[SPOILERS PB71]Krill: By the numbers, when the walls fell (on everyone else)

[Krill]

Thanks for the confirmation

[Qgqqqqq]

[Krill]

???????

[Krill]

You know I don't think I've ever wanted to quit a game before T0 started before.

[Krill]

I don't get it.

It was specifically stated, no lots of forest plus cow starts, and this is a lots of forest plus cow start.

How did this map get to this point that it was actually hosted? That is why I have no faith in this map, even if the map script is viable with care.

EDIT: And to be clear, I want to play a game of Civ 4, so I do not want to be subbed out. I checked every start in PB64 and PB69 and none of them are as close to as poor as this start is. I acknowledge that this is not an issue per se (all the starts might be this bad!) but when the instructions precluded this, and there are parts of PB69 which push playability significantly to the limit already, I just will not waste the time I have on this map.

[Qgqqqqq]

You said:

Start balance: plains cow and 15 forests versus double wet wheat is obviously not acceptable. This is probably the one area where "Whatever is needed" would be a reasonable?

I spy a grass cow, two floodplains, a plains hill start, and an early high commerce tile.

I posted the map for feedback, and made the adjustments suggested as well as those I considered necessary.

[Krill]

I wouldn't matter if there were 6 flood plains in the capital.

There were specific instructions that were not followed. There was significant leeway in most areas, but not in that one. Do you see the problem with where this loss of trust leads?

[Qgqqqqq]

lol

Please point to these 'specific instructions'.

[Krill]

Ok, I'm going to try to help a little bit because I see signs of wheel spin. I'm not involved in map preparation, but I am watching. Here's the details I see that don't necessarily all go together very well.

1) Commodore indicated a preference for Totestra, but there wasn't really a serious consensus around using it.

2) There's no real additional map direction here other than "naturalish/random"

3) I don't know how often you guys roll Totestra, but while it's beautiful, it ranges from very imbalanced at best to hilariously imbalanced at worst. If you guys want to really do Totestra (or something similar) there needs to be some tacit acknowledgment that at least one of you will get what I would deem to be a fairly miserable start. You can balance the capital and make sure there's sufficient food there and maybe a couple nearby resources, but that doesn't guarantee you wouldn't GENERALLY be surrounded by jungle or plains or something. Rerolls can rule out the worst starts, but there's only so much you can do with this.

4) Heavy editing could maybe help this, but that slowly starts to get into the point of defeating a pretty random map

So, I just want to make sure you guys are sure you're good with the direction that's been sort of chosen here before it goes any further. The question I posed in the lurker thread was this, but I think it might be good to direct it here too: what exactly is the imbalance acceptability threshold here? I think getting more specific about what edits you all deem to be necessary or unnecessary might actually speed up map generation by a lot here.

Preface: I want to make as few choices as possible, so I want to hand over as much of the decision making to the map maker.

1) I'd suggest Global Highlands or Tectonics are fine.

2) Fewer changes are better, but the starts are always going to need closer scrutiny.

3) If the map maker decides that Totestra is not viable, then fair enough.

4) I would prefer it if a map maker abandoned using a map script if it required heavy editing for another map script that doesn't.

To add to Scooters good points above, and put cards on the table: after messing around with Totestra and struggling to find anything workable, we're currently discussing maps that are closer to '64 and '69.

I would also appreciate more guidance on edits re:
* Start balance
* Strategic resources
* Distance / moving start locations (I assume not?)
* Minor map changes (e.g. navigability changes re Icesheets, mountains, oceans)

Start balance: plains cow and 15 forests versus double wet wheat is obviously not acceptable. This is probably the one area where "Whatever is needed" would be a reasonable?

Strategic resources: I would suggest that using the balanced strategic resources option would be wise.

Moving start locations: No.

Minor map changes: less is more.

This game is specifically advertised as being in the vein of PB64 and PB69, so along those lines. Not super close, battle royal style, but please dont give us 200 tiles per player and 4 food resources either.

I think this matches up with Pin and Com.

I've just generated two dozen maps on this map script and the "200 tiles per player and 4 food resources" is not exactly hyperbole.

Ultimately Q, thank you for your effort but it seems quite obvious that your judgement is not the type that works well for this style of game.

[Qgqqqqq]

You know exactly how many tiles per person is on this map. You specifically said Tectonics is fine, this is a modified Tectonics to improve land quality.

You asked for closer scrutiny of the starts. It was provided. No lurker has suggested your start is too weak - in fact, quite the opposite.

To be quite frank, the fact that you're unhappy with being given what you asked for does not speak to my judgement. It speaks to yours.