IOT Developmental Thread

[Lighthearter]

To deal with unruly/spamming players in this idea, I suggest something I learned in Realpolitik. The players can have however much fun they want - but the host is KING. If the host tells them that purple ponies from Venus are invading to secure chocolate for nuclear experimentation, then purple ponies from Venus are invading to secure chocolate for nuclear experimentation! No exceptions. You don't mess with The Man and he won't mess with you. He wouldn't come out very often, but you ignore him or be banned from the game - that would be done by removing his nation, I'd say, and disallowing him to found another one.

Of course, this has probably been tried before, that's just my opinion.

- Lighthearter

 

[Tani Coyote]

@ Zelet:

Correct! You can claim 10 territories - all for a flat price of 1 provided they're all connected - on the first turn, and for the next few turns, you lose how many expansion points you have, until normal rules apply by about turn 5, 5 points per turn.

@ Bannings:

Like the Pope, I reserve ex cathedra at all times like any sane GM. Also like the Pope, however, I wouldn't make decrees all too often; I'd at least try to see if the players would like the idea.

 

[Mad Man]

If we do get a number of Provinces and we can only claim once, exactly how many would we have to claim with? It would have depend on the size, like Europe's are smaller then Siberia.. etc..

this is why I suggested the prefabricated country idea, however it should be noted that I received a pm from Dommy voicing his disapproval of the idea.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Ugh, Tanicius, could you please hold off on forming IOT V (for some strange reason you keep calling it IOT II).

Sure your 16 new rules might be the most awesomest rules in the world, but we can't be guaranteed that. I mean, that's the reason I started this thread in the first place, the player created rules were not working, so it's time for the community to create the rules. And these rules would be guaranteed to work because we as a community would have agreed upon them and refined them.

You're more than welcome to create a spinoff of some sorts, but please, leave the official IOT V in the hands of the community.

 

[Mad Man]

we could keep this going while starting a new game you know.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Man Man speaks the truth. ...even if IOT IV will pretty much be dead due to the hiatus.

As an AAR writer and former GM, hiatus translates into English as "dead but I don't want to extinguish your hope."

Ugh, Tanicius, could you please hold off on forming IOT V (for some strange reason you keep calling it IOT II).

IOT 2 was the official sequel I promised. I use that to refer to the project that I alone must design, otherwise I am breaking my promise.

Sure your 16 new rules might be the most awesomest rules in the world, but we can't be guaranteed that. I mean, that's the reason I started this thread in the first place, the player created rules were not working, so it's time for the community to create the rules. And these rules would be guaranteed to work because we as a community would have agreed upon them and refined them.

Well if this is where it's going, we might as well give the UN actual authority to change the rules in game. I know I did that in the first one, and it was a bad idea. Case in point: democracy sucks. Why is it any better outside the game than inside?

If you dislike the rules, you don't have to play. There are always greener pastures, especially in a forum where the rules are much more lenient due to no post count, meaning that new games can always be made.

I'm also basing the rules on everything I've seen in the last three. Furthermore, I'm going to be heavy-handed when they are violated, as nice and lenient as I've tried to be.

You're more than welcome to create a spinoff of some sorts, but please, leave the official IOT V in the hands of the community.

Maybe IOT V, but not IOT II.

I don't know about you, but I dislike breaking my promises. I promised IOT II, and I finally have the time, ambition, and desire to fulfill that promise.

Therefore, I reverse the proposal:

The Community is free to make a spinoff of some sort, but I will be pursuing IOT II - which is the official sequel, as it was promised in the first official IOT game - as my next project. And short of the moderators saying I can't do so(though I hope they'll give me permission, considering I'm only using the brand name that I invented.)... I'm afraid I'm not going to give up on IOT II.

As my sig says, there will possibly be two IOTs. Let there be battle.

 

[Tee Kay]

If we do get a number of Provinces and we can only claim once, exactly how many would we have to claim with? It would have depend on the size, like Europe's are smaller then Siberia.. etc..

Well, my idea is different from Tanicius'. It would mean each player would be able to claim a certain number of territories once at the start of the game, with the rest of the world divided into NPCs whose territories new players can take over (kinda like Mad Man's prefabricated countries idea, but new players can take over more than one NPC if it has less territories than the allowed starting territories). Now if we begin with a blank map and players all start with roughly the same industries the size of the territories doesn't matter much. Territories in less hospitable areas like Siberia or the Sahara would be bigger than the rest since they can't support as many industry/population.

To deal with unruly/spamming players in this idea, I suggest something I learned in Realpolitik. The players can have however much fun they want - but the host is KING. If the host tells them that purple ponies from Venus are invading to secure chocolate for nuclear experimentation, then purple ponies from Venus are invading to secure chocolate for nuclear experimentation! No exceptions. You don't mess with The Man and he won't mess with you. He wouldn't come out very often, but you ignore him or be banned from the game - that would be done by removing his nation, I'd say, and disallowing him to found another one.

Of course, this has probably been tried before, that's just my opinion.

We had problems with people disrespecting Thorvald's authority in IOT4, but it is certainly something we would want to implement.

 

[Joecoolyo]

EDIT: Epic crosspost


Hmm, on a totally different note. I think it's time I lay out the schedule (of some sorts) that I have planned for this thread.

June 20-25: Idea collection phase, this the time in which the community will submit their ideas for improvements in IOT, the end date is not finalized, so we can go over or under depending on the stream of new ideas coming in

June 26-30: Voting phase, we'll take each idea presented, discuss it, improve it, and eventually vote on it (yay or nay). Once again, the dates here aren't set in stone, and are entirely dependent on the amount of ideas we have/how long discussions are

I suspect this will take 2-3 weeks. And I'd like to keep it in this range (anything longer will just be too long).

 

[Tee Kay]

The Community is free to make a spinoff of some sort, but I will be pursuing IOT II - which is the official sequel, as it was promised in the first official IOT game - as my next project. And short of the moderators saying I can't do so(though I hope they'll give me permission, considering I'm only using the brand name that I invented.)... I'm afraid I'm not going to give up on IOT II.

As my sig says, there will possibly be two IOTs. Let there be battle.

So, the War of Imperian Succession has officially begun.

 

[Mad Man]

something else I thought of is the inclusion of multiple in game mods so one person doesn't have the weight of the world on there shoulders and to create a balance of power.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Man Man speaks the truth. ...even if IOT IV will pretty much be dead due to the hiatus.

As an AAR writer and former GM, hiatus translates into English as "dead but I don't want to extinguish your hope."



IOT 2 was the official sequel I promised. I use that to refer to the project that I alone must design, otherwise I am breaking my promise.



Well if this is where it's going, we might as well give the UN actual authority to change the rules in game. I know I did that in the first one, and it was a bad idea. Case in point: democracy sucks. Why is it any better outside the game than inside?

If you dislike the rules, you don't have to play. There are always greener pastures, especially in a forum where the rules are much more lenient due to no post count, meaning that new games can always be made.

I'm also basing the rules on everything I've seen in the last three. Furthermore, I'm going to be heavy-handed when they are violated, as nice and lenient as I've tried to be.



Maybe IOT V, but not IOT II.

I don't know about you, but I dislike breaking my promises. I promised IOT II, and I finally have the time, ambition, and desire to fulfill that promise.

Therefore, I reverse the proposal:

The Community is free to make a spinoff of some sort, but I will be pursuing IOT II - which is the official sequel, as it was promised in the first official IOT game - as my next project. And short of the moderators saying I can't do so(though I hope they'll give me permission, considering I'm only using the brand name that I invented.)... I'm afraid I'm not going to give up on IOT II.

As my sig says, there will possibly be two IOTs. Let there be battle.

You're making this much more complicated than this needs to be.

And please, Tanicius, I'm not looking for a fight. There is no need to battle. And to have a IOT going while still creating the rules will just be messy, it's best to decide them now and get them over with. I have an entire schedule planned (as can be seen by my last post). IOT V will be the community created version. That's final. I'm not letting this thread go to waste.

Once again, create a spinoff, you're more than welcome. But I beg of you, don't fight, it will only postpone the creation of IOT V and ruin the games for everyone.

Be mature about this Tanicius.

 

[Reiser]

something else I thought of is the inclusion of multiple in game mods so one person doesn't have the weight of the world on there shoulders and to create a balance of power.

Wouldn't that affect gameplay? The only people to be game mods are the people actually playing, so other nations would rather not attack the person who calculates battles.

@Tanicius:
Have you decided on how combat will work? I do have Blitzkrieg 2: FOTR, but I'm not sure if that will run AI vs. AI simulations.

 

[Joecoolyo]

In fact, adding onto my last post. Why doesn't the IOT community vote on this issue?

Which would you rather have in IOT V, 16 new rules created by Tanicius, or community developed rules that are all agreed upon together?

 

[ZeletDude]

Well. Id like the sooner the better since I'm on vacation most of July......

 

[Mathalamus]

In fact, adding onto my last post. Why doesn't the IOT community vote on this issue?

Which would you rather have in IOT V, 16 new rules created by Tanicius, or community developed rules that are all agreed upon together?

the sooner the better.

 

[Tee Kay]

Let me just say I don't want to join another game and see it crash and burn again.

 

[Joecoolyo]

So let me ask you this. Which would you rather have?

A game which could be created tomorrow, but won't last more than a month before it collapses, as seen with every other player created version of this game.

A game which takes longer to develop, but stays in for the long run as the agreed upon rules will be respected, since they were community developed.

EDIT: GODDAMN CROSSPOSTS!

 

[Mathalamus]

So let me ask you this. Which would you rather have?

A game which could be created tomorrow, but won't last more than a month before it collapses, as seen with every other player created version of this game.

A game which takes longer to develop, but stays in for the long run as the agreed upon rules will be respected, since they were community developed.

EDIT: GODDAMN CROSSPOSTS!

... i still prefer the first one.

you cant perfect it if you don't try.

 

[ZeletDude]

Well. Cant we somehow get both.. And not necessarily tomorrow, but at least sometime before July..

 

[Mad Man]

Let me just say I don't want to join another game and see it crash and burn again.

So let me ask you this. Which would you rather have?

A game which could be created tomorrow, but won't last more than a month before it collapses, as seen with every other player created version of this game.

A game which takes longer to develop, but stays in for the long run as the agreed upon rules will be respected, since they were community developed.

EDIT: GODDAMN CROSSPOSTS!

I think the fundamental problem is that there's no real way to win, so we always go apehorsehocky crazy and destroy everything.