October 17th, 2009, 23:18
Posts: 5,641
Threads: 30
Joined: Apr 2009
Speaker: Last time, each player got to use their first pick on whichever half they wanted.
So the first 4 picks were Willem (Fin/Cre), Zara Yakob (Cre/Org), India (Fast Worker/UB's Not The Point), Inca (Quechua/Terrace).
Regardless of whether civ-first, or leader-first, or Pick What You Want would be fairer, I'm not sure it would be fair to change that at this point, since votes for one or the other would be strongly dependent on what order you are, especially for 1-3 and 8-10.
October 17th, 2009, 23:41
Posts: 1,927
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2008
Cyneheard Wrote:1. Athlete
:2dance:
Just a thought:
Would I be allowed to offer to swap spaces with somebody for some type of in game arrangement if I wanted to? Like a lump sum of gold?
As well I've been under the assumption the that people could choose either civ or leader first depending on what they wanted (as per rbpb1). Would that be correct here?
October 17th, 2009, 23:51
Posts: 855
Threads: 26
Joined: Jul 2006
Welcome back Zeviz!
Iamjohn and I are discussing whether we want to expand to a team of three.
October 18th, 2009, 02:11
(This post was last modified: October 18th, 2009, 02:42 by Mortius.)
Posts: 493
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2007
athlete4life10 Wrote:Just a thought:
Would I be allowed to offer to swap spaces with somebody for some type of in game arrangement if I wanted to? Like a lump sum of gold?
I don't think so. We didn't agree on that before and it wouldn't be fair to change rules now, when the order is known. And most of all I don't think the first position in a random snake is very beneficial. Personally I would prefer to be last than first 
athlete4life10 Wrote:As well I've been under the assumption the that people could choose either civ or leader first depending on what they wanted (as per rbpb1). Would that be correct here?
Yeap, it's correct. So, what's your choice?
October 18th, 2009, 03:22
Posts: 232
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2009
Wait, didn't sunrise want to ask about full espinonage/no spies/something else?
October 18th, 2009, 03:44
Posts: 6,490
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
@Speaker - Last time we allowed players to choose a civ or a leader. Unlike ladder games, civs are probably less important than leaders over the course of a game, so I don't think we should force a certain format.
@athlete - More discussion is welcome, but my personal feelings are that people should be able to trade their spots if they want. Snake Pick is reasonably balanced, but if someone really wants first pick, and you don't care for it as much, why not allow them to compensate you. Lets let a few more people weigh in, and if necessary we can take a vote by team.
@Mortius - Actually, I'd rather Athlete not pick quite yet. I wanted the order published so he could think about what he will take, but I'd like to get an official ruling by a mapmaker that they don't want us to wait for them. I assume they don't, but lets make sure.
@LiPing - Yes, you're right. I lost my piece of scrap paper with my various polls.
Last-Minute Poll 19: Espionage
*No restrictions
*Passive espionage only (spies allowed but no spy missions)
*No spies
*Espionage disabled
October 18th, 2009, 04:58
Posts: 493
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2007
sunrise089 Wrote:More discussion is welcome, but my personal feelings are that people should be able to trade their spots if they want. Snake Pick is reasonably balanced, but if someone really wants first pick, and you don't care for it as much, why not allow them to compensate you. Lets let a few more people weigh in, and if necessary we can take a vote by team.
My personal feelings are that this typy of discussion should be taken before we knew the picking order. Now, when we know who is first and who is last changing something and introducing new rules concerning picking order doesn't seem fair.
October 18th, 2009, 05:22
(This post was last modified: October 18th, 2009, 05:41 by LiPing.)
Posts: 232
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2009
Poll 19 - Thinking about it
Poll 20 (Changing of spots)
I think, it shouldn't be allowed, in addition to agreeing with Mortius' point, we already have 'no contact before ingame contact', and I feel that having an agreement to give something in-game in exchange for pick order, to me doesn't fit with that, because it is a pre-game deal.
October 18th, 2009, 05:25
Posts: 8,293
Threads: 83
Joined: Oct 2009
Let's not make this even more complicated, just roll on without trading spots.
October 18th, 2009, 05:51
Posts: 1,927
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2008
Jowy Wrote:Let's not make this even more complicated, just roll on without trading spots.
agreed, I don't want to haggle.
|
