Stormcrow Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 So, after a lengthy on and off discussion with Spock and HK, I've decided to broach this formally with the community...so, here goes: Forum behavior has been pretty good, I'd say, and the way people have been rping has actually gotten better. I'm really proud of the GM's work in this especially, both the old ones and the new, and I look forward to continued good behavior. That all being said, I told you that if the community could prove itself again, Merger's could come back on the table. Well, I'm not going to say something like that and then not offer it within a decent amount of time....so, would you like mergers back in the roleplay? This is just a yes or no thread. There'll be another thread for you to suggest what the rules should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comrade nikonov Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Responsible Mergers should be allowed. It enriches gameplay for those that choose to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Unless these mergers would help purge inactives, then not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Seeing as the details will be decided upon later, I see this as a "should we open this to discussion" thread. So, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Responsible mergers, I agree, allowable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V The King Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I would agree with mergers, so long as rules/restrictions for mergers are clearly outlined, as well as aimed to not make those excessively powerful, breaking the gameplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcrow Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 The system that I've considered is that it would not be able to combine military might; that is, each member of the Merger would still post their own military movements or actions. Tech would be the highest member of the Merger (no stacking). In case of individual tech trades, whichever tech level is higher would be the tech of that nation, but it would not cascade and give everyone else higher tech levels, merely that individual member of the merger. Money is really immaterial as everyone can rp getting it somehow, so econ might possibly stack (or just be the highest member's econ). And I think the community deserves this chance to prove itself and expand gameplay. Y'all have been pretty good, it's time we worked on rewarding that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Yes, with rules and limitations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 The system that I've considered is that it would not be able to combine military might; that is, each member of the Merger would still post their own military movements or actions. Tech would be the highest member of the Merger (no stacking). In case of individual tech trades, whichever tech level is higher would be the tech of that nation, but it would not cascade and give everyone else higher tech levels, merely that individual member of the merger. Money is really immaterial as everyone can rp getting it somehow, so econ might possibly stack (or just be the highest member's econ).And I think the community deserves this chance to prove itself and expand gameplay. Y'all have been pretty good, it's time we worked on rewarding that. I agree, responsible mergers should be allowed. Here's what I think. In the tech tier system, everyone would get to the level of the highest person, so if the highest person was first world, everyone would be first world. Everyone's efficiency would be the highest person's efficiency. I guess everyone would still do their military movements, yes, but if someone really sucks at military stuff (*raises his hand*) would they be able to pass it on to someone else? Though, I understand that navy would not stack if this was done, unless they would RP their own navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comrade nikonov Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Stormcrow's thing works for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I want to say no, but if the mergers were regulated, responsible and realistic (Ex. You can't merge with someone you don't border, there be limits on member nations, you can't have merged stats and inactive nations, etc.) I could be swayed. The problem with the old mergers were that they were all (with one or two exceptions) incredibly unrealistic grabs for power so that weak nations could get their powerful friends to merge into them, and then use all their stats, or were utterly ridiculous land grabs where nations separated by thousands of miles could become united, and then go back to the first example. My two cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No, absolutely not. No, but thanks for asking. No mergers ever please. However you can reward our good behavior with free tech ingame ...lol, or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I am everywhere in this thread. Everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 What Justinian said. Sorry, but responsible or not, I dont want exceptions to a rule. No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) I want to say no, but if the mergers were regulated, responsible and realistic (Ex. You can't merge with someone you don't border, there be limits on member nations, you can't have merged stats and inactive nations, etc.) I could be swayed.The problem with the old mergers were that they were all (with one or two exceptions) incredibly unrealistic grabs for power so that weak nations could get their powerful friends to merge into them, and then use all their stats, or were utterly ridiculous land grabs where nations separated by thousands of miles could become united, and then go back to the first example. My two cents You need to consider. Some of us are only weak because in IG we hold to our word and burn with our friends and allies. There is a point where we need to liberate folks from the acts of their allies on Bob and allow them to RP. Does this mean we let them run away with things? No. But perhaps meriting their age and previous accomplishments IG would be considered due consideration, like with the tech database. I admit, this is perhaps the hardest line to measure.. because the cut-off is so arbitrary. Edited May 8, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I am not diametrically opposed to mergers. I am opposed to powerplaying. From the mergers that did occur there were several defining points. Merged nations were more powerful They all merged seamlessly They all had one RP'er who was able to be very active, usually a good Rp'er, however, they also had control of all the assets of the merger, giving them power they would not have if they were not merged. Other Rp'ers had sparse RP, if any. So, to me, mergers are ok, as long as several points are noted. Stats should not stack. Military should not be able to be controlled by one Rp'er. All participants should be active. Inactive participants should be able to be separated off and purged, just like any other nation. As a final point, they should only be awarded to good Rp'ers, people who can realistically RP the process. Examples in favour, Dragon Empire. Examples opposed, {Thats med one}, {That africa / america one}. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 haet mergers~ but I'll fly with it if they're reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Frost Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Im going to go with Mykep and justinian: No Mergers To me, a mergers are merely the symbol of Lazy RP; that is to say, a group of people merge their nations and put all their stats and RP in the hands of one RPer because they are either out of Creative ideas or dont want to to go through the hassle of RPing their nation for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malatose Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I see no problem with is, especially if the merged parties can RP properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Responsible mergers, with much roleplaying involved as well as a strong pre-existing relationship, should be allowed. Retarded mergers like the Dragon Empire should not be permitted. That is exactly what Frost is talking about. All those people just handed their nations over to a single ruler when they didn't feel like RPing any longer. It was ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I see no problem with is, especially if the merged parties can RP properly. I agree with this right here. Mergers can add a different aspect of RP to those looking for a different style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Confederation Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I see no problem with is, especially if the merged parties can RP properly. What this man says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I am everywhere in this thread. Everywhere. No, thanks. No, absolutely not. No, but thanks for asking. No mergers ever please. However you can reward our good behavior with free tech ingame ...lol, or not. What Justinian said. Sorry, but responsible or not, I dont want exceptions to a rule. No thanks. Im going to go with Mykep and justinian: No MergersTo me, a mergers are merely the symbol of Lazy RP; that is to say, a group of people merge their nations and put all their stats and RP in the hands of one RPer because they are either out of Creative ideas or dont want to to go through the hassle of RPing their nation for themselves. To all of you who said "no" without offering a real argument against it, I would suggest either reading the actual proposals or coming up with a real argument. It seems the logical choice to make an argument and actually have a chance of having your point of view considered instead of blatantly saying "no" without any sort of persuasion or actual effort put into your decisions making them effectively worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raritan Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) As long as there are clearly defined, reasonable, and responsible rules for mergers, yes. Edited May 8, 2009 by Raritan 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.