Next DG Discussion

[Hercules]

I think this Human/AI idea is not really a goer over a period of 18 months.

There was quite good enthusiasm for this ACDG in the lead up but then we lost 5 players to the Mods. Of whom only two/three are now active.

We have 20 signed up for our faction, but many are there just to learn - fair enough and quite a number just fade away.

So lets just be mindful of the total potential active pool of players. I 'd guess around 25 at present.

Maybe the Mods could give a global view.

Also many of those vocal in the lead up to the last game, signed up but disappeared.

[arginine]

blind research would be nice. The progies can use directed research anyways .

My idea is that each of the humans has a faction that they control, but can only do limited micromanaging. and allow movement (and only movement) of all combat units every several years. I think this should be determined by rolling a dice by one of the mods. I think that when a human AI is allowed to move, it should be kept secret. If a unit has to be moved, it must either be automated, put on standby, or on hold.

I guess we could allow the human full control over probe teams and transports containing only probe teams 1/2 of the time (with dice rolling). And maybe let infiltration last for just 5 turns...

Oh yes, the humans would be required to act their faction part. There could even be a private 'planetary council' forum.

And no, the humans wouldn't be just bystanders 3 allied human factions could win through diplomatic victory (to prevent the humans from just 'teaming up'.

[arginine]

1) There will be only 2 teams (instead of the current 4) to divide among the players.
2) The humans should be mostly automated (requiring far less effort) and hopefully use just a single player.

Ideally, I would see a game of team 1 vs team 2 with the 5 people controlling the 'humans' doing a bunch of negotiating in a REQUIRED roleplay mode. In fact, I think the human AIs should go to the people that can roleplay their faction the best.

Also, if a human AI is late in taking their turn, a mod can play the turn for them, automating any units that need to be moved.

Hell, there'd be a Prog 1 forum, a Prog 2 forum and a 'planetary council' forum can be activated once all the humans meet each other.

In a real roleplay, there's no way in hell Morgan and Gaia would Pact.

I think that they could pact, Morgan would just have to switch to a 'green' economy and have low ecodamage levels.

[Snoddasmannen]

Originally posted by Hercules
I think this Human/AI idea is not really a goer over a period of 18 months.

(snip)

So lets just be mindful of the total potential active pool of players. I 'd guess around 25 at present.

How about if the limited players also act as mods? Or perhaps rather, put the mods and a few other guys in charge of the limited factions. This would even help keep the mods active. So say we lose 5 players to Hollywood duties, there'd still be 20 players left (though I cautiously consider this a slightly pessimistic estimate judging by activity in Sparta). 20 players should be enough for 2 or 3 teams.

Originally posted by arginine
My idea is that each of the humans has a faction that they control, but can only do limited micromanaging. and allow movement (and only movement) of all combat units every several years. I think this should be determined by rolling a dice by one of the mods. I think that when a human AI is allowed to move, it should be kept secret. If a unit has to be moved, it must either be automated, put on standby, or on hold.

Would these players play to win?

My concern is that this would result in a pretty stupid player anyways. They certainly wouldn't be able to play the game consistently with their role-play. "We will destroy you and your feeble legions! ... as soon as our troops get around to it.".

I think it would be better to go with fully human controlled factions, which do things consistently and more interestingly than an AI or a semi-automated player.

As for a single player controlling every faction, I'm really concerned that this would cause activity problems ... There could certainly be a single player officially in charge of every team, and who by default plays the turn. Perhaps he is given some time where no other member in the Hollywood group can play his moves. This could certainly be agreed upon within that group. But I think it is important that these teams do not take too much time.

The suggestion by Mart that any available 'limited' players play the turn as soon as it pops up, is still very good imo, with the possible reservation of allowing the official player some time before his faction is 'played'.

Ideally, I would see a game of team 1 vs team 2 with the 5 people controlling the 'humans' doing a bunch of negotiating in a REQUIRED roleplay mode.

I agree that negotiations are by far the most important part these players should play. However, backing the negotiations up with some consistent game-play is also good. Imagine all the deals you can strike with a player that you could not with an AI. Remember Mr. Moneypenny?

In fact, I think the human AIs should go to the people that can roleplay their faction the best.

Audtions, anyone?

EDIT: I misquoted, give credit where credit is due

[Mart]

The more I think of this idea of single human controling a faction so that "AI" is enhanced, I feel it should be like permanently pacted all of them, and played by the same player. This way there goes problem of all those additional diplomacy between all those single-player played factions. If there are going to be like 5 of them compared to 2 regular teams, imagine how much diplomacy would be outside of those 2 teams. Having one player doing it all, in the name of some "Union" would solve all these problems.
And the increase of game speed. It is worth it.

One player playing 5 factions? Could be tiring, but this function might go from one Mod to another if someone got very tired...

[Snoddasmannen]

Originally posted by mart7x5
The more I think of this idea of single human controling a faction so that "AI" is enhanced, I feel it should be like permanently pacted all of them, and played by the same player. This way there goes problem of all those additional diplomacy between all those single-player played factions. If there are going to be like 5 of them compared to 2 regular teams, imagine how much diplomacy would be outside of those 2 teams. Having one player doing it all, in the name of some "Union" would solve all these problems.
And the increase of game speed. It is worth it.

This is certainly not a bad option But I'm not sure I think the idea of all of them being permapacted from day 1 is such a fun thing. The way they could be used by the real teams gets limited. One of the teams might want to form an alliance with one limited faction against another for instance ...

Rather than them being pacted, there could be just trivial diplomacy between them. Remember, relations between these factions is not really concerned with making good decisions, but rather good rp. So any decisions will probably be made very quickly, or perhaps I should say as quickly as the limited players would like.

One player playing 5 factions? Could be tiring, but this function might go from one Mod to another if someone got very tired...

The risk is that this player is missing. One of the other mods should step in, but could be slow to do so. Give x number of players all equal responsibility and human nature will tend to insure this makes people more responsible.

[freshman]

If humans play all factions, 1 human controlling 5 of them, doesn't the 5 have a major advantage over the other 2? I understand the time acceleration, and the challenge factor, but just dont understand the odds... 5:2 ?

[GeoModder]

Yeah!

[arginine]

Would these players play to win?

My concern is that this would result in a pretty stupid player anyways. They certainly wouldn't be able to play the game consistently with their role-play. "We will destroy you and your feeble legions! ... as soon as our troops get around to it.".

Since when is the AI ever able to be consistent with ITS threats and boasts? A player will be an upgrade in intelligence. Instead of being an increadibly stupid faction, the faction will be just somewhat stupid and difficult for humans to easily exploit.

By using lots of automation, the human spends a little amount of time playing. If someone has to play a turn, but misses a deadline, a mod can play it and everything that needs to move will be put on 'automate unit'. Heck, a person might opt to let a mod play a turn, hitting 'automate unit' on all the units that need to move.

If the humans try to win, they have a specific role to play in the game. Hopefully, no one will spend to much time on the human factions...

I don't see why we would want to remove the intra-human diplomacy. That's part of the intrigue. If only 2 or 3 human factions can win jointly, there shouldn't be any ganging up.

It is possible to give some of the human factions some secret goals, or hidden agendas. (ie the Spartans are promised transcendence by the Usurpers in exchange for their cooperation).

Ideally, I would see a game of team 1 vs team 2 with the 5 people controlling the 'humans' doing a bunch of negotiating in a REQUIRED roleplay mode.

They wouldn't have to roleplay ALL THE TIME, but some roleplaying would certainly be required.

[Hercules]

From the discussions, I think we are moving towards a two team ACDG game.

The detail about the rest of the elements : human-AI-RP or my suggestion needs to be explored.

And before you comment, take a look back at who is still posting in the open forum and in the private forums.

[AndiD]

The number of people currently posting might well be dependent on the current team and game structure...

[Hercules]

Andid: Granted but look back at the ACDG1 & 2 forums towards the end of each game.

Towards the end of the ACDG, there were less than 10? players involved. And it was frustrating to turn up to a IRC forum to play 10 turns with just 4 or 5 players.

So let us not paint a rosy picture of the past two ACDGs.

OTOH the recreation forum in the first ACDG was a very lively place and spawned many debates, in which Archaic and Drogue featured heavily.

The absence, generally of a common forum in ACDG2, stifled debate until near the end, with the UN resolution.

It is only just recently that all human factions in this game have confirmed contact with each other, that the public forum space can be used.

However with all the diplomacy going on behind the scenes, there is less need for public debating chambers.

But we could discuss a general attitude and strategy towards Mr Yang, for instance or any of the other AI factions.

My point being, don't rush into a new ACDG without a proper analysis of the past two as well as this one.

[AndiD]

Question is - which goals do we want to achieve with ACDG4?

There are lots of possibilites between the two extremes - "finding out which team is best" (current) and just "having a good time together" (first?).

Perhaps we should conduct a survey why interest fades towards the midgame - especially because there is much more to do, compared to to the two colony pods and the lone scout at the beginning.

A spontaneous theory of mine would be that the forum structure here only allows up to five persons to effectively work together with no opinions unheard and no input lost - the same is more or less true for a chat (I have seen chat logs in one ACDG2 forum).
I could think of using Wikis instead, for example.

I am here for less a year - so this theory might be completely untrue and I haven't witnessed previous games.

[Hercules]

Let us leave the details until the general set up is decided.

For example I am in a game at MY2267 under blind research and it is a PIA at this stage. We have not discovered MMI yet. OTOh I am still alive.

[Mead]

Originally posted by AndiD

***

Perhaps we should conduct a survey why interest fades towards the midgame - especially because there is much more to do, compared to to the two colony pods and the lone scout at the beginning.

***

Even when I'm playing SP my interest in the game takes a dip towards mid game. Usually by then, I have discovered just about all of planet, found out where all the other factions were, and the outcome of the game as already decided.

Perhaps we are seeing the same thing happen in these ACDG games. Allowing collaborative victories could delay the point where the game is decided, but that point would still eventually come.

The game is exciting at the beginning, even with only 2 CP and the scout, because there is so much that is possible. After the game progresses and it becomes apparent how it's going to turn out, it gets boring. Think of how low your interest sinks when your are playing SP and you know you have the game won but are just waiting around for the oppurtunity to end it. The same thing happens in DGs. It's even worse for factions that are second, third, or fouth place (again allowing collaborative victory could help this, but won't remove it).

Mead

PS
The only time I kept interested in an SP game until the end was when I was playing a One City Challenge. I will usually play the SP games to the end but will end then as early as I can (diplo victory) because it becomes more of a chore to continue.