EitB XXXVIII Setup and Tech Thread

[Yell0w]

Whoops, not prisoners dilemma. I cant remember the term for it, but basically: In a game with 3 teams, it will inevitably devolve to a 2v1 with every player wanting to be on the 2, because of all the advantages inherent in it. This has several big ramifications - no one wants to be the first to attack, because then the player they haven't attacked can choose which of the warring parties to support, making that side the 2v1. Thus it can have a great pacifying effect, and make the gameplay more dull.

You interested in this, Yell0w?

Depending on when this is supposed to start, and depending on my involvement in EitB 31, yeah.
I can't play 4 PBEM's and 1 PitBoss though

[Kredom]

Iam waiting for 31 to end too

[Bobchillingworth]

You might be waiting a while, Kredom- that game regularly goes days without a turn passing, due to various logistical issues. But TBS, Ref and I will all play before your next set, if the game even lasts that long.

[Kredom]

Ok

[Tasunke]

Well count me in. Is this EitB v9 or EitB v10?

(I would propose v9 due to potential balance issues w/ v10)

[Bobchillingworth]

I'll likely pair with Qg. Don't care whether the game is 2v2v2 or a 3v3 duel. The issue w/ three factions Q brought up can be largely resolved by banning diplomacy and running the game as Always War.


@ Tasunke- are you sure you can commit to a turn-a-day PBEM, which will run for months?

[Aurorarcher]

I'd suggest making pairs/teams random so that you cannot choose your teammates. That way they game could be probably more fair to us newer PBEM players.

[Qgqqqqq]

Well count me in. Is this EitB v9 or EitB v10?

(I would propose v9 due to potential balance issues w/ v10)

I would provide a bugfix if we start a new game on v10. What balance issues do you see beyond the actual bugs I have found (and fixed)?
Edit: Actually, if I bite the bullet and edit the .dll for v11 it might be best to go with that, as fixing the tower teams issue is something that would be very useful for this game.


I think we should definitely make some attempt at balancing the teams (although I've actually played less FFH MP then Kredom, let alone Yell0w), but I don't think they should be random. The primary reason for that is simply a logistical one, as each player in a team wants to be in quite similar timezones and/or playtimes for both chatting/discussing the game and playing it. Also, in the past (Pitboss 6) we've had some team cohesion issues, which is why this board normally runs on self selection.
Personally, I'd prefer to pair with Bob, but if that isn't possibly I don't mind going with someone else.

[Aurorarcher]

Oh yea, forgot timezones/playtimes, those should obviously be quite similar (it's not a must imo though). Finding balanced teams would just be more fun than a complete rape against newer MP players (like me)! I'm fine to pair with anyone though because I'm not very familiar who is experienced and who isn't.

[Mardoc]

In my experience, if you have too much skill disparity inside a team, it doesn't work that well. Especially if you aren't already friends. Either the better player basically ends up playing both civs (possibly by way of detailed directions every turn), or the better player gives up on caring.

The best team is one of similar skill, so you can both contribute. You still do better than either of you alone, because you know different things. But it's fun, where just taking/giving orders isn't really.

If you're still worried about a romp instead of a game, probably the better thing to do is split into a vets/green game, not try to balance teams.