Which ruleset do we focus on?

So its only the traditionalists who are not interested in compromise? You say traditionalists aren't contributing a compromise but then in the same thread you say the rule set won't be traditional "at all", so why should traditionalists try and compromise?

 

True, which is why I suggested a separate C3C demogame for the traditionalists, because C3C got no Civics at all.

 

With all this vendetta and junk going around that would give the traditionalists a bad name . I might have to look into the Fraction based ruleset instead of the Traditional based and voice my support for the Fraction based. I just dislike being associated with a group that has a bad rep.

However, the Single Player Civilization 3 Demogame (C3C being the latest version) has been dead for a while now, the only thing going on there is a Civ3 Multi-team and/or Multi-site Demogame. Plus I have a feeling that some traditionalists would want to play Civ4 instead of C3C.

 

Any time, Provo! It will be difficult to stoop to your low, but as the inactivity by the Mods have blessed your attacks, I shall enjoy pulling aside the curtains, and shining the light of truth on the boondoggle called the "Faction Ruleset".

You are correct, of course, people can go back and read other threads. I'm surprised you would suggest that, however, as history is not kind towards you.

-- Ravensfire

 

Ah, relax, CG, that's been going on for a long time. Provo's been on a witch hunt for years.

There's definite promise in the concept of Factions, the current proposal leave too much hidden, is missing too much and the supporters aren't addressing the issues, just attacking anyone that might be against it. That's a really bad way to create a solid ruleset that will be supported by the citizens.

-- Ravensfire

 

Shhh - if you keep pointing that out, people will realize the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!

And you know what happens when the neo-rad attack squads go after you ...



-- Ravensfire

 

Can we actually have productive conversation? Please?

 

I look forward to get up the new forum, so we can leave the traditional concept behind and look forward to structuring a proper ruleset within the Civ4 BTS habitat, and rethink the game around the new game mechanisms that necessitates a redo around civics. Some people recognize, some don't, I have written lengthy proposals on this, and there seems to be enough support for a Faction based version of the civic one. I recognize that the original proposal was not good or simple enough, but also thank Strider and others for
processing this forwards.

On another note.

I am not the one referring to Ravensfire all the time, he is referring to my nick 10 times for every time I refer to his. Obviously, I represent a threat to his Judicial universe (did we ever see him roleplay, take other positions than Judiciary positions or constitution writing positions?). I will do mine to make this conflict end, but "traditionalism" as a concept is on its way out, as much as C3C is not on my harddrive anymore.

 

Tsk, tsk, Provo - no need to hide behind your own twisted, psuedo-intellectual posting.

Odd though - you seem to be the one fascinated with the Judiciary of late. I don't quite recall bringing that up. Hmmm, I wonder why ...

-- Ravensfire

 

Please define what is "twisted, psuedo-intellectual posting", and I will look into improving my language. However, I think I will not adopt your interjections "tsk tsk" and "sssh" and so on, a little bit too reptile sounds for my taste.

 

To the topic at hand - which ruleset do we focus on.

I'd like to discuss the "Traditional" ruleset, highlight it's major points and correct some of the misconceptions that have been raised.

The Traditional ruleset is called that because the core concept has been in place for quite a while. It's never been the same as the previous game, however, as each version has been different from the previous. Both of the Civ 4 games have seen very different rulesets both from each other and from the Civ 3 games.

The basic design behind the current version of the traditional ruleset is actually the basis of the faction ruleset - place the core rules in one document, and the rules about the government in another document. The current faction proposal is following in the footsteps of the traditional format.

The traditional ruleset tries to cover all of the major concepts up front, in a size that reflects the initial size of our nation - small, but growing! As the nation grows, it allows for changes in the government, or even an entirely new style of government if the people want!

The traditional style is setup to be clear and up front about how to play the game - the basic concepts won't change and cover the core concepts behind the most important aspects of any Demogame - decision making, playing the Civ4 game and elections. It also explains how to change the rules.

Ultimately, the DG is what you make of it. We've had games succeed and fail where the rules were close to each other. The rules are there merely as a framework for YOU to play. Roleplaying does not, and cannot, come from the rules. These rules just keep the play focused and balanced.

If you've got any questions on the concepts of a Traditional ruleset, please ask.

-- Ravensfire

 

The main difference from factions to traditional is the following:

Each game plays out different from time to time, and rules get obsolete very fast. This is in particular true with civics, which was not properly incorporated in the two last Civ4 demogames as a major change in the game. This is where roleplay meets gameplay. Faction-based wants to have civics integral to government elections, not as a separate poll placed arbitrarily within a traditional month term. Whenever a regime changes, like history, the structure of the regime change as well, with loyalists of the new regime in place.

A traditional setup merely have elections per month, where everyone can run for all posts, even shop around and trade individual favors. Faction based focus more on the competition between ideas, not random individuals. Most civilizations have gone through these changes, and faction-based is more true to the core idea of civilization, the formation of a society based on the struggle between factions, not a bureaucratic procedure driven by rulemakers and verbal police.

 

Moderator Action: Like Chieftess before me, I am giving you all a general warning to stop the bickering. Some members have earned themselves personal warnings or infractions already now.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: See this ???



It's the "report button" and should be used when you need a moderator.
Assumed "inactivity by the Mods" can be cured that way. use it and you won't feel the need for a carteblanche to take matters into your own hands.

 

I am happy with "Factions" winning this poll, so we can look forward to a Civ BTS based forum with a framework actually fitting the game, not the metagame only. With Civgeneral changing to Faction, the difference is now 7-4, for Factions.

 

Thank you, I almost forgot about that report button, but I will sure make use of it from now on, and not take matters in my own hands.

 

This makes more sense to me than any other other arguement I've read so far. The old system, albeit stable, was far too dull in the political area. To have groups, rather than individuals, control national policy and the like would greatly improve the game. If a faction was promising a plan that was similar to your individual ideas, you would join that faction. Therefor, if said faction was elected, or controlled some part of the government, you would have more of a say in the game itself. I see this as a much better format than multi-choice polls with overgeneralized choices. Voting on city names and the status of abstain (ZzZ) was both boring and uninvolving. With the old system I didn't feel like I affected anything, which drove me from the game.

The faction system just rings true to the style I would like to see this game take. We would have more interested and involved players if they felt that what they said and did actually had an impact. True, it does need some work. But thats nothing that can't be fleshed out soon. Hopefully, a resolution will be reached soon, so we can start this darn thing.

 

Man I wish I saw this before my last post. That put aside, I give you all my kudos Provolution. Competition between ideas, instead of individuals, would be the greatest idea to focus on for a demogame. People would no longer need to vote for the person with the most archetypical and analytical view of the nation, which in my expirience, is all who ever ran for control. Individuals who can quote law and rules on a whim shouldn't be the only ones in control. Instead, have a group of people in control, all with the same general idea, but with their different takes on the game. You could have the ravensfire of your group control the laws and regulations of your faction. You could have the other people control what aspect they like best. The greatest thing about this is it allows groups of players, instead of individuals, be directly involved in the politics, unlike the last game, where the rule quoters dominated all. Traditionalism seems backwards to me. Every point made by the factionalists seems to make more sense than the points of the traditionalists. Hopefully this will all hash out soon.

 

Hear hear. The idea of Soren "Whatwashisname", designer of Civ4, was to remove unfun elements from Civ3. Now is the time to remove unfun elements from Civ3-based demogames, and get something in line with Civ4 BTS.

Resolution is imminent, and yes, more involvement and interest is overdue.

 

Hear hear. This was the main problem, and could also be if we go in downtrodden paths. If we allow ourselves to be subject to "expert rule" by a handful that would rather refer to Demogame 1-7 + Civ4 DG 1+2 and ruin our journey of discovery, the game would surely be more bland, technical, procedure-driven - and our scope of action would be so limited, that a single-player game would feel more liberating.

This is what this poll is all about, and can explain part of the tension, as we have fundamentally different game-philosophies colliding. Factions would have less of what we have seen so far, and more of what you point out.

As soon as the poll closes, a new forum is to be set up, for Faction based (i hope).

 

Personally I still like the "traditional" ruleset because it's nice and easy to understand, the ruleset doesn't change throughout the game, it the one i understand the most, yes i have read and understood the other proposals but i am still not sure how it will work in a group environment, at least we do know roughly how the traditional ruleset will work.

Provo, remember that if we voted for a traditional we would (i hope) come up with a entirely new set of rules to the last game (at least change the things that went wrong), so it's not so traditional as you may think, as it could be a completely new ruleset Also with the faction system, we could end voting for a traditional ruleset anyway! .

Alright it doesn't change with the civics but that is something i can live with and i if you wanted civics to have a bearing on the government structure, why not have a set setup for each government civic (ie have a king and a ruleset adpoted for monarchy and another for Representation).

I like the other proposals as well and i wouldn't mind at all if one of them was adpoted so I will play and take part in the demogame when we get this episode over and done with but i feel that i should vote for the "traditional" verison of rulesets.


And please don't call me a traditionist, because i will play no matter what we decide