Lord Frost Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Can a player retroactively decide the timing of an event to prevent another event that a player has already posted?For example react to an event by saying that their event happened before hand. Player A: I shoot you with my heat ray Player B: I have heatproof armour Player A: I stole that armour beforehand so you don't. No. Meta-game, God-mode, Asshattery, cheat - take your pick of the name, it fits all of 'em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) I wasn't referring to the potency of battery acid, just the fact that it is still around. Ah yea I work in a DIY trade store so I know they still exsist as we sell them No.Meta-game, God-mode, Asshattery, cheat - take your pick of the name, it fits all of 'em In total agreement here. Also you missed some of your example off. Player A: I shoot you with my heat ray Player B: I have heatproof armour Player A: I stole that armour beforehand so you don't. Player B: Ah but I disabled your heatgun with my spies Player A: yea well i stopped them with my dogs.. etc... Edited February 4, 2009 by King Kevz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Alrighty, it looks inevitable that I'll be rolled, so that mission's been accomplished. Now...I just need me some land for my new nation. I would much rather that slice of land in hell Antarctica go to a new guy than back to me. *begins bugging people for land, preferably in Europe or Australia* Edited February 4, 2009 by N Reeki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Alrighty, it looks inevitable that I'll be rolled, so that mission's been accomplished. Now...I just need me some land for my new nation. I would much rather that slice of land in hell Antarctica go to a new guy than back to me.*begins bugging people for land, preferably in Europe or Australia* Unless someone is really nice there, not going to happen. There's no unclaimed stuff there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I know all too well, sadly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Alrighty, it looks inevitable that I'll be rolled, so that mission's been accomplished. Now...I just need me some land for my new nation. I would much rather that slice of land in hell Antarctica go to a new guy than back to me.*begins bugging people for land, preferably in Europe or Australia* I had to do quite a bit of negotiating to get just Rhodes, so good luck, and good hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Alrighty, it looks inevitable that I'll be rolled, so that mission's been accomplished. Now...I just need me some land for my new nation. I would much rather that slice of land in hell Antarctica go to a new guy than back to me.*begins bugging people for land, preferably in Europe or Australia* You can always try to launch a revolution... But I cant gurantee that it will succeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm not gonna do another evolution for eternity. ...Subtle, buddy, can I have some land? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Aren't there like protectorate lands all over the place? Are they saying you can't have any of them because you are not a new player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I have a question. Im hoping to say that my nation has a number of UH-60 Blackhawks for transporting my forces about however, im not sure if I am allowed. I mean would I need some aircraft IG to have them or can I have them in limited numbers? Oh and they are totally unarmed literally used for transport services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Seb Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I believe it is commonly accepted that you can have a reasonable amount of helicopters, while your bombers must stay within IG number w/ multipliers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I believe it is commonly accepted that you can have a reasonable amount of helicopters, while your bombers must stay within IG number w/ multipliers. Well I have no IG aircraft and the only bombers I have were bought from Subtle and they are B-17's and B-25's lol but that all sounds cool for the Blackhawks woot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Alright, I just want to make a statement about mergers, because they are really starting to bother me. So, for all ye new people, the trend of mergers started with the creation of Greater Nordland, which then kicked off a whole host of mergers between countries, many of which were stupid and baseless. We've had threads like crazy talking about them, and about how a good RP, and legitimate reasoning are the only reason there should ever be mergers, hence to prevent things similar to that whole Cain/ Orangette thing, where the two merged, despite being on opposite sides of the world, with no prior RP. So, since then, we've had a few more mergers, the Norther empire, which was really just a peaceful land acquisition (If my understanding is correct), and the rash of Dragonisia mergers, which I really want to talk about, but don't want to clutter another thread with. What bothers me is the complete lack of prior RP to any of it, and the random, spur of the moment nature of them. You all should remember (because I was vocal on the point), that I was all for mergers in the beginning, mainly because they brought a lot of good RP to the table, and a ton of opportunity for new RP that would otherwise be hard to go through. At this point, it's gone too far. Certain mergers like (although I cringe a bit at having to say it) the UFE, had a reason, and took place between tightly allied nations with similar goals, and has continued to follow a consistent government. Other mergers, like the Norther Empire, were a way to mix up RP a bit, and to make sure the land stayed between the group, instead of being partitioned off to the fastest typer. And again, other mergers, like the nice wad of Dragonisia mergers, have no base, between barely allied nations, separated by oceans and politics alike. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, why are we letting this slide. It's unrealistic and bad for the total RP to let someone leach off barely active RPers, through their land, and their nations (Croutonzz and Ezequile come to mind). I was for the mergers, but at this point, it's ridiculous, beyond those of Magna Europa (Which I didn't like, and would have spoke out against if it weren't for the giant TEMPORARY stuck to the front of it). I don't care if anyone wants to reply, I just want to make my opinions known By the way, Maelstrom, this isn't more proof that I'm trying to stop you from RPing anything, so don't even think about saying it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm glad you brought up the topic of mergers. I hate them. Like you, I liked them at first, but its out of control now. As far as I'm concerned merger only means "peaceful land aquisition" which basically neabs I only recognize the stats of the strongest nation in the union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Mergers should be nulled and banned. Its lazy RP. Also, mudd, I don't care what the mods rule, if you want a navy, go buy one. IG navy = RP navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Mergers should be nulled and banned. Its lazy RP.Also, mudd, I don't care what the mods rule, if you want a navy, go buy one. IG navy = RP navy. The same should apply for nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Actually, mods made a ruling that if you can buy it, you can have it, as long as you can prove you're capable of buying it. also, LVN, can you get the link to that thread you made about updated guidelines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The same should apply for nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure it does.... Well, I won't recognize someone's nukes unless I can go to their nation, and see a little nuke number, just like I will not recognize someone's navy unless I can go to their nation and see exactly how many ships they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Actually, mods made a ruling that if you can buy it, you can have it, as long as you can prove you're capable of buying it.also, LVN, can you get the link to that thread you made about updated guidelines? Dunno where it is, do a search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm pretty sure it does.... Well, I won't recognize someone's nukes unless I can go to their nation, and see a little nuke number, just like I will not recognize someone's navy unless I can go to their nation and see exactly how many ships they have. Currently there are 4 people with a nuclear execption, none of the 4 people are capable of building a nuclear weapon. in my own opinion the reasons for the exceptions are all full of BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Allow me to express my views on the Naval Issue, and a compromise to it: It is easy to understand why LVN is upset in regards to the ruling that even though one does not have a navy, he may roleplay one. Reason being because he has to maintain it in-game. It costs nearly a million in-game dollars to sustain a full navy as a large nation (as his is), which for nations of his tier, it's a loss of ~15-20% of net income. RP'ers who do own an IG navy have quite a burden to them - less money means less funds allocated to other things such as technology and infrastructure, thus stunting his growth. And therein lies the main issue (for me, at least) RP'ers with IG navies earn less income, naturally, while those without it can still roleplay it. But they don't have the burden of having to maintain it in-game. Meaning they have a distinct "advantage" over them, on the sense they can grow faster (since they can buy more infra/etc) and thus become stronger in RP than someone with a navy, while he or she is still able to roleplay a navy without actually having it in-game. Though I think that one should get an IG navy to have a RP one, I believe a compromise could be made here, through a simple formula: Nations without navies CAN have military, sea-going ships, but under the following restrictions (including natural in-game infra and tech restrictions): Quantity of total ships (NOT EACH) allowed: Total Infrastructure/1000 (Applied to Corvettes, Landing Ships) Total Infrastructure/1500 (Applied to Cruisers and Frigates) Total Infrastructure/2000 (Applied to Battleships, Submarines, Destroyers) Total Infrastructure/3000 (Applied to Aircraft Carriers) So, say if someone has 6000 infrastructure and no navy, then he could RP two AC's, or 6 Corvettes, or 2 Cruisers and 2 Frigates, and so on. Of course, the formulas could be tweaked and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRCatD Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) In my opinion, it is fairest that the people without IG navies, but can buy it, can RP the full military navies during peacetime for stability. They can also RP them during wartime for intimidation. However, they cannot RP any naval battles with them, or use their navies for any purpose in war. This is because they did not go through the trouble of paying the bills IG for the navies, thus they shouldn't have the advantage of a navy in war. So if their navy confronts a real enemy navy in war for whatever reason, then their navy can take losses, but cannot fire back (either RP the navy running away or RP the navy not finding the enemy, or don't RP its existence at all in war). Edited February 5, 2009 by XRCatD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 In my opinion, it is fairest that the people without IG navies, but can buy it, can RP the full military navies during peacetime for stability. They can also RP them during wartime for intimidation. However, they cannot RP any naval battles with them, or use their navies for any purpose in war. This is because they did not go through the trouble of paying the bills IG for the navies, thus they shouldn't have the advantage of a navy in war. So if their navy confronts a real enemy navy in war for whatever reason, then their navy can take losses, but cannot fire back (either RP the navy running away or RP the navy not finding the enemy, or don't RP its existence at all in war). So, apart from intimidation and adding flavour, people without IG navies can't RP navies which have any effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 In my opinion, it is fairest that the people without IG navies, but can buy it, can RP the full military navies during peacetime for stability. They can also RP them during wartime for intimidation. However, they cannot RP any naval battles with them, or use their navies for any purpose in war. This is because they did not go through the trouble of paying the bills IG for the navies, thus they shouldn't have the advantage of a navy in war. So if their navy confronts a real enemy navy in war for whatever reason, then their navy can take losses, but cannot fire back (either RP the navy running away or RP the navy not finding the enemy, or don't RP its existence at all in war). No this won't work if you are going to RP having a navy and another navy turns up people will RP their navy engaging the hostile one whether you like it or not. The idea is if you have no IG navy then you have no RP navy however, I do like V The King's suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Was the ruling, about a month back, that No IG navy = no RP navy. 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.