But after the various proposals, we're still at the same problem. We need fresh blood. We can't have new active players if we can't enlarge our members count. We need advertisement! Like buying a giant screen on TImes Square.... 
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I agree with Joesphus on this one we should get more players because as Josephus said that we do not have enough players by restarting the game I doubt we shall gain more players because if they have not joined us by now they most likey will not join us.
and with the advertisment we could put posts on every forum saying the Eutopia is dieing
and with the advertisment we could put posts on every forum saying the Eutopia is dieing
The plots and results would be different, but the starting scenario would be the same, thus some of the inherent elements in the initial situation would still be present.The_Hawk said:
The barrier to starting would be lower, but there would still be a benefit to reading or knowing what happened in EU 2, to the extent the inherent elements had some influence. I did not find the barrier to starting EU3 that high, my early miss steps were getting used to text based RPGs. We are currently willing to throw about any one who joins directly into the GA or a deputy cabinet minister, and give them some guidance in their new post.George Santayna said:
This is a circular argument, guys (and I sadly, and I think correctly, say guys, because we have no female players). We don't have enough players because the game isn't interesting, and the game isn't interesting because we don't have enough players. How do we get more players? We try to make the game more interesting.
Since this discussion has taken this turn, here are the four major ideas we've been kicking around.
1) Restart. Already explained.
2) Eutopageddeon. Ending the game. No need to go into detail, except to say that if we lose this forum space, I doubt we're ever getting it back.
3) Narrow the focus. Eutopia started out as a political sim, and it's become a society sim. Cut it back to the essential of politics - no sports, no culture, no military, no crime, no revolution, just politics - party politics and national politics. This is how the game began.
4) Change the focus. One idea has been dubbed "Couptopia." We keep the history, but change the scenario. There's be a coup, which has just collapsed. Democracy has failed, and the PCs are trying to build alliances and allegiences to take over the country. Much more vicious and free-flowing, but more work for the mods.
Those are what we've been considering. Your comments? Your new ideas?
Since this discussion has taken this turn, here are the four major ideas we've been kicking around.
1) Restart. Already explained.
2) Eutopageddeon. Ending the game. No need to go into detail, except to say that if we lose this forum space, I doubt we're ever getting it back.
3) Narrow the focus. Eutopia started out as a political sim, and it's become a society sim. Cut it back to the essential of politics - no sports, no culture, no military, no crime, no revolution, just politics - party politics and national politics. This is how the game began.
4) Change the focus. One idea has been dubbed "Couptopia." We keep the history, but change the scenario. There's be a coup, which has just collapsed. Democracy has failed, and the PCs are trying to build alliances and allegiences to take over the country. Much more vicious and free-flowing, but more work for the mods.
Those are what we've been considering. Your comments? Your new ideas?
As a soon-to-be ex-mod, I don't want to actively influence the debate about Eutopia's future, since I feel that is no longer my place. But if I may be permitted to just add two more options to those listed by Voshkod, just for consideration:
5) Fragmentation. The UPE further fragments into a number of independent states, so the island ends up with a total of 4-6 countries. Basically, the transition scenario for E3 repeated on a grander scale. By itself, this may not appear to fix current problems - so whether option 5 could succeed would depend on the way it's done. Specifically, I think option 5 could perhaps work if it's effectively done as a clean break, i.e., people pick one of the new countries as the game location and start to design that country's institutions, game focus etc. from scratch. One of the upsides (or downsides, depending on your perspective) of option 5 would be that geography, demography, and "pre-history" are already established; none of the game history people have worked so hard to establish would be lost.
6) True restart. Not just a reset to the end of Eutopia 1 (= Regency period), but a start from scratch. New geography, new demographics, new history, new everything. Call it "Twotopia," if you will. This might perhaps rekindle some of the excitement that was so palpable in the "pioneer era" of Eutopia 1. On the downside, everything that was done in the last two and a half years would be lost.
Like I said, I'm not endorsing either of those - these are just for thinking over.
5) Fragmentation. The UPE further fragments into a number of independent states, so the island ends up with a total of 4-6 countries. Basically, the transition scenario for E3 repeated on a grander scale. By itself, this may not appear to fix current problems - so whether option 5 could succeed would depend on the way it's done. Specifically, I think option 5 could perhaps work if it's effectively done as a clean break, i.e., people pick one of the new countries as the game location and start to design that country's institutions, game focus etc. from scratch. One of the upsides (or downsides, depending on your perspective) of option 5 would be that geography, demography, and "pre-history" are already established; none of the game history people have worked so hard to establish would be lost.
6) True restart. Not just a reset to the end of Eutopia 1 (= Regency period), but a start from scratch. New geography, new demographics, new history, new everything. Call it "Twotopia," if you will.
This might perhaps rekindle some of the excitement that was so palpable in the "pioneer era" of Eutopia 1. On the downside, everything that was done in the last two and a half years would be lost.Like I said, I'm not endorsing either of those - these are just for thinking over.
Mel, your input will always be accepted and respected. Don't ever hesitate. As I've said before, you and heagarty and Blade! are the founding fathers.
Thanks, I appreciate that.Voshkod said:
Now, then, I have a short list here with some minor suggestions *unfolds a nine foot long manuscript, typed in a tiny font, and thoughtfully glances at Voshkod over the rim of his glasses* although you can probably ignore the last two.
A few problems I've noticed...
It takes a lot of work to get in/back into the game. This was pointed out to me before by someone who I tried to get to join, and I've noticed myself With all of my absenteeism over the last year, I've noticed this myself as well, to a lesser degree. Whether this justifies restarting the game completely? I don't know.
Lack of members (obviously).
The move towards Presidential domination of the government. Exacerbated by the lack of members, and pushed forward by myself against my best intentions (both in my own term and by being absent as Speaker), it's brought us away from where I believe the real heart of the game should be--its legislature. Allows players to work with each other more, and doesn't shut the losers out of the government entirely. Conflict between the legislature and the Presidency is great--but only if there's a legislature. I've always opposed this move, but perhaps moving to a Parliamentary system in whatever new system we use could be a good idea--and inter-parliamentary intrigue can be just as fun.
Lack of humor. For some reason, Eutopia just doesn't seem as funny as it used to be. Maybe we're taking ourselves too seriously, I don't know. But it's a factor. And I'm sure there are people out there who don't want to join a really serious political RPG, but might be more open to a more light-hearted one. I can't say I know how to fix it...more players always helps, more storylines (being kidnapped by the CIA in Washington was great...), etc.
So how do we fix all of this? It'd be a shame not to keep all the history, because there's been three-four years of effort invested into this. But there's a lot of baggage we need to get rid of, too.
I'd be willing to support Couptopia, if the mods are up to it--start off with an exciting bang, and see where it goes from there--but only if Talbott gets to lead the coup (all this time he's been away, he's been preparing for the revolution...) [/half tongue-in-cheek].
It takes a lot of work to get in/back into the game. This was pointed out to me before by someone who I tried to get to join, and I've noticed myself With all of my absenteeism over the last year, I've noticed this myself as well, to a lesser degree. Whether this justifies restarting the game completely? I don't know.
Lack of members (obviously).
The move towards Presidential domination of the government. Exacerbated by the lack of members, and pushed forward by myself against my best intentions (both in my own term and by being absent as Speaker), it's brought us away from where I believe the real heart of the game should be--its legislature. Allows players to work with each other more, and doesn't shut the losers out of the government entirely. Conflict between the legislature and the Presidency is great--but only if there's a legislature. I've always opposed this move, but perhaps moving to a Parliamentary system in whatever new system we use could be a good idea--and inter-parliamentary intrigue can be just as fun.
Lack of humor. For some reason, Eutopia just doesn't seem as funny as it used to be. Maybe we're taking ourselves too seriously, I don't know. But it's a factor. And I'm sure there are people out there who don't want to join a really serious political RPG, but might be more open to a more light-hearted one. I can't say I know how to fix it...more players always helps, more storylines (being kidnapped by the CIA in Washington was great...), etc.
So how do we fix all of this? It'd be a shame not to keep all the history, because there's been three-four years of effort invested into this. But there's a lot of baggage we need to get rid of, too.
I'd be willing to support Couptopia, if the mods are up to it--start off with an exciting bang, and see where it goes from there--but only if Talbott gets to lead the coup (all this time he's been away, he's been preparing for the revolution...) [/half tongue-in-cheek].
Uhhh coup...ya...then i need a new char ML would be totaly useless to any side
Restart of minor kind...well if done right it could work. Work on getting the specifics and recruitment then go in July, the server should hopefully be done with whatever they are doing and we got the new format for what part of the forum goes where so with stability here again a revival might work. I don't think a total rewrite is a good idea. Perhaps more ministries with fewer responsibilities as well as a parliment switch of sorts. If people can be both a minister and a parliment member it might work better, but as I said it might help if some people who in the past left or for new people coming in to have positions available independant of elections. No chief of intel but maybe a head of police or with more ministers some of those could be seen more as long-term and some as short term. If we force establish a tradtion that say 5/10 minsitry positions are long-term not changed at every term then it also healps create more stability as well as goals for people. A left or right-wing government would have not just goals of running the government but finding a way to safely unseat that opposite member sitting in the ministry of finance with 60% public approval ratings
I think part of the key is getting political battles term-long not just during elections or key events and having more ministries/long term positions might help as well as minor elections. Each party might have a representative that heads those up for instance and only he basicaly handles the minor elections but it would generate debate and media reports.
ML would be totaly useless to any side Restart of minor kind...well if done right it could work. Work on getting the specifics and recruitment then go in July, the server should hopefully be done with whatever they are doing and we got the new format for what part of the forum goes where so with stability here again a revival might work. I don't think a total rewrite is a good idea. Perhaps more ministries with fewer responsibilities as well as a parliment switch of sorts. If people can be both a minister and a parliment member it might work better, but as I said it might help if some people who in the past left or for new people coming in to have positions available independant of elections. No chief of intel but maybe a head of police or with more ministers some of those could be seen more as long-term and some as short term. If we force establish a tradtion that say 5/10 minsitry positions are long-term not changed at every term then it also healps create more stability as well as goals for people. A left or right-wing government would have not just goals of running the government but finding a way to safely unseat that opposite member sitting in the ministry of finance with 60% public approval ratings
I think part of the key is getting political battles term-long not just during elections or key events and having more ministries/long term positions might help as well as minor elections. Each party might have a representative that heads those up for instance and only he basicaly handles the minor elections but it would generate debate and media reports.
Tying in with some of the recent suggestions for institutional reform, how about the following reform package (again, just an idea ):
(1) Elect Ministers directly. This could spark (or intensify) some contests of personality.
(2) This would probably necessitate a change in the role of President. Basically, since Minsters would no longer depend on the President for appointment or tenure, the Presidency would be reduced to the Finance Ministry, which would just happen to "preside" at cabinet meetings. With that reduced role, it could potentially preside over the Assembly as well (i.e., fulfill the role now fulfilled by the Speaker), without becoming too powerful.
(3) Make Ministers part of the General Assembly.
(4) Increase the Assembly size so that roughly 50%-60% the Members are Ministers, and the rest are Members-at-large.
(5) Elect the Members-at-large from party lists; use them to top up the directly elected Ministry seats in a way that guarantees, as closely as possible, overall proportionality (number of overall seats won by a party equals their share of the votes cast for party lists). Example: Party A wins one Ministry, but is entitled to three out of eleven seats based on party list votes, so it gets two Members-at-large.
Essentially, the above would amount to a change towards a collegial system of government, combined with a switch to a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system.
):(1) Elect Ministers directly. This could spark (or intensify) some contests of personality.
(2) This would probably necessitate a change in the role of President. Basically, since Minsters would no longer depend on the President for appointment or tenure, the Presidency would be reduced to the Finance Ministry, which would just happen to "preside" at cabinet meetings. With that reduced role, it could potentially preside over the Assembly as well (i.e., fulfill the role now fulfilled by the Speaker), without becoming too powerful.
(3) Make Ministers part of the General Assembly.
(4) Increase the Assembly size so that roughly 50%-60% the Members are Ministers, and the rest are Members-at-large.
(5) Elect the Members-at-large from party lists; use them to top up the directly elected Ministry seats in a way that guarantees, as closely as possible, overall proportionality (number of overall seats won by a party equals their share of the votes cast for party lists). Example: Party A wins one Ministry, but is entitled to three out of eleven seats based on party list votes, so it gets two Members-at-large.
Essentially, the above would amount to a change towards a collegial system of government, combined with a switch to a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system.
Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that we're already rekindling Mel's interest?
One thing that I feel I ought to mention is mod time. As things currently stand the ModCorps tends to be fairly hard-pressed dealing with ongoing plots, tying up loose ends, and making new trouble for everyone. That's irrespective of our lethargy, real-life crises of one type or another, and occasional (sometimes lengthy) trips. One benefit of an enlarged ModCorps has been that there should always be someone minding the store, but of five or six mods (depending on how you count), our actual operating numbers are more like two.
Which is all by way of saying that any idea which involves substantially more work for the mods is probably going to be disfavored over one that shifts burdens off of us. I wanted to say all this because we had a lot of excitement and interest in the Couptopia model at ModHQ when it was first proposed, but we were unable to come up with a system which didn't involve all of us putting in a lot more time and energy, which we could not guarantee we'd be in a position to provide. Similarly, Mel's Fragmentation plan (Fragmentopia?) would probably involve a lot more foreign-affairs work for us, as suddenly we have even more states to keep track of.
Anyway, that's just something additional to think about.
One thing that I feel I ought to mention is mod time. As things currently stand the ModCorps tends to be fairly hard-pressed dealing with ongoing plots, tying up loose ends, and making new trouble for everyone. That's irrespective of our lethargy, real-life crises of one type or another, and occasional (sometimes lengthy) trips. One benefit of an enlarged ModCorps has been that there should always be someone minding the store, but of five or six mods (depending on how you count), our actual operating numbers are more like two.
Which is all by way of saying that any idea which involves substantially more work for the mods is probably going to be disfavored over one that shifts burdens off of us. I wanted to say all this because we had a lot of excitement and interest in the Couptopia model at ModHQ when it was first proposed, but we were unable to come up with a system which didn't involve all of us putting in a lot more time and energy, which we could not guarantee we'd be in a position to provide. Similarly, Mel's Fragmentation plan (Fragmentopia?) would probably involve a lot more foreign-affairs work for us, as suddenly we have even more states to keep track of.
Anyway, that's just something additional to think about.
I don't know wether this should be posted here or at the off topic thread but I have found a place were we might find some new members from a alread running political RPG. ironically enough I found this through a google search in a forum where a guy called the Weatherman Underground was asking if their we any good political RPG's as he could not get on to the paradox forum to play Eutopia
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t35989.html
This is the forum post that contains the link
But then on the other hand these guys look hard core
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t35989.html
This is the forum post that contains the link
But then on the other hand these guys look hard core
The actual title of the link is not what the RPG really is about, well not to that extent. actually no you are righ it is about strange and in another way a bit to serious.
Rankings and comments:
1) Restart at end of regency. Would favor incorporating some of Mel's ideas from the true restart, or at least having everyone in the legislature, elected ministers. Fifth choice.
2) Eutopageddeon. Ending the game. AuntMary would be in favor of this one. The main reason I joined the game, to see what Erc was up to, didn't pan out. Posting here has made my workdays longer, as the amount of work I have to do has remained high. If we do this, some scenarios for what happens should be proposed by the players, and then the mods decide which one it is. This should be done even if we pick one of the other options, to give some closure to the Eutopia 2/Eutopia 3 history. First choice. Of course, if we do this right, it can be like the store that is having a perpetual going out of business sale, as there is always someone who will want to get the last word in. (He who posts last wins!)
3) Narrow the focus. This would be fine with me. Third choice
4) Change the focus. "Couptopia." This should be written in such a way that all the existing characters are now out of the picture. Fourth choice
5) Fragmentation. The commonwealth that Loic is trying to engineer could well lead to this anyway. People should be able to play Tilapians, St. Espritans, or people from any province. History to date preserved but not terribly relevant. Second choice.
6) True restart. Have everyone in the legislature, elected ministers. I would not object to keeping the basic map, although city populations, provincial products, and road/rail lines should be changed. Sixth choice.
1) Restart at end of regency. Would favor incorporating some of Mel's ideas from the true restart, or at least having everyone in the legislature, elected ministers. Fifth choice.
2) Eutopageddeon. Ending the game. AuntMary would be in favor of this one. The main reason I joined the game, to see what Erc was up to, didn't pan out. Posting here has made my workdays longer, as the amount of work I have to do has remained high. If we do this, some scenarios for what happens should be proposed by the players, and then the mods decide which one it is. This should be done even if we pick one of the other options, to give some closure to the Eutopia 2/Eutopia 3 history. First choice. Of course, if we do this right, it can be like the store that is having a perpetual going out of business sale, as there is always someone who will want to get the last word in. (He who posts last wins!)
3) Narrow the focus. This would be fine with me. Third choice
4) Change the focus. "Couptopia." This should be written in such a way that all the existing characters are now out of the picture. Fourth choice
5) Fragmentation. The commonwealth that Loic is trying to engineer could well lead to this anyway. People should be able to play Tilapians, St. Espritans, or people from any province. History to date preserved but not terribly relevant. Second choice.
6) True restart. Have everyone in the legislature, elected ministers. I would not object to keeping the basic map, although city populations, provincial products, and road/rail lines should be changed. Sixth choice.
GOOD NEWS I have managed to get a new member Franz so please do every thing to make him stay.
Cestius111 said:
I tend to be edgy about soliciting other political RPG players for the same reason that having them come here and solicit Eutopia players to go to their game rubs me the wrong way. A person's turf is a person's turf, people get territorial, and waltzing into a political RPG and saying "hey guys, you shouldn't be playing this political RPG, you should be playing this other, more awesome political RPG!" always struck me as bad form.
That said, if individually you guys feel differently, then by all means solicit away.
Any want to join the "Change is Bad" Party?
Please drop by the new Hall of Fame thread and cast your write-in ballots in the five categories. It may be your last chance to do so.
Last edited:
No, thanks UB. In some cases (like the new European Constitution) changes are good. Actually, while I'm writing this, I'm thinking that in almost all cases changes are good. Unless (yeah here it comes) the changes are too fast or too large.
I'm going to make a 'Changes is Good'-party, ok? No, just kidding. I'm only trying to be as active as possible, which is difficult with the holidays comming.
I'm going to make a 'Changes is Good'-party, ok? No, just kidding. I'm only trying to be as active as possible, which is difficult with the holidays comming.
In fact we don't need great changes...we need new players, and that's the only problem...