Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

n/a

n/a
- 0 (0%)
n/a
- 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 72

Author Topic: EoFS Revisited - 50027AD (Year 72) - Closing discussion  (Read 70168 times)

Stworca

  • Bay Watcher
  • Iron Tad
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #135 on: December 10, 2012, 12:32:52 pm »

I concur. I've messaged Palazzo about joining a new game (in october) , not continuing from turn X. He then came out of nowhere asking telling me to join for Redking  :P If i was to join as Malik, it wouldn't differ much from an NPC (Well.. minus the insulting messages).

Just to explain one thing, though : I didn't pop in a week ago, because i was sure that this has died. Otherwise i'd be playing by now.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 12:37:07 pm by Stworca »
Logged
I just ramble incoherently for absolutely no reason.

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #136 on: December 10, 2012, 12:55:55 pm »

This is all very cofusing.

Could you people choose one option from the following:

1.I want to play
2.I don't want to play

If you feel meh about it, then you are option 2.
If you want to join and maybe later decide, then you are option 2.
If you'd like to mess around with this game for a month or three and then move on to greener pastures, then you are option 2.

edit:
Oh, and I should say complete restart from turn 0 is certainly a possiblity.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 01:15:00 pm by Il Palazzo »
Logged

Margrave

  • Bay Watcher
  • ...You up for a little unsanctioned mining?
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #137 on: December 10, 2012, 01:54:39 pm »

No need to restart. If we're doing this by enthusiasm then I want in.

Like the last game I was a part of, this is a long term commitment. I expect this to end in two or three years.

And if I get to play this time from turn 5 instead of turn 25 I won't have to try and exploit the delicious delicious Stigmata Garrison for its resources to even have a prayer of catching up.

1. I want to play.
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #138 on: December 10, 2012, 02:05:29 pm »

If people want to start over then I'd like to suggest that we try having the role of a non-player game master (a role for which I volunteer for the first game).  The game master would edit the starting conditions and monitor the game to make sure that the map is fun and that players don't hold up the turns too long.  Additionally the game master could edit the game starting conditions for an "accelerated start" (i.e. players start with more buildings and units) or to have a greater symbiot threat, etc.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Stworca

  • Bay Watcher
  • Iron Tad
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #139 on: December 10, 2012, 03:24:54 pm »

I'm not competent enough with the game to be joining mid-way, but i have the patience to wait for another time.

Thusly : 1, but only at a start of a round, be it this one, or another time.
This didn't really change since October.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 03:27:09 pm by Stworca »
Logged
I just ramble incoherently for absolutely no reason.

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #140 on: December 11, 2012, 12:28:16 pm »

Please wait while the senate convenes.
Logged

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #141 on: December 11, 2012, 08:17:21 pm »

Margrave, you're in. Stworca, next time, perhaps.
Logged

a1s

  • Bay Watcher
  • Torchlight Venturer
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #142 on: December 11, 2012, 08:24:25 pm »

If people want to start over then I'd like to suggest that we try having the role of a non-player game master (a role for which I volunteer for the first game).  The game master would edit the starting conditions and monitor the game to make sure that the map is fun and that players don't hold up the turns too long.  Additionally the game master could edit the game starting conditions for an "accelerated start" (i.e. players start with more buildings and units) or to have a greater symbiot threat, etc.
I support this. I said something similar in the other game, but after everyone half-heartily agreeing it was basically forgotten. This game (EoFS) really needs someone to deal with all the week-long absences and the weirdness of random maps (since good players, of which I an not one, will know all the historical planets by heart already.)
Logged
I tried to play chess but two of my opponents were playing competitive checkers as a third person walked in with Game of Thrones in hand confused cause they thought this was the book club.

Margrave

  • Bay Watcher
  • ...You up for a little unsanctioned mining?
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #143 on: December 11, 2012, 08:49:14 pm »

Cool beans. Glad to be back in the game. We all playing the same deal as last time with Noble intrigue and political skulduggery on the forums? Whats the turn order like right now?
Logged

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #144 on: December 11, 2012, 08:57:18 pm »

Turn order and assorted information are shown in the OP.

If people want to start over then I'd like to suggest that we try having the role of a non-player game master (a role for which I volunteer for the first game).  The game master would edit the starting conditions and monitor the game to make sure that the map is fun and that players don't hold up the turns too long.  Additionally the game master could edit the game starting conditions for an "accelerated start" (i.e. players start with more buildings and units) or to have a greater symbiot threat, etc.
I support this. I said something similar in the other game, but after everyone half-heartily agreeing it was basically forgotten. This game (EoFS) really needs someone to deal with all the week-long absences and the weirdness of random maps (since good players, of which I an not one, will know all the historical planets by heart already.)
I'm not entirely sure how this would work exactly, and why is it a good thing to have. Feel free to elaborate, you two.
Logged

Aqizzar

  • Bay Watcher
  • There is no 'U'.
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #145 on: December 11, 2012, 09:27:08 pm »

I can't believe I just thought about this.

I don't have access to the harddrive with my last save on it.  This doesn't mean I can't play by any means, I'll just have to take my turn again.  I thought for a second I was totally boned here, but I'll just install the game and get the last save from my email.

At least, provided EOFS works on this computer, which it may very well not.  Gimme a few minutes, as it were.
Logged
And here is where my beef pops up like a looming awkward boner.
Please amplify your relaxed states.
Quote from: PTTG??
The ancients built these quote pyramids to forever store vast quantities of rage.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #146 on: December 12, 2012, 01:09:54 am »

It's not in your email outbox?

I'm not entirely sure how this would work exactly, and why is it a good thing to have. Feel free to elaborate, you two.

Moving the turns along:
If the GM got cc'd on all turns and given the passwords then the GM would be free to move the turns along if someone is late without excuse.  The GM knows when the turns get sent out so can make reasonable judgement about when people are slowing things down and can be a neutral arbiter of slowness.  Right now in the other game we know that at least 1 player is taking forever with the turns but it's impossible to know who is delaying how much.  At one point the turn was delayed for three weeks and two different players could be to blame.  There is no penalty for slowing down the game.  If there was a GM then when you are late without an excuse the turn gets sent along.

Galaxy making:
The galaxy editor is good at randomizing the surface of planets but bad at doing planet locations.  So we should have a GM just randomize the surface of the planets in the historical galaxy setup.  That way we get a random galaxy but aren't stuck with a horrible galaxy layout.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Stworca

  • Bay Watcher
  • Iron Tad
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #147 on: December 12, 2012, 04:39:11 am »

Margrave, you're in. Stworca, next time, perhaps.

Expect me to await your summoning with bated breath, and allow you to trick me once again, whilst still understanding your oh, so-justified grudge.

"I'm sorry, but RedKing was first", followed by "You can join now as Malik" and a side dish of "I'm mad, because you didn't want to, so now i'll behave like a merchant's son" shapes a very promising future.
(Just to make things clear, only the last part annoyed me)

With this being said, good luck M.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 04:44:59 am by Stworca »
Logged
I just ramble incoherently for absolutely no reason.

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #148 on: December 12, 2012, 06:43:21 am »

Stworca, I have never been mad at you for any reason. Nor was I hiding any passive-aggressive comments in that "perhaps". I merely meant to express my doubt in the possibility of another occassion for us to play EoFS together, to which I was kinda looking forward. I predict no further games with my participation after this one, and should I change my mind some time in the future, I'd fully expect you to change yours as well - exactly beause I wouldn't imagine you waiting with bated breath.
Perhaps my PM theatrics, conjured with your amusement in mind, had been taken too seriously in some way. Perhaps my typical diplomacy mode kicked in prematurely, for which I apologise in so far as not making my intent clear enough. I have to say that you seemed to be playing ball there, so I saw no reason to drop it.

I do feel bad about asking you twice and eventually telling you to bugger off on both occassions, but you have to see that this is not purely my game to rule as I see fit, and that you weren't exactly selling your candidacy very well to the other players.

Let's not try and turn this into some personal animosity. There is none on my part, and I really don't think there's enough of a reason for you to feel any.
Logged

Kebooo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: EoFS Revisited - 4961AD (Year 5)
« Reply #149 on: December 12, 2012, 10:04:40 am »

I don't know Stworca and have no reason to have anything against him, but Margrave seemed the better fit for these circumstances. The game is only 4 or 5 turns in (which happen to be some of the most tedious and boring to play). I fully believe that if someone feels too inexperienced or lacks the enthusiasm to take the slot, then at least a couple of us would have an easy time rolling over their empire pretty quickly when the time comes. I've been in games where replacements came in 40 or 50 turns in and performed superbly, so from my perspective I had to go with the more ready and willing candidate.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 72