Proposed Rules - Page 2

notyoueither · January 10, 2004, 16:51

Gifting cities could be a very large issue in the first round game. H_E had a great idea; the receiving civ has to have at least one unit within a certain distance of the gifted city.

Can we take that to the UN?

Tassadar500 · January 10, 2004, 17:20

What I reccomend doing is to sort all of the rules and then propose any re-wording we think should be done. NYE, BF if you happen to need my help with this feel free to ask.

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 17:33

NYE, yes, not a bad idea.

We should put that in the overall proposal to the UN, if it gets voted down, then it does.

The city gifting issue.

You guys keep working Ill be back online later tonight.

Keep up the great work!

conmcb25 · January 11, 2004, 12:20

Did we get any farther with this?

I have to post something at the UN in about 4 or 5 hours.................

BigFree · January 11, 2004, 14:41

Damn, I'm not finished yet and I have something to do today that preludes me from finishing in the time frame you speak of.

I will try to hurry back and get it done though.

conmcb25 · January 11, 2004, 15:31

OK this is what Im going to the UN with in about an hour, so speak now or forever hold your peace.

Right now we are trying to basically figure what what is agreed to be a rule or exploit, what is not a rule or exploit , what needs rewriting or amending and additions.

You guys have done a great job producing "Fixes" and we need to keep that up.

But thats not needed today, just whether we agree with the list or not and or if it needs additions or changes.

After the admins look at the lists and determine that a point needs changing then we can start the process of selling our ideas.

So keep the ideas flowing. After the initial vote, we should know which ones we have to talk about further.

Quote:

>>>> 0. General Rules
>>>> 0.1. Team members

Agreed

>>>> 0.2.a) Out of game Espionage

Agreed
>>>> 0.2.b) Team membership

Agreed

>>>> 0.3.a) Team members switching teams

Amendment to this item, too restrictive

>>>> 0.3.b) Members of defeated teams

Amendment to this item, too restrictive

>>>> 1. Diplomacy and Alliance tricks
>>>> 1.1 Getting double-duty out of artillery and Workers

Amendment to this item, we agree but it needs rewording

>>>> 1.2 Sharing a Luxury or Strategic resource

Agreed

>>>> 1.3.a) Generating Leaders by sacrificing cheap units

Agreed

>>>> 1.3.b) Generating Workers by sacrificing cheap units to Mayans

Agreed

>>>> 1.3.c) Provoking a GA by sacrificing cheap units to UUs

Agreed.

>>>> 1.4 Declaring war for happiness

Agreed

>>>> 1.5. Contact to another civ before actual contact

Agreed

>>>> 1.6.a) Exchanging map/minimap information before Navigation.

Agreed

>>>> 1.6.b) Exchange of contact

Amendment, needs rewording

>>>> 1.7 Teams "joining" each other

Amendment, needs rewording and probably LOTS of discussion

>>>> 2. Metagame tricks
>>>> 2.1 Reloading to alter unwanted random results

Agreed

>>>> 2.2 Manipulating a savegame file

Agreed

>>>> 2.3 Loading a save while zoomed out

Agreed

>>>> 2.4 Renaming units/cities to confuse/mislead opponents

Agreed

>>>> 3. Game Mechanics tricks
>>>> 3.1.a) Fortify All

Agreed but our understanding is this is fixed anyway in Conquests

>>>> 3.1.b) Fortify a boat passenger

Not an exploit

>>>> 3.2.a) Hitting F1/back-forward to change production

Agreed
>>>> 3.3 Using GoTo/Auto-Explore/Auto-Workers to get extra movement

Agreed

>>>> 3.4 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water

Not an exploit

>>>> 3.5 Teleporting units by abandoning or gifting cities

Agreed.

>>>> 3.6 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a civ then immediately declaring war

Agreed

>>>> 3.7 Staying at war to upkeep War Weariness but not actual fighting

Amendment needed and probably LOTS of discussion.

>>>> 3.8 City Gifting, Limit this to something like: Perhaps gifting of cities should be limited to cities that the giftee can reach. ie the giftee must have a unit next to or within a certain distance of the city before it can be handed over. This will stop intercontinental gifting of cities to save a dieing team. (note the entire issue of city gifting probably needs a lot more discussion and is related to 1.7)

ADDITION and this will probably need LOTS of discussion

>>>> 4. Miscellaneous
>>>> 4.1 Punishment for breaking the rules

Amendment and LOTS of discussion needed

>>>> 4.2 Reputation and honor system

Non exploit (really Apoly feels this is uneeded and counterproductive)

>>>> 4.3.a) Unknown exploits

Amendment needed

>>>> 4.3.b) Exemption

Amendment needed

>>>> 4.4 Fairness Pledge

Agreed

conmcb25 · January 11, 2004, 15:38

dp

conmcb25 · January 11, 2004, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree
Damn, I'm not finished yet and I have something to do today that preludes me from finishing in the time frame you speak of.

I will try to hurry back and get it done though.

BF, I think I got it, right now we are at step one which is to agree whether to accept, reject amend or add, I think I have that.

You guys have done a lot of work on step 2 which is discuss the issues we want stricken, amended or added. That comes next and is not due today. But we need to keep working that because shortly after everyone posts there agredd, disagreed, amend or add list we can then determine what needs to be discussed and then present our arguements.

Once we have tabulated at the UN what issues need what then we can share our ideas and issues to get something amended, stricken or added.

Right now we are doing a list basically to decide what needs discussion and I think I have that.

If anyone can double check it I would apreciate it because Im just abour cross-eyed right now.

conmcb25 · January 11, 2004, 16:41

OK guys I couldn't wait any longer. Its posted at the UN.

I should lodge a formal complaint for having a deadline right in the middle of the NFL playoffs

But seriously I got to go RL stuff. (including watching at least part of the Packers/Eagles game.)

Keep working the reasons why and rewrites of amendments.

Man this is gonna be time consuming.........

Thanks to all for your input and hard work on this!

notyoueither · January 11, 2004, 18:06

con,

>>>> 0.2.a) Out of game Espionage

Fine, except someone added a punishment that could include expulsion for the whole team. This is not a penal law, is it? I suggest we oppose the addition.

>>>> 3.6 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a civ then immediately declaring war

The reason for this rule is plain wrong. WW is remembered should a war renew too soon. Also, the 'loser' could do something to provoke a resumption of war. The 'victor' must be able to reply to provocation.

conmcb25 · January 11, 2004, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
con,

>>>> 0.2.a) Out of game Espionage

Fine, except someone added a punishment that could include expulsion for the whole team. This is not a penal law, is it? I suggest we oppose the addition.

>>>> 3.6 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a civ then immediately declaring war

The reason for this rule is plain wrong. WW is remembered should a war renew too soon. Also, the 'loser' could do something to provoke a resumption of war. The 'victor' must be able to reply to provocation.

These need to be put in one of four categories

Agreed

Not agreed-non exploit

Amend

Add

notyoueither · January 12, 2004, 03:21

0.2a. Amend

3.6. Not agreed-non expolit (the stated reason for the rule isn't valid).

conmcb25 · January 12, 2004, 10:20

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
3.6. Not agreed-non expolit (the stated reason for the rule isn't valid).

OK but is it an exploit or not. Should we ask to Amend vice disallow?

notyoueither · January 12, 2004, 14:35

Amend would be fine, I guess.

conmcb25 · January 12, 2004, 14:42

Thanks NYE, I just wanted to get it right.

On the issues we want to ammend we need to work on the rewording for those, clean up the ones we have and write the ones we dont have, they will be asking for those next at the UN.

Edit: Changed at the UN.

notyoueither · January 12, 2004, 14:47

Ok. I'll take a look at that in the next few days. BigFree and some others may have some ideas as well.

MrWhereItsAt · January 14, 2004, 21:16

Hey nye - where are my comments in your summary?!

notyoueither · January 14, 2004, 23:48

Oops.

I'm not sure how I did that, Dubya. They should have been in there.

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2004, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oops.

I'm not sure how I did that, Dubya. They should have been in there.

Never mind - what I thought needed to be addressed HAS been, largely.

You would just be adding my voice to those opposing 4.2, and as far as the fortify all thing goes - it DOES need testing.

What is meant by 'no ineligible units get the bonus'? Does that mean that any unit that has exhausted its move points yet is included with the fortify all command does NOT get the fortification bonus? And does this also mean that a fully-moved Galley does not get the sight radius as well? These are two separate effects of fortification, and although the first may be the case in the patch(es), it does not necessarily follow that the second is.

conmcb25 · January 23, 2004, 10:01

Well were do we stand on this guys?

BF and NYE are you guys going to continue to work these issues?

Zero · January 23, 2004, 14:13

well this is my late opinion on the matter:

I dont like most of the rules. This attempt at playing "Honorably" is also kinda silly concept too. If ISDG has proven anything, bunch of silly rules only cause more problems as people get super technical and abuse loop holes etc.

If there was minimal amount of rule necessary, All smart players will take advantage of tricks glitch etc and it will even out cause everyone would do it. IMO, rules prohibiting uses of glirch/exploit should be reserved to severe cases where game could crash or allowes opponent to somehow kill an army with one warrior or some incredible bizarre rediculous result.

I'd agree with severe things like 0.2a,b etc but I dont think things like 1.1-1.4, 1.7, pretty much all of 3.1-3.7

just my thoguhts on the amendments.....

notyoueither · January 27, 2004, 02:51

I will look at wordings for amendments this weekend.

GhengisFarb™ · January 27, 2004, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
well this is my late opinion on the matter:

I dont like most of the rules. This attempt at playing "Honorably" is also kinda silly concept too. If ISDG has proven anything, bunch of silly rules only cause more problems as people get super technical and abuse loop holes etc.

If there was minimal amount of rule necessary, All smart players will take advantage of tricks glitch etc and it will even out cause everyone would do it. IMO, rules prohibiting uses of glirch/exploit should be reserved to severe cases where game could crash or allowes opponent to somehow kill an army with one warrior or some incredible bizarre rediculous result.

just my thoguhts on the amendments.....

It opens up the possibility of spending more time arguing and enforcing rules over playing the game.

conmcb25 · January 28, 2004, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

It opens up the possibility of spending more time arguing and enforcing rules over playing the game.

And of course an enormous amount of time and effort in figuring what the rules should be to the point where I wonder when we are actualy going to begin playing.

But considering some of the competition. Some rules are going to be necessary. We aren't the problem. Unfortunately others are.

conmcb25 · February 1, 2004, 09:10

Been pretty quiet around the forums lately

NYE and BF, I dont know if you guys have had a chance to work on the rules or not but whatever is happening put it on hold.

Elucidus is attempting to put together some sort of consolidated list and I assume set aside the issues that still need to be discussed.

Lets see what transpires from that and focus our discussion there.

More to follow soon I hope. He has been working on it for a week and I did bug him about again yesterday.

notyoueither · February 1, 2004, 19:32

Thanks, I am glad I checked here first. Was just getting ready to go hunt down the copy that is being referred to originally and start working on it.

conmcb25 · February 1, 2004, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Thanks, I am glad I checked here first. Was just getting ready to go hunt down the copy that is being referred to originally and start working on it.

No problem, I know how much work this is gonna be and just wanted to wait until the admin list so we can focas our efforts.

conmcb25 · February 18, 2004, 10:57

OK Elucidus is having issues with his "help" at the UN , Bootstoots and Strider have not come thru with help on the rules.

Here is Elucidus's post:

Quote:

I hate to do this, but it turns out that the individuals I was counting on to reformat the rules for sections four and five for me have...well, not done so.

So instead of being done by now I am much much farther behind. Given I haven't done section three yet. If someone could reformat sections four and five (and maybe three if they get a chance) according to how I did it above. I can start working to better define the sections that are reformatted and making determinations on what should be what.

If anyone *****es about someone helping and trying to get some sort fo favoritism or anything of that ilk, the person whinning can leave and is no longer welcome to play in this IDG. I don't have the time or energy for petty bickering. This would be to help us get started at a decent time.

I have to apologize. I asked Strider and Boots to do this because I thought it should be handled by more than one person. And I was never meant to be the lead on this project only the backup, I already had a full plate, and now I am the only person.

I am doing the best I can, but we are approaching two months behind schedule. I certainly am no Mongoose, that's for sure.

I am considering getting new staff for this game, other than me of course. I hate to do that, but the lack of involvement and support is driving me bonkers.

BF and NYE, both of you have put a lot of work into the rules, can either of you or both volunteer to help reformat one of these sections? I believe that would be a process of looking at what everyone posted and coming up with a consolidated version version of what the majority approved of.

Anyone else willing to help is welcome as well.

The sooner we help work these issues, the sooner we can start.

BigFree · February 18, 2004, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by conmcb25
OK Elucidus is having issues with his "help" at the UN , Bootstoots and Strider have not come thru with help on the rules.

Here is Elucidus's post:

BF and NYE, both of you have put a lot of work into the rules, can either of you or both volunteer to help reformat one of these sections? I believe that would be a process of looking at what everyone posted and coming up with a consolidated version version of what the majority approved of.

Anyone else willing to help is welcome as well.

The sooner we help work these issues, the sooner we can start.

I will take a look.

conmcb25 · February 19, 2004, 11:14

Thanks BF