What to keep, what to scrap from traditional

[Provolution]

What to keep, what to scrap from traditional

Soren Johnson, lead designer of CIV4, had a few design concepts around "1/3 keep what works, 1/3 remove unfun elements and 1/3 new stuff that adds to the game in a positive way". I think we need to follow this design path as well for the demogame, as an overhaul of concepts from Civ3 demogames is long overdue. Now we got Civ4BTS, which rejuvenates the endgame in a new fashion, which makes the need for constant rule reform huge.

"What works?"

First out, we need to agree with ourselves, that a lot of things worked, but we only want to keep what works best. I know there is disagreements on this, but it needs to be aired.

- regular dates for elections
- defined positions with powers (specialist ministers)
- designated player pool
- governorships and mayors
- about 10 turns per week
- Polling standards




"What was unfun?"

- individual election shopping
- Too strong judiciary
- weak officials, bordering the meaningless
- worker and tile micromanagement
- Meaningless polls where players had no influence, ability to compete
- Meaningless abstain options
- Meaningless citizen rights (more in the word than in practice)
- Meaningless elections (too many vacant posts, too little competition, favor trading, position shopping, no political programs, no consequence of choice)
- Meaningless laws (Some laws reduced political scope of actions too much)
- Meaningless constitutions (too much wording, ahistorical)
- Meaningless trials (trials for the smallest reason)
- Bad reporting from turnchats (more powers to officials that make proper reporting)
- Bad forum-based information (more powers to officials that make proper reporting)


Please discuss further what game mechanisms we need to get rid off.


"New stuff?"

- Civics (Faction-based will now bundle elections to factions and civic changes)
- Religion (a religious high official may now be an option)
- Corporation (a business leader may now be an option)
- Espionage (an intelligence Czar may now be an option)
- Apostolic Palace (Diplomatic victory possible throughout most of the game)
- Competition of ideas/Civics, not random individuals

Also. I do think that whenever there is a faction change, the original leaders of the faction being replaced, should not be able to take leading positions in the new regime, to represent a more complete change. However, a faction in power may only be allowed to change one civic at a time, whereas challenging civics can change several civics at once (emulating a revolution or a real shift of power). This makes sure that the same elite are not recycling itself through various positions, makes position-swopping, trading favors and votes and in general sweeps out some of the nepotism in the game. This way, we get an opposition that has a real purpose of changing the regime.
Factions are shadow governments and in the game an ad hoc organization, being formed in advance of each election/civic change, and would need to have a limitation to membership, as it is a selection of leaders as a group up for vote. It is not a real party either, since a faction can vary per era, however, the ruling faction cannot swop faction, but must defend their power as it stands.

 

[Joe Harker]

- worker and tile micromanagement

Well, if you become a governor, this kind of comes with the job, surely? Anyway i quite enjoyed running the cities i was in control of!

weak officials, bordering the meaningless

I would say the other way round, the officals were too strong and the chieftain was a figurehead, with little control.

Bad reporting from turnchats

Yes i do agree with this, but how to get this fixed without over complicating things will be hard.

Meaningless elections

Well personally i would like to see more appointment posts, then you can cut offices during times with low numbers and create when there are high numbers.

- Meaningless abstain options

Abstain options should stay because there were times when either option was good, or they were both good and i couldn't decide.

 

[AluminumKnight]

- regular dates for elections

Well, I guess this kind of stays. Every 2 weeks there is a poll for a revolt for a new faction to take power.

- defined positions with powers (specialist ministers)
- governorships and mayors

Pretty sure these things are taken care of by each faction's rules. IMO, we don't need positions (except for a possible game master or something) that are not set by the faction in power.

- designated player pool
- about 10 turns per week
- Polling standards

These should stay. We would have to discuss the number of turns allowed, but if the 10 turns per week rule has worked in the past, leave it.

- individual election shopping
- Too strong judiciary
- weak officials, bordering the meaningless
- Meaningless polls where players had no influence, ability to compete
- Meaningless citizen rights (more in the word than in practice)
- Meaningless elections (too many vacant posts, too little competition, favor trading, position shopping, no political programs, no consequence of choice)
- Meaningless laws (Some laws reduced political scope of actions too much)
- Meaningless constitutions (too much wording, ahistorical)
- Meaningless trials (trials for the smallest reason)
- Bad reporting from turnchats (more powers to officials that make proper reporting)
- Bad forum-based information (more powers to officials that make proper reporting)

Agree. However, with the switch to faction-based, many of these issues will be the responsibility of each faction to address.

- Meaningless abstain options

Abstain should stay. It shows how important issues are to people, or if there's really no difference between the 2 choices. This helps to alleviate people who would just randomly go through polls and pick the better sounding name or something.

- worker and tile micromanagement

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here. There should be someone assigned to decide what worker actions to pursue.

- Civics (Faction-based will now bundle elections to factions and civic changes)
- Religion (a religious high official may now be an option)
- Corporation (a business leader may now be an option)
- Espionage (an intelligence Czar may now be an option)
- Apostolic Palace (Diplomatic victory possible throughout most of the game)

All of this should be decided by the faction in power. If they want a religious high official, they should assign/elect one. If they want an intelligence czar, they should assign/elect one.

Also. I do think that whenever there is a faction change, the original leaders of the faction being replaced, should not be able to take leading positions in the new regime, to represent a more complete change. However, a faction in power may only be allowed to change one civic at a time, whereas challenging civics can change several civics at once (emulating a revolution or a real shift of power). This makes sure that the same elite are not recycling itself through various positions, makes position-swopping, trading favors and votes and in general sweeps out some of the nepotism in the game. This way, we get an opposition that has a real purpose of changing the regime.

Agree with the leaders being replaced not being allowed to take leading positions in the new regime. I'm confused with your statement about "a faction in power may only be allowed to change one civic at a time." I was under the impression that when a new faction comes into power, they are allowed to change whatever civics they want immediately, but are then locked into those civics for the rest of their reign. This way, we avoid leaving the same faction in power for too long as we discover new civics. I'm not exactly sure, but I think you might be saying the same thing as me...

Factions are shadow governments and in the game an ad hoc organization, being formed in advance of each election/civic change, and would need to have a limitation to membership, as it is a selection of leaders as a group up for vote. It is not a real party either, since a faction can vary per era, however, the ruling faction cannot swop faction, but must defend their power as it stands.

I think that membership should be open to anyone (provided that they are not in another faction). Now, the faction might not give many rights to regular members, or maybe regular members elect the leaders of the faction who will run the government. That's up to the faction itself.

 

[Provolution]

Well, I guess this kind of stays. Every 2 weeks there is a poll for a revolt for a new faction to take power.



Pretty sure these things are taken care of by each faction's rules. IMO, we don't need positions (except for a possible game master or something) that are not set by the faction in power.


These should stay. We would have to discuss the number of turns allowed, but if the 10 turns per week rule has worked in the past, leave it.



Agree. However, with the switch to faction-based, many of these issues will be the responsibility of each faction to address.


Abstain should stay. It shows how important issues are to people, or if there's really no difference between the 2 choices. This helps to alleviate people who would just randomly go through polls and pick the better sounding name or something.


I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here. There should be someone assigned to decide what worker actions to pursue.


All of this should be decided by the faction in power. If they want a religious high official, they should assign/elect one. If they want an intelligence czar, they should assign/elect one.


Agree with the leaders being replaced not being allowed to take leading positions in the new regime. I'm confused with your statement about "a faction in power may only be allowed to change one civic at a time." I was under the impression that when a new faction comes into power, they are allowed to change whatever civics they want immediately, but are then locked into those civics for the rest of their reign. This way, we avoid leaving the same faction in power for too long as we discover new civics. I'm not exactly sure, but I think you might be saying the same thing as me...


I think that membership should be open to anyone (provided that they are not in another faction). Now, the faction might not give many rights to regular members, or maybe regular members elect the leaders of the faction who will run the government. That's up to the faction itself.

I think there should be a slight difference from changing one civic to all 5 civics. A regime may decide to reform itself, but only slightly so. Possibly should a one-civic change represent a real government change by another faction, but that the new faction in power may need to appoint 1-2 of the former regime into some position.

For workers, I was referring to the unfun worker tasks from Civ3, with Civ4, it is more interesting to be a governor, more to develop and so on.

Membership shouldnt necessarily be limited, but one should only be allowed to be in one faction at once, and it should not be allowed to shop factions ahead of elections.

 

[DaveShack]

- Polling standards

Not too sure I'd agree on this one, or at least not with the process.

- individual election shopping

No idea what you mean by this.

- Meaningless polls where players had no influence, ability to compete

I saw few meaningless polls. Many for which the result was never in doubt, perhaps that's what you meant?

There were several instances over history where a poll was the only way for citizens to get what they wanted, or even to have their voice heard.

- Civics (Faction-based will now bundle elections to factions and civic changes)
- Religion (a religious high official may now be an option)
- Corporation (a business leader may now be an option)
- Espionage (an intelligence Czar may now be an option)
- Apostolic Palace (Diplomatic victory possible throughout most of the game)
- Competition of ideas/Civics, not random individuals

Even more positions to fill, with the same number of people. Instead of uncontested elections, we'll have a system of an all-powerful faction which can appoint people to any positions it wants.

Also. I do think that whenever there is a faction change, the original leaders of the faction being replaced, should not be able to take leading positions in the new regime, to represent a more complete change.

There are only so many people capable and willing to take 'leading positions". Doing what you suggest may result in a change in name, but the alternate leaders will be nothing more than puppets to the old regime.

This makes sure that the same elite are not recycling itself through various positions, makes position-swopping, trading favors and votes and in general sweeps out some of the nepotism in the game.

There is no nepotism, position swapping, trading favors, or any other elitism in the demogame, and there never has been. You see the same people in office every time because they're the only people who want the official positions. Many of us so-called elite players hold off even self-nominating until the last possible minute, and get drawn into office anyway.

 

[croxis]

The philosophy behind the faction ruleset is to keep the meta rules as minimal as possible. To keep things down I recommend that there are no rules about the number of changing civics. Ramifications, if any, should emerge in game/role play.

 

[Provolution]

Obviously, there is a disagreement on what challenges we have, but please do not write in capital letters. We experience these as problems, and many find these problems not to be continued. There will be no all powerful faction either, as the same leaders cannot be reelected, meaning the new ones taking over would get all of the positions, which I think is healthy.

Individual election shopping is when a known face self nominates, or that his/her sudden nomination for a certain post change the election more than the core issues of the same election, or that last minute, two key candidates suddenly switch position during a nomination/election process. The culture we have had, has ******ed the electoral institute. I think it is high time we bring quality and impact back into the elections, and make it faction based.

(there should be independent positions too, but mainly governorships and mayorships). Also, citizens should only get as much say as the faction specific laws call for, fitting to the civic. This means, that players looking for an early democracy should probably go for a Representation Civic.

The faction should be powerful, but not all-powerful. If the faction is too dictatorial, people would try to overthrow it as soon as possible, if the faction manages to balance public support with its ambitions, it stays in longer. I trust the players judgement to get rid of a faction that is too oppressive sooner than later. We have to trust the faction elections then. Remember, as soon as a Faction is replaced by a new, all leaders will be new.

I am also certain the new leaders can run the regime on their own, as it would be a separate faction. A faction only lasts as long as it does until a new civic is put in place. I find this a better system than what I have seen and played through.

A fully fledged democracy should come with the civic representation, not despotism, so we need to readdress "citizen rights", since Faction-based should be more historical and interesting, less bland.

I think there will always be degrees of favoritism and comraderie. Best way to handle this is to put it out in the open, and make sure that all leaders are replaced for each regime change. This allows a new fresh episodic take on each regime, and each regime will do its best to prolong its reign, limited by its Civic. Most of the time it may be a two party system (old and new), but further into the game, the part of the game that most often dies out, we will have several Faction options open, which is important in Civ4 BTS.

I am certain that there are more than 5-6 capable people here, and I do not underestimate my fellow players. Most of you are bright lads, and I am certain you can hold your own in any position.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm going to focus on the meta-rules only here - what goes into a "
factional" ruleset is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Concepts to be defined AND detailed in the core ruleset
1) Mechanics of the factional election
2) Core "rights" of citizens
3) Game play summary
4) No playing ahead
5) Changing the core rules

These are the basic aspects of the game, and as such, defined in the main rules. These rules should not be redefined by the factional rules (else why have this ruleset?), and provide a base for players.

Concepts to be defined in the core ruleset, but details left to factional rules
1) Playing the save (including instructions, schedule, etc)
2) Conflict resolution (aka Judiciary)
3) Changing the factional rules

These are the concepts that should be covered in someway by every factional ruleset. By defining them in the core set, it should help draw attention to them, and remind the factional writers that they need to cover them in some way.

Everything else in the OP belongs in the factional ruleset, to be decided by that faction, not here.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Shattered]

I'm going to focus on the meta-rules only here - what goes into a "
factional" ruleset is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Concepts to be defined AND detailed in the core ruleset
1) Mechanics of the factional election
2) Core "rights" of citizens
3) Game play summary
4) No playing ahead
5) Changing the core rules

I agree with this, except for one point. This core ruleset, should be as it is, background rules. To take this and make it the forefront rules (by making a backworded constitution out of it) makes the game restricted and boring. We need a core ruleset, no doubt. But, it should not be seen as in game terms as our nations "only" constitution. Leave that up to the ruling faction.

 

[ravensfire]

I agree with this, except for one point. This core ruleset, should be as it is, background rules. To take this and make it the forefront rules (by making a backworded constitution out of it) makes the game restricted and boring. We need a core ruleset, no doubt. But, it should not be seen as in game terms as our nations "only" constitution. Leave that up to the ruling faction.

Strongly disagree.

Let's take your viewpoint, that the core rules are secondary to the factional rules. A citizen gets a enough people together, and passes a factional ruleset that redefines when their faction ends to "This faction will end when we decide to resign from power."

Not likely to happen, but it's possible and easily preventable. That list I posted was pretty small, and covers a bare handful of concepts to make the overall DG go smooth. Let's look at them in detail.

1) Mechanics of the factional election
Basically - how do faction changes work? When are they triggered? How are they done?

2) Core "rights" of citizens
This is more of a check on what can be done in a factional ruleset that might violate CFC rules. From a "classic" viewpoint, something about commenting on game discussions (freedom of speech) and forming factions/groups (freedom of assembly). It's not in the best interest to have a factional ruleset that bans opposition groups or prevents views contrary to the "party line".

3) Game play summary
This one's simple - if you play the save, post a summary of what you did so everyone knows what actions you took.

4) No playing ahead
Again - simple. Don't play ahead in the save.

5) Changing the core rules
Finally - how do you change these rules.

Most of these really won't affect the factional rules, but they should provide the base for all factional rules. We shouldn't allow factions to even consider having a game session where they provide no information, or of banning any opposition group.

EDIT: I do agree with your comment about "it should not be seen as in game terms as our nations "only" constitution.". No, in fact it shouldn't be even looked it as such. A framework, maybe, but it's definitely not the only constitution!

-- Ravensfire

 

[croxis]

Any numbers are arbitrary.

1) As of last discussion national factional elections is a monthly cycle. All valid factions who wish to run post their proposed constitutions and civics. We vote for the faction of choice. After that we then have any elections as mandated by the constitution.

2) Mostly factional, can't violate the cfc rules obviously. "Don't be stupid" is my motto!

3, 4) Simple, obvious

5) I'm thinking we get together every so often and discuss how the ruleset is going. if there are major issues we'll figure out how to solve it.

 

[Shattered]

Agreed, numbers are arbitrary. We need to focus on making the demo-game an involving and new expirience, not a math test. If the pure civvies take control, then they can do their micromanaging within the confines of the system, but no longer will stratagy be the only thing that drives the nation.

 

[Joe Harker]

5) I'm thinking we get together every so often and discuss how the ruleset is going. if there are major issues we'll figure out how to solve it.

That really is quite a good idea, every two months or so.


Edit:

not a math test.

I only saw real numbers being used once or twice, it certainly wasn't excessive.

 

[Shattered]

Ah, I see that point was kinda vague. What I mean by "math test", is that it seemed strategy and civ micromanaging was so rampant in the last game, no real roleplaying elements really caught on. Sitting there, watching the game being a CNN broadcast killed it for me. I would like to see roleplaying decisions, such as building a city near the beach, take more precedent, than building the same city 2 spaces over cause the production value is higher.

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to see roleplaying decisions, such as building a city near the beach, take more precedent, than building the same city 2 spaces over cause the production value is higher.

The best way to make this happen is to do it. This has always been the case.

We can't prevent people from discussing things in in-game terms and stay within the spirit of an open game. At most it can be discouraged by applying pressure, as long as such pressure falls within the forum rules. The best kind of pressure would be to have 2, 5, or 10 people posting in RP terms to every one posting in in-game terms.

 

[Shattered]

The best way to make this happen is to do it. This has always been the case.

We can't prevent people from discussing things in in-game terms and stay within the spirit of an open game. At most it can be discouraged by applying pressure, as long as such pressure falls within the forum rules. The best kind of pressure would be to have 2, 5, or 10 people posting in RP terms to every one posting in in-game terms.

This is a very good statement. Exactly what needs to be done. And I can see it totally happening like this.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

(from first post)
- Religion (maybe have a person for each religion that is in the civilization who can lobby to either spread it through the nation or get it to be the state religion)
- Corporation (maybe a leader who tries to get certain techs researched or great people farmed, though this might work better as a poll or faction discussion)
- Espionage (have a leader appointed by faction to deal with spies)
- Apostolic Palace/UN (either have faction leader decide what to do or appoint someone, or maybe a poll)

 

[croxis]

Any positions would be done on a per faction basis

 

[Provolution]

I think that this time, we can point out the statistics as a subforum, so "out-of-character" (OOC) civ-technic micromanaging writing will be placed there, so the numbers people do not swamp the place. Here it is the opposite, we got an exiled roleplay forum that people barely uses, as it was not considered a real part of the game, by in particular the numbers people. Forum structure should be changed now, so it could look like this:

Public Forum (Former citizens, now reflecting that this forum is for all)
Faction Forum (Former officials, this should ideally have secret subforums for factions too, as factions are formed, only 1 faction at a time per player, no exclusivity for membership to protect players, quarantine for players belonging to another faction till faction elections are over).

National Assembly - Votes (Forum for presenting votes either as polls or threads)

Numbers and statistics (Former Roleplay and games, a place where numbers people can present OOC statistics and numbers, the main Public forum should be void of as much OOC as possible, we need this switch so roleplay would not be considered second rank no more)

For citizen rights, or player rights as they should be called, these should be defined in meta-game terms, not in-nation terms. These rights should also exclude rights described in "Faction Laws". This means, a Faction decision should not be overruled by a non-faction player asking for overturning a Faction decision in a poll. The non-faction player should rather direct his/her energies into forming a new faction base, and work towards that in place of sabotaging for existing regime by continuously claiming new polls and repolls.

I also do think big sweeping decisions that even lurkers can easily follow, such as technology choice polls (technology often came from the people itself), war/peace polls (reflect public support for a war, which even despots needed), civic changes (now instituted as an integral part of elections, as they should have been for simulation purposes) and choice of state religion (to simulate that religion had its roots in the people) should always be accessible to all player throughout all faction regimes.

What would be gone, is the bordering-insane legal rights micromanagement of tactical official decisisions, which put the game to a halt as part of an instituted delay tactic. No these types would need to work on the core matter, change Faction, not interfere in every minor decision as happened in Traditional, where the rules people took real and firm control by the game.

Now, how to execute the war on a tactical level would be faction-based, so we are not getting UN-style casus belli rules etc 1000 BC. Faction-based would also handle builds, wonders, city locations and naming, trade with other nations, treaties with other nations except for war and peace, espionage, corporations, Apostolic Palace, UN, Embassies, unit builds.

We should also have governor/mayor elections to be available to independent candidates, except for core province or capital. These local elections would allow some non-faction players to assume command.

For the Judiciary, I would rather like an Attorney General or Vezeer or Supreme Justice, depending on nation, civic and era, who decides judicial matters on behalf of the Faction Regime. A more democratic faction would employ such a person to open all kinds of rights to non-faction members, whereas a more autocratic regime would have the likes of Cardinal Richeleu and Alberto Gonzales to run the show. Judiciares have always been political, and now we make this even clearer, so that the faction will be responsible for the well-being of non-faction members. The more oppressive, the sooner the people would call for a change in civic and faction. I think we should avoid underestimating these dynamics, and not underestimate other players, as I am certain we will get enough competent players to replace old leadership positions.

 

[croxis]

Somewhere buried in a past thread was an idea that individuals (can) control individual units. I intend on starting a thread on what direction we should take the role playing and how to integrate it into the various facets of this wonderful game.