Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dutchling]

I think I'll watch how this progresses. I'm not much of a community player myself (I really hate playing other people's forts) but I'd like to see how different people continue from the same save, assuming you will all post some generic screens of your forts.

[DwarfMeister]

Wait, why not switch steps 1 and 2? Every player generates his own map and embark, every player then votes on which map and embark to use... logical, no?

That could work...

[DwarfMeister]

Whilst that rules out getting a terrible embark and not being able to continue, isn't that half of the fun? It also means that all of the players start on level ground rather than each getting harder/easier maps.

I think I would be more willing to play this kind of game, especially since I may not have the time to finish a turn, in which case the map that I was working on can just be ruled out of voting.

Would tie breaks always be based on votes or would latter tie breakers be based on population/wealth (if the vote results in a draw then total wealth could be a good tiebreaker).

Either way could work, but, perhaps, at the beginning of the game, it should be decided if High Wealth would be the winner of the tie breaker (for those who want to build a powerful megafortress) or Low Wealth (for those who want to have more FUN. Thanks for pointing this out, by the way.

[DwarfMeister]

This sounds like a lot of fun. Good way to think around having to wait for turns.

And ironically, this is probably going to be the ONLY good idea that I'll ever have...

[DwarfMeister]

Voting could potentially be tricky, even with an odd number of players votes could be distributed and you can end up with ties...?  Perhaps others, apart from the players, could vote too?  (edit - could do runoffs though)

UPDATE- I was thinking about the voting system and realized that because the player can't vote for their own Savefile, there would be an even number of "votable" Savefiles, so with an odd number of players, we wouldn't need a "tie breaker".

This doesn't work as well as you hope. One scenario is that everyone votes for a different game, for example:

Code: [Select]

Alice -> Bob
Bob -> Carol
Carol -> Donald
Donald -> Emily
Emily -> Frank
Frank -> Gage
Gage -> Alice
-> = votes for
This is obviously a worst-case, as there isn't an obvious method of tiebreaking among the players. A better scenario is if at least one fort is not voted for:

Code: [Select]

Alice -> Carol
Bob -> Carol
Carol -> Donald
Donald -> Frank
Emily -> Frank
Frank -> Gage
Gage -> Alice
-> = votes for
In that case, a run-off can be done among the participants who tied for #1 in votes.

Edit: Here's a modification I feel could help keep a succession-esque format:

9. After one person has his or her version of the fort selected, he or she is no longer eligible to get his or her fort selected (but can still vote).

This method ensures that the fort has a natural progression (e.g. Bob -> Donald -> Gage -> Frank -> Alice -> Carol -> Emily) rather than an unnatural "stewardship" or "dynastical" progression (e.g. Bob -> Bob -> Bob -> Donald -> Bob -> Bob -> Carol).

I'm not sure if I'm following you, but I'll just tell you my fix (which may be the same thing)- In situations like this, everybody is forced to vote again, but you can't vote for the one you already voted for. This process repeats until a Winner is finally chosen. After all, what are the chances that this is going to happen TWICE in the same round? Also, in cases of 3-Way games, this could actually lead to some interesting twists in gameplay. For example, you could have an awesome fort with a TON of wealth, but because of the rules of this system, you could end up with the remains of the aforementioned fort after a glorious(?) battle that has seen better days. It's great for the storytelling aspect of the game. Know what I mean?

[DwarfMeister]

Hello!

This sounds like an interesting concept to which I would like to add a suggestion:
Make it open for entering and leaving and do away with the must-be-odd number of players.

My reasoning is as follows: In the end, each turn only one player influences the history of the fortress as the other maps are all removed from the contest (but maybe their players want to continue them). So, even if there were 11 participants with the first turn, in the end, 10 of these participants will have contributed nothing to the map which is used in the second turn (they will have contributed their maps and their stories to the community, of course). In the third turn, no more than two players have left a mark upon the map before it starts, and only if it is not the same player winning both bouts.

Therefore, I think this game-style is very flexible about attachment as you don't have hard territories staked out. Instead, for everyone but one the game starts anew with each turn.

And allowing players joining and leaving may encourage participation, especially by insecure players or those with unstable schedules. In addition, players can join in, and later leave to concentrate on further developing their version of the map, branching off at any time of their choosing.

Yours,
Deathworks

The structure of this game is designed to prevent something like this from happening. You see, I realized that people change on a day to day basis, which has a profound effect on the way that they play the game. Because of these slight differences in day to day cognition, everybody would have a chance to contribute. And nothing is stopping anybody from going, "Hey!!! Let's give this guy a chance!!!". Think of it like reality TV- Part of the fun is KNOWING that you may be "cast out". And if all else fails, at least you weren't playing Minecraft, right?

[DwarfMeister]

Hello!

This sounds like an interesting concept to which I would like to add a suggestion:
Make it open for entering and leaving and do away with the must-be-odd number of players.

My reasoning is as follows: In the end, each turn only one player influences the history of the fortress as the other maps are all removed from the contest (but maybe their players want to continue them). So, even if there were 11 participants with the first turn, in the end, 10 of these participants will have contributed nothing to the map which is used in the second turn (they will have contributed their maps and their stories to the community, of course). In the third turn, no more than two players have left a mark upon the map before it starts, and only if it is not the same player winning both bouts.

Therefore, I think this game-style is very flexible about attachment as you don't have hard territories staked out. Instead, for everyone but one the game starts anew with each turn.

And allowing players joining and leaving may encourage participation, especially by insecure players or those with unstable schedules. In addition, players can join in, and later leave to concentrate on further developing their version of the map, branching off at any time of their choosing.

Yours,
Deathworks

This sounds like a good idea. Additionally, I think that a player should be allowed not to submit a save. This might allow the game to die out unnaturally, but could give more flexibility to the schedule. Also, I think there should be a certain period of time in which a player cannot submit a save after the player already has. This rejects any dynasties and also makes everyone start anew.

The only issue I can see with this is when two or three, or any small amount, of saves are all excellent. It would sort of feel like a waste if the new magma cannon was preferred to a life-sized replica of the statue of liberty, in my opinion.

I see what you are saying and I have a solution- If the Player knows that they have plans, they will be required to tell the other Players. This is called an "Opt-Out Notice" and by doing so, they agree to forfeit any future votes. They are also required to upload their Savefile as well. Here's a pic-

DAYS
1------2------3------4------5------6------7
|        |                 |                |
Start   Vote 1         Opt-Out       Vote 3
                           & Vote 2

Basically, the Player "Opts-Out" during the Voting phase. That way, the other Players get the "Opted-Out" Player's most recent Save. The Player's Savefile is given to the Player with the LEAST votes (to increase the chances of Winning in the future) and that Player is responsible for submitting the future Savefiles from the "Opted-Out" Player's Savefile and their own. Unlike the Player's own Savefile, the Player is ALLOWED to vote for the "opted-out" file that they now own. That way, the game can progress as normal. And in cases where more than one Player would end up with the Opt-Out Savefile, they shall ALL be responsible for it. To be honest though, I don't really like it when people quit halfway through a game. 

Or... The game "restarts" using the "Opted-Out" Savefile. How? Each remaining Player gets a copy of the Savefile and Abandons the Fortress. Then, they re-embark and reclaim the fortress that they abandoned. Because it's uncertain what is going to happen to the "Opted-Out" Savefiles Fortress during the long period of time that the Fortress was Abandoned (25 years, if I remember correctly...), it would make for an interesting narrative.

[DwarfMeister]

Edit: Here's a modification I feel could help keep a succession-esque format:

9. After one person has his or her version of the fort selected, he or she is no longer eligible to get his or her fort selected (but can still vote).

This method ensures that the fort has a natural progression (e.g. Bob -> Donald -> Gage -> Frank -> Alice -> Carol -> Emily) rather than an unnatural "stewardship" or "dynastical" progression (e.g. Bob -> Bob -> Bob -> Donald -> Bob -> Bob -> Carol).

I considered this too, but then wouldn't players drop out if they had no chance of winning the vote?  Why stick around for 10 turns of (edit - *guaranteed*) deleted years?  Even if I sucked and one guy kept winning, the challenge to be number one would (probably!) keep me motivated.

And allowing players joining and leaving may encourage participation, especially by insecure players or those with unstable schedules. In addition, players can join in, and later leave to concentrate on further developing their version of the map, branching off at any time of their choosing.

This seems reasonable to me.  The whole thing could just run on a clock then and whoever wants to submit a story for that year can do so, no waiting for people to finish, provided someone finishes.  What does DwarfMeister say?

Okay, NEW RULE- If you don't submit your Savefile within a predetermined (at the start of the competition) amount of time, you are DISQUALIFIED. After all, we DO need to keep the game going. And YES- If you hate being disqualified and you have a busy schedule, you probably shouldn't waste your time with this.  

[Leatra]

Just let outsiders vote.

[DwarfMeister]

Just let outsiders vote.

If we let outsiders vote, it could possibly lead to most of the games resembling the others, which is what I was trying to avoid. Think of it like a Fortune 500 company versus a startup in somebody's garage. The billion dollar company has shareholders, but they also need to spend millions of dollars every year to convince consumers that their product is worth buying. In contrast, the startup company utilizes the strengths of its "employees" better because the company doesn't have novelties like "Public Relations", which allows for more ingenuity from within the company walls. Also, the Fortune 500 company has less freedom because corporations are owned by the shareholders. I would rather the players of this game make their own decisions, instead of bending to the will of the public. Let's just stick with what we have and if problems arise, we'll take note of them and improve the system. All in all, I don't want to be talking about this so much that we never actually get around to doing it. Do you understand what I am telling you?

[slothen]

Not very fun for the other players if only the arbitrary 'winner' gets to see the progress on the fort persist.  It makes a lot of extra work for all the players, and takes the fun out of "well, this is what happened with the fort during your predecessor's turn.  Deal with it."  And whatever you do to your fort?  won't matter, chances are it won't be picked anyway.  Lastly, who wants to dig through 7 saves just to make a vote?  Finally, if its just the players voting, the winner is probably won't win with more than 1/2 votes over the next person.

[hermes]

Not very fun for the other players if only the arbitrary 'winner' gets to see the progress on the fort persist.  It makes a lot of extra work for all the players, and takes the fun out of "well, this is what happened with the fort during your predecessor's turn.  Deal with it."

Well, after the first year people will be playing with essentially the same stock of Dwarves, which will provide some continuity.  And.....

And whatever you do to your fort?  won't matter, chances are it won't be picked anyway.  Lastly, who wants to dig through 7 saves just to make a vote?  Finally, if its just the players voting, the winner is probably won't win with more than 1/2 votes over the next person.

As was mentioned, by keeping it within the players it seems reasonable that they could collude to give each other a turn sometime.  Also, chances are that as the fort progresses each player will be dealing with pretty much the same problems at the same time... and there will be write-ups, right?  So it won't be digging through saves, but reading reports on how other players dealt with similar challenges, which could be entertaining and educational at the same time.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Indeed, here you will have essentially a group of succession fort players competing for being the best succession fort player. Everyone who participates would post their write-ups for the year, and would then be able to vote on any of the other write-ups for that year. The winning save wouldn't necessarily be the most efficient or the richest, etc, the quality of the write-up itself would be a factor as well. The game's inherent randomness would mean that events would be slightly different for everyone, and it'd be the participants' job to make their fort's story be as interesting as possible. In the end, we'd have a compilation of yearly updates by (hopefully) different people, making this sort of a genetically sorted succession game, every generation branching into different directions and all but the one best path trimmed every year.

[Cobbler89]

Wasn't there already a project to have the same map passed out to a bunch of different players who all took videos of their playthroughs and put them on YouTube so people could compare playstyles on the same map (so, same circumstances, different responses)?

[hermes]

Wasn't there already a project to have the same map passed out to a bunch of different players who all took videos of their playthroughs and put them on YouTube so people could compare playstyles on the same map (so, same circumstances, different responses)?

Yes... think I remember that, couldn't find it but there was something very similar here.  Seems to have used a mod and been quite open in terms of participation.