LittleBoots
The Bloody Banner
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,979
Here's my take, and its similar to most of yours. If the rules are visible, it cannot be counted against the player when he takes advantage of it. Thats all I meant.
While We Wait: Part 3
- Thread starter LightFang
- Start date
Here's my take, and its similar to most of yours. If the rules are visible, it cannot be counted against the player when he takes advantage of it. Thats all I meant.
The Strategos
Thanatos
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,175
Fascinating how some ideas are developed by so many different people independently of each other. I've been working off and on since November on creating rules and other set-up for a potential 1450 alt-history, and have been developing it towards many of the areas that others are expressing thoughts towards, specifically, increased emphasis on internal politics and the use of real numbers in excel for formula purposes, but hidden or displayed as vague categories (bad-average-good). As an example, here’s a rough draft of the European nations that start with the letter “A.” What is displayed comes from 21 different categories, all of which the player can influence, and a little over a half of which the player can directly influence through spending.
Spoiler :
Bravo! 
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Daft, that game is awesome 
//sharing with my friends as I type//
//sharing with my friends as I type//
I told carmen to 'not be bothered' by your comments, not because they weren't valid- they were- but that he shouldn't lose his will to mod because of them. You don't play in his NESes- you're a lurker, a critic and a voice of reason. What you say doesn't have to discourage people to join CarmenNES- people can look at it and judge on their own.
Please Symphony, the sarcasm does nothing to make me appreciate your points.
Okay, I'll say what I define as playing to win.
1 Perfect Leader after another.
People expanding for no logical reason, building colonies just for the sake of building colonies. This includes people who annex their enemies in all cases. If the conclusion of World War 2 had been a NES with players who do this illogically (I'll admit there are times where annexation is quite logical), the players would have given western Germany to France, Eastern Germany to Russia, or maybe the Low Countries would have ended up annexed by their allies, or set up as 'vassals'.
People insisting on fighting to the death, deliberately annihilating their nations in a war for a slim chance of victory. I know that it has happened in history, but usually only with psychopathic dictators.
The Mods who let this all happen. I realise that I am one of these mods, and I'm trying to change myself. I realise that this makes me, in several ways, a hypocrite. Wars should have genuinely brutal negative economic impacts. Annexed countries should not meekly bow down and never raise their heads again, unless the situations are truly terrible (IE: Carthage- Conquered by Rome, Conquered by Vandals, land turns to desert, conquered by Arabs, etc...).
Although Sym, I do agree with many of your points. It could be that we just define that phrase you dislike so much differently. I consider it playing a NES as just a game, rather than as a game/story hybrid meant to simulate history.
I still have fun in games, even when these things are happening. But I think that NESing would be more fun if we were less concerned with making our nations as strong and perfect as possible, and more concerned with writing an intriguing narrative of history, with both the Genghis Khans and Alexander the Greats who were incredible leaders and conquerers, and the Louis XVIs and Caligulas who weren't.
Please Symphony, the sarcasm does nothing to make me appreciate your points.
Okay, I'll say what I define as playing to win.
1 Perfect Leader after another.
People expanding for no logical reason, building colonies just for the sake of building colonies. This includes people who annex their enemies in all cases. If the conclusion of World War 2 had been a NES with players who do this illogically (I'll admit there are times where annexation is quite logical), the players would have given western Germany to France, Eastern Germany to Russia, or maybe the Low Countries would have ended up annexed by their allies, or set up as 'vassals'.
People insisting on fighting to the death, deliberately annihilating their nations in a war for a slim chance of victory. I know that it has happened in history, but usually only with psychopathic dictators.
The Mods who let this all happen. I realise that I am one of these mods, and I'm trying to change myself. I realise that this makes me, in several ways, a hypocrite. Wars should have genuinely brutal negative economic impacts. Annexed countries should not meekly bow down and never raise their heads again, unless the situations are truly terrible (IE: Carthage- Conquered by Rome, Conquered by Vandals, land turns to desert, conquered by Arabs, etc...).
Although Sym, I do agree with many of your points. It could be that we just define that phrase you dislike so much differently. I consider it playing a NES as just a game, rather than as a game/story hybrid meant to simulate history.
I still have fun in games, even when these things are happening. But I think that NESing would be more fun if we were less concerned with making our nations as strong and perfect as possible, and more concerned with writing an intriguing narrative of history, with both the Genghis Khans and Alexander the Greats who were incredible leaders and conquerers, and the Louis XVIs and Caligulas who weren't.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
It really shouldn't matter either way.
das
Regeneration In Process
Okay, here's the main and fundamental problem that Symphony did point out clearly enough. "Playing to win" implies criticism of the goal; it has already been shown that there's nothing at all wrong with that goal except that it's impossible (and that is not really bad at all); meanwhile, the only issues you bring up here - and these are the issues that should be brought up - have to do with means towards whatever the goal is.
It's not "playing to win", it's exploiting the loopholes in the rules and the kindness of mods, as well as generally acting in an
Then our problem is a good part language use.
I consider what I do as 'Playing for Fun'. The thing is, people all have different definitions of fun.
Perhaps better terminology should be adopted, like Powergaming (as mentioned earlier).
I consider what I do as 'Playing for Fun'. The thing is, people all have different definitions of fun.
Perhaps better terminology should be adopted, like Powergaming (as mentioned earlier).
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
I can understand 'playing to win,' as long as you're not searching for an absolute victory. Leaders always set goals of building a hegemonic empire, or making the richest mercantile trading network, etc. But in a NES that stretches across centuries, states must change in order to be realistic.
With 'playing to win,' it's possible to win a series of glorious battles, but never ultimately win the war.
With 'playing to win,' it's possible to win a series of glorious battles, but never ultimately win the war.
das
Regeneration In Process
Duh! Most problems tend to be, at least in part.
Why not just exploiting, or metagaming? These are both in use and are far more accurate. Heavy-handed application of power to fulfill ambition of attaining more power may be seen as somewhat shallow, but it still is legit from the viewpoint of historical realism.
Technically most great conquerors got that way by setting impossible goals and failing to achieve them but still achieving a whole damn lot along the way. The Mongols didn't want to "unify the greater part of the Asian trade-routes under one political regime to ensure safety along the Silk Road", they wanted to conquer the world; and even if Alexander did concern himself with "export of Hellenic cultural values and achievements into the Middle East" it was definitely a secondary objective at most.
So as a goal it's perfectly fine; the exact goals set by the players are not usually a problem as such. They can ofcourse be a problem if they are just too unrealistic or metagame-y (I mean cases where players want to build a trans-Atlantic colonial empire and work towards that goal from 4000 BC, or, on a lesser scale, where they try to discover gunpowder), but that is technically an entirely different issue.
flyingchicken
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,783
Civ/video gaming mentality! [guilty]
das
Regeneration In Process
Yes, that too. It is just a part of a general body of basic errors where people fail to immerse themselves in a given setting; that's the most general definition of metagaming, I think.
carmen510
Deity
Then how some TWTUD is still going on?
das
Regeneration In Process
a) Survival is not the only criteria for success;
b) It's sort of more appropriate in that setting;
c) EQ doesn't seem to usually let things get too far out of hand, although as far as technological development goes they still do.
b) It's sort of more appropriate in that setting;
c) EQ doesn't seem to usually let things get too far out of hand, although as far as technological development goes they still do.
flyingchicken
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,783
Some relevant(?) input:
"Science is a very recent development in human history."
–David J. Gross
Science is the application of the scientific method with the explicit goal of attaining knowledge. Indeed, it has only been part of human society in the past 200-300 years. Any technological advance before that timeframe were combinations of luck, opportunism, and innovation.–David J. Gross
carmen510
Deity
Oh, and,
I do not create NESes just to attract experienced NESers.
However, after some 10-15 updates, I would like to have more than 3 NESers who aren't total noobs. Add 2 more in case of sp1023.
I do not create NESes just to attract experienced NESers.
However, after some 10-15 updates, I would like to have more than 3 NESers who aren't total noobs. Add 2 more in case of sp1023.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
That's a pretty snobbish attitude right there; it's like newer players aren't even worth anything to you. Even if you don't actually believe that, it's definitely coming off that way. Not only is that a bad idea in terms of modding (some of your most dedicated players will be newbies), but it's a bad idea in terms of getting new members, since people don't like being blown off.
