PB58 Tech Thread

[pindicator]

I've updated the first post with the new information, especially players, mapmaker and that PBEM is not going to happen (as two people rather would not use it and I think I'm the only one being more in favor of it). 

@Jowy: pindi made the map for PBEM78, which while I do believe one can leverage some criticism against, is one of the better maps I've played on RB, and one of the best if I exclude mirrored / semi-mirrored maps. We had an issue with the map-size, but that is partly on the players for not being explicit enough.

Hoping to apply some lessons learned in 78, but I have no issues if you want to go another direction with mapmaker.

[Serdoa]

How does sequential pitboss work?  That seems to defeat the purpose of a pitboss, doesn't it?  Are double moves that much of a problem?

Yes, double-moves are that much of a problem (imo). Nearly every game I read had at best complaints and at worst a premature end because of double-move issues. I admit I don't get it, as it seems to be easy. Like, if you plan to go to war, don't double-move. If your double-move gives you an advantage that you would not have in sequential don't double-move. But then you get players reading that as not applying to settler-races, because there they are not at war. Or unit movement before the war being exempt. And lets not talk about clcck shenanigans to get first or second half of the turn... I am ok playing Pitboss but I'd very much prefer sequential when we get at the point at which we realistically won't get to play more turn than one per day, just to not have to deal with all these issues. If we decide for that I assume we have to sort player order at the start already even if it does not apply till later. But if we have simultaneous pitboss we'll have to agree on rules for that, which probably takes as long.

[Serdoa]

I've updated the first post with the new information, especially players, mapmaker and that PBEM is not going to happen (as two people rather would not use it and I think I'm the only one being more in favor of it). 

@Jowy: pindi made the map for PBEM78, which while I do believe one can leverage some criticism against, is one of the better maps I've played on RB, and one of the best if I exclude mirrored / semi-mirrored maps. We had an issue with the map-size, but that is partly on the players for not being explicit enough.

Hoping to apply some lessons learned in 78, but I have no issues if you want to go another direction with mapmaker.

No.

[pindicator]

I should probably have added that not all threads in 78 are as generous as yours when it comes to the map, Serdoa

[AutomatedTeller]

How does sequential pitboss work?  That seems to defeat the purpose of a pitboss, doesn't it?  Are double moves that much of a problem?

Yes, double-moves are that much of a problem (imo). Nearly every game I read had at best complaints and at worst a premature end because of double-move issues. I admit I don't get it, as it seems to be easy. Like, if you plan to go to war, don't double-move. If your double-move gives you an advantage that you would not have in sequential don't double-move. But then you get players reading that as not applying to settler-races, because there they are not at war. Or unit movement before the war being exempt. And lets not talk about clcck shenanigans to get first or second half of the turn... I am ok playing Pitboss but I'd very much prefer sequential when we get at the point at which we realistically won't get to play more turn than one per day, just to not have to deal with all these issues. If we decide for that I assume we have to sort player order at the start already even if it does not apply till later. But if we have simultaneous pitboss we'll have to agree on rules for that, which probably takes as long.

I duno - I think there are more issues with misclicks than double moves in the games i've been involved with.

I'd worry that a sequential pitboss with 8 people or so would end up being a glacial turn pace.

[superdeath]

I should probably have added that not all threads in 78 are as generous as yours when it comes to the map, Serdoa

whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

[Serdoa]

Just a quick question to those that have signed up: Anyone has a preferred minimum number of players? I personally am fine with 5 minimum and 9 maximum, but I guess I'd like 6 or 8 for easier map balance purposes (number of neighbours being equal and all that). 

@SD: I'd like to suggest that you get a teammate or ded-lurker, in case something akin to PB55 happens. I know sometimes the game can be frustrating (oh, how I know...) but I'd like to make sure that we can keep going even if one of us is burnt out.

(That goes in general for everyone involved of course: If you believe you could get at a point at which you are too frustrated or burnt out to play on, get a dedicated lurker / teammate, so that someone can take over without us having to discuss if spoiled lurkers are ok [which imo they are not]).

[Tarkeel]

I'd prefer an even number of players for balance reasons, but 6 is fine.

[superdeath]

@SD: I'd like to suggest that you get a teammate or ded-lurker, in case something akin to PB55 happens. I know sometimes the game can be frustrating (oh, how I know...) but I'd like to make sure that we can keep going even if one of us is burnt out.

[Jowy]

Bump!