[SPOILERS] Team Orgynized: Parkin/Arki/Magno embark on a kinky adventure

[WilliamLP]

I wonder how much rules bickering there will be before and during this game. The usual players on this site seem to have reached a mutual understanding of what is and isn't a jerk move, but I can see why people who haven't played much PB aren't comfortable with that. I remember how much arguing and delay there was over turn splits in the earlier PB games here. I can see both sides of it, the ones who want good faith and the ones who want explicit rules. I'm interested in the Civ part, not so much the lawyering part. Up to me, anything (even in peace time) that requires two turns and gets an advantage because another player can't react should be discouraged. This includes:

- Settler races, obviously.
- Attacking barb cities or other barb combat.
- Moving into borders to scout, immediately moving back to not let someone know you're scouting.
- Double moving a great merchant.
- Any attempt to disguise something by doing something immediately as the turn rolls, e.g. disguising a settlement score increase by making it look like a pop growth on CivStats.
- Double moving scouting units or workers for safety against rival units. (This one is really really grey.)

On the other hand, if I'm the only one playing this strictly, it puts me at a disadvantage. So I can't fault someone else for finding the limits of what fair play is, and these will change from person to person.

I'm choosing to lurk this thread partly because of how controversial Lord Parkin is. People seemed pretty raw about PB7 but from what I could see it seemed to be because you double moved and used the clock in a game where double moving was explicitly allowed? Maybe that's an oversimplification? And some people thought it was a more casual game than others. People also seemed upset that you pulled off a complete and utter strategic domination of PB4 with brilliant diplomatic moves and having more foresight about it than anyone else. I guess I just don't get the hate.

[Dp101]

I'm choosing to lurk this thread partly because of how controversial Lord Parkin is. People seemed pretty raw about PB7 but from what I could see it seemed to be because you double moved and used the clock in a game where double moving was explicitly allowed? Maybe that's an oversimplification? And some people thought it was a more casual game than others. People also seemed upset that you pulled off a complete and utter strategic domination of PB4 with brilliant diplomatic moves and having more foresight about it than anyone else. I guess I just don't get the hate.

Best description of Lord Parkin in pitboss ever.

[Lord Parkin]

I'm choosing to lurk this thread partly because of how controversial Lord Parkin is. People seemed pretty raw about PB7 but from what I could see it seemed to be because you double moved and used the clock in a game where double moving was explicitly allowed? Maybe that's an oversimplification? And some people thought it was a more casual game than others. People also seemed upset that you pulled off a complete and utter strategic domination of PB4 with brilliant diplomatic moves and having more foresight about it than anyone else. I guess I just don't get the hate.

Before Pitboss 7 I had played in a number of games which allowed double moves with no real issues. These were divided into two categories - quick matches and long-haul games. In quick matches I was always double moved far more often than I double moved anyone else, largely because I'm not the kind of gamer who can whiz the mouse around the screen and click in five places a second (I'm rather mediocre at RTS games for this reason). It was annoying, but it didn't particularly bother me because these games were short and I didn't have a lot invested in them. In the one or two long-haul games prior to Pitboss 7 which allowed double moves, I always had neighbours who didn't really care one way or the other about double moves, or just wanted them allowed so they could check in at a convenient time every day without being delayed by whoever else hadn't played. For this reason there was no need to check on the state of the game more than once or twice a day, and nobody particularly cared on the occasions that they were double moved.

The problem I had not forseen with Pitboss 7 was that for the first time in a long-haul game I would encounter a neighbour who was willing and able to double move not just for convenience but for benefits, just like myself. I had not properly thought out ahead of time what the ramifications of such a situation would be in a game people were heavily invested in. I had dealt with the consequences of double moves against me many times, but mostly in the context of fast-paced games I didn't care too much about. In a long-haul game though, a double move at the wrong time can quite literally be catastrophic and ruin weeks or even months worth of planning for a highly invested player. This, as I later realised, could lead to a situation of "critical resonance", where two determined players compete for the first and last move of the turn on a regular basis, both trying not to be the one to lose out to the long-term consequences of a double move. Unfortunately, in the case of my opponent and myself, neither of us were willing to back down from the game of "double move chicken", which ended up being a lose-lose for everyone (including ourselves).

It was not a fun situation to be stuck in, and I will never get involved in another long-haul game which allows double moves because of that game. I realised early on just how much of a toll the situation was taking on myself, my opponent and the game, and suggested several times that we go back to the standard format of turn halves during war. Not everyone wanted to change the double move rule though - which, whether for convenience or benefit, was fair enough - but a game can't work if some players are going by a double move rule and others aren't. All in all Pitboss 7 was a valuable, albeit painful, lesson in psychology. There was actually some really interesting play going on in that game, but most of it unfortunately got drowned out by the perpetual argument over the double move issue.

On the other hand, Pitboss 4 was a great experience - as with all the other dozens of "no double move" pitboss games I've been involved in. I'm sure this game will also be a blast. (Though I expect there may be a little more caution regarding NAP proposals this time around... )

[Arkipeller]

William: are you going to lurk our team?

[WilliamLP]

William: are you going to lurk our team?

Yes if you don't mind and that's ok! I'll be reading only this thread. I don't expect to take any substantial role here other than spamming the thread and commenting on things and asking questions though. So there's no need to include me in lists as a team member or anything like that. I'm really here for the ride and have my hands full in a couple of other PB games.

[Lord Parkin]

Onto one of the most important questions in the game... what shall we use as our naming system for cities and units? If we're going with an "Orgynized" theme, that does lend itself to rather a lot of ideas with varying degrees of tastefulness. Any thoughts on that, or alternative proposals? Any specific city/unit name suggestions or requests?

[plako]

Before Pitboss 7 I had played in a number of games which allowed double moves with no real issues. These were divided into two categories - quick matches and long-haul games. In quick matches I was always double moved far more often than I double moved anyone else, largely because I'm not the kind of gamer who can whiz the mouse around the screen and click in five places a second (I'm rather mediocre at RTS games for this reason). It was annoying, but it didn't particularly bother me because these games were short and I didn't have a lot invested in them. In the one or two long-haul games prior to Pitboss 7 which allowed double moves, I always had neighbours who didn't really care one way or the other about double moves, or just wanted them allowed so they could check in at a convenient time every day without being delayed by whoever else hadn't played. For this reason there was no need to check on the state of the game more than once or twice a day, and nobody particularly cared on the occasions that they were double moved.

The problem I had not forseen with Pitboss 7 was that for the first time in a long-haul game I would encounter a neighbour who was willing and able to double move not just for convenience but for benefits, just like myself. I had not properly thought out ahead of time what the ramifications of such a situation would be in a game people were heavily invested in. I had dealt with the consequences of double moves against me many times, but mostly in the context of fast-paced games I didn't care too much about. In a long-haul game though, a double move at the wrong time can quite literally be catastrophic and ruin weeks or even months worth of planning for a highly invested player. This, as I later realised, could lead to a situation of "critical resonance", where two determined players compete for the first and last move of the turn on a regular basis, both trying not to be the one to lose out to the long-term consequences of a double move. Unfortunately, in the case of my opponent and myself, neither of us were willing to back down from the game of "double move chicken", which ended up being a lose-lose for everyone (including ourselves).

It was not a fun situation to be stuck in, and I will never get involved in another long-haul game which allows double moves because of that game. I realised early on just how much of a toll the situation was taking on myself, my opponent and the game, and suggested several times that we go back to the standard format of turn halves during war. Not everyone wanted to change the double move rule though - which, whether for convenience or benefit, was fair enough - but a game can't work if some players are going by a double move rule and others aren't. All in all Pitboss 7 was a valuable, albeit painful, lesson in psychology. There was actually some really interesting play going on in that game, but most of it unfortunately got drowned out by the perpetual argument over the double move issue.

On the other hand, Pitboss 4 was a great experience - as with all the other dozens of "no double move" pitboss games I've been involved in. I'm sure this game will also be a blast. (Though I expect there may be a little more caution regarding NAP proposals this time around... )

You played a great game in PB4 and that is one of the reasons we're not playing much diplo games in this site anymore. However, I'm not sure why you want to bring PB7 up in that light. Your memory is quite selective. These things have been gone already in the PB7 threads, however here is my recollection of some of the things you bring up.

You were the main reason PB7 collapsed. Game was advertised as casual i.e. not hyper competitive one that you were playing. You were only one continuously playing both last and 1st. It meant that you were almost immune to double moves and could do them whenever needed. That was not the way the game was supposed to be played! There was no other player in the game playing like you and I don't remember any of your neighbors forcing you to play the way you did. TT and Azza were most of the time logging in just once per turn and played their session on 1 sitting. On the contrary, it feeled like you "forced" ASM to try your way of playing and got burned in the process.

In retrospect it was bad idea to suggest a game allowing double moves, but I think it could have worked better, if there would have been some balance between players getting double moved and making their own double moves. When there was a player that got the better of it in both accounts almost every turn it was not fair and finally soured up the game.

I think I'm not suitable admin for this game. I would naturally try my best to be impartial, but we've a too long history. It would be uncomfortable to both of us

[Magno_uy]

Onto one of the most important questions in the game... what shall we use as our naming system for cities and units? If we're going with an "Orgynized" theme, that does lend itself to rather a lot of ideas with varying degrees of tastefulness. Any thoughts on that, or alternative proposals? Any specific city/unit name suggestions or requests?

For cities is clear that should be female movies/music stars.

For units, I suggest name of male porn actors real or not....

[WilliamLP]

Onto one of the most important questions in the game... what shall we use as our naming system for cities and units? If we're going with an "Orgynized" theme, that does lend itself to rather a lot of ideas with varying degrees of tastefulness. Any thoughts on that, or alternative proposals? Any specific city/unit name suggestions or requests?

If it's a close race I vote we err on the side of less tasteful.

[Arkipeller]

William: are you going to lurk our team?

Yes if you don't mind and that's ok! I'll be reading only this thread. I don't expect to take any substantial role here other than spamming the thread and commenting on things and asking questions though. So there's no need to include me in lists as a team member or anything like that. I'm really here for the ride and have my hands full in a couple of other PB games.

Very nice