Print

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

[DwarfMeister]

I was thinking about Bloodline games and realized that there was a better way to do it. I call them "AI Games" because, in a way, it would simulate an advanced Artificial Intelligence that plays Dwarf Fortress. Here's how it's done-

1.) A map is generated.
2.) An odd number of players is chosen to play (Important for later.) and are given a Player #
3.) All players get a copy of the map.
4.) All players play the map until the following Spring.
5.) All players upload the Savefile prefixed with the Player #
6.) All players write a short story about interesting things that went on with their fort.
7.) Once all Savefiles are uploaded, all the players vote for the best one (For any reason, BTW.). You cannot vote for your own Savefile!!!
8.) Repeat Steps 3-7 until all players' forts are lost.

Feel free to expand on this.

[hermes]

Just to clarify that last part, only the winning map is carried forward to the next round?

Sounds like a neat idea, I'm terrified of joining community games because I'll screw everything up, so this style of game takes some of that pressure off at least    If you start up a game I'd be in.

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)

[DwarfMeister]

Just to clarify that last part, only the winning map is carried forward to the next round?

Sounds like a neat idea, I'm terrified of joining community games because I'll screw everything up, so this style of game takes some of that pressure off at least    If you start up a game I'd be in.

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)

To answer your question- Yes. The winning map is used in the next round. The idea behind this type of game is simply the fact that people hate waiting for their turn, while simultaneously giving players a chance to make a contribution to a great Dwar Fortress story. It's a Win-Win situation. I was thinking that we can bring in outsiders as "Tie Breakers", but I really want to stick to "Player Only" voting. I guess it depends on the game.

For the record, part of the reason that I thought of this idea is because I SUCK AT PLAYING DWARF FORTRESS!!! So, I invented a new type of Bloodline game where I don't have to worry about messing the game up for everyone else. Make sense?

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".

[Leatra]

Well, I would be interested in exploring other players' fortresses and their methods.

[DwarfMeister]

Well, I would be interested in exploring other players' fortresses and their methods.

That's the idea. And you can learn from others too.

[Linthar]

I'm interested. There's been a few games like this in the past and it's always been a fun experience.

[Sean Mirrsen]

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?

[Samohan25]

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).

[Nonsequitorian]

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

[Sean Mirrsen]

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).

No, everyone starts on the same map. It's just like with the yearly turnover, all saves are submitted and get voted on, winner gets distributed to everyone. Except here everyone makes their own embark, and it's the initial autosave that's submitted for voting.

[dree12]

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).

[hermes]

No, everyone starts on the same map. It's just like with the yearly turnover, all saves are submitted and get voted on, winner gets distributed to everyone. Except here everyone makes their own embark, and it's the initial autosave that's submitted for voting.

This is a good idea, make the whole thing a kind of natural selection competition.

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

Agreed, this could be a likely scenario, but this idea is good...

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).

Having some secondary deciding factor would also give a loose direction to every game in progress.

[Deathworks]

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

[dree12]

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.

[hermes]

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?