Rajistani Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) In this thread. Admin jokingly suggested uncapping the Global Radiation Level. This was met with many people who actually wanted to uncap the GRL. Lets find out how many people actually want to. Edit: I don't care if you think admin won't do it. Vote what you want; hypothetically assume that whatever the outcome of this poll is, the admin will do. Edited April 27, 2009 by Rajistani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOONS Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Yes, if the world map actually affected it though. How ever slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgid Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 It is my personal belief that all the citizens of the world should have an equal opportunity to glow in the dark, not just the citizens of nuked nations. Uncap the GRL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Reynolds Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Voted no. GRL currently stands at 26.22, and it is still rising. At this rate, uncapping the effects of GRL would result in pretty much every nation in the game being financially crippled until a month after the war ends. The nations uninvolved in the fighting might be able to cope, but it would be a disaster for the nations struggling to rebuild from the war. Edited April 27, 2009 by Mark Reynolds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktavia Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 This is a very bad suggestion. If the GRL was uncapped and could go negative than nobody would be able to collect more than their bill costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellisus Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 We're going to make you eat all the radiation in the entire world. Please no. Please yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 The GRL formula needs to be re-worked before the GRL is uncapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 This is a very bad suggestion. If the GRL was uncapped and could go negative than nobody would be able to collect more than their bill costs. AKA Game reset. Which is what many people were aiming for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Yes. It would have more of an impact on those uninvolved, because like in RL, those who are uninvolved still can feel the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I believe the worst your environment can get is 15. Mine is already 14, so this would barely affect me. Voted yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Principe Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted no. GRL currently stands at 26.22, and it is still rising. At this rate, uncapping the effects of GRL would result in pretty much every nation in the game being financially crippled until a month after the war ends. The nations uninvolved in the fighting might be able to cope, but it would be a disaster for the nations struggling to rebuild from the war. This is a very bad suggestion. If the GRL was uncapped and could go negative than nobody would be able to collect more than their bill costs. Voted no because of the above reasons. In not only seems impossible to survive, but also unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 yes, would make nukes a lot more devastating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted no because of the above reasons. In not only seems impossible to survive, but also unfair. As stated above, the environment cap would NOT be changed. That would stick at 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Im all for it and have suggested this to admin in the past pretty much for the same reasons as Ejay has stated. That and Id love to see the hippies get all upset when their income plummets due to every other non-neutral alliance in the game having a nukefest; it may even be enough for the neutrals to come up onto the global stage and smack everyone else around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Where do I sign? Hell yes let the hippies who do not fight suffer too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darvel Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Voted no. GRL currently stands at 26.22, and it is still rising. At this rate, uncapping the effects of GRL would result in pretty much every nation in the game being financially crippled until a month after the war ends. The nations uninvolved in the fighting might be able to cope, but it would be a disaster for the nations struggling to rebuild from the war.Sucks to be you, shouldn't have been on the losing side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 No. Ridiculous idea. All you tough guys can claim you enjoy glowing green or whatever, but the only real outcome of such a move would be to make everyone's economy worse for no good reason. It's fine as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Tiki Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I love the idea. (I would support a square-root effect, though, instead of linear.) Would we be bill-locked? Of course. That's when we finally need to destroy infrastructure to pay our bills, in a global recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Yes. THIS IS A POLITICAL SIMULATOR PEOPLE. The point of a simulator is to emulate, at least to an extent, some form(s) of reality. If you really think that the fallout of a nuclear explosion quite literally is contained within the borders of one nation, well, I pit you and whoever taught you that notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zizka Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Why the $%&@ not. Let it all glow green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 No. Simply put, this hell is bad enough already, no need to make it worse. >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I love the idea. (I would support a square-root effect, though, instead of linear.)Would we be bill-locked? Of course. That's when we finally need to destroy infrastructure to pay our bills, in a global recession. Yes.THIS IS A POLITICAL SIMULATOR PEOPLE. The point of a simulator is to emulate, at least to an extent, some form(s) of reality. If you really think that the fallout of a nuclear explosion quite literally is contained within the borders of one nation, well, I pit you and whoever taught you that notion. I think you two just won the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Eh, voted no on the basis that people would likely just not fire nukes and you'd start seeing alliance policies about never allowing nukes and stuff. It's actually sometimes fun to not have that touch of realism and just be able to launch weapons without worry as much about the bunnies and the trees. As for those uninvolved, there might be many reasons why they're not fighting such as alliances being unable to engage due to no treaties allowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I voted yes, radiation should have a larger impact on the game, right now it's just an annoyance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts