say lurkers should behave, rather than instituting a specific Code of Conduct.

[Adlain]

Right now we have nine definite teams, and six of those will have either a teammate or dedlurker. sunrise and Rego would make 10. There will be no more than 10 because sign-ups ended.

On this point, as one of the 6 without a Teamate, i would like a dedicated Lurker/ But Kicker/ Full Team member if anyone is willing. I have no Illusions over my Ability in this game, and would welcome any and all advice anyone is willing to give.

Equally i am fully prepaired to "go it alone" if need be

Adlain

[scooter]

They don't become "uber" traits like Financial though. And I don't even consider them that good by themselves. (I'd be happy to back that up by not picking either an Expansive or Creative leader if Financial is banned. )

For what it's worth - the history of these games disagrees with you . So would almost all of the best players. Expansive is probably on par with Financial honestly. This is the problem that presents itself - if you ban the best _____ combos/traits, then the next best traits become the uber traits. This isn't such a big deal in a 5 player PBEM, but in a 9 player Pitboss it's more problematic.

I tend to think the best way to handle something like this is to have a highly experienced player pick about 12-14 relatively even (perfectly even is impossible) combos to be "allowed" and everyone picks from that pool. Might be something to explore in a future game.

[ManiaMuse]

On this point, as one of the 6 without a Teamate, i would like a dedicated Lurker/ But Kicker/ Full Team member if anyone is willing. I have no Illusions over my Ability in this game, and would welcome any and all advice anyone is willing to give.

Equally i am fully prepaired to "go it alone" if need be

Adlain

I'd be willing to lurk for you. I don't think I have enough time to be a full team member but I'd be happy to follow your thread, offer whatever advice I can and take over if you ever need someone to play your turns.

Sound good?

[Lord Parkin]

For what it's worth - the history of these games disagrees with you . So would almost all of the best players. Expansive is probably on par with Financial honestly.

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree (at least from the experience of most of the large-scale Pitboss games that I've been involved with in the past). All traits give an edge to a player, but Financial's edge is far more generally useful than Expansive's, IMHO. (This is excluding free-for-all blitz matches and hardcore duels, where other traits become far more useful.)

This is the problem that presents itself - if you ban the best _____ combos/traits, then the next best traits become the uber traits. This isn't such a big deal in a 5 player PBEM, but in a 9 player Pitboss it's more problematic.

I don't entirely agree. The thing is that, realistically, none of the traits are really "uber" in BTS, in the sense that you can't win without them (or are guaranteed to do well with them). Some give more of an edge than others, that's obvious, but this doesn't make them "uber". Financial is a great bonus to have in a game, sure, but it's not as if you can't win without it - and you can certainly get by fine without being Expansive. When it comes down to the crunch, traits don't really dictate the outcome of games... cunning strategy and careful diplomacy does.

I was suggesting the removal of Financial leaders from the picks mainly because they crop up all the time in every game I'm in, and since we're talking about variants I figured I'd throw an idea into the mix. (Also because being Financial or not tends to become a bit too much of a pivotal factor for leader choices in a no tech trading game.) I don't mind if a couple of other leaders that crop up a lot at this site are also chucked on a "no-go" list, but I'm concerned that if too many are banned then it'll become more of an "assigned leader" thing than an actual choice. To me, that's not my idea of fun (having too constricted a choice), but I see everyone seems to have different thoughts on that.

I tend to think the best way to handle something like this is to have a highly experienced player pick about 12-14 relatively even (perfectly even is impossible) combos to be "allowed" and everyone picks from that pool. Might be something to explore in a future game.

Personally I'd prefer not to have quite that level of constriction placed on me, especially if I'm picking near the end of the pack. I don't know how other people feel about it, but to me it'd suck to be the person who only got to choose out of 3-5 (or less) leaders.