[NO PLAYERS] The Kibitzer Klub: PB13 Map & Lurkers

[BRickAstley]

At this point this thread is getting ridiculous.

Let's not completely tear people down over discussing what's allowable and not allowable in a game where you aren't playing right now, especially those of you who weren't ever players for a game. When you sign up for a game, you discuss with the other players what you want fair and agreed upon rules to be, and then play with those. And if you don;t agree, you either compromise or don't play. That seems a whole lot simpler and less toxic than this complete tearing apart of other people here, that's what would kill the community more easily than just having separate views on rules.

BGN asked me to verify that that is him posting as Brick, and it is. I think that playing as a smurf in a real game here is bad for (other reasons already discussed), but these other accounts being used for posting humorously aren't quite as bad. Please keep in mind why this site is here though, to play and talk about games we all enjoy to play and talk about, not just for the sort of spot humor that's better served to find up on reddit or something. If that becomes to prevalent/disruptive than it probably should be toned down a little bit too.

Can we maybe steer this thread back to directly talking about PB13 instead of all these harmful rabbit trails?

[Bacchus]

I think I'm going to remove city trading, multiple whips and pillaging your own land from the mod.

I think this at least needs to be discussed in CivGeneral, rather than in a lurker thread, perhaps someone unbiased can summarize the two positions and let people express themselves in a poll. That way we'd at least get some sense of whether there is a real dispute, or it's a case of a few guys successfully holding the community hostage to their wronged sense of sportsmanship. Probably not a good precedent, next up someone would say airships are unsporting because there's no counter, or building wonders you don't need for denial is a jerk move.

EDIT: And this.

When you sign up for a game, you discuss with the other players what you want fair and agreed upon rules to be, and then play with those.

[Bobchillingworth]

Boldy, I'm just a mod, not an admin. Why you think that's relevant is beyond me, since I've been using my totally radical powers to ban spambots, not stifle dissent.


I'm also not "Barry Lyndon". I don't know what he has written in his PB18 thread to give you that impression, since I simply don't have the patience to lurk a game with 30+ threads which individually take forever to load, but Barry is dedlurking a player in a FFH game where I assisted with the map design & have posted in several spoiler threads, which would be an unacceptable conflict of interest. And again, I'm not sure why you care anyway. I guess my post really struck a nerve or something, so now you're coming after me on character grounds? Totally lame, bro.


Anyway, as to your poorly-formatted responses to my post, it seems you decided to respond to what you saw as a snide rant with your own series of insults. Whatever. I meant exactly what I wrote & I stand by every word of it. If we have incompatible visions of what constitutes fair play, and you totally hate my guts now and are going to take all your toys home and never ever play BTS with me, that's fine. Nothing of value will be lost.


Play the games you want to play, with the people you want to play with. Nobody is stopping you. I'll continue to speak my mind, and you can feel free to disagree or not care. Maybe try playing in a FFH PBEM, where every war doesn't spark a massive moral dilemma.


I hope you have a great day

[Krill]

I think I'm going to remove city trading, multiple whips and pillaging your own land from the mod.

I think this at least needs to be discussed in CivGeneral, rather than in a lurker thread, perhaps someone unbiased can summarize the two positions and let people express themselves in a poll. That way we'd at least get some sense of whether there is a real dispute, or it's a case of a few guys successfully holding the community hostage to their wronged sense of sportsmanship. Probably not a good precedent, next up someone would say airships are unsporting because there's no counter, or building wonders you don't need for denial is a jerk move.

EDIT: And this.

When you sign up for a game, you discuss with the other players what you want fair and agreed upon rules to be, and then play with those.

I'm doing it because that's what I think is best in terms of gameplay, not because of some sense of sportsmanship. This isn't the first time someone has spite whipped; frankly I don't hold that against you, or the tile pillaging, there are no rules against it so it's fair play. But you have highlighted a good point, when it's compared to other players such as what Nakor have done, and that is the vast difference in the quality of earnings from war depending on your opponent. Whipping down cities to get units, fine, but pillaging cottages introduces an unfortunate situation where there are not enough turns to regrow population and the cottages, essentially forcing civics back to favouring State Property. It's the most effective way to make newly conquered land productive.

The city "gifting" is simply a problem that will never be solved because of the tactical effects of the trades. The issues with unit teleportation alone are enough reason to remove it really. In fact this isn't even the most hard line option, but I don't see a solution other than the complete removal of peace treaties that actually solves the issue of city trades. Players can simply move out units from a city and let a preferred player capture their land for example.

[Bobchillingworth]

Removing city gifting might be an issue if people want to play a team game with RB Mod. Otherwise I think it's a good change.



Maybe make the rest of the changes optional settings, like players can check a box if they want to allow self-pillaging? I'm not sure if that's even possible, I know nothing of modding.

[pindicator]

There's a loophole to get around pillaging your own cottages: workers can just build another improvement over them. Although that certainly is costlier to do some it takes multiple worker turns

[Krill]

There's a loophole to get around pillaging your own cottages: workers can just build another improvement over them. Although that certainly is costlier to do some it takes multiple worker turns

Yeah, but frankly that's not one you are ever going to get around anyway short of making Towns permanent. Saying that, there is a bPermanent tag in the XML which probably does just that.

[Bacchus]

Whipping down cities to get units, fine, but pillaging cottages introduces an unfortunate situation where there are not enough turns to regrow population and the cottages, essentially forcing civics back to favouring State Property. It's the most effective way to make newly conquered land productive.

Well, that's really nothing new — State Property has always been meant as the late-game war and distant expansion civic, IIURC. If the (new) environmentalism was in its original column, supposedly it would let people choose between farms and workshops, and correspondingly the civics. Maybe Mercantilism can take Enviromentalism's current place in the legal column? It would be a nice post-expansion 'peace' civic, much like nationhood is a pre-expansion one, and bureau is the no-expansion one.

The city trading I have no objections against, peace deals with transfer of cities are rare enough, and there is just no good use for it outside of peace settlements.

[Ilios]

Kind of sad that the RB community is beginning to Balkanize, but I guess self-indulgent invitational games are the wave of the future if you're such a prima donna that you aren't willing to play with someone because they're too frustrating to conquer.

I don't see why this is an issue. Get a group of players with about the same skill level and attitudes towards the game, and go have fun. And Balkanization is not a word I would have used here. People haven't been asking me yet to which RB clan I belong.

[darrelljs]

If people can't agree over what is and is not abuse of the system, which this thread is a pretty good indicator that the community can't, then removing them completely is going to be the best option. Minor value is not worth the cost.

No, because you are basically dictating morality.

Darrell