[SPOILERS] scooter's PB53

[Charriu]

I found city trading'interesting to be lurked. But I think it's better if those are only limited to peace negotiations and its more or less necessary that they are approved by lurkers.

[Sullla]

From the perspective of someone not playing in these games, I'm against the return to active city trading in diplomacy. We had all sorts of city trading hijinks in the early days of Realms Beyond MP and eventually banned the practice because it was making the games not fun to play. As in full diplomacy games, the diplomacy portion of the gameplay was overwhelming the Civilization portion of the gameplay and leading to nonsensical results like "I'm mad at player A so I will gift away all my cities to player B". Rather than trying to come up with subjective criteria for what's an abusive deal and what isn't an abusive deal, I think it's better to disable city trades completely. Cornflakes handing back all 3 conquered cities to TBS is not something that should be taking place.

[civac2]

I don't think that's actually a real problem. Appoint an arbiter for the game who decides. In most situations the evaluation of abusive/not abusive is completely obvious.

[Cyneheard]

I don't think that's actually a real problem. Appoint an arbiter for the game who decides. In most situations the evaluation of abusive/not abusive is completely obvious.

It's harder to implement in real time than you might think. Most players only have one time a day to play their turn. It will slow the game down considerably to get approval, and when it's close it's just going to lead to very hurt feelings.

And if running a 6-player game properly requires an arbiter on hand constantly, that's too much micromanagement.

I also think this conversation needs to move to the lurker thread if it's going to continue because it's really hard to talk about this game's actions openly here.

[Thoth]

As entertaining as this game has been to lurk, I don't like city gifting as an option. Too many ways for it to be abused and not everyone is going to agree on what is abuse and what is ok. Easier just to ban it and get on with playing civ.

[Hitru]

Yeah, agreed. I think it's banned for a reason in our standard setup. Now, of course, it can be allowed for some games but using arbiter etc feels too clumsy for me.

[BRickAstley]

I don't think that's actually a real problem. Appoint an arbiter for the game who decides. In most situations the evaluation of abusive/not abusive is completely obvious.

It's harder to implement in real time than you might think. Most players only have one time a day to play their turn. It will slow the game down considerably to get approval, and when it's close it's just going to lead to very hurt feelings.

And if running a 6-player game properly requires an arbiter on hand constantly, that's too much micromanagement.

I also think this conversation needs to move to the lurker thread if it's going to continue because it's really hard to talk about this game's actions openly here.

Also, who is going to be the arbiter? Who is going to take all the heat for making subjective decisions? It sounds like being a WW gamemaster but worse.

[Charriu]

I don't think that's actually a real problem. Appoint an arbiter for the game who decides. In most situations the evaluation of abusive/not abusive is completely obvious.

It's harder to implement in real time than you might think. Most players only have one time a day to play their turn. It will slow the game down considerably to get approval, and when it's close it's just going to lead to very hurt feelings.

And if running a 6-player game properly requires an arbiter on hand constantly, that's too much micromanagement.

I also think this conversation needs to move to the lurker thread if it's going to continue because it's really hard to talk about this game's actions openly here.

Also, who is going to be the arbiter? Who is going to take all the heat for making subjective decisions? It sounds like being a WW gamemaster but worse.

Great so BRick is doing the arbiter.

[scooter]

An arbiter sounds like an argument against city trading to me. It sounds nice in theory. Some trades are clearly made in bad faith or out of spite, and those are easy to block.


But we have an example in this very game of a gray area! I have no clue what I'd do if I was arbiter. I don't believe at all that Cornflakes gave those 3 cities back out of spite or bad faith. I think it was a rash decision based off tilt/panic. That said, I also am not sure it should have happened, and I would bet good money that the lurkers and players alike are split on it. I mean, I know what I would do as arbiter - stop being arbiter immediately.

[BRickAstley]

I mean, I know what I would do as arbiter - stop being arbiter immediately.

Preach.