StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thirdfain wrote:Umm, the water nuke was instantly slapped down by mod decision and had no effect on the game.

Except that you accepted it and let the stupid thing burn a part of your world. I'd also like to point out that 2 had more effective mod support than 4.

I don't think it would be right to forbid players from joining. Everyone who wants to play, should.

My point, however, is that by clearly stating expectations and rules, even a shitty player can become moderately skilled, rather than flailing wildly.

And the game was still fun.

Maybe for you because you were on the winning end of most of the arguments, but for the vast majority of players, it quickly got soured by the arguments for a lot of others.

And it was still fun!

Just because you had nothing but fun doesn't mean that other people did. You've got to make the game fun for most everyone that's playing in it, not just those that are winning the debates in the OOC thread.

Except it was fun, and we played for 140 awesome pages without hard-and-fast combat rules. Even you didn't have a problem with it, until the balance of power turned against you.

Bullshit, Terry. Make more assumptions, why don't you? Jesus, you really just want to piss away a lot of things today, don't you?

SirNitram wrote:This is a problem, but I don't know what, short of basically banning certain folks, can be done about it.

That's the problem. Banning of players would make the game exclusive, and also tell players that if they step too far out of line (and ill-defined line, at that), that they won't be able to play anymore. This of course, will limit the number of players we'll have, reducing the total number of active players, and of course increasing the likelyhood that the game will die on the operating table any time there's a big vacation.

Except that you accepted it and let the stupid thing burn a part of your world. I'd also like to point out that 2 had more effective mod support than 4.

As was my perogative. And mod support is as good as the mods you have; we'd have the same mods as STGOD2.

My point, however, is that by clearly stating expectations and rules, even a shitty player can become moderately skilled, rather than flailing wildly.

Not a SINGLE STGOD with those clearly stated expectations and rules has gotten off the ground; your abortive effort on LA being a fantastic example.

Maybe for you because you were on the winning end of most of the arguments, but for the vast majority of players, it quickly got soured by the arguments for a lot of others.

Um, I was involved in almost no arguments over the course of the game, and moreover, the fact that dozens of players continued to actively contribute for the better part of a year pretty much proves the fact that your assertion that "it quickly got soured" applied really only to you, and really only to the last few weeks of the game.

Just because you had nothing but fun doesn't mean that other people did. You've got to make the game fun for most everyone that's playing in it, not just those that are winning the debates in the OOC thread.

Reference my previous note. Clearly, it was fun enough that large numbers of people kept playing. Apparantly, the argument and dissent was not as big a problem as you let on.

There are two problems being addressed here. You think the problem with STGODs has been the lack of hard and fast rules and the arguments which occur in the OOC thread. I think the problem so far has been over-legislation, which minimizes the size of the player's pool and keeps the game form getting large enough to become self-sustaining.

Let's evaluate this really quickly. The STGODs with the most OOC argument and fighting and the least structure were certainly STGODs 1 and 4, with 1 not even having a declared mod, with STGOD2 coming in a distant 3rd. The STGODs with the most structure were definitely the Steam and Steel STGOD, your STGOD on LA, and Spyder's STGOD 2k6. None of these had significant OOC argument; conversely, they also had almost no in-game dissent either, and I don't think any of them ran past 15 pages of game-thread.

So, which have been more successful? Should we try to build an STGOD around even MORE stringent legislation and mod power, or should we try to follow the trends which led to the longest, most involved STGODs rather than the shortest, least compelling (at least judging from participation) ones? I'd like a concrete answer to this question, please.

Well, at the risk of the 'Old Boys Club' speaking, why shouldn't the game settle during a big vacation? I don't want to preach the Good Old Days as in the days of ASVS, but we managed then by not having the galaxy constantly on the verge of war. It's quite possible to come back to it after a vacation, especially if the mod says 'And until everyone's back, nothing big will happen, or I ballpunch you.'

Going back to the ASVS STGODs... I think what made them more successful was the fact that there were breaks between the different portions of the game, which helped prevent burn-out of the palyer base.

You know, I think part of my own enthusiasm stems from my love of world/entitybuilding. Even if the game implodes into a point-mass, I've still had a motivation to build up and toy with an idea, and taht is already worth it in and of itself.

Half these complaints seem to stem from people doing unconventional stuff without asking the mods and/or OOB thread whether they can do it/how it fits into the rules first. Can't you just ban that? Is surprise and/or posting rate really that important?

Thirdfain wrote:Not a SINGLE STGOD with those clearly stated expectations and rules has gotten off the ground; your abortive effort on LA being a fantastic example.

As was the one that started on SDN parallel to it. You want to keep making this personal, feel free, Terry.

Um, I was involved in almost no arguments over the course of the game, and moreover, the fact that dozens of players continued to actively contribute for the better part of a year pretty much proves the fact that your assertion that "it quickly got soured" applied really only to you, and really only to the last few weeks of the game.

Bullshit on all counts. You were heavily involved in those debates, even if it was just behind the scenes through AIM conversations and other backdoor methods. My souring to the game started the very first time I got in combat, not just with the myriad of bullshit you were involved with later. I kept going because I thought it was going to get better, and I was enjoying everything else but the game-stopping combat bullshit. But hey, keep going, you're just digging yourself deeper.

Reference my previous note. Clearly, it was fun enough that large numbers of people kept playing. Apparantly, the argument and dissent was not as big a problem as you let on.

Fucking bullshit. A lot of people kept playing despite the rampant bullshit that was going on. When the bullshit got out of control, people said fuck it and have since recused themselves from STGODS since for good reason.

There are two problems being addressed here. You think the problem with STGODs has been the lack of hard and fast rules and the arguments which occur in the OOC thread. I think the problem so far has been over-legislation, which minimizes the size of the player's pool and keeps the game form getting large enough to become self-sustaining.

Actually, I pointed out the problems with both extremes, and you were quick to jump on one rather than the other, and to drag in some bullshit you should have known better than to try spouting. Too much freedom, and there's bullshit. Too many rules, and people don't want to bother.

Let's evaluate this really quickly. The STGODs with the most OOC argument and fighting and the least structure were certainly STGODs 1 and 4, with 1 not even having a declared mod, with STGOD2 coming in a distant 3rd. The STGODs with the most structure were definitely the Steam and Steel STGOD, your STGOD on LA, and Spyder's STGOD 2k6. None of these had significant OOC argument; conversely, they also had almost no in-game dissent either, and I don't think any of them ran past 15 pages of game-thread.

So, which have been more successful? Should we try to build an STGOD around even MORE stringent legislation and mod power, or should we try to follow the trends which led to the longest, most involved STGODs rather than the shortest, least compelling (at least judging from participation) ones? I'd like a concrete answer to this question, please.

You know what Terry, fuck you. You want to ignore and insult me, you can fucking do it to my face.

SirNitram wrote:Well, at the risk of the 'Old Boys Club' speaking, why shouldn't the game settle during a big vacation? I don't want to preach the Good Old Days as in the days of ASVS, but we managed then by not having the galaxy constantly on the verge of war. It's quite possible to come back to it after a vacation, especially if the mod says 'And until everyone's back, nothing big will happen, or I ballpunch you.'

Well that would be fine on the face of it, but there's always some cocknocker who seems to want to start shit on vacation times, or something big is already happening when it occurs.

Add to that you invariably have the people who post madly when things are going well for them, but suddenly and magically "disappear" whenever the slightest thing goes wrong for them. That can do more damage than a bunch of people being on vacation, because then it's one person committed to a major action and then being nowhere to be found.

Hotfoot wrote:Well that would be fine on the face of it, but there's always some cocknocker who seems to want to start shit on vacation times, or something big is already happening when it occurs.

Add to that you invariably have the people who post madly when things are going well for them, but suddenly and magically "disappear" whenever the slightest thing goes wrong for them. That can do more damage than a bunch of people being on vacation, because then it's one person committed to a major action and then being nowhere to be found.

These are both problems, but I think if there was sufficient trust in the mods, it could be handled. The situation is simply making it clear that the mods will deal with such, and people would have to accept that. Otherwise, you get such nonsense.

Need we repeat for everyone's memory the multitude of nations that rose up, did something stupid, and imploded, giving their entire navy to the 'Ground only' Monacora or whatever's in STGOD4?

Hotfoot wrote:My point, however, is that by clearly stating expectations and rules, even a shitty player can become moderately skilled, rather than flailing wildly.

This is what I was referring to: your assertion that the answer to this whole thing is to have clearly stated rules and expectations. Of course I believe that a basic framework is necessary- rules for dropping out of the game and so on- but my point is that all of the worst failed STGODs had complex and heavy rules systems.

As was the one that started on SDN parallel to it. You want to keep making this personal, feel free, Terry.

The SDN one had a fairly complex series of OOB rules as well, and I am not trying to make this personal at all- I'm merely pointing out that some of the most heavily modded and "guided" games were the least successful.

ou were heavily involved in those debates, even if it was just behind the scenes through AIM conversations and other backdoor methods.

I think you are drastically overstating my involvement. Besides debate over Sharkbait's attacks, I was largely divorced from the OOC arguing, and I worked through the mod system- which served well, as I recall.

Actually, I pointed out the problems with both extremes, and you were quick to jump on one rather than the other, and to drag in some bullshit you should have known better than to try spouting. Too much freedom, and there's bullshit. Too many rules, and people don't want to bother.

... But you asserted that the answer to the problem was, ah, more rules. I'm not interested in arguing over past STGODs, I'm interested in working out the best possible system for any new STGODs. If you aren't going to be involved anyway, why are you even speaking on the issue?

You know what Terry, fuck you. You want to ignore and insult me, you can fucking do it to my face.

I was neither ignoring, nor insulting you. And my question still stands.

Thirdfain wrote:Ah, the Dahak plan returns once more

So, where should we place it? I was thinking that it might not be a bad idea to set an STGOD in the STGOD4-verse... the one with the Machines, and the UP, and the Ousters et all. Thoughts?

Yupp, it returns once more
And STGOD4 would be fine with me. Was one of the most fun ones we had. I see no reason to abandon it if it could be helped, whatever other people might say...

Look, someone pulls a gespenst and just vanishes after pissing people off, the Mods fairly legislate for them.

I'd be fine with that. I mean, nobody here is that invested in the nation they make that having it take damage would annoy them, right? That'd be madness- the point of STGOD is that some nations die.

I mean, I made my first STGOD country, the Khar, based on the assumption that I'd bring down the wrath of every other power by warmongering against them, and ultimately probably be destroyed to the last toothpick of construction.

Thirdfain wrote:This is what I was referring to: your assertion that the answer to this whole thing is to have clearly stated rules and expectations. Of course I believe that a basic framework is necessary- rules for dropping out of the game and so on- but my point is that all of the worst failed STGODs had complex and heavy rules systems.

So you assumed that my pointing out in my first thread that both extremes fail that I meant what? Yeah, keep moving.

The SDN one had a fairly complex series of OOB rules as well, and I am not trying to make this personal at all- I'm merely pointing out that some of the most heavily modded and "guided" games were the least successful.

No shit, I made that point myself. Meanwhile you keep harping on how my STGOD failed specifically. Tell me how that's not trying to make things personal, especially when your reasoning for why it failed is, at best, flawed?

I think you are drastically overstating my involvement. Besides debate over Sharkbait's attacks, I was largely divorced from the OOC arguing, and I worked through the mod system- which served well, as I recall.

I think you know my opinion of the mods of STGOD4 well enough.

... But you asserted that the answer to the problem was, ah, more rules. I'm not interested in arguing over past STGODs, I'm interested in working out the best possible system for any new STGODs. If you aren't going to be involved anyway, why are you even speaking on the issue?

If you can't have rules or expectations that show a clear understanding of the reality of the game, then you have no game worth playing. Simply saying "Hey, let's play an STGOD without thinking" has sunk previous STGODs as well. While I may have had a rules-heavy approach in my own attempt, that was my perogative, and the primary failing of that STGOD was lack of overall players and lack of mods. I don't care what fucking game you're running, if you don't have sufficient mods, stuff is going to fall apart. Now if you want to keep going down this path, we can, but there will be consequences.

I was neither ignoring, nor insulting you. And my question still stands.

Whatever. Your ability for self-deception is amazing, Terry.

Frankly, this argument is not worth having. Leave the game organization to those who are going to be playing.

Thirdfain wrote:Frankly, this argument is not worth having. Leave the game organization to those who are going to be playing.

Fuck you too, pal.

So the real question is whether we'll be starting a new STGOD or not. I'd personally be in favor of getting one going. A good, lively STGOD is always fun.

I'd love to continue the STGOD1+4 universe. I'd love to dust off the Asgard for yet another go. It's still my favorite of the shared fictional universes.

* * *

As for structure, I think an extremely simple system like #4s should work. Just assign points values to a ship and go from there. It's not a big deal but it makes modding and playing much easier.

Even with the issues raised, I'd still be interested in trying. I know that as a new player I'm effectively prey, but I'd still like to see. Besides, it would give me a good chance to polish some of my ideas for my sci-fi story.

Don't worry, they'd be human. Mostly.

Stormbringer wrote:As for structure, I think an extremely simple system like #4s should work. Just assign points values to a ship and go from there. It's not a big deal but it makes modding and playing much easier.

Something like say..
25 capital points
100 planetary defense points
200 cruiser points
1000 escort points

Thats cool, because its very similar to what STGOD 4. What I think we should avoid is any of the other systems we tried, with points that work against capital ships, and against escorts and fighters, etc.


Oh, and no more re-rolling. One person should get one empire. If they lose it, they can try to get it back, sue for peace... etc. None of this "Aww man, you sunk my battleship... Now I'm the space lizards ."

Do you mean that most of the individuals would be human, or that each individual would be mostly human? </Vimes>

As for the setting, 2k5 was set in 1+4, yes? Or am I getting my chronologies buggered again.

2k5 was STGOD2 some years into the future, wasn't it? It was the Starwars tech era game with that HUGE absurd super-empire that was a full half the galaxy's might, and full of people who didn't play and half of them wanted to have super wanked out ships (as I recall...)

As someone who would be joining from relative obscurity (never having even been on these boards during their duration) I'd love a setting without as much history, and if we do choose a history-laden setting I'd like some variety of synopsis so it's not a painful thing to set up your forces.

I'd also be interested, personally, in playing something designed to mix up the pot. I dislike moderating games, but I enjoy doing things in order to keep stuff moving. It sounds like people leap like jackals on anyone who makes a 'mistake', which sounds pretty awful, so I'd be interested in hearing ways of keeping things fluid without consigning the catalyst nation to a firey doom.

I'd love to play on the basis that I already have my one "OOB" written up in the form of a Sci-Fi noveal and universe with a whole series of planets, races, aliens and starships.

I'd love to set them loose on others >:)

Crossroads Inc. wrote:I'd love to play on the basis that I already have my one "OOB" written up in the form of a Sci-Fi noveal and universe with a whole series of planets, races, aliens and starships.

I'd love to set them loose on others >:)

Or watch as they're burnt to the ground by the Starforce of Isengard. Spacetrolls ftw.

Covenant wrote:
I'd also be interested, personally, in playing something designed to mix up the pot. I dislike moderating games, but I enjoy doing things in order to keep stuff moving. It sounds like people leap like jackals on anyone who makes a 'mistake', which sounds pretty awful, so I'd be interested in hearing ways of keeping things fluid without consigning the catalyst nation to a firey doom.

There have been a number of catalyst nations which have thrived and succeeded, SirNitram's evil machine empire being the most successful by far. It pretty much just takes skill and cleverness, as well as a willingness to surrender if shit gets really bad.