RP Community Survey

[Mogar]

 

Players who fight wars aren't being punished.

Players who lose wars are.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Players who engage in wars have for whatever reason decided that this is the best course to take with their nation. It is morally no different than a person that chose to stay a tech farm or someone who neglected tech purchases or someone who played in any other manner that is not focused on growth. For all these other things, there also is no compensation. It is your job to look after your nation, not the RPs. It is your self-responsibility. And neutrals are not like people staying in peace mode, they are still open to potential attacks from rogues and other alliances. Neutrality is a decision of alliance foreign policy and comes with advantages and disadvantages. And as a foreign policy approach to security it should not be penalised, just as it is not differentiated whether you sit in an alliance that is more on the periphery and avoids most wars while not being strictly neutral, or in an alliance that is in the center and gets regularly done in or an alliance of raiders who are in almost constant war for whatever reason.

 

So, complaint dismissed. Find something new, because this point will not be considered for any reform, it does not feature as exact rule in any RP and I'm pretty sure it won't ever find a proper majority.

[Peter Ilyich]

It may not make sense but the most powerful nations are going to want it that way, since it directly benefits them.

The referendum should be through an unbiased decision.

[Centurius]

There is no reason for in game war to cripple your rp. It is very much possible to fight wars and have good rp stats

[Mogar]

Your current situation begs to differ, unless of course you sandbagged until TOP gets peace next week.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

It being based on IG doesn't make sense to me.

We here in CNRP take pride in having the CN part of the name matter.

Why should someone who has a small undeveloped nation IG have to have a small undeveloped military, regardless of their rp nation's size or area. Someone having the entire continental US and only with 100,000 troops isn't very fair, must less realistic.

Anyone with decent CN skills will keep a warchest large enough to buy back much of their land and infrastructure, so your RP military shouldn't be too negatively affected. If you are RPing the continental US, chances are that you're not going to fall to the point where you will be stuck at a maximum of 10,000 IG troops for long.

And in these rp's, aren't we trying to be, for the most part, realistic?

Having a game where everyone is big and strong is much less realistic. In the world there are winners and there are losers. Not everyone can start out as America, some people need to be Togo and Kyrgyzstan. Learn to play what you have, get better at it, and then start to grow. We've all done it at one point or another.

[Hereno]

i sort of wish all of you could lose

wait, nevermind. you already did.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Hereno

[The Zigur]

I had to lol at some of the ODN comments.

You can argue that those with large nations get to have large RP assets, but if thats the case shouldn't must of this stuff be in game RP rather than fantasy RP? Fantasy RP implies a lack of connection to in game matters.

In any case whenever you make an exclusive set of rules that is good for on group of people it will just chase the others away. CNRP1 hsd trouble with the rules benefitting one group of people, and then CNRP2 had problems with the mods favoring people, and the end result is you chase people not part of this exclusive group away. That may be smart in some situations but not in developing a larger player base.

[The Zigur]

If I had the time I would develop a post-capitalism cyberpunk style RP where everyone gets a city rather than arbitrary chunks of land, but alas I lack the time.

[Shave N Haircut]

If I had the time I would develop a post-capitalism cyberpunk style RP where everyone gets a city rather than arbitrary chunks of land, but alas I lack the time.

 

I would roll into that. If only to be incredibly Capitalist and expand my city out to be a rather sensible chunk of land.

[Peter Ilyich]

Having a game where everyone is big and strong is much less realistic. In the world there are winners and there are losers. Not everyone can start out as America, some people need to be Togo and Kyrgyzstan. Learn to play what you have, get better at it, and then start to grow. We've all done it at one point or another.

I am not saying everyone is big and strong; if it is based on rl size and population of the territories you control, then that will only make it be more realistic. If it is based in in-game, you could have a nation the size of Kosovo have an army as powerful as RL China's. It seems I could say the exact same thing you said back at you, because your point is completely invalid.

 

EDIT: I say this as someone who doesn't like the IG. I just collect taxes every 20 days and rp here.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Peter Ilyich

[Margrave]

Players who engage in wars have for whatever reason decided that this is the best course to take with their nation. It is morally no different than a person that chose to stay a tech farm or someone who neglected tech purchases or someone who played in any other manner that is not focused on growth. For all these other things, there also is no compensation. It is your job to look after your nation, not the RPs. It is your self-responsibility. And neutrals are not like people staying in peace mode, they are still open to potential attacks from rogues and other alliances. Neutrality is a decision of alliance foreign policy and comes with advantages and disadvantages. And as a foreign policy approach to security it should not be penalised, just as it is not differentiated whether you sit in an alliance that is more on the periphery and avoids most wars while not being strictly neutral, or in an alliance that is in the center and gets regularly done in or an alliance of raiders who are in almost constant war for whatever reason.
 
So, complaint dismissed. Find something new, because this point will not be considered for any reform, it does not feature as exact rule in any RP and I'm pretty sure it won't ever find a proper majority.

Like everyone else, you assume this is a committee, or perhaps a despotism. It is not; it is an Anarchist collective. each of us possess a certain value of x, x being recognition. when several people recognize your story, the whole becomes something more than its parts: it becomes a continuity.

You are preaching to a body of players that doesn't exist; if we wanted to be in union with you, we would be. You aren't offering anything; just demanding that the community be healed!

You are the one courting us. CNRPA is the most active role play around. All the people in CNRPA are rather firmly on the side of staying separate. So you need to either do a better job of romancing us or give up, none of us are leaping into your arms as of yet.

As for me, I support a solution that doesn't punish people who play the actual game, and doesn't punish people who play neutrally. what that should be IS up for discussion, because my recognition is something only I can give? and while you can say "I don't want your stupid recognition you stupid person", it's not just me that's watching how you conduct yourself, it's the whole community.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

You can argue that those with large nations get to have large RP assets, but if thats the case shouldn't must of this stuff be in game RP rather than fantasy RP? Fantasy RP implies a lack of connection to in game matters.

The main difference is that the game-related RP has you RPing your actual CN nation. CNRP is based heavily off your IG nation, but they are not the same entity. Some things that happen in game affect you in RP, such as having a larger army in game allows you to have a larger RP army, and certain in game wonders allow you to build RP structures, but they are not the same entity, at least not for most players. We all started out with our CN nations, that's for sure, but after multiple moves around the map, we've mostly left them behind.
 

I am not saying everyone is big and strong; if it is based on rl size and population of the territories you control, then that will only make it be more realistic. If it is based in in-game, you could have a nation the size of Kosovo have an army as powerful as RL China's. It seems I could say the exact same thing you said back at you, because your point is completely invalid.

But some people have RP styles that don't worry about the RL size and population. Some people RP megacities, giving small areas a large population. Some people may want a more open nation, or like to RP someone recovering from a devastating war or plague, so you could have Britain with only 10 million people. Land, for the most part, is only used to determine who your neighbors are. It has no real bearing on your population, your resources, the culture of your people, or anything that would affect your national RPs in any meaningful fashion.

EDIT: I say this as someone who doesn't like the IG. I just collect taxes every 20 days and rp here.

From what I've gotten, I think most people here stay in CN to do CNRP. Some people are more or less involved in their CN alliances, but I doubt it's the number one reason they stick with the game.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Like everyone else, you assume this is a committee, or perhaps a despotism. It is not; it is an Anarchist collective. each of us possess a certain value of x, x being recognition. when several people recognize your story, the whole becomes something more than its parts: it becomes a continuity.

You are preaching to a body of players that doesn't exist; if we wanted to be in union with you, we would be. You aren't offering anything; just demanding that the community be healed!

You are the one courting us. CNRPA is the most active role play around. All the people in CNRPA are rather firmly on the side of staying separate. So you need to either do a better job of romancing us or give up, none of us are leaping into your arms as of yet.

As for me, I support a solution that doesn't punish people who play the actual game, and doesn't punish people who play neutrally. what that should be IS up for discussion, because my recognition is something only I can give? and while you can say "I don't want your stupid recognition you stupid person", it's not just me that's watching how you conduct yourself, it's the whole community.

This system is as anarchic as your typical democracy. We aren't in complete anarchy, given the community accepts some rules for how we ought to conduct ourselves, we have structures for the judiciary and for how rules are made, changed and abolished. And people abide by them.

 

I am preaching to the people who believe that there'd be a time and place when this won't be tied to ingame stats. People who exist, as you can see in this thread. The idea that CNRP not be tied to CN is something that is old as dirt, yet it's never happened, because for all intents and purposes, there's no majority for it and it remains a populist phrase, similar to blaming the hegemony or creating a victim narrative.

 

And no, I do not see myself as courting you. At least not you. I do hope for unity, but I'm not going to go and prostrate myself before the few radicals that cannot be pleased anyway, because they have some personal issues or go contrary to the rest. Any reform carried by radicals is not going to achieve unity, but will just threaten the existing for a vague promise of potential gains. Thus, if there are people who think I will suck up to them and argue for radical change because they can't compromise anyway, then sadly I must disappoint. That is not going to happen. I gladly accept you not leaping into my arms and I'm perfectly fine without you. If at some point you want to join, feel free to, but I'm not romancing radicals and haters into joining an RP they'd just ruin anyway with their terrible attitude.

 

And I know the community is watching me, but I don't think I need to fear harsh judgement, just because I'm not as dumb as to try appease those that will just ask for more, and just shift their blame to other matters. Those kind of people who blame the tech gap, then blame customs, then blame the troop disparity, then blame the alliance system, then blame the lack of proof, then blame that proof is too long, then blame difference in skill and in the end, you'll just keep blaming something. I was in CNRP before the split, I was in CNRP2 before the split, there's reasons I'm not bothering to join your ascended RP and rather work on reforms that are actually going to change something. With people whom I deem actually reasonable and conductive to that effort.

[Margrave]

you are operating under the assumption that there is an audience of people who haven't made their decision yet, or people who can be swayed. Who are these people? I certainly don't see any.

Nice tactic of calling people who don't agree with you radicals, and inferring that they are hateful. You sabotage yourself with every rude post and exclusionary statement.

[Centurius]

you are operating under the assumption that there is an audience of people who haven't made their decision yet, or people who can be swayed. Who are these people? I certainly don't see any.

Nice tactic of calling people who don't agree with you radicals, and inferring that they are hateful. You sabotage yourself with every rude post and exclusionary statement.

Then you aren't looking very well, plenty of people have opted to go both paths or just the CNRP path.

[Margrave]

I don't pay attention to role plays that can't manage to stay on the first page consistently and regularly.

[Peter Ilyich]

But some people have RP styles that don't worry about the RL size and population. Some people RP megacities, giving small areas a large population. Some people may want a more open nation, or like to RP someone recovering from a devastating war or plague, so you could have Britain with only 10 million people. Land, for the most part, is only used to determine who your neighbors are. It has no real bearing on your population, your resources, the culture of your people, or anything that would affect your national RPs in any meaningful fashion.

From what I've gotten, I think most people here stay in CN to do CNRP. Some people are more or less involved in their CN alliances, but I doubt it's the number one reason they stick with the game.

Of course we shouldn't force them to have that population. Decrease population all you want, increase within reason and with a good reason to do so. In real-life(Which aren't we trying to simulate a real-life scenario, or in other words, a realistic RP?) where you are, how much land you have, etc. dos effect resourses, culture, and population.

 

As for the second part: Exactly. Why must I advance my IG nation(which I am not even playing the game for) just to be able to be a military power IC?

[Lestari]

Which aren't we trying to simulate a real-life scenario

not really. i mean, maybe in the vaguest, most superficial possible sense, but really, there's very little realistic about CNRP. realism takes a backseat to fun, which is as it should be, since nobody wants to roleplay the mundanities of economics, or the intricacies of politicking. we'd rather build interesting character storylines, or failing that, go CONQUER SOME PIXELS

[Peter Ilyich]

not really. i mean, maybe in the vaguest, most superficial possible sense, but really, there's very little realistic about CNRP. realism takes a backseat to fun, which is as it should be, since nobody wants to roleplay the mundanities of economics, or the intricacies of politicking. we'd rather build interesting character storylines, or failing that, go CONQUER SOME PIXELS

I feel that these rp's are meant to simulate realistic or serious situations. Even when you rp the character storylines, we all(in RL) have our own storylines, don't we?

[Mogar]

That's deep.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

increase within reason and with a good reason to do so.

"It's my RP and I want to," has always been a good enough reason for us.

In real-life(Which aren't we trying to simulate a real-life scenario, or in other words, a realistic RP?) where you are, how much land you have, etc. dos effect resourses, culture, and population.

CNRP is crazy serious about not hindering a person's RP all that much. If you want to claim land in the middle east, be all Arabs, and have buttloads of oil, that is your prerogative. If you want to RP land in Wyoming, be all Arabs, and have buttloads of oil, that is an option too. For the most part, people don't care about resources, and trade relationships are usually only brought up when someone wants to do an RP with someone else.

[Margrave]

Melech, I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but historically that just isn't so. There have been several power players, Tryun being only the most recent, that enforced a strict "No Germans In Africa" policy. That has changed now, but let's not edit the past to suit the present.


At the end of the day, I will say that the potential for union always exists.The methods Eva has been using to berate those who disagree with her has been noted, and I couldn't see following her banner; someone else who wasn't keen on continuing the tired old grudges (of which I am also unsurprisingly tired of) might get a better ear, if they came to the table with a better offer and a better attitude.

I represent only myself, but I can't imagine the other CNRPA players are in a hurry to leap back into the miasma.


TL;DR: Come to the table with a better offer and a better attitude, Eva. I don't take your unity proposal seriously because you've taken the tack of lecturing from on high, rather than as an equal to equals.

[Peter Ilyich]

Still, I believe in what I stated originally which is the numbers in military be based on real-life statistics, or similar to them. Not sure why it is difficult to understand that I think this, for the most part(Looking at you, Maelstrom), a realistic roleplay community and the military numbers should reflect that, but whatever. Keep your opinion, i'll keep mine. You want to have a nation in Antarctica who's #1 export is roses and dandelions, you can go ahead in the unrealistic community you are helping to sustain.

 

Meanwhile, I'll make a nation in a tropical rainforest where it actually rains while yours never rains(In the "realistic" community)

[Triyun]

First of all Real Life military numbers are as much a choice by nations as anything else. 

 

Second of all I think everyone should keep in mind nobody here 'Founded' CN RP.  If anything the people who people complain about now were the people who shrank differences.  It was people like Cent and I who campaigned for abolishing tech efficiency which had been put in place to give players automatic kills with no RPs.  It was a lot of us old guard who shrank the tech scale down, and me who put up a tech floor.  It used to be a pure algorithm that had some people at WW I and some at 2040.  

 

And yes, CN and CN RP are linked.  CN RP was created and still was when I started a link to your IG nation and stuff like alliance was still referenced.  Its pretty ahistorical for some of the comments, especially from some who know better and know the truth but are just manipulating it for the sake of expediency and appealing to new members.

 

Third, different policies were carried out by different people at different points in time.  I know for a fact people here who bitch about UN or Athenian or Tianxia policies, whole heartidly supported and lent forces to previous hegemonies who flat out banned communist nations at would roll them.  The difference was mainly they were part of those hegemonies. 

 

The amount of revisionism in these disputes is truly disheartening, and the inflexibility to accept someone may have a different position at a different point in time cause they want to play a different way a nation is governed (gasp that's never happened IRL), is equally so.