|
PBEM 7 - Team Contest (4 x 2) - discussion
|
(February 6th, 2018, 13:58)oledavy Wrote:(February 6th, 2018, 13:51)TheArchduke Wrote: I will agree to it very easily. Where is the difference? Feel free to drop me from the roster if you all think I am crazy. The play in PBEM #4 was a cheap exploit, for both reasons. Nothing more.
I am still not convinced that any exploit has happened, kinda thought that was the idea of a team game, to see what could be accomplished with two teams. I am not ok with any form of punishment, that implies I did something wrong which I just don't feel I did.
I see it more as a new way of playing has showed itself in civ 6 and I used it to my teams advantage. So either we replay or just move on from here. Not taking a handicap for using features but I to the game
Archduke, can you get real and play on.
Cornflakes has come up with a valid suggestion and we can all follow from here on. This is PBEM7, not 4. PBEM4 was a bad game thanks to open diplomacy that led to a very heated and toxic atmosphere. We have moved on from there. I would never want to play open diplo again and I think city gifting is a thing, we should all avoid. *agree with Emperor K, move on from here without penalty. Maybe Emperor K, you can explain that to your team mate who seems to throw some tantrums here.
I have to agree with Emperor K, this is a team game and it is a possible strategy to swap cities between teams to get the most out if team play. We did not discuss it during set up, so I see no need for punishment. Now that we are discussing it and it seems to be an issue, we can move forwards with a rule that cities can not be re-gifted, i.e. traded more than once, and move forward.
February 6th, 2018, 14:24
(This post was last modified: February 6th, 2018, 14:25 by TheArchduke.)
 (February 6th, 2018, 14:16)Singaboy Wrote: Archduke, can you get real and play on. No. Because if you sit on your high horse and say. "This was such an obvious exploit you should have asked the other players." you can eat your hat. Because that is what you should have friggin done in PBEM #4. I let it rest then but not now when you pull this on me. I know what the issue is, this time city trading harmed you and not benefitted you. I am sorry.
Woah, guys, I think we need to take some deep breaths here. This thing ain't a big deal, and certainly isn't worth getting anyone ruffled over.
Emperor and Archduke did nothing wrong - they violated no rules by trading cities back and forth, they were just playing their civs to the maximum potential. The only issue is that if we allow plays like that, they'll quickly dominate the game (why leave an advantage on the table, if it's there?), and I don't think anyone wants the game to become a competition to see who can out-cheese the other. I think Cornflakes' proposed solution is a good one: Going forward, just trade cities to your partner once. There certainly shouldn't be a penalty when no one broke any rules, and it's not like 3 extra tiles at one German city is going to be game breaking, so we don't need to replay, either. Let's just move on with the understanding that this particular exploit is best left unused.
I Think I'm Gwangju Like It Here
A blog about my adventures in Korea, and whatever else I feel like writing about. |
|
As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer |
