Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 Just a short survey to gauge opinion on a few matters. Notes First question should be answered on a basis of what you think is absolutely necessary, not what all would be fun. Set priorities and try to point out what you think has absolute vital importance. This question establishes priorities. Second question is on technology and customisation. For better understanding the options are ordered in increasing severity. Lastly, a matter of naval sizes. Votes are not binding, but it might be useful to know what people think. Comments contributing to reforms are appreciated, insults and sniping are not. Dumb behaviour will be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Connor Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 For what its worth, I strongly believe that a points system similar to RP40 or RPA should be implemented for militaries, and that if nuclear weapons are abolished, (I believe they should be but did not vote as such), then they should be exchanged for points for further military customisation. Great poll by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 The only lacking option is in the tech part - "Technology should be limited to current technology, as well as viable and proven concepts that never entered full-scale production." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 The only lacking option is in the tech part - "Technology should be limited to current technology, as well as viable and proven concepts that never entered full-scale production." That's "Technology must be restricted to current technology and only working systems should be usable.", if it is a failed (sales-wise) system that has been build in small number only for demonstration or "Technology must be restricted to current technology, though people should be able to use own creations, provided they can prove their stuff to be feasable" if it is proven in concept only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Rules to prevent land expansions to massive empires i liked the poll but i thought that this was a bit unclear"massive empires" ie. the ussr, the usa, etc. have a role to play in the world. it's just that people will go so far beyond that to game-breaking levels. so i ended up not checking this option and maybe others thought the same. or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 These are rules to limit expansion to prevent blobs. Of course, if you are of the opinion such states are necessary or that the invisible hand of spreading thin and aggravating others will take care of overexpansion, feel free to not tick the box. I didn't tick it for my part... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Ilyich Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I believe that your military size should be a mixture of a point system as well as of the size and the population of your nation. for example, in CNRPA, if I was EAI, I would only have 100,000 troops. not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Military size should be based solely off IG stats plus the recommended modifiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Basing it off RL population simply means the most desired regions become even more desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I like having a low tier nation but I feel punished for it in most of the RP. It's not fair that GPA hippies get to have massive RP nations and those of us who like fighting in-game are stuck with tiny backwater countries in RP. Edited February 17, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 People like fighting IG? What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 If it weren't for the yearly war... what exactly is the fucking point of CN then? Oh wow I logged in three times a month, i'm so good at this game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 People can play for different reasons, why should one even care why someone else plays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 The majority of the community chooses to participate in the political aspects of CN, following traditional RP1 standards, these are the people also punished most severely in the RP, unless you're going to make the argument that there should be more to RP statistics than simply logging in three times a month in order to send or receive tech and pay bills, removing the IG element. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Ilyich Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Basing it off RL population simply means the most desired regions become even more desired. Military size should be based solely off IG stats plus the recommended modifiers. It being based on IG doesn't make sense to me. 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. And in these rp's, aren't we trying to be, for the most part, realistic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 It may not make sense but the most powerful nations are going to want it that way, since it directly benefits them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywall Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Implementing a penalty on members playing ig on neutral alliances would help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Implementing a penalty on members playing ig on neutral alliances would help. Fuck that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Belonging to a neutral alliance is not a crime and people shouldn't be punished for it. You guys have to really think about what you're saying sometimes. You want to punish or cripple people just because they play CN differently from you and so you can be strong. How does that make you any better than your cnrp tormentors? I'm open to actual rules that balance rp, not more of the same quasi jim crow laws of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 So punishing players who war is acceptable, punishing players who log in every 20 days and nothing else is completely terrible though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 So punishing players who war is acceptable, punishing players who log in every 20 days and nothing else is completely terrible though? It is your choice to participate in wars IG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Director Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 All of this punishing and retribution and vengeance... its like preschool...on a pretty white screen :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 All of this punishing and retribution and vengeance... its like preschool...on a pretty white screen :) been that way for a fair while now, but let's try and keep things on topic, at least vaguely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 It is your choice to participate in wars IG. The majority of the community chooses to participate in the political aspects of CN, following traditional RP1 standards, these are the people also punished most severely in the RP, unless you're going to make the argument that there should be more to RP statistics than simply logging in three times a month in order to send or receive tech and pay bills, removing the IG element. You're saying that you have the choice of either actually playing a political simulator as a political simulator, or log in every 20 days and be rewarded with superior starts to RP with. It should not be an either or, since just about everyone not exclusively in RP1(With the exception of Melech and Cent) are not on a neutral AA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 So punishing players who war is acceptable, punishing players who log in every 20 days and nothing else is completely terrible though? Players who fight wars aren't being punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.