Death of a game?

[DaveShack]

What if someone honestly did not see any referance to Joe's move, and saw the potential move and did the legitimate research and then posted it. Would that also have been "invalid" and "tainted"?

No, it wouldn't.

 

[dutchfire]

I think the future of the Demogame (which I never really wanted to play due to it's complexity) lies in the format of the SG Pharoah...

Here's what I see.

At the begining of the game, have a list of Citizens and a Chief. Then, hold elections for each Ministry position. These positions will be held until they are voted out of office, or they resign. Every turnset, there is a referndum on each minister and the Chief, where they are either re-confirmed, or voted out.

For the fun of it, different Government civics could add flavour here as to when/if elections are held, and the majority number needed to pass. It could also affect the powers of the officals/citizens.

In addtion, there is a lottery each turnset, and from the citizens pool, governers for each city are chosen, and they can do whatever they want in that city for that turnset. Of course, there would be limits here, as choices could bring them into competition with the wishes of advisors, as well as other cities...I could see some serious bidding going on..."I want the Zeus HERE!"

The Citizens themselves would have the job of looking on and discussing, what to do next, and trying to influence the Governers/Ministers/Chief.

I think the biggest point here is that while creating a system is important, it's valuable to remember human nature is not always...erm...perfect. The conflict that arises with self-interest is a natural part of such a social experiment, and therefore cannot (and is best not) surpressed.

I truly do believe this would work well here, escpecially drawing the SG crowd, as this format would not be as rigid as the present one.

I'll reply to this one, as some of the others seem more interested in debating again (Which is their good right of course).

First of all, having a list of citizens and a chief at the start, for the whole game could be a problem, since games like this tend to last pretty long (8-9 months). A lot of people will drop out over that period of time, and a lot of newcomers will want to get in.

The lottery idea is quite fun to be honest, but it isn't really democratic. It's a very interesting idea for a succesion game, but for a democracy game, it would have to be changed to give citizens real power.

 

[dutchfire]

Another thing I've thought about is donsig's proposal of 1 turn a day, continuus play (or whatever it was called). It's easier on the designated player(s), and it gives a bigger chance at citizens input and micromanagement. To be honest, planning 10 turns ahead as a governor is quite difficult if you don't know which techs are being researched for sure (can I order to build a workshop, if we don't have metal casting yet? Can I order a granary, while pottery might or might not be finished), how many workers will be available, how long it will take to grow etc.

I think that the game would have to be played at quick though, to prevent the game lastin ages.

 

[Falcon02]

Another thing I've thought about is donsig's proposal of 1 turn a day, continuus play (or whatever it was called). ...<snip>

I think that the game would have to be played at quick though, to prevent the game lastin ages.

I don't think it would really slow things down.

Idea is 2 turns per day... that's 14 turns per week. Last I checked that was about, if not more then we've averaged most of the time.

EDIT: Though I'm not fully convinced that it's the way to go though.

 

[dutchfire]

I don't think it would really slow things down.

Idea is 2 turns per day... that's 14 turns per week. Last I checked that was about, if not more then we've averaged most of the time.

EDIT: Though I'm not fully convinced that it's the way to go though.

1 turn a day is 7 turns a week though, which (I guess) we pretty much averaged during the active part of the game.

I think it's an interesting idea, that deserves some discussion.

 

[Falcon02]

1 turn a day is 7 turns a week though, which (I guess) we pretty much averaged during the active part of the game.

I think it's an interesting idea, that deserves some discussion.

I thought Donsig's idea was 2 turns...

Anyway, I agree with the discussion it is interesting.

My biggest fear is that it'll be harder to keep track of what's happened, if you've been gone a week or a few days. My best thought is keep all play result posts in 1 thread, so we don't spam the forums with 1 thread per day.

But then for organization instructions would need to be posted elsewhere.


Also... how would we handle instructions for that... I understand (officials should think ahead), but where will the instructions be posted? Since officials likely won't update them daily (due to RL and lack of change), how will changes to those instructions be handled?

 

[vra379971]

I'll reply to this one, as some of the others seem more interested in debating again (Which is their good right of course).

First of all, having a list of citizens and a chief at the start, for the whole game could be a problem, since games like this tend to last pretty long (8-9 months). A lot of people will drop out over that period of time, and a lot of newcomers will want to get in.

The lottery idea is quite fun to be honest, but it isn't really democratic. It's a very interesting idea for a succesion game, but for a democracy game, it would have to be changed to give citizens real power.

Fair enough on those points.

The list I was refering to would hardly be hard coded, it would be basically what you have now at the begining of any Demogame, with your list of sign-ups and the person in charge for the first little while.(I vaguely remember it being called a citizen's registry.) So, it would change and grow as people came in/left.

In addition, such a system was used in Athens by the way, so a selection by lot to decide the city governers as opposed to an election would be in some way democratic...However, that's just me playing devil's advocate.

As for real power, if the governers do something the rest of the players don't like they can vote him out at the term's end, or, if they are really peeved, can vote him out during a set, with the understanding that say, the game's autogoverner will manage the city till the next general election.

1 turn a day is an excellent idea, and as for organizational instructions, under the system above they couldwork like this. One thread for Minsters/Chief and one thread per City, and they could just post instructions hold discussion there.

Part of the job of mabye another offical (Clark of the Coucil?) could jkeep track of any day to day changes and pass them along to the player.

 

[Methos]

The game also seems to lose interest once it becomes obvious were going to win. Maybe we should play on a higher difficulty level.

 

[vra379971]

What level is it played on now?

Also, I would definately use BTS as opposed to Vanilla. After all, you don't have to even OWN the game to chat here.

 

[DaveShack]

What level is it played on now?

Also, I would definately use BTS as opposed to Vanilla. After all, you don't have to even OWN the game to chat here.

Don't remember what difficulty level, something in the middle.

I agree it would be more exciting to use the game with the most features that most people are focusing on (BTS). Excitement generates activity, and activity keeps games alive.

And I do agree that there is plenty of room for people who don't own the game. People who get their fun from role play, writing laws, interpreting laws, and breaking laws to make a point are a perfect example.

And no, that's not an unfair, indirect, implied, or derogatory reference to any individual or group of people. The fact is, some people do focus on those things, and that's all right with me.

 

[DaveShack]

The game also seems to lose interest once it becomes obvious were going to win. Maybe we should play on a higher difficulty level.

It cuts both ways. Game 1 lost interest because we were going to lose, game 2 in part because we're going to win. Higher difficulty might help some, though we might want to be ready to abandon a really bad start sooner.

I think BTS would help a lot, because there are additional facets to the game which would give us things to do while we cruise to victory. The AP gives earlier access to diplomacy based on religion, espionage is a constant struggle if you put effort into it, and corporations give meaning to some of the otherwise monotonous industrial age.

 

[Falcon02]

I'm always torn on the subject of Expansions...

On one side many people have them, and they tend to add more flavor to the game, address certain balance issues, etc. There are also people who just can't imagine going back to Vanilla because they prefer the expansion so much and don't want to relearn their old Vanilla based strategies.

On the other side, there are many people who don't have the expansions and feel left out. Yes, they can discuss in the forums and Role play, but they can't directly view the save (an ability I find indespensible) or participate as a Designated Player. Inability to view the save and lack of experience with the Expansion's revised mechanics also makes it impossible for any Vanilla only players to become Officials, as people may not have confidence in their ability to make good strategies.

So this is a case of Fun vs. Fairness.
Both have the potential to make some people not want to join (weighed in Vanilla's Favor). However the Expansions could very will add more "fun" to the game.

I always feel like there's a point where we should upgrade to an Expansion, but it's hard to say when.

Also the "Alternative" is to make two demogames 1 Vanilla, 1 BTS... but that splits up an already shirnking community...

 

[vra379971]

I'm always torn on the subject of Expansions...

On one side many people have them, and they tend to add more flavor to the game, address certain balance issues, etc. There are also people who just can't imagine going back to Vanilla because they prefer the expansion so much and don't want to relearn their old Vanilla based strategies.

On the other side, there are many people who don't have the expansions and feel left out. Yes, they can discuss in the forums and Role play, but they can't directly view the save (an ability I find indespensible) or participate as a Designated Player. Inability to view the save and lack of experience with the Expansion's revised mechanics also makes it impossible for any Vanilla only players to become Officials, as people may not have confidence in their ability to make good strategies.

So this is a case of Fun vs. Fairness.

Not quite. There generally is a happy medium, it's a simple matter of identifying it.

In any government system, the power direction is top down and dispersed. I agree that having ministerial (advisor) posts if you can't open the save isn't really possible. However, most have BTS by now.

However, Individual City Governers do not really need the save opened. As they are only concerned with one city, they can carry out thier duties while looking at a screenshot, which is all they need to know anyway. Very often in the SG area, people give great advice without looking at the save. And, in a demogame, it's not as if there isn't discussion, and the ideas governers put forth don't face scrutiny.

I truly beleive this can work. However, I also truly beleive going back to Vanilla after this much time since it's release will lead to the quiet (and timely, if changes aren't made) death of this format.

 

[donsig]

Daveshack was/is right as far as Joe's move... it was invalid as it was played outside of the scheduled window and it was an irreversible move.

Even so, there was nothing to prevent us from officially doing the same move if we so chose. That was the purpose of my poll. Rather than let the vote go ahead to a conclusion DaveShack repolled and JoeHarker went ahead an played before the poll finished. Need I go on to say that when Joe did ply he was outside the scheduled window which would make EVERYTHING he did in that game play session invalid using your reasoning.

RE: continuous play. I think I suggest two turns a day but that was just a guess at what would work best. The main idea to play everyday the same number of turns. What that number is would be negotiable. What would be bad would eb playing more turns when things are boring and less when things get interesting / complicated. For the idea to work I think we'd need a steady pace.

Re: expansions. This is supposed to be a forum based game. We should not all have to open the save to see what is going on. If we got rid of the chats and brought the focus back to the forums so that information about the game was readily available to all then there's no reason we can't use a version we don't all own. I don't have BTS but would play IF there is enough information readily available about what's going on. This has not been the case for several demo games now.

 

[Falcon02]

Even so, there was nothing to prevent us from officially doing the same move if we so chose. That was the purpose of my poll. Rather than let the vote go ahead to a conclusion DaveShack repolled and JoeHarker went ahead an played before the poll finished. Need I go on to say that when Joe did ply he was outside the scheduled window which would make EVERYTHING he did in that game play session invalid using your reasoning.

Agreed, clarification on that point was required, and I had no problem with your poll designed to clarify that.

Also, you know what I mean, he did not give much warning for when he actually did play the save (which was an major oversight), however I do not feel that invalidated the play. To be perfectly honest a big reason why I think the way I do, that Joe's original move was invalid was not just the timing but the extent of the "play" what he did was not that big a deal in my opinion. Everything he learned could be found elsewhere. And it's no use roasting a new DP over a minor issue. Though that's just about what happened...

Re: expansions. This is supposed to be a forum based game. We should not all have to open the save to see what is going on. If we got rid of the chats and brought the focus back to the forums so that information about the game was readily available to all then there's no reason we can't use a version we don't all own. I don't have BTS but would play IF there is enough information readily available about what's going on. This has not been the case for several demo games now.

Agreed, in theory a person should not need to view the save themselves, and thus should be able to be fully active without owning the game or relevant expansion(s). But as you said demogame history has shown that few people who can view the save are able or willing to post every little detail someone else might want. It takes alot of time to take the screenshot, do any editing (if necessary), upload it, and then post it for so many screens.

All Advisor Screens, including stuff you need to scroll to (thus requiring multiple screenshots for some Advisors) + City Screens + Overall maps of our country and surrounding lands. Ideally all this stuff should be easily accessible on the forums, but there's no efficient way to get it all on the forums easily.

EDIT: If there was someway to write a script for all that it would make things ALOT easier... but I'm not sure it's possible, and if it is, I know at the very least I wouldn't be able to code it.

 

[DaveShack]

RE: continuous play. I think I suggest two turns a day but that was just a guess at what would work best. The main idea to play everyday the same number of turns. What that number is would be negotiable. What would be bad would eb playing more turns when things are boring and less when things get interesting / complicated. For the idea to work I think we'd need a steady pace.

Why is playing more turns bad? Often there are times when all there is to do is hit enter 4 or 5 times in a row, like when your only scout got eaten by a lion and the next build is many turns away.

 

[donsig]

Why is playing more turns bad? Often there are times when all there is to do is hit enter 4 or 5 times in a row, like when your only scout got eaten by a lion and the next build is many turns away.

It is bad because then we'll never be certain how many turns will be played and it keeps alive the mentality that all we have to talk about is the upcoming turns. If we play two turns a day and have to hit enter 6 times that's only three days of real life DaveShack. We can use those three days to discuss the kind of civilization we want to build, where we should explore next, and other mid and long term goals.

@ General Falcon: The new DP wouldn't have gotten roasted if he had waited a few hours to allow a controversial poll to close. If you do that you deserve to be roasted whether you're new or experienced.

 

[vra379971]

It is bad because then we'll never be certain how many turns will be played and it keeps alive the mentality that all we have to talk about is the upcoming turns. If we play two turns a day and have to hit enter 6 times that's only three days of real life DaveShack. We can use those three days to discuss the kind of civilization we want to build, where we should explore next, and other mid and long term goals.

@ General Falcon: The new DP wouldn't have gotten roasted if he had waited a few hours to allow a controversial poll to close. If you do that you deserve to be roasted whether you're new or experienced.

I would say there is some leeway here...

I see no danger to continuity, or an oppertunity for confusion if mabye more turns were played till a certain date in the early going, as there isn't much to do, just like in any SG.

So say...

Three turns from 4000 to 1000 BCE
Two turns from 1000 BCE to 1000 AD
One turn from then on...

Those are just ideas not actual time points I'm defending btw. It would also decrease game time and increase interest if games didn't drag on forever.

As for game level, I'd say Monarch and above. There's an SG truth that if you have a bunch of Monarch players, they can win an Emperor game usually. Why? Because players have discussion and can think things through. This Demogame should be at a high enough level that it's always an exciting fight to the finish.

 

[Methos]

This Demogame should be at a high enough level that it's always an exciting fight to the finish.

I agree. IMO if it's too easy players lose interest, as there's no challenge. This game IMO was way too easy. If we play at around Monarch or Emperor, than there will be more of a challenge and maybe players will stay more interested. Unless I'm remembering wrong, I want to say this game is on Noble difficulty.

 

[Falcon02]

I agree. IMO if it's too easy players lose interest, as there's no challenge. This game IMO was way too easy. If we play at around Monarch or Emperor, than there will be more of a challenge and maybe players will stay more interested. Unless I'm remembering wrong, I want to say this game is on Noble difficulty.

This Poll suggests Prince.

And

This Post by the creation DP confirms it.