PB27 Signup Thread

[BRickAstley]

Yeah, I was thinking if he can modify that code, set something for MP games which puts all city names in 'red' like in SP when an AI will not allow for them to be traded, which allows visibility but denies tradeability.

EDIT: Here's a Civ4 mod that adds diplomacy changes, and the download for it includes the C++ files he modified to create the new dll. That seems pretty helpful.

[BRickAstley]

So that's 23 confirmed, would like a decision from the elements of the OldFinHarryTours group if they'd be up for this game or not.

At least personally I would need to wait for PB18 to finish before deciding. I don't know if OH would be willing to play solo in any case?

Have/will you Brick be(en) responsible for randoming starts and combos? After the latest revelations of PB18 I'm afraid of GJ continuing his personal vendetta and prospect of committing for a long game that is directly designed for us to have a bad time is pretty discouraging.

Ok, I might go ahead and prepare to do the leader/civ rolling initial combos shortly, and just leave an additional combo aside in case one or both of you want to play here. Hopefully the PB18 stuff will be solved in a few days.

FWIW I've been collaborating with GJ on this map so far, and have detected no indication of him treating or intending to treat a specific player better or worse than the rest.

[BRickAstley]

Regarding game rules, applicable to diplo, city trades, etc- I think the best way to handle this is twofold:

First, make whatever rules there are as clear as possible, leaving little room open to interpretation. We have in the past operated under simply 'don't be a jerk' and 'just play legit like we always have at RB', but we have had enough new players being added to our forum, that I think it would be helpful to have a game with more specific rules that are easier to judge on and for players to know about. This won't represent a shift in the ideals of how we've played games here at RB, just an attempt to better codify things, even if that means they have to be more wordy.

Second, the rules need to be decided finally by a game admin with player input, instead of voted on completely democratically by the players. I think this is important to avoid partiality on players that really admire or dislike one another, it assigns responsibility for who's going to address rules issues, and it gives a definite reference point (something which is a problem with PB18 right now since there isn't a one agreed upon person who made rules at the start).

I'd going to be putting together a settings/rules post based on previous discussions in this thread, and appealing to what I think is proper for areas so far unaddressed. You can then offer input after I post them if you think something needs to be changed, which I will consider. I am also assuming the admin position, so if anybody does not want me to be the acting game admin, or has a different candidate in mind, speak now or forever hold your piece.

[AutomatedTeller]

I'm fine with any rule set. I don't much care.

[Commodore]

Regarding game rules, applicable to diplo, city trades, etc- I think the best way to handle this is twofold:

First, make whatever rules there are as clear as possible, leaving little room open to interpretation. We have in the past operated under simply 'don't be a jerk' and 'just play legit like we always have at RB', but we have had enough new players being added to our forum, that I think it would be helpful to have a game with more specific rules that are easier to judge on and for players to know about. This won't represent a shift in the ideals of how we've played games here at RB, just an attempt to better codify things, even if that means they have to be more wordy.

Second, the rules need to be decided finally by a game admin with player input, instead of voted on completely democratically by the players. I think this is important to avoid partiality on players that really admire or dislike one another, it assigns responsibility for who's going to address rules issues, and it gives a definite reference point (something which is a problem with PB18 right now since there isn't a one agreed upon person who made rules at the start).

I'd going to be putting together a settings/rules post based on previous discussions in this thread, and appealing to what I think is proper for areas so far unaddressed. You can then offer input after I post them if you think something needs to be changed, which I will consider. I am also assuming the admin position, so if anybody does not want me to be the acting game admin, or has a different candidate in mind, speak now or forever hold your piece.

From 18:

If anything, this really does point to the need for an admin, one who writes the rules and then watches for them, particularly on such a huge game.

ALL HAIL KING BRICK

[Grimace]

Well, we already know he's never gonna give us up or let us down, run around and desert us, make us cry or say goodbye, so I am wholly in favor of this.

[HitAnyKey]

My 2c:
I'm fine with cities being part of peace treaties, but the blanket ban is fine for a game this size.
Unit gifts are fine, IMO.
No issue with (non-spelling) trade offers for some kind of arcane signals, those fail hard more than they succeed. Just don't signal with cities.

Personally I'd prefer the arcane signals thing to also be banned. Two-fold....I don't like trying to decipher weird diplo screens with horses & gold & other resources being listed on various sides of the diplo window trying to say something to me. And I don't like the idea of having to try to send the same sorts of messages to other people, or be negatively impacted because others have mastered this odd way of "communicating without words".

[Fintourist]

I haven't talked with OH yet, but I'm leaning towards withdrawing from the game.

In my current state of mind (because of PB18 controversy) I don't see myself playing another game of civ here or anywhere else. Also my RL schedule makes playing already difficult. Aaand as I'm a very competitive person my tolerance for what I consider unsporting or unfair is really low --> The feeling of getting screwed creates more harmed feelings than enjoyment and that is something I currently link with a PB.

I recognize the fact that statements written at the moment don't necessarily represent my views when the dust has settled, but in any case it's not OK from me to let you guys wait, so feel free to get a replacement and if I miss a game it's my own fault. Please give OH a chance to claim the spot in case he wants though.

Apologizes for various things.

[Krill]

I am happy with brick as overlord seer and executioner.

[Molach]

We'd hardly need any rule beside double-move one if we just choose the "always war" setting....

I'll vassalize to BRick for rules/settings discussion.

Please no huts, maybe barbs