February 10th, 2016, 06:40
(This post was last modified: February 10th, 2016, 06:44 by Haram.)
Posts: 314
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2013
Sorry guys, but that is fucking enough for me.
(February 10th, 2016, 04:21)GermanJoey Wrote:  You know exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm really not in the mood to argue, so I'll just re-wardec Tsargon this turn just to lock the turn order and leave no room for ambiguity. Tsargon -> Me -> Haram.
No Joey, I don't know what you are talking about. I also don't know, why you fucking completly ignored opinions of TBS, Commodore, Brick and my declaration to play in line with them. Just because you want so, you forced 3-way turn split, where it could be 2-way.
Being completly frank - I just think, thet you're becomming mean and spitefull, when things doesn't go your way in-game.
I was playing my 1-hour turns, whithout any compromises, even thou I have a busy period in RL, but that's fucking enough for me. Please someone put the game on pause, I bump the replacement thread.
February 10th, 2016, 08:09
(This post was last modified: February 10th, 2016, 08:22 by GermanJoey.)
Posts: 5,648
Threads: 30
Joined: Mar 2014
If you're busy just ask for a damn pause if you need it. I am busy as well.
I absolutely will ignore the opinion of Commodore, first of all. Second, Brick stated that he did not know what the situation was. Third of all, I did follow the line of TBS. You, obviously we are at odds to begin with. I do not see what is so excruciating about you needing to follow a damn turn order on a goddamn shared front. This is a 9 player free for all game, you are not allies. Play your damn turn.
February 10th, 2016, 09:40
Posts: 8,293
Threads: 83
Joined: Oct 2009
Surely we can pause or increase the timer. War splits are expected in a Pitboss game.
February 10th, 2016, 13:35
Posts: 3,898
Threads: 26
Joined: Apr 2013
Quote:I do not see what is so excruciating about you needing to follow a damn turn order on a goddamn shared front.
Because it needlessly slows the game down with a 3-way split instead of a 2-way.
I realise there are some advantages to be gained by the two people you are at war following a fixed play order, but 1. It's not clear whether those advantages are deserved in the first place and 2. They're so small anyway that it's not worth delaying the game by increasing the turn split. I can't remember a game where someone complained about two war enemies not following a set order.
And I don't have full information of the war area but I don't see why the advantages would be bigger than normal.
February 10th, 2016, 16:04
Posts: 5,648
Threads: 30
Joined: Mar 2014
Is that a rhetorical question or do you want/expect me to post spoiler informoation in the tech thread?
February 10th, 2016, 16:07
Posts: 7,750
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2006
Perhaps we need to ask for a volunteer to fill Krill's shoes as game admin?
February 10th, 2016, 18:14
Posts: 2,744
Threads: 18
Joined: Feb 2013
(February 10th, 2016, 16:07)Dreylin Wrote: Perhaps we need to ask for a volunteer to fill Krill's shoes as game admin?
Looks that way.
February 11th, 2016, 05:47
Posts: 3,898
Threads: 26
Joined: Apr 2013
Don't post spoiler information in here obviously but it might be something to document in your own thread.
February 11th, 2016, 09:01
Posts: 15,377
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Hey guys.
I'm considering taking over for Haram, because in case it's not clear in here, he is 100% out. I am totally unspoiled for this game - I hadn't read anything about this game until I saw his post in CivGeneral yesterday morning and read his thread. I logged into his civ last night for a little bit and began the long process of figuring out the state of the game.
One thing that does need to be resolved before we move forward is what happens to the turn split in a 2v1 war. I realize that there is no longer a 2v1 war going on in-game so it's not technically an issue right now, but in a game at this stage - it's just inevitable that it'll happen again at some point. I'm hoping the idea can be discussed a little more calmly now that nobody is in a 2v1 war right now.
I was debating whether to post this in thread and risk derailing things again, but I've come to the conclusion I have no choice: I'm not willing to sub if standard procedure in a 2v1 war is to split that war into 3 segments (or 3v1 into 4, vice versa). I understand that there's some minor disadvantages to being on the short end of a 2v1 stick, but it's a sacrifice highly worth making to keep the game running smoothly. If turns get split into 3-4-5 part segments like was proposed in here recently, the game will die amazingly fast as people get frustrated or lose interest.
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick about it either, but in my experience, if the game slows down that much, people lose interest and start to drop out. I just don't see a point in subbing only to prolong this game a few weeks until the next round of multi-war drama. The source of the issue itself needs to be resolved for this to move forward. If the players in this game decide they want multi-wars to be split as many ways as there are players, that's fine and I'll remove myself from consideration. I'm just bringing this up here because I get the sense from this thread that the majority of you all want 2v1s to be split into just two segments, and if there's a way we can amicably get to it being a unanimous agreement, then I'd be happy to sub because I think this is an excellent game that deserves some more time.
February 11th, 2016, 09:17
(This post was last modified: February 11th, 2016, 09:18 by GermanJoey.)
Posts: 5,648
Threads: 30
Joined: Mar 2014
Sigh, I've posted about this repeatedly in my thread, with screenshots. I'm so tired of this. The issue wasn't about generic 2v1 turnsplits, it was something specific related to a specific shared front.
I sent you a PM, by the way.
|
