The Prototype that was Banned from Halfbrick 

This to me sounds alot like EVE sov block warfare at its best... Back around the great war of the north and south era..

Sounds like something donald trump might say

yea

That's why our world is still in agony

They should have kept going. Spaceships were so close!

And one that comes from the human element, rather than in-game systemic/mechanical interactions

​@@revimfadli4666it is at least mostly the fault of the rules the game bites this bad. I did a recreation of tank tactics changing out a lot of the most prickly stuff (removing the jury, making moves play out simotaniously via programmed movement, shortening play time, etc)

So basically Diplomacy?

Yeah this is EVE around the BOB vs Goon era...

I was thinking Dominions.

Great point. You want to play the game, but can't do it directly because you don't have APs... and so nature finds a way.

eloj I wouldn't say you "can't play the game", it's undoubtedly the empty space itself where the organization and planning is taking place (based around the assurance of future AP production) which is the key component that makes this game exciting and engaging. The problem he's describing is that it's too exciting for too long. A rollercoaster for 5 minutes is fun, a rollercoaster for 5 days is pain.

Except that change takes away a lot of what makes the game so compelling in the first place.

Exactly, remove the strategy aspect and you're left with basically a slower version of agar.io

It's not just the negative space, it's the negative space AND the real time component. That means if you aren't watching the game at all times you could be punished.

what I have found is that many people play mobas like single player games. teammates are useless npc's which you tend to not care about, unless playing in support role.

Dat, I feel like that describes the way most people approach the real world.....

I made a game that had the effect mentioned in the video and in this comment string. The TL:DR of it is that in highschool i made a game that got people so hyped up (despite it being entirely verbal communication and negotiation with a bit of trading of K'nex pieces) that, about 20 minutes after the end of the first session, a guy i'll call Mark (who i'd known for 2 years) got up while one of his best friends was talking (a guy i'll call John who Mark had known and been best friends with for 6+ years) about why John had played the game the way he did (and made everyone not on his team unhappy doing it), and in front of 19 other students and 3 teachers, Mark walked up to John and just started strangling him mid-sentence for like 4 seconds before Mark got a hold of himself. This was a group of teenagers who were all really inclusive and on great terms with each other, who'd known each other for many years in most cases, and for about an hour and a half the game i'd made in like 3 hours of work had turned them into particularly well spoken savages and ended on the high note of a guy strangling one of his best friends in front of everyone else, all because the other guy had closed down trading for his team and made the game effectively unwinnable for anyone. There's just something about the "Us VS Them" mentality that makes people go crazy and even turn against people they'd known and liked for ages for the duration of the experience. That was the last group of people i'd have expected to see that kind of behavior from, but it happened anyway. Ain't people fantastic? (Also i was one of 3 moderators for this game and 4 teams tried to bribe me to look the other way or get them a few trading parts or make a deal for them, a few teams a multiple times even.) (Also also literally everyone who played it the first time wanted to play it again and most of them came back to me multiple times through the rest of the year to ask if they could play it again. Every time i told them "Ain't up to me, ask (Teacher) and get him to let me run it again.)

it is very bad to stereotypize, but I would say that americans have quite deeply rooted competitive mind built in. In finland, where I live kids have pretty much no competition compared to USA. they don't even play yugioh in breaks. No one just cares about you being better, mindset is rather like "dafuq you are pretending, like why do you have to, already as successful, you make me feel embarassed, staph".

Right @Zwenk Wiel but we aren't arguing that some people are shittier than others - rather that the nature of the game is more conducive to toxicity than some. Certain games allow for more toxic behavior through game-play mechanics: Team reliance, friendly fire, VOIP, etc.

Richard Eldridge Adults also recognize that responsibility isn’t an all or nothing proposition. He literally has a section in the talk on player responsibility. You don’t have to be a prick when things don’t go your way, but certain design decisions can also soften blows to the ego that might otherwise frustrate a player into bad decision-making.

As adults, we have to take responsibility for our effect on other people's relationships.

Ask him about this

given that the time investment isn't the same, i wouldn't think the game you're talking about (the resistance) is the same, given that the game is much shorter and self contained. There is much less potential for friendships breaking.

Maxime Teppe The point isn't that the game is exactly the same. Obviously it isn't. The point is to try to understand the dynamics that lead to pathological games. Investment is of course important, but that's not the pathological part of it. I said that "it immediately got very intense, even among a group of basically strangers." Of course it was short and self-contained and the situation in which the dynamics played out didn't lead to tearing apart a social group over the course of weeks.

Ryan N ok sorry, I just saw the end of your comment. For some reason I hadn't the "read more" button displayed on the youtube page. I don't know if it was the fact of playing the game with people used to that type of game, of the fact that I played with friends, but I never felt the game was that tense. I mean suspenseful, definitely, but I never felt the "roleplay" bleed into interpersonal interactions. At the same time, I don't what is your experience with that type of game. In France, a game called "the werewolves of Tiercelieu" is extremely famous, and is also based around secret identities. I personally grew fed up of this game because it is played so often in every casual gaming party... Anyway the point is: In France every one is used to those games where you speculate who's side everyone is on, so this might play a big part in making "the resistance" much less harmful.

That sounds like secret Hitler, made by the guys who made Cards Against Humanity

I believe the game is either Resistance or Avalon.

I'll assume there's an order in which things resolve, e.g. All new Action Points are credited All AP transfers resolve All shots fired resolve All movement resolves If two people shoot at and destroy each other, that's what happens. Both blow up. The main conflict here is if two players try to move to the same spot. (no idea if these are the actual rules, just an example I thought of)

dota has pretty much no meta, just easier and harder heroes. balance updates happen like once in month and affect the all heroes at once.

I can tell you for a fact that DotA2 has metas. How pronounced the meta is is largely determined by how you're playing the game, though. Play it competitively (higher ranked, for example) and you will run into people who will generally expect you to play heroes that are considered good in the current state of the game, accompanied by what is considered the best play style for said champion. Since your comment is one month ago, if you played a bit recently then before the nerf to a specific talent on Ember Spirit, you may remember that he was mostly played with a focus on spell damage thanks to the 15% spell damage talent. While it was possible to play him in the older way (BFury->Daedalus) this was considered less efficient, particularly due to nerfs in the overall metagame that didn't favor hard farm builds at all, hence why even Anti-Mage was starting to favor an early Vanguard into Maelstrom so he could fight earlier over ricing until he hits a good power spike, and picks like Medusa, Spectre and Naga Siren remained relatively low not only due to the difficulty in playing them but because their power spikes don't generally allow them to thrive in an early-game fighting meta. Earlier patches have had competitive metas that revolved around what emerged as strong in those patches. You'll remember the patch of Sniper/Troll Warlord, for instance. You may also remember the release of Octarine Core and thus the high priority pick of Leshrac on the competitive scene due to his very strong synergy with the item. These warp the game at higher levels because you have to pick around them, both to synergize with them on your team, and to choose heroes who can deal with an enemy also picking what's considered to be very strong - bans can only cover so much, after all, and often you want to ban out counters to your strategy and line-up more than individual heroes - but certain heroes, when they're too strong, can enable specific strategies while not being necessarily ban-worthy alone (Shadow Demon, pre-nerf) IceFrog knows that competitive players will create a meta out of any of his changes. If he hits the people that are considered to be performing over the top in comparison to everyone else, and maybe where they should be, then players will move from prioritizing that pick to prioritizing a different pick and the meta will shift to accommodate this change.This change can even happen due to item changes instead of an obvious hero change. Item changes to Battle Fury are of great interest to Anti-Mage and Ember Spirit, for example, and Underlord is greatly interested in tanky aura items. TL;DR: DotA2 has a meta, it just may not present itself obviously in whichever way you play if you aren't playing high level ranked play or following the competitive scene. It changes frequently, but that doesn't mean there isn't a meta. It's not quit so static as LoL's 1/1/2+1 meta, but it's present, and many players are mindful of it, which can catch you flak immediately if you aren't following it, because the meta often revolves around what is currently strong and therefore if you aren't following it then in their eyes you'd better be directly countering it or else you're hurting their chances of winning and you will hear about it in many different ways, sometimes in many different languages.

While I agree with the basic ides, the whole essence of the game was the diplomatic powerplays.

You could have three teams so there's still room to have alliances with another team. But still, not sure if that solves the problem, just lessens it. If the core of your game is competition there will inevitably be some negative feelings.

Actually on second thought this would be a TERRIBLE idea on a large scale where cross-team diplomacy is necessary. Due to the innate sense of human tribalism it would create a much worse sense of team divisions.

are you gunna tell it?

Haha, if you want to hear it. However, I have to clarify that I meant that the talk was interesting :)

I'd like to hear. Entertainment is entertainment! :P

@@fairytail6804 ＊crickets＊

* more crickets *

Guess following the trend of "daily energy" addictive games did that to them

I do!

I also fell asleep to that soundtrack too

If you want to hear that again, search up "halfbrick blast off bandcamp"

@@voidDia good call! Just wish it was on Spotify!

This whole Tank Tactics game reminded me of Among Us because they have to just agree upon something even if they may not want it 100%. But yeah, Battlestar sounds like a predecessor to Among Us.

Perhaps the cast of The Genius(Korean game show) would

He said he tried it with the players being anonymous, but that people managed to figure out who's who since they're talking about the game

Obviously it wouldn't happen on the first turn.

@gavin peters: Say you started in a corner, you can reach only one other player to shoot or give points to. If you give points on turn 1 that player becomes an ally and a shield between you and the rest of the players. If you shoot first instead, you might win that first fight, but you'll be left with 1 heart, no shield between yourself and the players who cooperated, and you'll have a bad reputation and an enemy on the jury. The pressure to cooperate only increases as you move up the chain toward the front lines.

Already exist, it is called Diplomacy, you can play it online with a ruleset very similar to this game, with one action you can take every day.

Sure, but I think in this example most players were just playing as themselves. Unless the game is marketed as an RPG, a player's character is basically synonymous to the player. If they are capable of being conniving and backstabbing, it means that the actual person is also capable of that.

Diplomacy has a key difference in that all player actions are taken simultaneously through hidden orders, so you don’t have the element of needing to watch the board all the time to respond to moves made at unexpected times, which i think makes it a lot less stressful

Also demo-ing a game like this in a group of people where some have real power over others (being their managers etc.) is not smart, given that it’s literally the opposite of a team-building exercise

I think with a concise defined End/Win-Condition(or a price), this should not happen. Except some players, are not in it for the win. Or am I missing something?

@@winner_joiner last player standing wins

@@JohnnyDoeDoeDoe thanks for the info, but than I can't understand, why people would donate their points? for the greater good? strange, I would never team up by a lastman standing game, because I want to win. ;-)

@@winner_joiner the other important point is that dead players get to vote on who gets an extra action point each day, 3 votes gives 1 action point, so if you treat people well, when they die, they might vote for you, doubling the number of moves you can do