 |
| |
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
First off, let me say that I am indeed still working on my DARs for 504, and will get them up,hopefully soon.
Otherwise... ummm, could this forum be more dead?? 
My suggestion: The hands-down, no-question-about-it, unbelievably-most-active forum is... PBEMs. I am still blown away by how quickly posts go there.
So, let's co-opt that activity. The latest game I look to be joining will hopefully be with the AU Mod, anyway.
Having done 1-on-1 PBEMs for 601, let's move on to 602, and run all-human PBEMs!! 
Course objectives?
Number of players per game?
Civ choices?
Tournament format?
Invitations? (e.g., CFC, Ladder, RBC, etc.)
Last edited by Theseus on 01-11-2004 at 06:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
My suggestion: The hands-down, no-question-about-it, unbelievably-most-active forum is... PBEMs. I am still blown away by how quickly posts go there. |
Agreed on all counts.
quote:
So, let's co-opt that activity. The latest game I look to be joining will hopefully be with the AU Mod, anyway.
Having done 1-on-1 PBEMs for 601, let's move on to 602, and run all-human PBEMs!!
Course objectives? |
I don't know.
quote:
Number of players per game? |
I would vote 4.
Uh, Portugal, Hitties, Spain, Vikings.
Whatever.
quote:
Invitations? (e.g., CFC, Ladder, RBC, etc.) |
Sure, why not? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The pirate
|
|
oh no...
If i'm struggling to find time to play a SP game, sure cant commit to an PBEM game.
Make sure those DARs are up to date for some AU by proxy...
Still. Theres plenty of older courses to get through.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
 |
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:20
|
|
I'm with Theseus. I rarely play SP these days, and if I do it's usually to decide what civ to pick for a new PBEM game (I think I was the "etc" in Rhoth's post, since I was exposed as no. 3 PBEM'er in Beta's 2004 Census  )
So if we're going to do an AU602, it should be at least 3 and preferably 4 players. In fact, we could make it the next tournament game along the lines of the Iron Civer tournament. To retain AU flavour, we must use the AU mod, and I would suggest using higher difficult levels (probably Deity). No AI this time. (This last condition will probably turn off any AU regulars who don't already play PBEM, since it cuts the last link with normal AU play). I also realised that not having AI kind of defeats the purpose of using the AU mod, but what the hell
As for getting more AU regular players involved, I think we've probably maxed out with AU player involvement. Quite a few of us are already there, and other regulars either can't commit the time or are not interested for various reasons.
Still, we can always hope 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
|
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
If you check the last AU course, there were many people playing it. And not only PBEM regulars, but also people who like to play the SP game. Might be my paranoia, but wouldn't a strictly PBEM AU course stop some people from participating?
If it's going to be another tournament, why call it an AU course? Call it a tournament and be done with it.  |
I don't disagree with you Modo......I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I appreciated seeing you and some other new "faces" during AU504. In fact, to some extent it was the AU newcomers who kept AU504 alive.
But what Theseus is referring to, and with which I agree, is that many AU players are now spending most of their civ time playing PBEM games for various reasons. A few of us have tried to get this link going between AU and PBEM (refer some of the topped threads I've started in both forums), and in my view (and Theseus' and some others here), the future of Civ3 AU is inexorably linked with the PBEM format of the game.
But what I think PBEM is lacking is the learning experience....the improvement in players' games that is the theme and philosophy behind AU. What I (and hopefully others too) would like to see is an overall improvement in people's games. The PBEM forum is increasingly the place where Civ3 players are playing Civ3, and I believe it is only natural for the AU forum to migrate/gravitate towards the PBEM forum.
The difficulty with the transition of course, is that players who are used to the SP format will often find PBEM too slow for their tastes. I had the same view. But when I finally took the plunge I realised that the overall PBEM experience, which is largely about interaction with other people coupled with the normal SP skills of working the game engine to your maximum advantage, just adds a dimension to the experience you will never get from playing SP alone.
And as evidence in support of this theory I offer you our very own acknowledged stalwart and quasi-god Theseus! An accredited AU member and player of the highest order, who has contributed much and drifted in and out over a long period of time, but somehow will always be there....and has recently embraced the PBEM cult. Just as ducki one day "got" the concept of Settler pumps in his groundbreaking thread (and I might say dragged a lot of us along with him)....Theseus and some others of us eventually "got" the ultimate civ3 experience that the PBEM format gave us!
So after all that verbal (written?) diarrhoea, I can only encourage you to join in and partake of the delights, frustrations, triumphs, tragedies, boastings and embarrassments that are PBEM.
My apolgies to Theseus for using his hallowed name so many times during this passionate (and, it must be said, only half sober) promotion of PBEM!
But in the words of our PBEM guru, Paddy the Scot.....ah, it is all good!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
 |
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:20
|
|
- Win, by any means possible (usually, this means domination/conquest. Humans never get along...)
quote:
Number of players per game? |
- 4. Any more and the game takes too long, any less and you need AI to balance the map,
- Let people chose, otherwise use a set group (ie Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt). The problem with this is if we use the same map for all games, then we would have to move the start position for all SEA civs. SR did not do this last time. No complaints, although it did give Rome an advantage of no crowding...(Remember i played this on Demi, against Dom, so my view is going to be skewed...)
- Don't know what you mean, although Iron civer rules should apply, allow out of game contact upon meeting the other players, etc. Winner takes all.
quote:
Invitations? (e.g., CFC, Ladder, RBC, etc.) |
- Only if we can get their best to play, so that we can finally find who is the best in the world...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
|
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
That was an, ummm, interesting post Aqualung.
Don;t get me wrong, btw... I am still into SP games, and intend that there will be future AU courses with same.
It just seems that the current action is in PBEM MP, so let's take advantage!
Responding to some other thoughts:
Modo, NM & Krill: I'm sure you know my attitude, i.e., that even it's run as a tournament, we put our own unique AU stamp on it... ya know, not so much about *winning* as about mutually getting better and having fun. That means also taht the course objective is not just to win, but should be something more. For instance, when Nathan kicked my *ss in 601, I still had a great time, and learned a great lesson about how the tiniest edges can be exploited into dramatic effects.
The pirate: Yes, Sir Ralph is quite correct... you'll be surprised at how easy it is to get involved in a PBEM.
NM: Yes, I think the AU Mod is still quite worthwhile. I don't think it will be much of a deterrent.
And last but not least, to Aqualung I say:
Quasi-god? QUASI-GOD??!!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
|
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:20
|
|
The reason that I say "win" is that every single AU course so far has been to explore a facet of the game. Not a single one, with the possible exception of 601, has shown how to bring it all together into a win (with the exception of T v Nathan, Alex v jshelr and Doms' account of how to set up an empire (my attempt was absolute ****. 5-6 towns? 5CC against Dom? F%&*ing Suicide!!  ))
Don't forget that most PBEMs are finished before the IA, and that they are won by Domination or Conquest. If the players show how they won, using, say, a mass upgrade, or a Philo beeline to rep and a superior economy, then that shows the "Less Experienced" (I use quotation marks since i still partially include myself in that group) the tactics and strategies that work in this game.
OTOH, diplomacy and tech trading could be the aim, showing how different this is in multiplayer. (Humans rarely sell tech. Look at PTWDG )
Last edited by Krill on 02-11-2004 at 23:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
I don't really like conventional PBEM games because of a combination of three factors:
1) The risk of backstabbing.
2) The risk of a "gang up on the leader" mentality.
3) The problem of how to engage in honest diplomacy in an environment where the person I'm negotiating with and I both want to win.
I know that with many PBEM players, those kinds of elements are exactly what makes the game fun for them. But that's not the way my mind works. Real life is not defined in terms where only one civilization can win and everyone else has to lose, and for me, a civ game with more than two human players defined in such terms does not feel right.
If there are enough others out there who have a mindset similar to mine, we could provide an option of playing by a set of special rules or principles to make the game less cutthroat. I'm thinking in terms of something along the lines of the following:
1) The goal is not necessarily to win, but rather to play our civilizations like real civilizations, doing what we believe is in their best interest. Warfare is fine if it looks like the benefits outweigh the risks, but players should not atttack another civ that they've been in a good relationshiip with just because the other civ is ahead and they want to win.
2) Players are expected to keep each other apprised of how their people feel toward each other, and to act accordingly. Civs that have good relations with each other shouldn't suddenly attack without a very, very good reason for a change in attitude, while civs with hostile feelings might attack at any time. Such relations should, at least in part, reflect events in the game - for example, favorable trade arrangements would make a civilization feel better toward another civ, while a border dispute where two civs are trying to grab the same land might hurt relations. Note that if players explain the reasons for good or bad relations, other players can take those reasons into consideration in formulating their policies.
(I might add that players could contrive entirely artificial reasons to "justify" a deterioriation in relations if they really want to. But major shifts in attitude should take place over time, not in just two or three turns.)
3) Civs can, of course, seek to win the support of other civs with gifts, sales on favorable terms, or other considerations. That could be especially important if the two most prosperous civs in the game end up in a hostile rivalry, in which case each would seek allies against the other. But here, too, relationships between civs ought to play a role. Bribing a civ into a partnership or alliance against a civ it already dislikes should be relatively easy if the odds of success are good, but civs should be extremely reluctant to attack a civ they've been on good terms with for centuries even if they are given a good offer to do so.
That kind of set-up would still leave a lot of room for military action if players decide it's in their civilizations' best interest. But it would also leave room for permanent friendships and partnerships, with players able to feel like their civ was successful even if they don't officially win.
What do others think of the idea of a game defined along those lines, at least as an option for those who prefer it?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
|
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't really like conventional PBEM games because of a combination of three factors:
1) The risk of backstabbing.
2) The risk of a "gang up on the leader" mentality.
3) The problem of how to engage in honest diplomacy in an environment where the person I'm negotiating with and I both want to win.
I know that with many PBEM players, those kinds of elements are exactly what makes the game fun for them. But that's not the way my mind works. Real life is not defined in terms where only one civilization can win and everyone else has to lose, and for me, a civ game with more than two human players defined in such terms does not feel right.
If there are enough others out there who have a mindset similar to mine, we could provide an option of playing by a set of special rules or principles to make the game less cutthroat. I'm thinking in terms of something along the lines of the following:
1) The goal is not necessarily to win, but rather to play our civilizations like real civilizations, doing what we believe is in their best interest. Warfare is fine if it looks like the benefits outweigh the risks, but players should not atttack another civ that they've been in a good relationshiip with just because the other civ is ahead and they want to win.
2) Players are expected to keep each other apprised of how their people feel toward each other, and to act accordingly. Civs that have good relations with each other shouldn't suddenly attack without a very, very good reason for a change in attitude, while civs with hostile feelings might attack at any time. Such relations should, at least in part, reflect events in the game - for example, favorable trade arrangements would make a civilization feel better toward another civ, while a border dispute where two civs are trying to grab the same land might hurt relations. Note that if players explain the reasons for good or bad relations, other players can take those reasons into consideration in formulating their policies.
(I might add that players could contrive entirely artificial reasons to "justify" a deterioriation in relations if they really want to. But major shifts in attitude should take place over time, not in just two or three turns.)
3) Civs can, of course, seek to win the support of other civs with gifts, sales on favorable terms, or other considerations. That could be especially important if the two most prosperous civs in the game end up in a hostile rivalry, in which case each would seek allies against the other. But here, too, relationships between civs ought to play a role. Bribing a civ into a partnership or alliance against a civ it already dislikes should be relatively easy if the odds of success are good, but civs should be extremely reluctant to attack a civ they've been on good terms with for centuries even if they are given a good offer to do so.
That kind of set-up would still leave a lot of room for military action if players decide it's in their civilizations' best interest. But it would also leave room for permanent friendships and partnerships, with players able to feel like their civ was successful even if they don't officially win.
What do others think of the idea of a game defined along those lines, at least as an option for those who prefer it? |
This may be premature, and I am not responding to the specifics but rather to Nathan's general tenor:
HURRAY!!!
The next level!!
I don't know how many AU members have seen my recent posts re Ancient Historical Fiction in the OT forum, but I have started a sweep of reading from Crete onwards, thus far planned to the end of the Roman Empire and the commencement of the Dark Ages with the Mongol onslaught.
I'm still early into it, still pre-Classic Greece... what occurs to me is that NONE of the 'civs' back then had then-world domination in mind... they just wanted to survive. And the interplay must have been mind-boggling.
Thanks Nathan... yes, let's try an AU course of human PBEM, but what is there to stop us from changing the paradigm?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Chiming in:
In my opinion, PBEM and AU do not really fit together; very rarely do people report on PBEM games, and the only thing you really learn about is human diplomacy (which is only "about the game" in a loose sense). Notice that all the previous "MP" AU courses had some mechanism built in to encourage reflection and reporting.
An "AU PBEM" would just be like any other PBEM. Trying to save the AU forum by transforming it into another PBEM forum seems like a bad move to me.
Nathan's idea sounds fun, but like Sir Ralph I think it would break down in practice, that is, in the PBEM environment which is essentially competitive. What Nathan really wants is a certain level of security both during the initial buildup stage and against backstabbing; the goal is still to win. If the goal is truly to create a sort of "realistic diplomacy" game with no real victory conditions, then I'm not particularly interested in it and I suspect many others feel the same way. And again, what would such a game have to do with goals of AU?
There's still plenty of stuff we have not done in SP that could potentially be a lot of fun. For example, we have yet to tackle one of the Conquests. Each one of those is like a premade AU course. In fact, since they're typically shorter than Epic games, they're even more amenable to comparison. Just a thought.
In short, my vote is not to combine PBEM and AU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
The reason that I say "win" is that every single AU course so far has been to explore a facet of the game. Not a single one, with the possible exception of 601, has shown how to bring it all together into a win (with the exception of T v Nathan, Alex v jshelr and Doms' account of how to set up an empire (my attempt was absolute ****. 5-6 towns? 5CC against Dom? F%&*ing Suicide!!)
|
IIRC you won that game, so you must have done something right!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Here's another idea Theseus had some time ago:
A "veteran" player plays a Deity game up to a certain point (say, mid-Medieval era), either on a random map or with the help of a map-maker. The player then posts a DAR of his/her exploits (or lack thereof). Then the savegame is posted and is open to everyone to be played as any other AU course (with appropriate DARs, etc.). This would be interesting in a couple of ways:
1. Less experienced players get to try their hand at an empire crafted by a "veteran".
2. The "interesting" phase of the game is pushed beyond the Ancient era, assuming the game is difficult enough for the veteran player. Players who are not used to Deity will have an interesting time of the late Medieval and Industrial eras, but will have a good start to build upon.
Alternatively, a less experienced player could try his/her hand at a Demigod game up to a certain number of turns, then the save turned into an AU course as above. The idea would be to transform an poor-to-average start into a winning position.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-SafaN-
|
|
Since i don't have inet at home (i'm doing illegal stuff with an usb-stick to join the discussions) i'm not interested in the PBEM.
Well i think i'm going to do some of the older courses.
Cya
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-11-2004 06:25
ok, so how do I get some action here?
Not sure where that one came from.....must have been the JD talking. Of course, I clearly meant demi-god. 
|