Heterodoxy: Or How I Learned to Stop Resisting and Embrace Excel

[Sonereal]

-deleted-

 

[Double A]

joining in egypt

 

[NinjaCow64]

I agree with most of this, but:

In Cult of the Offensive, Thorvald goes into more detail about how mechanics shape behavior. This essay is probably important to read just because GMs still don't realize that IOT is, at the end of the day, just skinner boxes. However, Cult of the Offensive brings me to the next section of this rambling.

IOT is in no way a series of Skinner Boxes. I can't understand how anyone could see IOT as a bunch of Skinner Boxes honestly.

 

[gay_Aleks]

what is a skinner boxes

some kind of skinny boxers?

 

[NinjaCow64]

what is a skinner boxes

some kind of skinny boxers?

It's a psychological phenomenon, basically it's the stuff that makes people addicted to poker machines, mobile games and MMOs. Here's a good video on Skinner Boxes Re: Game Design.


Link to video.

 

[Omega124]

>Trying to justify why your IOTs are the best in a really dry wall of text

>Hasn't run a successful IOT since Cold War, which was a deliberate return to simplistic mechanics

Having fun stroking your ego there, Sone?

 

[gay_Aleks]

This thread is much easier to digest if you assume it's a blatant Sofia advertisement.

 

[Sonereal]

-deleted-

 

[arya126]

Apologize to tolni please. That was uncalled for and you know it son.

 

[Omega124]

Except Cold War wasn't a deliberate return to simple mechanics. Nobody would've played a straight rip of the Cold War ruleset because nobody would play it. The Cold War ruleset used the IOTER ruleset as a base, which was a 2014 ruleset and still had a few basic things in mind.

1. A trade system that was supposed to force interdependence
2. An emphasis on provincial throughput.

You vastly vastly overstate what Cold War was capable of. 1 simply didn't exist. Trade was meaningless at best in that game: the best way to make money in that game was just expanding in the provinces which arbitrarily were worth more than other provinces. Trade represented such a small part of the economy by the late game, it mind as well not even exist.

2 is true only in terms of whatever the provinces were /originally/ worth mattered. Increasing throughput for 5 IP by 1 IP was so inefficient compared to just expanding into a province worth 8 IP outright. The major powerhouses in that game were the ones who expanded aggressively and didn't care if they pissed off their neighbors.

Essentially, it was a more refined version of classic iots where one province=1 IP and expanding was the only way to increase the economy. You didn't solve the problem, you just hid it behind numbers and seemingly more complex mechanics.

Really, the fact you think Cold War had anything in common with old IOTs is kinda a sign you're not really...well, relevant anymore. You don't actually know what a classical IOT ruleset looks like. You don't know, and can't tell the difference, between a ruleset based on a 2014 ruleset and one based on a 2011 ruleset.

And this is, almost entirely, your fault.

1. Didn't have a trade system

Yours didn't have a meaningful one either. Just because you pretended to have one doesn't mean it actually effected anything.

2. Didn't have an economic system that went beyond 3 Tier provinces

Because LH wanted to focus on naval warfare in his game for whatever reason lol. If economics is your fetish, boats were his.

3. Was made in 2011 and looks nothing like a 2014/2015 ruleset.

Eh, it really does, to be honest. You can pretend how much more "deep" and "advanced" current games are compared to Cold War, but the ones that actually run and aren't just concept theories that reach a single update if they're really lucky are comparable to Cold War in complexity. Perhaps having a more refined economic system, but then they also don't have the insane detail LH put into his boats.

Really the biggest difference is the map. LH's maps were so different in scale that you had to think differently to most other IOTs. If you made your Cold War on LH's map, it would have made trade more meaningful since expanding wouldn't nearly been as powerful

Were you even in the original Cold War? I was. I know what the original looked like, and how it worked mechanically. I know what it did and didn't do.

Theoretically I was. I joined as Neo-Bablyon, as Hussein, and LH in all of his genius decided that he was going to make /Iran/ my capital, and he refused to change it when he realized he made a stupid geography mistake. So I just quit after that.

I was in most of his other IOT games though. Like when I destroyed your iron islands without even declaring war on you

That's probably why nobody asks you for advice when it comes to ruleset development though. I'm pretty sure I have far more credibility than you do when it comes to talking about the importance of mechanics in IOTs and IOT development when I've GM'd more games to natural conclusions than you've GM'd games period.

And most, if not all, of those games were years ago before you started your economics circlejerk. Your continuing desire to justify your economics degree by making the perfect economics simulator for a game focused on geopolitics just create games which collapse on themselves before they even begin. It isn't just players who don't want their stats to be more complex than tax returns; you can't even handle the beasts you make. Look at Cold War, the only game you had in recent memory that actually had more than one update. Look how simplistic it is compared to IU, or your Blood and Iron game, or sofia. I don't think its a coincidence.

Do I have an ego? Very much so. And it is entirely justified when I have a tougher time finding rulesets on the front page that I haven't had some influence in ruleset-creation wise than not

(Ignoring the CYOAs because they're not really IOTs)

Beginning of the End
Superpowers
Pew Pew
BOTWAWKI
A World of Media III
IdIOT
KIOT II
DominatrNES (I'll admit this one probably doesn't count but for sake of completness whatever)
Cradle of Man

In fact, the only ones on the front page which are actually inspired by a ruleset that you made, appears to be your two games, one of which was a derivative of one of TK's game. GJ Sone.

Maybe once I stop getting PMs or questions in chat a minimum of twice a week asking development questions, my ego will subside just a bit. Just a tad.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with people asking for help making their ruleset. After all, you used to make pretty good rulesets.

 

[christos200]

I personally like both complex and simple IOTs. Each one has it's own charm. It is like Civilization and Total War: I like both of them. It really depends on the GM and the players to make an IOT satisfying. A simple IOT can fail due to GM or the players. The same with a complex IOT. So, it is up to both GM and players to make an IOT succseful. Just my opinion.

By the way, when everyone brings examples of simple IOTs which have been successful, why everyone forgets my IOT which lasted 18 turns?

Although, to be honest, the military units were re-balanced by Sone.

 

[Double A]

this thread is great

 

[Arrow Gamer]

I personally like both complex and simple IOTs. Each one has it's own charm. It is like Civilization and Total War: I like both of them. It really depends on the GM and the players to make an IOT satisfying. A simple IOT can fail due to GM or the players. The same with a complex IOT. So, it is up to both GM and players to make an IOT succseful. Just my opinion.

Why would you choose two videos game that are both very simplistic.

 

[Civ'ed]

Why would you choose two videos game that are both very simplistic.

Because aurora is a expletive to get into?

 

[JohannaK]

Woo, so fun. Sonereal when will you upload an Excel tutorial?