5BC discussion

[Bertie]

Black_Hole & Chieftess made some excellent points.

I don't think we want to be aggressive during the first term. We're going to be a weak civ for much of the early game so should expect that the AI is going to demand a lot of tribute from us; and we should be prepared to pay up. We'll be too puny to do much fighting in the AA.

 

[Chieftess]

For further reference, read Celtic Christmas, written by the Demogame's first military advisor, Charis.

 

[Black_Hole]

5BC discussion.. hmm. eh, might as well.

5BC is the equivalent of drenching yourself in gasoline and lighting yourself on fire. You just burn alittle before you die.

5BC has done what for us? Dissolution and distance is all I've seen, and I doubt your see much better than that. We attracted how many people playing a 5BC? Well, I count atleast two that had no idea what the hell it was! Aye, this is the fix to all our problems. Now everything is just fine.

A 5BC does nothing for us. It adds nothing new to the game, and requires no new strategies or tatics. It does nothing, and it has done nothing. If you wish to say otherwise, then please point out where we have succesfully made a breakthrough, in any aspect of the game except pissing everyone else in the game off.

You say that an Epic Game is getting boring, and won't attract newer players? Okay, well if a person new to the game has never played a Demogame before in there entire life, then how the hell will it be boring to them? They've never played it before in there entire life!

As for enticing roleplay, I highly doubt 5BC will help much, if at all. Hell, I can most likely predict what will happen. City #1 residents say there city is the best, City #2 residents disagree and say they are the best. City #1 and City #2 declares war among themselves. City #2 manages to talk City #4 into joining into the war against city #1, and as such City #1 is forced to talk City #5 into joining the way against City #2 and City #4. In the middle of this is City #3 talking about how we need to be peaceful and unite together, while pulling out old U.S. revolution quotes. So, while everyone is running around with a stick up there collective ass, problems we've had for 3 demogames now, are getting worse.

So, meanwhile... the only thing 5BC does succesfully is ruin the game for the numbercrunchers. Yeah, so it's basically a "We don't like the way you like to play the game, so were not going to let you have fun playing the game anymore!" Must be so enjoyable and self-heartening to know that you screwed someone over, and ruined it for them. Makes you feel so much better, doesn't it?

Yeah, were off to an excellent start this game. We've succesfully chosen the one thing that won't help us, and while doing so pissed off one of the more involved members of the demogame society. Aye, were doing just wonderful. Makes you feel all warm and toasty inside, doesn't it? Kind of like a marshmellow before it gets stuck in the fire.

will you stick at it all game? it sure isn't doing any good for you coming into threads yelling at everyone because you didn't get your way... if you want to leave do it, but don't drag everyone else down, this is tiring me

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: Pre-emptive warning: Let's not drag this into a flamewar.

 

[Strider]

will you stick at it all game? it sure isn't doing any good for you coming into threads yelling at everyone because you didn't get your way... if you want to leave do it, but don't drag everyone else down, this is tiring me

Leaving would accomplish what I want how? Your reasoning amazes me. Good thing everyone isn't that smart, otherwise we'd have major partcipation problems.

Now, about that dragging part. I did no 'dragging,' my reaction is based on a decision of the communities. Although, yes the way that decision was made was utter bullcrap. I personally would rather play a 5CC over a 5BC, but for some strange reason.. people here seem to think compromising is screwing both sides over. As such, were stuck with the option that hardly anyone really wanted in the first place. The only reason your defending it is for reputation purposes.

I hold to no such motives, and merely wish to end our wonderful voyage to hell. As such, I will continue my actions untill I deem that we are either damned or blessed.

 

[DaveShack]

I have no intention of getting into an argument, but I am willing to entertain constructive dialogue, if you're willing. If you're not willing and instead choose to continue to be obstructive or even destructive, then I know that hitting the little red triangle with an exclamantion point enough times will accomplish what needs to be done.

Leaving would accomplish what I want how?

Umm, exactly what do you want, anyway? I've heard some words, but your actions don't seem to agree. You want the game to be fun, but persist in doing things which are more harmful to making it fun.

people here seem to think compromising is screwing both sides over

You are the only person who has made a public comment that the current compromise is anything but fair. There are some of us who think it's a bad idea to lock into a variant and others who think that 5BC doesn't go far enough, but we seem pretty willing to play along with what the majority has decided. If I'm wrong, point me to evidence. If you can't find evidence then kindly spare us further comment on the subject of compromises, since you obviously don't get the point that both sides have to give up something for it to be a compromise at all.

That's not a command of course, I don't have the right to make it so. Of course you'll find the forum a pretty barren and uninteresting place if we all go about our business and just decide not to respond to your posts any more.

 

[Strider]

but persist in doing things which are more harmful to making it fun.

I see we disagree on what is more harmful towards the game.

You are the only person who has made a public comment that the current compromise is anything but fair. There are some of us who think it's a bad idea to lock into a variant and others who think that 5BC doesn't go far enough, but we seem pretty willing to play along with what the majority has decided. If I'm wrong, point me to evidence. If you can't find evidence then kindly spare us further comment on the subject of compromises, since you obviously don't get the point that both sides have to give up something for it to be a compromise at all.

I believed I handled this above. The poll that 'decided' this, was as I said above also, anything but fair. Also, as I said above, I would have chosen a 5CC over a 5BC. However, because that poll was utterly flawed, my vote went towards a 5BC instead. As to why I prefer a 5CC over a 5BC, well a 5CC did present a new challange for us as a community. While I still have doubts we would draw many people to the game this way, we could have still made it through with our current numbers. However, a 5BC does not present a challange. Actually, a 5BC includes all of the negatives out of both options, and not a single of the postitives.

I also was not the only person who complained about the poll, if you check the thread I distinctly remember several people complaining about it. Although nobody pushed the issue, because otherwise they'd be labeled as 'not willing to compromise.' Wonderful society we have here, when we must use slander
to achieve our goals. I see you've embraced that with open arms, and I guess that I must also.

Ironicly enough, the same things I stated weeks ago that we need to do to make the game more interesting (the same things that everyone agreed to), are still not done. For informational purposes, I'll list the ones that I can think of off the top of my head here again:

1. Makes elected poistions more powerful. Do this by decreasing the leaders reliance on the citizens. This should increase the demand for poistions, and make the elections more interesting and exciting.
2. Bring in new blood. Can be done *fairly* successfully with an FAQ thread, an introduction thread, and interesting stories/summaries/teasers on the mainpage.

Actually, that's all I'm going to list. Now, please show me where the actions you have taken to make the game more interesting have achieved any of the agreed goals? Actually, my actions are proof enough that whatever was tried didn't work.

Now moving back to 5BC. It's a deception, a defamation. It's a cross-dresser before you get a closer look. As I said above, it gives us all of the negatives, but none of the positives. It's very sad, that we jumped upon the first option that could be labeled with a majority. Terminological inexactitude is not the greatest of ways to operate a game. Remember that thing I said in the Loose strings thread about the community needing to 'wake up.' Well, that's all I've got to say to you, and to everyone else.

Wake Up

That's not a command of course, I don't have the right to make it so. Of course you'll find the forum a pretty barren and uninteresting place if we all go about our business and just decide not to respond to your posts any more.

Yes, I'm sure I'll lose many nights of sleep over that statement.

Edit: Also, if I really wanted to ruin the "fun" of the game, then I would have said that I would run the elections and then messed them up on purpose. Hell, if I really wanted to mess things up, I could just run for DP and then screw everything up.

Now, I must ask, why did you deem it neccessary to use slander? Also, what was your goal in doing so?

If I really was trying to 'ruin the fun' of the the game, then I would be attempting to do so. I don't take kindly to false labels, or insults for that matter. So next time you decide to use slander to further sometype of demented self-appearance, I would suggest you don't use me as a target.

 

[DaveShack]

I also was not the only person who complained about the poll, if you check the thread I distinctly remember several people complaining about it. Although nobody pushed the issue, because otherwise they'd be labeled as 'not willing to compromise.'

When my side of a poll loses I drop the matter, in the interest of the common good. Something like 99% of us act the way that I do, and I think you can figure out who doesn't.

Compromise means something in the middle. Epic and 5CC were tied, each with less than 50% of the vote. A 2nd poll, which was flawed, had completely inconclusive results because the choices were not "orthagonal". That flawed poll was the DG equivalent of asking someone what they like on their cereal with answers (nothing, sugar, brown sugar, powered sugar, bananas, eggs instead of cereal, world peace). Nothing can be concluded from the answers to such a poll because the answers make no sense based on the question.

The decisive poll was correctly stated, with an evenly spaced (as polls go) spectrum of choices: # of cities= (5, 12, 19, infinity). The people chose 12. Twelve is between 5 and infinity, therefore 12 is a compromise. qed

1. Makes elected poistions more powerful. Do this by decreasing the leaders reliance on the citizens. This should increase the demand for poistions, and make the elections more interesting and exciting.
2. Bring in new blood. Can be done *fairly* successfully with an FAQ thread, an introduction thread, and interesting stories/summaries/teasers on the mainpage.

Actually, that's all I'm going to list. Now, please show me where the actions you have taken to make the game more interesting have achieved any of the agreed goals?

Hmm, of the people who have accepted nominations, there are several for whom this is their first accept. Sounds like new blood to me.

I don't need to do everything personally. Others seem to be carrying on those tasks just fine, thank you. The crying shame about this is that someone with so much zeal for these things, like yourself, should be able to act upon them instead of going off to sulk a few weeks because the majority of the people choose a direction which doesn't match your perfect reality.

Now, I must ask, why did you deem it neccessary to use slander? Also, what was your goal in doing so?

Nope, no slander here. I said, in different words, that I will not allow you to do things which are destructive to the game. 5BC has been decided, and it was a compromise, and grandstanding against it being a compromise is destructive to the game.

 

[Strider]

The decisive poll was correctly stated, with an evenly spaced (as polls go) spectrum of choices: # of cities= (5, 12, 19, infinity). The people chose 12. Twelve is between 5 and infinity, therefore 12 is a compromise.

Decisive? Daveshack, the option that won received 4 out of 24 votes! Receiving 1/6th of the vote is not majority. As I said before, you seem to think that compromise is screwing both sides over. Instead of both sides developing an alternative method, you just grabbed the middle and forced it upon us.

Hmm, of the people who have accepted nominations, there are several for whom this is their first accept. Sounds like new blood to me.

About the same thing I heard last term, and looked where we ended up. I've seen this circle before, and I don't like where it's going.

I don't need to do everything personally. Others seem to be carrying on those tasks just fine, thank you. The crying shame about this is that someone with so much zeal for these things, like yourself, should be able to act upon them instead of going off to sulk a few weeks because the majority of the people choose a direction which doesn't match your perfect reality.

Sorry if I got tired of fixing the things that everyone else broke.

Nope, no slander here. I said, in different words, that I will not allow you to do things which are destructive to the game. 5BC has been decided, and it was a compromise, and grandstanding against it being a compromise is destructive to the game.

Hey, look! It's a circle! I remember the same things said last game about the constitution. Please excuse me if I don't keep your, eh, optimism.

 

[Eklektikos]

Is this really constructive?

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter that much to you that this demogame will be a 5BC?

Would it not perhaps be better to accept defeat this time, sit back and make the best of it rather than to keep on fruitlessly fulminating over the issue?

 

[Strider]

Is this really constructive?

It's Systematic deprivation.

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter that much to you that this demogame will be a 5BC?

I'm hoping you didn't expect a non-sarcastic answer to that question.

Would it not perhaps be better to accept defeat this time, sit back and make the best of it rather than to keep on fruitlessly fulminating over the issue?

Seemingly, I doubted that it would be better. Otherwise I would have done such.

 

[DaveShack]

So, back to the business at hand.

The first couple thousand years should proceed the same way a normal game would, except that instead of using close build techniques aimed at 12 tiles per city, we need to be a bit more spread out to have a chance at getting the necessary resources. No overlap at all is ideal, and gaps are even ok. The key thing is using the best land available.

It is important to hit the nearest neighbors and cull them back before they get much larger than us. This should be done even before the 5 cities are built, if a good opportunity comes along. The other thing to focus on is we should get a tech advantage and immediately use whatever units that gives us. Waiting for any length of time would just even the odds.

 

[Strider]

Now that one side has proven that they have the problem solving skills of a 6 year old, I think were moving forward wonderfully. Oh well, atleast I get to have fun imagining the pained expressions on your face every time I make a post. Imagine the possibilities, I can say almost anything, and you can't reply.

I've been a loner most of my life, do you really expect this to work? I can entertain myself with or without replies.

 

[ravensfire]

Imagine the possibilities, I can say almost anything, and you can't reply.

Honestly, all that has to be done is place you on ignore. It would be a shame, you have done a lot in the past, and have the potential to contribute here.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Honestly, all that has to be done is place you on ignore. It would be a shame, you have done a lot in the past, and have the potential to contribute here.

Yet, I don't have a reason to contribute. Why should I? For I can continue to hold the pointless debates with people, just because they don't like me? Sorry, but I got bored of that months ago.

After all I've done for this game, and I receive in return what? Daveshacks accusations that I'm trying to destroy it? Yes, I could write an FAQ, information thread, etc. in less than an hour. Hell, I could most likely have them both contain considerable information, and I highly doubt anyone will disagree with it.

However, after what you've just said to me, why should I? Give me a reason, and I maybe.. just maybe, I might.

BTW: The Freedom of Information act in your constitutional proposal won't work. You used the same idea behind the orginal article I wrote that was contained in the DG6 constitution. Needless to say, it didn't work how it was suppose to.

 

[peter grimes]

@DS: What sort of tech advantage can we aim for? It sounds to me like if we go the wrong direction we'll have nothing to barter with, and just get left behind. Wouldn't it be better to try and be rich and purchase what we need, researching profitable govs? Be gentle - I've never done 5CC 5BC.

 

[ravensfire]

Nevermind - not worth it.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

-- Ravensfire

My point in it's entirety.

 

[DaveShack]

@DS: What sort of tech advantage can we aim for? It sounds to me like if we go the wrong direction we'll have nothing to barter with, and just get left behind. Wouldn't it be better to try and be rich and purchase what we need, researching profitable govs? Be gentle - I've never done 5CC 5BC.

I've only tried 5CC one time, so take everything I say with a healthy dose of skepticism.

This is a very good question. We might not have any tech advantage, I'm only suggesting that if we get one, we have to use it right away. My guess would be we'll have a shot at getting either Chivalry or Mil Trad first. The other big advantage we could get is in resources, if we have iron or horses and a neighbor doesn't, or their source is far away.

The paradox of 5BC is that our population will be higher earlier (less settlers, less workers) so our income is higher even with fewer cities. We won't be wasting any maintenance on buildings in unproductive cities. so financially we might be better off than in an epic.

 

[Strider]

@DS: What sort of tech advantage can we aim for? It sounds to me like if we go the wrong direction we'll have nothing to barter with, and just get left behind. Wouldn't it be better to try and be rich and purchase what we need, researching profitable govs? Be gentle - I've never done 5CC 5BC.

We can easily aim for the Great Library or Philosophy. Usually AI's go straight up the monarchy path, or they go straight for Iron Working. Yes, there is usually one or two oddballs, but for the most part that's what they do.

Another possible alternative is going straight for Construction.

It's impossible to predict what type of advantages we might have, if we even have any. I don't care to much for the idea of us relying on an advantage that might never show.