PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Anyone interested in a new multiplayer game now that we've all had time to tinker around with the patch, learn new things, and otherwise discover ways of utterly destroying our enemies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Lear

[ January 30, 2004, 00:11: Message edited by: King Lear ]

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Play by e-mail?

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I would be interested.
ulm, ryleh, arco

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I'm on, as long as its not in one sitting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I would like to play! King Lear, could you be a little more specific on what you have in mind?

/Patrik

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I would be interested. Jotun?

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I would be interested as long as it's slower than one turn every 2 days.

I'm flexible for which nation I use.

Wan

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">seconded. I'll leave a fast game for you whipper-snappers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">seconded. I'll leave a fast game for you whipper-snappers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't mind devoting time to the game. It's just real-life work being too busy to allow that. If King Lear wants a fast game, I can host a slower game for the slower http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif players.

Wan

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Interested as well. Flexible on nation.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I also would be interested. Since no one is likely to take it/want it besides me, I'll take Mictlan.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Count me in!
C'tis Ermor Marignon

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Yai! So it sounds like we've got some interest. I think Hosting once every 3 days should satisfy those of us who actually have work to do during the week =) At least, that sounds like the general concensus. If you want to drop it to 2 days, post a note and that might work too.

I'd be willing to host a PBEM game for it, unless anyone else wants to have that dubious honor.

So, pick a nation, and pick a second nation, and go ahead and pick a 3rd nation; post in order of which you want most, and where we have conflicts we can flip coins =)

Lear

Oh, I kinda like Pyth, although Arco is fun, as is Abysia.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I would like to play.
R'yleh, Man, Jotunheim is my order of preference.

[ January 28, 2004, 02:49: Message edited by: J Stanley ]

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Arco, Vanhiem, Tien Ch'i.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

In order of preference:

Mictlan, Vanheim, Ry'leh.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Jotun, C'tis, Man for me. And slow is fine for me as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

A slow game? I am very in, if there's still a place...

C'tis, Atlantis, Caelum and then anything but Jotunheim is my order of preference.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Pangea, Machaka, Man

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Hello!
Can I join?

Marignon, Pangea, Vanheim

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I've been dying for a multiplayer game in Dom2 for a long time now. If there is a spot left, I'd love to join.

Preferences, Vanheim, Arco, Machaka... but I pretty much play anything.. =)

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

im still absolutely flexible. I will play anything!

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Jotunheim, Man, Pythium

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I'd like in as well.

Atlantis,Machaka,Marignon depending on map...

Actually anything is fine...


Rabe the Torpid Turn-Based Tyro

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Well, I spent a bit working with everyones choices and with the wonderful thing that we call spreadsheets, and I think I've worked out who can get who that at least keeps most people happy. Lets see, if you didn't put up any suggestions (Dixie and Wan), I slotted you into the nations that remained open. Hope you enjoy them. So, here are the arrangements, in alphabetical order by player. =)

Blofeld Marignon
Carnifex Ermor
Cihset Vanheim
Dixie F Tien Chi
ExitJudas Ulm
freykin Mictlan
Izaqyos Atlantis
J Stanley R'yleh
Karacan Caelum
Lear Pythium
Patrik C'tis
Pillin Pangea
Quantum Arco
Rabelais Machaka
Sachmo Jotunhiem
ywl wan Abysia

And I think actually that that fills all the open spots. So, i'll be posting two or three map options momentarilly. Vote on them, and We'll get this game rolling.

Lear

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Or if you prefer it by nation:
Abysia ywl wan
Arco Quantum
Atlantis Izaqyos
Caelum Karacan
C'tis Patrik
Ermor Carnifex
Jotunhiem Sachmo
Machaka Rabelais
Marignon Blofeld
Mictlan freykin
Pangea Pillin
Pythium Lear
R'yleh J Stanley
Tien Chi Dixie F
Ulm ExitJudas
Vanheim Cihset

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Custom maps are fine with me.

[ January 28, 2004, 19:44: Message edited by: sachmo ]

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Can I take Man instead? Abysia is one of the few I don't feel the most comfortable with...

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Can I take Man instead? Abysia is one of the few I don't feel the most comfortable with... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nevermind... I change my mind. I'll take Abysia http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Wan, you can go ahead and have Man. That leave Abysia open for a new opponent if one shows up.

As for maps, I looked at a bunch of the custom ones, and then at what we have from illwinter, and the ones from illwinter looked much prettier. The only viable option that I found (especially for you water people) were:

Orania or Wars of Orania.

Proposed settings:
Independants: 6
Events: Common
Hall of Fame: 15
Sites: 50

Should we leave or disable the massive amount of informaiton that the charts give? I say disable, but that's just me.

I would suggest we use "Alexander's Luck" as a mod. You can download it and open it up with a word file to take a look at what it does: I think based on my playing so far that it helps balance out the luck scale, making order/turmoil not everyone's imediate choice.

Any other suggestions, or responses, post them. Once I hear back from a couple of you on maps I'll go ahead and post my email, and we can get this going.

Cheers,
Lear

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

A slow game really suits me well.
If there's still a free spot I'd like to join.
My preference (descending order).
Pythium, Arco, Atlantis, Man, or whatever's left http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Hello, I was interested from the start I will take what ever is left

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I think the settings look fine and I prefer disable scoreboard as well. I would really prefer using the standard game instead of a mod though (I simply don't have time to test it before the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I'd really like to try machaka with a divine serpent pretender... would anyone mind if we modded this in?

The lord or fertility is just a horrible subsitute.

Rabe the Nature Freak

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

My first preference would be to go vanilla for my very first MP game, but that's just me...

[ January 29, 2004, 15:37: Message edited by: sachmo ]

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I prefer standard game.
using a mod will put anyone that isn't familiar with it at a disadvantage.
But I will play even if the game is modified.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'll think over Abysia or Man. Abysia is hard to play comparing to Man but I could welcome the variety or challenge.

Orania map is fine but there is a bug in the map. Somewhere in the map file, "ghoul" is spelled as "goul". I don't know whether it affects the game. I haven't tried that much yet.

The game settings are fine. Disabling the World Score is also fine - it has pros and cons, I can live with both.

I prefer to go with the standard Luck settings. First, I'm not sure it's as imbalance as it is claimed. Second, even if everybody use Order+3, it not that much a big deal. Tien Chi player might have some disadvantage if he's using S&A theme but I tried that very often, an Chao-1/Luck+3 for S&A is not very bad - it acutally does better than Abysia in my test http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif . Pan is not forced to take Chaotic scale. An Orderly Pan is perfectly playable.

I don't think it makes sense to mod Scare Serpent into Machaka... There are enough choices already and the selection provided in general for thematic and game-balance reasons.

Finally, will it be an email or network game? The administration workload for such a game with so many players is quite large. Are you sure? And in what way you want us to help?

Wan

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Isn't Man still available? I believe it is, so could I join playing them?
E-mail: eternalspearman@excite.com
Thanks,
~EternalSpearman~

[ January 30, 2004, 02:46: Message edited by: EternalSpearman ]

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I am fine with whichever map is chosen, and the settings look fine to me as well. I'm willing to play modded or vanilla.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I'm ok with any ordinary map or custom, the same goes to settings and mods. Granted that everyone else stay happy.

I'm just eager to get try out D2 in mp =)

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I'm fine with any map and pretty much any setting too. However I think we should consider putting the indy str up a little? think that helps limit a mad landgrab rush as we are quite a few players.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

higher indy strength is good imo.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Higher indy strength is fine, scoreBoards disabled are okay, and I vote for no mods as well... I like the balance in 2.06 the way it is (and I usually don't go for bad luck http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

Maps, I am indifferent. Wars of Orania, with victory point condition, would be playable instead of an all out Last man standing game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">6 is high enough to me, though I don't mind playing anyway. Some nations will have a much easier start at higer indie, namely Man, Marignon and other start with good missle troop. For HI nations, like Ulm, Van or Abysia http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , the early game will be tougher.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

As an impartial observer, high indy strength gives distinct atvantages to SC players and as the poster below said, certain nations who will expand at the same speed regardless of indy strength.

Starting with indy 5 can be tough enough for some races, to level the playing board lower indy strength is better.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In my experience, 5 or 6 are good, intermediate settings. Not too easy and not too hard. But every setting will favor a certain gameplay strategy. After hearing so much, King Lear should just make the call and we can adjust our strategy to it.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Well, here's the final settings for all you happy people.

Indy Strength, 6
Sites 50%
Events: Common
Hall: 15
Richness: normal'
Graphs: Off
Standard Victory

Wan, since you decided you wanted Abysia, we're slotting that to you.

So, Everyone needs to go ahead and create a pretender, and send me the file as an attachment. Go ahead and put your country name, and your name, in the title to help me sort them quickly from my mailbox.

Lear
MARKOOS at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU

[ February 03, 2004, 22:09: Message edited by: King Lear ]

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Oh, forgot to mention, we're doing Orania.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

One Last thing: Passwording your pretender might not be a bad idea incase one day, amidst hectic classes, I accidently send a file to someone to whom it does not belong. In a game of stratagy such intelligence could be devestating.

Four are in, we're waiting on some more!
Lear

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

7 are in, just a few more =)