.com.unity Forums - MP game - "Pantheons" Started

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Multiplayer & AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=62)

- - MP game - "Pantheons" Started (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=20331)

Re: Voting Issues

Quote:

There are a number of areas that need finalising

Choosing nations
I think there are two proposals - I am discounting FFA!

A) Random allocation to teams then free allocation to players within teams. (corolary Ermor Banned)
B) Teams alternating picks - to be picked probably by a captain but with the others input

I can live with either so choose to abstain.
I prefer the idea of choosing but it could be hard work! While random could shaft you with unbalanced sides. With 5 nations random is less likely to give an unfair match up plus there is more likelyhood of finding a nation you like.

Independent Strength

A) Low 3
B) High 7

Low will mean they get cleared quickly so allowing concentration on the other players. High means they form terrain & fit the usual MP experience.

I vote for high as this will canalise people and give more decisions - clear them or not which with L3 is not a decision. Plus low will "grow" the map size.

Score graphs
I did not mention these before (forgot)
A) On
B) Off

I do not care either way. The information is less relevant as you cannot do anything about it - you are already picking on your opponents.

Please expresss your preferences

Pickles

A (It would be a lot of trouble going for B, and you might disappoint your teammates)
B {I don't care too much, Im green as a bush [Uh... You get my point (BWAH)]}
A (It won't harm gameplay, no one is going to gang up on anyone else... And its always nice to know how everyone is doing, OTOH you might wanna keep this information concealed...)

Quote:

One other point - I do not know how the team members should be grouped on the map. I guess they should all be in contact with one another. This is probably less of an issue on a wrap round map. I was going to abdicate responsibilty for this to Zen who has kindly volunteered to set up positions. However if you have any opinions then please voice them.

Pickles

Sounds like a good idea.
Though we'd have to arrange the nations first =P

Quote:

Game summary
1. NB HoF 10

2. Stalling � let your team mates know your password to avoid staling

3. Nations � No Water nations. No Ermor if nations chosen randomly

4. Each team will chose a short Pantheon name
Your pretender name should include your Pantheon name
(or some other code to show teamness readily � same initial letter etc)

5. I do not know how experienced the B team is. I know we are quite sharky newbs - if we are still newbs even - in Team A. If there are no experienced players in Team B it may be better to swap Panther & Tauren for 2 green players from there. (Mark the Merciful lives in my house so it is too much of a pain to split him from me cf Panther & Tauren)

We seem to have 6 vs 6 too which I believe would fit on Inland.

Looks like we should be good to go in a couple of days - it always amazes me how fast games get going here.

Pickles

1. Just wanted to point out that for a 12 player game it is more common to have 15 HOF AFAIK, not that I mind that much, I actually like HOF 10.

2. Obviously!
BTW, there's a nice chance that I'll be away on vacation from end-september to mid-october (~1-2 weeks I think), if it means anything then its from End-Yom-Hakipurim to End-Sukot,

3. Agreed, especially since Ermor being Banned on random choices was my idea =P

4. Agreed, but please stick to RP names, no "Waffle Goodness" Pantheons please.

5. As I said, Im green as they go, my MP expirience includes only the Hard_Slog game, where I play CW Pangea, so its nothing of use to me (And the game is at turn ~30 IIRC).
I wouldnt mind being swapped or staying as is (Though Boron sounds pretty good from what Posts of his I read =P)
We should probably wait to hear from the other player as to their noobness =P

LAST EDIT: Everyone should leave their Emails for easier team communication.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite

wow only 15 hours away from the board and such an overwhelming response http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Quote:

I just reread the JJ Colorado post and he says the 25 no turn attack rule was only a sugestion. I apologize for sounding harsh in my reply to that, but I really would not be interested in a no rush rule. I used to join the starcraft no-rush games just to rush like crazy!

uh i loved those north vs south money maps with 10-15 minutes no rush . i always played zerg and exploited the larva-bug http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

hm i would like a map with fixed starting positions so it is like north vs south or east vs west .

karan would be cool for east vs west imho but for 10 players perhaps a bit too small .
i myself would totally prefer no rush for 20-40 turns and a lategame game but i accept all choices if the majority doesn't want this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
for a lategame i think karan / the small faerun would be good

otherwise wraparoundmap . inland would be perfect for a killing field i think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Voting Issues

Quote:

B) Teams alternating picks - to be picked probably by a captain but with the others input

i vote for that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Quote:

B) High 7

my preferred option

Quote:

Score graphs
I did not mention these before (forgot)
A) On

i vote for scoregraphs on

Re: State of the game

Quote:

I do not know how experienced the B team is. I know we are quite sharky newbs - if we are still newbs even - in Team A. If there are no experienced players in Team B it may be better to swap Panther & Tauren for 2 green players from there. (Mark the Merciful lives in my house so it is too much of a pain to split him from me cf Panther & Tauren)

I suppose I should qualify myself mildly-experienced with half a dozen of MP games I've played/playing.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite

Quote:

oh, and I think its best if I change my name from "Alexi" to "Lex", since it might get confusing with 'Alexti' in the same game

It's appreciated, at some point I've thought "I didn't post it!" until I've looked at the name carefully http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite

Of course he looks like superman & you, well don't

Pickles

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite

Quote:

oh, and I think its best if I change my name from "Alexi" to "Lex", since it might get confusing with 'Alexti' in the same game

It's appreciated, at some point I've thought "I didn't post it!" until I've looked at the name carefully http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Lol, I didn't realize that there were two of you until I read the post from Lex.

Re: Voting Issues

Quote:

A) Random allocation to teams then free allocation to players within teams. (corolary Ermor Banned)

i vote for this, but i would be interested in playing BE Ermor. so if anyone on the other team would like to shout out, we could go ahead and unban it. otherwise, of course, it does need to be Banned. most people seem to think it is a useless theme.

Pickles: also, if it helps balance the teams, know that i am probably one of the worst players here. i cant even beat the difficult AI.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite

just a thought (everything that follows is just IMHO):
what bout 3 teams of 4? or 4 teams of 3? If there's more then just two teams, it might create alot more importance in deciding who you need to attack, like normal MP. If we had four teams, we could really roleplay this, by creating faction alliances/treaties, and good'old diplomacy isn't lost from the game, which is a big part of MP.

Anyways, just an idea.. I guess it depends on how 'straight forward' we'd like this game to be.. Two teams would be a simple and bloody clash of two great empires, whereas three or four teams would be a more drawn out, complex comflict.

In reguards to Indy strength, I've tried to think of an arguement for why we should have Indy3: Because we have to rely on military support from other nations, it would be better if there was Indy3, cos this would allow everyone to move into position where they can join a war. cos people far away from a battle front would need to forge a path around friendly kingdoms. I think we should encourage that. Especially since it would then be possible to cut off reinforcements from a particular battle front. This encourages team members to get involved (rather then justify staying out of the war because of their location. I just think that using Indy as terrain isn't as important in a team game cos you're gonna be hit from multiple directions anyways.. you can't rely on Indy to create choke points. And IMHO its much more important to have each team member control the right provinces in order to be effective at striking in unison. This means lots of provinces being used as supply lines (which might even be exchanged between team members).

What d'you think?

Re: Voting Issues

Aww, man! Half of the fun is beating up on a God Named "Waffle Goodness" or with a Prophet named "Chicken" and an Ice Devil named "Beer"

It lends creditibility that commercialism really has become a god in our modern age. Also let us not forget that zealots will believe anything. The holy reverend and high priest of blood, glory, and meowmix, voice of Fluffy, benevolent goddess of birds and parrots!