No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Game Over, Baalz/Abysia Wins - Page 4

GrudgeBringer · #31 October 29th, 2010, 10:37 PM

I agree....as far as most players are concerned. Especially those that have played THIS type of game before. I have to admit...I REALLY like to have scout1 scout2 etc. I realy don't care, I just want to make sure if someone messes up...they are next to me!!

The more I think about it, it really was a nightmare the last one we played without renaming...

I withdraw my objection.

Saros · #32 October 30th, 2010, 01:00 AM

Yeah putting research and indies that high will seriously advantage nations which are already able to rush early so I would say have one or the other not both.

Herode · #33 October 30th, 2010, 03:34 AM

About map : obviously, the decision will heavily depend on how many water nations we have. Since only Calahan knows it, I guess Calahan will have to make the decision by itself. The only elements we, players, could discuss here is the ratio provinces/player we wish. As far as I am concerned : around 20 looks fine since it gives a chance to non rusher nations. As a general rule, I don't care bigger maps, I don't like so much smaller maps.

Also, about rushes : if we want to limit them, we could forbid to attack a province already owned by another player before, let's say t15 ? Could leave a chance to Marverni or Kailasa when they will start the game between Lanka and Niefelheim

Drog the Destroyer · #34 October 30th, 2010, 04:02 AM

I would like to join, if there is a spot left. My preferences are CBM + EDM, and standard settings for indies and research.

PM to Calahan with nation preferences submited.

Calahan · #35 October 30th, 2010, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herode

About map : obviously, the decision will heavily depend on how many water nations we have. Since only Calahan knows it, I guess Calahan will have to make the decision by itself. The only elements we, players, could discuss here is the ratio provinces/player we wish. As far as I am concerned : around 20 looks fine since it gives a chance to non rusher nations. As a general rule, I don't care bigger maps, I don't like so much smaller maps.

Re: - Map decision.

Not sure inflicting my map choice on you all is the best solution

I can if you all wish, since I never run to a committee when a decision needs to be made. ("oh no a decision, if I make it myself, I might get blamed if it's wrong

Run away run away").

My current thoughts for the map decision were that once Executor closes sign-ups, I'll reveal how many nations are in the game (and the land/water split) and then leave it up to you guys to decide the map. The only info that needs to remain secret is the exact player-nation ID's, as the number of players will likely already be known, and the land-water split won't be secret once the game starts anyway. So little point trying to preserve that secret.

Although if you guys decide the map, I would remind you all to use your heads regarding anything you post. Since things like...

"There are not many water province on that map, which I think is unfair to me, as it means I won't have as much room to expand as the land nations."

... are going to cause me a headache as admin

So for those new to anonymous games, please remember to always 'think before you post' anything.

Executor · #36 October 30th, 2010, 06:07 AM

So everybody pretty much seems to agree on standard settings.
As for map, yeah that will have to wait until we have a full list of players, and depending on that a map will be chosen.

I will probably wait at least a day or two more to try and get as many players as possible.

As for rushers, I seriously doubt having a global NAP for the first 15 turns is a good idea. This is a no diplo game, so the chances of getting double teamed are slim, the score graphs are OFF, so a rush nation will have to think before blindly rushing in, and finally that too pretty much depends of the map, I see a lot of new players here so if you guys are worried about rushers we can add a little bigger player/province ration, about 15 is standard so 20 should give everyone some breathing room, although I myself prefer crowded places with lots and lots of wars.

Drog the Destroyer · #37 October 30th, 2010, 07:09 AM

I don't like the idea of a global NAP either. Around 15 provinces per player sounds good to, 20 is a bit much.

Marmaduke · #38 October 30th, 2010, 07:42 AM

I enjoy a challenge so my vote goes to difficult research and indies (7 perhaps for a compromise, but I would be ok with 9).

GrudgeBringer · #39 October 30th, 2010, 08:40 AM

I agree, I know this has a lot of newer players but it wWAS advertised as an experienced player game.

How about a comprimise....Hard research and and indies around 7. The rest could be normal with renaming if everyone wants it.

Lets don't make it a easy game and lets don't make it a killer.

Somewhere in the middle should be good with most everyone...lets stretch the comfort zone.

Executor · #40 October 30th, 2010, 09:01 AM

Renaming is allowed since everyone seems ok with it, however be careful, if you are revealed you Will be kicked out, limit the renaming just for micro, no games please.

GB> I hope you won't be renaming your scouts.

As for settings, I still count we have far more votes for normal settings, so for now we'll stick with normal settings

However I think one thing is for certain, it's a very bad idea to have high indies and a lot of provinces per player, that just gives a huge advantage for some nation.
So if we go for more provs/players I'll keep regular indies and if we go for standard (aroundish 15 per nation) I'll consider higher indie strength depending on YOUR preferences.