I've asked TF to make a sub-forum for the next Demo game. That way we can get to discussing the details and options, polls and all. Once the current game is done, it will be archived and the sub-forum will be made the main forum.
Next Demogame Discussions
- Thread starter Leowind
- Start date
- Status
Yes, the game getting/looking complicated sure is one reason why people have dropped off. I also think having too good presidents and other ministers may actually have scared people away from participating. Everyone isn't a civ expert or have the patience to plan caravans and city production with the all details for example you do GaryNemo. Don't get me wrong here, you are doing a great job at it, I just don't think people should be scared to take a major position in the game just because they are not good enough at civ. The point of all this isn't to beat the poor AI as efficiently as possible, is it? It's to have fun by combining our model of real democracy with civ. I haven't been too active in this game myself, but I got the feeling that it has become much more of an opting-game of always making the best decision and doesn't leave much room for plain personal preference of a certain strategy compared to the first demogame. Of course people still have different opinions and such, but what I'm getting at is that people with limited civ skill may feel very left-out in discussions that are all about "technical" issues like IRPB:ing and tech-path opting. Not sure I manage to make it clear what I'm getting at, but I would guess people interested more in the "demo" part than the "game" part may have dropped off.
That's not my personal reason for not being more active btw, I just don't have enough time to play more demogames than the mp one I'm already involved in over at GC.
Anyway, maybe letting less experienced players hold high government positions just as much as experienced ones and not focusing as much on winning the game would make it more fun for more people to play.
That's not my personal reason for not being more active btw, I just don't have enough time to play more demogames than the mp one I'm already involved in over at GC.
Anyway, maybe letting less experienced players hold high government positions just as much as experienced ones and not focusing as much on winning the game would make it more fun for more people to play.
I joined this game myself somewhere in the midgame stage. Despite being an experienced civ player I found it somewhat diffuse to grasp everything that was going on. I did download the savegame and even posted a few suggestions and after following the game for a while I got into it. Still there was a higher treshold than I had imagined because of the many plans and things going on that required extensive browsing through old threads to figure out what exactly people were talking about.
I didn't have the time nor the dedication to get fully involved in this game and start running for government positions, so I have just been occasionally dropping by to post some minor comment since then.
There seems to have been plenty of new members who have registrered in the registry thread since I join, but how many of them has stayed as active players? I don't know, but I guess not very many of them. I'm not totally sure of the reason why not more people stay to become active or drop off the game, but like I said the treshold might be higher tahn you who are involved in the game think it is, so doing something about that could help. Also getting more players to participate from start would also be a good idea
About playing on lower difficulty I think it would make the game even less challenging than it is now. In sp games many people (myself included) tend to not finish most of their games because they are certain of victory, so there is no challenge. Same goes for the demogame to some extent even if the democracy part of the game still can be fun even after everyone know the game will be won.
A more challenging game can be had by playing team demo game as we do on GC, but that also bring other sorts of problems like smaller teams and the democracy part of the game becoming a bit suffering.
I don't have a perfect solution for the best form of playing demogames, but I still like them enough to play them as they are. If we want to attract more players however we will probably need to improve the current form of demogame to make it more attractive. I'm not sure how, but maybe add some competitive element outside of the actual game. It could for example be having all players divided in 3 parties with certain opposing agendas set from start, like one military party, science/trade party and isolationist party. Just wildly tossing around ideas now, but my thought with this is to add more of a political/democracy game in addition to the civ game. I'd like to see more "political maneuvering" and give people some reasons for making decisions not necessarily for the best of the country, but also for the best of their party, just like in real democracy
To be honest the fun of playing demogames isn't really the game part as in smacking around a few AI civs, it's the democracy part played here on the fora.
I didn't have the time nor the dedication to get fully involved in this game and start running for government positions, so I have just been occasionally dropping by to post some minor comment since then.
There seems to have been plenty of new members who have registrered in the registry thread since I join, but how many of them has stayed as active players? I don't know, but I guess not very many of them. I'm not totally sure of the reason why not more people stay to become active or drop off the game, but like I said the treshold might be higher tahn you who are involved in the game think it is, so doing something about that could help. Also getting more players to participate from start would also be a good idea
About playing on lower difficulty I think it would make the game even less challenging than it is now. In sp games many people (myself included) tend to not finish most of their games because they are certain of victory, so there is no challenge. Same goes for the demogame to some extent even if the democracy part of the game still can be fun even after everyone know the game will be won.
A more challenging game can be had by playing team demo game as we do on GC, but that also bring other sorts of problems like smaller teams and the democracy part of the game becoming a bit suffering.
I don't have a perfect solution for the best form of playing demogames, but I still like them enough to play them as they are. If we want to attract more players however we will probably need to improve the current form of demogame to make it more attractive. I'm not sure how, but maybe add some competitive element outside of the actual game. It could for example be having all players divided in 3 parties with certain opposing agendas set from start, like one military party, science/trade party and isolationist party. Just wildly tossing around ideas now, but my thought with this is to add more of a political/democracy game in addition to the civ game. I'd like to see more "political maneuvering" and give people some reasons for making decisions not necessarily for the best of the country, but also for the best of their party, just like in real democracy
To be honest the fun of playing demogames isn't really the game part as in smacking around a few AI civs, it's the democracy part played here on the fora.
Woo, this thread became popular while I was asleep
I like the idea of putting some restrictions on ourselves, maybe not too much but at least no city bribing and no caravan rehoming sounds good.
I know the civ3 game turned very much "demo", with a lot of roleplaying and stuff. That's not exactly what I'm proposing. My idea is to add a competitive element to the demo part of the game too. The political parties would be totally unrelated to any real parties and we should try to get members somewhat equally distributed between them. It's very likely one party might become dominant, but it's the same in real life and for the good of the game we should try to keep them fairly equal. Having only 3 parties also gives us a good chance that the two smaller mostly could join together to overrule the large. Also we could write the constitution in a way that doesn't give the majority party supreme power, maybe government positions could be divided proportionally to the number of votes. The party with the most votes just get the most seats and get to choose their seats first, making them much more likely to get the president position.
I think something like this could give us both more of the demo part and more of the game part as both would become more challenging.
I like the idea of putting some restrictions on ourselves, maybe not too much but at least no city bribing and no caravan rehoming sounds good.
I know the civ3 game turned very much "demo", with a lot of roleplaying and stuff. That's not exactly what I'm proposing. My idea is to add a competitive element to the demo part of the game too. The political parties would be totally unrelated to any real parties and we should try to get members somewhat equally distributed between them. It's very likely one party might become dominant, but it's the same in real life and for the good of the game we should try to keep them fairly equal. Having only 3 parties also gives us a good chance that the two smaller mostly could join together to overrule the large. Also we could write the constitution in a way that doesn't give the majority party supreme power, maybe government positions could be divided proportionally to the number of votes. The party with the most votes just get the most seats and get to choose their seats first, making them much more likely to get the president position.
I think something like this could give us both more of the demo part and more of the game part as both would become more challenging.
Yes, but not THAT much, only enough to make 3 parties and I think we could manage that with the current number of players.
Exactly, that's why I'm proposing to give the parties predefined goals like for example military party, science party and isolationist party (I'm sure we could come up with better goals later
) The parties first priority would be to use their policy as our main strategy, even if it may sometimes conflict with the objective choice of best strategy.I'm not saying this party thing is the best way to do the next demogame, it depends on what exactly we like the demogame to be and I guess different people have different opinions about that. But I'd like you to consider this a serious option. Whatever we chose for the next game I'll try to be more active than I have been in this one (except maybe for OCC which I never really liked much).
Good ideas Leowind. Creating a local vs national conflict could probably work just as well as conflicting policies. As you say a conflict of some sort is necessary to create interest. That's the point I was going for too even if I'm not as fluent in the english language as you are.
As for a city cap, the idea of making it harder for ourselves by gameplay restrictions I think is basically good, especially if we won't have any kind of party or regional conflicts. But I don't think a city cap of 20 would do much difference. By the time we reach that many cities we will most likely already be at the point where we can see that we are going to win the game.
I sometimes disband one of my starting settlers and then walk around some with the remaining one before settling to give the AI a head start. That makes the early game much more challenging without putting limitations on my choice of strategy. I also never bribe AI cities. The problem as I see it is to keep the game challenging after it reaches the point where we get the upper hand, because I'm sure it will sooner or later. The most fun games I've had with civ (and the ones I have actually finished) is the ones where I had tough competition from the AI all the way to the end and sometimes even lost. The only way the AI can give such competition is by being the largest empire around and at same time having other AI:s to trade tech with.
Maybe a combination of a slower start and a city cap could give us the challenge we want. Unless we want to try some kind of party/region idea and take the risk that we all become degraded to flamewar-fighting 12 year olds
It's only a game after all, and supposed to be fun for everyone involved. Maybe we should take a vote to see what we would get the most players for. If we make one of those polls where you can chose multiple options we can include OCC and everything else discussed and vote for the ones we most would like to play.
As for a city cap, the idea of making it harder for ourselves by gameplay restrictions I think is basically good, especially if we won't have any kind of party or regional conflicts. But I don't think a city cap of 20 would do much difference. By the time we reach that many cities we will most likely already be at the point where we can see that we are going to win the game.
I sometimes disband one of my starting settlers and then walk around some with the remaining one before settling to give the AI a head start. That makes the early game much more challenging without putting limitations on my choice of strategy. I also never bribe AI cities. The problem as I see it is to keep the game challenging after it reaches the point where we get the upper hand, because I'm sure it will sooner or later. The most fun games I've had with civ (and the ones I have actually finished) is the ones where I had tough competition from the AI all the way to the end and sometimes even lost. The only way the AI can give such competition is by being the largest empire around and at same time having other AI:s to trade tech with.
Maybe a combination of a slower start and a city cap could give us the challenge we want. Unless we want to try some kind of party/region idea and take the risk that we all become degraded to flamewar-fighting 12 year olds
It's only a game after all, and supposed to be fun for everyone involved. Maybe we should take a vote to see what we would get the most players for. If we make one of those polls where you can chose multiple options we can include OCC and everything else discussed and vote for the ones we most would like to play.
Zwelgje
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Messages
- 3,953
With the lack of interest showing in this game I doubt we should start a new game, sorry....
When the first Civ2 demo game started we had something like 50 active posters which declined to about 15 at the end because of the beginning of Civ3 demo game. When this demo game began we had something like 15-20 active posters but at the moment I don't see more than 5-6 posters who are actively involved in the game.
More people show up occaisionally but that's not enough to keep the game going, more people need to show up a few times a week and actively participate in discussions and not only voting and leaving.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm glad there are people that will vote but I would be more happy if there would be more posters actually discussing stuff with eachother.
When the first Civ2 demo game started we had something like 50 active posters which declined to about 15 at the end because of the beginning of Civ3 demo game. When this demo game began we had something like 15-20 active posters but at the moment I don't see more than 5-6 posters who are actively involved in the game.
More people show up occaisionally but that's not enough to keep the game going, more people need to show up a few times a week and actively participate in discussions and not only voting and leaving.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm glad there are people that will vote but I would be more happy if there would be more posters actually discussing stuff with eachother.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Perhaps we should consider the level that the game is played on. You have to admit, a new player would be scared by the deity level we're playing. I know I was, and if it we'ren't for that scared attitude, I may have joined the democracy game when I first registered at CFC last year.
Sheer complexity of the democracy game and it's mechanics may also be a point. I will say, that compared to the Civ3 game, this is simple.
A lot of it is probably a fact we all have to face up to - Civ2 isn't as new as it once was. As easily demonstarted by the Civ3 forums vs. the Civ2 forums, people tend to gravitate to the new and shiny. Perhaps we could have an advertising run bigger than just a few sigs. Does someone want to write about the game, and DoM, do you think you could get TF to post these reports on the homepage w/links?
Sheer complexity of the democracy game and it's mechanics may also be a point. I will say, that compared to the Civ3 game, this is simple.
A lot of it is probably a fact we all have to face up to - Civ2 isn't as new as it once was. As easily demonstarted by the Civ3 forums vs. the Civ2 forums, people tend to gravitate to the new and shiny. Perhaps we could have an advertising run bigger than just a few sigs. Does someone want to write about the game, and DoM, do you think you could get TF to post these reports on the homepage w/links?
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
That gives me an idea. Perhaps, for now, rather than a news post on the main page, someone could write up an explanation of the demogame for posting. This article could contain information about how the game is played, etc., plus anything we think will calm newbie fears. I can testify this has been more a learning experience than anything else.
Perhaps a more veteran player can write this up - I'm not exactly well known.
As to a weekly update, I'd be willing to do that. I did that at one time with the old newspaper...
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Here's an idea.
We have obviously found that at this point, playing Civ2 is rather easy. If we go into a Democracy Game 3, perhaps we could place some restrictions on oursleves to make the game more challenging. A more challenging game encouarges wider conflicting opinions, which always serves to drum up interest. Heck, the fact we're playing a modified version of the game would draw up interest in itself.
As for this challenge, I could only suggest using a scenario, or placing an interesting restriction, like staying in the same government all game, or something.
We have obviously found that at this point, playing Civ2 is rather easy. If we go into a Democracy Game 3, perhaps we could place some restrictions on oursleves to make the game more challenging. A more challenging game encouarges wider conflicting opinions, which always serves to drum up interest. Heck, the fact we're playing a modified version of the game would draw up interest in itself.
As for this challenge, I could only suggest using a scenario, or placing an interesting restriction, like staying in the same government all game, or something.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
I will admit - I tend to like the 'demo' part of the game.
Talar - I don't know about political parties. There are two rather basic prerequisites: 1) A good number of players, and 2), a number of opposing views. While the first may be attainable, the second would be difficult, becuase there always seems to be a single, best, startegy...
Also, the talk of an OOC sounds interesting, but I might aim for a 5CC, so perhaps we could elect a governor for each city or something... A spotless rep and no caravan rehoming sounds better. How 'bout a game where the only cities we can capture/bribe are those that were captured by the AI?
Talar - I don't know about political parties. There are two rather basic prerequisites: 1) A good number of players, and 2), a number of opposing views. While the first may be attainable, the second would be difficult, becuase there always seems to be a single, best, startegy...
Also, the talk of an OOC sounds interesting, but I might aim for a 5CC, so perhaps we could elect a governor for each city or something... A spotless rep and no caravan rehoming sounds better. How 'bout a game where the only cities we can capture/bribe are those that were captured by the AI?
GaryNemo
Settler from None
I may start having a bit more time, not sure. I think participation has fallen off because the game is so complicated, so near the end. Well, appears to complicated. We have had some great Presidents, and they make it quite a bit simpler for the rest of us. And exciting
The duke and Duke were a great team, loosing them both will be a huge blow.
The duke and Duke were a great team, loosing them both will be a huge blow.
GaryNemo
Settler from None
I've learned a lot from this Demo Game, and would like to participate in the next one. A Smaller Map makes sense, but I've learned that is always Pangea. Maybe people would prefer one big Continent - I'd be happy either way. For Islands, it might need to be Medium Map.
The discussions at the beginning were intense and detailed, because we only had 2 or 3 units and everything mattered.
If I had time, I'd still make polls like I used to. Perhaps more of them with fewer choices, but I saw that as Democracy in action.
There is another side to this as well - an international community. Look at the improvement in Elsaak's English ! I know others of you are not native English speakers, yet you seem to be so. Let's face it, these are tough times for America and others' views of the USA, and every effort at international cooperation and fun is important.
The discussions at the beginning were intense and detailed, because we only had 2 or 3 units and everything mattered.
If I had time, I'd still make polls like I used to. Perhaps more of them with fewer choices, but I saw that as Democracy in action.
There is another side to this as well
- an international community. Look at the improvement in Elsaak's English ! I know others of you are not native English speakers, yet you seem to be so. Let's face it, these are tough times for America and others' views of the USA, and every effort at international cooperation and fun is important.
funxus
Orange Cycloptic Blob
I'm in for a new game
I'd like to play a game on a single continent with all the civs on. I'm not sure I like having a limit on cities, but will accept whatever is decided.
I'd like to play a game on a single continent with all the civs on. I'm not sure I like having a limit on cities, but will accept whatever is decided.
It would be a very bloody-game ; I'm not sure it is the vocation of a Democracy. :love2:
Yes, this could be a great challenge.
How can we use the scores in F11 to give some objectives ?
Or somethnig like a scenario with special cities to take or civs to eliminate ?
- Status
Similar threads
