Random DG5 Idea: A Multi-Team Game?

That's good news.

CT, would you mind if I posted a similar thread in the PBEM and SG forums? Or, better yet, could you create a new annoucement in the Civ3 forums, with a link to this thread? Like I've said, I think we'd be able to get some support from the regulars there. My goal is to get a decent gage of interest before trying to set something into motion.
 
Oct, not at all. Feel free to post a thread there. That's where I started the Game of Republic, but it stalled after Eklektikos failed to pass the save during the 2nd round.
 
The principal concern of all of us is, off course, maintaining a constant participation of the players in the demogame. As you seem to see it, you think that taking the traditionnal demogame in multi-team format would help in doing this, and would eventualy attract more players to the demogame. I say that you err in thinking this, and for a very valuable reason.

We have to think about gameplay. Here's what I mean : in normal condition, the spdg would have about two turn chats a week, each consisting of anything from 5 to 10 turns, for an average of about fifteen turns a week. Now, assuming that we have seven teams and that they each have one day to play the save, it slows down to one turn a week, if not less. At such low speed, the game could take a few years to end.

Think about it, do you realy want another MSDG style game that takes more than eighteen months to end? I wouldn't think so.
 
Fier Canadien said:
The principal concern of all of us is, off course, maintaining a constant participation of the players in the demogame. As you seem to see it, you think that taking the traditionnal demogame in multi-team format would help in doing this, and would eventualy attract more players to the demogame. I say that you err in thinking this, and for a very valuable reason.

We have to think about gameplay. Here's what I mean : in normal condition, the spdg would have about two turn chats a week, each consisting of anything from 5 to 10 turns, for an average of about fifteen turns a week. Now, assuming that we have seven teams and that they each have one day to play the save, it slows down to one turn a week, if not less. At such low speed, the game could take a few years to end.

Think about it, do you realy want another MSDG style game that takes more than eighteen months to end? I wouldn't think so.

The game could go very quickly (less hassle as there are less people), but even if it would go slow, it beats beating up the AI all the time.
 
And, here's an idea - rather than use a PBEM, we use real-time MP games. It's iffer, in my humble opinion, but a good change of pace. It wouldn't be the first time we coordinated several people at once to play turns online.

Or, we could use a mod for the game - maybe one of the 9 conquests. The game would likely be shorter in that case.
 
Don't think that would work too well. You'll be risking irrecoverable OOS errors, too.
 
I really don't like making this demogame multiplayer in any way. That isn't its point at all. Why don't you just mix things up by playing a scenario or mod?
 
I'm just pointing out a big reason I'm no longer drawn to this game as I was once. You have to admit that playing against the AI for the fifth time does sound boring (unless we're going at Sid level or something).

Would you object, eyrei, if a multi team game ran parallel to the single player game? You know, the best of both worlds?
 
If your argument is that playing against the AS (artificial stupidity) is becoming boring, then try a spdg at deity/sid level. That's not going to be easy… nor boring, in my very own opinion.
 
Maybe the demogame level should be bumped up to emperor. Once you get very good tactictians in the game, the game is over. (Even DG1 was over at the start of term 2). Atleast DG1 and moreso in DG2 had internal competition, especially between governors and mayors to have the best province and city. Stats were kept every week on which province had the best production, highest culture, most demogame citizens, etc. Events were held. It was a thrill for governors to attend the turnchat and see their province gain more cities.

In DG1, governors held events like the Asphinxian Ball, boat races in the bay. In DG2, there was sporting events towards the end of the game. In DG4, it was filled with either, "Let's bicker about 1 word in this ruleset [follwed by cryptic code numbering instead of quoting the actual rule]", or "Let's take this civ out this turnchat".

The point being, the demogame was much more than saying, "Move here", "make this rule there". It can be more exciting if people are willing to make it exciting. DG2 was a long, but fun game. DG1 was a short, but fun game.

Just something to note for a MPDG - there will be far less players per team. When I tried to get the Game of Republic started, it was a struggle to get atleast 5 players per team to even fill the posistions. A MPDG becomes more of a team-based game than a true demogame. There will be far less provinces, too, since players in MP don't care about huge civs with 50 cities. Most players I've played against (especially in the C3C beta) had a core of 10-15 cities, and the game was over quite quickly. Of course, I played against some of the best in the MP community. Most games lasted, as most, into the early middle ages, but there have been epic games. Another problem with MP is the limit of 8 players (teams). Take a look at our group of players here - about 20, give or take. That's a little over 2 players per team. Stretch that to 5 for players who perfer MP.

Think about it - It's also possible that a team might not meet another team for 50 turns. It happened to me (I expanded peacefully, had a nice chokepoint, too, and all the while, the other 2 players were pre-occupied with my teammate). I eventually won that game without ever spotting a single unit from the other team. (they were quite upset, too. ;)). Having borders with other civs is also rare, since if you do, there's usually a war. Now, it could be possible to have a co-op game where you have 2 teams vs. 6 AI on emperor (or deity if you had 3 teams).

BTW, a historical note. The origanal idea of a single player demogame turnchat was to play 1 turn per day. ;)
 
We need to combat apathy somehow, so here are a few more ideas. :D

How about a two team competition, playing separate single player games on the same map. We could decide before the map is revealed what victory condition is required or how the game will be scored. Maybe victory point scoring can be built into the rules: play custom rules on random map, and then use the same save as a starting point for the two teams.

If there were an objective way to score it, I'd also suggest a "democracy" challenge between the two teams, with points for how well the team organizes and adheres to its rules, how smoothly the game runs, etc. Perhaps we can find some people who are interested in judging this aspect of the game without directly participating. This same concept can be expanded to a "RPG culture" competition, where an independent panel of judges rates the cultural content of the team's forum. A third independently judged idea would be to rate how honorably the teams play, for example do they only use war defensively or when a resouce cannot be obtained via trade.

As for how we organize teams, I suggest the following:

  • All interested players sign up. All players need to pledge to play for the team which picks them.
  • Nominations for team captains
  • Election of team captains, multi choice, top two vote getters become the captains
  • Team captains pick their team members.
 
I favor a MTDG because IMO that is what is fun. The diplomacy, the conspiring, the search for allies, the double-crossing, the paranoia, all make for one terrific game. 8 teams would be too much, there wouldn't be enough people on any given team. 4 teams would work just fine, so would 5 if we can get that many people.

If 20 people from CFC sign up, and I can get perhaps 5 from CDG to sign up, and Oct can get maybe another 5-10 from Poly to sign up, there you go. Enough people, lots of fun. We can even do team themes, where each team plays the game in a different way. There is a MTDG at MasterZen's website which illustrates this concept pretty well, and that game is working out well.

Sure, we have the ISDGs. They are fun, but can feel dragged down in red tape sometimes, and everyone is taking the game very very seriously. It isn't supposed to be a fun event, it is more like a job that sometimes you enjoy, sometimes you don't. This game would be all about having fun, no need to analyze the demographics everyturn, create 50 turn projections, and plotting out your victory scientifically. Course you could do that if you like punishment. ;)

Anyway, please show your support for a MTDG, and maybe we'll get one. :D
 
Gamecatcher has had regular team games for about 3 years, we invented it. ;)

And it IS a lot of fun. Especially when I lead the New British Empire to victory in the second game. :yeah:
 
I think the major problem (even if we do this) is that Thunderfall doesn't want too many forums.
 
OK, even if TF decides not to create the forums, that doesn't mean we can't have a game like this. If CFCers want to do this, forums won't be a problem - I could find somewhere to host the forums quite easily (*hint* *hint*). ;)

- Mike
 
No, this should be a CFC demogame, even if it can't be on CFC. CFC leadership, CFC teams, no other site should have influence on it except for members playing in it.
 
If anything else, I know you can get free forums at www.invisionfree.com.

Concerning team sizes: I just had a simple idea when it came to teams. Players, prior to the game, would organize themselves into teams as they wished. Once a team had x amount of members, they would be admitted. Even if it were just two or three teams, I think there would be enough actual human v. human action to keep things interesting.
One of my objectives in a team game is to dismantle the idea that we all need concrete rules to play these games. Each team would be free to form whatever sort of governing structure it liked best. This was one of the key failures of the previous Game of the Republic - the team structure was forced on each team. If a team wanted to have 87 million provinces, it could. But, such a decision would be left to the teams. Given the chance to take on it's own nature and culture, a multi team game could be very sucessful. You must realize we've all become very, very set in our ways - we automatically assume there will be a President, Domestic, Military, FA... I feel a multi-team game, by forcing some unique innovation and creativity, would help liven everything up.
 
Top Bottom