Next DG Discussion

[arginine]

Can't we just edit the alpha.txt to take out any restrictions on the factions we want? We can mod the cost of planes, choppers and other stuff while we are at it.

Heck, we could play as two permipacted factions and everyone can share the same forum. The extremists can be in different factions, so they can implement different social/economic policies. People can switch membership between the factions, to be determined by the factions.

All truly major policy decisions will be handled by a 'body' drawn from both factions.

Would the Uni or Morgan be too easy against the AI? Given the fact that this forum leans way too far towards socialism,

Yes! Popbooming is worth going to socialism for briefly, but I want a capitalist faction with a buying and selling market for various items... The other faction can be something else, heck even the Hive would do...

Ex: Morgan and Gaian joint conference on the freshly acquired territories:

Gaian: Yes, we can plant lots of forrest in these empty fields.
Morgan: I was thinking of boreholes and condensors...
Gaian: If we...
Morgan: *rolls eyes* fine, we'll stick in tree farms and centauri preserves, but it'll be paid for by your commerce... It would be better for you to hive empath hunters to get goodies. Hmm... I could go for some roast sealurk about now.
Gaian: If it weren't for us, there wouldn't be a piece of land by now...
Morgan: Hey, look who's leeching off our scientists?!?! As I recall, MORGAN researchers developed centauri preserves.

[Hercules]

I think what has happened is that the factions have reduced to the gamers now. Yet I see faction members posting here and there elsewhere.

I envy the production of those faction newsletters and I am pleased that Sparta, Gaia and Morgan still strive to do so.

D order notices from HMG prevent Data Angels publishing accounts of current activities.

[Mead]

How About Multi-Faction OCC

We could try a multifaction One City Challenge.

This would limit our ability to exploit the AI.

OCC's can be challenging.



Mead

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
In any nation you are going to find those who agree and disagree with the poliies or founding ideals of that nation.

Yes, but as I said, the *main* discussions on policy was about economic system, something that is mute when playing a faction fighting for worldwide and rampant capitalism.

[Voltaire]

If we’re going to do a single-faction democracy game then it would be crucial to pick a faction that permit the most debate on social, political, and economic issues. I think that rather than playing a preexisting faction we ought to create a new faction using the editor with no bonuses or penalties or SE choice restrictions. This will permit the players themselves to shape the politics of the faction.

[Drogue]

I like it! Maybe even have the ability to alter the faction as we specialise somewhat? Such as, if we focus on production for a time, we get a +1 industry but a -1 planet (for the damage) and a -1 research (for neglecting science), or somesuch.

[Maniac]

I'm on Tassadars side. I think playing as a Gaian Empath or as the High Lord of the Gaian Council, as a Master of the Knights Order of St.-John, as the Air Marshall of the Spartan Federation, or as a sea merchant within the Nautilus Pirates has more roleplay potential than playing as some party member in some blank faction without any background.

With a blank faction it seems to me the only thing you can discuss or roleplay around is what is the most efficient gameplay. With a few already given basics, you could start discussing about whether pissing in the fungus is damaging for Planetary harmony, or instead fertilizing the ground around the xenoflora, to just give an example for the Gaians.

[Mead]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
please no

Why?


Mead

[Mead]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Multifaction Games = More of the same inactivity. ("MotSI")
Multfaction Games + OCC = MotSI - 90% of Players

Okay, perhaps. I know you are sensitive to inactivity. Perhaps multifaction games contribute to more inactivity.


How about a single faction OCC then. This still limits our ability to exploit the AI as much as we usually do. Also, the turns will go much faster. Things will happen much quicker. There is some potential that we could often be on the point of extinction (which should keep interest up) and the game will not be over until we are exteminated or we win (transcedence probable win)


Mead

[Archaic]

Please no. OCC's are dull, dull, DULL! The whole game turns into constructing crawler farms. Where's the fun in that?

I do think there's one important thing we have to consider for an SP DG however. Electing an official elects them for their policies. There's no point to elections if they're just going to act as the pollmasters for every little issue. They need to be able to make the decisions.

[Drogue]

True, though I think some decisions still need a referendum. Changing an SE setting is something no one person would decide in a real democracy. Personally I'd just rather remove the old rules about postingboth sides in the OP. I think you can poll for what you like, in whatever way you like,a nd can interpret it yourself. Obv. lower down decisions, all day to day stuff, would be done without polls - such as unit orders, build queues, etc.

What tech to research (or slider changes if Blind Research), SE settings and the like are too important to change without referendums, though maybe SE sliders can be, as sometimes a decision needs to be made during turnchat.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
I'm on Tassadars side. I think playing as a Gaian Empath or as the High Lord of the Gaian Council, as a Master of the Knights Order of St.-John, as the Air Marshall of the Spartan Federation, or as a sea merchant within the Nautilus Pirates has more roleplay potential than playing as some party member in some blank faction without any background.

Really? I'd have thought playing as Member of Parliament for XXXX, or Leader of the Opposition, or Chief Court Justice, etc. would have just as much roleplaying potential. It just depends what you find interesting. Personally, I'd find the Pirates pretty boring to RP, it's all talk like a Pirate, drink a lot of rum and be a mercenary. Gaian's I would, but cutting out the whole discussion on economic system - the biggest sources of RPing and argument in ACDG1 - would be foolish, IMHO. That's why I really wouldn't want to play as Gaia, Morgan or the Drones, and if you'd consider the Hive Communist, that's another reason not to choose them.

I think a blank faction, or a faction that means we can still debate about the keys issues like the economic system and what we value while not contradicting ourselves.

Originally posted by Maniac
With a blank faction it seems to me the only thing you can discuss or roleplay around is what is the most efficient gameplay. With a few already given basics, you could start discussing about whether pissing in the fungus is damaging for Planetary harmony, or instead fertilizing the ground around the xenoflora, to just give an example for the Gaians.

We're not saying be completely blank, we're saying a faction where we decide the ethos. We can debate everything, and what we accept, becomes our ethos. So we can discuss the effect of everything in an RP way, the fungus, the economics, being a captain of the military, etc. just that we have a blank state to start with. You're not limited to discussing or RPing efficient gameplay at all, as you wouldn't with any faction. Indeed, being able to discuss anything means you would be less limited than any faction where something is taken for granted in playing them.

If we're going to do an SP DG, we should poll at some point for faction choice.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
True, though I think some decisions still need a referendum. Changing an SE setting is something no one person would decide in a real democracy.

Incorrect. No one person would decide it in a parlimentary democracy. The system we use in this game is a council democracy. In that, while the leader might be able to veto decisions on occasion, depending on if the council is a group of equals, or has a designated leader, the power really does rest in only one person, the person appointed to the position responsible for those decisions.

[Drogue]

No, in a council democracy, if there is a large difference, like changing the political system they use, or altering their constitution, it would be voted on by the council, not decided by one person. The leader of the council would not allow one council member to declare a police state, for example.

[GeoModder]

Frankly, I'm in favour of every involved participant having his/her own base to manage and forward instructions to the turnplayer. And the faction leader (turnplayer) has to follow those instruction literally to the letter, according to the political system our team is in. Meaning we should decide on 3 separate sets of rules in which the power of the turnplayer is defined. I gather in Police State and Fundamentalism the turn players' freedom of act would be a lot more.