Not to single you out, DMOC - but you could put a recruitment line in your signature... 
Of course, I'm the pot here, aren't I?
Of course, I'm the pot here, aren't I?
Turn Discussion
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
I have a suggestion... Institute a polling procedure that allows frequent polls... We did this on our team and we have had a HUGE increase in participation/posting since... It is very controversial and there will definitely be alot of arguments over the process itself, but it gets more folks involved (and it gets already involved folks even more involved... believe me.I did put a recrutiment line in my signature, but apparently it hasn't worked.
)If you have one (or a couple) player(s) making all the decisions, participation will die out... no matter how many people you recruit. We poll all the time and there is alot of discussion... I can barely keep up... Hope this helps... Good luck.
Krill
Deity
Thanks for the update Niklas.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I guess exactly that: they poll each turn on lots of different details. Maybe "what to build in city A", "where to move unit X", perhaps even "what reply do we give to team Z".What do you mean by polling procedure?
The downside, of course, is that this tends to lead to a mess of threads everywhere, and can make the discussions harder to follow. Plus it can lead to suboptimal decisions being made, because there's a tendency for results to be biased by lurkers who drop by quickly to vote without actually reading the discussion (and thus making uninformed decisions). At least with a worded discussion (as opposed to a simple vote box), you can be sure that everyone is reading before stating their opinion. Although of course, that might drop activity levels a bit.
I guess there are plus and minus points, like for most things.
I mean a set / predictable way of determining when the team will poll a contested issue.What do you mean by polling procedure?
The hypothetical polls that Lord Parkin mentions would probably be very problematic to poll on a regular basis, and might lead to some of the problems mentioned. I will try not to get into what our team polls specifically, but I will say that we have not polled any of the things Lord Parkin mentioned as far as I can remember...
Also, FYI, our team has never had a polled issue swayed by so-called "lurkers," I don't think it is really worth worrying about... Folks tend to greatly overestimate the effect "lurkers" will have on the outcome of polls.
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
If the server goes down, then the team that has paused the game doesn't have access either. I don't think it would be fair to count that time against their 120 hours.
Now if we found out a team was intentionally crashing the server to get more time - that'd be different. But there's no evidence of that here.
If the server crashes on its own (as always happens from time to time), then that's just an out-of-game event that no team should be penalized for.
Hopefully Cav doesn't need access to the server to take care of whatever is holding them up, and they'll be able to quickly move the save when service is restored anyway.
Now if we found out a team was intentionally crashing the server to get more time - that'd be different. But there's no evidence of that here.
If the server crashes on its own (as always happens from time to time), then that's just an out-of-game event that no team should be penalized for.
Hopefully Cav doesn't need access to the server to take care of whatever is holding them up, and they'll be able to quickly move the save when service is restored anyway.
A server crash could even add time, if the events of the crash did not involve making a valid autosave.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Hmm, Niklas said the pause was due to communication needs. I assumed that meant diplomatic messages, and I can't see how that should be relevant to whether the game is up or not. I guess it could instead be interpreted to mean that they're discussing what to build / move / research, but even then I can't see why they'd need access to the game 24 hours a day for 5 days to do that.
Not saying that I'm not in agreement with extending Cav's time, it's just that I can't see how they would have lost out on anything by the server downtime.
EDIT: Actually, it seems the WAS NO server downtime anyway?
Not saying that I'm not in agreement with extending Cav's time, it's just that I can't see how they would have lost out on anything by the server downtime.
EDIT: Actually, it seems the WAS NO server downtime anyway?
RRRaskolnikov
Goldfish
Perhaps it is preparations for war.
declare on 4 teams at once surely needs preparation
So I understand this correctly, since the server was never dwn:
That mean in ~8:45 min from this post (the 120 hours from Cav's post) anyone can unpause the game and play resumes correct?
Time = Mar 29, 2009 05:58 PM
That mean in ~8:45 min from this post (the 120 hours from Cav's post) anyone can unpause the game and play resumes correct?
Yes, that's correct. We'll be sure to unpause it ourselves before that time.
Krill
Deity
Just wondering, but what are we doing about the daylight savings time malarky? I think that would add an extra hour to the pause time (ie it shouldn't be unpaused for another hour and 40 minutes from this post, right?)
We won't need to care about the DST. We have now unpaused the gamed and the clock is ticking as normal. We now have 17 hours on the turn timer, and will likely use a good deal of them.
Once again I would like to thank you for your patience, and ensure you that this was not something we did lightly. We hope the need will not arise again any time soon.
Once again I would like to thank you for your patience, and ensure you that this was not something we did lightly. We hope the need will not arise again any time soon.
Krill
Deity
Thanks for keeping us informed Niklas.
Similar threads
