Seperate the RPG and Demo Game

[Plexus]

Well, Bill, if you feel that the two diffrent entities are so unrelated, what can we do to make them more related? I think that instead of seperation, we should strive for more commonality between the two games.

 

[Strider]

A few things I did not intend when I came up with the idea of the RPG:

1. I thought people would still keep Demogame first and RPG later.... Instead of RPG first and demogame later....

2. Also I was thinking of something to where you HAVE to keep up with the demogame and know what's going on to be successful in the RPG.... Not to where you can just come into the RPG and not check the other sub-forums once. Now people are talking about making a RPG demogame instead of a Demogame RPG.

I still think we need to stop creating stuff in the demogame rpg every second and start to work on fixing everything. Get some idea's in and start to make change's in the system. We need to fix some of the problems we have now instead of making more of them.... First off we need to making the rules easier to understand.... that scares many people away....

And now.... back on topic:

Like I've said before..... Threads like this is not going to draw people back into the demogame..... They like the RPG better..... Let it be...... What we should try to do is draw attention to the demogame..... If we get 100 people through advertisement to come and about 10% watch both RPG and demogame 60% watch RPG and 30% watch demogame then we gain 40 people for the demogame. Of course this is just something that came to mind after I ran into a brick wall.... So crticism is expected .

Edit:

Also another problem is is that people are leaving the demogame..... and no one is coming in to replace them..... We are slowly falling in numbers.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

@Plexus - I honestly don't think the two can be related. As I said in an earlier post, they are two different types of games. Strider points out his vision for RPG, but it didn't happen. Lest, I be accussed of attacking the RPG game again, I will not make suggestions to changes for it, instead I will reiterate that there is nothing wrong with enjoying the RPG game.

@Strider - the purpose of my post is not necessarily to draw people back into the Demo Game. In fact, I hope people will spend their precious time doing things they enjoy. However, your post itself further confirms that many folks in RPG are not really Demo Game players, and the tenuous connection between the two games at this point seems to be limited to a map.

I merely ask the question, would the two games be better off if they were independant of each other?

 

[Cyc]

@Bill_in_PDX. First of all Mr. Bill, I didn't misunderstand anything in your first group of posts and I feel I understand everything you've said in this thread. Maybe it was you who misunderstood me.

As far as I can tell, you want to separate the two "entities", RPG and DG, because you feel the RPG is taking the people responsible for guiding the DG, away from their assigned duties. You feel if the RPG were "cut away" from the DG, more people would actually do there jobs (the ones they were elected to do), plus there would be a major turn around in the activity of the regular DG sub-forums. Have I got it so far?

Good. Then maybe you read in my posts where I stated that I believe the problems of the DG are not caused by the RPG. That even if you did "cut away" the RPG, the DG would still have its lathargic sub-forums and Leaders who ran polls and threads in a manner that "will surely get them by for this t/c". That if the people in the DG quit trying to be cool and funny and popular all the time and actually attacked problems arising in the DG, problems would disappear instead of mount. Did you read any of that, Bill? Good.

Oh, and btw, when I mentioned shipping me off to another forum, I wasn't talking about myself actually. What I meant was me being a part of the RPG crowd. I am not so egotistical that I would think you would single me out. I only used my own example to downgrade your claim that RPGers only stopp by the DG occaisionally to check in. And I realize that you didn't make a blanket statement covering everyone. Niether did I. That's why I'm talking to you. You're the one who posted the thread. You're the one who is suggesting "cutting away" the RPG. Therefore you're the one I basically need to respond to.

This is not a difficult issue to address, Bill. You are unhappy with your present existance in the Demogame and want to make it better. So, instead of self-examination or some deep reflection on the matter, you immediately seek to blame some other portion of your existance which, if "cut away" will not hinder your efforts in your grand plan. This is not a dastardly plan of attack, it's just a means to an end. If the plan doesn't work, it's OK, as you didn't need the RPG anyway. Where to look next...? And that's the way it goes, Bill. When you find out that the Leaders of this game can NOT make DG2 be what DG1 was, what are you going to do? Say, "Oh, I quit!"? Hopefully not. You were a damn good CJ and JA, Bill. You made trusting the Judiciary a pleasure. I'd hate to lose you, but if you feel it's not worth the effort. so be it. I know exactly how you feel. Luckily for me, Lord Shaitan (now there's a contridiction in terms, does anyone speak Farsi?) gently coaxed me into the RPG and showed me what fun it could be. Otherwise, I probably would have hit the dusty trail myself, long ago. But I'm having fun Bill. You should have some fun too. Unsheathing your Saber to attack your Housefly problem is not the way to go about things.

 

[eyrei]

Please refrain from directing your posts at one another. Direct them to the subject at hand without making it so personal. Thanks.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Some responders comments and assumptions about what I am saying are not accurate, and can't figure out why this is seems to be such a personal issue.

I do not want to seperate the RPG and Demo Game for the puposes of getting people back from RPG. I am not quite that stupid, and in fact I have said about ten times now that people should play the game they enjoy.

Nor am I unhappy with "my Demo Game existance", though I am frusted by many things in the game. My failure to run for office this time around has more to do with work in RL than anything else.

I am merely asking the question if the games would both be better off seperated from each other.

I cannot understand why it is so out of line for me to raise the topic... Perhaps someone might be so kind as to enlighten me to the reason this issue is so taboo?

My thoughts being that then the Demo Game could attract people, if there are any, who are interested in playing a game of Civ as a group, and focus their efforts in that direction.

The RPG game could then run it's own map and such, and optimize itself for it's rule set, and focus it's effort that direction.

I think both games might be the better for it, and thought I would raise the point for discussion.

Further, if those pure Demo Game people don't exist, then a better use of the fora here would be to subordinate the game completely to the RPG side, as was actually suggested in a RPG thread recently.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

You know bill...your last post makes a LOT of sense.

There would be flaws to work out but I guess it could end up for the better.

I think the discussion is good, and should continue. Hopefully one day it'll lead to the implementation of something better for both games.

 

[Falcon02]

I still prefer the "good olde days" being the classic old timer I am. When the Demogame WAS the RPG, and we'd have fun just making stuff up. Ehecatl Atzin's trip to the Greek city of Troy was one of those, or the early posts to the "Great Victory civil war" between me and strider, we'd just have fun going back and forth making stuff up. Like stuff you see in the "Stories" forum Meetings among the Leaders, and plain olde war stories (never really saw any but there's the potential) but simply just making up stories within the events of the Demogame, THAT'S what the RPG used to be, and I found that more interesting and fun.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

problem is people brought out with the businesses, and stocks way to early, especially with the idea of moving with the game. We can still turn it around to where both have a good synergy between the two. We just need to remember that RPG stands for role playing game not business playing game. We focus too much on the businesses, lets dumb those down a bit and play around with the horse races and tournys. those rock!

 

[eyrei]

To be honest, I don't think that the lack of active participation in the demogame has much at all to do with the RPG. I think the difficulty level we are playing on is to blame. There are not too many people that are comfortable playing on emperor level, and so many people are not comfortable offering their opinions lest they be shot down or cause us to lose. If I have my way, emperor and deity will not even be options when we poll for difficulty level before the next game.

Anyway, this leads me to believe that the RPG is simply a way for those who do not feel comfortable posting opinions in the demogame to remain active and part of the community. This is certainly not a bad thing, and I would like to keep these people around for the next game, when they will more likely feel they should post their opinions on our strategy. Thus, I do not wish to see the games formally divided any more than they already are.

 

[Cyc]

I believe that is a very good point, eyrei. I have always said that emperor was too high of a level for us to play on, and I definitely want all these players back for DG3. Nothing pleases me more than to see the new players develop into old hands like you and I. Players like Octavian X, Fionn, Plexus. The list goes on and on.

Just today, I read posts by veteran players who were saying they feared we as a Nation may be heading for a loss. Emperor can be a very rough level to play. We are doing remarkably well. There should not be a fear of losing when we're in first place and gaining all the time. I will back you in a move to eliminate emperor and deity from the options list.

 

[Shaitan]

Along with the difficulty level there is also number of opponents and map size. We have the maximum number of opponents and the maximum land size. Both of these add both to the complexity and difficulty of the game. This game is much slower than DG1 which causes people to lose interest. DG1 had a great participation falloff towards the end simply because the game was getting less exciting. In DG2 we've had that right from the start.

A lower difficulty setting also allowed "flavor" in the first demogame. A library could be built instead of a barracks to "promote the literacy of Phoenaticans" even when a barracks was the more important improvement. We could entertain ideas of "freeing the slaves" that we had captured because the lower difficulty level allowed us to make moves that were not necessarily the best game moves.

 

[Chieftess]

Just to chime in... I think this WHOLE deal started with "Poly is playing emperor! We have to do better!". We pretty much shot ourselves in the foot. The reason DG1 was easy was because there was only 12 civs, standard map, and a comparible AI (monarch level). No tricky tatics were even involved. A huge-16 civ emperor game might as well be a deity game on a small map with 5 civs on a pangaea. Just look at a recent "What level do you play at" poll in Civ3 Gen (there's a reason to read those eyrei. ). The results are still in a bell-curve, but still only 33% of players even play emperor or higher. Newer players come, and they might see odd things like tight build, 0% science, and might feel intimidated since they know we probably know stuff they don't. So, most just sit and watch.

The other problem I think just happens to be our posistion in the map. We're right at the landbridge, which means there's gonna be foreign troops waltzing through, and we'd need to be extra careful about alliences.

I really think we shouldn't be playing anything higher than monarch, and at the most, a large map. 16 civs can be a bit much, especially when it comes to picking alliences and wars. (Not to mention, huge maps and 16 civs would require a powerful computer to play - or else the game just runs slow, and it might be 1 reason for 7 hour turn chats).

 

[Shaitan]

Discussion on "fixing" the demogame (a la using a utility to adjust the difficulty level) has been split to a new thread.

 

[Shaitan]

Back to the topic at hand...

I don't see any benefit to the demogame by banishing the RPG. Both have parts that could be better individually but that doesn't mean that those weak areas are related to the other side.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I am not advocating banishing the RPG game. I haven't seen any posts here advocating that either.

 

[Shaitan]

Totally separating the RPG from the demogame and moving it out of the demogame forums is banishment.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

No it's not, and I know you use your words quite carefully. You seem to be attempting to blanket the discussion in a negative light. The forums would look the same, still be on the same board, etc...

 

[Shaitan]

Now you are confusing me (not hard at this particular post-holiday point). I thought you were proposing a total separation of the demogame and RPG and moving the RPG out of the demogame forum. Isn't that what we're discussing?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I was asking that question, and also the opposite, perhaps the demo side of the game is better suited to be subordinated to the RPG itself.

I am trying to look at all the possibilities.

On the other hand, a seperation of the games would not be a banishment IMHO.