MP: Noobs vs. Vets II: Mysterio's Revenge, EA, CBM, Game Over. Vets defeat Noobs.

[atul]

Aye, lets move on. Still many scalps to collect, haven't even begun yet.

...but I still want to know what that video clip is about...

[archaeolept]

it's a clip of AC/DC's "Thunderstruck"

i'm pretty sure you can find some version of it available in "your country"

[atul]

Well, given the today's decision by our friends the swedish courts, probably pretty much nothing will be found from the interweb soon...

Anyway, after reviewing the army graphs, I must say the description probably fits. High voltage must be bad for poor monkees.

[Septimius Severus]

Originally Posted by archaeolept

that's a terrible answer severus, and really you should not be organizing games w/ an attitude like that. If I were involved in a normal game, and the game creator had done that, I would be quitting. luckily, in this team game, it is partially balanced out. It is not at all a minor oversight; it is a major violation of trust.

I should not be organizing games? What is wrong with my attitude? It is best to let those remarks slide I think.

Ironhawk is correct, it was not intentional. It was not something I revealed only to my team or anything. Our noob archive is open to the public for all to see, if you doubt me. So what if it meant less points for some pretenders and less of those ridiculous "A hurricane struck the coast..." messages.

Let's have more concentration on basic strategic generalship rather than on random events and game exploits. Something the vets seem to know all to well. It will be listed for the next game. Now, lets have no more talk of this nonsense.

[Septimius Severus]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

Just to be clear, the difference between changing the HoF and changing events from common to rare is orders of magnitude. In fact, in terms of being able to screw up a particular pretender build it is probably more important than all the other settings combined. I do not overreact when I talk about it utterly ruining my nation last game. If I had been playing solo and not been able to drain cash from my teammates, it would have been more obvious just how crippling it was.

Anyway, no hard feelings about it, it would be a nice gesture if you'd at least let the vets handle the settings next game if we win though.

Yes, I'm aware of the difference.

But enough of this whining and complaining. Ye gods, are you vets or what? Accept your lot and make the most of it.

I've given you first nation choice.
I've given you control of the seas and the only water nation.
I've given you veto power over membership in both teams.
I've given you a 10 turn NAP to expand unmolested.
I've given you a longer playing game with easy research which gives you an advantage based on your overall experience and knowledge of the magic system in the mid and late game.

With regard to letting the vets decide the settings, as I said let us see how the game plays out. Feel free to make suggestions, any sticky disagreements can be worked out democratically via a vote if it comes down to it. In the unlikely event the vets lose, I may give extra weight to your suggestions.

Understand, I have a vision for this series of games. I created the games to make that vision a reality and to suit those who share similiar ideas and playing habits, so there are certain things I will not compromise on.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

I've given you first nation choice.
I've given you control of the seas and the only water nation.
I've given you veto power over membership in both teams.
I've given you a 10 turn NAP to expand unmolested.
I've given you a longer playing game with easy research which gives you an advantage based on your overall experience and knowledge of the magic system in the mid and late game.

First off, most these 'privileges' were unasked for and many in fact unwanted. Personally I was hoping newb water nations were allowed so I could duke it out with them underwater. And vets expressed disapproval or disinterest in the NAP (it was also pitched as an idea to help the newbs at the time).

In any case, you seem to be under the mistaken impression I was lobbying for more vet control of the settings in order for more advantage for that team. On the contrary, I simply think vets are best able to determine balanced settings (I think we would have made this game tougher on ourselves if given the choice). You may interpret the frequent issues brought up as 'whining', but it's simply an expression of frustration that the game could be/have been that much better.

If you want specifics about the settings I think need tweaking:

*The map size/player number: Bigger is not better. Bigger games move slower, take more turns, more micromanagement, and in most cases don't even offer bigger battles or more magic used. In fact the biggest battles tend to be on the most tightly packed maps- big maps just means tons of raiding micromanagement. The bottom line for the purposes of the stated goal of teaching newbs- less turns played/games played means the newbs learn slower.

*Rare events. This is a much lesser issue, but I still strongly believe it is a misstep. By nearly eliminating events, you entirely gut the strategy from 2 out 6 scales. Anyone not taking order 3/misfortune 3 would be crazy. And it hardly cuts down on the amount of chance involved anyway, luck with independents and magic sites is in general of far greater importance than fluctuations in events.

[Lingchih]

Oh hey Lanka, nice attack. I should probably remind you that Neifel Jarls do not run, ever,(at least mine don't), and they are pretty hard to kill. You might want to keep that in mind in the future as you try to put your army back together.

[TheDemon]

Let's just leave the settings discussion until this one's over. I don't see the point rehashing it anymore when we haven't even finished this game.

And yeah, for those of you who can't see the video clip it's just the music video to AC/DC's Thunderstruck.

[Septimius Severus]

QM, the concept is by its very nature umbalanced. Whenever you've got noobs facing vets, that will be the case. In a 1:1 game, the vets must be handicapped in order to give the noobs a fair shot. Ideally, it should be green noobs vs hall of famers(my vision).

With 1 noob and 1 vet in the water, you've basically got a 1:1 matchup, who do you suppose would have the upper hand under the waves? I would think the noob water nation would be wiped out rather quickly, before getting a chance to learn how to play.

With a 2:1 ratio, well things start to even out a bit especially if the vets can survive into the midgame and/or netrualize the noobs early numerical superiority(at least that seemed to be the consensus back then). However, many have said that 2:1 is too much and took the last game as proof, so I attempted to correct for it with some advantages for the vets in this game and a greater prov/player ratio and larger map/longer game which is what you guys suggested was one of your mistakes (I refer you to Ironhawk, et. al closing comments from game 1, prov/player ratio was too small, so forth, and so on..).

I do intend to make it harder for the vets next game, depending upon what happens here. One way to do that is to go to 3:1. Now tell me, do you really want to give up any advantages you might have? I'd rather think you'd want more (a no first attack rule for the noobs might be good).

I don't intend to increase the prov/player ratio, don't worry. Yes, vets may be more qualified to judge balance. NAP or no NAP, it is arguable whether it had any effect. I put it in to keep Atlantis from attacking early.

Rare events, standard events, makes no difference to me, whatever everyone wants, I don't have the time to put into this game that others seem to have. I've got other priorities. I like the heroes and the occasional gold, that comes with the events, that's about all.

I'm sure we will find a way to compromise between my "vision" and the balance the vets seek.

Now Vets, let me hear your suggestions for a perfectly balanced game. If you were admining tell me the exact settings you would choose and why: prov/player ratio, noob/vet ratio, and every other setting.

It will save time next game, by getting this stuff out of the way now, also will keep the thread alive.

[atul]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

I don't have the time to put into this game that others seem to have. I've got other priorities.

Okay, I must bite this. The premise of this game was something like that the noobs learn from experience of playing against the vets. The most useful thing I am going to teach anyone during this game is this:

Even if we're all playing a strategy game this is a social forum. What you say and how you behave yourself is remembered far longer than whether you manage to beat many opponents.

Acting smug, condescending and throwing stuff like that does nobody any good. Being a game admin requires a thick skin, because people ***** about stuff that can't be affected. And usually correct answer is "Mea culpa, won't happen next time" instead of trying to prove one is correct to the last. Usually one just ends up contradicting himself and all the battles of the egos that result serve no-one.

So, lets keep on playing. I really think that the game setting conversation and the reasons why we are at this situation in-game are things that are better discussed when everyone can openly state what they have done and why, instead of the current war-time fog of war.