YARG - Yet Another RAND Game [Isokron's Midgard wins!] [Archive]

WraithLord

June 29th, 2009, 12:16 PM

Yet Another RAND Game (YARG)

Hi,

Pasha's RAND games are so much fun that although I'm already playing in one I have decided to host another one.
It is the first time I host a dominions III game. I plan to host it on llamaserver so hopefully the server will make sure the game runs smoothly.

At this point the game is open for both sign-up and discussion.

The following are the settings I had in mind. The ones I don't plan to change are in bold font.

Map: Glory of the gods (multilayer version)
Hosting Pace: First 15 turns every 24h, turns 15-30 48h, turn 30-45 72h, turn 45-60 96h, turn > 61 120h.
Hosting is planned for busy ppl.

Since I plan to play as well I will not be able to grant extensions, I will ask a non player to serve as a co-admin and will try to stay out of his way.
Mods: No mods.
Renaming: off
Research: difficult
Graphs: on
HoF: 15
Indies: 9
Disallowed exploits: copying Bogus' orders and overfilling enemy lab to prevent his own forge.
Victory condition: 9 vps. Each capital has 1 VP.
Nations: All LA nations, excluding LA Ermor and R'lyeh. This means 19 players.

Pretenders should be given randomly generated names or your nations name to prevent unintentional disclosure of player ID.

As for the nation assignment I do not plan to do this myself of course. I will consult with Pasha (the master of RANDs) re. how he suggests to perform that.

EDIT:
-> Zeldor has graciously agreed to roll nations for this game.
-> rdonj will co-admin the game. He will set the player's email addresses on the server after I create the game and handle extension requests.
-> For those who are not familiar with the term RAND.
RAND - Random Anonymous No Diplomacy.
Nations are assigned randomly.
Player's Identity is kept hidden.
Diplomacy or any form of communication is not allowed and is considered cheating.
-> Most players want LA Ermor and R'lyeh out so to make it simple and save debate let's just go w/o them.
-> After all players sign-up we shall wait a week for pretender creation. Then we start the game.
-> Please refrain from sending any in-game messages. Also, don't post here anything that can reveal information regarding you or other nations. No diplomacy or communications of any kind is allowed between players.
If you lose your identity is revealed. This is part of the fun in the game, guessing and 2nd guessing who is who until ppl start falling. If you do lose, please also refrain from posting anything with information on the game.

Players:
1. WraithLord, Led Bogarus to the bitter end
2. ano, Danbo, Psycho. Led Pangaea valiantly until turn 53
3. Calahan, herode, Leader of Man. Defeated on turn 60
4. Ossa, replaced by jr77, Leader of Agartha. Defeated on turn 31.
5. Dimaz, Led Gath to the bitter end
6. Gandalf Parker. Leader of Jomon. Defeated on turn 41.
7. TwoBits, Led Pythium to the bitter end
8. Natpy. Leader of Marignon. Defeated on turn 20.
9. Frozen Lama. Leader of Caelum. Defeated on turn 40.
10. Dragar. Leader of Abysia. Defeated on turn 16.
11. Strabo. Leader of Atlantis. Defeated on turn 54.
12. Executor, subbed by Maerlande, Led Patala to the bitter end
13. Isokron, Led Midgard and has won the game on turn 76. :clap:
14. Raiel
15. WingedDog, Led Ctis to the bitter end
16. Slobby, Leader of Utgard. Turned AI on turn 67.
17. LumenPlacidum. Leader of Ulm. Defeated on turn 56.
18. Alpine Joe. Leader of Mictlan. Defeated on turn 72.
19. StrictlyRockers. Leader of Arco. Defeated on turn 36.

Subs: Maerlande, JR77, Herode, Danbo, Psycho
________

ano

June 29th, 2009, 12:23 PM

Damn:)
I wish I could participate but I can't because I recently created another game thread (the one you just copied one sentence from:) ). Probably, the time for my RAND game will come one day...

Calahan

June 29th, 2009, 12:58 PM

Count me in please WraithLord. Big fan of your suggested settings for Indy's, research and schedule. My brain especially thanks you for the latter :)

Ideas for the game - If you are sticking with a no mods policy then no worries, but if you are open to suggestions I'd like to suggest making gem producing items unique like they are in Pasha's current RAND game. And maybe another one to change the cost of Tarts to at least 30 Death gems.

I hope both of these should help produce a different look late-game than is usually seen, and take a lot of the all too regularly seen strategies off the table a bit. Let's get those creative juices flowing again!

Edit: Can I also suggest having clear penalties for anyone who violates the principles surrounding a RAND game. So the consequences of sending an in-game message, or gems/items/gold etc. are known to everyone from the start.

WraithLord

June 29th, 2009, 12:59 PM

This is supposed to be a game for busy ppl, so perhaps you can join anyway.
And thanks for your sentence. I liked it :)

chrispedersen

June 29th, 2009, 01:07 PM

I wouldn't mind making a mod that

a: Increased the cost of path boosters.
b: Increased/removed gem creators.
c: Increased the cost of Tarts/Abominations, if desired.

I've had some of these things under thought for a bit anyway.

Ossa

June 29th, 2009, 01:17 PM

Count me in;)

ano

June 29th, 2009, 01:31 PM

2WraithLord
Reserve a spot for me, please. I will tell exact decision a bit later.
Also, I wouldn't want any game-modifying mods such as Calahan and chris suggest.

Dimaz

June 29th, 2009, 03:16 PM

Ok, I want to play such type of game, and I agree with ano - no mods, please.

Zeldor

June 29th, 2009, 03:26 PM

Wraithlord:

I won't join - not enough time for more games, but few suggestions:

- LA Ermor and R'lyeh in no diplo game is a bad idea, will make the game less fun
- CBM should be a must nowadays :)
- no game should go over 72h timer, ever, 96h in extreme cases
- 30-50% VPs max for the win, not 11 out of 12 :)
- indie str 9 will make some nations really cry, may be interesting though [but combining that with RAND may be too much]

I can roll you nations if you need that.

Gandalf Parker

June 29th, 2009, 03:46 PM

Home life VERY up in the air right now but I will sign up.
And I like the settings.

TwoBits

June 29th, 2009, 04:07 PM

This is interesting, and I wouldn't mind testing my chops with the "big boys". Or is this game only open to proven "experts"?

WraithLord

June 29th, 2009, 04:21 PM

@Calahan, your suggestion has merits. I am not yet decided about it. I'll go with the majority here. So far it's 2:1 against it.

@chrispedersen, you want in or just offer to help with the mod if needed?

@Zeldor, You gave good input. Let me relate plz (inline).
"
- LA Ermor and R'lyeh in no diplo game is a bad idea, will make the game less fun
[WL] Possibly so. In dom-II RAND hosted by Pasha I played Ermor (basically LA Ermor of dom-III). I was in the top most of the game but Jurri killed me with Mari blood theme (similar to LA Mari).
I personally hate to ban nations. If they are overpowered and there are enough vets in the game it is possible that they would be ganged on. or not. But that is part of the fun in the game.
I see it as an experiment. Could work or could prove disastrous. If so, there's can always be another RAND.

- CBM should be a must nowadays
[WL] Yes. You are probably right. If only b/c of the exploits it fixes.
- no game should go over 72h timer, ever, 96h in extreme cases
[WL] Matter of personal preference. I want this game to be relaxed.
- 30-50% VPs max for the win, not 11 out of 12
[WL] Sorry my bad with the 12. It's 22, or 20 if we ban Ermor and R'lyeh
- indie str 9 will make some nations really cry, may be interesting though [but combining that with RAND may be too much
[WL] let them cry :). The fittest survives. Let's try something different every time.
"

WraithLord

June 29th, 2009, 04:23 PM

Zeldor

June 29th, 2009, 04:27 PM

Wraith:

But it's RAND, so if a vet gets uber nation he can own other weaker players. And they won't be able to organise anything. Or trade items to help fight power nations.

Relaxed games die :) Proven by experience.

VP a bit high, really. Getting 12 caps is almost impossible, it will take ages. See Artifacts. 6 out of 22 sounds like a more reasonable victory condition - and puts more pressure on players.

ano

June 29th, 2009, 04:42 PM

WraithLord
1) I didn't understand your position as for CBM. This game was announced as no-mod game.
2) As for Ermor and R'lyeh, they should not be put into one basket nowadays, IMHO. I won a big game with R'lyeh once and I must say it was not that overpowered even before it was seriously nerfed in the last patch. Yes, R'lyeh is really powerful in the late game but you have to reach that stage in good position to be successful and when your mages eat all your gold which you don't have because your pop dies like flies... Well, it is really hard to be successful.
Population death doesn't mean a lot for Ermor because undead are not money dependent but it (in my opinion) makes R'lyeh one of the hardest nations to play. I never heard of anyone being successful with R'lyeh after that patch (I mean the games that began after it was released) and I personally think it is the weakest nation in LA now. If we want to ban it for this reason - I'm ok with it but not because it is overpowered. Perhaps it is still playable but I wouldn't want to check it. Really.
Ermor is another thing though. In my current game I allowed Ermor and didn't regret it, but... Ermor is certainly unbalanced and very hard to deal with. And in no-diplo game it will be a real pain. Noone wishes to fight Ermor because the gains are negligible even if you win. And nation who fights Ermor is usually pushed far behind. It ruins the game balance, in my opinion, because you are forced to do things that you would never do otherwise if there were no Ermor at your border. And, of course, Ermor in hands of good player will be death for everyone.
Just an example: as LA C'tis with base dom 8 (+ about 16 temples total) and a temple nearly at every province I'm still being pushed by Ermorian deadly dominion. I have a ton of priests preaching (not an exaggeration at all) and still my dominion at the border never exceeds +3 and sometimes becomes negative. I don't know if it is due to dominion spread bug or something else but it is a real pain even in a game with diplomacy.

WraithLord

June 29th, 2009, 04:44 PM

There's an element of luck here. A vet can get LA Ermor and another LA R'lyeh. They may or may not clash, may or may not be ganged on by neighbors.
These nation always get banned these days. I want to give them a chance. I want to hear more opinions on this before decision whether or not they get kicked out of this one as well.

Why, I played lot's of relaxed games that did not die. Some players stick to the end, other's drop. That's why I'm saying out front how this game is gonna host. If you (plural) don't like it then skip this game.

RAND games take to be shorter. Since diplomacy acts as a balancer and prevents nations from growing ubber unchecked.
Artifacts would have been over already had I not been in it.
That said, I see your point and agree 12 is too high. Perhaps 9 would do.

WraithLord

June 29th, 2009, 04:46 PM

ano, do you object to CBM?

got your point WRT LA R'lyeh.

So far we have one player vote against LA Ermor - yours.

TwoBits

June 29th, 2009, 04:48 PM

This is interesting, and I wouldn't mind testing my chops with the "big boys". Or is this game only open to proven "experts"?

All are welcome. Warning though - so far the players that have enlisted are very skilled. If you feel comfortable to join in then by all means go for it.

I feel comfortable :) That's what I'm looking for - a real test of my (imagined) abilities. I'd try not to let anyone down with an early collapse.

Now, I checked the other RAND game (just the first page, so I may be missing a lot), but how do you enforce "no diplomacy"? I mean, how can you prevent in-game text messaging? Or is that just "verboten" on an honor system kind of thing? Sorry for the stupid RAND related question, which I'm sure everyone else knows.

ano

June 29th, 2009, 04:52 PM

ano, do you object to CBM?
Yes (if I play, of course). Though I find it good I never played with it and I wouldn't want to start with a serious game like this.

Gandalf Parker

June 29th, 2009, 04:54 PM

Personally the only problem I see with relaxed hosting times is if the same person ends up holding everything up for extended time on every turn (thought that does bring to mind the musical chairs game version which fixed that). Also with a rand game, conversation about that in this thread would be extremely difficult without giving away who is who. But if the person running the game is willing to do abit of judge/jury/executioner without calling for votes then it can be workable. Maybe it should be clearly stated how long with no contact will be considered too long before admin takes action.

I agree on CBM. There are plenty of games that use it. It would make a large difference for those who are very familiar with it. Particularly when randomly receiving a nation/god to play. I like seeing a fairly vanilla game with all nations show up. Mark me as approving of all settings already mentioned.

Dimaz

June 29th, 2009, 04:54 PM

9 VPs is fine.
Ban Ermor, I hosted no-diplomacy game once with some experienced players - still they had no chance, he ate one of the weaker ones and then rolled everyone.

TwoBits

June 29th, 2009, 04:56 PM

ano, do you object to CBM?

got your point WRT LA R'lyeh.

So far we have one player vote against LA Ermor - yours.

My last "friendly" MP game, meaning among my RL friends, before I dipped my toes into the Llamaserver fun, I was LA R'lyeh, and I was being thwarted even before the nerf-patch came out (a billion free-spawn, even if they only suck up 1/10th the upkeep, still can suck you dry) by a demon-heavy Bogarus. Post-nerf (which was when I threw in the towel), there's no reason to ban R'lyeh.

Can't say about Ermor though.

WraithLord

June 29th, 2009, 05:02 PM

ok. LA Ermor has three votes against it. It looks like it's on it's way out of this game.

9 VPs it is then.
CBM out b/c the thread originally stated no mods and b/c ano objects to it.

I'll wait for more comments and edit the first post with the updates tomorrow.

Calahan

June 29th, 2009, 05:15 PM

I vote for both R'yleh and Ermor personally.

And I don't agree at all that more relaxed games tend to die. Yes they will die if players who prefer fast games sign up for them, as these players get bored and disappear. A slow paced game is fine if the players know what they are signing up for when they agree to play, which in this case they will if they bother to read the status page. If players who like fast paced games sign up for this game, and then drop it due to it's slow pace, then it's full shame and blame on them, and nothing to do with the pace of the game at all.
Personally the only problem I see with relaxed hosting times is if the same person ends up holding everything up for extended time on every turn (thought that does bring to mind the musical chairs game version which fixed that). Also with a rand game, conversation about that in this thread would be extremely difficult without giving away who is who. But if the person running the game is willing to do abit of judge/jury/executioner without calling for votes then it can be workable. Maybe it should be clearly stated how long with no contact will be considered too long before admin takes action.

I don't quite understand this. Is the 'holding everything up' reference in regards to someone who is staling, or someone who is always leaving it until the last minute to submit their turn? If it is the former, then they can just be dealt with like normal stalers (assuming non-playing admin involved somewhere). And the latter for me is not even an issue.

Zeldor

June 29th, 2009, 05:26 PM

I wouldn't agree that RAND games last shorter. Maybe in a previous one it was the case, but in RAND that is happening now everyone is still alive. And people are way more afraid to attack with no NAPs to secure borders.

Natpy

June 29th, 2009, 05:29 PM

Count me in please. I vote for ban R'yleh and Ermor

ano

June 29th, 2009, 05:41 PM

If voting is enabled than I am also against R'lyeh and not because it is overpowered but because it is underpowered with such settings.
First, indy 9 is a normal setting nearly for every nation except them. If you don't believe, try creating a game with indy 9 setting and playing several turns. If you took an awake SC, repeat without it.
Second, separate water regions and random starts make things even harder for them.
Third, everything I said above.

Sorry, for too much noise. Just want this game well-balanced.

Frozen Lama

June 29th, 2009, 08:31 PM

Count me in.
I vote against Ermor, but not Ryleh.
I love CBM, and its been a long time since i played vanilla, but i'm ok without it. (btw, the origional post still says CBM is in.)

Dragar

June 29th, 2009, 08:40 PM

I'm in

I'd prefer CBM, and any gem item/tart nerfing

Strabo

June 29th, 2009, 10:04 PM

If this game is newbie-friendly, then sign me in

WraithLord

June 30th, 2009, 05:51 AM

Updated first post. No CBM. 9 VPs to win. No Ermor+R'lyeh.
We have 11/20 slots taken. 9 more players and we are go.

Well, I still need to find a volunteer for co-administrating. Mainly, to assign players emails and relay to me requests for extensions w/o telling me the requesting player's identity.

Zeldor will roll the nations for us once we are ready.

WingedDog

June 30th, 2009, 09:00 AM

Damn, I wish I could play, but can't afford to play more then 1 game at a time. :( Always wanted to try out a RANDY game.

Dragar

June 30th, 2009, 09:07 AM

Rand games take a lot less time to play due to the lack of diplomacy. C'mon winged dog, you can do it!

Executor

June 30th, 2009, 09:20 AM

Rand game? No mods?
I see some people I'd like to play against here/
Please do count me in.

Zeldor

June 30th, 2009, 09:26 AM

No CBM? Strange, but your choice. I could help with co-admining maybe, but it's summer now, so I cannot be sure if I will be available all the time.

Isokron

June 30th, 2009, 04:39 PM

I would be interested in joining.

Executor

June 30th, 2009, 04:46 PM

I also agree with Calahan about Tartarians. I'd like to see some other end game tactic than a rush for the chalice and Tartarians.

rdonj

June 30th, 2009, 05:34 PM

I can help with the admin stuff.

Raiel

June 30th, 2009, 10:29 PM

I'd like to join. Yup - another noob.

How long will we have to submit pretenders once nations are rolled? I'm not intimately familiar with many LA nations.

WraithLord

July 1st, 2009, 03:40 AM

After all players sign-up we shall wait a week for pretender creation. Then we start the game.

Thank you rdonj!- As of now you are officially YARG's co-admin :)

rdonj

July 1st, 2009, 04:19 AM

Cool. I'm very easy to reach with pm's, as long as I'm not sleeping or busy away from a computer I tend to respond very quickly. So if someone needs my attention that is the fastest way to get it.

Question: How exactly do you want me to handle extension requests? Just say "some unnamed person has requested an extension for x reason", or do I need to provide slightly more specific info?

ano

July 1st, 2009, 04:35 AM

Maybe you just could make extensions yourself and post here something like "hosting delayed by XX due to request by YY" where YY is nation.

ano

July 1st, 2009, 04:40 AM

Look how WingedDog does it here (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43097). I really like it

WingedDog

July 1st, 2009, 04:45 AM

After all players sign-up we shall wait a week for pretender creation. Then we start the game.

Thank you rdonj!- As of now you are officially YARG's co-admin :)

Hmmm, with this settings and low-pace game schedule I think I can handle it. I'm in!

ano

July 1st, 2009, 04:48 AM

Great!

Calahan

July 1st, 2009, 04:49 AM

rdonj

July 1st, 2009, 04:53 AM

Yeah, I could do it how wingeddog handled it. I just want to be sure I'm doing it in a way that agrees with wraithlord and that things go smoothly.

ano

July 1st, 2009, 04:55 AM

Well, it's probably the best way to be sure that request will be fulfilled.
Let's imagine that someone sends you a PM when you're asleep. You awake and redirect it to WL who is out of town. When he returns in the evening it's just too late.
Probably, not the best scheme:)

rdonj

July 1st, 2009, 04:57 AM

Yeah, communication delays could be a killer. Especially since I think wraithlord is a couple time zones away from me.

ano

July 1st, 2009, 05:00 AM

Yes, this also matters, of course

Calahan

July 1st, 2009, 05:02 AM

Re: Extension requests - I'd personally prefer to have no message informing the players of extensions, or just a basic "game delayed X hours", and trusting rdonj's judgement on when to allow them.

I think the possible problem with saying "game delayed X hours by request of nation Y" is that if a player in this game is in another game(s), and posts on that games thread(s) "Can I please get a 24 hour delay" then it might start becoming obvious which nation that player is in this game if it is announced which nation requested the delay, especially if it happens more than once. If there is no message at all regarding a delay, or just a basic one, then it becomes a lot harder to figure out who is who. And protecting player indentities is key I think to a good RAND game.

ano

July 1st, 2009, 05:06 AM

Yes, "game delayed by X hours" is good and probably better but it will in most cases be obvious which nation requested it anyway. Llamaserver status page always tells the truth and there's no way to override this:)

WraithLord

July 1st, 2009, 05:10 AM

Good suggestions.
rdonj, would you be willing to grant extensions yourself and update that an XXX hour delay was granted?

rdonj

July 1st, 2009, 05:11 AM

WraithLord

July 1st, 2009, 11:43 AM

Good. We are four players shy of starting.

WingedDog

July 1st, 2009, 11:56 AM

Calahan

July 1st, 2009, 12:03 PM

Just a little addition:
If we place VP's in capitals - they become visible for all the other players, meaning lure for bless or SC rushes. Am I the only one who remembers Carrion Dragon landing in neighbour's capital on turn 2? :)
Let the victory condition be 9 capitals, and person claiming to have them sends his turn-file to rdonj for the check.
+1

I'm gald someone else pointed this out first this time. I know I've done it the last few games I've signed up for, so wanted to avoid doing it here for fear of sounding repetitive :)

ano

July 1st, 2009, 12:23 PM

WingedDog, Calahan
I think it's a good idea

Alpine Joe

July 1st, 2009, 01:22 PM

This sounds like a lot of fun, but I may not be experienced enough to play in this as I see a lot of very good players here. If this game is welcome to a somewhat inexperienced player, sign me up. If not, good luck with the game.

rdonj

July 1st, 2009, 02:20 PM

Good suggestions.
rdonj, would you be willing to grant extensions yourself and update that an XXX hour delay was granted?

Oh, didn't see this at the time. Yeah, sure, I'll do it that way when the time comes.

Slobby

July 1st, 2009, 03:14 PM

oooo rand game count me in please.

WingedDog

July 1st, 2009, 03:19 PM

What about map? I'd prefer something wraparound, so noone could feel safe.:evil:
Really, people in the corners have an unfair advantage IMO.

LumenPlacidum

July 2nd, 2009, 12:59 AM

I'd love to play in this, if there are any slots open. Seems like the anonymity makes it somewhat newb friendly, and I'm ready for the step up beyond newb-only games :P

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 01:14 AM

WingedDog
When starting locations are random, a bigger advantage is starting with no close neighbours while others start in overcrowded areas. After qwerty I decided to never play without predefined starting locs but in this game I don't mind it. Though generally I'm agree that wraparound map + some work on it would make the game much more balanced and thus interesting for everybody
Luck is a too big factor in this game and when it is possible to reduce its influence a bit, this better be done:).

Black Sun Empire

July 2nd, 2009, 01:25 AM

If my copy of the game appears soon, I will gladly play. I will be a complete newbie, so not sure if that is welcome?

WingedDog

July 2nd, 2009, 01:28 AM

Yet another suggestion.
We are playing w\o CBM, difficult research, and LA with default magic sites, which means lots of gem-expensive crap with lack of gems. Maybe we should increase magic sites frequency? Not too much, I think 55-65% should be enough.

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 01:40 AM

WingedDog

July 2nd, 2009, 01:46 AM

Black Sun Empire
Well, the game is rather complicated. First three or four of my games vs AI were a complete failure, I joined my first MP game only after 2 victories on multiple impossible AIs, and still I had a lot to learn. Now I consider myself sort of experienced player, I have 1 MP victory, but half of the players in this game are better then I am.
So... see for yourself, but if you're totaly unfamiliar with game playing against people could be a total dissapointment. I recomend playing vs AI first, I can guarantee that would be fun (I just remembered my excientment first time I tried crossbreeding :D). Then, when you are able to defeat AIs blindfolded and hads tied - it is a good time to join MP game.

Black Sun Empire

July 2nd, 2009, 01:54 AM

WingedDog

July 2nd, 2009, 01:57 AM

I think that 50% is fine for any case. 35% is too little, while 65 is too much, IMO.
50-55% gives everybody a solid chance of finding good sites including sites with mages which I think is good for such game

I agree 65, perhabs, is too much. I was thinking about 55, when I was preparing my suggestion.

WingedDog

July 2nd, 2009, 02:09 AM

I just think the difference between playing against an AI and SP is huge.

Currently playing Nief, it has only taken me around 4 hours of game play to be killing them easily. In saying that, I did read a guide from Baalz (sp?) and that helped me a heap of tactics and predator design.
Then again, it was a medium sized map with 6 AI set at the default level.

I don't mind losing quickly, I'm just attempting to join as many games as possible early and learn from the best. If someone better comes along, then let them join, I will be fine either way.

I am not an admin of this game, and personaly I do not mind you joining it if you are willing to play till the end. I just gave you my recomendations, and it is strictly your business to follow them, or not. It is just very common a newbee player joins the game, loses his first battle, gets dissapointed and just disappears.

Dragar

July 2nd, 2009, 02:18 AM

If Black Sun ditches the game I know where he lives... abysian style firebombing would ensue

Of course, being a rand game the admin would have to let me know to begin punitive strikes

Dimaz

July 2nd, 2009, 03:37 AM

The main problem with new players in ordinary game is that it's a free capital for experienced neighbor. However, with RAND settings this problem seems less critical, at least before vet player discovers that his neighbor makes really strange choices.

Calahan

July 2nd, 2009, 03:39 AM

...... and predator design. ...

A predator design feature would be awesome :D

Calahan

July 2nd, 2009, 03:57 AM

My one concern about the new players in this game is that the Indies 9 setting will really put a halt to their expansion, while at the same time I can't see it putting too big a dent in a vet's expansion rate. Then if after 10 turns a vet, who has about 12-15 provinces, comes across a neighbour who has 3-4 provinces (remember graphs are on), it's going to be good bye neighbour, and secret identities won't mean a thing. This will just lead to some major unbalancing, and probably already game deciding, if a vet starts in the middle of a newbie picnic.

I personally think this game will be a bad choice for new players, since the Indy setting (which I do not want to see changed) and difficult research (which I also do not want to see changed) will both have a far bigger impact on new players than vets. Plus I second WindedDog's concern about new players dropping games more frequently than experienced players do, and my hatred of players who think it's ok to "Stale and Bail" is well known.

So without wishing to offend anyone, I must say my initial excitement for playing in this game is starting to diminish somewhat since I think it looks likely that luck will play a bigger factor than skill in deciding it's outcome.

Black Sun Empire

July 2nd, 2009, 04:22 AM

I can wait for a newbie game, if it makes things easier. :)

EDIT: The only thing I can promise is to keep playing, apart from that, obviously I will not be nearly as good as the vets. If this makes the game unbalanced, then I will sit out.

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 04:53 AM

@WingedDog, LA is supposed to be poor in gems. I want to keep it thematic. I want this game to be a bit different. All games start to look the same as of late...
@Black Sun Empire, Since you have 0 MP experience I think this game is not appropriate to start with, not for you as you better start playing a few newb games first, and not for the rest of the players since your neighbors would have an unfair advantage over the rest.

Calahan

July 2nd, 2009, 05:15 AM

.... All games start to look the same as of late...

Considering the above, is the vote still active for the idea of a Tart and/or gem item nerf? Since at last count I make it 2/2 for a gem item nerf, and 3/2 in favour of a Tart nerf.

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 05:19 AM

I'll definitely not play in this case.
And actually I don't see the major reason for it. Difficult research will obviously be a natural restriction for tarts/chalice. As for the gem producers, I see no problem at all there.

Dragar

July 2nd, 2009, 05:26 AM

I don't see how difficult research is a natural tart restriction, it simply delays it, as it does all mid to late game strategies

The idea behind the nerfs to gem producers is to bring out different end-game strategies. Early and mid game are always interesting but the end game often devolves into who has the most clams or best tart factories -> GoH and race for Chalice and often Well of Misery. The optimal choices are narrow and the micromanagement with the clams in particular is very tedious

Playing in Bloodless without the gem producers or tarts is really interesting and makes you reevaluate your plans for the end game, if you reach it.

Executor

July 2nd, 2009, 05:39 AM

Black Sun Empire,
I would have to agree that this game is not appropriate for you, there are some excellent players here and you'd just get crushed in the start and probably lose interest with 0 experience.

I played SP for about 2 month before trying a MP game and it was still hard.
I suggest you start your own newbie game if you are eager to play MP.

Dimaz

July 2nd, 2009, 05:57 AM

I vote for settings in the initial post, including no mods and no changes to sites. However, I can play with some of proposed changes, too.

WingedDog

July 2nd, 2009, 06:13 AM

I do not see a problem in gem producers, as:
1) I beleive they more expensive in vanilla;
2) there won't be a NAP to protect you to produce them safely, and choosing forging clams for better future you could lose both. Clams and a future. :)

As for tartarians. Really, who needs juggernauts, poison golems and iron dragons, if you can buy a cloud trapeezing-regenerating SC with 150 HP for 10 gems?

Dimaz

July 2nd, 2009, 06:53 AM

1) Undead SC (golems with Holy Scourge kill them REALLY fast).
2) Insane SC (you can't rely on them, if you have only few).
3) Non-commander SC (so 30 gems*4/5 + 10*1/5 = 26 gems, with nature needed for BOTH clams and fetishes also).
4) With all kinds of afflictions.
They are good, and almost unavoidable if you are going to win, but they have their limits.

WingedDog

July 2nd, 2009, 07:06 AM

Oh, the GoR in vanila is 30 gems... Then I guess they only need some nerfing in CBM.
And almost none but pretenders would be able to summon them. With no diplomacy you wouldn't tell: "Hey, neighbour, fetch me a ring of wizardry, would you?"
Are there national heroes in vanila, or they only come with Worthy Heroes mode?

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 08:39 AM

national hereos in vanilla are less useful but they are there.

I personally support the limitation. However:
B/C we have already a lot of players and b/c the proposed changes (tarts, gem generators) are not accepted unanimously I suggest we just stick to the original settings.

I say, let's try this RAND out. If we, as players, note an abuse to tartarians or generators or start locations we can always limit/change them for the next round.

Glory of the gods is a beautiful map and I've been wanting to try in MP for a long time.
Look, it is next to impossible to get so many players to agree to the conditions so I think we best keep the settings as originally posted and aim to start the game soon.

Zeldor

July 2nd, 2009, 08:45 AM

Ok, if you get game full and still want me to roll nations - PM me with list of players and I will send them PMs with nation assignments. Don't forget to tell what age and what nations are banned :)

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 08:57 AM

Age - LA. Banned nations: Ermor and R'lyeh. Thank You!

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 09:51 AM

2Wraithlord
Do you mean that we are not waiting for the remaining people\nations? Or maybe the latecomers will get their nations from Zeldor when they come? Why not, really?

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 10:46 AM

Let's give ppl the weekend to sign up. I'm pretty confident we will have a full roster. We are waiting for the last four players after all :)

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 10:49 AM

I think two, not four. You didn't count LumenPlacidum and Slobby in.

p.s. Why not roll nations now, indeed?) I'm just burning to know who I am. And probably it's just about everyone.

WingedDog

July 2nd, 2009, 10:56 AM

p.s. Why not roll nations now, indeed?) I'm just burning to know who I am. And probably it's just about everyone.

+1
There will be heavy rain this weekend, so I have a lot of free time I might not have later for designing a strategy.

Alpine Joe

July 2nd, 2009, 11:03 AM

I'll post this again since I suppose it got missed in the rush

"This sounds like a lot of fun, but I may not be experienced enough to play in this as I see a lot of very good players here. If this game is welcome to a somewhat inexperienced player, sign me up. If not, good luck with the game."

However it looks like some other inexperienced people signed up, so if its okay for them, count me in! That should put you short just one.

TwoBits

July 2nd, 2009, 11:47 AM

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 11:47 AM

sorry 4 missing your post. good thing you've re-posted.

I think so long as you have some MP experience you should be ok. If this is to be one of your very first MP games then I think you'd be better off playing in some newb games first to get some experience.
So, sign you up for this?

Alpine Joe

July 2nd, 2009, 11:49 AM

Yeah go ahead and sign me up. This is far from my first game, although I have yet to win one :(

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 11:54 AM

ano, thank you for pointing me too the posts I missed. This thread gets updated to quickly and so I missed three posts :(

Now that we are 18 players we can definitely roll nations. The last player will get the nation that was left, or will roll with us.

I'm PMing Zeldor to roll for us!

rdonj, ready your self. we are one player shy from creating the game (me) and setting player's emails (you) :)

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 11:56 AM

Cool!
Thread being updated quickly certainly means that people like it:)

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 11:57 AM

Just a little addition:
If we place VP's in capitals - they become visible for all the other players, meaning lure for bless or SC rushes. Am I the only one who remembers Carrion Dragon landing in neighbour's capital on turn 2? :)
Let the victory condition be 9 capitals, and person claiming to have them sends his turn-file to rdonj for the check.

Do the capitals go by the nation's name?- or else, how could rdonj verify that these indeed are 9 capitals?

Dimaz

July 2nd, 2009, 12:00 PM

Capital sites perhaps?

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 12:01 PM

By magic sites, of course.
Also, if the map has no specified province names, the capitals will be named after nation

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 12:08 PM

yeah, I guess this is the only way. The method is somewhat annoying, well unless the winner makes it easier for rdonj by giving the province numbers of the 9 capitals he controls.

It also means that the players will not be able to know who controls more VPs or is closer to victory by the score graphs.
Are you sure you want to give up on this indication?- The alternative is relying on scouting and speculation. Theoretically, a player could go very close to victory undetected.
I'm not sure I like this side effect of going that route.

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 12:20 PM

It would be ok in a game with diplomacy where a player who scouts well could tell the others "Guys, watch up!". In a game like this it may not be good, I agree with you, WL

Micah

July 2nd, 2009, 12:20 PM

You could have the admin post in-thread when a cap is taken or lost with the appropriate information, it would be the same as a graph.

Edit: Any player getting a cap should notify the admin so that the admin wouldn't have to check in constantly, of course. Since VPs aren't exchanged too often in most games this shouldn't be too much of a burden for anyone, though some sort of sanctions should probably be enacted for failure to notify the admin. (If you don't notify the admin the turn you get the capital then your VP doesn't count until 5 turns after the notification, perhaps? If you have 2 late notifications it takes 10 for them to count, etc.)

Dimaz

July 2nd, 2009, 01:44 PM

Hm, in my experience it's almost always obvious when someone takes a capital from another player by income/gems graphs, and I don't think it's such a good idea with these "capture notifications", it's quite easy to forget this when game situation requires much attention, as in the case with your/neighbor capital owner changed.

ano

July 2nd, 2009, 01:47 PM

When it's obvious for you it doesn't automatically mean that it is obvious for everyone and in no-diplo game you can't just cry "Guy! XXX is going to won!"

Executor

July 2nd, 2009, 02:19 PM

Trust me it's not that obvious to see who's winning, if you remember what happened in Beer with Vanheim Ano.

WraithLord

July 2nd, 2009, 03:05 PM

I 2nd ano here.
Micah's suggestion is good - however I don't see why we have to go to all this hassle just to defend players from early rush. Take an awake SC if you are afraid to be rushed. Rushing is part of the game and while I wouldn't have minded hiding the capitals I don't think it's a good idea given the consequences on end game (the original suggestion) or annoyance/overhead (the obvious draw back of Micah's otherwise excellent suggestion).

I say we go as planned.
Micah, now that you've made a visit here - care to join us as the 19h player?- (Although this will probably significantly drop everybody's chance of victory ;) )

Micah

July 2nd, 2009, 03:50 PM

No, thank you. I do not care for the settings (I doubt I will play another open-ended gem-gen game at any point) or large map size (especially with gem-gens active), nor the large volume of inexperienced players. I find that it skews the game heavily when there are so many soft targets available.

Plus I'm still spending hours on arti and am going out of town tomorrow. Just waiting on llama now though, I'm hoping to be done with the first problem soon, though it's almost tempting to wait until the anniversary of the game at this point, it's so close...

Micah

July 2nd, 2009, 03:53 PM

Oh, and 9-indies is a further kick in the nuts to some already-weak nations (I pity whoever gets Jomon...have fun never leaving your cap.)

StrictlyRockers

July 2nd, 2009, 08:57 PM

Hey RAND gamers. Count me in on this one. Sounds like a lot of fun. Yarg! I vote no on mods.

Black Sun Empire

July 2nd, 2009, 09:43 PM

Good luck guys, I will attempt to learn the game playing in a more newbie friendly environment. I will see you all in a couple of months, when my green colours have reduced.

Zeldor

July 3rd, 2009, 03:09 AM

Huh, stupid PM system. Sent 4 nations, will send the rest in the evening - can't wait 20 mins to do all that now. I'm in a hurry. And it forces me to wait 60 secs between PMs.

Calahan

July 3rd, 2009, 04:14 AM

Hey RAND gamers. Count me in on this one. Sounds like a lot of fun. Yarg! I vote no on mods.
Hey StrictlyRockers, good to have you back :)

WraithLord

July 3rd, 2009, 06:47 AM

hurray :D Got my nation.

Zeldor, thank you for being so prompt about this. I'm sure the unassigned players are itching to know what the lottery got them. No pressure on you though ;)

Frozen Lama

July 3rd, 2009, 09:54 AM

So just to make sure I know this right, when/if you get eliminated you can reveal who you are/who you were playing? I didn't think so, but it looks like wraithlord did in the other RAND game...? i assume its ok then

Calahan

July 3rd, 2009, 10:25 AM

In RAND games, I think's it's usually ok to say which nation you played once you are knocked out, but you shouldn't give any info with regards which nation(s) killed you. And you should especially not mention anything about what intel you have about other nations.

So, "I played XXX, congrats to the nation that killed me. Well played" is ok, while....

"I played XXX, and just got steamrolled by YYY. A warning to all to watch out for YYY's nasty ZYX bless. Plus I noticed ZZZ has all the Elemental Royalty, so they are a threat as well."
.... is way out of line.

Plus when you are defeated, you are not allowed to hand out your gold/gems/items like mostly happens in non-RAND games.

WraithLord

July 3rd, 2009, 10:53 AM

Yes. And please give your pretenders a generic name, preferably the nation's name.

rdonj

July 3rd, 2009, 11:20 AM

I think everyone should name their pretender WraithLord :D

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 11:22 AM

Great idea!

TwoBits

July 3rd, 2009, 11:34 AM

Calahan

July 3rd, 2009, 11:47 AM

In my opinion, if you send an in-game message, and the recipient of that message reports it to the admin (rdonj) then the sender should be kicked out of the game no questions asked.

Executor

July 3rd, 2009, 11:48 AM

It can't be disabled, however it takes two player to cheat this system and there's always the possibility of the other player reporting you.

And as long as there is no talk about treaties and trading it's all good.
Sending insults and such messages without disclosing anything is ok.

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 11:53 AM

rdonj

July 3rd, 2009, 11:57 AM

I'd like a screenshot of the reported abuse though at least.

Calahan

July 3rd, 2009, 12:00 PM

Sending any sort of 'gift' can be seen as wanting 'friendship' in my opinion. There should be no sending of anything allowed.

Executor

July 3rd, 2009, 12:01 PM

I don't think it's ok when you send insults or such. There's not that much difference between insult and treaty if you think of it...
I think that all messaging should be disallowed. Am not sure how about just sending items without notification though. Gifts or such.

Yeah, I meant it more in a way, Prepare to die you bastard!!!
Or, that was a good battle. That sort of little talk.

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 12:03 PM

Sending any sort of 'gift' can be seen as wanting 'friendship' in my opinion. There should be no sending of anything allowed.
Or maybe it's just a useless trash...:)

Gandalf Parker

July 3rd, 2009, 12:32 PM

StrictlyRockers

July 3rd, 2009, 01:07 PM

Hey Calahan, thanks, it's good to be back.

I think I understand the rules. I think that any sort of message that you send is a form of communication and should be disallowed. In my opinion, the only messaging that should be allowed is the "Send Message to All" function. At least, that's how I would play it.

I have not gotten a nation assignment. I checked my email. For admin reference, my email is cjpurdin at yahoo

I am looking forward to making my pretender and starting in a week.

Dragar

July 3rd, 2009, 01:20 PM

I think no messages at all, of any kind, is the safe way to play this. Send message to all lets you say plenty

TwoBits

July 3rd, 2009, 01:47 PM

I'm curious, how do you prevent "in-game" diplomacy, using the game's messaging? Is it being disabled through a mod? Or the "honor" system (if so, sounds like there could be plenty of room for abuse there)?

Messages show up in games logs if its turned on.
Who sends to who, and if its text or equip or gold or gems etc.

Then it sounds like we should have game logs turned on, and then we won't have to rely upon the "honor" system. If that is not the case, then we should be encouraged to report in-game PMs?

"Gift-giving" I don't like, in this RAND format, then. Just another way of trying to engage in diplomacy ("I like you and/or I'm afraid of you - have some stuff, and hopefully understand it as a request not to attack me!").

I think in-game PMs should only be OK if they're sent to everyone? "Pangaean Dog, I'll kill you! Signed, Mictlan", and everyone sees it.

Or is even that too much information, knowing who else is at war (outside of what you can discover with scouts) and such?

I guess that begs the question - what's the point of RAND? To get rid of all diplomacy, or to get rid of the meta-gaming diplomacy? Honestly, I'm not sure what my opinion is on that, or even if there's a way to allow "real, in-game" diplomacy while avoiding meta-gaming.

Executor

July 3rd, 2009, 02:01 PM

Personaly I feel meaningless messages are ok, since it is hardly diplomatic to say "I kicked your ars in that last battle!".

The admin log may be turned on, but I doubt the admin will be checking it every turn for messages anyway, so what's the point either way? It's not like the admin will kick anyone out just for sending an "Micheal Jordan is the best" message or anything as stupid as that.

WingedDog

July 3rd, 2009, 02:25 PM

I doubt people gathered here have signed into this the game to cheat. I beleive title says "no diplomacy and anonymous", obeying this rules is enough for me.

TwoBits

July 3rd, 2009, 02:54 PM

I doubt people gathered here have signed into this the game to cheat. I beleive title says "no diplomacy and anonymous", obeying this rules is enough for me.

I know, I'm not really worried about cheating, I just want to know what, if anything (and if it's nothing, I just would like to know), the in-game PM can or can't be used for.

You know, I guess I think a game with some diplomacy would be OK, as long as it was totally anonymous (in real life terms), and totally in-game (what with the two-turn turnaround in conversations), if that could be done. You know, as long as it wasn't a "hey, C'tis here, and I'm 'Bob', email me at 'Bob.com', and we'll totally coordinate and trade, etc." kind of deal.

But hey, this is not the first RAND game as far as I can tell (except for me, that is), and I'm sure this entire subject has likely been discussed ad-nauseam before, so I guess I'll shut up, and leave it to the more experienced players to figure out.

Guess I just wanted some clarification on how this kind of game would play out :)

WingedDog

July 3rd, 2009, 03:03 PM

TwoBits

No diplomacy is the the very point of RANDY games, and that's why most of the people including me joined it.

Alpine Joe

July 3rd, 2009, 03:15 PM

Yeah I have enough faith in this community to be fine with the honor system on cheating.

StrictlyRockers

July 3rd, 2009, 03:40 PM

Yeah I have enough faith in this community to be fine with the honor system on cheating.

Me too.

Zeldor

July 3rd, 2009, 03:46 PM

Zeldor

July 3rd, 2009, 03:53 PM

Strabo has turned off PM receiving, so pls turn that on and contact me about nation.

StrictlyRockers

July 3rd, 2009, 03:53 PM

Didn't read what people said, but:

- sending remaining assignments now, all rolls based on karma, so 100% fair
- there is a tool that can check .2h and/or .trn files for diplomacy, so it can be checked if someone cheats [and it could be probably added as llamaserver option - checking for diplomacy]

Excellent, thanks Zeldof. So now that we're all excited to get going, we're going to cool our jets for a week and think about pretender design before actually starting the game?

Executor

July 3rd, 2009, 03:56 PM

Woohoo, I hate my nation...:mad:

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 03:57 PM

Perhaps, most of us do:)

Zeldor

July 3rd, 2009, 04:00 PM

Ok, everyone got nations except Strabo. If you didn't contact me.

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 04:02 PM

Thanks, Zeldor.

WingedDog

July 3rd, 2009, 04:16 PM

Thanks, Zeldor.

Executor

July 3rd, 2009, 04:47 PM

I've changed my mind, I like my nation now.:)

Strabo

July 3rd, 2009, 05:01 PM

Oh, I haven't noticed that my user option are messed up and PM are disabled.
Zeldor, now you can send me my nation (sorry, I'm a bit late)

WraithLord

July 3rd, 2009, 05:54 PM

Please refrain from sending any in-game messages. Also, don't post here anything that can reveal information regarding you or other nations. No diplomacy or communications of any kind is allowed between players.

If you lose your identity is revealed. This is part of the fun in the game, guessing and 2nd guessing who is who until ppl start falling. If you do lose, please also refrain from posting anything with information on the game.

It is possible to exploit the in-game PM system or communicate outside the game (duh). But we are all grown-ups here and I for one, fully trust that the rules would be respected by all.

I'll create the game tomorrow evening, so you can start uploading your pretenders at your leisure.

I suggest each of you PM rdonj with his email address and assigned nation. Please don't post your emails here.
Accept for procedural messages let's maintain radio silence until the game is over.

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 06:17 PM

Could you please explain why rdonj needs our emails? We can perfectly communicate through forum, can't we?
I don't hide my email, just want to understand the reasons.

And one more clarification issue: did I understand it right that when someone is eliminated he posts his nation here?

WraithLord

July 3rd, 2009, 06:24 PM

He needs those emails in order to set them up on llamaserver, well unless llamaserver automatically uses the email address, from which the pretender was sent, to send to the turns of the corresponding nation.

Yes, when someone is eliminated he should post here and I'll updated the first post with the current status.

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 06:30 PM

Llamaserver is abolutely automatic at this aspect and uses the email address a pretender was sent from. I'm surprised you didn't know this:).

WraithLord

July 3rd, 2009, 06:32 PM

ok then. Thanks for letting me know. less work for rdonj is certainly a good thing.

Damn, this server is good :)

Zeldor

July 3rd, 2009, 06:34 PM

Strabo:

Check your settings again, please:

"Strabo has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her."

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 06:36 PM

Yes, it is very good. Of course it lacks a few minor things but not too many. As a person who works at this area I see a great amount of work there done at pure enthusiasm of llamabeast.

Natpy

July 3rd, 2009, 07:53 PM

There was a minor mistake during PM'ing process and it happened so that (as I am nearly sure) I know a nation of another player. I don't know his playing style or anything and if this is ok we may just continue and ignore. I just thought that it is not exactly correct.

Strabo

July 3rd, 2009, 07:53 PM

Zeldor:
Strange, but settings says that PM are enabled.
If nothing helps can you send my nation on gusgov [at] mail [dot] ru?

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 08:00 PM

2Natpy
Personally I don't care though it is probably not very correct to begin with.

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 08:04 PM

2Strabo
If possible, don't use mail.ru account with llamaserver. It is well known to be problematic. OTOH, Gmail works perfectly with llamaserver and never fails.

Strabo

July 3rd, 2009, 08:22 PM

2ano
mail.ru failed only once and works pretty good, but I have an alternative gmail account though

ano

July 3rd, 2009, 08:26 PM

Probably it is a matter of personal experience:)

TwoBits

July 3rd, 2009, 10:38 PM

I got my nation, and I understand the point of RAND now, I guess I just needed some further qualification. So absolutely no diplomacy, and as WraithLord said, there should be no in-game PMing. Not even insults, I presume, as I think even that could be giving information away.

Dragar

July 3rd, 2009, 11:09 PM

I haven't received my nation yet.. will PM as well

Zeldor

July 4th, 2009, 02:26 AM

Natpy:

Well, you know that someone has some nation, without nick, so no problem here. Every nation is used :)

Strabo:

Still same thing, contact someone here [Mindi?] to get that solved - you will need PMs, for example for game admin to contact you. I will email you the nation now though.

rdonj

July 4th, 2009, 08:26 AM

WingedDog

July 4th, 2009, 08:52 AM

Calahan

July 4th, 2009, 04:40 PM

Just a heads-up to whoever starts this game that there are several Glory of the Gods maps on the llamaserver, with most of them being listed near the end under the "User Added Maps" section. I think the most up-to-date one is Glory of the Gods 3.17, which apparantly fixes a number of issues that the vanilla map had.

Although I just checked now, and there are some Glory of the Gods maps on there with 23/24 fixed start locations. Not sure how they would work out if only 19 nations started on them.

WraithLord

July 4th, 2009, 04:57 PM

Yes. I'm not sure which version would best suit us. The options are:

1. Vanilla MP version. No fixed locations.
2. 3rd edition for the 'Art of War' says: "This map has fixed starting locations for the game 'Art of War'."
3. Modded starting positions says: "Glory of the Gods Multiplayer, ran through script @

http://users.on.net/~dfidge/cgi-bin/dom3map.pl

to make minimum amount of neighborin provinces at start to be 3, shouldn't start in the middle of a swamp either...

227/47 provinces."

All the rest are SP versions and have 480 provinces. They are not appropriate.
I'm not sure which I prefer better, option 1 or 3. Well I'm somewhat leaning towards 3...
I don't see any rush to create the game now so I'll wait to hear some opinions before creating the game - tomorrow.

WraithLord

July 4th, 2009, 05:08 PM

Well, I know who two people are. Though it seems I don't have to know anyway. I'm going to need the admin password to grant extensions though or any other admin business, so if you still need me for that I need it at some point.

Game is not created yet. Of course I'll send you the pwd once it's there :)

And while we're at it, I just discovered a fourth possible GotG map on the server:
4. MP ver. 3.17. says:
"All of these maps suffered from the problem of terrain types being too mismatched and having errors. The Glory maps (especially the multiplayer version with fewer provinces) had some big problems with some regions being nearly impassable, requiring units with multiple survival skills to move more than one province at a time. I've cleaned that up some, so it's now a little bit more movement friendly in the plains type regions than it was. Also checked neighbors, those are now all correct.

The Urraparrand map suffered from the problem that it was nearly completely impassable both in the vertical and horizontal direction, so I made some neighbor connections over the very narrowest straits. Should be much more playable right now. The problems were especially apparent since the map is a wraparound and you never could really move around the world on it before.

The map files were fixed using the same criteria I did for Cradle and Parganos way back when, so they are good. [Editor's note: That means all provinces eligible for being start locations must have at least 4 land neighbors and sea start locations must have 3 or more sea neighbors. Additionally, start locations cannot be in waste or swamp provinces. Some few provinces that would otherwise be startable are not because they would onlyhave waste or swamp as neighbor, thus being economically crippling despite having a proper number of neighbors, but such provinces only amount to very few on any given map]
"

This one sounds like the version that got the most attention to the vanilla version glitches. I like this option. I think I'll go with it, although I'll stick to the original plan of hearing out opinions until game creation - tomorrow.

ano

July 4th, 2009, 05:09 PM

Actually there's no problem to create map with more or less balanced starting locations - I did it many times. Obviously it is the best option because it guarantees that players will be in equal positions at start.
If it is ok, I may do it tomorrow because I have free time. If not, I vote for option 3 (now 4 if it has any effect on starting positions) of course. Map has large wasteland and swamp regions so starting somewhere near the edge there is a big pain.

StrictlyRockers

July 4th, 2009, 09:26 PM

I think the most up do date version of Glory of the Gods 3.17 is likely to be a good choice. Anything we can do to balance the starting positions so someone doesn't start in a swamp or something is great. My pretender is ready.

WingedDog

July 4th, 2009, 10:21 PM

Yes, it should be Glory of Gods 3.17.

Micah

July 5th, 2009, 12:04 AM

Starting in swamp terrain should be fine, it's starting next to swamps that's the problem, no? (Obviously a lot of swamps are going to be both since the terrain is clumped together, but it's the neighbors that are the concern, not the cap itself.)

WraithLord

July 5th, 2009, 04:00 AM

StrictlyRockers

July 5th, 2009, 04:38 AM

Game is created on server, here (http://www.llamaserver.net/gameinfo.cgi?game=YARG1). You can start uploading pretenders. If you are not yet familiar with the procedure please read here (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=35160).

Game is scheduled to start this Thursday.

Thanks for setting this game up, WraithLord.

For clarification, the game is named YARG1, and pretenders need to be emailed with "YARG1" as the subject line. If you send your pretender with "YARG" or anything other than "YARG1" as the subject line, your pretender will not be accepted.

WraithLord

July 5th, 2009, 09:52 AM

Probably kind of obvious, but I'll mention just to make sure: Please refrain from comments such as my pretender is ready, or I just loaded my pretender etc.

Anything that give a hint who you are should pass through rdonj via PM. TIA!

Executor

July 5th, 2009, 10:05 AM

Yeah I agree with Micah, the one who start in the swamp down south is destined to lose for sure no matter the nation or the player, I know, I started there once and it wasn't pretty.

Dimaz

July 5th, 2009, 10:38 AM

I started once with LA Mictlan planned for rush in NE corner of Cradle, and it was 10+ swamp provinces to nearest neighbor. That was fun.

ano

July 5th, 2009, 10:43 AM

Yeah I agree with Micah, the one who start in the swamp down south is destined to lose for sure no matter the nation or the player, I know, I started there once and it wasn't pretty.
That's what I meant when I spoke about balanced starting locations. I don't like randomness and situations where luck decides everything.
But as this seems to be the point of this very game, I don't mind

TwoBits

July 5th, 2009, 10:54 AM

Magic sites at LA standard 35%?

WraithLord

July 5th, 2009, 11:10 AM

TwoBits, yes.

Executor, this map is not 100% balanced and it's a matter of opinion and personal taste whether or not this is acceptable. Dominions is any way a game that is heavily influenced by luck (see: lab destroyed on turn three, or 1500 gold received on turn 1 etc) and I personally like it that way.
IMHO opinion 100% balanced games are more boring (not plain boring, just more boring). Anyway YARG1 does not strive to be fully balanced. I suggest to see how this game works out, if there are serious gripes when it ends we'll try to improve for the next round.

Also, for future reference, I wanted to ask what you guys think re. the following:
- How about if LA Ermor was allowed in this game, but had to pay a penalty. It's capital would be worth one VP to Ermor player but three VPs to any other player that controls it. In addition, Ermor player must control 11 Vps in order to win.
Would that balance Ermor awesomeness enough to allow it to join the game?

WingedDog

July 5th, 2009, 11:11 AM

TwoBits
Yes.

Executor
It is a reworked for MP version of a map, so swams are not so nasty.

I was designing starting locations on this map for another game not so long ago, and I must say it is difficult to avoid placing anyone into the swamp or desert area.

Edit:
Ninjad by WraithLord. :)
WraithLord
I was thinking if Ermor is allowed in the game, perhabs there should be a starting dominion cap for him?

ano

July 5th, 2009, 11:22 AM

TwoBits, yes.
Also, for future reference, I wanted to ask what you guys think re. the following:
- How about if LA Ermor was allowed in this game, but had to pay a penalty. It's capital would be worth one VP to Ermor player but three VPs to any other player that controls it. In addition, Ermor player must control 11 Vps in order to win.
Would that balance Ermor awesomeness enough to allow it to join the game?
I'll tell you what will happen in this case.
Ermor's neighbours will be still crippled by his dominion while someone on another side of the map grows powerful. Then that "someone" teleports 6 stonerainers onto Ermor capital and the next turn gets 3 VP. Problem with Ermor is mainly with driving its neighbours out of the victory race and your suggestion doesn't help.
I may sound annoying but, IMO, Ermor, may be be allowed only
1) with fixed startlocs
2) somewhere in the map corner
3) its neighbours should be given some indirect bonuses like increased cap population.

All 3 quite easily doable in an hour of map editing. Under these conditions, I think, Ermor may be allowed in such a game.

WraithLord

July 5th, 2009, 11:26 AM

My previous experience with Ermor shows it can sometimes be defeated by an alliance or even by a bless rush or SC rush. The real problem is you gain so little and sacrifice so much to achieve that. Putting a high price tag on Ermor's head in the form of 3 VPs should provide enough motivation and reward for players to come and kill Ermor.

When that is the case I don't see any reason to limit Ermor. Let him do the best he can to survive under *these* conditions.

Executor

July 5th, 2009, 11:26 AM

WingedDog, Wrathlord,
I know it's impossible to make perfect balanced maps and positions, and I know luck is a great factor in the game, finding 50% conjuration makes a huge difference, but I'm just saying while those ingame event can't be stopped, nor should they, start locations can, and should.

If one starts in the middle of 10 farm provinces and the other player starts in the middle of 10 swamp provinces, well I'll bet on the first guy, and those sort of things should be avoided as much as possible.
I know some nations must start next to the swamp, or deserts, but they don't need to start in the very middle of it, province number 15 for example, which was marked as a start position in a game I was in for some reason!?

As long as those sort of fatal starting locations aren't set I'm good. For example 42, or 51 instead of 15 should be workable, if you get what I', trying to say?

ano

July 5th, 2009, 11:31 AM

I don't want to argue but I'm just sure that in no-diplo game noone will attack Ermor and if someone captures his capital it will be the case I described above. Ermorian capital is tasty as it is with 15 death gems in a poor magic world. Add 3 VP's on top of that and well equipped Seraphs/Cyclops/anything else with wall breaking items will appear there sooner or later

Micah

July 5th, 2009, 11:32 AM

IMO VP incentives and penalties are nearly meaningless with such a high requirement to win. Having Ermor's cap be worth 3 VPs would be interesting if you needed 5 VPs to win, since that would put you within one conquest of winning, but when you still need to win multiple wars to win the game it isn't very helpful, especially since whoever does end up in game-winning contention can just scoop it up from the player that actually takes out Ermor in the first place.

A dominion restriction would probably be much more effective, but I'm not sure what a reasonable number would be. (This also hurts Ermor a bit more by preventing them from taking awe on their pretender)

ano

July 5th, 2009, 11:32 AM

2Executor
That's exactly what I've been saying for a rather long time. IF we want an interesting competitive game we need to give everything more or less equal starting conditions. For example, I doubt one'll have a large motivation to play well if he starts in a desert/swamp region and I understand it well. WL, if you remember Qwerty, on turn 9 I had 8 neighbours, 3 of which were very close to my capital. On top of that there were only wastelands around me and if not my ally there I would have surely fallen very fast. But here are no allies and no diplomacy.
2Micah
Yes, dominion restriction might be a very good idea. Something like 7 should be fine, I think

Gandalf Parker

July 5th, 2009, 12:02 PM

The map link only contains the .map files.
As I understand it, these are not needed by the players. Only the graphic file MUST exist in the players maps directory to participate in the game? Or is this different for pbem games?

ano

July 5th, 2009, 12:05 PM

Yes, only a graphic

WraithLord

July 5th, 2009, 12:56 PM

Executor, ano: are you saying that the 3.17 MP GotG map contains fatal, balance wise, errors?- if so, what do you suggest?- Do you want to make a fix and upload it to the server as a user submitted map?- Otherwise I see no point in cont. this discussion re. this game, we will just have to make do with this version, which is the most "fixed" version of the map to date.

re. Ermor, yes, I understand your points and I agree dom restriction would work better. I'll remember that for the next YARG.

ano

July 5th, 2009, 01:07 PM

Yes, I think it does contain issues that affect the balance. Center top region is wastelands+mountains, middle bottom region is swamps, left bottom region is wastelands+mountains while center region consists mainly of farmlands (approximately 12 packed farmlands). Yes, I think that whether you start in one of the former or in the latter will pretty much decide the game for you. Is it balance wise? Probably yes. Is it fatal? Yes, if you start in a "dead" region.
On top of that random starting locations mean that some people may have their capitals very close while other will have a lot of place to expand. Does it affect balance? Probably yes. Also, I think I described all my reasons and points quite clearly.
What do I suggest? I wrote it yesterday saying that I have a free Sunday and may spend some time working on the map but noone reacted.
I am probably still able to do it but only if people want too. If everyone is ok with starting in dead mountain\wasteland region then I'm ok too. But if it occasionally happens to me I'll probably won't stay for long.

Zeldor

July 5th, 2009, 01:14 PM

Are you sure you checked really the MP map with correct version? I know it is true for SP version, but MP one just looks like that on graphics, but when you look at terrain types it's really different.

WraithLord

July 5th, 2009, 01:15 PM

ano, your points are clear. while I can live with whatever fate would give me I can relate to why you'd prefer a more balanced map. I have no objections to that and in-fact would appreciate if you'd want to go through the map and try to fix it.
If you do manage to come up with something acceptably balanced I'll restart the game with it (after you UL it to the server).

Thank you for your involvement and offer to help!

ano

July 5th, 2009, 01:17 PM

Zeldor
Double-checked it...
It's true about wastelands\mounts at N and SW and farmlands in the center. Not so true about swamps because some were changed

Executor

July 5th, 2009, 01:18 PM

WL, don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining in any way about the map, it's your game - your rules, I don't have a problem with anything, well maybe Ermor a bit.

I'm just saying, every map contains "fatal, balance wise, errors" as you said. And a lot of wins can be predetermined by those flaws as everyone is well aware. So it may not be a bad idea to fix them a bit if possible, since it'll make the game more enjoyable for everyone, not just the few lucky starts.

And I am as well good with what fate gives me, however others usually are not. :)

ano

July 5th, 2009, 01:18 PM

WraithLord
To change the map you actually don't have to restart the game as far as I remember. It is one of the "settings" that llamaserver allows to be changed by admin.
Ok, I'll work on the map today and post the results here.
Executor
You once again voiced my thoughts

Executor

July 5th, 2009, 01:21 PM

Executor
You once again voiced my thoughts

:) :)

StrictlyRockers

July 5th, 2009, 03:39 PM

The game will always involve quite a bit of luck, no matter how much you try to avoid this. That said, I am happy with ano attempting to make the starting locations as balanced as possible. I'd like to see the final version of the map we will use. I will be satisfied with it almost certainly. I am ready to get started on this map, too. Nothing will ever be perfectly balanced. I think that is part of the fun of the game, and spending too much time on attempting to accomplish the impossible is a lesson in futility.

I don't think it's a good idea to try to nerf Ermor to the point that they are playable in a game like this. I vote to simply keep them out of this and future RAND games. It seems easier than putting artificial constraints on them like a dominions cap or a more valuable capital for VP. Keep R'lyeh out, as well. Don't try to hobble them in some way just to include them. This is a clugy and stilted solution to something that is not a problem.

ano

July 5th, 2009, 03:48 PM

StrictlyRockers
I nearly finished the map and will post it here soon with comments.
Regarding balance and such things I may tell you that during Qwerty game (which I mentioned somewhere above) I decided not to create games with random locations anymore and the next game I hosted I spent some time to dive into the mapmaking process. The result was really cool in Stasis game - people were absolutely satisfied with the balanced starts.
That's why now I prefer to play with predefined starts in every game I participate. As Executor correctly said above, it is impossible to eliminate the luck element in this game and it should not be done, but maps and start locations can and should be balanced to make the game more interesting and competitive and more dependent on player skill than on blind luck.

ano

July 5th, 2009, 04:14 PM

Here it is. I must say I like the result. Hope you will like it too.
The changes include:
- starting locations for 19 players of which most are at least 3 provinces away from each other (there seems to be only one exclusion that I couldn't handle)
- "dead regions" made not so dead. Also, starts there are placed so that wastelands/swamps should not cripple a player.
- "rich regions" made a bit less rich but not much. Central "rich" region is nearly untouched but noone will start there and at least 4 nations will be able to fight for it.
- some more terrain/movement changes based on my experience.

The biggest problem with this map is, IMO, that you can't really 100% rely on graphics to know what terrain is there. Graphics will be correct in most cases but not always.
The second problem is that it is impossible to distinguish border mountains (passable) from regular mountains (impassable) but that's the problem of original map. To know for sure which mountain is there you should open the map in map editor.

Starting locations are:
146, 184, 260, 47, 126, 252, 197, 181, 214, 101, 127, 38, 27, 21, 138, 200, 88, 68, 248.
I also attached the screenshot where starting locations are well seen (Eyes of Debug cast). Please note that they will be randomly assigned between nations. The nations positions you see on screenshot are by no means determined.
:)

llamabeast

July 5th, 2009, 04:33 PM

To check whether mountains are mountains or border mountains, you can just hover over the mountain symbol in-game.

ano

July 5th, 2009, 04:46 PM

Thanks a lot, llamabeast. I never knew that:)

StrictlyRockers

July 5th, 2009, 05:15 PM

rdonj

July 5th, 2009, 10:00 PM

I have been informed that two of the pretenders are using the same email address. I would rather not specify which nations due to the secretive nature of rand-type games. I would like an explanation from the player(s) involved, hopefully you know who you are.

WingedDog

July 5th, 2009, 11:23 PM

rdonj
Ask Zeldor to PM you a list of the players with nations assigned.

rdonj

July 5th, 2009, 11:28 PM

Hmm, yes, I should have done that in the first place. When I hear back from Zeldor I'll pm them and figure out what's going on.

rdonj

July 6th, 2009, 12:21 AM

Nations identified and PMs sent. I will report with my findings when they are made available to me, unless the players do so first.

WingedDog

July 6th, 2009, 01:09 AM

rdonj
Thanks for the efforts. By the way don't forget to change the map to the one with Ano's design.

rdonj

July 6th, 2009, 01:20 AM

Done as well.

StrictlyRockers

July 6th, 2009, 03:28 AM

One of the down sides of having known preplaced starting positions is that it takes some of the fun and surprise out of the game that comes from not having any idea where your enemies started. It eliminates some of the mystery right off the bat. For me, that is a lot of the fun, not knowing which way to go or what you might find.

Also, for nations that have good early ritual spells like Blight or Hurricane, they can target their opponents' home provinces with foreknowledge of the locations. That to me seems somewhat of an unfair advantage to those nations. So, on the whole I think I'd prefer to start with random start locations, even though this may give some nation a "bad start location". You take what you get and you try to make the most of it. Some games are better than others. Although I am content to play with pre-placed starting locations, my preference is for them to be placed totally randomly.

Dragar

July 6th, 2009, 03:31 AM

Surely if you're at war with someone early it won't be too difficult to find their home province regardless? I can imagine it lets you fire off a blight or hurricane slightly earlier in some cases but I don't see this as more important than having equitable start locations

ano

July 6th, 2009, 04:40 AM

StrictlyRockers
First, in this game home provinces will have VP's and so will be visible regardless of anything else.
Second, no early rituals because of difficult research.

So, while it may be arguable in general, for this game, I think, predefined locations are a perfect option.

WraithLord

July 6th, 2009, 05:50 AM

ano, thank you very much for the making the fixes.
I've changed the game settings to use your map.

rdonj, I trust you will check the the matter and act accordingly. If you wish you can consult with me w/o revealing identities.

StrictlyRockers

July 6th, 2009, 06:08 AM

StrictlyRockers
First, in this game home provinces will have VP's and so will be visible regardless of anything else.
That is a very good point.

Second, no early rituals because of difficult research.

That's also a good point.

WingedDog

July 6th, 2009, 07:35 AM

ano

July 6th, 2009, 07:37 AM

Very generous of you, WindgedDog, to warn your future opponents of the dangers that await them:)

Executor

July 6th, 2009, 07:47 AM

rdonj

July 6th, 2009, 09:54 AM

Alright, the problem has been identified and taken care of.

LumenPlacidum

July 6th, 2009, 10:11 AM

Everybody please make sure to run some tests of initial expansion. Indies 9 are much stronger then default indies and could be a real problem even for elite blessed troops and SC pretenders.

I just hope everyone here is experienced enough to laugh at my post. :)

Heh, so long as I don't have to do quite as well as I would against weaker indies, I'll be ok. Then again, it may be that everyone else has expansion strategies that are robust enough that it doesn't make a difference what indie strength is, but it seems like it would have to slow people down at least a little!

In any case, yeah, testing things out is a wonderful thing.

Raiel

July 8th, 2009, 03:33 PM

The status page shows Ermor as having uploaded a pretender... I thought they were going to be banned from this game!? :confused:

ano

July 8th, 2009, 03:37 PM

Probably, either a mistake or again our "chinese" friends. I think that this should be clarified and Ermor kicked.
p.s. Ultra-slow starts are no fun.

ano

July 8th, 2009, 03:40 PM

Btw, if Ermor was the last to send his pretender, the game would start. Probably (unless llamabeast introduces password-protected games) autostart should be turned off.

rdonj

July 8th, 2009, 03:50 PM

Btw, if Ermor was the last to send his pretender, the game would start. Probably (unless llamabeast introduces password-protected games) autostart should be turned off.

I agree. Automatic start is now off. No player is assigned ermor as a nation, so I will delete that pretender. That makes the third (at minimum...) false pretender submitted.

WraithLord

July 8th, 2009, 03:52 PM

server gives gives the option to: "Set game to start once all pretenders are in"

I assume this means auto start is currently off.

edit: ninjad by rdonj :)

WraithLord

July 8th, 2009, 03:54 PM

I have deleted Ermor pretender.

Ermor is banned from this game. I am concerned that someone may be trying to mess up our game.

Sent a PM to rdonj ano re. that concern.

ano

July 8th, 2009, 04:03 PM

I think that when we're about to start everyone should check that pretender for his nation is correct.

ano

July 8th, 2009, 08:07 PM

Seems like we're full at last.

WraithLord

July 9th, 2009, 12:36 AM

Game page says:
"
Late Age, max 19 players
Players so far: 19
"

However, admin options says:
"
Pretenders so far: 18
Max pretenders: 19
"

Am I missing something here?

ok, I went to the delete pretender page and verified all 19 pretenders are there.

I'm starting the game now :D

WraithLord

July 9th, 2009, 01:01 AM

Glanced at first turn. It says that Atlantis was cheating and that it's pretender is too powerful.

Guys, can you please double check that you have indeed created your pretenders with all mods disabled?- If not, please notify rdonj.

WingedDog

July 9th, 2009, 02:20 AM

Will there be a restart then?

rdonj

July 9th, 2009, 03:46 AM

Well, according to the player who staled the pretender was created with no mods enabled. I am having him verify that that is the case and that his version of dominions is up to date. After that I have no idea why his pretender would cause a problem. The pretender in question lost all its magic paths, so it would be best to unstart the game until he can get his fixed pretender in.

rdonj

July 9th, 2009, 10:09 AM

Yeah, the game was restarted. As far as I know at this point the second one should be fine. I have not heard back from atlantis' player whether their god came out alright this time around yet, but since atlantis' turn seems to be in and there were no complaints, I think it's safe to say the game is looking fine to play now.

Edit: Now I've heard back. The pretender is fine, the game may proceed.

Executor

July 10th, 2009, 08:48 PM

What the???

ano

July 10th, 2009, 08:51 PM

What are you talking about?

Executor

July 11th, 2009, 04:49 AM

Nothin' much, just the legions of knights encircling my capital.:)

LumenPlacidum

July 12th, 2009, 11:03 AM

A question, since I've never actually tried a VP game before.

The line in the score graphs above all the nations for VP, that's how much is needed to win?

WingedDog

July 12th, 2009, 12:01 PM

A question, since I've never actually tried a VP game before.

The line in the score graphs above all the nations for VP, that's how much is needed to win?

Yes.

Strabo

July 13th, 2009, 07:23 PM

Hm... I have problems with turn file №5, the game says it is corrupted. I tried a resendet turn file. Same. Does anyone have same problem?

Frozen Lama

July 13th, 2009, 07:50 PM

mine's all good

WingedDog

July 13th, 2009, 11:27 PM

Hm... I have problems with turn file №5, the game says it is corrupted. I tried a resendet turn file. Same. Does anyone have same problem?

It happends sometimes at the point you save turn file from your e-mail to destination folder. Try to redo it.

Strabo

July 14th, 2009, 12:35 AM

I've redone this many times, but it's still doesn't works

Calahan

July 14th, 2009, 12:40 AM

Have you tried requesting a turn resend Strabo? As maybe your email got corrupted somewhere along the lines.

When I have that problem I usually get a fresh turn file resent to me, and then save it in a completely new folder. That's usually gets it working for me.

Strabo

July 14th, 2009, 12:59 AM

2Calahan, yes, I tried this too, but doesn't work for me

Calahan

July 14th, 2009, 01:05 AM

@ Strabo - That's annoying. Can you by any chance type out, or cut and paste, the exact error message you are getting. Since that might help identify what the exact problem is.

Strabo

July 14th, 2009, 01:27 AM

Message: "Turn file is corrupted"

Calahan

July 14th, 2009, 01:39 AM

Hhhhhmmmm, not much to go on is it? To be honest I'm not sure what else you can do to try and solve the problem.

All I can suggest is one or more of the following....

1. Try to get hold of llamabeast to see if he can identify and solve the problem his end.
2. Email your turn file to someone to see if they get the same error message when they try to open it. Maybe email it to rdonj, the admin, for him to check. And I'd suggest emailing your file rather than switching emails address on the llamaserver (so that someone can get the turn file via a resend). As the change of email address will be recorded in the logs, hence giving your nation away.
3. Contact rdonj and ask for a delay until you sort the problem out.

Hope you get things sorted Strabo :) and sorry I couldn't help solve your problem :(