DiceHex

Members
  • Content count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    57d 18m 44s

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About DiceHex

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

ITS

  • ITS PIN J1353

Recent Profile Visitors

409 profile views
  1. Thanks for running Wotan. I had lots of fun. This is more spitballing and wishlisting than actual feedback. Just got some ideas... Structure - Three phases good, weekly updates better. 8 weeks is plenty, 6 would be okay. Locations - The number of surviving troops from each battle played, show actual faction presence in a location. Whether they are losing battles or not, putting live troops in a location should matter. This is the more military part of a campaign, rather than the insurgent/covert/strike/special ops theme in infinity where troops withdraw like shadows in the night. Location control would be partially about the number of survivors in it. Playing games there, is what matters most, and in larger battles, the stakes are higher. Each 50 point block of troops which survives, adds a point to the location control tally, separate from the W/L/D game result. Win/Loss/Draw - 4/1/2. A one point loss would encourage reporting of losses. And/Or, use ITS scoring, where a score of 5-4 is the points each player gets. Combined with the above, the bonus for surviving troops, every game matters. Winning is still better. Faction Goals - Story driven. Attainable via any mission. A simple tertiary objective for each faction, which can change (by the week/phase/fortnight), included in normal missions. As well as having the location control graphs, add a faction-goal tally. Perhaps Yu-Jing is under scrutiny from O-12 over accusations of war-crimes, and gain a faction-goal-point for not using illegal weapons in LoS of enemy HVT? Perhaps ALEPH needs to destroy rival EI/Nomad AI links, and so always has the secondary objective about demolitions with D-Charges? The possibilities are endless, they don’t have to be perfectly fair, but they ought to reflect faction theme. Maybe CA need to capture HVTs to interrogate, and there would be a tally of how many they got at the end of the week/phase. I’m sure others could come up with better stuff than me. A campaign-wide faction goal - would be cool too, and should be prominent on the front page. Instead of only having city-x, base-y, and factory-z… also have comms systems, government infrastructure, looting of secret tech, transportation infrastructure, etc, which exist in all map locations, but can be considered a faction goal. Maybe Pan-O must hold government infrastructure, and CA want to control comms planet wide. This is separate from the military-style location control, and could be a faction’s tertiary mission objective in all missions wherever they are played. Bat-reps - Limit bat-rep numbers, or have diminishing returns. Player chooses their 2 best reports at the end of week, others count for less. Another way to look at this, is a player can nominate 2 reports each week to count for more… maybe double points… like a bonus. This does not penalise players who have time to do a lot of reports, but means those who contribute quality over quantity can make more of a difference than before. If anyone has kids and a heavy work load, they can feel confident that their contributions matter more that they used to. If a player has 10 bat-reps in a week, they may want to nominate the reports in which they accomplished faction goals, instead of just going for wins and survivors. All games still count. Being able to filter Bat-Reps by those nominated for glory (double points), would mean we could rate/commend the important ones and give them attention in the sea of reports. These ideas would take steps towards players feeling like they matter, they would reduce the entire focus being about win points and playing massive numbers of games, by adding other “victory” conditions. Feel free to ignore it all, or take it under consideration as you wish. Again, just sharing, hope something there is useful.
  2. Do you think it would have helped for the end of phase 1 to have applied the AI historian system (whatever that is, it adjusts graphs), and then a summary or news broadcast to describe what went on so far? Could that have re-ignited the gaming passion? What if three days into the second phase, the "facts" came out as to the "real" state of affairs (changed graphs) and players saw something like a GM driven narrative update? Not sure if possible, just wondering if that would have kept the gamer's spirits/enthusiasm up.
  3. "And yet, didn't the 10 reports appear to change the ownership of the location, if only temporarily? " - Section 9 (sorry not sure how multi-quote forum thing works yet.) "Appear" is a good word for it. There was a Player/Faction social reward at the time, but an actual campaign reward? Who knows? There was a social penalty though. That's the game. That event might never have actually happened, objectively, when the data is curated at the end. It might have simply been believed to have happened, as history is always told later, by someone else... (perhaps the Vietnamese have a different "history" about the war there, than the US does?) "I'm not quite enough of a dick to actually do the massive report-dumps" - Section 9 Do you see that is a subjective value-judgement? It is a preference, and mine is the same, but it does not mean it defines what ought to be, just because we prefer it. It is clearly an accepted tactic in this system right now. "It is in the nature of my mind to look for ways to "break" a rulesystem. I just generally don't exploit those ways. Other people are less inhibited than I am, and not only look for ways to break a system, but also actively use that exploit for their personal (or in this case, factional) gain." - Section 9 If we assume many people will try to break it, that makes us and them more likely to break it... or more accurate than that; assume it is broken. The assumption is the key social driver, not facts... yet. If "other" people are more likely to abuse this (lack of) system for personal gain, there are two contentions which need evidence to be cogent. One is how many there are, and the other is to what extent they are capable of such "breaking". I surmise that we assume their abuse is a thing, and assume it is a big thing, and assume worrying about it is a large concern. What if that's not true? What if the minority of unethical players don't have a large effect, because, the larger their effect, the more obvious it will be to both players and staff... that might be a self correcting social game mechanic. We look at infinity gaming, and can't abide cheating in our own games, but the campaign is a different beast than infinity. It is loose. Deliberately so. It is libertarian. We tend to expect the worst, but that may be our own negative bias towards humans/gamers/human-nature/liberty. If such feeling is well founded, it will come out in evidence eventually. It hasn't yet. A self fulfilling prophecy can eventuate though. I wonder how many players think "everyone is a limit-pusher but me"... "Poorly-defined codes of acceptable conduct ALWAYS lead to someone pushing the limits until punishments happen. This is an established fact of human behavior, it's covered in Sociology 101 and Business Ethics 101." - Section 9 Sanctions against players are multi-faceted. Players can sanction with the report button, and even a faction backlash to perceived injustice (that's a mixed ethical bag). The larger the effect injustice has, the more likely the backlash will occur. I suspect many of us are seeing an indeterminate minority as having inordinate power over the campaign result. I'm not so sure that is true. I am sure that assuming it is true, will change the gamer culture based on facts which might not be... facts. This happens because we may gravitate towards wanting rules, which would not be needed if players rated/reported/engaged/participated with integrity. The more players rate with integrity, and report (report button), the more likely it is that nefarious behaviour will be rejected from overall results. I'm not sure yet if we need an authoritarian regime to make the campaign fun. "Fair" is a different story, and that seems impossible. "There are times when "justice" must be seen to be working, and this is one of them." - Section 9 Maybe. Right now, there is no problem. If there is a problem, can we worry about it then? There is a social game element of justice which seems to be accepted in this campaign (much to my surprise). Hording and surging may bring your whole faction into disrepute, and prompt another faction to attack an response, in the campaign game. There is a libertarian/anarchy social backlash "system" which may not be fair, and that's why I keep calling this a social game. It is social, sub-cultural diplomacy, in more ways than it is stringent, apart from that we don't have to individually opt in to that side of things at all. Players can decide the social game is not their bag at all, and not bother with faction strategies, and still have their batreps matter. I stopped looking at it as a game of numbers and winning, and started looking at it as something entirely different. I like numbers and graphs, but I conclude that is not what this is really about in its present iteration. This is moving sociology, not rules-defined, not points defined, and no, not every faction has equal chance of "winning" (whatever that means). That's okay. In an online FPS full of jerks, quit, adapt strategy, or report. My personal infinity game is not like that MMO FPS. I play a friend. My experience is good. The campaign experience is defined by some graphs and forums, and if I do the right thing, I contribute to making those results more accurate, even if I reject the social game. (remember the social game can be a socially constructed fiction, where facts don't matter, as the game of whispers spreads) I'm having trouble expressing these complex ideas in written form. Thanks for your patience. (Edited for clarity, LOL)
  4. Wotanvfefe? (Anyhow, for the record, I do wish that next time there is some way to limit batrep hording and releasing. Just my individual opinion though. I think that would be good for the campaign experience, broadly. Others may not agree. That's okay. Cool. Done.)
  5. There may well be a widespread misunderstanding of what Flamia and Wotan actually are. That would perhaps be the difference between expectations and the intention. I see these campaigns, now, as a pinboard to post battles, and then chat about how to try to craft narratives and faction strategies amongst ourselves. That requires very little moderation. We are the campaign. Wotan is just the forum. If/when someone finds an unethical abuse, the community and the staff both have mechanisms to address the problem. If cheating is missed by all, how bad will it be before being noticed? Once I realised the graphs are not accurate, and bad behaviour is quite rare, I'm pretty happy to just let it ride and see what happens (again). If everyone playing understood how loose this event is, and how the player driven campaign is most of it, they would not have such "high", or "authoritarian" expectations, of the system or staff. If people stayed away, it might be because the idea that this is a social game, not an authoritarian rules set, was what was misunderstood. You can opt in to the social game, or ignore it and just post your battles, knowing that is enough to get stuck in. When this is all over, we'll see. Again, if it implodes, lesson learned, but what if it doesn't? Wotan is closer to social media, than it is to "risk" or "axis and allies" or chess. That's that.
  6. What if that's what the campaign is, and that's not a bad thing, until proven otherwise? That's what I'm waiting to see. It is less a campaign, and more of a community of players doing... stuff... I think I expected governance, but without it, we're still playing, and nothing has yet imploded.
  7. If there are some "bad eggs" (perhaps with some sort of NPD as you say Section9), how bad can it possibly be without the players and staff noticing? The larger their effect, the more likely their actions will be addressed, socially and/or officially. I just don't think bad eggs are capable of ruining the whole experience, unless we assume that they are many and we are few. If we assume they are a mountain, we end up with a self reinforcing feedback loop which can create the worst case, where everyone left playing are being ****s because they think everyone else is. Report, rate, commend, and beyond that, those other people are not our problem. If they do somehow ruin the whole thing, next time, rules (or lack of) will likely change, but the conscientious players bear some responsibility as well. Is this position naive? If proven so, we have a problem and can fix it. If it is a theoretical problem which gets blown out of proportion, changes gamer behaviour and attitudes, but is not a big thing at all, that's on us for over-reacting. There seems to be an attempt here, at a self correcting community-based mechanism. If it fails, interesting. If not, also interesting.
  8. There is only player expectations, and social backlash. As a contract, well, it is up to the player base to sanction the abuse of some freedom or other. It is anarchy, except for the "report" button, and the rating system. Now social backlash for perceived misbehaviour can be an escalation unwarranted, or warranted, but it is a part of this particular campaign system. Some play to win, some play to be creative, some play simply to participate. We expect there to be rules and contracts in place but knowing there are few, places the onus of good behaviour squarely on the participants. There is a report button and a rating system, but the rest of the "in game" campaign is social in nature. The sociological element of this, is that if lots of people believe, that lots of people are playing in an unethical way, that affects their own behaviour. That's not the campaign creating some sort of competitive boundary testing, it is us. If you don't like the Stanford example, how about Lord of the Flies? With a report button and a rating system, lets hope we can avoid vilifying "Piggy" because he does not want to play how we want him to play. Warconsole gives freedom to do so, as a social backlash, but that does not mean we actually have to. If you recall Flamia, that the graphs are not factual in real time. They influence player behaviour, but they are considered propaganda/fog of war, etc. Like it or not, this is how it is. Above all warconsole provides a platform for a social game, nothing more. It is only as fair as we make it, beneath the framework of the loose narrative. There are different perspectives on "winning", and yours is one of them. It might not be "fair", so knowing that... can we have fun anyway? It's just a framework, and lots of people seem to expect it to be more than that.
  9. I guess my conclusion is: If the community does not like the "withholding batreps" tactic in the campaign, it is clear that the gamers themselves have the social prerogative to punish the tactic. If some like it and some do not, well, there will be mixed benefits to the tactic. If it is the case that most participants hate the living f*** out of it, then the batreps involved will be down-voted, and not commended. Again, the campaign is a social thing, based on gamer culture, and even when everything averages out, a couple of stars difference is the will of the democracy. (edit: This does not mean it is fair, but it *is* the system) I guess I'm seeing that BoW, nor Corvus Belli, have any problem with the gamers themselves working this out for good or ill. Anything goes. Will it though? Will people start being "dickish" about the issue, as some people claim? I don't know. That's up to us.
  10. Oh good. I was worried that I was ranting on about weird shite. Thanks.
  11. Just a sideways post, not to be taken seriously, just musing. In a lazier-faire microcosm of gaming like this, I think all players need to understand that there are no rules, really, there is just community backlash within a context. This is a social game (with no rules) wrapped around a wargame (with strict rules). A campaign game surrounding a wargame. The campaign game is played with your feelings and expectations about it. We bring baggage to it on our own, it does not inflict such baggage. Many of us seem to expect campaign rules to be strict, like the wargame, but it is just a relatively open theatre for us to use. We make reports (labour, commodity), and where and how we do that is based on reward (faction success, prizes, satisfaction, approval). In some ways warconsole is providing a framework for an anarco-capitalist, vs anarcho-communist dichotomy. Community sits on one side for positive gaming experiences measured by enjoyment of the group, and on the other side there is the an-cap individualism of self-promotion and reward for "success" as they define it. The lines are blurred though. The campaign does not "care" itself. You bring what you bring, to it. This applies for commendations and stars (gamer celebrities/channels excel here because they have a following), and it applies to people deciding strategy for factions in this campaign. Popularity and social dynamics matter a lot. Campaign behaviour is decided by how players think the whole structure works, and how they are influenced by the social input of their allies and enemies. What is happening, is that people are being people, but the influence on us gamers and how we act is often left open systemically... so we self manifest campaign-gamer culture ourselves. It will be "bitchy" (sorry for the poor-taste colloquialism), or it will be "noble" (community fun is primary), but most likely "mixed" because this is a social experiment and everyone involved has a position which is equally valid from a Darwinistic/deterministic political-economy view. Have any of you looked into the "Stanford Prison Experiment"? Feel free to ignore this post. I'm kind of thinking out loud, about self fulfilling psychological causation, in a human sand-box (or close enough). I think the people having the most fun, are just gaming and reporting as best they can... and the big mountain of how the campaign works, is not more than a mole hill. If you find yourself getting invested in one faction, try swapping. It is a perspective adjustment, removing the in/out group bias. (for me it was, anyhow)
  12. Warren, do you realise that you are gaming right now? With thousands of people? A part of this campaign is your (endlessly patient and much appreciated) responses. You change gamer behaviour in the campaign, by typing words here. Will it be measurable? No idea. It is a thing though.
  13. Y'know, the bias seems against constructive critique, not towards the campaign itself. Whilst Warren claims to want to discuss game theory (earlier in this thread), it seems doing so here is sometimes perceived as griping. The idea of asking "what if everyone does this?", or even, "what if a lot more people do this?" is legitimate. That's game theory. It is true there are mountains being made of mole-hills, that does not mean this thread is not constructive. Please don't consider my posts as complaints. Please consider them in the constructive manner in which they are intended. Strange that in game theory, if everyone believes a system works a certain way, they act as if it does, and that can break it when people act accordingly. That's the nature of laissez-faire systems too, and they tend to result in monopolies when people realise how things work. I suspect and hope this is why the AI historian systems are kept secret. To know, is to have campaign behaviour altered. Right now, behaviour is being altered based on the rules which are perceived to be true. You may not like that there are some mountains being made of mole hills, but that's what this system includes. Fun, no?
  14. I really like that Warren is engaged here. It is great. Praiseworthy! I did not think feedback and discourse was unwelcome, based on 15 pages of largely good responses.
  15. Are you saying ALEPH failed, by succeeding in taking a location for a brief period? (how?) Or are you saying the player backlash is a psychosocial effect within the campaign accountability? (pfft!) Or are you saying that regular reporting over time is a systemic advantage? (wtf?) Yeah, I'm lost. Sorry I can't make sense of that statement.