DG6 Discussion: what changes would DRIVE YOU AWAY?

[donsig]

I don't think I can be driven any further away than I already am. If you want to keep me away just keep doing what you've been doing.

 

[Black_Hole]

heres an novel idea:
why not force it either way, I mean dont disallow turnchats and dont disallow offline playing, let the president choose, and you just vote for which president suits your choice... thats nice and simple and doesnt set it in stone

 

[donsig]

heres an novel idea:
why not force it either way, I mean dont disallow turnchats and dont disallow offline playing, let the president choose, and you just vote for which president suits your choice... thats nice and simple and doesnt set it in stone

Interesting concept you have there. IIRC, this is a principle we used when drafting the DGIII constitution. We applied it to many other areas in that document besides chats. We left the door open for turn based terms, the number of ministers in the government, etc. That's why it's a great constitution to use demogame after demogame. It's flexible enough to allow citizens to redefine much of how the game is played while giving a good foundation for the demogame. Under the DGIII constitution not only can details change from DG to DG but needed changes can be made within a demogame.

 

[Nobody]

yeah but the president nomineeys should state how they will play

 

[Rik Meleet]

What would drive me away ??

* Low level of play (Monarch is done, let's try at least Emperor or DemiGod).
* Flamewars and bashing.
* Loosing the chat. Although it might not be neccesary to have a chat, it is neccesary to play. So why not play in a chat ?
* Bad instructions.
* No goal the whole nation works towards.
* Vanilla is borderline; I think we should upgrade to Conquests.

 

[GenMarshall]

Speeking of difficulty level, what would drive me away (or scare me away) is the high difficulty level above Monarchy. Though I have partisipated in DG2 when the difficulty level was set to Emperor.

I feel that a higher difficulty would drive a few citizens away because of the higher level. Also, If we do advertise DG6, the turnout would not be so great since it would scare away the people who normaly play a lower difficulty level. I beleve we should stick with what has worked best and stick with Monarchy.

 

[ravensfire]

• Unmodded vanilla Civ3
• Monarchy or lower difficulty
• Large maps (keep the map, and the focus of citizens, small)
• More turns of poor leaders
  • Bad instructions
  • Failing to own up to mistakes
  • Defensive when called on mistakes
  • Minimal effort to communicate with citizens
  • Lack of clarity in posts
• Poor polls
• Being required to open the save to gather even the most minimal information

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

• Poor polls

I bet that also includes Public Polls? .

 

[Black_Hole]

I bet that also includes Public Polls? .

actually for me, there are many, many polls that are worse then private polls. Examples include polls without abstain, or an other option. Extremely biased polls, polls without enough information in the opening post, etc... maybe someone seriously should have a polling 101 class....

 

[Civanator]

I would leave if we played on Monarch or lower, and I don't know bout Emperor. We seriously need to challenge ourselves. We have enough talented players to help anyone who needs it. It may actually bring people, as they can learn how to play on higher levels.

 

[Gres]

It may actually bring people, as they can learn how to play on higher levels.

Hey Ya! I currently play on a Monarchy/Emperor though I would love to learn strategies I don't know and all that good stuff from more experienced players. In fact, If we were to advertise that fact it would help with interest in the game.
It seems to me that a majority of the players want to raise the difficulty level. I think this is perfectly fair. It would provide a challenge and breakup the monotony from game to game. Those who are worried about it, for watever reasons, shouldnt be. There is no shame in not having a lot of experience. Most people here seem to be very understanding Anyways, I am for a raised difficulty level
Nothing would drive me away however, seeing as how this will be my first DG. Well, Thanx

 

[Civman2004]

Monarch was way to easy - especially given the skill level of some of the people in the DG. I usually play on Emperor so I found Monarch to be way too easy, and over too fast, with no opportunity for the AI to make any sort of a challenge

 

[Octavian X]

At this point, there would have to be a article in the constitution of DGVI specifically banning me from all aspects of this game. Basically, I'll stick around, but I won't be as active is we use vanilla again, nor if the inter-game period doesn't yield some changes.

 

[blackheart]

I would leave if we played on Monarch or lower, and I don't know bout Emperor. We seriously need to challenge ourselves. We have enough talented players to help anyone who needs it. It may actually bring people, as they can learn how to play on higher levels.

I prefer Emperor or higher. We have enough skilled players that we know we would win if we play on monarch. We have enough indecision and democracy that emperor would present somewhat of a challenge.

 

[Ashburnham]

I agree. We certainly need to increase the difficulty. Perhaps the increased challenge would force us all to work together?





..nah.

 

[Black_Hole]

Well for example when I play on monarch you can see why I do because i have average- below average sized civ not far ahead in techs. And you look at the DG we have a huge civ and far ahead in everything, this clearly shows that we should be playing at a higher level. Now I am thinking Demi-God would be a good level...

 

[Eklektikos]

I'd only advise going as far as Emperor, at least for the time being. From experience, playing a DG at that level was more than sufficient to significantly raise the intensity of discussion within the fora because we could no longer be confident of recovering from sloppy play. I would not like to even think about how hard and frustrating it would be to have to achieve the kind of coherence of strategy necessary for even higher levels.

 

[Ashburnham]

Emperor sounds fine to me. It's a challange, but it's not so intense as to force us to use "gamey" strategy when planning how to play. I like the idea of making decisions based on real governmental policy, not because it's the "right" choice based on powergeming strategy. Emperor seems like the perfect balance of that.

 

[DaveShack]

I am ok with Emperor, just not any of the god-like levels.

 

[Chieftess]

I could actually go for a demi-god level game...