IOT Developmental Thread

[Arakhor]

Keep everything in one thread, including diplomacy if desired, but definitely regulate spam, including double posts.

I like the idea of a mediaeval game, so let's definitely start around 1400-1600.

 

[Cull]

Yes to all. People do notice edits.

 

[landlubber]

Nay to all.

 

[Weik]

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

 

[Virote_Considon]

Yes
Unsure
No
Yes
Unsure

(I guess if there was anything else this round, it'd be a "no" )

 

[GhostWriter16]

Voting: Round 8[/B][/SIZE][/U]
- 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

1. Eh. Depends on how slow the group wants the official thread to go. I am neutral. (Yes, I know this was my idea.)

2. Maybe.

3. NO!!!!

4. No

5. No, sometimes its needed. I would support no posting twice in a row unless an hour has passed in between though.

 

[Omega124]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
NO.
- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
Sure, why not?
- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
...Is there a druggie in the house? (No)
-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
NO.
-Disallow two posts in a row
This is a forum rule to negin with, so you habve to vote yes.

 

[GhostWriter16]

- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update
NO.
- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc.
Sure, why not?
- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500
...Is there a druggie in the house? (No)
-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
NO.
-Disallow two posts in a row
This is a forum rule to begin with, so you habve to vote yes.

No, they don't enforce it in Forum Games.

 

[Lighthearter]

Just because they don't enforce it doesn't negate the fact it's a rule.

- Lighthearter

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just because they don't enforce it doesn't negate the fact it's a rule.

- Lighthearter

Well, the rules apply in forum games, but its possible that the purpose of the rule is simply for postcount, in which case it is effectively null and void in Forum Games.

Also, I'm not sure its even a rule. I think there's a rule against spam, which usually means no double posting. Not sure if double posting is specifically prohibited.

 

[civplayah]

It in fact is a rule, but it is almost ignored and very poorly enforced.

 

[GenMarshall]

Only a few games follow that tradition, namely the Beat the Picture above you. The rest, the two post rule does not apply to any other threads. Infact the Moderators lifted that restriction on Member's Pictures.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

He means the same person posting twice in a row.

 

[Double A]

This isn't a threat, just a warning. If this game either becomes Imperium Civfanaticum or gets the points on other things, I won't play. The first one makes my eyes want to bleed, and the second one would make this too complex for me. I like the simplicity of this.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This isn't a threat, just a warning. If this game either becomes Imperium Civfanaticum or gets the points on other things, I won't play. The first one makes my eyes want to bleed, and the second one would make this too complex for me. I like the simplicity of this.

1. Why do you care what its called?

2. I dunno. I want to see army size factored in somehow.

 

[Tee Kay]

This isn't a threat, just a warning. If this game either becomes Imperium Civfanaticum or gets the points on other things, I won't play. The first one makes my eyes want to bleed, and the second one would make this too complex for me. I like the simplicity of this.

There needs to be some complexity in the game, or it will crash and burn like the rest of the IOT threads.

 

[Double A]

Civfanaticum just sounds so... weird. And looks ugly.

5 or 6 points to spend on land OR military doesn't seem like a good dead to me.

 

[Mathalamus]

There needs to be some complexity in the game, or it will crash and burn like the rest of the IOT threads.

FYI the previous IOT's crashed and burned because of me and, recently, domination.

 

[Tee Kay]

FYI the previous IOT's crashed and burned because of me and, recently, domination.

It wasn't just you two, really. Everyone except those on hiatus got carried away. Besides, the basics of the game are broken.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It wasn't just you two, really. Everyone except those on hiatus got carried away. Besides, the basics of the game are broken.

It was Math, not me. But yes, poor structure hasn't helped fix things!