DG4 Discussions: Turn-based Terms

[Peri]

In the Suggestion Book it was suggested that the demogame might benefit from turn based Terms rather than calender based terms.
This thread is for the purpose of discussing this in greater depth in preparation for DG4.

 

[Bootstoots]

I am opposed to turn-based terms on the grounds that they may cause a large deal of problems. For instance, if a President does not play many turns each chat, a term may stretch out several months. No offense to DZ, but he could have been president for a few months with this proposal under his style of playing only a few turns per chat and frequently stopping the chat for discussion. A President would have every incentive to stretch the term out as long as possible. While turn-based terms work very well for PBEM games such as the MSDG, we shouldn't adopt them for the single player game. If we do adopt turn-based terms, we will probably watch the total amount of time it takes to play the game go up substantially, possibly even stretching out to over a year. Interest in the game may be lost if a President stretches the game out as long as possible.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I take no offense to that Boots. It was my selfless choice to not get as many turns under my belt.

Therefore, I agree with Bootstoots. A President, or any elected official, has 30-odd days to make the best of it. If the populace knows that there is a danger that someone will "run away" with the game, the they should speak out with their vote.

Also, basing terms on the calendar month makes it easier for new players to keep track of the game.

 

[RegentMan]

I concur with Bootstoots and Donovan Zoi.

 

[Falcon02]

Calendar Month is a must!

 

[Sir John]

I concur

 

[Great Iguanaman]

I agree with all of the above statements.

 

[Vander]

What about the flip side, then? What if with the time based terms, a president burns through as many turn as he can, just to say he played that many turns? By going so quickly, he or she won't have time to make good decisions.
By the way, I posted the idea with the thought that if the president wasn't "pressured" to work his plans for the nation into one month, he could come to better decisions. He knows exactly where he'll end his term with turn based terms. With the time based ones, the random wars and unforseen events in game that stop the turn delay the president's plan.
As to streching out one's presidency, what's to say that the number of turns played (relative to the in game time period) isn't limited to a number of turns that would generally take about a month to play? Also, why not create a Call for expediancy? This call comes from the people, through the judiciary, and into the president's office. If enough of the people are behind it (and the judiciary finds it meritious) then the president is forced to play his turns more frequently.

So dispite the good arguements above me, I am still for the turn- based terms.

 

[Great Iguanaman]

@ Vander: You make valid points, but if we go to turn based turns, the president will try to play one turn per turn chat so that they get the honor of being called mr. pres as long as they can.

Also, currently a president doesnt rush, but instead tries to be a good president, so he/she can be the pres next term so then they can have yet more time to try to fit in there plan

Keep it how it is, if it isnt broke, dont fix it.

 

[Noldodan]

How about we do a comprimise - one month or X turns, whichever comes first.

 

[Great Iguanaman]

but then what happens when after the x turns? We hold another election? I think it would just get too complicated if we change it. Lets just keep it the same.

 

[Great Iguanaman]

but then what happens when after the x turns? We hold another election? I think it would just get too complicated if we change it. Lets just keep it the same.

 

[Sir John]

I dont like the turn thingy.. It would just make a mess.. It would be harder to keep track of things and new players would be much easier confused..

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

what if the DP played a small number of turns every day? 1, 2, or 3 turns offline or online in a turnchat. there would be no need for long turnchats and the game could be more intense with greater opportunity for citizens not participating in the turnchat to give input. especially on those areas that are hard do predict (trade deals, negotiations, etc.).

if the DP played 3 turns a day, the amount of turns played per week woul be about the same (7 * 3 = 21) as we are currently playing (2 * 10 = 20). if we wanted a slower pace, we could reduce the turns played to 2 (7 * 2 = 14).

what do you all think about this?

 

[Falcon02]

D'yer, don't think I like it, primarily becuase there would be a vast number of days where there would simply be nothing to talk about. And I'm not sure what things requiring Major discussion (ie 2+ days) to work out would interrupt such a system

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I am opposed to turn-based terms on the grounds that they may cause a large deal of problems. For instance, if a President does not play many turns each chat, a term may stretch out several months. No offense to DZ, but he could have been president for a few months with this proposal under his style of playing only a few turns per chat and frequently stopping the chat for discussion. A President would have every incentive to stretch the term out as long as possible. While turn-based terms work very well for PBEM games such as the MSDG, we shouldn't adopt them for the single player game. If we do adopt turn-based terms, we will probably watch the total amount of time it takes to play the game go up substantially, possibly even stretching out to over a year. Interest in the game may be lost if a President stretches the game out as long as possible.

Hogwash. There is no incentive to stretch a term out for months. If there is any *reward* for being president it is the playing of the turns, not being able to say, "I'm President." I doubt DZ's term would have went on for months. It was not his style of play but lack of forum discussion and decision making that held things up in his term. If there had been forum participation then he would have played many more turns in his term.

 

[Vander]

Yes, exactly. Only a very malicious President would stretch his term out to months (Let alone get elected). Again, we would decide how many turns are played. We could choose how many turns would generally fit into a month for the current time of the game. But again, there is still the incentive to get the turns assigned to your term finished.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by donsig


Hogwash. There is no incentive to stretch a term out for months. If there is any *reward* for being president it is the playing of the turns, not being able to say, "I'm President." I doubt DZ's term would have went on for months. It was not his style of play but lack of forum discussion and decision making that held things up in his term. If there had been forum participation then he would have played many more turns in his term.

What makes you think that DZ's style of play or lack of forum discussion wouldn't have made it go on for months? And how do you know that the lack of forum discussion isn't the norm? In addition, it does seem that it was DZ's style of play; he always made absolutely sure to discuss everything important with the people (which I consider to be a good thing, but he never played more than seven turns in a chat, and it was often around four), whether they were gave adequate responses or not. I would like you to see that my main problem with turn-based terms is that a term with president in DZ's style of stopping the chat for everything that could possibly need discussing would take two or three months, one in your style of playing ten turns per chat no matter what would last two or three weeks at most.

 

[Sir John]

No turn thingys! It will also mess up the "time tabel" for new players.. Months are much easier and its no less fair then number of turns played.. also different presidents have differnet playing tempos so it would be uneven..

 

[GenMarshall]

I am aganst having a turn-based Terms. I have experianced this from the MSDG snce they do the same thing. It kind of made me lose interest in it since there are no election cycles that go by a monthly calender.

I would like to see the Calinder based Term to remain.