Just because some important people have sometimes made irrational decisions does not mean no decisions made by any people can have been rational and that they should all be subject to a roll of the dice.
To the NESing Community
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
But then the problem is that you no longer have distinctions between countries. Instead you have the same personality making decisions for multiple countries with differences based solely on the geopolitical conditions of each specific country.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Unless the moderator is intelligent, clever, and can act out different roles for each of their countries' leaders?
SKILORD
Insurgent
NPC actions cannot be resolved so simply as the extremism of this dialectic implies.
NPC concerns fall into a number of different categories. For an NPC you have to first off name them, give them some sort of statistic, even if you don't write anything down I think it is safe to say that in some manner you have 'ideas' about what sort of society it is. In this manner there is no possibility for random number generation. EQ engages in this when he is determining the options for their possible actions or reactions, there is some idea (be it based on historical fact about the nature of the society or simply his subliminal notions about the nature of a group) he essentially 'fiat's long before he has done any RNG, RNG simply determines which 'fiat'.
But fiat is not necessary to provide rational reactions. Even for 2 mercantile, socially stratified, generally peaceful NPCs, essentially identical, faced with the same problem there are multiple courses of action that can be rationally taken, many of which are informed by regional particulars, but including many others that simply illustrate the inventive nature of human societies. Say Global Flooding is threatening the capitals of these NPC's, it is possible that one of them might build huge levees, while the other may well adopt the Venetian lifestyle, ferrying themselves about the upper floors of their skyscrapers. In this case the RNG is just as good as your own fiat.
The appeal that RNG has is not that it makes things "fairer" but that it forces the moderator to determine multiple approaches to problems that individual NPC's face.
It is not as though the question for the NPC is "Invaders are coming, should I defend my capital?" and EQ flips a coin to decide. He simply determines multiple approaches to this problem before he uses a computer to decide which of them to take. Should the NPC charge out to face these invaders or fortify the capital, with which tactics will they fight the enemy in this coming battle?
But this touches upon a whole new level of NPC behavior, their reactions to players. Again, the predetermined nature of this society is declared by fiat and will affect how they treat players, but again, there are always multiple approaches to a problem. RNG itself is completely useless, the most important part is that RNG forces a process of determining the multiple valid responses.
How do you decide between those responses? RNG works, but since you are already weighting the probability of these responses I think it would probably be equivalent to simply using your own 'fiat' to 'guess' and I do not see a need to involve hardware into the equation.
NPC concerns fall into a number of different categories. For an NPC you have to first off name them, give them some sort of statistic, even if you don't write anything down I think it is safe to say that in some manner you have 'ideas' about what sort of society it is. In this manner there is no possibility for random number generation. EQ engages in this when he is determining the options for their possible actions or reactions, there is some idea (be it based on historical fact about the nature of the society or simply his subliminal notions about the nature of a group) he essentially 'fiat's long before he has done any RNG, RNG simply determines which 'fiat'.
But fiat is not necessary to provide rational reactions. Even for 2 mercantile, socially stratified, generally peaceful NPCs, essentially identical, faced with the same problem there are multiple courses of action that can be rationally taken, many of which are informed by regional particulars, but including many others that simply illustrate the inventive nature of human societies. Say Global Flooding is threatening the capitals of these NPC's, it is possible that one of them might build huge levees, while the other may well adopt the Venetian lifestyle, ferrying themselves about the upper floors of their skyscrapers. In this case the RNG is just as good as your own fiat.
The appeal that RNG has is not that it makes things "fairer" but that it forces the moderator to determine multiple approaches to problems that individual NPC's face.
It is not as though the question for the NPC is "Invaders are coming, should I defend my capital?" and EQ flips a coin to decide. He simply determines multiple approaches to this problem before he uses a computer to decide which of them to take. Should the NPC charge out to face these invaders or fortify the capital, with which tactics will they fight the enemy in this coming battle?
But this touches upon a whole new level of NPC behavior, their reactions to players. Again, the predetermined nature of this society is declared by fiat and will affect how they treat players, but again, there are always multiple approaches to a problem. RNG itself is completely useless, the most important part is that RNG forces a process of determining the multiple valid responses.
How do you decide between those responses? RNG works, but since you are already weighting the probability of these responses I think it would probably be equivalent to simply using your own 'fiat' to 'guess' and I do not see a need to involve hardware into the equation.
Amon Savag
The Great
Italy in WW1 would be a good example of where a mod would have to simply roll dice to be fair. The logical thing for them to do (Being bound by alliance in the begining) would be to declare abruptly as Germany did on the entente.
No, the Italian leaders - or rather, the Marquis Di Sanlorenzo - made a perfectly logical decision in 1914. The Triple Alliance did not necessarily apply to the Austro-Serbian War; it certainly did not apply to the Austro-Russian War, and absolutely did not apply to the Franco-German War. And Italy had already made other secret agreements with the British and French to ignore the Triple Alliance anyway. Furthermore, ignoring treaty obligations, the Italian military would have faced tough challenges regardless of which side Italy landed on.
The Alps stood in the way of both the routes into France and Austria, routes that a far inferior force could hold in the teeth of Italy's armies. But on the sea, Italy had the choice of fighting against either the Royal Navy and the French Marine - you know, two of the four largest navies in the world - or the Austrian K.u.K. fleet, which, while formidable, was nowhere near as scary as the British and the French.
What was wisest for the Italians was to sit back, see who looked likely to win, let the two sides bid up their support, and only then join the war. And they made the correct decision. Where the Italians went wrong in the First World War was in their military decisions, not in their diplomatic ones. They picked the winning side, after all.
The Alps stood in the way of both the routes into France and Austria, routes that a far inferior force could hold in the teeth of Italy's armies. But on the sea, Italy had the choice of fighting against either the Royal Navy and the French Marine - you know, two of the four largest navies in the world - or the Austrian K.u.K. fleet, which, while formidable, was nowhere near as scary as the British and the French.
What was wisest for the Italians was to sit back, see who looked likely to win, let the two sides bid up their support, and only then join the war. And they made the correct decision. Where the Italians went wrong in the First World War was in their military decisions, not in their diplomatic ones. They picked the winning side, after all.
I have to say it has been tough to bring me back into your NESes EQ. Mainly because of ABNW and how as Italy it felt like I had to make orders that made no sense. When unifying Italy from under the French thumb Italy was very anti France and fought it. But what happened to get Italy out of the War was simple the French bought us off by basically giving up on occupying Italy at all and let us waltz in against limited resistance so they could focus elsewhere.
This act coupled with other incentives and a regime change over a decade+ changed Italy into France's most ardent supporter. Italy simply never had the population or size to be more than a very strong regional power without France to back it up. Yet I was being forced into being anti France and it made no sense, given the very long historical alliance and size difference between the nations, except you wanted France and Italy to go to war. I imagine since you wrote it out that way you wanted Italy to drop it's nukes everywhere.
It was simply difficult for me because it started feeling less like I was playing and more like I was just reading what you had predetermined Italy to do.
I find many of your scenarios for NESes interesting but still find it difficult to return after that.
I do want you to know I do not take it personally but am afraid if I played in your NES I would have to become more of a passenger in the faction I play than being able to lead it.
This act coupled with other incentives and a regime change over a decade+ changed Italy into France's most ardent supporter. Italy simply never had the population or size to be more than a very strong regional power without France to back it up. Yet I was being forced into being anti France and it made no sense, given the very long historical alliance and size difference between the nations, except you wanted France and Italy to go to war. I imagine since you wrote it out that way you wanted Italy to drop it's nukes everywhere.
It was simply difficult for me because it started feeling less like I was playing and more like I was just reading what you had predetermined Italy to do.
I find many of your scenarios for NESes interesting but still find it difficult to return after that.
I do want you to know I do not take it personally but am afraid if I played in your NES I would have to become more of a passenger in the faction I play than being able to lead it.
Skilord made the best points I could make, so I'll leave it with what he said, adding once again that theorizing can only take us so far. I would sincerely wish for observers or even participants in my updates to view and analyze if the resultant behaviors of the NPCs match a realistic approach.
@Adrognans: Heh, I did love imaging crezth getting involved in ANOTHER nuclear war with Italy. Would have amused greatly. As I have suggested, the NES ruleset is designed exactly to remove my incentives and biases out of the equation. See SKILORD's above post for a good explanation.
@Adrognans: Heh, I did love imaging crezth getting involved in ANOTHER nuclear war with Italy. Would have amused greatly. As I have suggested, the NES ruleset is designed exactly to remove my incentives and biases out of the equation. See SKILORD's above post for a good explanation.
Quisani
Gaming Person
EQ, I will admit that I have not participated in many NESes, nor do I think I will ever be terribly active in this community (which is why I like choosing smaller, fringe nations).
I do think though, that what you have said about your approach to NPCs makes sense. While logical behavior is nice to see in the system, as spryllino suggests, I feel that by using RNGs, you're taking a bit more realistic approach to things. Yes, there are always choices for nations to make that are more logical than others, but I think we to remember that this chance shows us the little events we don't don't think about. While we'd like to treat our governments as unified machines, they aren't.
Perhaps the Minister of Defense wake up with an stomachache the day he is supposed to receive a vital military report and give his opinion on the matter to the PM/Kaiser/Czar/Mugwump. And lets say that the messenger who has the report wakes up late, has his horse go lame, and is assaulted by a wandering band of gypsies and then is left for dead. Without this vital bit of information, and feeling a bit more grave than gravy, he rambles aimlessly about military anecdotes and a good joke about merchants and thieves he heard last night. Now the ruler not only has a poor opinion about his Minister, but not a clue about what to do. And why should he? That's why he hired the bloody fool in the first place. Lets just move some men and boats and put on a good show and nobody will notice. Next thing you know, the economy is in shambles and you're living in a post-apocalyptic Fascist democracy with radioactive cockroaches banging at the gates.
Of course this scenario will never happen. But by using the RGNs and assigning probabilities to set of events ranging from likely to feasible, to "who knew?", you're leaving the door open for human error. Sure, you're going to behave logically most of the time, but every now and then, somewhere, and somehow, something happens that prevents everything from happening logically. To not include that possibility could be construed as "railroading." While I wouldn't go that far, since you can still have a great experience and variety of outcomes without the RGNs, I think using RGNs has greater potential for development overall.
I do think though, that what you have said about your approach to NPCs makes sense. While logical behavior is nice to see in the system, as spryllino suggests, I feel that by using RNGs, you're taking a bit more realistic approach to things. Yes, there are always choices for nations to make that are more logical than others, but I think we to remember that this chance shows us the little events we don't don't think about. While we'd like to treat our governments as unified machines, they aren't.
Perhaps the Minister of Defense wake up with an stomachache the day he is supposed to receive a vital military report and give his opinion on the matter to the PM/Kaiser/Czar/Mugwump. And lets say that the messenger who has the report wakes up late, has his horse go lame, and is assaulted by a wandering band of gypsies and then is left for dead. Without this vital bit of information, and feeling a bit more grave than gravy, he rambles aimlessly about military anecdotes and a good joke about merchants and thieves he heard last night. Now the ruler not only has a poor opinion about his Minister, but not a clue about what to do. And why should he? That's why he hired the bloody fool in the first place. Lets just move some men and boats and put on a good show and nobody will notice. Next thing you know, the economy is in shambles and you're living in a post-apocalyptic Fascist democracy with radioactive cockroaches banging at the gates.
Of course this scenario will never happen. But by using the RGNs and assigning probabilities to set of events ranging from likely to feasible, to "who knew?", you're leaving the door open for human error. Sure, you're going to behave logically most of the time, but every now and then, somewhere, and somehow, something happens that prevents everything from happening logically. To not include that possibility could be construed as "railroading." While I wouldn't go that far, since you can still have a great experience and variety of outcomes without the RGNs, I think using RGNs has greater potential for development overall.
skeptikalz!
The Truth and the Lie
EQ, much respect for the post.
I haven't been in many NESes in my while here (ABNW was technically my first) but from those few years until now as I come and go and return again, I definitely count your NES'es among the most fun and intriguing, to the degree where I try to follow them if I am not participating. The diplomacy and player interaction they encourage is amazing and I always get a kick out of reading the updates (at least as much as I don't breeze through).
My only criticism to you as a mod from what I can say I've seen is that you don't reply to a lot of stuff directed to you in a thread. Whether this is because you miss it, ignore it, a mix of the two or otherwise, I am unsure, but it's something I pick up on, which isn't too much of a big deal anyways.
Other than that, good stuff.
I haven't been in many NESes in my while here (ABNW was technically my first) but from those few years until now as I come and go and return again, I definitely count your NES'es among the most fun and intriguing, to the degree where I try to follow them if I am not participating. The diplomacy and player interaction they encourage is amazing and I always get a kick out of reading the updates (at least as much as I don't breeze through).
My only criticism to you as a mod from what I can say I've seen is that you don't reply to a lot of stuff directed to you in a thread. Whether this is because you miss it, ignore it, a mix of the two or otherwise, I am unsure, but it's something I pick up on, which isn't too much of a big deal anyways.
Other than that, good stuff.
Abaddon
Deity
This was a great thread to start.
I have felt in a few of your NES that since my idea of where I want my nation to go, doesn't match with yours, not much really happens.. which is a shame. I do think you need to give players a bit more freedom to wander their own path. Ruin them if they truly are making stupid errors, but let them make the errors.
Other than that I had a fantastic time in your recent Fallout NES.. I only hope you mod a setting I am interested in soon... you go through enough different ideas and attempts it seems, i'm sure another will come along soon enough
I have felt in a few of your NES that since my idea of where I want my nation to go, doesn't match with yours, not much really happens.. which is a shame. I do think you need to give players a bit more freedom to wander their own path. Ruin them if they truly are making stupid errors, but let them make the errors.
Other than that I had a fantastic time in your recent Fallout NES.. I only hope you mod a setting I am interested in soon... you go through enough different ideas and attempts it seems, i'm sure another will come along soon enough
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Your NESes were something I always look for, whether to follow, join and fail, or to just read through to figure out the personalities of other NESers. I like the balance of Moderator Power and NESer's Power in the path of the game and its mood. I think the use of RNG would greatly improve your NESes and reduce criticism about the ebb and flow of moderator intervention.
I do agree with skeptikalz! in that you do sometimes, somehow, not respond to diplomacy or questions, or sometimes answer half my questions or my diplomatic points. I never gotten up the courage to ask the second half again, because I am unwilling to take more of your PM space. If you opened up your VM for certain traffic, like asking you to clarify question #2, or if you forgot the diplo on Post 319, it would flow much better the way I would like to NES.
To put it simply, you are a great Mod, but sometimes I get the feeling of distance from you when I try to ask questions to clarify the situation.
I do agree with skeptikalz! in that you do sometimes, somehow, not respond to diplomacy or questions, or sometimes answer half my questions or my diplomatic points. I never gotten up the courage to ask the second half again, because I am unwilling to take more of your PM space. If you opened up your VM for certain traffic, like asking you to clarify question #2, or if you forgot the diplo on Post 319, it would flow much better the way I would like to NES.
To put it simply, you are a great Mod, but sometimes I get the feeling of distance from you when I try to ask questions to clarify the situation.
This is true.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Hey! How did you find your way into every country I've ever played in an EQ NES?
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
NESes that claim to be historical should resemble actual history, rather than gamey, history-lite interpretations of history.
Oh yeah, and railroading is bad.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
Oh yeah, and railroading is bad.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
Technically, if you suscribe to the theory of the multiverse, due to the concept of infinite universes, EVERY idea and setting for every NES has happened somewhere. It doesn't matter how absurd the premise or plot is or the viability of the historical scenario. It's happened at some point in the multiverse. Therefore, any plot can be made that resembles history, just not the history of our universe.
Overall since posting this thread, my faith in the use has overall been bolstered by its success in CIEN. I am quite pleased with the distribution of randomness, and it has enough of an effect that everything isn't completely random. Though I've had to make enormous tweeks to the initial ruleset and initial way I was doing things, I believe I've finally hit my stride with the appropriate layout. Definitely some hiccups for the first few updates. Also, based on events, though I have found myself dissauding some people from rather suicidal/OOC actions, I have not expressing forbid anything that was in theory in the realm of possibility. Frankly, this has made the updates far more fun to write and nations to develop. Furthermore, I'd like to say I appreciate North King's advice on making NPCs more interesting (even if it was a single sentence post), and have begun to rather enjoy moderating quite a bit more now after I've made a slight change.
The slight change in NPC moderation I have made does feel notable enough to deserve mention here. Rather than simply reacting to events like I earlier expressed with NPCs using RNG, I have instead took a considerable amount of time to ponder each NPC nation's geopolitical goals and position. I then made a numbered list for each nation and their goals, and have set about trying to achieve them for each NPC nation. To be clear, RNG NPC action is off the table except in the toughest of decisions.
Overall since posting this thread, my faith in the use has overall been bolstered by its success in CIEN. I am quite pleased with the distribution of randomness, and it has enough of an effect that everything isn't completely random. Though I've had to make enormous tweeks to the initial ruleset and initial way I was doing things, I believe I've finally hit my stride with the appropriate layout. Definitely some hiccups for the first few updates. Also, based on events, though I have found myself dissauding some people from rather suicidal/OOC actions, I have not expressing forbid anything that was in theory in the realm of possibility. Frankly, this has made the updates far more fun to write and nations to develop. Furthermore, I'd like to say I appreciate North King's advice on making NPCs more interesting (even if it was a single sentence post), and have begun to rather enjoy moderating quite a bit more now after I've made a slight change.
The slight change in NPC moderation I have made does feel notable enough to deserve mention here. Rather than simply reacting to events like I earlier expressed with NPCs using RNG, I have instead took a considerable amount of time to ponder each NPC nation's geopolitical goals and position. I then made a numbered list for each nation and their goals, and have set about trying to achieve them for each NPC nation. To be clear, RNG NPC action is off the table except in the toughest of decisions.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Great about hearing your status report on your Moding methods!
Also, Railroading can actually help your economy if you do it right, Thlayli. (J/K, I got what you're saying.
)
Also, Railroading can actually help your economy if you do it right, Thlayli. (J/K, I got what you're saying.
)
