 |
How involved/interested will you be in a MP/PBEM mod?
This poll is closed. |
| Very involved - proposing threads and reading all of them! |
   |
5 |
50.00% |
| Somewhat involved - I'll keep up with it and vote on most of the polls. |
   |
3 |
30.00% |
| I'll probably read some of the threads and might get involved if something catches my interest ... |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
| Not very - Stock Civ is fine for my PBEM games. |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
 |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
10 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:17
|
|
Well folks, if you've been following IC threads, you'll probably remember the discussions about the AU Mod and multiplayer, and how many of the decisions in AU Mod were made to hamper AIs rather than to encourage better PBEM/MP play.
Well, it seemed like there was some interest (Rommel and I anyhow  ) in creating something like the AU Mod, but for PBEM. I'd like to start the discussions on this, and would be willing to spearhead the efforts, as long as others seem interested and contribute to the efforts (Rommel? Alexman? Please!)
For now I'd just like to start with a signup thread to gauge interest; please post saying your interest level (use the poll, but PLEASE repeat your vote in your response) and say what the one thing you'd change in a MP/PBEM Mod from Stock rules, and why. (Please try to post something different, if someone's already posted your one thing! I intend to use these as the starting "threads" if there are enough of them.)
Remember this mod is not intended to involve the AI - AU Mod is great for that - and thus changes can be made that would be impossible for the AI to deal with. The general theme for this, in my opinion (although it can certainly change if others disagree), would be to remove exploits used in PBEM/MP, to increase the "fun" PBEM/MP games can bring, and to "level the playing field", taking out or adding features to allow players an even chance to win regardless of start, civ, or other "random" factors.
The one thing I'd change: Increase naval movement one at all levels at least up to magnetism - to allow more play in archipelago and continent games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rcoutme2
|
|
Massachusetts
Sep 2004
time: 05:17
|
|
I would get rid of the attack/defense units system (predominantly). I would move cavalry to the Industrial Age (perhaps replace it with dragoons). Make most units have fairly equal attack and defense values in the Middle ages, maybe slight differences (leave knights as is) change Muskets to 4/4 giving France a bonus and making the tech much harder to research, etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rcoutme2
|
|
Massachusetts
Sep 2004
time: 05:17
|
|
Well, personally, I felt that was one issue...
Trying to even out the attack/defense issue. From what most people tell me who have played epic games to the end, cavalry is too powerful and overwhelms everything else. This would not be the case if most units were balanced, instead of 1/2 the units being attack and the other 1/2 being defense.
In Civ II, muskets were 3/3's. If something were similar in the MA's here (along with getting rid of the cavalry unit that overwhelms things) then games might go much further...
I was just trying to spell out how this might be accomplished.
Last edited by Rcoutme2 on 14-12-2004 at 07:08
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:17
|
|
I think polls would be too ... influential, if we didn't intend for people to all be able to vote, and/or want more discussion, first. AU has done that successfully.
Hmm, how about this: A select number (not fixed, but determined by activity - those very active get a vote once the rest, or say 2/3 of the rest, say they deserve one) get votes, and the "people" get ONE vote. So, if 5 of us are on the "senate" or whatever, then there are 6 votes - the People and 5 others, with the People's vote breaking a tie... The People's vote would be determined by ... a Poll, done AFTER the initial discussion was completed.
Too complicated?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rcoutme2
|
|
Massachusetts
Sep 2004
time: 05:17
|
|
As for the specific determination to the final decisions...I would suggest that if you are tied 3:3, it is likely that the idea is either not workable, or that 3 people are not good modifiers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
I would like to make it clear that, IMO, we're not making additions that are unnecessary, like giving units amphibious assault, etc. We're fixing things that are "broken", like cav.
Again, RaR can give you plenty of amphibious assault units. There's been talk in the C3C forum of starting up a RaR PBEM and I'm going to start a thread for it when I get in chancwe, sometime within the next six hours, for anyone who's interested. IF the demand is high enough, I'm sure we can start two or more games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:17
|
|
I'd not be averse to adding a couple of small changes that would make PBEMs more fun (like amphib units), but perhaps making them in an "alternate" mod. There are definitely somethings that are small changes that could easily be done.
That said, my idea is closer to Punkbass', for the general mod. (And I'm not sure I agree that Cav are broken - but we'll get to that argument later  )
Rcoutme, I strongly disagree. The fact of a tie does not mean any such thing! Perhaps it means we should work on it a little bit more - I might prefer to have a 60% or 66% majority, for example, to pass any changes, so to require the change be a popular one - but ultimately whatever percentage you require, there will occasionally be changes voted on that will barely meet or barely not meet the requirement.
Just because not everyone agrees on something does not mean that any one group of people are "better" modders or whatnot - I believe that you can honestly disagree on what is better. (For example, Cavalry- again, better left for later.)
Okay. For now, I propose we have a Panel system, with 5 people being the "Voters", with the option to add up to two more people if such people make themselves known and are very active, and 4 of the 5 vote to add them. Rommel, Punkbass, for now I nominate the two of you as Panel Members. (I'm not sure who else voted to be "very active" - but it will be made clear in time.) I'm going to stick to a few requirements for Panel members - must be very active, post regularly on every active question (or suggest that it be closed), and be NICE to each other. I reserve the right for the Panel to kick anyone off with a 66% majority (that means 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 7) who violates either of these rules (both vague on purpose - I want it to be hard to kick someone off, unless it's clear to the rest of us that person's inactive and/or mean). I'm going to extend membership to the Panel to 2 more people who are active PBEMers and who are willing to be active participants, assuming a 2/3 vote or better for each person among the 3 of us.
I intend to start a few threads with some of the ideas I see here - whether I agree or not - shortly, and any Panel Member may start their own thread with any topic that comes to their mind. I'll start a new thread with information on how to do so. If this takes off, we can ask Mark to give us our own subforum, like AU has, so to separate these into their own forum and easily see them...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moonbars
|
 |
Glasgow
Aug 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
I would like to make it clear that, IMO, we're not making additions that are unnecessary, like giving units amphibious assault, etc. We're fixing things that are "broken", like cav.
|
Subjective! In all the PBEMS I have been involved in, naval units have been an expensive waste of time.
I think that naval power is not represented very well in PBEMS (or single player). We can't do much about this in SP as the AI cannot adapt, but in PBEM.. We should look at ways to increase the importance of navies, if nothing else this will give the races with naval UUs a better chance, and add a lot of depth and strategy options to the player. You say we are fixing things that are broken, I say so am I!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars
Subjective! In all the PBEMS I have been involved in, naval units have been an expensive waste of time.
I think that naval power is not represented very well in PBEMS (or single player). We can't do much about this in SP as the AI cannot adapt, but in PBEM.. We should look at ways to increase the importance of navies, if nothing else this will give the races with naval UUs a better chance, and add a lot of depth and strategy options to the player. You say we are fixing things that are broken, I say so am I! |
Quite true, Moonbars. I think you should make this suggestion, will add a general thread for naval consideration. I'm not sure if more amphibious units would fall under "fix" or "enhance" , but it's worthy of consideration, and if you can convince a few more of us, it's worth it
Moon, did you vote "very involved", as in do you want to be a candidate for the Panel?
Punkbass, I couldn't tell from your response (and can't see individual votes, silly) - but you've been more involved than most so far, and are a veteran PBEMer as well as being very knowledgeable of AU if I am not mistaken (thus considerably valuable to us). Do you not want to be a part of the Panel - if not, I'm happy to replace you, but we're happy to have you as well ...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2004 00:59
|
|