Tower of Babel (on topic only PLEASE)

[MrWhereItsAt]

Please no more debate about matters of the currently running game. I'd like to see us thrash out the Tower of Babel idea here.

So what is wrong with one less AI? After all people seemed to want a game relatively FREE of AI factions, and now my feeling is that AIs are WANTED?! Can someone please explain this contradiction?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought no-one wanted a single faction game because playing against AIs is dull and not challenging enough. So what's the difference in having one fewer AI in the game then? This is going to promote RP and factional interactions, which is what I thought everyone wanted. Can you make up your minds here please, as it's very frustrating trying to come to grips with a game that was not what I was hoping for, then just as I think I understand what would be accepted and might acutally be interesting to particiapte in many of those vocal proponents of just such interactions appear to want to reverse their opinion. And is a single base really considered to take up that much space (we haven't got anywhere near using all the space in the current game)?

Would it really pain everyone so much to have this little bit of extra fun in the game?

Until in-game contact this faction could be a way of allowing us to chat amongst ourselves in the public forum, and this would be a self-policing way of doing so without the risk of factions communicating between each other pre-contact. After contact competitions could be held, even if not for ECs, for factional representatives to outdo each other, kind of as a host for debating competitions, caption that picture, writing poems or stories, and we either all vote without faction bias for the best one or it provides, in the leaders of Babel, some impartial judges for such competitions... all of this sounds to me like it would help along everything that most seem to want in the next game. And how is that a bad thing?

Please, if you have an unspoken objection to any of the ideas in this being put into practice, post it here so we can find a way around it. And if you have no objection, why should you oppose it? If it is pointless to you, does that necessarily mean we mustn't try it?

[Googlie]

I haven't heard or read anyone objecting to the principle of a "meeting place" (eschewing the use of the word 'forum' 'cos of its double connotations) as suggested by the "Tower of Babel" proponents as a fertile ground for active game roleplaying.

But why does it have to be an in-game physical site and faction? Can't the same objectives be met essentially with the general forums rec commons - just renamed (or given its own forum with many threads for those wanting to role play in greater depth?)

Objections to it's taking a faction's place are:

If it's not a real faction - and trust me, a Darsnan tweaked faction won't just be decoration - then it's just clutter.

Useless pactmate or treaty partner for Morgan, with just one base.

Not worth Sparta's time to conquer - or Gaian's (unlike, say, a tweaked AI faction that might deliver ten or twenty bases into the hands of a victorious momentum player)

Just an pushover faction for the Angels to infiltrate and get their techshare up and running.

And as a single base faction, will have crappy labpoints, so will skew the tech research rate for the other factions (it would actually be preferable to have just six factions than 6 plus a 1-base faction)

Unless it was compelled to always abstain, it would just be a spoiler in Council decisions, as it would have no in-game imperitives at work, just roleplay preferences and biases

Nothing I've seen about this "ToB" faction can't be done just in the forums - in other words, it doesn't need a faction to be created for all the suggestions to bear fruit.

And I do think it's worthwhile finding a home for the handful of players (and others who'll pop in from time to time) so that they can participate and roleplay. So call it the 8th faction - a Virtual Faction - inhabiting the fungal net, without bricks and mortars, and aren't the same objectives met that way?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Depressingly, a lot of those points are very valid. I am not sure whether to thank you for providing some concrete objections or whether to curse you for it.

[Octavian X]

Googlie has an interesting idea. That was the inspiration behind that Tower of Babel to begin with, I guess - a place to sponser some roleplay, and the building of a better community. The ToB could still sponser contests, PBEMs, and whatnot.

Of course, that lessens the novelty of the idea. So what if the one-base faction base makes the game more difficult? Par for the course, I say. Liven it up, and make it more challenging.

[Skanky Burns]

It makes the game more difficult for all factions, so its fair.

[Kody]

Just for my current opinion.

I'm currently against making it a ingame faction now. Why?

Because I hadn't thought of some of the problems outlined. Also there is the additional problem nobody has mentioned yet. If the faction goes ahead and becomes ingame there will be problems with it meeting some of its original goals. If people dislike the fact it got made ingame then they will be biased against participating and also neturality will be more difficult.





In my mind the real problem with implementing the idea now is people. It would require some dedication on part of the members as unlike an ingame faction, which would keep running and hiberate during the slow times, a non-game faction will probably die for good if the activity in it stops.

To explain a faction completely based on roleplay requires minimum of 2 people at all times participating (if not more). If activity dies, it's difficult to restart roleplay as getting critical mass requires trying to pull in other people to something that's essentially dead.

Also unlike the previous setup I originally proposed, there will be far less incentive for players in other factions to get involved. This means jump starting the faction from a period of inactivity will mean relying mostly on the players inside the faction.

These things combined means that Babel will require a larger base of players. Essentially it would need almost as many players as a full faction to keep it running. It can't rely on feeding off the activity from other factions anymore.

Ofcourse this means the issue of having players spread out among 5 teams is very valid now.

To work with the original model of having most players with dual membership there needs to be a solution that would attract players from other factions to participate. This solution would need to be able to stand up against moderate inactivity and extend beyond the inital 2-3 weeks of novelty (novelty always dies off).

EDIT:
If anyone doesn't believe me about the whole issue of activity and how novelty dies off. Just go to the police state forum and try restarting it.

[Jamski]

This won't work.

It is a dumb idea.

Sorry to be so blunt, and sorry not to come up with eloquent arguments, but this detracts from the game, not adding anything except a faction that will be destroyed as soon as the AI see it, or the Spartans even...

-Jam

[Kody]

Skimski,

First read 2nd line of my previous post again, and yes I don't think it will work either. That's what basically what I wrote in my previous post only with eloquent arguments.

As for the dumb idea thing.... well this is how I brainstorm. Back when I was active in the Hive I usually went through 3 or 4 dumb ideas (if not more) for each good or only acceptable idea while bouncing them off Rokossovky, Voltaire, Honghu, Vev and some other people that seemed to understand what I was doing. Go to drone embassy and you'll see me periodically bouncing dumb strategy ideas off Buster.

It's not that it's good to make up dumb ideas, it's that considering dumb ideas sometimes leads to good ones.

[Kody]

I haven't heard or read anyone objecting to the principle of a "meeting place" (eschewing the use of the word 'forum' 'cos of its double connotations) as suggested by the "Tower of Babel" proponents as a fertile ground for active game roleplaying.

I object to the principle, because I don't see it working. Remember how Vev and I attempted to get the debating off the ground and instead had it fail. The Police State Game is another example of pure roleplaying failing to go somewhere.

Oh and while talking of dumb ideas (since Jamski insists I call them that are the start even though it could possibly turn out to be a decent idea). I was thinking of another one.

Instead of in game ECs. How about a prestige system, where people get prestige for winning debates and competitions?

The real problem is making prestige points be worth something. I can't figure out what people would want to exchange prestige for. Possibly target people's egos and they trade prestige for detailed character summaries or stories written about their roleplay character. Although, finding someone willing to knowingly massage other people's ego.......

You would probably want to keep the whole team thing while awarding prestige as competing in competitions/debates with your team helps activity in general and makes it more fun.

[Snowflake]

Googlie has a very solid analysis for this idea. I agree 100% that this RP faction should be a 8th faction. I do think it still can work even if it is not an in game faction. What we need to know is what should we expect from it.

Here's my brainstorming:

1. It could be the home of our historian. The ToB would be responsible for recording and periodically publishing game events. It should not be a one person job, since any one could have a period of busy time who is less available for the game. But if ToB take up this job, then they can keep a record and periodically assign different players to the task. (Here again I'm at the verge of giving them a private forum. For example, in the early stage of the game, nobody knows what everybody else is doing. Now how could the historians records what's been going on without letting everybody else see?)

2. It should be the sponsors of various activities. This does not require continueing presence of the members. Whenever some members has more time to participte, the ToB could hold some competitions, debates, challenges, or classes. The major point is that this faction would provide the resources such as judges and instructors and it could issue bages or trophies which one can show off but do not have any real in game applications.

3. It could be a place where people can ask helps and solutions to in game questions. This again may or may not require the ToB to has its own forum.

All in all, I see the potential of ToB in its accumulation of intelligence, not in any authorities that it might possess.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by HongHu
1. It could be the home of our historian. The ToB would be responsible for recording and periodically publishing game events. It should not be a one person job, since any one could have a period of busy time who is less available for the game. But if ToB take up this job, then they can keep a record and periodically assign different players to the task. (Here again I'm at the verge of giving them a private forum. For example, in the early stage of the game, nobody knows what everybody else is doing. Now how could the historians records what's been going on without letting everybody else see?)

So you would give the people of the Tower access to all private fora?

2. It should be the sponsors of various activities. This does not require continueing presence of the members. Whenever some members has more time to participte, the ToB could hold some competitions, debates, challenges, or classes. The major point is that this faction would provide the resources such as judges and instructors and it could issue bages or trophies which one can show off but do not have any real in game applications.

3. It could be a place where people can ask helps and solutions to in game questions. This again may or may not require the ToB to has its own forum.

How do you mean, in-game questions? I hope you don't mean that the people of the Tower, who if point 1 is accepted will have access to the private fora and thus know all the plans of all factions, should give strategic advise to some factions on what to do? Let each faction do their own strategy development, I'd say!

[Snowflake]

Hmmm that's true. The third point does seem to contradict the first point a little. In fact the historian idea may be entirely contradictory to the idea of a temporary place for people who hasn't make up their minds regarding which team to join. I guess they don't really have to have access to other teams' private forums. The teams can instead provide them with info of important events for them to record it?

In game questions I'm not very sure either. I was thinking like somebody could PM the ToB asking for example, say, "we would like to have a design of energy park of 4 by 6." Then the leader present it for discussion without revealing which faction is planning to build the energy park ... I suppose we could always ask such questions in the help forum, but other teams may get some idea about what this team is doing by the questions. Just a thought.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The idea of recording the games history is very apealing to me. I have engoyed hearing about the desisions within other factions that lead up to the current war. If anything though I think a turn by turn comparison of what everyone was thinking at the time would be even better. Much like reading Kennedy and Kruschofs diaries durring the cuban Missle Criss.

Its obvously something that cant be made public untill the game ends (or perhaps some kind of turn bases system ware the stuff is "declasified" after so many turns").

To further this effort I think I will keep a personal diary of events transpiring in the next Democracy game, it would cover mostly long term thinking, diplomacy, exploration, tecnology progress, major in game events and most importantly the internal politics of the faction. It would try to avoid the nity grity stuff like "base such and such built a crawler".

This diary could then be turned over to some kind of game wide historian who then combines it with similar material from other factions and writes an overall turn summary and comentary such as "So and so of Faction A has begun to suspect that Faction B is doing such and such but infact they already have and Faction A is screwed unless...".

This would ofcorse be a lot of work and would require someone to have full access much like a God but to not partisipate in the games politics at all. I wonder if their is anyone interested in doing this?

[Snowflake]

This could be a quite cumbersome job too. Especially when the historian cannot public his work until the end of the game.

The Hive had tried to keep its history recorded but had not been able to keep the effort to the end.

[Nubclear]

I support this idea because its different. This game needs a little....abnormality in it.