Do we start up another game?

[Chieftess]

Based on the last poll, the main reasons people lost interest was due to infighting, and not enough side-games/RPGs/fun. Instead of a yes/no/wait poll, I'll include an option to start a demogame with a previous demogame's ruleset.

 

[Strider]

Some of the fun was just trial and error of a new ruleset. Although that was slowly taken away as the game progressed.

If we are going to create a "new ruleset" then we need to ask TF to delete all of the older rulesets from the archives. That way we won't have anything to base it on.

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes, but use a rule set made from a previous demogame. Preferably a rule set from a demogame that had little infighting due to the rules.

 

[Cyc]

Let's do a C3C!

 

[Black_Hole]

Well its kinda hard for me to answer this poll because multiple options apply to my opinion.
I think we should have another demogame but we should:

• "create our own ruleset from scratch."
• "let's wait a few months (state how long)"
• "but let's go back and start a Civ3 Demogame."

I agree with Strider that we need to completely create a new ruleset, but I wouldn't go as far as deleting the old rulesets because I don't want to kill history.

As for waiting, I think we should wait about 6 months. Many people are fatigued from so many demogames, so we should give it a break for awhile. Perhaps start the ruleset discsussion in March. That would give us plenty of time (3 months) to decide on stuff.

I am also open to the idea of a Civ3 demogame. For some reason the civ3 demogames just seemed to work better, but it also was likely due to many other factors and not the game itself. But i would also be interested in a Civ4 demogame.

 

[Black_Hole]

Yes, but use a rule set made from a previous demogame. Preferably a rule set from a demogame that had little infighting due to the rules.

But infighting is one of my favorite parts of demogames! Compared to early demogames the last several demogames had relatively little infighting. For example, I can remember only about 2 CCs in the past 3 or 4 demogames, but in early demogames there were more than that in a single game.

I really think one thing that would add an entirely new level of amusement to the demogame would be political parties. However we would have to get Thunderfall to approve them, since apparently they violate forum rules...

 

[GenMarshall]

But infighting is one of my favorite parts of demogames! Compared to early demogames the last several demogames had relatively little infighting. For example, I can remember only about 2 CCs in the past 3 or 4 demogames, but in early demogames there were more than that in a single game.

I really think one thing that would add an entirely new level of amusement to the demogame would be political parties. However we would have to get Thunderfall to approve them, since apparently they violate forum rules...

Are you serious?! The last demogames had such legal infighting and debates about the rules that it made me think that this is a game of Bearocracy insted of a game of Civ. Which turned me off big time.

 

[Joe Harker]

Well i would love to start again and have been doing some thinking and have come up with a potential ruleset which i need to finish but post later!

 

[ravensfire]

Yes, but use a rule set made from a previous demogame. Preferably a rule set from a demogame that had little infighting due to the rules.

Yeah, good luck finding one of those, CG.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Abstain. Private poll!

Actually not. I always like the freshness of a new game, and the possibilities it opens up. I would be happy with Civ3 or 4 and would have voted along with my esteemed colleague Cyc for Civ3 if this were multi-choice.

@Strider - I totally disagree (insert surprised gasp here) with your idea to censor our precious archives. I actually had a blast reading through our history over the past few weeks.

@CG - This is a game of Bureaucracy, especially if it is to be successful.

 

[Strider]

@Strider - I totally disagree (insert surprised gasp here) with your idea to censor our precious archives. I actually had a blast reading through our history over the past few weeks.

We don't have to censor them forever. I just think it would be more... creative if we temporary make the archives inaccessible. That way we will be forced to come up with original ideas for problems.. as opposed to using the same old thing.

They can always be made accessible again later.

 

[GenMarshall]

@CG - This is a game of Bureaucracy, especially if it is to be successful.

If I want to be in a Game of Bureaucracy, I'd join the Model Parliament. When I came to the Demogame for the first time years ago, it had a moderate mix of both gameplay and politics. However, In recent years I have seen the scales tip more towards the political side and less on game play. As well as more infighting and discussion about the rules and less emphasis on stratagy and game play (that part realy turned me off from the Demogame because discussions about rules and rulesets outnumbered discussions about gameplay strategy)

We don't have to censor them forever. I just think it would be more... creative if we temporary make the archives inaccessible. That way we will be forced to come up with original ideas for problems.. as opposed to using the same old thing.

They can always be made accessible again later.

And what about the non-Demogamers?

 

[DaveShack]

Making the old rulesets inaccessible would only help with cutting & pasting. Those of us who already have downloaded copies, or who crafted a ruleset offline and uploaded it, would still be able to get to the old.

Instead, if we want to reduce reliance on old rulesets, we should agree to voluntary limits on speech about past experiences.

Those interested in trying something completely new might want to check into Donsig's idea located here.

 

[Methos]

I would enjoy another game, but would prefer BTS. There's too many new features such as Corporations and Espionage that would be a lot of fun in a DG. I voted for old ruleset with modifications, but I could go with a new one too. I don't want to use an old one as is.

 

[Provolution]

For a civ4 BTS demogame to work out at all, we need to omit both traditional DG thinking as well as the citizens human rights culture we got now, and focus more on how we handle regime change in the game, both through civics and elections.

I can foresee a Jacksonian Democracy model as opposed to a Jeffersonian Democracy model (I need US comparisons, or this will be ignored, unfortunately), where the elections are about sweeping rulechanges per Civic change, where the winning side also wins the main government seats. This will remove some of the bickering in the game, and enforce the ruleset/government combo that wins a certain election.

This means we only vote for the Leader, which also present a ruleset platform prior to each game. We should continue to have a Judiciary, but now with 5, not 3 members, and this would be more of a Supreme Court than a Civic Court (eliminating cross-overs between moderators/judge roles). Finally, we would have gubernatorial elections for provinces and mayor elections for cities.

 

[DaveShack]

For a civ4 BTS demogame to work out at all, we need to omit both traditional DG thinking as well as the citizens human rights culture we got now, and focus more on how we handle regime change in the game, both through civics and elections.

I can foresee a Jacksonian Democracy model as opposed to a Jeffersonian Democracy model (I need US comparisons, or this will be ignored, unfortunately), where the elections are about sweeping rulechanges per Civic change, where the winning side also wins the main government seats. This will remove some of the bickering in the game, and enforce the ruleset/government combo that wins a certain election.

This means we only vote for the Leader, which also present a ruleset platform prior to each game. We should continue to have a Judiciary, but now with 5, not 3 members, and this would be more of a Supreme Court than a Civic Court (eliminating cross-overs between moderators/judge roles). Finally, we would have gubernatorial elections for provinces and mayor elections for cities.

Nice suggestion -- remember to post it again when we're actually working on rules.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'd probably be interested, but only if it's BTS.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'd probably be interested, but only if it's BTS.

Ditto, and patched to the latest version.

 

[Strider]

I could go for a BTS game. I personally don't think it mattes if we play Civ3 or Civ4. That's not what the DG is all about.

 

[Methos]

Alot of people wanted to only play vanilla so that everyone was able to look at the save. The problem I see with this, is that vanilla doesn't have enough interesting and new features to keep the attention of the players. With espionage and corporations, there's a little more types of involvement and more possibilities for RP'ers who are into that type of game.

A vanilla game just doesn't really attract me and other than for the hof, I prefer not to even use it. I'm just curious what the overall opinion of the players are in what version (3 or 4) and what, if any, expansion to use.