Community Input on Improving CNRP, GMs and such.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324547693' post='2883993']
I guess I should start working on a mobile version for export


Updating on budgeting formula: Since most people likely wouldn't be RPing paying for social security/health care and other such mundane stuff, I've slashed the budget in half and also made the formula simpler, while giving the countries with smaller infra and technology a boost.

$30 million x Infra



Plus, this is a general formula, to see what your total budget on the military/infrastructure would be. I would say anything going above this would be beyond common sense.
[/quote]

No. there is absolutely no way I'd be tied to this thing. Consider this me throwing a hissy fit and making threats of ruining a perfectly good jar of Kimchi if something like this gets passed.

I'm not going to spend my time in CNRP crunching numbers. Forget it.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

But algebra is so much fun...

[Kankou]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324548011' post='2883996']
No. there is absolutely no way I'd be tied to this thing. Consider this me throwing a hissy fit and making threats of ruining a perfectly good jar of Kimchi if something like this gets passed.

I'm not going to spend my time in CNRP crunching numbers. Forget it.
[/quote]
You're spending way below that number anyway, so I don't see a point in you needing to crunch numbers.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324548155' post='2883999']
You're spending way below that number anyway, so I don't see a point in you needing to crunch numbers.
[/quote]

Won't be that way for long.

I'm going to say this out-loud and you can deny it all you want. The only reason you really want this passed it get leverage on larger nations whom you butt heads with on a regular basis.

It's an obvious ploy, seriously, give it up.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324548333' post='2884000']
Won't be that way for long.

I'm going to say this out-loud and you can deny it all you want. The only reason you really want this passed it get leverage on larger nations whom you butt heads with on a regular basis.

It's an obvious ploy, seriously, give it up.
[/quote]
If you want, I am wiling to go through the exact procedure of calculating my GDP, then budget, then the actual composition of the budget.

GDP: 800 x 95,000 x 36.5 x 158 x 1.28 x 1.475 = $827,495,296,000
Budget: GDP x 0.25 x 0.5 = $124,124,294,400


Budget according to the simplified formula: $60,000 x 9,500 x 158 = $90,060,000,000



Unlike what you or others might think, I actually made the formula so that anyone below 1,000 tech and 5,000 infra would have a comparably larger budget. It's a deliberate formation to get the lower-tier nations who make up quite a bit of the players a higher amount of money.

Seriously, I thought you were better than this, Tidy.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Kankou

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324549146' post='2884001']
If you want, I am wiling to go through the exact procedure of calculating my GDP, then budget, then the actual composition of the budget.

GDP: 800 x 95,000 x 36.5 x 158 x 1.28 x 1.475 = $827,495,296,000
Budget: GDP x 0.25 x 0.5 = $124,124,294,400


Budget according to the simplified formula: $60,000 x 9,500 x 158 = $90,060,000,000



Unlike what you or others might think, I actually made the formula so that anyone below 1,000 tech and 5,000 infra would have a comparably larger budget. It's a deliberate formation to get the lower-tier nations who make up quite a bit of the players a higher amount of money.

Seriously, I thought you were better than this, Tidy.
[/quote]

I am better than this... That's why I'm saying hell no. I don't need a budget and neither does anyone else.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324549553' post='2884003']
I am better than this... That's why I'm saying hell no. I don't need a budget
[/quote]
About accusing me of trying to "get leverage on larger nations whom you butt heads with on a regular basis". I personally don't worry about you going on some infinite spending spree.


[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324549553' post='2884003']
and neither does anyone else.
[/quote]
But others..... are a different story.

[Lynneth]

GDP formula...
518.31 * 205,476 * 36.5 * (apparently 915.57 according to my pop numbers..) * 2.315 * 1.9 = 15,654,518,183,550
15 trillion, so I'm filthy rich or what? I dislike this 'RP Population Multiplier' thing, by the way.

My GDP formula is simpler:
Avg. Gross Income Per Individual Per Day * Citizens * 36,500 = 3,887,259,682,940
Apply an arbitrary modifier based on infrastructure (usually 2 in my formula but hey, let's use Kankou's of 1.9), I get 7,385,793,416,586

GDP formulas are a weird thing, and hard to get done properly. Neither mine nor Kankou's are good at all, and I in fact stopped using formulas, instead using my RPd population, assigning a reasonable GDP/capita, and getting the total GDP from there.
Budget for the entire nation is maybe 20-35% of that.

[Kankou]

I added the RP Population Multiplier to avoid nations with massive population assigning themselves some relatively high GDP/capita, resulting in a very high total GDP (and thus budget). Most nations have a regular budget of 25~30% of the GDP.


Going back to the original discussion:

1. Forcing budgets: We could put a [b][i]recommended[/b][/i] budget formula, to show about how much money a nation usually has for regular things.

2. Changing military: Focus on missile numbers, naval reform, and possibly a deeper classification of soldiers (elite/militia). Also, need discussion on whether technology scale needs to be reformed.

3. More preplanned wars: Not sure there is anything more to discuss. Just try to not go blasting out on unplanned wars.

4. Less GM intervention: People should talk through PMs more, then go to the GMs. Also, community has greater say (must agree to major reforms/rules)

Edited December 22, 2011 by Kankou

[Lynneth]

>reasonable GDP/capita
That's what does the magic. Though it's linked to common sense and 'good people don't cheat', both of which are not always used.


As for anything concerning GMs, most has already been said. Arbiters of conflict, no rulemaking without the community getting a say, all that.

[Captain Enema]

I still am not going to be tied to any sort of calculations or other nonsense regarding economy.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324559171' post='2884034']
I still am not going to be tied to any sort of calculations or other nonsense regarding economy.
[/quote]
Stop throwing a hissy. It's not adding to your image.


Onto preplanned wars, how far are we going to go with that? I can definitely get behind a system where we determine who all the people fighting in the war are, mainly because it will stop the "hurp durp I helped so I get land" dogpiling that seems to happen in EVERY war. However, determining who is going to win before the war even starts is a system that is bound to fail.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1324564740' post='2884060']
Stop throwing a hissy. It's not adding to your image.


Onto preplanned wars, how far are we going to go with that? I can definitely get behind a system where we determine who all the people fighting in the war are, mainly because it will stop the "hurp durp I helped so I get land" dogpiling that seems to happen in EVERY war. However, determining who is going to win before the war even starts is a system that is bound to fail.
[/quote]

No.. not who will win...

That implies Role Play is all predetermined by stats. But more like..

If play x wins he/she will agree to this and this in terms.

If play y wins he/she will agree to this and this in terms.

More or less just agreeing in advance how the war will win either way that way no one has to fear losing their entire nation. Now people have been known to take it farther than that in their planning and I think that is great. Shouldn't be expected of everyone though.

[Triyun]

More rules and less GM interventions is a recipe for disaster. I do not see why we need to introduce more math to this. This again is not a Paradox game. I tend to agree with TBMs assessment of your motivations here, it is transparently obvious. Further adding more formulas with regards to GDP is just going to intimidate new people, most of whom play this game and probably come from a english, history, or political science background if not are in high school. None of these catagories of people have any desire to ever do math again past their last gen ed course on their way to a BA.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

I'm not budgeting a fake economy to play a game.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1324544730' post='2883980']
Two papers by the same people selling the same process in two periods of time. [b][/b]So.. why haven't the Russians taken an interest? The third one, the middle one, I can't read. I'm not going to learn Korean to debate you. Can you indicate a third party source that has validated their findings? Some things are practical in a lab, but not in widespread practice. No better source on that than Edison.
[/quote]
Because they don't care as it is in Ukraine. And Ukraine hasn't the money to spend on this, else they'd pay the gas bills properly.

[b]Forcing budgets[/b]
[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324548011' post='2883996']
No. there is absolutely no way I'd be tied to this thing. Consider this me throwing a hissy fit and making threats of ruining a perfectly good jar of Kimchi if something like this gets passed.

I'm not going to spend my time in CNRP crunching numbers. Forget it.
[/quote]
This. I'm lazy and I always will be. So, I try to keep my expenses down. My technology IC is mostly from the 60's even, altough I have 700 tech (21st century). So, I'll support forced budgets, but only if someone does the calculations for me.

[b]Changing military[/b]

The current system is fine with me, if you change it, I will make extra arguments on that.

[b]More preplanned wars[/b]

It is nice to have them, but I also see the point in some wars when the defender may not want it. I think, as long as there is a good IC casus belli, it is fine with me. After all, as long as you claim things that are limited, you have to expect that someone else wants it too. I may be a bit too much of a Hobbes, but I think that most stupid wars without a proper reason would end like the Cochin war anyway, as the IC community will have its rules.

Personally, I think it may sound nice to sit in my few hundred thousand square kilometres and be untouchable to anything, but with doing so, I will seperate myself from the rest and then I can just as well go and RP myself with a map of Venezuela at home alone. But it is more fun like this, sitting here, unknowing how the situation unfolds, playing my little role and trying to figure out the next step. That's why, apart from blatant godmodding, I will accept everyones RP, I hope everyone accepts my RP and if Mael defeats me in a war I had not planned for and gets away with it, expect no whining, I will welcome my reptile overlords (OOCly, ICly I will raise La Resistance of course).


[b]Less GM intervention[/b]

I have no opinion on that.

And now I read through 4 or so pages of discussion that was posted in less than 24 hours and I tell you what, one page would have sufficed, as most of it goes in circles or is completely missing the point. I give a damn if anyone sits in a neutral alliance while others sit outside on the battlefield. I think we all would have our chance to join GPA and be hoarding stats, but some aren't doing this. Why not? Because they want to play normal CN with politics and wars. Now, I am not opposed to that, but then don't wine, you will have to make cuts in your plans. Next I will complain about someone who sits at home the whole day doing nothing but CNRP for having more time while I have to work/study. Well, I can sit at home all day too, but I decided to give RL a chance and to make something out of it. I hope with this reductio ad absurdum that stupid discussion on different playing styles that was unnecessary will end.

[Zoot Zoot]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1324588333' post='2884222']
[b]Next I will complain about someone who sits at home the whole day doing nothing but CNRP for having more time while I have to work/study. Well, I can sit at home all day too, but I decided to give RL a chance and to make something out of it. I hope with this reductio ad absurdum that stupid discussion on different playing styles that was unnecessary will end.[/b]
[/quote]


I object to this, I work and study and I still manage to sit on CNRP at home all day. For the record, yes I am passing my course... with ease.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1324588912' post='2884227']
I object to this, I work and study and I still manage to sit on CNRP at home all day. For the record, yes I am passing my course... with ease.
[/quote]
Lucky you.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1324534364' post='2883891']
GMs shouldn't be the endall, the players should be, I like tbm's idea for the more hands off GMs.
[/quote]

Two problems with this notion. 1) The community at large is a chimera and has no independent will of its own. To this end there is no consistent composition, and more importantly you end up giving the superior side of any given war (which often has superior numbers) yet another weapon to use against its enemy (rule making and dispute resolution powers). Even if you exclude people with direct conflicts of interest, personal friendships and loyalties will always trump an ambiguous senses of obligation to the community. 2) A mob cannot be held accountable for its decisions and because of its collective nature will always be capricious when it comes to rulings.

If anything is good about the current system it is that there is a sort of adversarial state between the GMs and the community. GMs are almost always senior/respected members of the community, and on some level they depend entirely on the community for their reputation based authority, but it is understood that they do not actually represent the will of the community. Thus when a GM decision is unfair or beyond the scope of their authority, they are contained by the community which is generally fearful of GM encroachment. If you democratically select GMs or worse make a community vote a mechanism for dispute resolution you will weaken or destroy the only real check on the arbitrary use of interpretive and rule making power.


[b]As for budgets:[/b] $%&@ no.

[i]Also kankou I am getting deja vu sampling your affinity for formulas.[/i]

Edited December 22, 2011 by iamthey

[Kankou]

At this point I'm wondering if people's brains are going haywire at the mere mentioning of a formula without actually thinking. It's a recommended formula, as in if someone goes on a spending spree we can use it to say "isn't what you're doing excessive"? Most of the time, people here do RP things within a reasonable limit. The formula is aimed at those who do the more crazy RPs, and unless people are willing to call out the infinity spenders, then how the hell exactly are we going to say someone is being excessive?


Summary: It's a last resort recommended formula to restrict the heavy spenders, which doesn't need to be applied to the majority of the players in the first place.


And Triyun, I'm pretty sure a formula that handicaps even myself isn't something that could be used as how Tidy is thinking.

[Triyun]

It is simple, no building these absolutely massive non in game things. That said, this isn't meant to be 100 percent realistic. If people want to spend all day warring for story purposes, I'm all for that. I do not intend to penalize them.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Triyun

[Captain Enema]

I can't get my brain around the idea of why people think more rules are better with less GMs or even with more GMs.

What kind of rule are they thinking of?

And no.. don't even bring up the economy calculus gibberish. That's not a rule, it's lunacy.

[freakwars]

The only rules that should be applied are these 3
1. No forced RP
2. No forced RP
3. No forced RP

The purpose of CNRP is to have fun, not to build a realistic simulation of the world. If you want to, that's fine, but don't go trying to set up rules that make everyone else do so as well.

Edited December 23, 2011 by freakwars

[Triyun]

I strongly disagree with that. If players acquire big territories and then go into total stagnation for extended periods of time, they very much should be forced to RP if somebody chooses to do an invasion.

For example Shadow had barely posted with any frequency for months towards the end of the Holy American Empire, now I am still bitter about Cochin and Lyn stealing my kill on that one but I think that under no circumstances should Shadow have been able to refuse that invasion. The same thing applied when Cochin invaded Lavo recently.

Interacting with the community is a basic tenant of CN RP imo. Further forced RP carries some other implications as well. You get an out if you make a mistake, and something goes bad for you. This destroys any sort of dynamic. What we need is a CN RP where there is a dynamic and it is interesting, it should not be an independent collection of sim cities. If you don't like how one player is behaving you should organize a coalition against them.

This is something very doable. When I came back I was under terms from the Karma War, which gave me no navy, no nukes, no tech. I came into existence in an environment with lots of hostile and potentially hostile actors. Subtle, Cochin, and Keshav were outright hostile, iKrolm, mykep, Minilla Islands, Amyante, Curristan, IA, and Melech were all allied to these hostile actors with at the time, no conflicting treaties. Sarah was holding firm about Hong Kong (yes ironic now). Yes I had good relations with Lavo and Iamthey, but you do the math there if a war broke out. We wouldn't have had the advantage.

The thing about this was; was that I [i]created[/i] a new environment. I took a city, I turned it into a small island (Taiwan), then a base on the mainland, then went out built up a coalition and got where I was today. I did this all through RPs and building relationships. People shouldn't be expected to make way for inactives because they cannot hustle, nor should those who choose to alienate others have any special protections. I fully admit I deliberately make some enemies. I take actions that I know will cause a stir, partially because I think its better that I don't ally with everyone, partially because its more fun. But I know that I should not be able to say no I'm not doing this RP, if those actions ever bite me in the ass. If I go inactive to a very large extent for more than a limited period of time, people should roll me. I should fight back. And if I fight back successfully I have earned the right to keep my land. If I've failed to do so, I deserve to get cast aside into the dustbin of CN RP empires.

What makes CN RP great is when lots of players interact with one another and create a dynamic. You do not have that if people can dominate an area and then refuse to play anymore when the going gets tough.

[Captain Enema]

Yeah, no peacemode for CNRP. I do think people need to mellow out with their territorial acquisitions and work together with others if possible. Even when an attempt to preplan breaks down the attacker should state more or less the outcome should they win and be generous in their concessions to the losing party.