Deputies

[RegentMan]

@ DZ!

 

[Man'O'Action]

How about a new poll with less options (maybe only the two major ones??) to ensure clearer results???

This is an excellent idea especially considering all the valuable debate that has happened. I too am in strong support of a new public poll with only the two leading options available.

Furthermore I'd like to echo the comments of Mr. Donovan Zoi, as I too believe an overriding sense of the warm tummy fuzzies is detrimental to not only the function of the game but the satisfaction of the players.

 

[DaveShack]

Elder Donovan Zoi may have a point that too little conflict might create too dull a game and result in lost interest. Unfortunately too much conflict might also cause that lost interest.

Back when deputies were the runners up, almost every election was contested. Why you ask? Because the 2nd place finisher was guaranteed to get something out of the attempt. Now when the winner gets to pick a friend, the loser often gets left out in the cold while someone who may not really want the position gets the nod for "old times sake". Will every deputy get appointed via cronyism? Of course not, but newcomers might not hang around forever trying to get noticed.

I can't tell you that this is why we have mostly uncontested elections in recent games. Some people might argue that there is something even more basic wrong with our society, others may say it wouldn't matter because it's really boredom with Civ3 which is pushing people away. Still others might say that the core of the DG was the RPG and without it the DG is too empty to get good participation.

In any event, I'll borrow an idea from a frequent opponent and say that "back in the good old days" we had runner-up deputies and the game was good. When we didn't have runner-up deputies, it just so happens the game was bad. Maybe we should go back to what was good.

 

[Alphawolf]

@Donovan: How long have you been waiting to use that.

@Stilgar08: I'll put another poll up now.

-the Wolf

 

[Stilgar08]

Elder Donovan Zoi may have a point that too little conflict might create too dull a game and result in lost interest. Unfortunately too much conflict might also cause that lost interest.

Back when deputies were the runners up, almost every election was contested. Why you ask? Because the 2nd place finisher was guaranteed to get something out of the attempt. Now when the winner gets to pick a friend, the loser often gets left out in the cold while someone who may not really want the position gets the nod for "old times sake". Will every deputy get appointed via cronyism? Of course not, but newcomers might not hang around forever trying to get noticed.

I can't tell you that this is why we have mostly uncontested elections in recent games. Some people might argue that there is something even more basic wrong with our society, others may say it wouldn't matter because it's really boredom with Civ3 which is pushing people away. Still others might say that the core of the DG was the RPG and without it the DG is too empty to get good participation.

In any event, I'll borrow an idea from a frequent opponent and say that "back in the good old days" we had runner-up deputies and the game was good. When we didn't have runner-up deputies, it just so happens the game was bad. Maybe we should go back to what was good.

Isn't it possible to stop the loss of motivation and participation by ensuring that secretaries, judges, the DP himself can only apply for a job every X-turns and only get it when nobody else wants the job (understandable? I'm tired, you know...) That way: you can even BREAK the apply the same people all the time!

Oh one more thing (maybe wrong thread here, but it just floated up ):
Should we limit the positions one person at a time can have? E.g. the DP cannot have anoter job at the same time (should be the whole tri!) Deputies might get engaged as governors or Director of Intelligence, governors can only rule over x no. of cities max.???

@Stilgar08: I'll put another poll up now.

Great! Thanks!