Random DG5 Idea: A Multi-Team Game?

An intra-CFC team demogame is a great idea! After four demogames we seem to naturally form into seperate groups anyway. I would love to do this!

I want to be on the team that only has a constitution. :D
 
Zarn said:
I would go for something like this, but how would you seperate the people? Randomly?

No way. We'd have to let the teams form naturally. We could name a team captain for each team and then let everyone join the team they want. Some teams may end up with more citizens than others but so what? By allowing people to join a team that has their friends on it the teams will last together longer. New people can join whatever team they want as the game progresses.
 
eyrei said:
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?

Face it eyrei, the last demogame was no fun at all and this was reflected by the low participation. The next will have even lower participation. Maybe it is time to end the demogames for awhile and try an intra-site team game. We don't need 7 or 8 teams and we don't need each team to have alot of players. Not all teams need be a democracy.
 
I still think it would be awesome to have 2 teams that play the same game, but not against eachother. just like a gotm, but with 2 big democratic teams
 
In regard to team formation: Rather than selecting captains and other nonsense, just let people form their own teams. If we have persons A, B, C, and D, each could chose to either start a team, or join one. A could found a team for builders. B, C, and D could then either join up, or take a crack at founding their own team.
 
Can we start a signup thread for a MTDG so we can see who's interested in it? The sooner we start the better (it would be nice to finish before Civ4 gets here). :)
 
If you do this you shouldn't do it in a GOTM style. YOu have the GOTM for that.

The current GC model works pretty well, we've had 3 cool intrasite games so far and we're a tiny site. ;)

- Annouce the new game, ask who wants to be a Team Captain.
- Get 3 or 4 captains and then they start looking for team members
- In the current game we are loosely based on nations, with British, Canadian, Swedish and American teams. In the last game we had a bit of roleplaying with a British Empire, a Fascist Empire and some weird mystical empire (they sucked). ;)
- Decide between PBEM or MP. I'd go for PBEM.
- Vote on map settings.
- Start the game. Simple.
 
Octavian X said:
In regard to team formation: Rather than selecting captains and other nonsense, just let people form their own teams. If we have persons A, B, C, and D, each could chose to either start a team, or join one. A could found a team for builders. B, C, and D could then either join up, or take a crack at founding their own team.

But what do we do if we end up with more teams than we need?
 
My idea for team forming would be this. Once a team gets the required amount of members, they are officially in the game. Team signup is done on a first-come, first-served basis, so the first 8 teams with the minimum amount of people are in the game. I don't think we'll get 8 teams big enough to play, so it shouldn't be a problem anyway.
 
I was just going to say that, if we did get more teams than that, we'd just cut off those teams with fewest participants (and allow for a period of time reorganization), or split the game up the way the C3CISDG was.
 
Given the somewhat heavy handed decision that we are only allowed to play on vanilla :aargh: :vomit: [pissed] :shakehead :thumbdown,

this is obviously not going to be a multi-player game. Multi team is still possible of course.
 
Donovan Zoi said:
Shocked me too, DS. :(

Oh well, we can't vote for everything, can we? :D

Evidently not. Hopefully, most other matters will be open for vote.

-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
Evidently not. Hopefully, most other matters will be open for vote.

-- Ravensfire

I'm guessing none of you actually read our reasons for making that decision...
 
eyrei said:
I'm guessing none of you actually read our reasons for making that decision...

I did, and understand them to some extent. Some. It has killed a great deal of my interest in DG5. At the least, it has pushed me into a much more passive role. I have minimal desire to particpate in the ruleset discussions. Once was quite enough - I see the same problems developing again, with no effort to fix them. After getting raked over the coals by people who couldn't be bothered to help create the ruleset, I'm going sit this one out.

We've played the same game, in the same format, with very few differences. At one point, the emphasis was supposed to be on the personal interaction between us. DG4 saw some of the harshest criticism directed at people with minimal attempts at education. Demands were made. Orders issued.

The respect for all citizens was no longer there. The desire for a "perfect game" ruled all. I actually preferred to focus on the "legal" parts of the game because the discussions were friendlier than many in-game discussions. Pulling information about various departments was worse than pulling teeth.

Too many people, and I freely admit I was one of them, and still am to some extent, posted only negative comments about various aspects of the game and the structure. People were interested only in bashing, not in fixing.

I was looking at Conquests as providing a dramatic change for the community. In addition to new cultures and new options, there WERE people that did not have access to the game. I thought this would force several things to happen.

First, some actual feedback and game information appear in the forums. I firmly believe that a leader, provided someone helps them by posting screenshots as needed, can be an effective leader, even without access to the game. At a minimum, it should not be required for a citizen to open the save to materially participate in discussions. I hoped the desire to include everyone, including those without access to Conquests, would spur our elected officials to do what I tried in DG4, post significant game information, updated regularly, in the forums.

Second, bring more of a discussion/learning environment back to the game. We've hashed/rehashed/whipped the same issues over and over and over. Conquests brought the opportunity for new avenues and new strategies. Some are more familiar with them - here's their chance to convey that knowledge back to their fellow citizens.

Finally, I was less than pleased with the heavy-handed manner in which this was carried out. I would have been more than satisfied to see a discussion thread, opened by one of the moderators, on this very point. Put in the first post the direction you are currently leaning, and see what happens. Perhaps you would have been convinced otherwise, perhaps not.

This game is supposed to be about what we, the members of CFC, prefer. If most of us prefer to play with Conquests, why should we not be allowed to?

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire
 
eyrei said:
I'm guessing none of you actually read our reasons for making that decision...

I did see that reason. Compatibility issues? Vanilla Civ3 isn't even sold on it's own anymore, and it hasn't been for some time. At least a poll in the spirit of the DG would have been appreciated.
 
I thought the possibility of a team game was in addition to (or even instead of) the *regular* demogame.

I agree with most of what Ravensfire posted earlier. DG4 did the most to destroy personal interaction between many players. Cyc and I had been good friends from term one of DG1 only to have that friendship dissolve in term one of DG4. (Due in large part to unilateral moderator decisions.) I've been posting on CFC since before Civ 3 was released and have enjoyed many aspects of this website. If we can't play the type of game we want to play then perhaps it is time to start logging on to a different Civ website. :(
 
Top Bottom