classical_hero
In whom I trust
I like Emp's suggestion on team, but I think we should have eight separate teams and there be four teams of two where two nations are linked together.
Another game? Focused discussion
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Sounds interesting, I like all of those ideas. I also like the idea of having 2-4 continents connected by coast this time around, and some extra islands out in the ocean to reward those who want to go out settling early. (Joao got a little hard done by with his UU in the previous map, in that respect.) I'm sure the map maker will be able to provide us with something unpredictable and interesting, though!Maybe the map could be designed in a way that gives every team a close source of stone AND marble = Fun wonder races, More wonder building, and less early rushing.
If AIs were included, maybe we could all agree not to tech-trade with the AI, but tech trading with other Teams would be allowed. Or maybe the AIs could all be locked onto one team or AI alliance.
Or maybe there could be a large Barbarian civ with cities placed between each human team. That would make trade with the AI impossible and therefore policing would be unnecessary. The cities could be placed at extremely poor locations to make sure that human players would raze them instead of capturing them.
I did think of that option... but I reckon it'd just end up being a pain having two separate forums for discussions which need to be linked all the time. (E.g. what to research, how to work out city placement together - since the two civs on each team will likely be starting so close - and so on.)
If we started with eight teams, many of the members would probably end up asking to join their partner's teams anyway (and I can't see why they'd be refused since you're permanently allied anyway)... and then it'd just be annoying having to remember to check two private forums for new posts every day instead of just one. Plus the partners would likely be sharing passwords with one another, so that if one was unable to log in the other could, and so on. There'd end up being so much copying and pasting and double posting across the partner forums that you may as well just have those forums combined anyway.
At least that was how I saw it.
Plus, splitting up into eight teams might spread the members a bit thin, and thus end up with some semi-dead teams that are mostly controlled by their partner anyway.
Just looking at the forum activity... I notice that:
SANCTA had 9,677 posts
for 116 Threads
Kazakhstan had over 9,200 posts for 114 Threads
Cavaleiros had over 4,500 posts for 59 Threads
Saturn over 4,100 posts for 59 Threads
Mad Scientists had over 3,000 posts for 191 Threads
I shaved some numbers off the end because there has been some posting since the game ended but I think these numbers are pretty close.
It seems clear that SANCTA and Kaz were by far the most active... and I think those two teams seemed to have the most amount of members participating... especially towards the end.
To the teams with high activity levels...What can be done to encourage these high levels of participation in our next game? Recruiting? Civility? Debate? What?
To the teams that used a substantially smaller number of threads... Did you find that your forum was more focused or less organized or what? Would you rather have used less threads or more threads?
I am generally interested in how we can get more participation and sustained interest in the next game... part of what seemed to make the game die out was less activity/participation.
SANCTA had 9,677 posts
for 116 Threads Kazakhstan had over 9,200 posts for 114 Threads
Cavaleiros had over 4,500 posts for 59 Threads
Saturn over 4,100 posts for 59 Threads
Mad Scientists had over 3,000 posts for 191 Threads
I shaved some numbers off the end because there has been some posting since the game ended but I think these numbers are pretty close.
It seems clear that SANCTA and Kaz were by far the most active... and I think those two teams seemed to have the most amount of members participating... especially towards the end.
To the teams with high activity levels...What can be done to encourage these high levels of participation in our next game? Recruiting? Civility? Debate? What?
To the teams that used a substantially smaller number of threads... Did you find that your forum was more focused or less organized or what? Would you rather have used less threads or more threads?
I am generally interested in how we can get more participation and sustained interest in the next game...
part of what seemed to make the game die out was less activity/participation.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
As to our relatively small number of posts... we were actually pretty good in the early game. It was towards the later game quite a few of us in Saturn became fairly busy around the same time, which didn't help in our activity. It also probably didn't help that it didn't look like we were going to have any chance in this game for a portion of the mid-game, which possibly turned some people off. However, in the early game things certainly worked really well between us, and I'd do it the same way next time. 
I do think that having fewer, shorter threads did help focus discussion though - largely for the reason that it's much easier to subscribe to a single thread and get email notifications of every new post, than to have to remember to zoom out to the forum level and check for new threads all the time. I certainly remember several times where I'd get an email, check a thread, make a post, and then log out - without realising that someone had started a new topic on some random matter. And yes, I'm aware that you can subscribe to whole forums, but it's awkward - for one thing it doesn't give instant notifications, only daily ones.
So I don't know about everyone else, but for me at least it was good to have most of our discussions focussed in a few huge threads. (In fact, our two biggest threads had well over 1000 posts each, and accounted for over half of our total posts! )
Oh, that reminds me - one other thing that really stimulated our forum activity during the long turn delays (which are fairly unavoidable at some point in these games) was our intra-team pitboss game. That game was not only great for learning multiplayer strategy for many of our team members, but it was also awesome fun for everyone participating too. I'd definitely recommend that all teams have at least one intra-team game next time around - it really helps add to the fun, not to mention the forum activity!
I do think that having fewer, shorter threads did help focus discussion though - largely for the reason that it's much easier to subscribe to a single thread and get email notifications of every new post, than to have to remember to zoom out to the forum level and check for new threads all the time. I certainly remember several times where I'd get an email, check a thread, make a post, and then log out - without realising that someone had started a new topic on some random matter. And yes, I'm aware that you can subscribe to whole forums, but it's awkward - for one thing it doesn't give instant notifications, only daily ones.
So I don't know about everyone else, but for me at least it was good to have most of our discussions focussed in a few huge threads. (In fact, our two biggest threads had well over 1000 posts each, and accounted for over half of our total posts!
)Oh, that reminds me - one other thing that really stimulated our forum activity during the long turn delays (which are fairly unavoidable at some point in these games) was our intra-team pitboss game. That game was not only great for learning multiplayer strategy for many of our team members, but it was also awesome fun for everyone participating too. I'd definitely recommend that all teams have at least one intra-team game next time around - it really helps add to the fun, not to mention the forum activity!
donsig
Low level intermediary
I think the key to continued participation is still being in the game, still having a decent chance to win. Unfortunately, we can only go sa far in balancing the game. Inevitably a point will be reached where one or more teams sees no future in the game and team members will lose interest. The only solution I see to that is allowing a team to resign and let the AI take over.
The intra-team pitboss game is a very good idea though for keeping a team together. We had one on Kaz but couldn't keep it going very long. That was my first multi-player game and I learned quite a bit of basic stuff - like how to log in and play a turn. If we had been able to continue that game I might have reached a point where I felt comfortable being a turn player for our team.
For me also, I prefer an atmosphere where the team discusses strategy and tactics and reaches decisions through that discussion. I abhor fixed rules and polls for making team decisions.
The intra-team pitboss game is a very good idea though for keeping a team together. We had one on Kaz but couldn't keep it going very long. That was my first multi-player game and I learned quite a bit of basic stuff - like how to log in and play a turn. If we had been able to continue that game I might have reached a point where I felt comfortable being a turn player for our team.
For me also, I prefer an atmosphere where the team discusses strategy and tactics and reaches decisions through that discussion. I abhor fixed rules and polls for making team decisions.
DMOC
Mathematician
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,594
As to our relatively small number of posts... we were actually pretty good in the early game. It was towards the later game quite a few of us in Saturn became fairly busy around the same time, which didn't help in our activity. It also probably didn't help that it didn't look like we were going to have any chance in this game for a portion of the mid-game, which possibly turned some people off. However, in the early game things certainly worked really well between us, and I'd do it the same way next time.
I do think that having fewer, shorter threads did help focus discussion though - largely for the reason that it's much easier to subscribe to a single thread and get email notifications of every new post, than to have to remember to zoom out to the forum level and check for new threads all the time. I certainly remember several times where I'd get an email, check a thread, make a post, and then log out - without realising that someone had started a new topic on some random matter. And yes, I'm aware that you can subscribe to whole forums, but it's awkward - for one thing it doesn't give instant notifications, only daily ones.
So I don't know about everyone else, but for me at least it was good to have most of our discussions focussed in a few huge threads. (In fact, our two biggest threads had well over 1000 posts each, and accounted for over half of our total posts!
Oh, that reminds me - one other thing that really stimulated our forum activity during the long turn delays (which are fairly unavoidable at some point in these games) was our intra-team pitboss game. That game was not only great for learning multiplayer strategy for many of our team members, but it was also awesome fun for everyone participating too. I'd definitely recommend that all teams have at least one intra-team game next time around - it really helps add to the fun, not to mention the forum activity!
I agree LP.
In my opinion, demogame forums should have these threads:
1. Welcome thread (so everyone gets to know each other)
2. Turn Tracker Thread - Screenshots/Turn updates only
3. Turn Discussion Thread - Discuss turns, general strategy
4. Embassy threads for all other teams
That pretty much covers most of a forum's posts. Extra can be created to account for polls, etc.
..., ... I do agree 100% with donsig that the intra-team pitboss was a great in many ways. It increased participation, and is a good way to learn game mechanics. I learned alot from ours. I wish that our team had started the pitboss game earlier... indeed, it would probably be a good idea for all the teams to have a pitboss game (or a couple of pitboss games) going all the time. I wish we had started another after the first one died. Starting early with team pitboss games would also be good.
I also agree with donsig that it is hard to soldier on in the game when you are losing... That is the main reason I resigned from our Team pitboss, my alliance was losing/destroyed. In retrospect, I wish I had continued playing, because I now see how much one player quitting sucks for everyone else. I definitely will not quit a pitboss game again, now that I have more experience with how quitting ruins a game for others.
I think that the Civ 4 ladder has a strict "No Quitting" policy. Could we have such a rule with our game? I have no idea how such a rule would be implemented/enforced - maybe it would just be on an honor code... Maybe an accomplished ladder player (like Indiansmoke) could explain it better than me.
Tinkerbell
Prince
For the MS: With only a turn player left, there is no dicussion anymore, so no posts.
Every turn got a own thread (at the start), so that count is high.
Every turn got a own thread (at the start), so that count is high.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
For what it's worth:
SANCTA didn't quit because it was losing. SANCTA quit because it's turn player was accused of cheating.
SANCTA didn't quit because it was losing. SANCTA quit because it's turn player was accused of cheating.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
So... discussion seems to have died down a bit in this thread lately. And fair enough, there's not much more we can easily discuss until we can branch out into different threads, polls, etc.
Any news on that new forum I requested a while back? Or are we going to sit and wait a few months before we start another game?
Any news on that new forum I requested a while back? Or are we going to sit and wait a few months before we start another game?
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
If you're interested in another game, vote in this thread. As soon as enough people vote, the new forum can be set up, and we can get going!
Tinkerbell
Prince
Thanks for the link!
Assuming that most people enjoyed the last game... Might the fastest way to get another game started be to just do the same thing that everyone liked... and just make a FEW, simple, minor adjustments... to elimminate the stuff that people did not like about the last game?
For exammple:
1. Indiansmoke did not like that one team (Kaz) was blocked in by mountains... so we make sure that does not happen next time.
2. Memphus (and SANCTA) did not like being accused of cheating... so we make sure that does not happen again. Maybe with the Random reload seed setting and a "no-public-accusations" rule?
3. Lord Parkin (and Saturn) did not like their low-food start... so we make sure everyone has a food-rich start... Maybe just give all the Civs multiple seafood and multiple land-food at their starting locations (maybe throw in some close marble and stone too).
4. City-gifting and Teams quitting ended the game... so we have a No-city-gifting, and No-Quit rule.
5. Lord Parkin was discouraged that tech alliances put teams (Cav, Kaz, and MS) too far ahead in tech before other teams (Saturn, SANCTA) had any real chance to establish trading partners... So maybe play at a lower speed (Marathon or Epic) to make tech advancement slower, and use the "No-brokering" setting, to slow tech advancement and to preserve tech-monopoly trading advantages?
Leave everything else the same, maybe?... Just to keep it simple, and get the next game going while interest is high
I for one, really liked that last game we played. It seems like a bunch of other people enjoyed it as well...
What about having the next game set to a slower speed like Epic or Marathon. That way we would get alot more bang-for-the-buck with units, because it will take a long time for them to become obsolete.
Playing on Epic (or Marathon) speed would also stretch out the Early game longer... Folks have already commented about liking the early game more than the late game.
For exammple:
1. Indiansmoke did not like that one team (Kaz) was blocked in by mountains... so we make sure that does not happen next time.
2. Memphus (and SANCTA) did not like being accused of cheating... so we make sure that does not happen again. Maybe with the Random reload seed setting and a "no-public-accusations" rule?
3. Lord Parkin (and Saturn) did not like their low-food start... so we make sure everyone has a food-rich start... Maybe just give all the Civs multiple seafood and multiple land-food at their starting locations (maybe throw in some close marble and stone too).
4. City-gifting and Teams quitting ended the game... so we have a No-city-gifting, and No-Quit rule.
5. Lord Parkin was discouraged that tech alliances put teams (Cav, Kaz, and MS) too far ahead in tech before other teams (Saturn, SANCTA) had any real chance to establish trading partners... So maybe play at a lower speed (Marathon or Epic) to make tech advancement slower, and use the "No-brokering" setting, to slow tech advancement and to preserve tech-monopoly trading advantages?
Leave everything else the same, maybe?... Just to keep it simple, and get the next game going while interest is high
I for one, really liked that last game we played. It seems like a bunch of other people enjoyed it as well...
What about having the next game set to a slower speed like Epic or Marathon. That way we would get alot more bang-for-the-buck with units, because it will take a long time for them to become obsolete.
Playing on Epic (or Marathon) speed would also stretch out the Early game longer... Folks have already commented about liking the early game more than the late game.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I don't think we have to have ridiculously food-rich starts. I just think that all of the starts should be balanced with respect to food (and hammers/commerce, of course). As long as all teams are on the same footing, it doesn't bother me. Although it'd be nice to have a bit more than a Crab and a plains-hill-Sheep next time.
I'm okay with gifting a border city or two, but gifting an entire empire should probably be discouraged. Having a "No-Quit" rule seems a bit silly though... if people really don't want to play anymore, they won't. A rule saying they can't quit won't stop them doing so.
No brokering actually doesn't help anything (allies can still gift all their new discoveries to their partners), and slower game speeds actually make things worse with respect to tech alliances, because a military technological edge will last over far more turns and thus be far more lethal to the non-alliance member.
I'm not against playing Epic speed, although I'm not sure how keen other people will be. I know a longer game isn't everyone's cup of tea. I do think Marathon might be a bit much though. Normal speed games already last 1-2 years... with 3 times the turns that'd be 4-6 years. Will anyone still be around to play in 2016, when Civ V will have been out for 3-4 years and Civ VI will be on the horizon?What about having the next game set to a slower speed like Epic or Marathon. That way we would get alot more bang-for-the-buck with units, because it will take a long time for them to become obsolete.
Playing on Epic (or Marathon) speed would also stretch out the Early game longer... Folks have already commented about liking the early game more than the late game.
EDIT: Of course some considerable time would be cut off if we did simultaneous rather than sequential turns...
Krill
Deity
There isn't anyway of simply stopping tech alliances from forming, short of adding out of game rules like allowing contact between all civs from turn 0, making a limit on the amount of techs each team can trade, or the amount of time each tech itself can be traded.
In small games of 5 players or less the diplomacy aspect of the game is a major unbalancing feature, and there isn't an easy way for the map maker to balance it...
In small games of 5 players or less the diplomacy aspect of the game is a major unbalancing feature, and there isn't an easy way for the map maker to balance it...
If everyone has a super-sized starting location, everyone will start the game with a super-positive attitude about their Civ, and there will be less early quitting.
Plus more resources means more discussion about what to tech, work, build, etc., which = more interest and less quitting. For example, having fish, crab, sheep, pig, 2 bananas and corn in the BFC means ... "Hmmm do we tech fishing or agriculture?... Build Workboat or worker? Beeline calendar or not?I think that rich food starts will elimminate that discouraged feeling -from having a sub-optimal start. Also, if everyone has a great start, minor differences in resources will mean much less... If we all get 4 food resources at our start location, how can you complain "Oh poo, I got wheat instead of pig"
. Finally, Giving everyone a resource rich start also gets the game moving faster, with faster growth, wonders, religions, settlers, everything.
Well...not neccessarily. First of all, I was talking mostly about turnplayers, not lurkers. I think if turnplayers commit up-front not to quit, and play to the end (or find a sub), they will honor their word. I read the Civ 4 ladder rules, and they basically ban quitters. Maybe we could do the same... ban folks who quit from turnplaying in future MTDGs... just an ideaHaving a "No-Quit" rule seems a bit silly though... A rule saying they can't quit won't stop them doing so.
azzaman333
meh
No Tech Trading generally prevents tech alliances from forming.
nice words Somerswerd, but I 've some remarks.
Alliances/enmities will be formed very early in the game.
That is so not right. First is losing interest then ...
I also
I think, there is no endgame in DGs, only in very few MPs.What about having the next game set to a slower speed like Epic or Marathon. That way we would get alot more bang-for-the-buck with units, because it will take a long time for them to become obsolete.
Playing on Epic (or Marathon) speed would also stretch out the Early game longer... Folks have already commented about liking the early game more than the late game.
Alliances/enmities will be formed very early in the game.
This sets are imo only for SPs, so that the AI can't trade their boni best.There is low interest in diplo without tech-trade and diplo is teh important trait of DGs, that from me, who make no/few diplo.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Tech alliances and alliances in general decide the games, that is whyplaying with no tech trading is essensial and banning any communication between teams also would give us a hugelly better game.
As long as there is at least one person in every team willing to honor the rules, it should be no problem.
