IOT Developmental Thread

[Ailedhoo]

What setting of world will this be? I guess it is going to be set in Earth; will it be in the past, future or present? What ever the case the eyes of IOT are open to what might emerge.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

But will it have nukes?

dibs on anubis

 

[Tani Coyote]

But will it have nukes?

I don't see why not since the ultimate goal is to let people (within reason) be whatever method of play they desire.

Peaceful builder? Check.

Bloodthirsty warmonger? Check.

Avid diplomat and manipulator? Check.

Omnicidal atomic maniac? Why not?

 

[Ailedhoo]

Omnicidal atomic maniac? Why not?

Ion cannons?

 

[Tyo]

combined syndicates best

 

[Tani Coyote]

So I had a little discussion in the IOT Chat. It was with only one player, however, so I figured I’d seek a more balanced view from the community.

Basically the idea came up that MP1 was the best of all the MP games. However, let’s look at what made it fun:

-Zerging capacity for invaders (leading to the rise of superpowers like Xinjiang and later Scotireland)
-Capability to nuke everyone without consequence
-Unchecked espionage that led to insane results such as an entire treasury being lost
-Clients that easily betrayed you at the drop of a hat
-Major NPCs, controlled by yours truly, stirring the pot all over the globe
-Insane tensions between Korea and Hawai’I that sometimes had meta proportions to them

Most of these were fixed in prior games; espionage became nerfed, war wasn’t an instant path to victory, nuclear arsenals were more limited in use, and clients became more dynamic rather than flipflopping between one power or another at whim. And the games were deemed to not be as fun.

So, the meat of this discussion. MPV’s been deemed prior to launch as a game that wouldn’t be any fun because it focuses players more on diplomacy and soft power than “beat him over the head” politics (I’m sure Realpolitik is flattered by this sentiment).

Ergo, here we are. ATEN’s in the middle of being established… would players prefer one of these two options:

-A. A game EXACTLY like MP1. All the broken mechanics included. Be peaceful, be mean, show restraint or zerg across Asia like Genghis Khan. Destroy opponents with a few carefully-executed espionage missions. Major NPCs go to lunch on anyone who’s small around them, or even human players.

-B. A game that is balanced and removes the combat elements in favor of economic and diplomatic elements, what MPV wishes to attain.

Do battle, sovereigntists and internationalists.

 

[Jehoshua]

As is well known, I think "fairness" is a load of hooey which should be dispensed with as the idiotic conception it is. As such I would have absolutely no problem with a game exactly like MP1, although personally I would prefer it if it didn't have nukes (nukes made it too easy to counter warmongers, and it would be more engaging I think to have failure to balance warmongers have actual lasting consequences). Other than that one gripe, I wouldn't change anything in the event an MP1 redux was initiated.

 

[Terrance888]

I like cartoonish diplomacy and mechanics, as long as it is on the label, not discovered after my third bite.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I vote for a third option. While a rehash of MP I seems like a fun idea, the problem with broken mechanics is that they are, well, broken. Note that I have not played MP I, but I know from experience that being Zerged is no fun if you have no chance to get your land back, same thing with being nuked into oblivion and there are better ways to stir the global pot than Major NPCs. Trust me, I know this from experience of MPR + MP II-IV. And I think MPV is a great idea, but that should probably be left to MPV, as a world has already been established that a global UN wouldn't work with. In my opinion, we could get a combination of all the best worlds from following the original design philosophy of ATEN:

Whether you are the isolationist builder, the bloodthirsty warmonger, human number cruncher, or subtle manipulator, this game has something for everyone.

This passage was one of the reasons I wanted to join this game in the first place. It has something for EVERYONE. How would you manage that? I'm no GM, so you probably know better than I, but I'd probably do something like this:

-No nukes, or relatively ineffective nukes (think weaker than MP IV) as they just turn everything into derp.
-Relatively easy-to-conquer NPCs that give a bonus for conquering them, sure give them a revolt penalty as well but not enough to make them unattractive to conquer.
-Hard-to-conquer PCs, well unless there is a major power difference between the two nations or the conqueror has nommed on a few NPCs beforehand.
-Cartoony NPCs (as in quick to influence) are cool, but majors are a bit much.
-A semi-complicated economic system that is enough to please the builders and the mathheads, but not too complicated to scare off everyone else. Maybe a test run of MPV's economic system?
-Decent sized RP bonuses so a good RPing nation doesn't get eaten by Genericwarmongeristan off the bat.

If I were running the game, that's how I'd do it. Although I'm probably in the minority here, but I think that a game like that would be pure win.

 

[Jehoshua]

I Note that I have not played MP I

Vote discounted.

 

[Mosher]

If those are our only two choices, I'd go with MP1.

But if I could pick, I would choose a more MP3 esq game.

 

[Tyo]

I agree with Mosher. I mean, when have extremes ever worked out well for anyone in the end? There should be a balance between hard power and soft power.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why compromise when I can make people choose?

I'm interested to host MPV to get players to focus on a different kind of playstyle that isn't "bash them over the head with an army." However if MP1's epicness is really desired again, I'll bring the game back - broken stuff included.

 

[JohannaK]

Don't you realise, you are evolving towards NESes. Your players demand IOTs.

 

[Terran Empress]

I say if the majority of people want a new MPIII I say thats what you should give them. I wasn't a huge fan of MPV, but MPI seems just too crazy.

 

[Kinich-Ahau]

To be honest, neither of those options seem very palatable, but, like Mosher & Tyo, if forced to choose, I would go with MPI; broken mechanics & all.

 

[Sonereal]

-A. A game EXACTLY like MP1. All the broken mechanics included. Be peaceful, be mean, show restraint or zerg across Asia like Genghis Khan. Destroy opponents with a few carefully-executed espionage missions. Major NPCs go to lunch on anyone who’s small around them, or even human players.

-B. A game that is balanced and removes the combat elements in favor of economic and diplomatic elements, what MPV wishes to attain.

I would go with B. Take MP1 and just fix the clearly broken parts of the ruleset.

Like the combat system. Especially the combat system.

-Zerging capacity for invaders (leading to the rise of superpowers like Xinjiang and later Scotireland)

Bring back the IOTVI-era XP system for expansion. Using armies for expansion was cool until everyone realized that it leads to steamrolling.

-Capability to nuke everyone without consequence

That...wasn't fun. Who thought that was fun except one or two people?

-Unchecked espionage that led to insane results such as an entire treasury being lost

To be fair, espionage is imbalanced because only three people ever use it. Probably because so many of us came from CivIV.

-Clients that easily betrayed you at the drop of a hat

Hurr.

-Major NPCs, controlled by yours truly, stirring the pot all over the globe

Double hurr.

-Insane tensions between Korea and Hawai’I that sometimes had meta proportions to them

Triple hurr.

As is well known, I think "fairness" is a load of hooey which should be dispensed with as the idiotic conception it is. As such I would have absolutely no problem with a game exactly like MP1, although personally I would prefer it if it didn't have nukes (nukes made it too easy to counter warmongers, and it would be more engaging I think to have failure to balance warmongers have actual lasting consequences). Other than that one gripe, I wouldn't change anything in the event an MP1 redux was initiated.

C-c-combo breaker.

I would get rid of nukes, or simply make them tactical only weapons.

I vote for a third option. While a rehash of MP I seems like a fun idea, the problem with broken mechanics is that they are, well, broken. Note that I have not played MP I, but I know from experience that being Zerged is no fun if you have no chance to get your land back, same thing with being nuked into oblivion and there are better ways to stir the global pot than Major NPCs. Trust me, I know this from experience of MPR + MP II-IV. And I think MPV is a great idea, but that should probably be left to MPV, as a world has already been established that a global UN wouldn't work with. In my opinion, we could get a combination of all the best worlds from following the original design philosophy of ATEN:

Zerging only works on players who didn't rationally build troops out the gate. So many players think that having no standing army the first two turns is a great idea that examples of zerging are subversions of the trope. Mind you, I've SEEN a player lose a zerg, get knocked down to two provinces, then promptly conquered all of Africa.

I also disliked major NPCs, but I understand the need. I loathe to fully dissolve a player's country myself.

I would also get rid of the UN entirely. Let players work it out.

-No nukes, or relatively ineffective nukes (think weaker than MP IV) as they just turn everything into derp.

Indeed. I can mark the changing of the guard in MPIV by the time nuclear weapons were revealed (again). It seemed like my entire strategy changed on a dime and ended up revolving around nuclear weapons.

Because in a game where one weapon, and one weapon alone, is sufficient to turn the tide of world affairs, everyone will jump on those weapons.

-Relatively easy-to-conquer NPCs that give a bonus for conquering them, sure give them a revolt penalty as well but not enough to make them unattractive to conquer.

No. NPCs should never grant some mystical bonus for being conquered. This goes back to "army expansion leads to runaways".

-Hard-to-conquer PCs, well unless there is a major power difference between the two nations or the conqueror has nommed on a few NPCs beforehand.

Again, no. A player's ability not to be conquered should be that, an ability. A skill. Not something the game sets up. Players and NPCs should, as much as possible, play by the same rules.

-Cartoony NPCs (as in quick to influence) are cool, but majors are a bit much.

No. Just go with the "everybody is a NPCGM" thing in RIOT.

-A semi-complicated economic system that is enough to please the builders and the mathheads, but not too complicated to scare off everyone else. Maybe a test run of MPV's economic system?

You can't really build upon the existing economic system without going past the point of no-return. MPIV was probably reaching a brick wall in that regard.

-Decent sized RP bonuses so a good RPing nation doesn't get eaten by Genericwarmongeristan off the bat.

RP bonuses shouldn't exist and, if they did, they should come with RP penalties.

But if I could pick, I would choose a more MP3 esq game.

I say if the majority of people want a new MPIII I say thats what you should give them. I wasn't a huge fan of MPV, but MPI seems just too crazy.

I liked MP3. Had its problems, yeah, but MP3 was kinda the standout of the series besides 1. But if I had to pick between a broken game and a working game, I would go with a working game and therefore B.

 

[Tani Coyote]

The biggest problem with "fixing" MP1's issues is that, well, that's what I tried to do in the all the games afterward.

-Clients were made dynamic to fix the instant flipping issue; instead they gradually shifted to another sphere barring a huge influx of money
-Espionage missions were balanced by making separate espionage pools for each target country; it was no longer possible to have an omnipotent pool that could strike anywhere
-Nuke usage was generally a bad idea because your high command weren't exactly fond of it
-Major NPCs were rendered a non-issue, thus leaving politics entirely up to the players, unlike in MP1 where I was manipulating a lot of things behind the scenes

And for my efforts, later games were deemed to not be as fun.

What was fun about MP1 that didn't need balancing? I'm genuinely curious; I can't find out why people loved it so much.

 

[Sonereal]

-Clients were made dynamic to fix the instant flipping issue; instead they gradually shifted to another sphere barring a huge influx of money

Increase the cost of adding each additional country to your sphere by 50% per country already in your sphere. Get rid of the influence stat and make it so armies/fleets are the "free" influence, with fleets being more influence than armies. Increase cost of adding a country that doesn't border you by 50%. 25% if they border an existing client. Increase cost by 200% if the country is already in a sphere plus another 25% for each turn it is in a sphere.

That way you don't have to track individual influences in individual countries. If multiple countries try to sphere the same country, the guy who spent the most wins and the guy who didn't drop enough cash gets nada.

You could even go full RIOT and make it so a sphered country is really just a puppet and therefore the only way to unsphere the puppet is by supporting a faction in a civil war.

-Espionage missions were balanced by making separate espionage pools for each target country; it was no longer possible to have an omnipotent pool that could strike anywhere

Get rid of espionage.

-Nuke usage was generally a bad idea because your high command weren't exactly fond of it

Just nerf nukes so they're just tactical weapons. True, it makes nuclear weapons still very important, but no one has told me to get rid of the Leadership Point system in RIOT, and they amount to being about the same thing in a sense.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Bring back the IOTVI-era XP system for expansion. Using armies for expansion was cool until everyone realized that it leads to steamrolling.

By this do you also mean a set number of attacks per turn? One of the biggest problems I've found in TanIOT wars is that you can't realistically manage multiple fronts, since the emphasis on wave tactics dictates that you either throw everything you've got at the front or risk the "defenders" grabbing your land if you lose.

What was fun about MP1 that didn't need balancing? I'm genuinely curious; I can't find out why people loved it so much.

The player dynamic. I loved the history that built up, probably more so than any other TanIOT save possibly MTC. And that's something you're not gonna replicate with stats no matter how hard you try. What pissed me off about MP was that the broken ruleset wrecked immersion by facilitating nuclear powergaming and stupid wars &c. With the exception of one, maybe two people, I don't think anyone loved MP for its ruleset, and know quite a few that detested how the game was managed.