Next DG Discussion

[fed1943]

Yes,I agree with everything doesn't weaken the faction as a whole.
And,please,let's go on.Poll the constitution;if upon on or two points,there is not consensus,but several options,poll them too.
We must start our Holy campaing.
Best regards,

[vyeh]

I don't know if Alpha-fish is a new poster who needs to learn about the customs of this forum or someone trying to inject some humor into this thread. If it is the latter, that's fine. There needs to be some levity.

On the assumption it really is a new poster, I'll make some responses rather than ignoring it.

Originally posted by Alpha-fish
Alright everyone needs to listen.

I think only someone who has been around for some time should be saying "everyone needs to listen". For someone who claims to be new to the forum, it is a bit much. Also the title "Everyone please respond follow up"

Originally posted by Alpha-fish
So I completely understand why ACDG 4 is looking like a train wreck in the making.

You're not going to get anyone to listen to you if you're going to use unconstructive words like "train wreck". Some of us are putting a lot of thought and time into this. There is a brain storming stage where a lot of ideas are put on the table. Later, we can look at what is on the table and choose the elements that will make ACDGIV different from the previous demogames and fun.

Originally posted by Alpha-fish
Oh yes, my point is... I would like to play ACDG 4 but the information on this site is buried so deep (bout 7 fist fulls) that if a new person were to come along it would still be another language they could not understand let alone hope to sift through.

When the game starts, there will be a post similar to the topped thread for new players to ACDGIII. Take a look at that. If that is too hard to sift through, then it would be too hard to play the game. Take a look at the amount of posts in one of the team forums (Spartans, Morgans, Gaians, Data Angels).

Originally posted by Alpha-fish
A place where the hard core and new players to this site are aware and capable of finding, who, what, where, why and how to play this stinking game in the first place.

If you think this is a "stinking game", why play it?

Originally posted by Alpha-fish
No, I'm new to this site and forum...(seriously)

I have a polite suggestion. Why don't you start a new thread? This forum is currently so quiet, I don't think anyone will mind. Maybe you could ask people about what a demogame is and give your opinions about how the forum should run.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by binTravkin
1.Develop the system. Once you're satisfied, drop 50% of rules and regulations in it. Then it will be perfect. It's a bit too complicated now, and as you said yourself, we must make it 'KISS' for new people to no get confused and leave.

Agreed. I feel that the system is Maniac's Constitution. Once there is a general consensus on it, I'd be happy to propose edits on it to drop 50% of the rules in it. Part of what is happening right now is that we are exchanging visions of ACDGIV. If we can agree on the vision, then some of the rules won't be necessary as they are part of the vision and will flow from the back story and environment.

Originally posted by binTravkin
2.Point about 'parishes - dioceses' versus 'parishes - orders'.
I would strongly argue against introducing >2 vertical levels of hierarchy. Instead expand them horizontally. The difference between Order and Diocese is that Order is not a part of hierarchy, hierarchy is parish - first bishop, Order merely marks the belonging of that or other base to said party.

I think you're violating "KISS". There is a diocese-province-conclave hierarchy and there are Orders, which are political parties for the purposes of electing the members of the Curia (directors).

While a governor of a base may belong to an Order, the base itself does not. So a new governor might belong to a different Order and the base might be (indirectly) controlled by the new Order.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Order could also have to do with base priorities, e.g. Order of Sword would be very willing to build military units and related, Order of Heaven (or Happiness or People or whatever its called) would be aiming for population growth, ensuring people's satisfaction and probably triggering GA (which would be a high achievement).

This gets into the discussion of (secret) goals among the Orders and the issue of private fora. I like the idea of Orders having ideological agendas, which go into how bases are run.

Originally posted by binTravkin
In fact, we could make competition - which Order has become the strongest throughout the game (however, the fairness of their start shouldn't be going into extremes to balance, if First Bishop decides that Order Of Sword is gonna have 1st base founded after HQ, so be it, although he should look that he distributes them evenly afterwards).

I think this is implied by the idea of secret goals.

Originally posted by binTravkin
That would make factions inside faction which is quite realistic and would on a global scale disrupt the factions performance a little as to portray how nations really work (I hope noone's thinking it's the SMACX way of total control).

Realism isn't what I'm looking for.

Will it create interesting role play? Yes.

Will it make the game more interesting without creating unwanted complexity? Maybe. We'll have to look at how this fits in and keeping with the "KISS" point you raise earlier whether this can fit in.

The whole idea of having a two-tier system creates factions (individuals governors) and the politics will certainly impact the Conclave's performance, but since it is a single player game, that will be fine. (Maybe we won't have to boost the AI.)

In general, it would be helpful if everyone works off the same page. I think that page should be Maniac's Constitution, which is why I'm not reposting by draft of the game's structure and I've proposed specific changes to that Constitution.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
too....much.....text....

[Maniac]

Re secret goals given by a CMN, personally I'm indifferent about those. I intend to found the Order of the Templar (different from the SMAniaC custom faction) as soon as a constitution is more or less agreed upon, and will invent my own fluent goals within their roleplay framework.

Originally posted by vyeh
I'm proposing that official polls could be posted both by the members of the Curia (the Directors) and by a majority of the Episcopate.

We don't need the rules on how to post polls. What is important is that to be factional law, the poll must originate from a member of the Curia or from a majority of the Episcopate and a majority of the Clergy must pass it.

The thing is, when the game is a little developed and each Order or person has his own base, support of 50% of the Episcopate will more or less entail that there's also a 50% support within the Clergy as a whole. So this rule seems redundant. It just adds another layer, more complexity while the same effect would be achieved by letting any Clergyman post a poll and have it pass if it gains 50+% support.

Personally, while I feel provinces and dioceses can be more complex, I feel that the factional level should honour the KISS principle binTravkin mentions, as that's the level newbies will first come into contact with. And I assume it wouldn't encouraging to continue participating if there's a lot of red tape and restrictions right from the start.

For the similar reasons to allowing only residents of a region to vote for regional governor, I'm reluctant to allow a majority a voice in every decision. In such a case, LESS people are involved in the decision-making, since a minority could be FROZEN out permanently.

The idea I had in the back of my mind at the start was that the majority (hopefully changing coalition majorities) would rule on the factional level (a very KISS rule), and that provinces are the insurance that minority groups can also have a say.

Of course the factional level shouldn't have control over eg concrete former orders then.


Anyway, I'd like to propose we just leave the issues of Curia and Clergy/Episcopal polling undecided for now. In the beginning, before half of the Orders or people have their own base to play with, I assume bases won't be given much autonomy by the rest of the faction, and the two tier system wouldn't be really functional yet. So it shouldn't form a problem if we decide these issues while the game is already rolling for a while. Then people would already have a taste of how it works, and hopefully more people would comment on it.

Originally posted by binTravkin
In fact, we could make competition - which Order has become the strongest throughout the game (however, the fairness of their start shouldn't be going into extremes to balance, if First Bishop decides that Order Of Sword is gonna have 1st base founded after HQ, so be it, although he should look that he distributes them evenly afterwards).
That would make factions inside faction which is quite realistic and would on a global scale disrupt the factions performance a little as to portray how nations really work (I hope noone's thinking it's the SMACX way of total control).

If the proposed constitution is accepted, who controls a base wouldn't be decided by the First Bishop, but by the people who migrate to that base. So the larger Orders would have first pick. I don't think this would create an unfair headstart for the biggest Order though. As said above, even if the biggest Order has 25% of all participants, there is still 75% in the beginning that will be against giving bases much autonomy. So my prediction is that until 50% of the Orders have their own base, bases will stay mainly colony pod producing factories, and having early control of a base isn't that much of an advantage competitive-wise.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Maniac
Re secret goals given by a CMN, personally I'm indifferent about those.

Let's drop the secret goals re binTravkin's KISS principle.

Originally posted by Maniac
I intend to found the Order of the Templar (different from the SMAniaC custom faction) as soon as a constitution is more or less agreed upon, and will invent my own fluent goals within their roleplay framework.

Can I join?

Originally posted by Maniac
The thing is, when the game is a little developed and each Order or person has his own base, support of 50% of the Episcopate will more or less entail that there's also a 50% support within the Clergy as a whole. So this rule seems redundant. It just adds another layer, more complexity while the same effect would be achieved by letting any Clergyman post a poll and have it pass if it gains 50+% support.

Not necessarily. The members of the Curia are not part of the Episcopate and there may be players who reside at HQ and mainly role play. I'll be amenable to simplifying things if all factional law requires two-thirds majority. I think it gives a little more stability.

Originally posted by Maniac
Personally, while I feel provinces and dioceses can be more complex, I feel that the factional level should honour the KISS principle binTravkin mentions, as that's the level newbies will first come into contact with. And I assume it wouldn't encouraging to continue participating if there's a lot of red tape and restrictions right from the start.

Agreed. Are you amenable to a two-thirds vote to change factional law?

Originally posted by Maniac
The idea I had in the back of my mind at the start was that the majority (hopefully changing coalition majorities) would rule on the factional level (a very KISS rule), and that provinces are the insurance that minority groups can also have a say.

Of course the factional level shouldn't have control over eg concrete former orders then.

If we have a provision that factional laws must apply to the faction as a whole, then I'd be satisfied and will withdraw the two-thirds vote issue.

How about something along the lines of "Factional laws may not single out an Order, a province or a diocese." or "Factional laws must apply to the faction as a whole"?

Originally posted by Maniac
Anyway, I'd like to propose we just leave the issues of Curia and Clergy/Episcopal polling undecided for now.

I think this is something that is integral to the game and prevent a lot of in game debate if it is settled now. I've suggested several alternatives and will be reasonable. I think we agree on protecting the minority among the provinces. I'd like something that prevents a 50% + 1 majority from micromanaging all non-HQ bases. People interested in micromanaging a base should have to live there.

Originally posted by Maniac
In the beginning, before half of the Orders or people have their own base to play with, I assume bases won't be given much autonomy by the rest of the faction, and the two tier system wouldn't be really functional yet.

With respect we differ on this assumption. I want to force the Conclave to give autonomy (although the Comm works, the Curia can't force the local Clergy through their locally elected governor to build specific units or facilities). When the first base is colonized from HQ, people would have a choice: they could stay at HQ and play with HQ or they could move to the new base.

The two tier system will never work if the autonomy has to be given by the majority. We could easily have a situation where the majority decides to withhold autonomy for the entire game.

As the Constitution is currently posted, it quite clearly specifies that a base runs its own screen, units, etc. and that the people who live at a base run it. So unless you have a newer version that hasn't been posted, I don't see how the majority can withhold autonomy except through intrusive polls (which is why I want something written in).

Originally posted by Maniac
So it shouldn't form a problem if we decide these issues while the game is already rolling for a while. Then people would already have a taste of how it works, and hopefully more people would comment on it.

I think it goes to the core of the two-tier vision. My fear is that if the game is rolling and the majority are use to controlling HQ and several subsidiary bases, they'll want to continue to do so. Although it is possible that two groups comprising a majority would agree not to interfere with each others bases, I find it hard to believe they would extend the same courtesy to the group(s) in the minority, especially when the minority could potentially leverage their control of those bases to thwart the ambitions of the majority groups.

I've made several suggestions above. Isn't there one you can accept?

Originally posted by Maniac
If the proposed constitution is accepted, who controls a base wouldn't be decided by the First Bishop, but by the people who migrate to that base. So the larger Orders would have first pick.

Not necessarily. Presumably, the largest Order won a key seat or two in the Curia. If heads of Curia have to live at HQ, then they couldn't migrate. And an Order might get several unaffiliated players to support it in the local election. So we might end up with the governor being affiliated with a minority Order.

Originally posted by Maniac
I don't think this would create an unfair headstart for the biggest Order though. As said above, even if the biggest Order has 25% of all participants, there is still 75% in the beginning that will be against giving bases much autonomy.

That is precisely why I want the Constitution to guarantee the autonomy.

Originally posted by Maniac
So my prediction is that until 50% of the Orders have their own base, bases will stay mainly colony pod producing factories, and having early control of a base isn't that much of an advantage competitive-wise.

1. Please clarify. Does a base belong to the people living there (who could be unaffiliated with an Order or belong to several Orders) or to a specific Order?

I prefer the former, with an Order getting credit for a base if they can get one of their members elected governor.

2. Remember the tax that was not included in the Constitution because it was something that could be determined later? That tax is a counterweight to any early advantage.

3. I don't have problems with early advantages since it would give an incentive for players to jockey to get those advantages.

BOTTOM LINE: I need something before the game begins that says the majority can't micromanage any non-HQ base (this allows the minority to have meaningful play at the region level). I don't want to depend on a majority vote during the game giving the minority rights.

[fed1943]

Partners(and very shortly;I hope,brothers):now I understood the problem:"factional laws".
I always thought "factional laws"as something similar to what some people in our former planet called "Federal laws"and others"UE laws".They are always and necessarily adressed to the whole and just to the whole. Lets say,the Curia can apoint to all Bishops the urgent need of discovery the secrets of human brain and ask they play acordelyng,but never say to Bishop A put a citizen here or a worker there or whatever.IMHO,that's the way to have One faction and Everybody playing.
And,frankly,I would like to see the secret goals droped;to replace it(and I guess was,maybe the goal)I would sugest some score thing;some worthy deeds(like a defense,a conquest,an infiltration,science points,energy credits,and so)would count to the lets say Episcopade(never to the Curia);no idea how to keep track,but a battle'simulator must be harder.
Best regards,

[bluetemplar]

Sorry to interrupt your reflexion, but I only read the first 75 posts, and then I realised it would take too much time to read the 215 others...

From your last posts I understand that you finally decided to make a one faction DG. I propose that we (I say "we" because I would like to participate to it) also make a 7 human factions DG/PBEM in the vein of ACDG2/3 but with a limited time to play a turn which would depend on the number of active players.

It surely would be completely different from the single faction DG, but IMHO some players (like me) out there would like to test BOTH types of gameplay...

[Alpha-fish]

Works for me

[Alpha-fish]

[GeoModder]

And here's the resident's response to a starting flamewar:

[binTravkin]

I think you're violating "KISS". There is a diocese-province-conclave hierarchy and there are Orders, which are political parties for the purposes of electing the members of the Curia (directors).

I wonder where do I.

2.Point about 'parishes - dioceses' versus 'parishes - orders'.
I would strongly argue against introducing >2 vertical levels of hierarchy. Instead expand them horizontally. The difference between Order and Diocese is that Order is not a part of hierarchy, hierarchy is parish - first bishop, Order merely marks the belonging of that or other base to said party.

And diocese-province-conclave doesn't really make sense to me, as to what is province and what diocese.

As I already said 2 hierarchy levels is the least complex hierarchy and therefore should be there for ACDG.
It IS KISS.
The conclave is the boss and the parishes are (not so) loyal pawns.
They often group together according to their ideology - a pro-scholarship parish joins Order Of Candle, the pro-crusade joins Order Of Sword, however there must be possibility to be independent for that matter..
Orders are not part of hierarchy, aka not a vertical organisation, but a horizontal, aimed at achieving distinct vertical goals.
Each order has 2 types of participants - parishes and residents.
Order picks a Grandmaster out of its ranks, most likely a skilled parish.


It couldn't be simpler than that (while keeping the RP fun).

[vyeh]

Originally posted by fed1943
Lets say,the Curia can apoint to all Bishops the urgent need of discovery the secrets of human brain and ask they play acordelyng,but never say to Bishop A put a citizen here or a worker there or whatever.

Yes!!!!

Originally posted by fed1943
I would sugest some score thing;some worthy deeds(like a defense,a conquest,an infiltration,science points,energy credits,and so)would count to the lets say Episcopade(never to the Curia);

We can either decide on a way to measure success or each Order can adopt its own goals, i.e. the Order of the Sword wants to have a lot of powerful military units.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by bluetemplar
I propose that we (I say "we" because I would like to participate to it) also make a 7 human factions DG/PBEM in the vein of ACDG2/3 but with a limited time to play a turn which would depend on the number of active players.

It surely would be completely different from the single faction DG, but IMHO some players (like me) out there would like to test BOTH types of gameplay...

I'd suggest you create a new thread with a poll to find out how many players are interested in a multi-human faction game in addition to a single human game.

There was quite a bit of discussion prior to the end of ACDGIII and the interest seemed to be in favor of going back to a single player game. That's what my interest is, so I'm putting a lot of thought into designing a single player game I would find interesting.

[Mart]

I thought about SMAC demogame. For those who have no SMAX. And multiplayer, but 7 factions? A bit too many, even pbems rarely get completed in such setup.