Triyun Posted October 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 This whole thing is stupid because its not even on the original topic, just like the nuclear topic its been derailed by people who are just bitter about how the game has unfolded for them. And before we get the reflexive I know you are but what am I !@#$ thats become the goto retort of these discussions, the fact here is that there has been a poisoning of the water over a genuine attempt to create a story of broad interest to everyone here, instead its been turned into a thinly veiled re-litigation of every war Kankou's ever fought just like the nuclear damages thread was made for. I'm sorry but thats not ok. If several players most notably Kankou and Eva are so butt hurt that they need to turn every attempt to start a conversation about how to improve the enjoyment of the game for everybody into a little pity fest for themselves, then they might as well just go off and play their game in their own little separate world. This is !@#$@#$ stupid and ridiculous. Commence the "Triyun's really the bad guy..." now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Triyun's really the bad guy... That being said, I don't expect your pity, I just express why I think the changes you propose or the rules there are lack the "enjoyment" you claim to add to this RP. If I wanted pity, I'd know to look for it elsewhere than here. But you are free to explain how we all will get "enjoyment" from abolishing protectorates, or at least how you would get enjoyment out of it. Because I doubt this change being in the best interest of all people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yeah yeah Triyun, everything I do is ultimately about you / sarcasm. Utimately, the proposal is strange in that it is nothing different from the status quo except a change in name. Exactly what is the purpose of the proposal in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1350069444' post='3040726'] Commence the "Triyun's really the bad guy..." now [/quote] Triyun's really the bad guy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 No, Triyun is just a tsundere. He isn't bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 The purpose of the proposal is to create more shared borders and hopefully therefore more interaction and competition. Again the Tianxia Empire with a few exceptions already is what I'd like to see others become, so this is not about me. If there is going to be only 10-12 active nations I'd like to see those 10-12 nations manuvering around each other across the globe rather than have these little hermit kingdoms with 3-4 people active globally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes, but how do you make more interaction short of outright annexing all protectorates? Relabelling protectorates as colonies is not going to change anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 I think there is a reason for the hermit kingdoms. Not everyone wants to just be part in this grand strategy game of Empires. Others can't be. Because, if we speak up, we get a war, if we don't we are hermits. I prefer being a hermit to being in some damn war, because someone got bored again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I enjoy being a hermit. It is very fun - we have pumpkins! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Hermitage aside, can we [i]please[/i] get back on topic. Again, we're discussing how we can balance pro and con achievements when expanding into colonies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Apparently Triyun believes any discussion for that is a deviating from the original topic, if I understand his thoughts correctly. Given this, why should we be discussing it? It'll only bring up the "everything is OOC-motivated" argument that some people love to use. On topic: I do not see any reason for the original proposal, since it is only a change in labels and does not solve the supposed "problem" of people not interacting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1350091917' post='3040876'] ]On topic: I do not see any reason for the original proposal, since it is only a change in labels and does not solve the supposed "problem" of people not interacting. [/quote] Which is why we are discussing adding limits and bonuses to expansion, this would hopefully increase interaction as people try to get a good balance for their nation. Edited October 13, 2012 by Yawoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Be specific about your suggestions, I'd hate to see this become a vehicle for abuse. We do seem to have plenty of those sorts of things already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I don't think it would help people expand and interact - it'd just be a tool that four people (no I am not naming anyone in specific) that agree to get along would use and together colonize one-fourth of the Earth while all of the smaller people just cower back and beg not to be destroyed. This wont work for the same reason why a IG-tiny nation can't have a IC-huge nation - bigger players wont allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Whats the basis for that. Someone may have a different recollection of the historical record but of the wars fought over one nation being either too big or attempting to get too big, they were: Tianxia vs. Germany Tianxia bailing out Mascuria and Northern Imperium vs. Canada Tianxia, Germany, Vauleyo, Sweden, Russia, Rebel Army, and Athens vs. Cochin Sri Lanka, Cochin, and Nod vs. Holy American Empire The ones that were big powers versus small over size of land was just two: Tianxia, Athens, Amazonia vs. Croatia Northern Imperium vs. Vauleyo, Athens, and Tianxia This last one you can't say that people initially disapproved of the expansion, because as noted above, Tianxia was in the war against Canada where Mara gained most of the territory. It was more the result of Mara's attitude alienating former friends over time. And on Croatia, we've been over this one a lot, and I don't want Eva to come in here and complain so I'll just say there were reasons in my head beyond those which she wants to portray and leave it at that. Beyond this though we have several examples of small lower-mid sized nations being allowed large areas of land: Sarah with Amazonia OG with his big North American Nation Mara with the Northern Imperium for a very sizable period of time Tanis with California Vedran with Arctica Knowz with USO Yawoo with Vietnam I'm not sure you really have a point there PD. sure it may require closer relationships with a larger power, but that wouldn't be an impediment really. Edited October 13, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) An idea I threw in IRC: Having more land than one is "allowed" to (be it based on SoI, Infrastructure, etc) will require a certain number of troops/garrison stationed in the land to keep it. The benefit will be that one can have a number equal to 10% of the stationed troops/garrison as additional troops to one's general stats. Basically, this should fit having both costs and benefits in expanding land. We can apply different standards to annexed territories, colonies/confederations, and protectorates. Please avoid any talks about "rendering successful players into second class citizens". Obviously we wouldn't be applying this to current territories, would we? Edited October 13, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloval Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 Hmm, perhaps there could be a time limit? Like, 1 real life year, you don't NEED troops there anymore as the population has assimilated? Idk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 If someone spreads themselves thin over a vast empire, and you seek land the nation has, then take advantage of it ICly. There doesn't need to be a rule to dictate it OOCly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 Yawoo asked for suggestions, I gave one. Simple as that. 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.