Civ4 Demogame IV

[civplayah]

I'm still going with AT's idea, because that gives variety and no one feels left out.

 

[thecommonnate]

I'm not sure exactly where this went, but I voted for both.

EDIT: a yes vote, that is.

 

[Cyc]

I'm not sure exactly where this went, but I voted for both.

EDIT: a yes vote, that is.

Hey thecommonnate, I was looking at the vote count, and you voted "NO" for C3C. You did vote "YES" for CIV.

 

[GenMarshall]

Hey thecommonnate, I was looking at the vote count, and you voted "NO" for C3C. You did vote "YES" for CIV.

I think you have a calling to count the votes over in Minnesota .

 

[Vandal Warlord]

Definatly Playing!

 

[DaveShack]

I think that to keep up interest, the next game shouldn't take 3-6 months deciding a ruleset before the game even begins. There's 10 rulesets (10 demogames) to choose from now - any one of those could be used as a template.

I would recommend excluding Civ4 DG1 and Civ4 DG3 from the candidate rulesets. Both of them involved electing a group of people.

Civ3 DG6 was too complicated, but a lighter weight version might be workable. I don't know if the Civ3 DG1 or DG2 rulesets are still available. Thought we had looked into that before and not been able to find them. Civ3 DG7 was very specialized for the 5CC game, so it would need to be unspecialized if we wanted to use it.

It would also help if we adopted the "good atmosphere" rule of MTDG1.

A hybridization technique might also be possible. Pick the best judiciary, best WOTP, and best executive system from the various games. Declare the political parties experiment to be failed, and pick the best individual election system. Then require the three main types of players (RPG, Politicial/legal simulation, game playing) to treat each other with respect (see "good atmosphere").

 

[Chieftess]

I would recommend excluding Civ4 DG1 and Civ4 DG3 from the candidate rulesets. Both of them involved electing a group of people.

Civ3 DG6 was too complicated, but a lighter weight version might be workable. I don't know if the Civ3 DG1 or DG2 rulesets are still available. Thought we had looked into that before and not been able to find them. Civ3 DG7 was very specialized for the 5CC game, so it would need to be unspecialized if we wanted to use it.

It would also help if we adopted the "good atmosphere" rule of MTDG1.

A hybridization technique might also be possible. Pick the best judiciary, best WOTP, and best executive system from the various games. Declare the political parties experiment to be failed, and pick the best individual election system. Then require the three main types of players (RPG, Politicial/legal simulation, game playing) to treat each other with respect (see "good atmosphere").

Civ3 DG1 sort of just evolved over the course of the game. I believe the (summarized) ruleset is actually buried somewhere in the Off Topic forum of all places. The basic idea was 7 positions for each advisor, plus governors (mayors were "appointed", but only had advisory input IIRC), plus discussion and polls with turnchats every 3-4 days. (I think I just summed up the gist of a ruleset in 1 sentence! ) The early part of the game was much more of a republic, with the elected officials voting to approve polls, and to change or veto something. The Judiciary was added later. Civ3 DG2's ruleset used DG1's (evolved) ruleset as a base, plus added the RPG element, and a whole bunch of other rules. Rulesets shouldn't take an entire season (or two) to develop, either.

Civ3 DG1 and 2's ruleset may still reside on the old (ancient) demogame website. I have an archive of it somewhere, too...

 

[Provolution]

For all those that wants to try a new way of handling things, instead of being forced/administered by veterans to do what they want, the multi-civ approach is the best way to go. This way, veterans can cultivate their traditional style in one civ, and others can fix up what they disliked and liked in factional in another, yet, we may see a separate civ3 and a separate civ4 game as well. Factional did not work the way I liked, as fixed terms was blocked by some, among other things. Limitations to the duration of a faction, as I wanted, was also blocked. Go back to the discussion on the faction ruleset, and you will see that aspects of faction ruleset that failed, i was also againt, yet, several new things with the faction ruleset worked, and I would like to have multiple teams to allow development of new demogame concepts, as AutomatedTeller proposed.

 

[Cyc]

I would have to agree that Civ3 DG2 probably had the best "all around" ruleset. Whether it ever came to be appreciated by some people or not, it really was the Constitution fairest to the people. In my opinion anyway. We might want to get Ravensfire to weigh in on this factor. He was (and still is, in my opinion) one of the best Demogame minds around. Not sure if we can make one the DG2 Cons surface, although I kept a hard copy for a long while, but if we can do that, DG2 would get my vote.

Provo, I'm not at all against a Demogame with more than one human team. It would add a new demension to the old standard, even if if was just a temporary experiment for one game. Probably looking at private sub-forums for each team. The main forum could hold the game's origin and rules, Administrative matters (maybe a World Court), a newspaper, etc.

 

[Provolution]

I think three teams would be the ideal, with nine additional AI Civs would be ideal We would thus get a hybrid of multiteam demogame and normal demogame. I think we should by now acknowledge that there is more than one truth out there, simply because people have different gaming styles and preferences, and putting all players in one big group is not always the best, as having some sense of like-mindedness helps.

If one team falls under a certain level of participation, the civ would simply be forcibly converted to become an AI civ itself, in this manner, a sense of competition to keep up the activity level would work out. Also, we would have a way to handle various citizenships. Migrations could only happen after term ends, and the various civs could have immigration preferences, pending on activity level, Having migrations following terms, could be a vent for dissatisfied players to wander off to a different civ, if the new civ wanted more people. Only one civ at a time, calls for abuse etc. I would prefer to have such a demogame with 3 civs with 10-15 players each, than having a big dysfunctional demogame with 25 players, where 10 at all stages are utterly disenfranchised. For me, and several others, this would be best, as we have a certain preference for how to have a game, unlike others.

 

[DaveShack]

The hypothetical game with multiple human players acting as a team would have to be played in a multi-player engine, right? How would that work? What would distinguish it from a true multiplayer game? If someone wanted to play on all "teams" would we let them? Exclusivity for the sake of competition is reasonable, elitism not so much.

It might be easier to just start separate single player games with different styles and let people play where they like the style.

In all the games but the last, nobody was "disenfranchised" that I know of. Note that being disenfranchised means not being able to vote. Not being able to get your way does not count. Some people had to put up with a style they didn't like, but they had their opportunity to convince a majority to play their way and failed. I positively hated the 5BC nature of Civ3DG7 but played anyway, one of the few who stuck it out to the end.

The faction system did prohibit people from voting on most things. It violated the most basic precept of a democracy game, that the WOTP must be followed.

 

[Ball Lightning]

I think three teams would be the ideal, with nine additional AI Civs would be ideal We would thus get a hybrid of multiteam demogame and normal demogame. I think we should by now acknowledge that there is more than one truth out there, simply because people have different gaming styles and preferences, and putting all players in one big group is not always the best, as having some sense of like-mindedness helps.

If one team falls under a certain level of participation, the civ would simply be forcibly converted to become an AI civ itself, in this manner, a sense of competition to keep up the activity level would work out. Also, we would have a way to handle various citizenships. Migrations could only happen after term ends, and the various civs could have immigration preferences, pending on activity level, Having migrations following terms, could be a vent for dissatisfied players to wander off to a different civ, if the new civ wanted more people. Only one civ at a time, calls for abuse etc. I would prefer to have such a demogame with 3 civs with 10-15 players each, than having a big dysfunctional demogame with 25 players, where 10 at all stages are utterly disenfranchised. For me, and several others, this would be best, as we have a certain preference for how to have a game, unlike others.

This actually could work..

I'm fine with a 2 or 3 team game

 

[Provolution]

I think it is very simple, all teams agree on their preferred civ/random civ and leaders internally, then the teams agree on the gameworld parameters together. Then we need to have universal election or shift of power and immigration/emigration periods as well as civic changes for all civs, so we have a common clock, so to speak. If a team . .. .. .. . up the internal culture, for various reasons, players would live, and quite possibly the civ may become a AI civ. There should also be very basic game rules for what game history a civ should be forced to submit to the main forum. The less rules, the easier to enforce, the more common standards for time, the easier to harmonize.

 

[civplayah]

I think three teams would be the ideal, with nine additional AI Civs would be ideal We would thus get a hybrid of multiteam demogame and normal demogame. I think we should by now acknowledge that there is more than one truth out there, simply because people have different gaming styles and preferences, and putting all players in one big group is not always the best, as having some sense of like-mindedness helps.

If one team falls under a certain level of participation, the civ would simply be forcibly converted to become an AI civ itself, in this manner, a sense of competition to keep up the activity level would work out. Also, we would have a way to handle various citizenships. Migrations could only happen after term ends, and the various civs could have immigration preferences, pending on activity level, Having migrations following terms, could be a vent for dissatisfied players to wander off to a different civ, if the new civ wanted more people. Only one civ at a time, calls for abuse etc. I would prefer to have such a demogame with 3 civs with 10-15 players each, than having a big dysfunctional demogame with 25 players, where 10 at all stages are utterly disenfranchised. For me, and several others, this would be best, as we have a certain preference for how to have a game, unlike others.

Still going with this. Everything above this post posted by Provo works with me. I think that we should have a vote first on how many teams (although I think three or one would be the main competetors) and on who will be the leader(s) of that(those) civs.

 

[Cyc]

It might be easier to just start separate single player games with different styles and let people play where they like the style.

This might be the answer, DaveShack. Multiple DGs going at the same time. Interesting.

I positively hated the 5BC nature of Civ3DG7 but played anyway, one of the few who stuck it out to the end.

I didn't care for that game either, and I bailed after a weird quirk in the game rules.

The faction system did prohibit people from voting on most things. It violated the most basic precept of a democracy game, that the WOTP must be followed.

In a sense, true. But towards the end of the last game, we tried to steer it back to a more traditional style.

 

[Provolution]

The hypothetical game with multiple human players acting as a team would have to be played in a multi-player engine, right? How would that work? What would distinguish it from a true multiplayer game? If someone wanted to play on all "teams" would we let them? Exclusivity for the sake of competition is reasonable, elitism not so much.

It might be easier to just start separate single player games with different styles and let people play where they like the style.

In all the games but the last, nobody was "disenfranchised" that I know of. Note that being disenfranchised means not being able to vote. Not being able to get your way does not count. Some people had to put up with a style they didn't like, but they had their opportunity to convince a majority to play their way and failed. I positively hated the 5BC nature of Civ3DG7 but played anyway, one of the few who stuck it out to the end.

The faction system did prohibit people from voting on most things. It violated the most basic precept of a democracy game, that the WOTP must be followed.

I had a very different take on what the faction system should include, whereas those opposing the faction system, going with it, place a few "traps", such as no mandatory election dates, no polling of techs and so on. I had a long range of proposals that was not worked into the game, hence adding to the lack of democracy. Like everyone else I went for influencing what I could with the rules at hand. However, a great number of players had more fun with this game, than the game before this. Having three styles in the same game in three civs with a number of AI civs would handle this nicely, and the ruleset for a subciv that does not work out, and people leave, would be forcibly converted to an AI Civ.

 

[thecommonnate]

Hey thecommonnate, I was looking at the vote count, and you voted "NO" for C3C. You did vote "YES" for CIV.

Opps!

If the votes cannot be undone, let it be known that I'll participate in either.

I think three teams would be the ideal, with nine additional AI Civs would be ideal We would thus get a hybrid of multiteam demogame and normal demogame. I think we should by now acknowledge that there is more than one truth out there, simply because people have different gaming styles and preferences, and putting all players in one big group is not always the best, as having some sense of like-mindedness helps.

If one team falls under a certain level of participation, the civ would simply be forcibly converted to become an AI civ itself, in this manner, a sense of competition to keep up the activity level would work out. Also, we would have a way to handle various citizenships. Migrations could only happen after term ends, and the various civs could have immigration preferences, pending on activity level, Having migrations following terms, could be a vent for dissatisfied players to wander off to a different civ, if the new civ wanted more people. Only one civ at a time, calls for abuse etc. I would prefer to have such a demogame with 3 civs with 10-15 players each, than having a big dysfunctional demogame with 25 players, where 10 at all stages are utterly disenfranchised. For me, and several others, this would be best, as we have a certain preference for how to have a game, unlike others.

This is an extremely insightful idea, I'm all for it.

I think term elections and Immigration should be less structured, and left up to the parties affected by the decisions. However, if we are to have one or more out of three civs that is set up as a factional civ, we need to make sure that all civs can communicate with each other for this less structured goal to work. I would propose that all sovereign factions must assign a Head of State type position (King, Queen, President, Prime Minister) for international interaction, and if there is no sovereign faction in a factional style civ, they are in anarchy, and all interaction is thus halted except by any other civ willing to interact with a civilian of the state in anarchy on his migration status, that same civilian cannot make decisions for his state of residence.

If there is a sovereign faction not issuing a Head of State for interaction purposes, the sovereignity is halted, and wields the same rules as anarchy.

This plan excludes oligarchies and Democratic-Anarchies, but promises open-ended immigration and open-ended domestic game-play.

 

[ravensfire]

I had a very different take on what the faction system should include, whereas those opposing the faction system, going with it, place a few "traps", such as no mandatory election dates, no polling of techs and so on. I had a long range of proposals that was not worked into the game, hence adding to the lack of democracy. Like everyone else I went for influencing what I could with the rules at hand. However, a great number of players had more fun with this game, than the game before this. Having three styles in the same game in three civs with a number of AI civs would handle this nicely, and the ruleset for a subciv that does not work out, and people leave, would be forcibly converted to an AI Civ.

Of course it wasn't your fault ... It was those other people ... It was those people that didn't like your idea of how the Faction system would work.

It wasn't a first term marred by divisive leaders, an utter lack of communication and rejection of other ideas. It wasn't the people elected to be leaders failing to lead. It wasn't those same leaders ignoring any rules they didn't like.

Cease the attacks, Provo. If anyone wants to know why I don't participate - it's you. Plain and simple, your continual insuations and attacks succeeded in chasing me away. People don't always like your ideas, and prefer other ideas. Sheesh - look at some of your ideas and thing about how much effort they would take to do. If people weren't willing to put minimal effort into the DG, they're certainly not going to put effort into your ideas that required even more work.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

That wasn't what I meant by weighing in, Ravensfire.

I'll give you 2 points for the take down and 3 points for the near pin. Now, how about the Demogame? You know we want you back.

 

[Provolution]

Yeah, its ok cyc and ravensfire that you were against my ideas, all fine. This is why I would like 3 civs, each their system, so people could play the domestic game they want. If a system is as good as some says, people would drift there, no worries. If the civ 'i was in did not work out, fine, the other civs would prosper, but irreconcilable groups motivated for the DG could coexist, and only meet in terms of gameplay and migrations as well as internal polls. Dont pin the blame to me, as I know that some here are just here for the flaming part, and never participates except for flaming (or some crazy ass judiciary)