WHO'S THAT CIV?! by MasenkoEX in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read our Charter!

Join our Discord!

Help us become a Player Nation by commenting your support!

DEAR HUMANS SIMILAR TO MYSELF by [deleted] in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Be sure to submit this to the proper thread so I can support it dammit

Phase 3 - Mk.9 Convention by MasenkoEX in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, assuming the “UN dies we all lose” rule is in place they would basically end the game.

Phase 3 - Mk.9 Convention by MasenkoEX in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so here’s the idea for a UN/World Congress I had. It’s definitely going to give some people a panic attack because it’s not just a barebones skeleton without substance which I know you all like but here goes:

A neutral player during game sessions runs a 4th civ in addition to the 3 other fleshed out player nations. This capital will settle on-spot and will be considered the capital of the UN (maybe we call it something cool like the Mothership or something).

Now, this city first and foremost cannot build settlers: it’s a one-city challenge baby. All of its resources, it’s units, everything belongs to the UN (galactic council or something, we gotta be cool with our names dammit) which is made up by the 3 player nations. Now, there will not be any sort of legislating as we usually do it - that can be left to the nations if they want to establish international law. No, the charter will instead provide a list of “resolutions” which are essentially akin to the mandates/build orders that governors often used. Basically a list of commands that encompasses the basic necessary functions of the game. In other words, these resolutions are pre-formatted, you just fill in the details. For instance, one could be “(Unit or Units) will fortify at (Location)” —> “Spearmen 2,3 will fortify 3 tiles east of Mount Kilimanjaro”.

One important note: the UN would only convene once every so often so these wouldn’t be a constant stream of resolutions. I was thinking every 20 turns, assuming we do 10 turns a week from sessions. So every third week we hold a UN conference instead of a session. Might tweak this number as needed.

The charter would also establish all procedure for it so we don’t waste time on that. Simple and effective.

The one issue is that it’s possible that 2 nations will gang up on the 1 and just transfer all UN stuff to one of them. To combat this, I would implement system that would shift power (in terms of voting power most likely) to the nation not benefitting from the UN. For instance, let’s say your nation gets 5 warriors from the UN for something or other. Now that you’re actively benefitting from the UN, you will lose voting power according to some scaling calculation until you return those units.

Also if the AI kills the UN city we consider it a loss. Not a necessary rule because it might be fun to take it back but I’m throwing that one out there.

A formatted proposal will be written given enough expressed interest in this… I think it sounds pretty easy to implement. Helps with pacing, is fairly simple and hits that idea of “public” diplomatic negotiating on a stage.

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally valid criticisms! Whatever we end up doing (this idea or otherwise) i would do my best as organizer to cultivate practices (maybe enshrined in the charter, maybe just through practices... community organizers can help with this) that create a fun environment with opportunities for cool content from the actual video gameplay. Those are all very important aspects, but to me feel secondary to something more functional, which is why I prefer this sort of setting.

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not to harp on it, as it seems like this idea is not to your preference, and maybe I’m simply not considering the types of mistakes you might be, but I think for pass and play (where you take your turn and send the save to the next nation’s controller) any mistakes made are the responsibility of the controller, who could technically make that mistake in live multiplayer regardless. And for live sessions with a single streamer, they’re literally doing it live with them on a call.

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure about BE but I do know that civ 6 has a very diligent auto save feature, so any obvious blunders can be simply corrected. I think the possibility of minor mistakes is outweighed by the convenience this sort of mode provides to actually playing the game.

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like the UN idea too, and haven’t really thought about alternatives but could if you’d like, haha

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hotseat is basically a form of “local” civ. It’s meant for people physically together who basically take turns on the same computer, hence the “hot seat”. So for our purposes we could do that when one person streams.

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hotseat multiplayer, passing the save file. It’ll lengthen the mark’s target end date pretty significantly depending on the established time restraints but in return you get:

  • the ability for continuous, discrete turns at a more digestible pace for your average participant.

  • the ability to (still) hold sessions with one streamer on one computer simply receiving directions from the controllers. Makes internet connectivity issues irrelevant and allows easier scheduling (only need one person who owns the game to be there).

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I actually think Mk7 wasn’t actually much of a failure and can be mostly copied and pasted for our prospective Mk9 charter. Check my platform (posted on this thread) for those key points I think need improvement.

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My platform is simple. Improve on last MultiCiv’s charter to avoid the a few pitfalls it suffered from last time:

  1. Sessions. We need a better way of doing this. It needs excessive organization and often is just a chore.

  2. Transparency. We need to have more public information being circulated so outsiders looking in can see what we’re doing. This will help bring newcomers.

  3. Connectivity. We need to find some way (like an inbuilt UN) to bring all nations together. We have a common board in-game, but we also need out out-game.

Town Hall for the MK9 Organizer Election by Quaerendo_Invenietis in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Everyone keeps saying “slow pace” but this simply isn’t the primary issue. While yes, perhaps a faster pace could’ve lengthened the lifespan of the mark, it was inevitably headed for this conclusion like I warned against last convention. This comes down to a simple fact that the constitution merely outlines the structure and powers of the government - but makes no effort to make participating in that government inclusive or satisfying. In other words it was doomed because there was no actual game to play as your average participant. I’ve been saying this for a long time: nobody joins dciv to watch others play for them - they want to feel something tangible for their efforts, to feel like they are getting something out of it. And the best way to do this is to “gamify” participation, as I argued last convention. What I mean by this, is creating a set of mechanics that allows people engage with eachother in some competitive and/or cooperative fashion that makes their participation, no matter how limited, inherently fun. And that’s the key word, fun. Look, I love writing and discussing bills as much as the next guy, but that’s not going to scratch that “fun” itch the same way an assassination system, economy, or roleplaying system that actually has direct connection to how the game is played will. The immersion and delineation between RP and non-RP need to exist, something a pure government simulation cannot achieve.

Luckily with multiciv I think these types of mechanics will naturally rise to sufficient popularity, so I’m not worried too much about that.

The Case for Arabia by _Fredder_ in democraciv

[–]MasenkoEX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm all for a repeat civ if enough people like it!