IOT Developmental Thread

[landlubber]

Nay to the first two, yea to the second two.

 

[GenMarshall]

Now for Round 7!

Voting: Round 7
-Prefabricated map of countries, as to do away with expansion component and make the game simpler
-Changing the name from Imperium Offtopicum to Imperium Civfanaticum
-Each update should be in a sort of "story" that the GM would write to make it more interesting
-Spice Events, using RL world-wide events to keep the game interesting

No
Yes
Yes
No

 

[Cull]

Yes to all.

 

[Weik]

No
Yes
Abstain
No

 

[Tee Kay]

-Prefabricated map of countries, as to do away with expansion component and make the game simpler

No

-Changing the name from Imperium Offtopicum to Imperium Civfanaticum

What? And bow to Tanician tyranny?!?

(Actually I abstain on this one)

-Each update should be in a sort of "story" that the GM would write to make it more interesting

That's NES. Personally I don't like the idea of applying it to IOT. No.

-Spice Events, using RL world-wide events to keep the game interesting

Since IOT is not taking place in RL, no. I like the ideas of events though.

 

[civplayah]

-Prefabricated map of countries, as to do away with expansion component and make the game simpler
No no no no no no no.
-Changing the name from Imperium Offtopicum to Imperium Civfanaticum
No.
-Each update should be in a sort of "story" that the GM would write to make it more interesting
Abstain.
-Spice Events, using RL world-wide events to keep the game interesting
No.

 

[Joecoolyo]

It's that time again, tally time!

-Prefabricated map of countries, as to do away with expansion component and make the game simpler I/000000000000
-Changing the name from Imperium Offtopicum to Imperium Civfanaticum IIII/0000000
-Each update should be in a sort of "story" that the GM would write to make it more interesting IIIII/000000
-Spice Events, using RL world-wide events to keep the game interesting IIIIIII/000000

And it's our most hate filled vote to date! All the ideas get tossed except for the last one (which happened to be mine ).

Voting: Round 8
- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open
-Disallow two posts in a row

 

[Zack]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update

Yes

- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.

Yes

- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500

No, there's no point.

-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open

Keep it to the second thread, social groups, and PMs.

-Disallow two posts in a row

Yes

 

[Tee Kay]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update

YES

- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.

YES

- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500

This is an interesting idea. YES.

-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open

YES, especially alliance diplomacy.

-Disallow two posts in a row

NO

 

[ZeletDude]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
YES
- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
Yes
- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
Yeah, But how about 1800? or Something?
-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open
YES
-Disallow two posts in a row
Nay

 

[civplayah]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
If we get the forum.
- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
Yea
- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
Yea
-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open
Sometimes
-Disallow two posts in a row
Yea

 

[Double A]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
3 posts! But yes.

- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
Only claims and wars, I don't want to deal with the rest.

- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
No, it would take even longer. However... I could use AOK to help simulate battles... hmm.

-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open
Nah.

-Disallow two posts in a row
Why? That's just dumb, no one reads edits past 5 minutes.

 

[Double A]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
3 posts! But yes.

- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
Only claims and wars, I don't want to deal with the rest.

- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
No, it would take even longer. However... I could use AOK to help simulate battles... hmm.

-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open
Nah.

-Disallow two posts in a row
Why? That's just dumb, no one reads edits past 5 minutes.

 

[Zack]

Disallow two posts in a row
Why?

Was that intentional?

 

[Double A]

If I say yes, will it make me seem more clever?

 

[W|M]

yes
no
no
yes
yes

 

[Mathalamus]

no to all.

 

[MathNerd]

No
Yes (Strongly)
No (Strongly, edits don't really get any attention.)
Abstain
Yes

 

[Lighthearter]

yes
yes
no
yes
yes

- Lighthearter

 

[GenMarshall]

Voting: Round 8
- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open
-Disallow two posts in a row

No
No
Abstain
No
No (Post counts dont matter in this forum anyway. IOT is NOT beat the picture above you or any variants of that game thereof)