(December 8th, 2020, 06:26)The Black Sword Wrote: Forcing a logout at EOT so a player can't see the turn roll is equivalent to saying you can't log in outside your turnsplit. As Harry notes in the OP(rule 5) this is not a generally agreed rule. I think I used to PM people at the start of the turnsplit to mutually agree whether we would play 'Look but don't touch', or strictly staying out of the game outside of our turnsplit. Everyone was happy with 'Look but don't touch' though so I stopped bothering.
Personally, I prefer 'Look but don't touch' and consider it good for the turnpace and general game enjoyment. I like being able to log in to my civ, look at my cities, and make plans. And if I have plans already made when my turnsplit comes around I'll be able to play quicker. But it's not a big deal either way IMO.
If we're changing this setup we should be clear about that, and we also shouldn't get angry at people for breaking a rule that was not agreed upon.
That is a good reason against my fix.
I also prefer the "look but don't touch" agreement, and have not had any issues in past games (PB9 and PB43 asked, PB49 just assumed and had no complaints, I don't think it came up in PB53 since all my wars were very short-term).
(December 5th, 2020, 18:10)Serdoa Wrote: While writing about this: Does the rule "don't be a dick" also entail not to declare war when you are actually the defender? Who decides if it does or not?
SD - what was the occasion you did this? I don't recall.
Ive done it in at least 2 semi-recent pb's. As i already saw the units coming and preemptively declared war to just get it set in stone/over with. I didnt attempt to take the 2nd half as the defender unless i was on that half when i declared.
Lets see here, spoilers for anyone involved in any ongoing pb's if it matters:
PB54 i declared vs Mjmd as the defender as i saw his stack approaching/ready to attack. PB55 i declared on the Lewwyn/gaspar team when i saw they were about to attack my horse city.
"Superdeath seems to have acquired a rep for aggression somehow. In this game that's going to help us because he's going to go to the negotiating table with twitchy eyes and slightly too wide a grin and terrify the neighbors into favorable border agreements, one-sided tech deals and staggered NAPs."
-Old Harry. PB48.
(December 8th, 2020, 06:33)The Black Sword Wrote: Also, I agree that I don't remember having any significant turn split issues in my games before PB53. That said, I still think Cornflakes suggestion would probably be an improvement:
Quote:#1 could be negated by allowing the 1st in turn order an opportunity to log back in, swap build queues to units, and adjust build queues after a DoW, and whip as desired (but not move any units). Turn order between 1st and 2nd mover would be preserved, but 1st in turn order is compensated with that additional round of whip response that is otherwise lost.
Ramk confirmed that it is possible via DLL to implement un-ending a player's turn after DoW in order to prevent turn rolling. This could be combined with setting all units of the DoW target to 0 remaining movement points in order to ensure nothing gets moved on the log-back-in. This would result in:
- T0: A plays first and ends turn
- T0: B declares war 2nd ... All A's units get set to 0 MP and A's turn is un-ended
- T0: A logs back in to whip and/or change units builds
- T1: A plays first (and continues 1st in turn order from then onward)
- T1: B plays 2nd (and continues 2nd in turn order from then onward)
***************************
The other big advantage of moving 2nd is the ability to disconnect resources, and continue pillaging them each turn.
@Charriu, is it possible to tie the resource-check for each player to their "end turn" event rather than the turn roll? In this way, the production can all be processed simultaneously at the turn roll, but players have the ability to actually use resources that are connected when they actually play their turn.
I instinctively hate this idea but I can't figure out why. Is it likely to slow the game down? Perhaps it's just that I think more complex changes like this increase the barrier to entry and make it harder to entice new players.
Do we also get
- T1: A logs back in to whip and/or change units builds
Just before T2 starts, or is this only for the turn war is declared?
(December 8th, 2020, 12:45)superdeath Wrote:
(December 8th, 2020, 03:20)Old Harry Wrote:
(December 5th, 2020, 18:10)Serdoa Wrote: While writing about this: Does the rule "don't be a dick" also entail not to declare war when you are actually the defender? Who decides if it does or not?
SD - what was the occasion you did this? I don't recall.
Ive done it in at least 2 semi-recent pb's. As i already saw the units coming and preemptively declared war to just get it set in stone/over with. I didnt attempt to take the 2nd half as the defender unless i was on that half when i declared.
Lets see here, spoilers for anyone involved in any ongoing pb's if it matters:
PB54 i declared vs Mjmd as the defender as i saw his stack approaching/ready to attack. PB55 i declared on the Lewwyn/gaspar team when i saw they were about to attack my horse city.
Cool, so I make that a grand total of no instances discovered so far.
(December 8th, 2020, 11:23)Cornflakes Wrote: @Charriu, is it possible to tie the resource-check for each player to their "end turn" event rather than the turn roll? In this way, the production can all be processed simultaneously at the turn roll, but players have the ability to actually use resources that are connected when they actually play their turn.
The way the code is structured would make this very hard and I would have to change a lot of stuff to get it work. I would not want to dare that if it isn't absolutely necessary.
Quote:Do we also get
- T1: A logs back in to whip and/or change units builds
Just before T2 starts, or is this only for the turn war is declared?
Whoever has the 2nd turnsplit gets 2 moves before their opponent's new production gets processed at the start of the war in our current rules. This isn't the case if you play sequential or are in the 1st turnsplit - you only get 1 move before they can change and process production.
So this new rule would only be on the turn war is declared, to deal with that issue.
Regarding slowing the game down, the person getting declared on can very likely play a double-turn on the turnroll, so it shouldn't have much affect there.
(December 8th, 2020, 11:23)Cornflakes Wrote: @Charriu, is it possible to tie the resource-check for each player to their "end turn" event rather than the turn roll? In this way, the production can all be processed simultaneously at the turn roll, but players have the ability to actually use resources that are connected when they actually play their turn.
The way the code is structured would make this very hard and I would have to change a lot of stuff to get it work. I would not want to dare that if it isn't absolutely necessary.
(December 5th, 2020, 18:10)Serdoa Wrote: While writing about this: Does the rule "don't be a dick" also entail not to declare war when you are actually the defender? Who decides if it does or not?
SD - what was the occasion you did this? I don't recall.
Ive done it in at least 2 semi-recent pb's. As i already saw the units coming and preemptively declared war to just get it set in stone/over with. I didnt attempt to take the 2nd half as the defender unless i was on that half when i declared.
Cool, so I make that a grand total of no instances discovered so far.
Fine, but I think you are wrong about this Harry. Understand please, that we should not wait on these issues till it is too late. Can we be certain that when these arise those involved would be level-headed and settle disputes neutrally? Knowing how invested everyone becomes in these games I doubt it. You should know that too. Or maybe you have a better idea except "Lets wait till shit hits the fan"? Unfortunately if so I can't find it.
But that is not the topic I wanted to discuss in this post. Instead I would like to talk about double-moves:
In PB58 a double-move happened and I requested a reload. The lurkers discussed half a day and came to no conclusion apart from discussing why the current rules should be changed or even stating stuff that shows a tremendous lack of any understanding of the rules. To quote:
Quote:So this is unfair on you because you spotted Ruffs settler and you played assuming that the turn split had been established. But reloading would be unfair on ruff because he can't see your settler and he played a double turn to keep the clock moving
I've made a very long and detailed post about why that whole line is foolish which you can find at the end in spoilers, so that the players of PB58 can read it as well. In gist: Reloading to rectify a double-move can never be unfair as a double-move is never fair. For the quoted argument to make sense you would have to believe that there are "fair" double-moves, as in one player not being able to react while his opponent is taking two moves in a row is fair and equal to both sides. Which is of course illogical hence why no one would claim that.
I did also propose a re-wording of the rules to make them easier understandable and to follow but I assume not everyone reads my spoiler-thread so this is the short of it:
1) We all agree double-moves are bad, but are necessary for turn pace. This thread and countless discussions here and in other forums are prove to that.
2) If a double move would impact the game we elected to put a turn order in place to prevent that. (rule 3 and 6)
3) The turn order is decided on the turn before war is declared or the turn you realize that a turn split should happen. (rule 3 and 6)
4) There is no requirement to inform the other party about the turn-split in the rules.
Apparently all that is still not enough to decide an issue as straightforward as
A = Player A
B = Player B
-> = moves before
T0: A (realized turn order should be established due to settling race) -> B
T1: B (did not realize turn order should be followed) -> A
I've stated it in my thread and I state it here again: I don't understand why there is even a discussion if a reload should happen or not. If you go by the etiquette-rules every condition was fulfilled, as in
a) Are they in a situation in which a turn order should be established? -> Yes
b) Did that situation get noticed on the turn before the double-move? -> Yes
Therefore that turn is the one the turn order is established. Everything else that was discussed just shows that even people like Harry - who wrote the rules himself - are not able to apply them to a real-game situation. Similar to PB53 this game was on the brink of ending on a sour note due to this inability to even settle such an obvious issue. That scenario could be prevented only because I did what I should not have to do: Write in the tech-thread what the issue is (as cryptically as possible) and lo and behold the other player involved - having less information than the lurkers - needed just a few moments to come to the same conclusion I did and agree to the reload.
Now, why I am writing all this? Because I believe if we are at the point that lurkers are unable to even rule the slightest of issues and are basically only able to agree on reload-requests if someone mis-moved his units these rules have no worth. I therefore propose to get rid of the rules regarding turn-splits (3 and 6) and simply use this one:
Double-moves are allowed for the sake of speed in each and every case in which the double-move would, had it not happened as a double-move, not lead to any other outcome. However, if a double-move is played that leads to an advantage for the offending party that it would not have had without the double-move, the negatively affected party has the right to request a reload in order to establish a turn-order. This turn order is established in accordance to the order of the turn that was played before the double-move.
E.g.: If party (A) played last on T-1 and first on T0 gaining an advantage over party (B) that is directly dependent on being able to double-move, the turn is reloaded in such a way that party (B) is able to play first on T0.
Having slept about this thing a night did help to clear up a few things in my mind, so lets put them down in writing:
1) Ruff is unfairly treated if he is not allowed to double-move
This argument lacks any kind of substance. It is factually wrong as it is based around looking at the outcome of an event instead of at the event itself. To give a real life example, it would be similar to: He gained 100k $ by robbing a bank, but now that he has that money it would be unfair to take it away from him.
Another example within the game would be: He double-moved to get into position and attack a city before the other side could react, but now that he has, taking that away from him would be unfair and disadvantage him.
I believe we all agree, that in all these situations the only course of action to rectify it is to return to the state before the action happened.
2) Ruff could not know that there was a settling race / that he could be prevented from settling, so he should not have to abstain from double-moves
That is again a twisted argument akin to 1) as it quietly adds the condition that him double-moving is ok as long as he doesn't know that it affects the game. But in actuality the opposite is true: Double-moves are ok as long as they do not affect the game but not if they do. Your knowledge or lack thereof does not matter. ¹
This would be a different case if the one double-moving would be punished - beyond not being allowed to double-move see 1). Basically if we would agree that someone double-moving has to pay every player 20 gold as additional punishment in order to deter that behavior. In that case it would be unfair to punish him if he didn't know he was doing something wrong (albeit that is how our laws work, in order to deter wrongful behavior; else everyone would get a free pass to do everything wrong once).
This argument also tries to move the goalposts. No longer is the question if the double-move gave one side an advantage, the question suddenly is moved to "but did that side know it would gain an advantage?".
3) Serdoa should have told Ruff that they were in a settling race / turn split. Ruff should not be punished for Serdoa not doing that.
This argument is similar to 2) but also puts the blame on the victim. See ¹ for why double-moves that affect the game need to be corrected. See ² for why I was not required to tell him.
As for the "punished" part, see 1).
4) Conclusion
I think the rules are actually pretty clear on how to handle a situation like this. Apparently though that is not the case for everyone, so I believe it would benefit us to have a bigger discussion about the actual intention of these rules and write that down, similar to how laws come with a rationale of the legislative branch so that in the case of ambiguities one can refer back to those.
I believe the overarching goal is to allow double-moves for the sake of speed in each and every case in which the double-move would, had it not happened as a double-move, not lead to any other outcome. However, if a double-move is played that leads to an advantage for the offending party, the negatively affected party has the right to request a reload in order to establish a turn-order. This turn order is established in accordance to the order of the turn that was played before the double-move. E.g.: If party (A) played last on T-1 and first on T0 gaining an advantage over party (B) that is directly dependent on being able to double-move, the turn is reloaded in such a way that party (B) is able to play first on T0.
This does not cover cases in which party (B) does not even realize that a double-move led to it being disadvantaged, for example if party (A) moved a scout next to a Chariot of party (B) and then (A) moved the scout immediately away the next turn, denying (B) the possibility to kill the scout. I don't think there is anything that can be done in these cases though.
5) Closing statement
In general I have to say that I'm unhappy that some people in my opinion argue fairly unfaithful when discussing these rules. If they use these rhetorical tricks unknowingly or knowingly I do not know. Though I will say, if someone already apologizes or makes restrictive statements it shows to me that they most likely do know already that what they state is questionable. Maybe if you can't argue neutrally just ... don't at all? These discussions should never be a popularity contest, but be decided on the overall merit of the argument. In real-life terms: If Mark Zuckerberg is in a car-accident with a factory worker because that factory worker did drive to fast, Zuckerberg should not be the one being punished just because he has money and can "afford" paying for two new cars.
¹ We all agreed that simultaneous turns can lead to situations which clearly favor one player over the other, something we came to call "double-move". If no rules against these double-moves are in place players will play clock-games, with those having the most time running the clock till the absolute end to make certain no one can double-move them. We do not want that and we also don't want to play slower sequential, so we agreed on rules that - condensed in one sentence - state:
"Don't double-move to get an advantage."
This was meant to prevent situations that can lead to players being pricks with double-moves - but also to prevent clock-games. But it requires that if a double-move happens that matters (-> turn order in a settling race, war) because no turn order was established beforehand we reload and establish it then. If that does not happen then it means players are again incentivized to play clock-games, as else they can get double-moved and as long as the other party feigns ignorance or was really oblivious to the situation the double-moved player would get no recourse.²
² The counter-argument against ¹ is rule 6. which states
"In a peace-time turn split (eg a settling or hut-popping race) the turn you realise there should be a split is when the order is established."
There are two important parts that should be noted here
1) This rule (and no other either) does not require you to tell the other party involved. There might or might not be reasons for that, but that is besides the point.
2) This rule does not state that the turn-split is only established for YOU but that it is established. As there need to be at least two parties for a turn-split that of course means that both parties are in a turn-split.
And yes, that can lead to one party being unknowingly in a turn-split. In this game I had several times already the situation that I did play last one turn and did - by choice - not play immediately the new turn, because I was obviously in a race / potential war situation with someone else. Heck, I even employed that rule when my scout could get attacked by another player because denying him that by double-moving would give me an unfair advantage.
Other players did so as well by the way, so it hardly seems as if I'm the only one acting according to this rule.
This rule exists for one reason: To prevent discussions about WHEN the turn split should have started.
That is all this rule is meant to do. Make it abundantly clear for everyone before the game even has started how these situations will be resolved, so that there is no need to argue about who moved first 20 turns ago. It actually should have prevented posts like this by Cornflakes:
Quote:
Where do you look for the turn split to be active? Do Ruff get precedence because he happened to play before you this turn when he didn’t know you had a settler headed for that spot? Do you get precedence because you happened to play before Ruff on the previous turn when you didn’t know he had a settler headed for that spot? Does Ruff get precedence because he happened to play before you 2 turns before that? ... ... ... where does one draw line?
You draw the line at the point that one party realized they were in a settling race. At that point the turn order is established. As I realized it T110 that is the turn a turn order is established and that means "Serdoa first, Ruff second".
Part of the discussion in the lurker thread was that just establishing who was first when it is known favors the person who has more free time and availability to play. If you have a settler going somewhere a person with more time can simple always make sure to log in at turn roll and be favored.
As you know I'm fairly new to the scene here, but I've been involved in two settling races and ended up in second half of the turn order in both of them just because I can't always play at turn roll. Should settling races just favor people that have more availability?
Hi Serdoa, I'm having trouble reading your posts because they feel like you're attacking me for something. Is that the case or is something being lost in translation?
I've tried in this thread to do the exact thing that you're accusing me of not doing - codifying the general consensus so that we stop issues from occurring before they do. I have opinions about all these things, but I'm not the arbiter. I'd like to have a level-headed discussion about things and see what everyone (who chips in) thinks and then change the first post to reflect whatever gets agreed.
If you said anything after calling me foolish I didn't read it so I can't reply to it.
![[Image: noidea.gif]](https://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/images/smilies/noidea.gif)
In this game that's going to help us because he's going to go to the negotiating table with twitchy eyes and slightly too wide a grin and terrify the neighbors into favorable border agreements, one-sided tech deals and staggered NAPs."
