Event Survey

Provolution

Sage of Quatronia
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
10,102
Location
London
EVENT SURVEY

As it stands, there are several ways to play this game. We can have very few or a moderate number of events. There seems to be a broad concensus on having 1 term (month) represent a game year, or we will never see the national budget spent more than a months paycheck, no projects can be done, and no long term policy will work. This 1 Term=1 Game Year policy is something this set of GMs intend to differently than the previous set of GMs, that wanted to play out the world as it is today, a month at a time.


I and Head Serf had thought about making one short event per week for the Parliament alone (Foreign Bases this week), one event for the Supreme Court (giving the court a legal dilemma each week, based on recently passed legislation, so we are basically processing cases already there). There would be one event per minister in the cabinet for the entire term, as there are about eight ministers, we need to get out two events per week, which the ministers are to handle and be measured on. We cannot have anything less than one per minister per month, or the MPs cannot see if the Minister is any good but providing the budget and their ministerial bill.

We present the following options per week:

1. As it stands: 1 National Event, 1 Supreme Court Event, 2 Ministerial Events (1 per minister per term) and finally a 1 Prime Minister Event (he got 5 bills per term, so he needs an event per week to play out his leader role).

2. Only the National Event, 2 Ministerial Events and 1 Prime Minister Event

3. Only the National Event and 2 Ministerial Events

4. Only the National Event and 1 Prime Minister Event

5. Only the National Event

We will make this a survey, not a poll/vote, but will listen seriously to the views presented. We do not want to swamp the players with too many events, and we are not interested in making this a boring and shallow gameworld. We believe several different events may appeal to different players. Not all events needs to be acted on either, but merely provide color to the gameworld. In a computer game like Total War, you may decide to read an event, or just click it away. The same applies to laws, not all laws here interest people as much as other laws, more events give people flexibility to choose what they like.

We look forward to your constructive and balanced comments.
 
You're not a GM, don't act like one. I was gone over the weekend so I couldn't do stuff, that doesn't give you the right to take my position.
 
I am not a GM before friday, as we had a revote. We still need to measure what people wants. You let this game drift for 1,5 months, and did not ask for help, and refused help if offered, and here we are.
 
I let the game develop on its own. You guys didn't need me up until recently when issues were coming into place. My role isn't to organize every tiny bit of stuff but to come up with issues for you to deal with.
 
I let the game develop on its own. You guys didn't need me up until recently when issues were coming into place. My role isn't to organize every tiny bit of stuff but to come up with issues for you to deal with.

You answered none of the questions we posted here, and we struggled hard to get this game going. Basic handling of stickies was left drifting, running a game requires some effort. The issues will be handled by the GMs of the new GM vote.
 
I answered a few that we could. But I didn't visit every thread searching for questions. If you needed me so badly, why didn't you just PM me instead of trying to usurp my position? I can make a GM thread that I'll check religiously to ensure that all burning questions will be answered if you like.
 
It is a bit late now, and as Methos mentioned, we could use more GMs.
 
Too late now, I left my ministerial position because of all this.
 
Please don't take this discussion to this thread but keep it in the GM voting thread (not like it belongs there either, but whatever).

:pat:

I agree that we should really have new GMs, but Provolution, I do think you're trying a little bit too hard. Please calm down and don't post like you're a GM. Although there's little doubt you're not going to be one, this might be a little bit offensive towards the people that don't want new GMs, like Perfection.


:pat:
 
Not according to what Red Door said, he said they were happy to get rid of me in the Cabinet.

No, to shut you up about Perf's lack of activity. Big difference. And perf has a point, you've been trying to usurp this position from day 1.
 
This is not about usurpation. If the game worked from the outset, things would work out differently.
 
This is not about usurpation. If the game worked from the outset, things would work out differently.

The game did work, just not to the extent you liked. And now this stupid debate on the lack of activity by the GMs and the new GMs taking power will crash the game faster than the lack of activity did.
 
Yeah exactly. You talk too much Provo. You were bugging me on IRC about things that I already knew from reading this forum. I don't want to read the same thing twice. I don't want to give you feedback; I'll do it on the forum. Go away and stop trying to steal Perfy's job.
 
Why not have Perfection as a third GM then? There's no reason to just have two...

And, we did have a vote on the GMs, so it is fair...
 
As long as Perf abide by the following principles, we are fine:

Time progression, 1 term = 1 month = 1 game year (2007, 2008, 2009 not abstracted)
National budgets per year for each government
2 events per week plus 2 supreme court cases per month (actually I and perf could agree on this particular point)
a semicohesive gameworld (I run the factbook and reply on all needs for gameworld facts, Perf could agree to this)
I think Perf got some objectivity in handling events, but we want one side to produce them, and another to handle the outcomes. He also saw that he did not want to redo the Factbook, too much work.

We will not have a cult figure acting out arbitrarily. We want to have a sort of checks of balances between the 3 GMs, so we get the optimum neutrality in this. This will not be a one man dictatorship under any circumstance.
 
As long as Perf abide by the following principles, we are fine:

Time progression, 1 term = 1 month = 1 game year (2007, 2008, 2009 not abstracted)
National budgets per year for each government
2 events per week plus 2 supreme court cases per month (actually I and perf could agree on this particular point)
a semicohesive gameworld (I run the factbook and reply on all needs for gameworld facts, Perf could agree to this)
I think Perf got some objectivity in handling events, but we want one side to produce them, and another to handle the outcomes. He also saw that he did not want to redo the Factbook, too much work.

We will not have a cult figure acting out arbitrarily. We want to have a sort of checks of balances between the 3 GMs, so we get the optimum neutrality in this. This will not be a one man dictatorship under any circumstance.

Do 3 GMs usually have all their terms decided by one man dictatorships?
 
Top Bottom