NationStates Jolt Archive

Lead in

This thread was inspired by the whole 'superpower' discussion. (See here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368751)) where it was argued that no one nation is -capable- of achieving the level of dominance that is necessary for superpower status.

But this begs a more basic question of what actually determines power in NS. This is why I have developed the theorem that power equals wank. (P=W), which is limited only by credibility. For a definition of wank, I point to the NSWiki entry on wank (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank) which defines it as “the abusive over-use of a particular strategem, technique, or style.”

Knoots theorem
The biggest power in NS is, by definition, the player or nation with the wankiest claims whose claims are still accepted by the players of other nations. The amount of power a nation directly corresponds to the amount of wank.

There is a “Wank-power optimum”, at which any marginal increase in the claim of existing power would not increase but decrease a nations power through the use of IGNORE.

Postulations
I will now present the postulates leading to this conclusion. I'm sure you’ll say: that idea can’t be true?! I am a superpower because I am superior! After all, there are hardcoded aspects of the game. Really? Look at my frightening economy!

Postulate of irrelevant population
There are no vast differences in power as a result of population. Because NS nations grow very rapidly, populations soon reach a level of economic production where ‘everything is possible’. A nation of 3 billion population and a nation with a 3,5 billion population are essentially peers, when speaking in terms of capabilities. With such numbers, the population becomes much less important then it would have been when comparing a nation of 50 million to a nation of five million people because a nation of five million people will have a hard time maintaining, say, a carrier or a huge nuclear arsenal that is sufficient to have MAD with its rivals. In NS, virtually every nation has all these strategic options.

In addition, virtually every player who is the least bit senior has a three billion-or-so population and this makes relative differences between the potential powers small.

Postulate of irrelevant economy
Economic ranking is fairly unimportant in determining superpower status. This is because any man and his dog can have a frightening economy. Any half-wit with ambitions can figure out how to answer the issues in a way that you get a frightening economy (with or without hurting other rankings.) In the NS economic system rankings are effectively determined independently, so nations do not gain at the expense of other nations. There is no limit in terms of resources. A “frightening” economy is a deliciously vague asset that everyone who takes this game seriously has or can have. Nations with top rankings are common. The same goes for rankings: just answer the issues and you’ll reach the top percentile eventually. It does not matter if you rank 400th for your IT or 1200th because in both cases you are in the top of the NS world. The relative difference is small.

Taking care of these two indicators of things you can actually ‘see’ in the game, in turn, leads to the...

Postulate of equal power
Once a certain level is reached in terms of population and economy, all nations are essentially peers. There may be differences, but no nation has a huge leverage over another nation.

From the postulations follows that everything that was coded is essentially irrelevant to power. So… if hardcoded aspects of the game are unimportant in your quest for becoming the biggest superpower in NS.. What remains, then?
Answer: “everything that is not hardcoded power”.

Postulate on the source of power in NS
Power, therefore, lies in everything that is not specifically coded. These are the things you claim on how it is in your nation, the things you roleplay, “the shit you make up”. The only theoretical limit is the imagination of the player behind the nation and his ability to type really high numbers when describing the size of his army and the abilities of his or her demi-god mechanoid commando telepaths in gravships. Therefore, the more exaggerated the claims are the more powerful a nation becomes. The only way to become more powerful is the abusive over-use of a particular strategem, technique, or style. Wank. The amount of power a nation directly corresponds to the amount of wank.

Hence, in NS, power = wank. An accepted superpower is just another player like you whose wanky claims of being superior to his/her peers happen to be accepted. (Honorary C'tan wank is the NSWiki term, see the article linked above.)

Limitations
The limit to power through wank is other players. At some point, ones claims become so outrageous that other players will ignore them. Impenetrable shields, invisible bullets, divine intervention and armies that encompass 50 percent of the population will generally (but not always) get ignored.

Where exactly this limit is, depends on the crowd you hang out with. In the International Incidents forum, limits to the size of ones army are strongly relaxed compared to what NS players will deem acceptable. Different rules apply to future tech and modern tech. More on this below...

Wank-power optimum
There is, therefore, a shifting optimum of wank and power. The optimum situation for a nation is to make claims regarding power that are so big that they are just not ignored, while everyone in the same situation claiming anything more powerful would be ignored. At this point, any marginal increase in the claim of existing power would not increase but decrease a nations power through the use of IGNORE.

This optimum is not an “objective value” that is the same for everyone. OOC reasons and roleplaying ability heavily affect this. As Rezo put it when talking about a player who successfully balances near the wank-power optimum: "[He] rips off the wankiest science fiction [he] can find, while being accepted as existing, since, unlike Xanthal, what a 'paragraph' is."

Some nations can get away with roleplaying a God, a personification of evil or an Elven Queen with many gravships purely by merit of other players accepting it for whatever reason whereas other would be ignored for claiming exactly the same. Roleplaying ability, likeability and such heavily weigh in here.

[B]Disclaimer
This post was NOT written to encourage nations to seek the wank-power optimum for themselves. Rather it was an attempt to describe the situation as is.

Knoot, exactly. I agree with you, power eventualy becomes equal. There is no apparent reason why the C'tan can have uber-ships and the Thelasi can't have uber-ships. It all becomes one giant wank-fest, and if you wank higher, you have to accept that other people will also wank away to your level.

So all of this "I am a better RP, I can wank more" crap is bull-sh*t. There is no logical, non-subjective reason. To put it plainly, after so much time, nations are becoming so much alike in power, its becoming hard to tell them apart. Another year, and nations like Thelas and Menelmacar will efectively be on the same footing.

I know this is scary for many people, but it is the truth. Yes Siri will still be larger than me by several hundred million, but as we get larger, several hundred million becomes insignificant compared to our general population. And eventualy Thelas or Menelmacar will hit 'wank optimum' and no longer progress, soon after the second nation will hit the same barrier.

Then, both nations will be equal in power. Yes Menelmacari will still have Sirithil nos Feanor, and the aura that she summons, but still, it is merely a figment of the imagination that Menelmacar is UBERLY MORE POWERFUL than the rest of us nations. It is a myth, probably propogated by people's desire for there to be some one more powerful than them, some one to take orders from and to obey. (yes, this means that most of the players on NS are brown-nosers, myself, I admit, I used to be one of them)

Yet there are ways to escape this cycle, character RPing for instance, where there is no way to "win" or "loose". Even buisness RP, where again there is no way to totaly "win" or "loose".

But that leads me to another point, to be discussed in a later post. That is, the exact reasons why one nation (over two billion) cannot conquer, through pure military means, a nation of comperable size.... most of the time.

So true...

I tread along the line between wank and god-mode sometimes, but I counter balance it by having fewer advantages in other things. I haven't been in very many wars, partly because no one has really gone after me yet.

Tagoo... Very interesting...

If all this is true, Knoot - and it may well be - then it really reduces any power struggles in the game to a matter of who can convince the most people to accept their bullshit. And thats not what I consider good RP at ALL (though I know you've made no "good RP" postulates above.)

Because when the game is about players convincing other players, then you get, for example, storefronts that appeal to the players mindset (i.e, advertising techniques used in the consumer market, as opposed to industrial/political/strategic/national business methods), and contests about who can most effectively exert power through the use of ignore.

Nor do I think that power is established by ignore or acceptance. Nor do I agree that what the masses (i.e. the most players) think is what "is."

And, I also don't sweep aside the game mechanics like that. If it's so damn easy to get in the top 10 how come only 10 seem to manage it? :) Even after years. Not everyone wants to, or should (based on RP preferences and what-would-you-do) be aiming for that kind of power, but I don't think its irrelevant...

Now as far as your theorem.

Let's say X is the amount of wank. Let's say Y is the number of players who accept that wank. And let's have Z be the power.

Your theorem is essentially X*Y=Z or X+Y=Z, from what I can tell. (Bear in mind I am a mathematical retard.)

But the problem I have with this is the assumption that the higher Y is, the higher Z is.

Also, we need to define power more accurately. To me, there are two kinds - OOC and IC.

OOC power = I ignore you, ten others ignore you, I win in this contest and you are shunned.

or...

=My roleplaying is well written and involved and moving, and therefore superior.

or...

=I know the most players, and have the most friends from an online-buddy type perspective, so have the more power.

But I don't think any of that OOC should be relevant as far as calculating power. It hinges on not only the belief in democracy (majority=right/better) but that power over people playing the game is the same as power of one NS over another NS. Also, it gives power to the IGNORE cannon, which is like giving people roleplaying awards for NOT ROLEPLAYING.

It works out like that, more often than not... but it SHOULDN'T as it distracts from the whole... well, RPing aspect. Undermines it really, since it casts a value judgement on peoples writing ability, say, or the time and effort they have to make posting. This is like saying the USSR won the Cold War because Russian authors of the time were better. No basis in the actual political, economic and social standing (or simulated political standing, etc in NS).

In physics, power is energy used over time. Used. There is no power at all in having dozens of loyal groupies. There is none in having a high economic ranking. Just like in physics, if you increase the amount of energy in a system you do not necessarily get more power out of it. More likely you get more waste (like, in the form of wankage, whether accepted or no) and a decrease in the potential effects and uses of it.

I'm just rambling now. Suffice it to say, most people seem to estimate power differently than I do. Personally I stick with the rankings for a lot of the raw potential stuff. Everyone has an equal chance to succeed there, and then the only contest is the actuals - the usage of that potential, and to what gain, meeting objectives - to me THAT is power, not the ability to metagame.

I won't address the game mechanics as such, but I do think you are missing an element in your theorem, and that is the overall intelligence of the player.


If W(ank) + A(cceptance) = P(ower), we totally rule out things like alliances, war-winning battles, wars being won period, etc.

Thus, say nation X is less wanky than nation Y, but more intelligent. Lets quantify intelligence as I.

In our imaginary scenario, lets say the hordes of wanky Necrons commanded by a certain Jackal God are overrunning nation X. Necron nation Y, however, fails to notice the clever OOC literary and IC military ambush waiting for him. The Necron hordes are cut off, surrounded, and destroyed by the superior intelligence of nation X, all with no exceptional wankiness. In the same way, a player with superior I will build more effective alliances, conduct better diplomacy, and choose better when to go into wars than a player of less I.
All affect the quantity of P.

Now, you say, what if nation Y decides to wank his way out of nation X's? Well, there is the eternal struggle. Wanking your way out of a clever trap may damage your credibility, and lower your A factor, ultimately resulting in a loss of P.

Thus, a superior quantity of I can be utilized to negate W.

Thus, I propose the Liang Corollary to the Knoot theorem:

A nation's wank can be negated by a certain amount of intelligence, and intelligence can increase (and thus, decrease) one's relative power. Greater Wank will negate one's acceptance, and thus also result in a decrease of power when met with intelligence.

Hmm, I think you need to demonstrate a definate example of that Laing.

As for Knootos Theory: It fails upon the acceptence of Mega Nations:

That is nations actually comprised of numerous player nations. Since Mega Nations can range upwards into the tens of Billions they become quite powerful and quite weak at the same time. (A single player nation is not going to get into an IC argument about who's general should led the bleeding war...except for a very good Rper...)

No, here is my personal take on this, that for most nations of great senority Wank is a factor but then so comes the power of alliances/Mega nations.

Actually, I don't want to be powerful. I enjoy just being a 2.8 billion nation...hell I want my pop down a good bit actually...I want to be the 'quietest mouse' but I have no volume control*

*I have some KIST cookies for anyone who can 'name that quote' ;)

Must. Think. Of. Something. Meaningful. To. Contribute....

Anyway, I think that a lot of the people who've posted here make a good point when they say that power = [acceptable] wank, as it overlooks alliances, personal charm (a la Siri), tactical ability, etc. Personally, I've thought of "wank" as a bad thing, and hate it when I try to have a large, effective military without wanking, and then see everyone else going to war with me in Alaska-size battelships, Texas-size tanks with Dora-caliber gatling guns.

I exaggerate, of course, but it seems that one of the unofficial NS commandments is Thou shalt not godmod, unless thou art fighting a war with Syskeyia; then thou mayest godmod, as long as thine godmodding is well-written... :rolleyes:

The following post is entirely OOC.

I am of the mindset that we really shouldn't have to start talking about "power" as it relates to strength of numbers or anything of the sort. In my opinion, the people who trumpet their power are weak somewhere. Perhaps they're trying to show off their OMG HUGE METAL PENIS RAWRR! because they're a little "small" in some other areas. (JOKING!)

I'm not that impressed with power. To me, it's more important to have influence than to be powerful. You may not have the world's largest army or be the name people automatically fear, but if you can get people to follow you without having to threaten or cajole people, you have the kind of influence that you need.

In my first "combat" RP, I faced another country in a naval exercise. That country had more plentiful and more advanced aircraft than I had. He had more and larger aircraft carriers and battleships than I had. Not only that, but he had more experience since it was my very first combat RP. I dealt him enough damage for him to take lessons from the exercise even though I was at decided disadvantage after decided disadvantage.

As another example, one of my allies put in some policies that I thought were reprehensible and I posted a condemnation just before I left work that day. I fully expected there to be some tensions and I was fully ready to post diplomatic backlash. When I returned to the thread, I found out that the player whose country put in those policies revoked all of them a scant four RL minutes later, citing my request. THAT'S influence.

In the NationStates world, a country that has the world's largest army will not necessarily be the most powerful or even the country that wins the war. I would rather have a country with a smaller, well-trained military RP'd by a player who is better at strategy than a larger, more "powerful" country with a less accomplished RPer.

Size doesn't always result in wins. In the War of 1812 (or the British/American War for you Brits), the U.S. Navy was much much much much much much much smaller than the British navy. However, the Americans won a lot of single ship battles because their individual ships were often better built and more powerful or they were sailed by more accomplished crews. American gunners could often fire three or four broadsides at a British ship for every single broadside by their Royal Navy counterparts.

Awwww... Can't we all just get along?

....So after all this, what your basically telling me is, Ctan is the most powerful nation in NS?


Over my still warm, recently departed corpse! =)

....So after all this, what your basically telling me is, Ctan is the most powerful nation in NS?


Whoever told you that? o.0
I am the most powerful! With my 10 million Roleplayed population... yeah, right.

Nah, under Knootian Theory Above

The Nation with the greatest Wank is the world superpower...

Therefore: Vrak is the world's superpower I mean who else gets away with having talking Walruses running about the place, and only being forced to wear funny hats...

....So after all this, what your basically telling me is, Ctan is the most powerful nation in NS?


Over my still warm, recently departed corpse! =)

OOC: I can see Mephet'ran saying "That can be arranged"

C'tan is!?! What!?! :confused: When did that happen!?!

I think Knoot is more or less correct in his hypothesis, but ultimately 'power' is subjective. One player might decide to acknowledge all of my military/economic claims and assets and so forth, which makes me subsequently very powerful to this player. Another player may choose to ignore all or part of it, in which case the action is likely to be reciprocated.

Essentially it all boils down to how well you can write and RP various aspects of your nation or what-have-you. If you going around claiming outrageous tech/military capabilities and proceed to make an arseload of one sentance posts, chances are not many people will be willing to acknowledge your "power."

This is why I tend to weight RP factors much more strongly than in-game rankings. Anyone remember the time Praetor stopped RPing for like 6 months and came back claiming Vorlon tech? It's sort of like that.

I think Knoot is more or less correct in his hypothesis, but ultimately 'power' is subjective. One player might decide to acknowledge all of my military/economic claims and assets and so forth, which makes me subsequently very powerful to this player. Another player may choose to ignore all or part of it, in which case the action is likely to be reciprocated.

Essentially it all boils down to how well you can write and RP various aspects of your nation or what-have-you. If you going around claiming outrageous tech/military capabilities and proceed to make an arseload of one sentance posts, chances are not many people will be willing to acknowledge your "power."

This is why I tend to weight RP factors much more strongly than in-game rankings. Anyone remember the time Praetor stopped RPing for like 6 months and came back claiming Vorlon tech? It's sort of like that.


Yeah, I remember that. And I agree with what you say.

Personally, I find it rather discouraging to put time and effort into writing huge elaborate stories that are original and interesting, fighting wars that are well RPed, and coming up with new toys for my nation just to have it passed off as wank. I personally think that power is the result of influence. You can be the biggest nation in the game, but if you don't have any kind of influence, you really hold no power. This is sort of like (For example) a January '03 nation who has 20 posts running into an RP screaming RAWR! at a July '03 who RP's alot.

'Power' is something you earn by being influential, and I personally don't feel it is the result of wank.

First of all, thank you for your replies so far. I intend to dump this on the Wiki when its done (as a theorem, of course) and your comments will help me to refine it.


On good roleplaying and rationality (Santa Barbara)
First of all, the separate issue of ‘good roleplay’. I completely agree with you that metagaming and wanking on the brink of what is acceptable does not equal good and/or fun roleplaying. You know me (a bit) and that is not something I’d rather do myself. I tried to describe a phenomenon that I see is common in NS.

Another thing (which should be noted about this theorem) is that it presupposes a more or less rational player striving for power optimalisation. You and some others rightly noted that this may not be true for all players. I could make some notes that it may be striving for ‘sactisficing’ rather then searching for a power optimum. But the economical analogy becomes very close at that point. (Power is a commodity was your motto, no? :P)

Now, on to the theorem…

On power
It becomes relevant to define power at this point (with several posters raising the issue). In sociology (which I deem more relevant here then physics) power is usually defined as the ability to impose one's will on others, even if the others resist. This can be using military force but it also covers influence and wealth etc.

Power is always relational: it is meaningless to say that a particular social actor "has power" without also specifying the other parties to the social relationship. Power is almost always reciprocal , but usually not equally reciprocal. Because power is both relational and reciprocal, sociologists speak in terms of the balance of power between parties to a relationship: all parties to all relationships have some power: (If you can agree, this definition will be added to the entry ;) )

You have to see my comments in that light, not in some conception of ‘democracy’ or ‘nice Rping’. My “ignore” limitation is not just the use of IGNORE cannons but it may also be nations *refusing* to do things with you or simply not seeking you out int the first place. At any rate: it is refusing to accept the means of control you claim to have. Hence, it is not a notion of democracy but simply a notion of how many others can you influence and how much.

On Intelligence / Roleplaying and the Liang Corollary
Another point that was raised implicitly by SB/AMF and explicitly by Nwliang and Syskeyia is the factor of “roleplaying ability” (which Liang calls intelligence. I think the term Rping ability is more fitting because it is a bit broader yet still relevant and distinguishable from wank. Hope you do not mind. ;) )

To repeat the Liang Corollary to the Knoot theorem a bit more tightly formulated:
A nation's wank can be negated by a certain amount of [Roleplaying ability], and [Roleplaying ability] can increase (and likewise, decrease) one's relative power. Greater Wank will negate one's acceptance, and thus also result in a decrease of power when met with [Roleplaying ability].

The thing here is… I’m sympathetic to the thought but I’m not totally convinced that ‘good roleplaying’ will actually make a big difference. It depends on how you look at it, really. I would like to see a convincing argument that it will actually make a difference.

I do happen to disagree with the notion that wank will negate ones acceptance. Someone who has a really small army might double its size (and thus its ability project military power) without consequence. This means that you can double your military strength without any negative consequence just because you alter your claim. Another example would be... yes... the Ctan who roleplays as a sort-of *God*. The idea of the wank-power optimum is that this decrease in power only happens from a certain point on when other players will not accept your claims anymore. Roleplaying ability therefore does not counter wank but it might improve it. Mathematically:

Wank (W) + Roleplaying ability (A) = Power (P) limited by Credibility (above the P-W optimum)

Again, I find it a sympathetic thought. But why would RPing ability be a RELEVANT factor compared to wank/bigger claims? And by this I mean really making a difference in the long term.

On Mega nations
Well…. I don’t think the existence of mega nations invalidates the theorem. In the end, the single unified army and all the advantages of a mega nation are just claims. And you yourself also suggested the weaknesses that come with it. And when have the Klatch or the Reich ever been united anyway?

Asserted off-topic commentary
Thelas… while that is an interesting way to spin things, I think you missed the point. The point was that there are no hard, objective reasons and that subjectivity is the name of the game. Thelas, being seen as “the pakleds of the elves” (dunno where I got that statement, but credit belongs to someone else) just happens to have a lower 'wank-power optimum'

Sys: I like the John Adams of NS thing. :P
Anyway, seeing everyone else going to war with “Alaska-size battelships, Texas-size tanks with Dora-caliber gatling guns” does prompt a response, and that way the wank-power optimum slowly becomes higher. I think an extreme example is the roleplaying community in II where everyone is basically forced to have huge armies. Likewise you see it in the NS forum with gravship proliferation even in modern tech nations.

Yeah, I remember that. And I agree with wwhat you say.

Personally, I find it rather discouraging to put time and effort into writing huge elaborate stories that are original and interesting, fighting wars that are well RPed, and coming up with new toys for my nation just to have it passed off as wank. I personally think that power is the result of influence. You can be the biggest nation in the game, but if you don't have any kind of influence, you really hold no power. This is sort of like (For example) a January '03 nation who has 20 posts running into an RP screaming RAWR! at a July '03 who RP's alot.

'Power' is something you earn by being influential, and I personally don't feel it is the result of wank.
[Emphasis mine.]

This is a rushed post, so I might be a bit incoherent or self-contradictory.

I'm inclined to agree. That actually reminds me of a line I read in a comic, somewhere: "Power is easy to obtain. Just convince people that you have power, and POOF, you have power!" (That's dredged up from old memory and heavily paraphrased.) What you, as one person, can do is limited. If you can convince people to help you, though, then you can do a lot.

Actually, this would kinda tie back into Knootoss' point about the power-wank optimum; to be powerful in roleplay, you have to get people to agree that you are powerful. It's just that "wank" isn't the only way to do it.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

Well, we sortof posted at the same time, so I can understand that you missed my 2nd post but yeah. I can only agree with that. :P

I think this whole thread is something I've been rambling on about since April of 2003. Finally, someone with the ability to say it for me.

*salutes*

I have nothing to say other than that, Knootoss, the post is brilliant. Just... Brilliant.

Thanks ^_^

The thing here is… I’m sympathetic to the thought but I’m not totally convinced that ‘good roleplaying’ will actually make a big difference.

Of course it makes a difference. How you write your wank is just as important as how extreme it is. Eurusea has a gaitling-gun-montrosity-thing that can chew up battleships without a second thought. It's clearly wank. But the vibrations and heat from the weapon tore the whole thing apart, destroying the gun. More descriptions were spent on the damage the gun did to itself than the damage it did to the opposition. That makes it seem more acceptable, partially because it had a weakness, but also in how it was written.

I create islands. I sell them for trillions of dollars. Nobody complains. Why? Well, partially because it fits in my wank-continum, but also how it's written. Or, in this case, how it wasn't written. When the NDA was considering having an island constructed there was my plan, which was essentially putting atto-pulse lasers on a man-made mountain of fill underwater and then doing $Classified and a little $Top_Secret, and you get an island. The other bidder involved carving off the top of a mountain and using some kind of magictechwank. By giving a more realistic explination with the insane stuff covered by claiming it to be classified, my method was more acceptable (despite being more expensive).

Also, I have characters with extensive cyberpunk-style cyberware (see my contributions to the Eurusea/Syskeyia war, the "little girl" stuff), but it doesn't seem too bad because of how it's written. Instead of giving facts and figures for Uyo's cybereyes, I described what it was like from her perspective, including her complaining about the headache the digital zoom gave her. Again, it's how you write it that makes others more likely to accept it.

Final example: Look at The Territory. He has even more cyberwank than I do, and has some extreme tech, but nobody complains about it because how he includes it. Again, if the tech is flavor, it's more willing to be accepted. Raw numbers suck and are less likely to be believed.

I lied, one final, final example that illustrates this nicely. Look at GMC's Mammoth Mk.VII Tank. When he first released it, it was nothing but stats and figures. It was widely panned, and considered to be utter and absolute crap for various reasons. Many people wanted nothing to do with it. Go take a look at the last couple posts in What Is And Isn't Mine, and see a Mk.VII in action. Same tank, same power, but see how much more powerful it seems, and how much more acceptable it seems when it's being used in a well-written role-play, as opposed to as raw stats.

Besides, in a role-play environment, role-playing is everything.

Of course it makes a difference. How you write your wank is just as important as how extreme it is. Eurusea has a gaitling-gun-montrosity-thing that can chew up battleships without a second thought. It's clearly wank. But the vibrations and heat from the weapon tore the whole thing apart, destroying the gun. More descriptions were spent on the damage the gun did to itself than the damage it did to the opposition. That makes it seem more acceptable, partially because it had a weakness, but also in how it was written.

I create islands. I sell them for trillions of dollars. Nobody complains. Why? Well, partially because it fits in my wank-continum, but also how it's written. Or, in this case, how it wasn't written. When the NDA was considering having an island constructed there was my plan, which was essentially putting atto-pulse lasers on a man-made mountain of fill underwater and then doing $Classified and a little $Top_Secret, and you get an island. The other bidder involved carving off the top of a mountain and using some kind of magictechwank. By giving a more realistic explination with the insane stuff covered by claiming it to be classified, my method was more acceptable (despite being more expensive).

Also, I have characters with extensive cyberpunk-style cyberware (see my contributions to the Eurusea/Syskeyia war, the "little girl" stuff), but it doesn't seem too bad because of how it's written. Instead of giving facts and figures for Uyo's cybereyes, I described what it was like from her perspective, including her complaining about the headache the digital zoom gave her. Again, it's how you write it that makes others more likely to accept it.

Final example: Look at The Territory. He has even more cyberwank than I do, and has some extreme tech, but nobody complains about it because how he includes it. Again, if the tech is flavor, it's more willing to be accepted. Raw numbers suck and are less likely to be believed.

I lied, one final, final example that illustrates this nicely. Look at GMC's Mammoth Mk.VII Tank. When he first released it, it was nothing but stats and figures. It was widely panned, and considered to be utter and absolute crap for various reasons. Many people wanted nothing to do with it. Go take a look at the last couple posts in What Is And Isn't Mine, and see a Mk.VII in action. Same tank, same power, but see how much more powerful it seems, and how much more acceptable it seems when it's being used in a well-written role-play, as opposed to as raw stats.

Besides, in a role-play environment, role-playing is everything.

Absolutely agreed. All things considered, this is play. Entertain me, and I might let that nuke hit just because its fun. Bore me, and your troops cease to exist as far as I'm concerned.

This is another reason the "powerwankers" ultimately fall away - they're boringly arrogant. Who wants to listen to this crap over and over? They make enemies, who eventually come to understand "hey, wait, I can ignore this jerk" - and do.

Those who write entertainingly, who engage others, and who in doing so give some pleasure in play - that is where power and influence lie. Its not having the biggest gun, because ultimately, the guns don't exist. Its in being able to have the other player walk away smiling, even in defeat, because it was fun.

hmm...wank=power...No wonder TFU claims he's a superpower

Everyone seems to agree with the general theorem, and yet.....there still seems to be a general lacking of putting this newfound knowledge and understanding into practice. I wonder why that is.....not really.

Thelas and Menelmacar will efectively be on the same footing.
That would require me to misplace my brain. :rolleyes:

Let's face it, hon, there's a little more to it than time and stats. There's the respect you earn in RP, which largely dictates what people will let you get away with. There's also what happens in that RP - you've repeatedly been stomped, which means you're spending a lot more time recovering than expanding. So, I'm sorry if you're not HUGE enough to be satisfied, but you've made OOC and IC decisions over the course of your time in NS and those decisions, more than time or stats or anything else, have made the bed you're sleeping in today.

And that goes for everyone else, too.

...which turns out to be a basic run-through of the original theory, but...whatever. ;)

C'tan is!?! What!?! :confused: When did that happen!?!

When I decided I was a nation led by a god, populated by assorted genetically modified humans and elves, with technology that makes Star Trek's federation look like flatworms.

And managed not to bother with actually wanking it that much. My OMFG warships that can sterilise planets have been crippled by nukes. My wank troopers have been felled by the equivalent of the AK-47, and my wank god has killed all of one person in NS... And no one really noticed.

And the elves... well, let's just say there's a few miles between my ones and Thelas' in the wankery stakes.


....So after all this, what your basically telling me is, Ctan is the most powerful nation in NS?


Over my still warm, recently departed corpse! =)


OOC: I can see Mephet'ran saying "That can be arranged"

That can be arranged.

But it won't.

And I can't force it on you anyway.

Everyone seems to agree with the general theorem, and yet.....there still seems to be a general lacking of putting this newfound knowledge and understanding into practice. I wonder why that is.....not really.
Its a theory. Who said anything about putting it into practice? ;)

Added to the Wiki!

Click here! Click, damn you. You know you want to. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank-power_theorem)

Some stuff is the same (it is the same theory) but I worked a bit with your comments and it has links and such. Also, it has been wikified.

Tagosaurous

OOC: How many times was the word wank used here?

As someone else mentioned, I think alliances have quite a part in it too. A nation which can bring in a number of other nations in, particularly the larger and more established nations, stands a better chance in wars (note - "stands a better chance", not "will win"). This has been proved over and over again in just about every serious open RP war.

Therefore, I would like to propose the Falastur Amendment (if Knoot and Liang can name them after themselves, so can I :))

The Falastur Amendment suggests that from the original:

Wank (W) + Roleplaying ability (A) = Power (P) limited by Credibility (above the P-W optimum)

should be added Potential (P1) to enlist support.

Thus, I propose the new formula:

Wank (W) + Roleplaying ability (A) + Potential (P1) to enlist support = Power (P2) limited by Credibility (above the P-W optimum)



Feel free to approve or argue against this amendment.

Also, it gives power to the IGNORE cannon, which is like giving people roleplaying awards for NOT ROLEPLAYING.

Come now, I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons can be utilized with a great deal of effectiveness and panache. Besides which, is it not a valuable skill to know when it is appropriate to RP and when it is not? Much like any action, knowing when not to perform the action is as vitally important as knowing when to perform that action. This does not speak to the abuse of IGNORE cannons, which is certainly problematic.

IGNORE cannons represent breaking the bounds of the credibility limit....

Falastur: do you not agree that the Potential to enlist support is just part of roleplaying ability? That is why I think its a bit of a double statement.

For the sake of simplicity and because it is a part of some other thing that is already mentioned, I would argue against adding it.

OOC: How many times was the word wank used here?
A lot.

I do, yes, but I don't think that it counts solely as that. A lot of nations could enlist support or enter a lot of alliances, but don't. A lot simply join up with as many nations as possible to make themselves invincible. Sure, you stand more chance of being a valued member of an alliance if you have high roleplay ability, but I disagree with the idea that RP ability = number of allies or power of allies.

By all means disagree, but I believe potential to enlist support is more circumstantial than based on skill on the forums....

tag (got to read this later)

TAG. [has whatever tech I want and only roleplay with normal people so doesnt often matter]
~Sultan hatusu o.o.c

Bravo, Knoot et alia.

It's good to see the truth emerge (and in a pseudoquantifiable manner)!

I like your theory. However, me being what is increasingly seen as among the more stodgy, obnoxiously wank concious nations out there does put a damper on my being able to make use of it. :rolleyes:

Woah.... gravediggy WA. Anyway, thanks :)

The key in the forums these days, though, isn't power, but rather influence, and that only comes from RPs and alliances. If I'm a nation with 3 billion people who has done some (random number) 30 respected RPs and am in (another random number) 20 alliances, I'm much more powerful than a 5 billion nation with 10 RPs and 2 alliances.

OOC:

Anyone can join 101 alliances. It does not necessarily mean that one has more influence but rather that the person is likely bandwagon happy. The influence of an alliance is perhaps a better measure. Still, I don't think "influence" can be exactly quantified into number since many variables come into play. After all, what would something absurd like 60% influence mean? Better to say that given X,Y, and Z circumstances, nation A will do this rather than that and how best can I make X,Y, and Z to happen?

Same with number of rps a person has been in. Quality is what is important (which you alluded to when you say "respected rpers"). But judging rps is purely subjective. Not to say that it can't be done, but again, ascribing a number value to it is hard. It's like judging a beauty contest. What's worse is that rps are "judged" here on NS not by a neutral, independant panel but by fellow players of which some may not like you. Personally, I disregard when people say "This is a bad rp" and prefer to check it out myself and formulate my own decision about that particular rp.

And what makes a quality rper? There are some rough guides in the stickies and I think writing ability can be included as well, but I think it comes down to how willing each person is to compromise to make the story go. As well, everyone has their own flavour which may not necessarily mesh with your own but it doesn't mean they are "less respected" than you are.

In conclusion, "influence" is very hard to quantify. This is not to say that some kind of statistical formula can't be derived to try to understand human relationships but one shouldn't see it as the final answer.

This is exactly what I have been saying lately, but applied to battles, and basically summed up in my words.

"The people who win tend to be the people who can bullshit the best and lawyer their way into winning"


I mean this is a roleplaying environment. There are no "set rules" but it seems whoever can "realistically" "tech-wank" the best can win a battle, or whoever can sound most convincing.

I do not even see how there can actually be competition in a purely RP game such as this. To actually be doing battles and invasions where both players actually end up arguing over the results is ridiculous as there are no set rules.

In actuality, it should be consent based, and wars should be fought only when people want them to affect their nation or want to engage in and cooperate with another player in creating a great story.

Indeed, Aerion. I agree completely. :)

Postulate of irrelevant population
(...)
Postulate of irrelevant economy
(...)I find myself agreeing very much with these two paragraphs. Not only they wrap the economic and population system up very well, it also shows that RP - in combination with several keyfactors such as defence budget, state of your nation, roleplayed defences etc, is the decisive factor in wars and such. Roleplay means strategy and using your troops effectively, not to wank a lot of numbers to pummel your opponent with statistics.

...

um, what?

Soz, Kenny. I think it was a left-over from my attempts to transfer stuff. :D

Odd.