Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Citizens' started by Chieftess, Feb 11, 2005.
Discussion has ended here along with 2 polls. Forming the article will now begin.
Repost from a poll on T/Cs:
I firmly believe in the 10 turn limit per T/C, with the few extra turns allowed for special circumstances. The amount of T/Cs per week should be limited to two, unless the is an "online pre-turn move" to determine an outcome needed for a decision (you know what I mean). These are the basic structures of a Turn Chat. All other tweaking is up to the President/DP. There should be no minimum, as the T/C can be ended at the President's discretion. People who want to play 15+ turn T/Cs should be kept in stockades far from any computer.
We also need to remember that turnchats can be considered optional based on this poll. So we will need to incorporate offline procedures as well.
DZ, that's a misleading poll, in my opinion. It looks right but plays on other issues brought up previously. Even if we do decide to let a DP use off-line chats (which is a bad idea), the suggestions I posted above can pretty much be used.
If it's a bad enough idea then no one will get elected on the platform of playing the turn offline.
I agree that your suggestions are the way to go. We just need the stipulation for offline chats, or should re-poll to remove it if you feel the last poll wasn't worded fairly.
how is it misleading?
it asks whether the game playing should happen online, offline, or the DP can choose between offline and online(which won)
Ah, see? In the quote above, you state " or the DP can choose between offline and online". In the poll, the option read, "The DP's discretion". That's the rub.
A lot of the discussions for DG6 have been looked at as the DP's discretion. If one has the mind set that the DP's discretion rules, then clicking on the option the way you worded it relieves the voter from anymore reading or thinking, just click and they're done. Had you worded the option like you stated it above, it would have been a lot better. I saw that option as bait for the option you were supporting.
darnet, you uncovered my conspiracy
Im sorry i didnt take into account that people will just vote like robots... But then again those are the citizens
The only way I would support offline playing is it if were used only for trade/diplomacy/city management sessions that in effect took 0 turns to play. Anything that advances the game should be open for anyone to attend. However, decisions that don't affect anything other than the specific area being altered (the situations I mentioned above plus any other actions that can take place without advancing Turns) can be played offline as far as I'm concerned.
That's fine, Ashburnham, except for the fact that no one seems interested in being President. And while I can't speak for everyone, I can tell you that the distraction of leading a chat --- jumping back and forth between chat and game, having to call each move in real time --- pretty much takes me out of the market for running.
If we were to allow a President to run turns offline, perhaps the people would become more vigilant in checking the save. I mean, really --- in RL, how many citizens of the world know every move that their President is making? Also, the 3-5 hours wasted per person per week being mesmerized by words scrolling on a screen could be better used making this game the forum game it was intended to be. Even the President could use the time once set aside for keeping plates spinning in chat to put together a respectable game session summary for once. More information on the forums is what everyone has been begging for, right?
I know that there is a certain comeraderie in having all(or many) citizens looking down the same path at once, especially in times of war. I also know that one can just wade through the "camel spit" of the chat (aka SPAM) to find much of the info they are looking for from the latest session. Yet I can't help but think of the game we could have if leaders were forced to think ahead, and if citizens used their time more wisely than being mere spectators for a good portion of the time.
But perhaps I am expecting too much.
And the best part is that it would still be optional! So fear not, because the chat would likely thrive 90% of the time. Having offline turns as an option just opens the field for qualified candidates who don't have time to play ringmaster in a chat. And it would be a campaign issue that the people could take into account during elections.
also cyc it said:
"President (or DP) decides" not at "the dps own discretion"
which was put in between online and offline
if one option is online, the other is offline, and the final is dp decides, one can only assume that people understood it
also ash the president can have an online chat from time to time or even all of them online.... just vote for the president that will play online
Well, the second place winner in this poll (right after REAL LIFE) was elimination of the chat. Basically, it says that losing the chat would drive away a good chunk of the population here. To me, private sessions only allow the game to be more crooked than it is already allowed to be.
i wouldnt worry too much, it seems most people that would become a DP would want to have turnchats anyway...
For once I agree with Cyc on that point about private turnchats. What's to prevent a president from spending a few extra hours using a cheat util, or say, declaring war on a civ to take one city, and then write in the log that a "city flipped to us from AI X, and AI X had a short war with AI Y"? Atleast in the turnchat, they have to give feedback every once in awhile, and the citizens expect turns 0, 5 and 10 on a timely manner. It makes it harder for the DP to do something like the above. In a private turnchat, the DP could actually start early and no one would know. They could play ahead, then reload the save. Doing that during a public turnchat would take much longer, and the citizens would know something is up.
one way to fix this is to require a save every turn when playing offline... however this wouldnt be fun in the ancient age
It would also put a greater load on the upload server. I don't think Thunderfall wants up to 540 demogame save files.
Plus, there are times, like when trading, that the trade advisors 2nd trade task will change (due to tech depreciation, some alliance Foreign Affairs made), and the DP might need to ask the Trade Advisor what to do next.
Actually this wouldn't be as hard as you think. If the DP is required to use CRP Suite MapStat, it has an option for copying each and every autosave to an archive directory.
I would withdraw my objections to allowing offline play as a choice if there were some way to remove the President prior to the end of the term, without a law being broken. Or a way to require online play if offline turns out badly, short of the appallingly slow and inefficient constitutional amendment process.
I'm very reluctant to allow an entire month of offline play if it turns out to be a disaster for the cultural of the demogame. We have already seen one demogame term where a President insisted on offline play (for just one chat IIRC) and on changing the expected parameters of the chat (ignoring leaders who were present), and it eventually resulted in half a dozen or so really good citizens packing their bags and leaving.
This, and the military equivalent (wow, we lost 5 knights to this one spear, should we keep going with the 2 knights we have left, or wait for reinforcements) are the reasons I want leaders to be able to change things during play. Or require play to stop if conditions change.
Separate names with a comma.