Please change the name of "international organizations" to literally anything else

[Znikii]

Not a single one of the suggestions in this thread have been good.

Well, than they are good enough to have a vote then....

 

[Oglesby]

But it can tell you that France is a land-based country, linking the rules for that kind of entity.

Yes, when looking at the information for the country of France, there will be the three icons to indicate that it is a <Tier X> <land-based> <monacrhy>, each of those will be hoverable and provide an explanation. The name France on that page will not have a tooltip to indicate that it is a 'country name'.

And some IOs might appear or sound quite country-like (like the HRE) and giving some additional information about the type of entity just as a hovertip-hook is a viable use. Even though IOs do not share too many properties. And again, if basically every other entity's detail window states its type, then IOs should do, too.

The term is not optimal (hence this thread), but the concept is not completely useless to state.

I an fully on board with having a tooltip that explains the HRE. I don't think that the HRE is an IO needs to be part of it. I don't think that IO then also needs a tooltip ('An IO is one or more countries together that have bespoke mechanics' doesn't need to be stated).
I am fully on board with having a tooltip that explains the Patriarchates. I still don't think that we need to mention that they are IO.

When the common thing between the group we call IO are that each is discretely made for each individual case then is it really a group? The group is the 'Miscellanea' or 'Miscellany'.

 

[Chieron]

When the common thing between the group we call IO are that each is discretely made for each individual case then is it really a group? The group is the 'Miscellanea' or 'Miscellany'.

"Miscellaneous Political Entity" would be another awful name replacement.

An IO is a grouping of countries of some kind. Many of which are of common types like PUs or alliances, while others are sui generis like the HRE or Ilkhanate. Stating somewhere that what I'm looking at right now is a grouping seems to be useful enough.

Anyway, I doubt that we'll get any further. It's not a big deal either way.

 

[Briloner]

This thread really is the modern incarnation of the Athenian Agora and Plato's Academy

No, not until a cynic throws a dead feastherless chicken into the discussion in order to make a point.

Also some came pretty close - admittedly

 

[Ekyman]

I am think as a designer, it is just that all the things common about IO are internal workings and not game concepts or mechanics.

It's the same thing, you're just wording it in ways that are backend focused. "Can be freely scripted to have a wide variety of unique mechanics" is the same thing as "typically has bespoke mechanics."

Telling me that it is in the same group as Jihads, the HRE, or the Patriarchates implies that knowing that is it in the same group would be beneficial.

I think it can be. Frankly I think the claims that IOs are somehow a purely backend thing that will make no sense to group from the player perspective are ridiculous. Their uniqueness is their commonality; they are buckets for unique mechanics and interactions I think that can be useful to explain to the player.

It shouldn't need to tell me that 'France' is a 'Country Name'
It shouldn't need to tell me that red is a 'Color'
It shouldn't need to tell me that a modifier is a 'Variable'

And you won't be told that "Holy Roman Empire" is an "International Organization Name." The game explains what objects and entities and mechanics are, it doesn't explain what words are.

Yes, when looking at the information for the country of France, there will be the three icons to indicate that it is a <Tier X> <land-based> <monacrhy>, each of those will be hoverable and provide an explanation. The name France on that page will not have a tooltip to indicate that it is a 'country name'.

Exactly. When we look at a country we see that it's a country and can read what countries are. And when we look at an IO we can see that it's an IO and read what IOs are. Sounds consistent and informative and clear.

Genuine, 100% serious question here. If you can provide a tooltip text for IO that provides useful information that wouldn’t be better explained by the specific IO, I’ll withdraw my objections.

I think that explaining that IOs are international and involve bespoke mechanics can be useful. It's not about explaining something better than the specific IO but teaching players what IOs are like so they know what to expect when they see them.

But I'm going to flip this on you - can you provide a reason for breaking their UI design standards in this one case that is based on an argument about UI design or game design and not just a personal dislike of this specific name?

I know I'm also arguing that it can be useful information, but I think people are approaching this backwards because of dislike for the name, which isn't a good argument for UI design. Fundamentally, everything in Project Caesar is identified as the concept or mechanic it belongs to, and every such identification contains a tooltip. This even applies to things that are obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense, like "building type" and "unit type" and "event option." The developers are not sitting their analyzing every concept and mechanic and trying to predict which might be useful to explain and which ones are less useful, they are simply giving everything an explanation. If you are arguing to change those I think you need to come in with more relevant arguments than "this name doesn't fit well" and "this concept isn't that useful to describe generically."

That's the beauty of nested tooltips - us experienced players just have one extra word or phrase we can not really look at, which isn't problematic at all, and newcomers can read basic information about whatever they want whenever they want. Are there tooltips that few will ever read and even fewer will find useful? Probably. But that's fine, and designing the UI in this way means that no one has to try and predict what mechanics people will find confusing and what tooltips people will find useful, because everything is explained by default. Would someone ever be confused about what the HRE is and then have to look it up on the wiki and then be annoyed it wasn't mentioned in game? I don't know, none of us know, we're all guessing. But actually we don't have to guess, because it's named by default, because everything is.

 

[Znikii]

No, not until a cynic throws a dead feastherless chicken into the discussion in order to make a point.

Also some came pretty close - admittedly

Just wait till Aviarna Influenca hits your poultry-based society.... preferably delivered via trebuchet into your well-fed obscenely rich metropolis.... Then you will get what it means to get a cold turkey in a pointed discussion.

Besides my suggestions, which other did you like?


Maybe for some more contemporary to the PC timeframe terms we should,.... again.... look at the Italians (Machiavelli, Venetian/Genovese bankers...) or to the Habsburgs (people on a Charles V payroll.... although I fear they operated in 'mine', 'my brothers' and 'my cousins' terms..... )