New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[flyingchicken]

Somewhat individualistic and a bit objective, sometimes subjective, so I guess that makes me an inconsistent Goal-Oriented player.

---

POLITICAL CAPITAL (e.g. BirdNES 3's Initiative points and DaftNES 2's point system) -- further thoughts on usefulness and implementation?

 

[Dachs]

POLITICAL CAPITAL (e.g. BirdNES 3's Initiative points and DaftNES 2's point system) -- any ideas on usefulness and implementation?

I betcha Disenfrancised does, in this very thread.

 

[flyingchicken]

*searches* ... Man, I really should keep up with the up-to-date and not-buried-deep-in-the-192-pages NES ideas discussions right after going into short vacations.

All these floating ideas really need to be organized somewhere, like the NESWiki.

It is therefore hereby mandated, with no backing authority whatsoever, that all ideas be summarized briefly and placed in this yet-to-be-edited page.

 

[The Strategos]

So how does one design a NES to accommodate as many of these motivations as possible? What are the play elements that feed the "I want to play!" enthusiasm for each?

You are making the assumption that more players=better NES. Is it possible that better NESes are ones where there is a smaller player base which allows for more quality control (now granted this hold more argument to those who view NESes as more social activities; those who view it as more individualistic would care less about the quality of other players)? Is it possible that it would be better to design a NES with a specific target audience and build up the NES to meet that target audience rather than try to please everyone all of the time? Would it be preferable to nail one area and not do so well in other areas or to be just average in every area? Would it be a better NES to have a small, extremely loyal and enthusiastic player base, or a large player base made up of a few enthusiastic players but mainly apathetic or minimally interested players? As the saying goes, chase two rabbits, catch none. That is not to say that there won’t be overlap, but should it be incidental overlap, so that if other people find something to enjoy, great, but if not, that’s fine, or deliberate overlap, where things are deliberately changed (perhaps to the chagrin of other players) in order to chase after player numbers.


But if someone would like to create a NES that strives to make everyone play in it (and I certainly won’t stop you), here are some of what I think cause certain people to enjoy certain NESes.


Why I’d Want to Play

Creator: I want to play in a NES where I control the destiny of my own country. The more freedom I have to create and shape my country, the happier I am. The focus of the NES should be on me the player, my stories, my orders, my vision for the country. NESes are the players’ game, not the moderators’. So if you want to design a game that makes me happy, you need to design a game that gives me freedom: freedom to create the culture (no pre-made culture for me!), freedom to shape the country, freedom to determine it’s political, economic, and religious institutions. The more you limit my freedom of action, the less interested I am in your NES.

Goal-Orientated: I want to play in a NES that gives me a challenge and the most important characteristic of a moderator is giving me those challenges.. It is no fun when I set goals if they are too easy to reach. At the same time, I don’t want the moderator to make my goals impossible to reach. If I set a goal to “unite Italy,” don’t let me just steamroll through NPCs so that I don’t even need thought or skill to achieve my goals, make them hard enough that I have to come up with a good, or even great plan to succeed. The NES also has to be consistent enough that I know that if I do “X” I will achieve “Y.” If I come up with a great plan that would work only to see it fail for some lame reason, I will be extremely mad. On the other hand, if I fail because I failed to take something into account in my plan, or for some believable reason that I can accept when it is pointed out to me, instead of being mad, I will just be more resolved to achieve my goal.

Immersionist: I want to play in a NES where the characters speak to me. If I don’t find an interesting character, or an interesting setting to make an interesting character, I am not interested. I want to be able to roleplay a character so that I can immerse myself in the NES, anything that destroys that immersion (unrealistic actions, bad spelling in official diplomacy, an inconsistent world) limits my enjoyment. The most important characteristic of a moderator is creating and maintaining a believable setting. By maintaining a believable setting, the moderator should referee between players, and in certain cases, overrule player actions that don’t serve to create a believable setting. I can play in either rule heavy or rule light NESes, the important thing is that there is a standard of believability and something, either rules, moderators, or other players enforce the standard. Also, whatever that restrictions there are in the NES, such as rules, must have a in-world explanation for them: rules are a certain way because of “playability,” fine, but give me a reason I can view that rule within the context of the world (for example if every nation starts out equal in everything to make it “fair,” I need to know why every country in the world is equal from an in-game perspective).

Gamer: I want to play in a NES where I am challenged by other players. The moderator needs to be able to resolve player conflicts (whether in political, economic, religious, sphere) in a consistent manner. Complicated NESes are fun, as there are more opportunities for my skill to shine, but simple NESes can be fun as well, it really depends on the other players. I find it fun when I am interacting with other people, building up alliances through diplomacy, engaging in a technology race with my rival, destroying my enemies in war. NESes where I am not surrounded by players (such as early on in fresh starts) are boring. Settings where I am not allowed to compete against other players (such as when the NES is dominated by one power and we all have to do what they want) are boring. The most important characteristic of a moderator is being unbiased, don’t baby other players, if they aren’t as good as me they deserve to lose.

 

[Daftpanzer]

A Response:

You are making the assumption that more players=better NES. Is it possible that better NESes are ones where there is a smaller player base which allows for more quality control (now granted this hold more argument to those who view NESes as more social activities; those who view it as more individualistic would care less about the quality of other players)? Is it possible that it would be better to design a NES with a specific target audience and build up the NES to meet that target audience rather than try to please everyone all of the time? Would it be preferable to nail one area and not do so well in other areas or to be just average in every area? Would it be a better NES to have a small, extremely loyal and enthusiastic player base, or a large player base made up of a few enthusiastic players but mainly apathetic or minimally interested players? As the saying goes, chase two rabbits, catch none. That is not to say that there won’t be overlap, but should it be incidental overlap, so that if other people find something to enjoy, great, but if not, that’s fine, or deliberate overlap, where things are deliberately changed (perhaps to the chagrin of other players) in order to chase after player numbers.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm usually against 'artificial' categorisation of complex messy things, BUT, I've yet to find any fault in this theory - so long as we say that interest in one area doesn't necessarily rule out interest in other areas.

An Unrelated Thing:

Something I've been thinking about recently, and something quite weird and abstract, is alternatives to the modern world order. In basically all 'normal' NESes it seems that as things progress, things move towards various analogies of the real, modern world. I know we only have the real world to go on... But are there any alternatives to industrialisation as we know it? Not just the 'lack of', but something different that could have grabbed hold of most of humanity?

 

[Ninja Dude]

A Response:



This makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm usually against 'artificial' categorisation of complex messy things, BUT, I've yet to find any fault in this theory - so long as we say that interest in one area doesn't necessarily rule out interest in other areas.

An Unrelated Thing:

Something I've been thinking about recently, and something quite weird and abstract, is alternatives to the modern world order. In basically all 'normal' NESes it seems that as things progress, things move towards various analogies of the real, modern world. I know we only have the real world to go on... But are there any alternatives to industrialisation as we know it? Not just the 'lack of', but something different that could have grabbed hold of most of humanity?

I remember hearing that the Greeks had the right tools to begin industrializing. However, that sounds a bit silly. There were small steam engines around in ancient times though.

On the subject of alternate histories, I've been thinking of a few scenarios that sound kind of interesting. Here's one that I've given some thought too. What would have happened if Tecumseh had survived the battle of the Thames and kept the Native American Confederacy united? Could he have, with the help from the British, beat the Americans?

 

[germanicus12]

On the subject of alternate histories, I've been thinking of a few scenarios that sound kind of interesting. Here's one that I've given some thought too. What would have happened if Tecumseh had survived the battle of the Thames and kept the Native American Confederacy united? Could he have, with the help from the British, beat the Americans?

Realistically.... no. America is too vast and England has an entire ocean to cross, no the war would just last longer, but still end in an American victory.

NESically? Possibly, the Native Americans would need a good player to survive, even with British support.

If you start something like this I would join, I love this period.

 

[Ninja Dude]

Realistically.... no. America is too vast and England has an entire ocean to cross, no the war would just last longer, but still end in an American victory.

NESically? Possibly, the Native Americans would need a good player to survive, even with British support.

If you start something like this I would join, I love this period.

Well, Tecumseh was bringing more and more Indians into his confederacy. There were also the British in Canada that didn't need to go all the way across the ocean to fight. you have to remember the White house got burned down at one point, causing the morale to be low. If the Native Americans and British could at least force the Americans to sign for peace while Tecumseh's Confederacy was still intact, it would be interesting to see what would happen.

 

[germanicus12]

Remember Jackson and New Orleans? Just because the capital was sacked does not mean the fight is over, and the stand at New Orleans will recover morale and actually did break British morale.

Also, the Canadian force needed constant resupplying and reinforcements. American Privateers were giving the British hell on the seas because the British could not counter it in force, due to the fact that the British could not find them.

Like I said, it would be a long and costly war for all involved, but ultimately it would still end in an American victory. Especially if Jackson survives.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Hmm, I feel that the proposed classifications are kind of like trying to fit round pegs into square holes. I have fun at a variety of different points, and I feel positively and negatively towards the two things which seem to most closely resemble myself- Creator and Immersionist. I suppose if I had to declare a point- I think that having an OOC goal is a stupid way to NES (though a fun way to game) so I will just go as far away from that as I can get and end up as an Immersionist Creator/Creative Immersionist.

 

[germanicus12]

Oh and another thing, the force that attacked Jackson came fresh from the war against Napoleon, so this was England's veterans and Jackson crushed them. Imagine what he could do against Canadian irregulars.

 

[Ninja Dude]

Remember Jackson and New Orleans? Just because the capital was sacked does not mean the fight is over, and the stand at New Orleans will recover morale and actually did break British morale.

Also, the Canadian force needed constant resupplying and reinforcements. American Privateers were giving the British hell on the seas because the British could not counter it in force, due to the fact that the British could not find them.

Like I said, it would be a long and costly war for all involved, but ultimately it would still end in an American victory. Especially if Jackson survives.

New Orleans was technically after the war. News of the Treaty of Ghent didn't spread to quickly. And what if Andrew had been struck by a Creek arrow while at Horseshoe Bend? His forces will still win, but the death of Andrew Jackson would have major effects.

 

[Masada]

I remember hearing that the Greeks had the right tools to begin industrializing. However, that sounds a bit silly. There were small steam engines around in ancient times though.

Steam Engine =/ useful Steam Engine. They didn't have the skill in metallurgy to make steam engines which could hold enough pressure to be useful. They were also 'similar' in the sense that they were in roughly right if you squinted, added in a bunch of stuff with a pen and rapidly moved the paper around so you could kind of glance what was on the paper. There were numerous other problems including the sheer cost of a steam engine relative to the cost of labor at the time and that they wouldn't really have much in the way of things to use them for...

But are there any alternatives to industrialisation as we know it? Not just the 'lack of', but something different that could have grabbed hold of most of humanity?

Maybe the Ming dynasty could have kicked of a round of industrialization... but it had issues discussed here.

 

[germanicus12]

Yes the death of Jackson would be a different history, but that was not mentioned so Jackson was alive through all that.

But if you were to say Jackson was struck by a Creek arrow and was slain in battle, then the war would be very different. (but again, Jackson never faced the British until New Orleans, only the Creeks which he defeated. So if his troops defeated them without their general, would this have made any difference?)

(The Battle of New Orleans would have made no difference. If the war continued, the British still would have been beaten. Just like they were when the war ended. This is irrelevant due to the fact that the battle still happened.)

Also if Jackson was killed, wouldn't another general have done the same Jackson did? Construct defenses, erect cannons (remember the pirate came to him to assist him against the British), and pray to God that they pull through?

Please don't think I am killing your dream, if you want to go with this, by all means go for it. I still would join, but I just wanted to make sure you understood what you might be getting into concerning the power Jackson has.

 

[North King]

An Unrelated Thing:

Something I've been thinking about recently, and something quite weird and abstract, is alternatives to the modern world order. In basically all 'normal' NESes it seems that as things progress, things move towards various analogies of the real, modern world. I know we only have the real world to go on... But are there any alternatives to industrialisation as we know it? Not just the 'lack of', but something different that could have grabbed hold of most of humanity?

I've been devoting a great deal of thought to this myself. It is interesting to contemplate -- the Chinese, Native Americans, and Indians all had very different "cosmovisions" as the anthropological term goes, than Europeans. Did European culture jumpstart the Industrial Revolution, or was the Industrial Revolution what jumpstarted European culture? Could the IR have happened without the Scientific Method to back it up? Suppose we did indeed have another culture that invents the basics of the Industrial Revolution -- would they have gone along the same path? I think most cultures had "science" of a sort, but the culture behind that science would drive it in a totally different direction...

I think the only way to solve this "problem" is to run an NES and see what would happen. Have Islam or China triumph by some contrivance, and see how the world develops. You'd need dedicated and intelligent players, of course...

I remember hearing that the Greeks had the right tools to begin industrializing. However, that sounds a bit silly. There were small steam engines around in ancient times though.

Ech, no. Greek steam engines tended to be pitifully small, underpowered, useless little things that required more men to feed the fire than they replaced by doing work.

 

[Ninja Dude]

Ech, no. Greek steam engines tended to be pitifully small, underpowered, useless little things that required more men to feed the fire than they replaced by doing work.

That's why I said silly. I only heard it. I don't really believe it myself.

But if you were to say Jackson was struck by a Creek arrow and was slain in battle, then the war would be very different. (but again, Jackson never faced the British until New Orleans, only the Creeks which he defeated. So if his troops defeated them without their general, would this have made any difference?)

Jackson gets killed by the Creek. Jackson isn't there to lead his forces against the British. That deffinently sounds like a difference to me.

(The Battle of New Orleans would have made no difference. If the war continued, the British still would have been beaten. Just like they were when the war ended. This is irrelevant due to the fact that the battle still happened.)

It could have hurt morale if the Americans were defeated. Just replace the now dead Jackson with some less talented general, and you could wind up with some military blunder that gives the Americans bad loss.

Edit: Depending on how the whole situation plays out, the battle may not even occur. However, I can't really make a concrete series of events that could cause this.

Also if Jackson was killed, wouldn't another general have done the same Jackson did? Construct defenses, erect cannons (remember the pirate came to him to assist him against the British), and pray to God that they pull through?

I'm probably not as well learned in this conflict as you, so I never heard of the pirate thing. However, I'm just stretch the boundries of believability and saying that there may be some incompetent general out there who would pull some bone-headed stunt like trying to meet the British head on or something.

Please don't think I am killing your dream, if you want to go with this, by all means go for it. I still would join, but I just wanted to make sure you understood what you might be getting into concerning the power Jackson has.

Well, I'm just playing with the idea with what limited knowledge I have. you're helping me really, instead of "killing my dream". I just really want to figure out how to make a semi-believable timeline where Tecumseh has his confederacy and the Americans aren't completely conquered. Just beat enough to the point where they won't be as successful as they were in real life.

 

[North King]

That's why I said silly. I only heard it. I don't really believe it myself.

Don't worry, I wasn't berating you, just trying to set the record straight.

 

[germanicus12]

Yes with Jackson dead the Battle of New Orleans may have turned into a British Victory and the Mississippi would be cut off and America vulnerable. But I am sure Congress wont choose an incompetent general, they chose Jackson for his steadfast disciplines he instilled in his troops, a do or die attitude if you will.

Now I am not saying there will be another Jackson, but I am sure they would have chosen some one who would at least defend rather than attack. Even here it could still be a defeat if the General was not a good defender. (I.E failed to construct defenses, shunned the pirate etc....) Again, like I said, every leading American, Strategist, General, Admiral, etc... knows the importance of New Orleans and why it has to stay in American hands.

If you would like to take a look at the statistics of the battle:
Jackson had 3,500 men, 2,000 militia (including the pirates cannoneers), and 1500 regulars. The British brought with their fleet, 10,000 veterans from the Napoleonic wars (who served under Wellington), some small cannons and a small recon cavalry force. (Not the best the British had to offer, but still they were better than the Canadian force that marched against Washington DC and devastated the north)

The British warships could not bombard New Orleans as the Mississippi river was inaccessible to the ships, (I think a chain was installed to prevent the ships from approaching...) and the shore guns the pirates brought had longer range than their guns and the British dared not risk the chance. So the British commander had no choice to take it in a charge.

When all was said and done, the Americans lost 13 men to the British 2,000. Numbers do not lie, the cannons were very helpful and the men knew what were at stake (considering the bulk of the militia were from New Orleans and the surrounding area anyways).

Like I said earlier, if the general was really incompetent then yes it could have gone either way, but I am sure New Orleans would have stayed American and the British would have just went elsewhere... or brought more troops from the Napoleonic War which was now winding down as Wellington beat Napoleon.

 

[Ninja Dude]

Yes with Jackson dead the Battle of New Orleans may have turned into a British Victory and the Mississippi would be cut off and America vulnerable. But I am sure Congress wont choose an incompetent general, they chose Jackson for his steadfast disciplines he instilled in his troops, a do or die attitude if you will.

Now I am not saying there will be another Jackson, but I am sure they would have chosen some one who would at least defend rather than attack. Even here it could still be a defeat if the General was not a good defender. (I.E failed to construct defenses, shunned the pirate etc....) Again, like I said, every leading American, Strategist, General, Admiral, etc... knows the importance of New Orleans and why it has to stay in American hands.

If you would like to take a look at the statistics of the battle:
Jackson had 3,500 men, 2,000 militia (including the pirates cannoneers), and 1500 regulars. The British brought with their fleet, 10,000 veterans from the Napoleonic wars (who served under Wellington), some small cannons and a small recon cavalry force. (Not the best the British had to offer, but still they were better than the Canadian force that marched against Washington DC and devastated the north)

The British warships could not bombard New Orleans as the Mississippi river was inaccessible to the ships, (I think a chain was installed to prevent the ships from approaching...) and the shore guns the pirates brought had longer range than their guns and the British dared not risk the chance. So the British commander had no choice to take it in a charge.

When all was said and done, the Americans lost 13 men to the British 2,000. Numbers do not lie, the cannons were very helpful and the men knew what were at stake (considering the bulk of the militia were from New Orleans and the surrounding area anyways).

Like I said earlier, if the general was really incompetent then yes it could have gone either way, but I am sure New Orleans would have stayed American and the British would have just went elsewhere... or brought more troops from the Napoleonic War which was now winding down as Wellington beat Napoleon.

Germanicaus, you seem toknow way more about this stuff than me, so could you answer me this: Why did the British even attack if there was so much stuff going against them? I mean, why not attack somewhere else.

And like I said before, if certain events had taken place, maybe the Battle of New Orleans may not have happened. If enough attacks were going on up north, Jackson or his replacement might have went north to aid against the Native Americans and Canadians. Or enough losses could have been inflicted that talks were already being held about peace, and shortly after Jackson is killed peace is made, forcing America to cede New Orleans to someone else.

 

[Amon Savag]

What would the battle of New Orleans have to do with the peace treaty the americans would accept, including possibly a provision in which the independance of the Native Americans was ensured? You guys really are taking away from the basis of the discussion, am I wrong? New Orleans or no New Orleans, the americans accepted a peace treaty with the british. To refresh everyone's memory, the question was at first "What about tecumseh keeping together the union".