Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

It is neither, merely a statement of fact. Actually, I am pleased that these game rules seem to make newbies to want to enter.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

I have almost no MP experience with them, so they should be safe in my hands.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Or unsafe...

"I don't know what happened, officer! I was sure the mystic was unloaded, and it just went off!"

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

BTW, Rev, I went to grad school at the U of R. I enjoyed my time in sunny Rochester.

[Edit] The "sunny" part is sarcastic, the "enjoyed" part is not.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Hey, this sounds really interesting. Is C'tis still open?

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

It is yours! We are full up. Very cool indeed.

Game Start
 

OK, since we are all full up, here is the plan:

1. Everybody make a pretender by Saturday, 8 PM Mountain Daylight Time (-7 GMT), and email it to me: The_Panther(at)comcast(dot)net. Be very sure to put in a pretender password and put COW in the subject line. I will check each one and return those without passwords since someone is bound to forget.
2. Everybody needs to register on the Council site.
3. I will revise the game rules on the Council site.
4. We will vote in a Chief Justice. So far, Alneyan is the only candidate and he will win by default unless someone else volunteers.
5. We will need a Justice page on the site with some rules. Since justices serve for life, we must get this right. I will take a stab at this. (Refer to Maine v. France for applicable legal issues)
6. On Sunday, I will post the exact build of all pretenders on the council site. This ought to help all our newbies to see what other pretenders look like. We will then be able to determine how many council votes are available up to the max of 17. I predict all 17 myself, since there seems to be very few reasons not to take a wyrm.
7. Then, at the end of the weekend, I will send everything to our Chief Justice to make the first turn on Monday with his own master password. He will then send everything to me to host all subsequent turns. The planned schedule is Monday, Wednesday, Friday about 9 PM MDT. We might move a little faster for the first dozen turns, especially during the work week.

NOTE: We still need a victory condition. I would like some input here. I am leaning towards VPs right now, for I expect a lot of watch towers and a lot of forts being built, even on the poor world. VPs require storming forts while provinces do not, which is why I am not all that happy with provinces.

Re: Game Start
 

My comments and questions:

- I very much like knowing the explicit date & time for hosting

- which Con. Balance mod? 4.0 or 5.0? or quantum might know, is 5.1 coming?

- which .map file is it, orania.map or oraniawar.map? just wondering...if there are predetermined sites/starts, I'd like to know as much as everyone else

- I'll play with the wiki as time permits...certainly this weekend

Re: Game Start
 

Hopefully I will have it released by the weekend.

Anyway, I have thought about it more, and I don't think I'm in this game long term. Think of me as an expander bot, setup a nice empire then hand it off to someone else. Boron might take it up after faerun is over, or someone else. And, of course, the slot is open for any last minute people that want to join.

Re: Game Start
 

We should use Zen 5.0 since people need to be making pretenders now and can't really wait for 5.1.

The map is Orania with preset start positions. I simply added the identical preset starting spots from the Oraniawar onto the base Orania map.

Re: Game Start
 

Can you please elaborate what is the procedure for registering?

Re: Game Start
 

Go to the link in my sig, click on "new account or log in". All you'll be asked for is a screen name and password. Everything else is optional (no email needed). You're done!

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I hope we are not underestimating naresh, even those new to MP have the resources to manipulate their race to their advantage.

Panther could you put a good email address on the wiki for us to send our pretenders to?

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 5 spots open
 

I am Wyrm. Hear me roa-, er, hiss!

Ok, so C'tis it is. I've never played em so let's see how badly I can screw it up.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

BTW, I just want to say now that I've read through this thread and signed up for the wiki I am *really* excited about the potential here! The role-playing, the homepage, the AAR's, the smacktalk, the diplomacy, etc.. To me, this is the type of game where Dominions really shines. In a game like this winning means next to nothing to me as I have far more fun merely participating in the ongoing RP stuff.

So anyway, I'm glad I saw this thread and was able to snag the last nation! Good luck to everyone and don't step on my tail...um, head...whatever! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 5 spots open
 

Hehed, doh. And here I am, finally realizing that I just might be able to squeeze this game in and all the spots are full? *cry*

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Oh well. Let me know if one frees up guys.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

It is done. Just click on my name on the COW site and up pops my email address.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Quantum might give up his spot... he didnt seem too thrilled to be playing.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 5 spots open
 

I think that the wyrm is not cold blooded, so I would suggest you play base C'tis and avoid Miasma which would disease your own pretender. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 5 spots open
 

Swamp survival keeps him from getting diseased.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 5 spots open
 

Wow, that's cool. Then the wyrm is truly versatile enough to handle any race or theme.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 5 spots open
 

can we starve him with undead ermor?

Re: Game Start
 

Don't think they'll be making changes to the pretenders, so people could create pretenders with 5.0 and if 5.1 is out by the weekend, the game can start with that.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 5 spots open
 

Commanders cannot starve.

Re: Game Start
 

Does that work? The predefined sites in the latter seem clumped around a few of the start points of the former. E.g., the Jotunheim/Caelum/TC neighborhood seems rich.

As it is, 3 of the start sites fall upon (and presumably supercede) predefined sites. I ask does this work, because for all I know, people do this all the time with no trouble and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Re: Game Start
 

Wouldn't random start points be more fun and interesting? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Game Start
 

I spoke too soon. In a week or two I'm going to be going on a trip w/ my sick bro and I doubt I will have internet access. So take me back off the waiting list again :}

Re: Game Start
 

I strongly object VPs as victory condition. Depending on where you start on Orania, you can easily hold 5 VPs with 17 provinces, or none at all - they are too unevenly distributed.

Btw. I don't like the preset starting positions as well ...

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

That it is... one of my favorite books in my library, as if you couldn't tell from the duct-taped back, missing corners, and various flavors of salsa and soft drink keeping the whole thing together.

I defer to my multiplayer-betters to decide on the best Victory conditions. So we don't need a new map for download? There is at least one funny connection in the Orania map I have; I'm wondering if there's a new version I don't know about. And props to Puffyn; I didn't mean to leave you out of my praise!

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Arralen, are you opposed to VPs in general, or the preset Orania ones in particular?

Someone (could be me) could edit orania.map to remove the VPs, then we could let the game do random start points and (if desired) random VPs. Since pretender design will be made public, no reason why random start points can't be public, too.

I wonder if VPs might be too hard to get council authorization to take. Attention would be too focused--if you ask for a vote to go to war, it's unpredictable how many provinces you're going to get. But if you vote to go to war for a VP, it's pretty obvious your possible benefit (making it more likely you will be opposed). I guess either way the "get close to victory and go rogue" option still exists.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Re: Start points - I vote for random starting positions and announcing them after the game begins.

Re: VP's - Random placement of VP's could potentially be even less balanced than it already (seemingly) is so if I had to choose, I'd say let's keep the preset VP's. And with random starts we all have an equal chance to be in an advantageous spot. I would leave the rest to the Council's good judgement with regards to Wyrm's wishing to conquer any points....

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

As for VPs, I had planned to put in 34 pre-placed ones and remove all the existing ones. Each capitol would have one plus there would be one quite near each capitol. This ought to give all players 2 VPs each right off if they can quickly get the one close to them. I was also going to examine the positions and put the second VP in the likliest spot that each player would want to build their second fort, or (far more attractive) just ask each wyrm where they want their second VP province. The victory condition would be to capture four more players worth of VPs, or 10.

This works only with pre-placed start conditions. One thing about random starts is the unbalance. In RAND, there are some starting spots that have immense tracts of unclaimed lands in many directions while other players are literally surrounded from the very start. Getting surrounded in this game might not be as bad as it is in RAND, for you might get some sympathy votes from the Council. However, being surrounded means you cannot hope to get your share of the neutrals early on and you will be small and weak for a long time.

I was also planning on eliminating all the preplaced sites in the special provinces, or just getting rid of the specials all together to make it more balanced. I don't think the actual pre-placed start locations on the map are all that unbalanced on Orania, though I could be wrong. I even think people perhaps ought to be able to request moving their start spot by one province in any direction if they want.

I too prefer provinces as a game setting. If not for the fact that merely seiging a fort gives you the province towards a victory goal, then provinces would be a no-brainer. Perhaps other people don't see this as a problem like I do. Perhaps we can simply increase the total provinces required to win to get past this issue.

There is one other possible victory condition that makes sense: NONE! A player merely claims they have the game won and puts it to a Council vote. This is the most thematic plan but will make for a VERY long game. If we have subs waiting in the wings for when people want to (or must) quit playing or simply disappear, then this might work.

Maybe we should have a vote on the related issues of victory condition and random starts and specials.

Morkilus - What is the funny connection in Orania? I will look into it and fix it.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

As far as I could tell in a few tests yesterday, the random start positions are no different than the preset ones. IOW, the randomizing function seems to utilize the preset start locations anyway. The only random element is which nation goes where. So regardless, you're still going to have big tracts of land around some nations while others are all boxed in.

Edit: my bad, I was using OraniaWar for my testing. But anyway, you could still use the method below for randomizing without messing with the preset start locs.

Or, you could just randomize the start locations yourself outside of the game using your own presets. Write all the nation names and preset start locations on small pieces of paper. Put the nations in one hat and the starting locs in another. Shake. Pull a nation and then a start loc. VIOLA! Random start location #1. Repeat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

I like Panther's plans. I would *not* ask where people want VP#2, though. Do it yourself.

The prepositioned sites, I don't know...they aren't well distributed, but the map has such nice icons for them.

Win by council vote, I'd rather not go down that road!

In general, I think you ought to decide on reasonable settings and just start it. Trying to get consensus w/17 players would be time-consuming.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Panther - The "funny connection" in Orania is from 78 to 88; there is no border between the two, yet it is accessible in one step. I don't know if this is a problem, it is just annoying if you don't know about it/forget about it. I suggest you start the game with whatever settings you feel are fair, like djo says. I kinda like the flavor and special indies of the victory point provinces; gives me more to write about. I just sent my Pretender in! (my password in a separate email).

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Knowing whether we're going with the preset positions or not will have an impact on my pretender design so I hope we have a decision soon. Not much time left!

Also, Panther, please tell me you've done away with the "Chillsick Swamp" in C'tis's regular starting position? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

You don't send me or anyone else your password.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Ok, here is the plan. We might as well keep it simple.

1. We will use random start positions. I will also take out all special provinces from the map and add in a lot of #nostart positions to try and spread out the nations.

2. Each capitol (and capitol alone) will have a single victory point. The victory condition will be 5 VPs, meaning you have to keep your own capitol plus take any 4 others. Capitols are notoriously hard to take, so it should be fairly difficult to do this.

How does this sound? Any big objections?

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Panther, that sounds good to me. Thanks for putting this all together.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Sounds good.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Sounds...mmmm...about average. Go for it, I say.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Well, nice thing about capitol only VPs is you can scan the map quick when you start the game - if a couple nations / VPs are too close together (or one or two are all alone for 20 leagues) you could start it again.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

There's another error in the Oriania map file:

#2 should be mountains, not plains ...

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

proposed rules - some remarks/suggestions

Draw a clear line between in-game rules and the council of wyrms, and (outside) players decisions.

Atm, both is mixed up, and twenty years experience of board- and PC-MP-gaming tells me that is begging for trouble. Big trouble.

E.g.:<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> Rule 6.
A proposal must gain at least a tie vote
abstentions do not count) in the Council
to succeed. The only exception is turning
a player to AI. Because this is irreversible,
AI votes require 80% of the votes to suceed.</pre><hr />

So a player who did not choose (for whatever role- or gameplay reasons) a wyrm as a pretender, can't even vote against himself thrown out of the game?? You must be joking !

Furthermore, there are some rules which can't be enforced, as there will be no evidence if someone broke them. That isn't that bad, if they are only 'in-game' rules, as it may lead to some serious and interesting role-playing and strategic decisions.
E.g. what if some casts "Ghost Riders" on his neighbours province, whom he is not at war with and whom he cannot attack without council ruling:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> Rule 15.
Attacks that convert an owned province
to neutral (such as Ghost Riders) are
not allowed without a Council ruling.</pre><hr />

As long as everything stays 'in-game', there will be some suspicions, and (maybe wrong) accusations, but no wyrm will ever know for sure.
But if you'll have the 'referee' check the turn files, you're taking it out of the game, and in between the players. And thing will get very personal then, and the game will be over before it has really begun.

So, please, give this another look and devide the rules into 'game rules' and 'council rules', just to make a clear distinction between what is role-playing and what is real-world code of conduct.

Stefan

PS: And, o.c., wyrms should not be allowed into Death Match !

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

I agree that a clear separation of "character" and "player" knowledge is critical for an RP game.

Using your Ghost Rider example above, there is definitely some interesting RP potential to be gained by keeping it "in-game" (ie, anonymous), as you say, since GR is indeed an anonymous spell and therefore the Council wouldn't know who cast it without actually having a "player" do some digging in the log files.

However, since this is an RP game we could certainly add some RP flavor by saying the council has the power to figure out who the culprit is--should they decide they really want to know--with a special "scrying" ritual (ie, digging into the log files).

We can add even more RP goodness by putting a cost on the scrying, say, 10-15 astral gems that must be paid by the wyrm that initiates the investigation. It could be the victim of the unsanctioned Ghost Rider attack or anyone else on the council that's interested in knowing.

And more more RP flavor, perhaps a majority vote is needed to even do the scrying ritual. Or perhaps there is a minimum participation (eg 10 wyrms) in the ritual but Wyrms aren't required to join, only if they're actually interested in knowing the answer. Or perhaps there is no minimum but anyone wishing to participate in the scrying must pay 10 Astrals and the results of the scrying would obviously only be privy to those that participated.

Anyway, point is, we can put an RP explanation on anything that constitutes "player" knowledge and even have some fun with it. After all, the point of the game (any game!) is to have fun and not get hung up on all the minor niggles (which will occur no matter how many rules you write).

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Actually, since ghost riders is anonymous, then you might be able to cast it and get away with it. However, it is required to be against the rules since it results in province ownership change. Using it therefore entails risk. If the receiving player can muster the 3 necessary votes, he can appeal to the Chief Justice to find the truth. Of course, the other wyrms might not care enough to help him here or maybe they are just glad it didn't happen to them, so there may not be enough votes for an appeal (and it would never be proved). The possibilities of intrigue and accusations are potentially endless. Since it is just a game played for recreation, I don't think it will get personal.

Keep in mind that everything that does not result in province ownership change is perfectly legal, even when it is reported by the game mechanics who did it. Assassinations, seeking arrows, fires from afar, murdering winter, all these things are legal and the receiving player has no recourse except through the Council or to return the 'favor' to the guilty party.

I agree about the AI thing being too harsh. This has already been brought up by Pasha Dawg. The council should never be able to throw an active player out of the game, and I do mean never! Throwing them out of the Council (rogue) is thematic. Throwing them out of the game (AI) is not. The AI rule was for a player that quits without explanation. However, it will become obvious to all wyrms that something must be done when a player disappears and stales 3-4 times in a row. I will therefore change this rule so that the Council cannot turn an active player to AI under any circumstances.

Hopefully, all have noticed that Version 2 of the rules was posted on the COW site. The main change was the last rule about the Chief Justice.

Also, since no one has proposed any other candidates, Alneyan will win the nomination for Chief Justice by default at 8 PM MDT this evening when the game officially begins.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

Precisely! IMHO, "winning" takes a backseat to role-playing.

Now to get started on my pretender! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

As for the victory conditions and game setup, I looked at the map in great detail last night. Because it seems to me that a mere 5 VPs to win is much too few, I am now planning the following:

1. The starting spots will be fixed. However, I did notice (like several people mentioned) that the Orania War starting spots are not really very balanced, so I am working on a better 17 spots. This afternoon, I will announce the 17 province numbers of the starting locations and let interested people suggest changes.
2. The actual nation assignment to these 17 spots will be random. You have a 1 in 15 chance to get any single spot (1 in 2 if you are a water nation). The nation locations will not be publicly announced.
3. Each capitol will have a Victory Point. I will add a second VP province that is near each capitol, giving us 34 VPs to work with. I will publicly announce the province location of these 17 extra VP provinces.
4. The victory condition will be at least 1/3 of these, or 12 VPs to win.
5. All special provinces and preset sites are removed from the map.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

I would suggest not to put the victory condition in the game itself, but simply a "100% of VPs needed". This should display how many VPs a nation have, allowing to keep track of that, while not creating an automatic endgame.

The difference would be meaningful if two nations were doing very well (both lacking a handful of VPs for victory), and a final grand conflict was preferred, instead of being a rush to snatch those two or three VPs.

In the other case, where a nation is clearly ruling over everyone else, automatic VP victory would be pretty much the same. Still, I know some SEIV games resulted in a bitter ending because of automatic victory conditions, and the same might be true here.

Not that I am actually playing in the game, of course, but the Supreme Court can give its advice, even when nobody requests it. Well, it wasn't possible until today, but I have just added that power to my list of attributions.

Re: The Council of Wyrms
 

If we keep it in the RP context, then a Ghost Riders "verdict" could (should?) be purely by council vote. No special out of game scrying spell. If an innocent party gets convicted - well - oops.

Re: The Council of Wyrms - 2 spots open
 

Oops,I guess I misread your instructions. See? I might need some help... Well I trust ya, and at least you can find a sub if I become completely incapacitated. I'm excited to start playing! About Zen 5.0, though: it needs that Winged Boots fix or alot of people will be frustrated that they need 2 water path http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif Should I post my fix? It's all in the thread in Mods.