As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer

Create an account  

 
Pitboss 18 Organizing Thread (RB Mod 34 Civs)

Feel free to ignore my opinion since I'm not yet sure whether I'm participating, but I also would slightly prefer not having events on and leave the game difficulty to map maker (although Monarch Toroid sounds solid). In the end everything goes though.
Finished:
PBEM 45G, PB 13, PB 18, PB 38 & PB 49

Top 3 favorite turns: 
#1, #2, #3
Reply

It seems Events are not liked. Assuming that no one really drops out we definately could turn them off. Anyone else who would like to give support to them or would prefer seeing them out?
Reply

I would slightly prefer them off, but it's not a big deal either way.
Fear cuts deeper than swords.
Reply

Oh, and I spam more: I enjoyed the leader/civ selection method that PB13 used. It allowed players some room to make good/bad decisions, avoid completely stupid anti-synergistic pairings and spend their next months/a year playing a civ+leader that they find interesting enough. From balance/random perspective I think that it would be ok to play completely random/random pair, but it most definitely leads to demotivating start to some players, who think they drew Boring/Dull of Blank. So maybe we could use some kind of a pick method where players have at least some influence?
Finished:
PBEM 45G, PB 13, PB 18, PB 38 & PB 49

Top 3 favorite turns: 
#1, #2, #3
Reply

(February 18th, 2014, 15:12)Fintourist Wrote: Oh, and I spam more: I enjoyed the leader/civ selection method that PB13 used. It allowed players some room to make good/bad decisions, avoid completely stupid anti-synergistic pairings and spend their next months/a year playing a civ+leader that they find interesting enough. From balance/random perspective I think that it would be ok to play completely random/random pair, but it most definitely leads to demotivating start to some players, who think they drew Boring/Dull of Blank. So maybe we could use some kind of a pick method where players have at least some influence?

There are 34 civs so here we can't use same method. Better to be fully random.
Reply

(February 18th, 2014, 15:13)plako Wrote:
(February 18th, 2014, 15:12)Fintourist Wrote: Oh, and I spam more: I enjoyed the leader/civ selection method that PB13 used. It allowed players some room to make good/bad decisions, avoid completely stupid anti-synergistic pairings and spend their next months/a year playing a civ+leader that they find interesting enough. From balance/random perspective I think that it would be ok to play completely random/random pair, but it most definitely leads to demotivating start to some players, who think they drew Boring/Dull of Blank. So maybe we could use some kind of a pick method where players have at least some influence?

There are 34 civs so here we can't use same method. Better to be fully random.

You could use a similar one. Roll 34 pairings. Any that are rejected are just reshuffled among everyone else who wanted a different one.
Reply

(February 18th, 2014, 15:14)BRickAstley Wrote: You could use a similar one. Roll 34 pairings. Any that are rejected are just reshuffled among everyone else who wanted a different one.

Ok to me.
Reply

(February 18th, 2014, 15:13)plako Wrote:
(February 18th, 2014, 15:12)Fintourist Wrote: Oh, and I spam more: I enjoyed the leader/civ selection method that PB13 used. It allowed players some room to make good/bad decisions, avoid completely stupid anti-synergistic pairings and spend their next months/a year playing a civ+leader that they find interesting enough. From balance/random perspective I think that it would be ok to play completely random/random pair, but it most definitely leads to demotivating start to some players, who think they drew Boring/Dull of Blank. So maybe we could use some kind of a pick method where players have at least some influence?

There are 34 civs so here we can't use same method. Better to be fully random.

Not necessirarily true!

1.round: 20 teams keep their civ, 14 want to change. In the 2nd round players who reroll get one the 14 civs. In case you are the only one who wants to change, well, then you get the same civ again.

E.g CRE/AGG Inca would be a pretty lame pairing that I would hope nobody gets.
And I'm sure I can't be the only one that enjoys speculating about civ/leader strenght and whether to reroll/pick something else or whatever action possible.
Finished:
PBEM 45G, PB 13, PB 18, PB 38 & PB 49

Top 3 favorite turns: 
#1, #2, #3
Reply

(February 18th, 2014, 15:14)BRickAstley Wrote: You could use a similar one. Roll 34 pairings. Any that are rejected are just reshuffled among everyone else who wanted a different one.

It's probably clear, but personally I think that it makes more sense to reshuffle leaders and civs separately so that 2nd round creates new combos.

Ok, enough about this topic from me.
Finished:
PBEM 45G, PB 13, PB 18, PB 38 & PB 49

Top 3 favorite turns: 
#1, #2, #3
Reply

Updated the settings post:
http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthrea...#pid460244

Events are now off and reroll leader pick included - Fintourist style.
Reply



Forum Jump: