PB27 Signup Thread

[Krill]

130 tiles per player is doable with no islands and enough water. After playing in PB15 I can't state strongly enough just how important it is in games that there is enough land for two cities between capitals. If there isn't, for whatever reason, then grudge matches occur too early in the game due to one play we perceiving that they have been pink dotted when in fact someone just planted 4 or 5 tiles from their capital.

I think that the minimum distance between capitals should be no less than 12 tiles and 15 is just safer but less than 12 requires inventive map making.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

Seriously what about a smaller map? Once people start getting conquered the overlords are going to be back to managing huge swathes of land again like in 18. With lots of players maybe aiming for fewer tiles per player would help keep things moving later on as consolidation plays out? I know I'd find it impossible to manage an empire the size of the pb18 hegemons with my availability. Just a thought.

One thousand times, this. It's a nightmare. I think fewer tiles per player for less end-game management is a must. But I also agree with Krill about not having capitals so close together that it's grudge mode from the very beginning. We should use geographical features to add more distance between capitals while keeping the actual number of tiles pretty close so we can keep the map small. Just my thought, but I'm not actually playing.

[GermanJoey]

I'd have not problem with something lower in the 135 range, *if* it's a map with coastline/island/water features so it's not uber cramped. PB25, yay, PB15, nooooo.

PB25's map is a total fucking disaster, incredibly unfun and unbalanced in every possible way. It is absurd that you'd even bring it as an example to base another game on.

[BRickAstley]

I'd have not problem with something lower in the 135 range, *if* it's a map with coastline/island/water features so it's not uber cramped. PB25, yay, PB15, nooooo.

PB25's map is a total fucking disaster, incredibly unfun and unbalanced in every possible way. It is absurd that you'd even bring it as an example to base another game on.

Apply torus wrap. Problems mostly solved.

[GermanJoey]

I'd have not problem with something lower in the 135 range, *if* it's a map with coastline/island/water features so it's not uber cramped. PB25, yay, PB15, nooooo.

PB25's map is a total fucking disaster, incredibly unfun and unbalanced in every possible way. It is absurd that you'd even bring it as an example to base another game on.

Apply torus wrap. Problems mostly solved.

Torus wrap is a must for balance, absolutely, but in PB25 I think would only serve to make the map more equally miserable for all players, rather than just half of them. I think that tight maps amplify whatever other balance problems exist in the map. Shit like, player B think's player A's city is an aggressive pink dot when player A's city shares tiles with his capital's BFC, and the two get dragged down by ancient era bullshit, is not fun. (see PBEM61) Or Player C settled his second city before BW/AH and therefore missed both, and now has to settle his 3rd city for it, but now player D will beat C to a spot that seals C off from a lot of land, a problem unknown to C because he lost his scout to a bear 25 turns ago and wasn't able to scout that area fully.

I don't know, maybe if more map for each player was revealed at T0 a smaller map can be more manageable, but I think 150-160 tiles per player will be more fun than 130. (for reference, ~150 tiles per player plus 20% water is an 80x80 map). The map should be balanced to the most fun for the most players, not just for the 2-3 that survive to the end, especially if we're concerned with player retention. (both with players just abandoning their games without a word and players just saying fuck it and throwing their game away)

I mean, if you conquer TEN CIVS that's only an extra 220 tiles. If a 1650 tile empire is really that much more work for you than a 1430 tile empire, maybe you should stop conquering other players...

[retep]

Wait, what? No matter how many tiles per player there is if you conquer 6,7,8 other cities you are going to end with big empires no matter what.

Anyway I have rethink this a bit and I'l pass this game.

Also PB25: we should concede already but then I concede all my games so don't listen to me

[TheWannabe]

I'd have not problem with something lower in the 135 range, *if* it's a map with coastline/island/water features so it's not uber cramped. PB25, yay, PB15, nooooo.

PB25's map is a total fucking disaster, incredibly unfun and unbalanced in every possible way. It is absurd that you'd even bring it as an example to base another game on.

Apply torus wrap. Problems mostly solved.

Torus wrap is a must for balance, absolutely, but in PB25 I think would only serve to make the map more equally miserable for all players, rather than just half of them. I think that tight maps amplify whatever other balance problems exist in the map. Shit like, player B think's player A's city is an aggressive pink dot when player A's city shares tiles with his capital's BFC, and the two get dragged down by ancient era bullshit, is not fun. (see PBEM61) Or Player C settled his second city before BW/AH and therefore missed both, and now has to settle his 3rd city for it, but now player D will beat C to a spot that seals C off from a lot of land, a problem unknown to C because he lost his scout to a bear 25 turns ago and wasn't able to scout that area fully.

I don't know, maybe if more map for each player was revealed at T0 a smaller map can be more manageable, but I think 150-160 tiles per player will be more fun than 130. (for reference, ~150 tiles per player plus 20% water is an 80x80 map). The map should be balanced to the most fun for the most players, not just for the 2-3 that survive to the end, especially if we're concerned with player retention. (both with players just abandoning their games without a word and players just saying fuck it and throwing their game away)

I mean, if you conquer TEN CIVS that's only an extra 220 tiles. If a 1650 tile empire is really that much more work for you than a 1430 tile empire, maybe you should stop conquering other players...

At a risk of baiting out spoilers, aside from complaints about the resource balancing, is the PB25 map not pretty well designed? In terms of available space, number of neighbours, placement of terrain and general geometry, my lurking eyes were downright impressed.

[AdrienIer]

I'd have not problem with something lower in the 135 range, *if* it's a map with coastline/island/water features so it's not uber cramped. PB25, yay, PB15, nooooo.

PB25's map is a total fucking disaster, incredibly unfun and unbalanced in every possible way. It is absurd that you'd even bring it as an example to base another game on.

Apply torus wrap. Problems mostly solved.

Torus wrap is a must for balance, absolutely, but in PB25 I think would only serve to make the map more equally miserable for all players, rather than just half of them. I think that tight maps amplify whatever other balance problems exist in the map. Shit like, player B think's player A's city is an aggressive pink dot when player A's city shares tiles with his capital's BFC, and the two get dragged down by ancient era bullshit, is not fun. (see PBEM61) Or Player C settled his second city before BW/AH and therefore missed both, and now has to settle his 3rd city for it, but now player D will beat C to a spot that seals C off from a lot of land, a problem unknown to C because he lost his scout to a bear 25 turns ago and wasn't able to scout that area fully.

I don't know, maybe if more map for each player was revealed at T0 a smaller map can be more manageable, but I think 150-160 tiles per player will be more fun than 130. (for reference, ~150 tiles per player plus 20% water is an 80x80 map). The map should be balanced to the most fun for the most players, not just for the 2-3 that survive to the end, especially if we're concerned with player retention. (both with players just abandoning their games without a word and players just saying fuck it and throwing their game away)

I mean, if you conquer TEN CIVS that's only an extra 220 tiles. If a 1650 tile empire is really that much more work for you than a 1430 tile empire, maybe you should stop conquering other players...

At a risk of baiting out spoilers, aside from complaints about the resource balancing, is the PB25 map not pretty well designed? In terms of available space, number of neighbours, placement of terrain and general geometry, my lurking eyes were downright impressed.

That's also how I feel and if I were to guess I'd say that's what most players also feel. I think I can guess why GermanJoey feels like that though.

[GermanJoey]

I'd have not problem with something lower in the 135 range, *if* it's a map with coastline/island/water features so it's not uber cramped. PB25, yay, PB15, nooooo.

PB25's map is a total fucking disaster, incredibly unfun and unbalanced in every possible way. It is absurd that you'd even bring it as an example to base another game on.

Apply torus wrap. Problems mostly solved.

Torus wrap is a must for balance, absolutely, but in PB25 I think would only serve to make the map more equally miserable for all players, rather than just half of them. I think that tight maps amplify whatever other balance problems exist in the map. Shit like, player B think's player A's city is an aggressive pink dot when player A's city shares tiles with his capital's BFC, and the two get dragged down by ancient era bullshit, is not fun. (see PBEM61) Or Player C settled his second city before BW/AH and therefore missed both, and now has to settle his 3rd city for it, but now player D will beat C to a spot that seals C off from a lot of land, a problem unknown to C because he lost his scout to a bear 25 turns ago and wasn't able to scout that area fully.

I don't know, maybe if more map for each player was revealed at T0 a smaller map can be more manageable, but I think 150-160 tiles per player will be more fun than 130. (for reference, ~150 tiles per player plus 20% water is an 80x80 map). The map should be balanced to the most fun for the most players, not just for the 2-3 that survive to the end, especially if we're concerned with player retention. (both with players just abandoning their games without a word and players just saying fuck it and throwing their game away)

I mean, if you conquer TEN CIVS that's only an extra 220 tiles. If a 1650 tile empire is really that much more work for you than a 1430 tile empire, maybe you should stop conquering other players...

At a risk of baiting out spoilers, aside from complaints about the resource balancing, is the PB25 map not pretty well designed? In terms of available space, number of neighbours, placement of terrain and general geometry, my lurking eyes were downright impressed.

No it is not. Absolutely not, no way not. Leaving aside resources, available space is not equal for all players (some players have safe backfill and their own private islands, others do not), some players are have as many as six neighbors while others have as few as three, some players have terrain swathed in jungle and the others trees, and the terrain, because of the tight spacing, makes everything worse.

[GermanJoey]

PB25's map is a total fucking disaster, incredibly unfun and unbalanced in every possible way. It is absurd that you'd even bring it as an example to base another game on.

Apply torus wrap. Problems mostly solved.

Torus wrap is a must for balance, absolutely, but in PB25 I think would only serve to make the map more equally miserable for all players, rather than just half of them. I think that tight maps amplify whatever other balance problems exist in the map. Shit like, player B think's player A's city is an aggressive pink dot when player A's city shares tiles with his capital's BFC, and the two get dragged down by ancient era bullshit, is not fun. (see PBEM61) Or Player C settled his second city before BW/AH and therefore missed both, and now has to settle his 3rd city for it, but now player D will beat C to a spot that seals C off from a lot of land, a problem unknown to C because he lost his scout to a bear 25 turns ago and wasn't able to scout that area fully.

I don't know, maybe if more map for each player was revealed at T0 a smaller map can be more manageable, but I think 150-160 tiles per player will be more fun than 130. (for reference, ~150 tiles per player plus 20% water is an 80x80 map). The map should be balanced to the most fun for the most players, not just for the 2-3 that survive to the end, especially if we're concerned with player retention. (both with players just abandoning their games without a word and players just saying fuck it and throwing their game away)

I mean, if you conquer TEN CIVS that's only an extra 220 tiles. If a 1650 tile empire is really that much more work for you than a 1430 tile empire, maybe you should stop conquering other players...

At a risk of baiting out spoilers, aside from complaints about the resource balancing, is the PB25 map not pretty well designed? In terms of available space, number of neighbours, placement of terrain and general geometry, my lurking eyes were downright impressed.

That's also how I feel and if I were to guess I'd say that's what most players also feel. I think I can guess why GermanJoey feels like that though.

I imagine that the half of the players that didn't get screwed think the map is fine because they didn't have to fight against the map in addition to the other players.

We should talking about PB25 while PB25 is still running. (well, running in theory, at least =/) I just want to say that I feel so strongly about PB25 that I've spent dozens of hours coding a tool and am volunteering to sit out of this next big epic game just to make sure a map like that never happens again. PB27 will have a map that is fun and playable for everybody.