mykep Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 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}. Yes, but there wern't strick rules then! If we have better rules and better moderation this time around then there won't be cheaters. It seems that I cannot affect your opinion, so I concede to you. This will be my last post on the subject. Those above will probably be the rules, and I'll show how you can get around every single one of them. - Get a gigantic nation. Have its stats played. Since you share an RP, give him half of your post and tell him to copy/paste in a link each week. - Military is the same thing. Since it is ONE Rp, one person can do the military, cut the post in half and hand it to the other. - Being active isnt hard when two people write about the same thing. One person just have to give up half his posting material - You wont be inactive if you are being given a link with a copy/paste. - You will have everyone nag and moan asking why they do not deserve it. I see no reason why one person cannot RP one nation. A merger is a just a prettier looking bloc that isnt needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Those above will probably be the rules, and I'll show how you can get around every single one of them.- Get a gigantic nation. Have its stats played. Since you share an RP, give him half of your post and tell him to copy/paste in a link each week. - Military is the same thing. Since it is ONE Rp, one person can do the military, cut the post in half and hand it to the other. - Being active isnt hard when two people write about the same thing. One person just have to give up half his posting material - You wont be inactive if you are being given a link with a copy/paste. - You will have everyone nag and moan asking why they do not deserve it. I see no reason why one person cannot RP one nation. A merger is a just a prettier looking bloc that isnt needed. Have a minimum amount of players as a additional rule. I.e. 5 players. That would make much mroe work required if its just one person doing it all, as we will be expecting better quality RP's; if their crapy RP's (not well made, conflicting, short etc.) then someone can file a complaint in the OOC thread (or make one, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Have a minimum amount of players as a additional rule. I.e. 5 players. That would make much mroe work required if its just one person doing it all, as we will be expecting better quality RP's; if their crapy RP's (not well made, conflicting, short etc.) then someone can file a complaint in the OOC thread (or make one, etc.). Thank you for addressing my concern. On top of that, I'd ask that all planning for anything be discussed ICly in a Classified thread. Tired of this OOC "We have military plans written out, economic systems and travelling, our economy is number one and we all decided to agree on this treaty instantly at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 *ignores the entire thread* Just my opinion on mergers: the upper nation should completely absorb the lower nation, and the two people should RP with just the upper nation's stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 That style of roleplay isnt in the game, so it shouldnt be here. No matter what, people will be able to cheat this system. Mergers ruined it before and I'm pretty content without them. I'd rather everyone RP thier own soldiers and thier own nation.He has 1.6 million troops, and having him in my nation (or literally me in his) all I have to do is ask him to post a policy for the nation I am controlling with his stats every so often and I become 4x my own size. Its a hell of a lot easier RPing one giant nation then having a friend come in and RPing two. Honestly blocs and treaties are exploitable in the same manner. They get their super sized ally to join, give them a few c/p posts to do once a week or so, and when war rolls around they get them to dump command of their allied armies under one commander, aka themselves. All I'm saying is that if we have mergers we make them utterly pointless in any difference from a bloc other than the map looks less patchwork. In fact they would be weaker than a bloc, since at least in a bloc each nation has its own power to draw on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 That's where they shouldn't be different Tahsir, they should be just as potent if assembled as a block. A collection of states is not diminished by merely being a collective. Otherwise the U.S. would have no reason to fraternize with each other in regards to a Federal Government. And the RP itself around a government body is actually filled with interesting possibilities and intrigue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 *ignores the entire thread*Just my opinion on mergers: the upper nation should completely absorb the lower nation, and the two people should RP with just the upper nation's stats. I did this with my non-New Zealand territories; I roleplayed giving them to the Hansa and then became a roleplayer for the Commonwealth. It's actually highly satisfying work, so it could be done...but I agree that mergers should come back, as few stronger nations are going to want to lose their own power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) No for mergers. Why? Because they are not needed just like I feel tech shares shouldn't be needed but that is something different. Now mergers make no sense as whilst a group of nations might agree on ideas, policies and such they most likely will not merge together unless forced to or if the cultures and people are almost exactly the same. Also could someone please describe to me one RL merger please. The United Kingdom was a Constitutional Monarchy that has existed beginning in the year 1707 de jure, and 1606 de facto and has lasted until the present day. It consists of three major countries, those being Scotland, England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. From the year 1800 until its independence in 1962, Ireland was also a part of the United Kingdom. During this time, the United Kingdom flourished and became the greatest empire that the world had ever seen, controlling 25% of the world's landmass and its population; it had the largest economy in the world, and was truly the first superpower. One could also argue that the United States is a merger as well. The thirteen separate colonies, which were originally intended to be essentially self-governing states with one central government in control of little, after the American Civil War truly became one strong nation under a strong central government which had more power than the individual states themselves. Edited May 9, 2009 by Mergerberger II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 The United Kingdom was a Constitutional Monarchy that has existed beginning in the year 1707 de jure, and 1606 de facto and has lasted until the present day. It consists of three major countries, those being Scotland, England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. From the year 1800 until its independence in 1962, Ireland was also a part of the United Kingdom. During this time, the United Kingdom flourished and became the greatest empire that the world had ever seen, controlling 25% of the world's landmass and its population; it had the largest economy in the world, and was truly the first superpower.One could also argue that the United States is a merger as well. The thirteen separate colonies, which were originally intended to be essentially self-governing states with one central government in control of little, after the American Civil War truly became one strong nation under a strong central government which had more power than the individual states themselves. You are correct on all counts, actually. Especially about the US. State is the word usually applied to an independent political entity. We are the United States. The implication is obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 The only thing that happens with mergers is that a bunch of strong nations merge into one super mega ultra world power, and decimate the remaining local nations into submitting or being pimpslapped by THE HORDE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezequiel Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 We should have a new and rather simple rule to prevent that, whether if there's simply huge blocs or merged nations. Basically, give priority to those who RP better. 1000 soldiers and 500 tanks from a 300 tech nation RPing very well should be stronger than 1500 soldiers 600 tanks with 325 tech RPed badly for example. Though, I can imagine that such a thing being enforced would end up with people shotIng BIAS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 We should have a new and rather simple rule to prevent that, whether if there's simply huge blocs or merged nations. Basically, give priority to those who RP better.1000 soldiers and 500 tanks from a 300 tech nation RPing very well should be stronger than 1500 soldiers 600 tanks with 325 tech RPed badly for example. Though, I can imagine that such a thing being enforced would end up with people shotIng BIAS! I second that. Every part of it. As a addition, it must be original data (other than flight speeds, model #, cost, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Honestly blocs and treaties are exploitable in the same manner. They get their super sized ally to join, give them a few c/p posts to do once a week or so, and when war rolls around they get them to dump command of their allied armies under one commander, aka themselves. Its alot easier to give your friends something to c/p when it is your country. 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.