Favorite type of NES?

[Abaddon]

Didn't his space NES have 13 players? jalNES, for instance, started out with less than that and ended up with only slightly more. And there seems to be a decent amount of interest in his Modern Warfare, given the number of pages it has generated. I think I talked to him about this before. What do you mean he "never got the players"? He seemed to be doing fine to me.

More like 3 for the majority of the nes.

 

[Symphony D.]

There are all reasons for such a mentality, but it is not all that widespread at all - otherwise we wouldn't keep getting those NESes.

... from the inexperienced moderators who do not "know better." This argument is somewhat circular, but it's that way for a reason in that it's a positively reinforcing negative feedback loop.

Yes, but I think that it is possible to learn from those mistakes. Basically, a lot of the nonsense seen in those examples could have been nipped in the bud.

Right, but that requires a skillful moderator who is aware of such things, and as per above, it's mostly the new people who do it, more or less negating that (short of the exception below)

all we could do is wait and wait for someone both new and talented enough to make it work to arrive.

That's not a solution, it's the lack of one. The number of incidences of new and radically capable moderators appearing out of the blue and landing a smash hit on their first or second try in a unique field can be counted on less than one hand (I can personally only think of Iggy and Goober), so it's statistically unlikely. Furthermore, "wait for the Messiah" is generally a pretty freaking awful strategy despite what works of fiction would have you believe.

I know people are lazy and all, but really, non-action shouldn't be said to be action, unless you're advocating Wu Wei, or something.

as I'm sure we all have better things to do with other settings and projects,

A matter of pure conjecture.

Carmens trying right now, why not lend a hand there? I dont see anyone even trying, and i honestly think Carmen is a good mod, he jus never got the players..

I'm going to be frank here and lay out my position on this as best I can.

Moderating a serious modern or future game takes an enormous working body of knowledge in everything from history, to technology (civilian and military), to realpolitik, to economics, to geology and cosmology. The time intervals of a modern game are inherently short and detail is inherently high, and therefore accuracy becomes a premium item. Accuracy requires knowledge. You either have that, or you need to be willing to go out and find it. It's not something you can help somebody with or teach them, it's a full-time position. You can't just hire on a technical adviser (and there are a limited number of people doing that already, and if they're that interested, they'd probably rather play), you have to be the technical adviser. You have to have an almost pathological bent for learning as much as you can to fill in all the relevant gaps and scenarios that will come up over a modern game.

carmen is a fine mod. I'm very impressed by his tenacity in continuing to moderate his game when his player count dropped so low. Most moderators would have quit in despair long before he ended his game. He held conviction in sticking by his decisions too, even if they might not always be the most correct, and he was willing to dole out harsh decisions on actions taken by players. He has the makings of a pretty good mod if he significantly refines his research skills, and makes a stand on doing "simulator" or "arcade."

But he's not there yet. And as I said, these skills cannot be taught. They can't be augmented by others. You have to want to do it yourself. Short of a miracle prodigy, moderators capable of doing that are the products of blood, sweat, and tears, either through direct experience or massive preparation and self-discipline.

I don't think carmen is attacking the right genre, to be honest, or is not doing so yet. I say that possessing full respect for the skills he has already displayed which many other moderators have not shown, and do not mean it as disrespect; I simply think it to be the case, and don't think external effort on the part of others would accomplish much. The greatest development is always from inside.

 

[das]

That's not a solution, it's the lack of one. The number of incidences of new and radically capable moderators appearing out of the blue and landing a smash hit on their first or second try in a unique field can be counted on less than one hand (I can personally only think of Iggy and Goober), so it's statistically unlikely. Furthermore, "wait for the Messiah" is generally a pretty freaking awful strategy despite what works of fiction would have you believe.

Duh. No, wait, I mean duh. I am not saying that this is a solution, I am saying that this is the only thing we could hope for if we don't do it ourselves. But, as said, we're all busy with our own projects, to the best of my knowledge, which is why I am not telling you to go and do it yourself, given that that's a pretty obvious solution (as you just said, this requires knowledge, and on this subject you are probably more knowledgeable than anyone else on this sub-forum).

 

[Abaddon]

Well we know SD would not lowering himself to such things

 

[Symphony D.]

Well we know SD would not lowering himself to such things

You can call it elitism all you want. The fact is certain people aren't capable of doing certain things, or require experience or innate ability to do them. I'm just presenting what I think is a realistic take on the matter. Thinking that if someone tries really hard at something that they can pull it off is great propaganda on the part of Western philosophy, but it's also a pipe dream. If calling it like I see it makes me an elitist, then I suppose I'm guilty as charged.

Anyway, there is only one man on this forum other than myself who knows more or less fully what I am and I am not doing, and only one other beyond him who knows most of what I'm doing (though there are a fair number who know bits and pieces). You really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

[Abaddon]

Fine, my year here has seen various snippets that you modding a game here is unlikely.

 

[LittleBoots]

In my humble opinion, Symphony is at very least preparing the way for someone to make a good modern NES, given his work with an accurate modern map, as well as the occasional ruleset posting, typically dealing with modern warfare. But that is purely rampant speculation, provided only to show that there are in fact signs that Symph could be planning on launching something.

/shrug

 

[North King]

As for all non-Earth maps, I am somewhat leery of their geographical work (despite the long hours the mod may put into them)

You wound me. And I thought we were friends.

I don't think Birdjaguar or North King will ever bother,

I've thought about it numerous times, actually. Unfortunately, I've been chasing after the idea of an NES going from the ancient age to space ages, though, and however unrealistic the dream is, I try again and again. This is probably why I've launched so many spectacular failures.

I'm going to be frank here and lay out my position on this as best I can.

Moderating a serious modern or future game takes an enormous working body of knowledge in everything from history, to technology (civilian and military), to realpolitik, to economics, to geology and cosmology. The time intervals of a modern game are inherently short and detail is inherently high, and therefore accuracy becomes a premium item. Accuracy requires knowledge. You either have that, or you need to be willing to go out and find it. It's not something you can help somebody with or teach them, it's a full-time position. You can't just hire on a technical adviser (and there are a limited number of people doing that already, and if they're that interested, they'd probably rather play), you have to be the technical adviser. You have to have an almost pathological bent for learning as much as you can to fill in all the relevant gaps and scenarios that will come up over a modern game.

Personally, I do have quite a desire for knowledge, but I've never been quite sure where to look for it. Wikipedia is inherently limited, and sometimes nigh on unreadable even when fully accurate.

I tend to agree with your statement, in any case.

 

[das]

I've thought about it numerous times, actually. Unfortunately, I've been chasing after the idea of an NES going from the ancient age to space ages, though, and however unrealistic the dream is, I try again and again. This is probably why I've launched so many spectacular failures.

Figured that might be it.

 

[North King]

Figured that might be it.

I'm actually thinking I might not do that, however. Things are really up in the air. I've been considering sci-fi (though distinctly different from most types I've seen tried... more on that later), alternate history (probably involving a Muslim Spain and possibly Italy lasting into the Enlightenment or so), the easy way out of an Earth fresh start, or the cradle fresh start. For the last one, I've been working on what may well be the best map I've designed for NESing, period -- so I'm very leery of committing somewhere else when I have that being made.

In any case, I'm definitely looking into more realistic rulesets.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I actually have thought about a modern (post 1900) game. As i see it the foremost problem is choosing an army scale. That choice determines the level of detail required. Secondly, as has been said before, the breadth of things to be included is huge and complicated. managing all that would be difficult. The last big piece is player count. 10 plyers and 40 NPCs would be a total drag.

At first pass I see a couple of things I think are required to make it work:

1. Army sized ground troop formations; task force sized navies and air wings for planes.
2. Players managing coalitions of nations that have historical ties, so 15 or so players could control all 50 counties.

Would such a game be fun? I don't know, but if I were to do one that is where I would start my thinking.

 

[Symphony D.]

I express intense dislike of both ideas.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I express intense dislike of both ideas.

I figured you would, but my goal is to try and fnd a way to actually make the game work given the realities of this forum and its players.


As much fun as playing "Europa" (and its "children") was, it was also a royal pain in the butt to slug through and few games got past 4 turns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(wargame)

 

[Symphony D.]

Thing is they don't.

The mega-unit idea is infeasible. Working out purchasing whole Armies or Carrier Groups or what have you is disastrous and totally inflexible; it only works for the major nations. It's also virtually impossible to factor in training or equipment to any appreciable degree without ridiculously simplifying things. Furthermore, if it's the smallest unit you can buy, it's the smallest unit you can deploy. Suddenly a simple conflict like Kosovo has more firepower being thrown into it than WWII. And it's wholly impossible to scale to changing conditions; just because large countries had armies of 200+ Divisions in WWII doesn't mean anything today when they tend to have far less than 50. You may as well just go with a non-descript pre-current DNES2 system where a military is "Strong" or what have you, because a mega-unit structure will be so vague and dumbed-down in capabilities that it may as well not exist. You could just have players assign fractions of their military out.

The coalition idea is also infeasible. Players are irresponsible enough with a single country. Why hand them half a dozen? So they can coordinate all the separate economies to a single end and do even more ridiculously unrealistic things? How will these coalitions operate anyway? Who gets to be the center of one? Will America totally dominate NATO, for example? If not, how will control be broken up? What's to stop any pre-existing alliance between coalitions from shattering into a multipolar situation around each player? Who's to say what country goes to who? Are Canada and Australia under the American aegis, or British? Why? Strong cases can be made either way depending on the time period. Do nations shift between coalitions? Who determines that if they do? Players would NEVER agree to it.

Both ideas don't reduce existing problems, that exacerbate them.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thing is they don't.

The mega-unit idea is infeasible. Working out purchasing whole Armies or Carrier Groups or what have you is disastrous and totally inflexible; it only works for the major nations. It's also virtually impossible to factor in training or equipment to any appreciable degree without ridiculously simplifying things. Furthermore, if it's the smallest unit you can buy, it's the smallest unit you can deploy. Suddenly a simple conflict like Kosovo has more firepower being thrown into it than WWII. And it's wholly impossible to scale to changing conditions; just because large countries had armies of 200+ Divisions in WWII doesn't mean anything today when they tend to have far less than 50. You may as well just go with a non-descript pre-current DNES2 system where a military is "Strong" or what have you, because a mega-unit structure will be so vague and dumbed-down in capabilities that it may as well not exist. You could just have players assign fractions of their military out.

The coalition idea is also infeasible. Players are irresponsible enough with a single country. Why hand them half a dozen? So they can coordinate all the separate economies to a single end and do even more ridiculously unrealistic things? How will these coalitions operate anyway? Who gets to be the center of one? Will America totally dominate NATO, for example? If not, how will control be broken up? What's to stop any pre-existing alliance between coalitions from shattering into a multipolar situation around each player? Who's to say what country goes to who? Are Canada and Australia under the American aegis, or British? Why? Strong cases can be made either way depending on the time period. Do nations shift between coalitions? Who determines that if they do? Players would NEVER agree to it.

Both ideas don't reduce existing problems, that exacerbate them.

What you say is completely true from the prespective you hae on both what you want the game to be and how you think it should be implemented. All the problems you reaise can be mitigated or simply turned into great very cool aspects of play. You are asking questions about details that have not been created yet. Just because you can't see answers doesn't mean they don't exist. Every design has to start somewhere. The starting point I posted is one designed to overcome the problems inherent to this forum.

So let me ask you, how you would solve the player number issue for a modern NES that has 50 nations?

I have no doubt that I can find a way to effectively have a single person manage several nations in a way that is interesting to play.

 

[Symphony D.]

So let me ask you, how you would solve the player number issue for a modern NES that has 50 nations?

Imagine you have a car with a broken engine. Do you find out better ways to push your car to work, or do you find a way to fix the engine?

Your solution to the problem of too much data and too few players strikes me as the former. I have no doubt you can find some very intriguing ways to move a car when it's not under its own power, but no matter how clever they might be, I don't find them an efficient use of time or effort, particularly when they're just fixing symptoms rather than the illness. Cures don't sell well, but they're the only thing that really does away with the problem.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Imagine you have a car with a broken engine. Do you find out better ways to push your car to work, or do you find a way to fix the engine?

Your solution to the problem of too much data and too few players strikes me as the former. I have no doubt you can find some very intriguing ways to move a car when it's not under its own power, but no matter how clever they might be, I don't find them an efficient use of time or effort, particularly when they're just fixing symptoms rather than the illness. Cures don't sell well, but they're the only thing that really does away with the problem.

And what is the cure?

 

[North King]

And what is the cure?

If you can't run a modern NES without more players, you get more players.

 

[Symphony D.]

Ipse dixit.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And to get more players, the game (as expressed by the rules and play dynamics) has to appeal to a broader audience. How many players do you need for such a game to be successful? Potential players decrease as complexity goes up; so is the number needed above or below the line?

If you need 20 players, then how complex a game can you have and still attract 20 players? What if you need 30? What is the value (in terms of adding players) to have das (or NK or other experienced mod) running it?

Since I don't really know just how complicated a game you are talking about, this is all pretty theoretical, but you should be asking these types of questions.