IOT Organisational and Discussion Thread

[christos200]

Ail, I guess that we can agree that we disagree and end this issue, since each of us has his own opinion.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Since said "opinions" shape the game I will have to say this: what have you enjoyed more... interacting with NPCs just there to win or nations that have their own interests, their own desires, their own aims... including those not intresting in dominating everything? Tani has been attacked for his NPCs but they serve good purpose by giving a nature. A "play to win" game would not for instance require diplomacy that MP3 processes. Christos's NPCs were too aggressive and not considering of the situration (I.E. going to human vs. human wars in face of a common enemy).

In the classic IOTs I believed people described IOT as not a war game. Co-operation is a grand thing.

 

[christos200]

Christos's NPCs were too aggressive and not considering of the situration (I.E. going to human vs. human wars in face of a common enemy).

You colonized Spain, and so the Spanish state became your enemy. Then, when the war between humans started, it was caused by the Swiss, a PC ntion, not an NPC.

Spain of course sided with the Swiss, since they wanted to take Spain back. The American NPC's had allied with the Swiss, and after the war USA and Spain united against you because of your aggressive policy against them.

However, they always backed down when there was a risk of starting a war.

 

[Mosher]

Since said "opinions" shape the game I will have to say this: what have you enjoyed more... interacting with NPCs just there to win or nations that have their own interests, their own desires, their own aims... including those not intresting in dominating everything? Tani has been attacked for his NPCs but they serve good purpose by giving a nature. A "play to win" game would not for instance require diplomacy that MP3 processes. Christos's NPCs were too aggressive and not considering of the situration (I.E. going to human vs. human wars in face of a common enemy).

In the classic IOTs I believed people described IOT as not a war game. Co-operation is a grand thing.

Except that MP3 is a play to win game.

 

[SamSniped]

The objective of every game is to win.
Except for The Game (just lost it), which your goal is simply to not lose. Winning isn't an option.

 

[Ailedhoo]

MP3 is a play to win game? Is that a possibility in one of Tani's games?

The objective of every game is to win.

Dwarf Fortress, the Paradox games like EU and Victoria and SimCity say hello.

Also even with games with a win condition there is complexity more than "do this to win," as noted in story or other factors. Heck the victory condition to win the first XCOM game was only revealed by the research and even then the focus was not to win but to defend Earth from a alien invasion. That is what we must aim for: where winning is not the focus but instead that the players are enrolled into a story.

 

[Double A]

Dwarf Fortress doesn't say hello. It engraves an elephant onto the side of your house. The elephant is laughing. It engraves a carp onto the side of your house. The carp is laughing. It engraves a giant weasel onto the side of your house. The giant weasel is laughing. It engraves an engraving of cheese onto the side of your house.

 

[christos200]

where winning is not the focus but instead that the players are enrolled into a story.

Because someone wants to win, it does not mean that he is not enrolled into the story of the game.

MP3 is a play to win game? Is that a possibility in one of Tani's games?

Yes, it is. In MP1 Tani declared a winner (DT).

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Have a heart shaped box people, and the objective is never to win, but to have fun.


Link to video.

 

[Mosher]

MP3 is a play to win game? Is that a possibility in one of Tani's games?

Also even with games with a win condition there is complexity more than "do this to win," as noted in story or other factors. Heck the victory condition to win the first XCOM game was only revealed by the research and even then the focus was not to win but to defend Earth from a alien invasion. That is what we must aim for: where winning is not the focus but instead that the players are enrolled into a story.

Considering Tani has several times stated that he wants to declare a winner, and that the goal of the game is to dominate the planet through economic and military might, yes, it is a play to win game.

You can be enraptured in the story of a game even while trying to win. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[CivOasis]

Nearly all IOTs are "play-to-win."

And I don't care how much the classics were based on story, they wouldn't be known for powergaming if people weren't playing to win. Just because you have an alliance, it doesn't mean there isn't a victor.

 

[hoplitejoe]

Perhaps you are right CivO, but with no "win" in most games free to make there own goals, RC for instance works on the most "cultured" nations quite often. Some people may aim for economic dominance, others military, or maybe Nuclear.

 

[Tani Coyote]

MP1's beauty was there was so much to do it was impossible to dominate everything.

As for the goal: yes, I find it hard to construct games that don't in some way or another encourage victory... but alas, that's the price of a game that includes everyone. The cooperationists and the competitionists (yes I'm making up words) will inevitably clash. Notice how early IOTs were dominated by "This is a war game!" and "This is a diplomacy game!" discussions to the point I said I would ban anyone who brought it up. It's what one makes of it, and that has always been my approach.

More complex economics has its merits but in many cases the weight can become unbearable. It should not take hours to update pencil and paper. MP3's economic system has its uses but it's just too bureaucratic; I'll have to streamline it at some point if I ever use it again, so it takes mere minutes to use.

IOTs, like any product, have seen multiple innovations. First we saw the dawn of provinces. Then barebones economics. Then a boom in WMD production which has only recently begun to see reduction. Then we had trade being altered so it was hard to form cartels, and then came Excel. Excel was easily one of the biggest innovations in the games, cutting workloads enormously, and opening a whole new level of complexity. Then MP1 came along and actually had a soft power model (which I had been striving for so long to create) that actually worked up until the very end, when its weaknesses became apparent. Not to mention the innovations of other titles that people try to emulate.

What will the next great innovation be?

Who knows. Ten bucks says I'll be here longer than anyone else though.

 

[Double A]

"This is a war game!" and "This is a diplomacy game!"

There's a difference?

Then a boom in WMD production which has only recently begun to see reduction.

Hurr hurr.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I might attempt an IOT around this map which I colored in some day:
...
It would revolve a lot less around combat, and allow players a lot more choice in diplomacy.
Would anyone be interested in such a premise?

Unless we're gonna see a lot of splinter states, it seems a rather small game.

And what is the premise?

 

[Tani Coyote]

There's a difference?

Well you had your aggressive players who wanted to conquer everyone, and your peaceful players who just wanted to roleplay their nations and respond to diplomatic issues.

We should have seen the inevitable when the USA took Panama in IOT I. A war system was bound to develop, and it did. Went through lots of bizarre or crude models, but it did.

Unfortunately we lost a lot of the Old Guard as complexity and capability to war picked up, but what can one do? If there's enough demand for such a title it shall be created.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Well you had your aggressive players who wanted to conquer everyone, and your peaceful players who just wanted to roleplay their nations and respond to diplomatic issues.

How about those who want to roleplay their nations and respond to diplomatic issues... while they play as a empire?

 

[Tani Coyote]

How about those who want to roleplay their nations and respond to diplomatic issues... while they play as a empire?

See Joecoolyo's performance in IOT IV.

 

[Double A]

Well you had your aggressive players who wanted to conquer everyone, and your peaceful players who just wanted to roleplay their nations and respond to diplomatic issues.

War isn't a diplomatic issue?

 

[Ailedhoo]

War isn't a diplomatic issue?

Not only that but war is a diplomatic action in itself.