NationStates Jolt Archive

Goodmorning,

The fun in II has been all but sucked out. This is not something that happened overnight, and the forum has certainly been getting progressively worse since early-mid '05. I do not believe that this is anything to do with the playerbase, but it is to do with the culture of II, as well as the general lethargy. Well, I can't do anything about the latter, but I can try to do something about the former. I'm going to go through a number of issues with II that I think detract a great deal from its fun, and how they could be fixed.



Common II Concept: Dogpiling is a 'n00b tactic'

Yes, that's right - I don't think dogpiling is a n00b tactic. Let us refer to a few case studies:

World War Two - Major Combatants

Germany
Italy
Japan

vs

British Empire
USA
French Republic and Empire
USSR
China

World War One - Major Combatants

Germany
Austro-Hungarian Empire

vs

British Empire
French Republic and Empire
Russia
Belgium
Japan
Italy (later)
USA (later)

Napoleonic Wars - Major Combatants

France

vs

Britain
Russia
Prussia
Austria
Spain (intermittently)
Portugal

As you can see, three of the defining world conflicts were in fact dogpiles, and damnable n00bs such as "Britain" and "the United States" should have been boldly ignored by the excellent RPer, Germany! No wait, that's stupid.

Anti-dogpiling "rules" were created to protect people from overwhelming odds by making it so its only acceptable if you fight 'points match' battles.. However, the simple fact of the matter is that in the real world, nations face the threat of overwhelming odds, and nations rarely declare war unless they think they can win, which means they will try to get superiority over their enemies. This game is called Nationstates. If you want to play 'points match' battles make Closed RPs.

Solution: Dogpiling no longer be looked down upon, unless it is against a extremely new player who doesn't want to be invaded. It is right to give new players a chance to get their bearings. It is not right to make the game fundamentally unfair and unrealistic so that people are never called upon to seriously risk the well-being of their imaginary nations.



Common II Concept: If in doubt: ignore.

This concept is not one that is often spoken, but it often does exist. If someone comes across something they don't like the look of in an RP, they don't try to get on with it, they go to the OOC thread to threaten to ignore. There are certain situations in which an ignore is a legitimate response (if someone is claiming a fleet of mach 13 fighters that destroy your capital, for instance), but does it really matter if $player posts blowing up your tank with his ATGM? Really?

In general, II would be better if ignores were generally looked down upon as a bad tactic (and I call it a tactic because that is basically what it is - the equivalent of the RL nuclear deterrant). If people had to avoid ignoring but in the most dire of circumstances, RPs would be much more fun, less stressfull, and might actually be able to reach a conclusion before being ignored.

Solution: Turn the presumption around so that the presumption s to get on with the RP, rather than to ignore.



Common II Concept: You must always tell your opponent OOC everything that you are going to do.

I don't understand this. At all. Why do you need to know OOC if someone is going to attack you a few days before hand? Why? I suspect the answer is simple - people don't like to be caught off-guard. They like to be prepared for everything. Newsflash: real nations don't get to prepare for everything. II RP is meant to be a simulation of RL - this is why it's fun. How can you have a simulation of a RL where surprise attacks have been historically very important tactics if you can't do surprise attacks?

Of course, many would say that this is blurring the difference between IC and OOC. This argument is facile and deceiptful. If you only want to know OOC, and aren't going to use the knowledge to help you IC, then why do you need to know? Maybe you have RL issues that mean you can't reply? Fine, write a post like "[OOC: I have RL issues that mean I can't reply]" when the thread is posted. Maybe you just want to know? Well, ok. Why do you want to know? If you don't need the information for any practical purpose and you don't want to use it to cheat, then why do you need it? Why does the benefit of giving it to you outweigh the negative effects of there no longer being a genuine surprise?

It doesn't, and the fact of the matter is that most of the time people do use OOC knowledge to their IC advantage, even if they don't like to admit it and (more commonly now) even if they don;'t know they're doing it. Do you recognise the following example...

Nation A: The 1st Infantry Division moves up to the front and attacks the city of St Jean.

[OOC: St Jean is just a feignt - the real attack will come at Fairfax.]

Nation B: The 8th Division moves up to defend St Jean. Meanwhile, the 5th and 8th Divisions reinforce Fairfax against potential enemy attack.
Of course you don't. This is blatantly contrived and obvious. Nobody does this.

What about this example:

Nation A: The 1st Infantry Division moves up to the front and attacks the city of St Jean.

[OOC: St Jean is just a feignt - the real attack will come at Fairfax.]

Nation B: "I see the enemy is attacking St Jean - we should move up reinforcements," said the General, tapping on the map in front of him, "but we should be cautious - I suspect a trick."

"Perhaps we should reinforce our other positions too, General?"

"That would be wise - Rotherham, Cardigan and..." he leant over the map, "Fairfax. They appear under-garrisoned.
Starting to sound more familiar? For even more subtle examples we can look at that recent GASN war affair. Had GASN been told, even if they had acted like perfect gentlemen IC and not "happened" to have some naval exercises the day of the attack or something like that, is it really conceivable that GASN would not even have discussed the impending invasion on their message board? In private correspondances via MSN? If I were in their shoes, I certainly couldn't say that I wouldn't do these things.

Frankly, if the only thing people can do with information without commiting godmoding or at least acts that in bad form is do nothing, then there is no advantage in telling them. It achieves nothing, but it could potentially ruin the RP if they decide to succumb to temptation and use their OOC knowledge to their advantage, and even if they don't it has a subconscious effect: in the example above, it's almost certain that Nation B's post would mention Fairfax in some way, or the concept of a feignt. But had the OOC messages not been there, or (for example) been "[OOC: This is the real thing - no feignts.]" then would Nation B have mentioned Fairfax? Would they even have mentioned feignts? Doubtful. Would they have reinforced St Jean more? Most likely. And the only way you can know what they 'would have done' is for them not to have the knowledge in the first place. Afterall, not knowing things is part of the realism, and part of the fun.

Solution: As a general rule, people should only be entitled to OOC information that their IC nation would also have.



Common II Concept: You have to ask me before you attack me.

I can see where this one is coming from. It's saying that if you don't want to be attacked, then you should be left alone. Fair enough, I guess? Unfortunately, no. In a perfect world there would be nothing wrong with this, but in II where people are so tied up OOCly with their nations' IC safety, and equate their success as an RPer and their fun in the game with the success of their IC nation, it is abused by people simply to avoid damage.

There are a number of genuine reasons for not wanting to RP:

1) Lack of time due to OOC reasons.

2) Not liking the other player / previous ignores on them.

Neither of these are specific to war RPs, and neither of them require the person to be asked beforehand in order for them to be valid.

"Ah," I hear you say, "but how can one have fun if one is forced into unwanted RPs?"

This sounds very reasonable, doesn't it? It's not. "Unwanted RPs" may not be what you really want at that specific moment in time, but without "unwanted RPs" II cannot work. If you can ignore a war simply because you don't want to lose (or some contrived variant of the two legitimate reasons) then what's to stop everyone else ignoring your wars? If everyone ignores all wars as a default (or sets pre-conditions so they can't take uncomfortable losses) then how can anyone RP in a game inherently centred around nations and, by extention, the quest for greater power/survival? How can anyone have fun?

Solution: The real solution to this is for people to stop viewing war RPs they might lose as a bad thing rather than another oppurtunity to have a fun RP, but in the meantime it should become socially unacceptable to ignore a war RP for any reason other than OOC lack of time / previous ignores, and do away with this silly concept of having to ask permission.

THese are all good points, and I agree with every single one of them.

Now, who to invade without their permission?

There was a similar thread earlier today about the state of II and why it has gone downhill. In my opinion, the points the writer brought up and the arguments used to back them weren't exactly right or directed properly. However, I am pleased to say that everything you have stated above I agree with and have been preaching (except not actually preaching)...

Bravo.

[OOC: Clarification is still going to be important in terms of influencing role-playing, however, if people were to start agreeing with you Praetonia. Most likely, clarification will have a diminished (but still influential) role over the years should more and more people start agreeing with you.]

I don't recall reading anything about the invasion on GASN by CPOC, in fact, it did catch us by surprise.

It just didn't make sense though for an ally to simply turn around and start attacking us. And the use of FT technology did throw off my interest in resistance.
----
And yes, we did pull the "You didn't even ask/consult those they planned to attack beforehand. But that you have taken out of context.

I had to find the threads by accident or had to get tipped off by an off site forum providing a link to the thread in question. By the time I found the thread it was already getting old and stagnant.

They should at least have taken it upon themselves to inform the attacked that they were under attack. Not start a thread and hope those involved magicly find it.
-----
And it isn't that I hate getting dogpiled, it is just that in light of the fact that the Undashis just glassed a new country for its oil, and they are getting off free while GASN (including myself) are getting invaded simply because of incorrect propoganda and statements.

If I'm going to get dogpiled, it should be for the right reasons. Not just because everybody else is. Unless you actually see something to gain from it such as oil.
------
I agree with the OOC thing, except it almost got one player banned from NS when someone photoshopped a fake series of hatefull telegrams and claimed they were legitimate.

But I understand what you are saying, I saw a war develop almost entirely on OOC heresay and set off by an IC trigger event. And this is usually a trick used by some to teach the newbs not to trust OOC comments in the first place.

A separate thread for all OOC and another entirely for IC and strictly enforced would alleviate this problem.

Prae, what are your suggestions about secret IC? Where do you draw the line between what's considered unnecessary OOC (telling your opponent what you're going to do) and secret IC in which you RP the planning and the communication?

One's in a bit of a bind if they don't RP the planning of an attack because the opponent would just say "hey noway man, how did you generals know what was going on when they just started moving?" but then if you RP the planning, your opponent would use that 'secret' knowledge' to his IC benefit.

SEA - Clarification is still important, but it depends on the circumstances. If Nation A gives Nation B an ambiguous report on how many troops he has in $location when Nation B's forces can directly see them and so Nation B has an IC claim to the knowledge, clarification should be given. But if Nation A issues an ambiguous IC press statement, Nation B doesn't have a right to clarification because Nation B wouldn't know what it's meant to mean IC either.

Hurtful Thoughts - I understand your concerns and will try to address them:

It just didn't make sense though for an ally to simply turn around and start attacking us. And the use of FT technology did throw off my interest in resistance.
I think the ally turning around thing does make sense if the ally sees it as in their interests to defeat their ally. Afterall they all stood to gain a great deal from victory. As for FT... meh, Skinny's stuff is technically MT, but I agree it isnt everyone's cup of tea. A debate for another time and place.

And yes, we did pull the "You didn't even ask/consult those they planned to attack beforehand. But that you have taken out of context.
Before we go any further - my post is not referring to the GASN situation specifically. That just brought it home to me how messed up II has become. In fairness to you, you were just working off the "accepted norm".

I had to find the threads by accident or had to get tipped off by an off site forum providing a link to the thread in question. By the time I found the thread it was already getting old and stagnant.

They should at least have taken it upon themselves to inform the attacked that they were under attack. Not start a thread and hope those involved magicly find it.
This is a problem, I agree. I guess we assumed you guys would post about it on your forum. In fairness, it was a fairly conspicuous thread, and GASN has lots and lots of members.

And it isn't that I hate getting dogpiled, it is just that in light of the fact that the Undashis just glassed a new country for its oil, and they are getting off free while GASN (including myself) are getting invaded simply because of incorrect propoganda and statements.

If I'm going to get dogpiled, it should be for the right reasons. Not just because everybody else is. Unless you actually see something to gain from it such as oil.
Well again, this is a mesh of IC and OOC. I don't care OOC about IC injustices - they're IC. IC, Praetonia doesn't care about this oil nuking thing, because it doesn't affect Praetonia's interests. Yes it's unfair, but it needn't be an OOC issue, is what I'm saying.

<snip - rest of post>
I agree entirely.

SF - SIC is a useful tool, but where possible it's best to contact people by TG or an instant messanger so others really don't know what is going on. All this communication can be assumed to have gone on between ambassadors behind closed doors, as it would have done in RL. You can RP your General having a plan without RPing him telling everyone what it is.

So your general has a plan, and its assumed the meetings took place behind closed doors, but what about developing characters? Developing the story? What about dialogue? What about the chance that one of your leaders would misunderstand what was said? If you just RP your leaders as having a plan and one of them screws up, it looks as though you left a key event or detail out, which will add confusion.

Character development can take place through things other than revealing plans. As for story development - most stories do not set out the entire plot in the first page anyway. If need be (and if its interesting) you can write a backdated post for interest's sake. Of course, you don't have to do this. But if you do you have to be prepared for the fact that your opponent will almost certainly (consciously or subconsciously) use the information unfairly against you.

So far this thread, in irself, is a very good read.

But not quite sticky quality.

I don't want it to be a sticky, I just want people to read and (hopefully) implement the suggestions.

I completely agree with all of these points you have made. II has really become more and more boring. Hopefully more people can read it and it can be put into practice.

Prae, i gotta admit, i completely agree. II went tragiocally downhill, which meant i just gave up and left. Everytime i've come back, its been just as bad. But now I'm back with a new nation, and this time, I'm gonna do my damndest to set off some good RPs that bring back the old 2003-2004 days of II.

Mac,

Formerly McLeod03.

Cheers for good logic! I was a player for a little bit, but un-imaginative roleplaying, copy and pasting, lack of interest on my part, me being pretty lazy, and a little fit Pathinians or somesuch was having with everybody else left me pretty disabused of the golden mantle of Earth II.

Sadly, anyone disappointed in Earth II should check out A Modern World, NSEurope, or E20. A lot better stuff there.

Prae, I do agree with some points you've made. But others, I will never agree to. Roleplay cannot function without proper OOC communication and planning, it's just a pure impossibility.

My reasoning for not having the ambition to RP out your little war is not that of not wanting to lose or anything. Although I don't like to lose (really who "likes it?"), it doesn't really matter to me as all I want to do is RP. It's the fact that since most of those aggressor nations are allies of mine it completely undermines the concept of diplomacy. I have no ambition to RP with someone who fails to recognise the political ramifications of their actions, especially when it pretty much forces me out of every organization I ever joined. (namely ISAF and GDI, Velkya and Questers respectively among others)

You say you want to RP realistically? Yes, it's true Germany invaded Poland without asking "OOCly" if it was okay. But Germany had a non-aggression pact with Poland signed in 1927. Hitler publicly denounced and ignored said pact and charged in on September 1st, 1939. Within a day half the world cut off any communication they ever had with Germany for violating its word in a pact based on trust, and Britain and France went as far as declaring war to protect Poland. So if they're going to acknowledge the fact they don't have to inform me that they are invading they damn well better RP out the ramifications. Of course, in the NS world politics seem to be worth a load of horse shit.

Hence why this "realistic roleplay" of which you speak is a paradox unto itself. Without political ramifications to worry about, people can declare war on whoever the hell they want and have a field day. They can throw war declarations like confetti at a parade. This is why I'm so against this method of RP. It's a contradiction of terms. If you want to roleplay like the real world and all, then you have to also take in the political scope of things as well and not just the war and fighting. Sure, it can be fun. But it can also ruin a person's roleplay experience. What if they weren't ready to lose at something yet? What if they wanted to carry out another RP with their nation, but now that someone invaded them they have to worry about that instead and have to wait ages to build themselves up again if they lose before they can start the RP. So many things can go wrong that can just ruin someone's career on NS, especially people like myself who don't keep many puppets. (infact I have a shitload of none)

This is why I feel we have the system we do today... The culture as you put it. It's to counteract those inaccuracies that cannot be recreated in the NS world. Of course the current system needs alot of tweaking, there's no doubt in that. But the system or culture you suggest is, in my opinion, equally flawed.

But oh well. Really, what's my opinion worth? I've been ignored alot more than usual lately, anyway. Just my two cents.

If NS does become a battle arena that refuses to admit politics exist, I'm probably out. I'll stick around to make the occasional smart ass remark or something, but you shouldn't expect to see me around much. It just ain't my style. IMO everything on NS is based on an honor system... When people disobey this honor system then you can start raising a bitchstorm. But I realise my utopian vision of a world without metagamers is of course untrue.

I agree, in the past month the Chitzeland RP only moved forward a week or two.
While I'm picking up 3 more war declaration scares per week now.
And over 80% of them are fairly nonsensical.

Nonsense:

I declare war on teh gasn cause I saz dase badeez.
All your base belong to us!


Sensiable:
Since the GASN is weak, and we are Anti-GASN because they hve frequently interfeared with our imperialist actions. We declare a pre emptive strike upon a new yet influential member who has no experiance in war.

Prae, I do agree with some points you've made. But others, I will never agree to. Roleplay cannot function without proper OOC communication and planning, it's just a pure impossibility.
Nowhere do I say that "OOC communication and planning" is a part of II that should be removed.

My reasoning for not having the ambition to RP out your little war is not that of not wanting to lose or anything. Although I don't like to lose (really who "likes it?"), it doesn't really matter to me as all I want to do is RP. It's the fact that since most of those aggressor nations are allies of mine it completely undermines the concept of diplomacy. I have no ambition to RP with someone who fails to recognise the political ramifications of their actions, especially when it pretty much forces me out of every organization I ever joined. (namely ISAF and GDI, Velkya and Questers respectively among others)
Diplomacy is not a rigid thing. You may think allies turning on each other is bizarre but it happens. NS has a realpolitik, every-man-for-himself kind of diplomacy, not a fluffy UN everyone-be-nice-to-each-other kind. What you're basically saying here is not only should it be the latter when it is the former, but that the latter should be OOCly enforced, even though it is an IC and not an OOC matter.

You say you want to RP realistically? Yes, it's true Germany invaded Poland without asking "OOCly" if it was okay. But Germany had a non-aggression pact with Poland signed in 1927. Hitler publicly denounced and ignored said pact and charged in on September 1st, 1939. Within a day half the world cut off any communication they ever had with Germany for violating its word in a pact based on trust, and Britain and France went as far as declaring war to protect Poland. So if they're going to acknowledge the fact they don't have to inform me that they are invading they damn well better RP out the ramifications. Of course, in the NS world politics seem to be worth a load of horse shit.
If I were to RP other peoples' diplomatic reactions to my actions then I would quite clearly be godmoding. Diplomacy and politics are creations of peoples' interactions with each other. If people ICly don't care much about breached treaties unless it has direct reprocussions for them (as until the post-WWI era they generally didn't in RL) then that's what they want to do. I don't see what right you have to mandate what IC actions they 'ought' to take.

Hence why this "realistic roleplay" of which you speak is a paradox unto itself. Without political ramifications to worry about, people can declare war on whoever the hell they want and have a field day. They can throw war declarations like confetti at a parade. This is why I'm so against this method of RP. It's a contradiction of terms. If you want to roleplay like the real world and all, then you have to also take in the political scope of things as well and not just the war and fighting. Sure, it can be fun. But it can also ruin a person's roleplay experience.
...like I said, NS diplomacy and politics differs from the real world in what IC nations choose to do in response to things. What I am objecting to is an inherently unrealistic OOC system of organising the game which makes it impossible to do anything except character and trade RPs. This is categorically different.

What if they weren't ready to lose at something yet? What if they wanted to carry out another RP with their nation, but now that someone invaded them they have to worry about that instead and have to wait ages to build themselves up again if they lose before they can start the RP.
Then they should write a book? There is a clear difference between roleplay and storywriting. Stories are based on the author's whims to entertain or to make a point. Roleplay, on the other hand, is an interactive experience that takes place in conjuction with other people. Roleyplaying requires that people respond to others' actions. Otherwise it doesn't work and the whole thing becomes dull and pointless, as II is now.

So many things can go wrong that can just ruin someone's career on NS, especially people like myself who don't keep many puppets. (infact I have a shitload of none)
This proves my point exactly. NS is not meant to be about having a "career" where you simply wait around to become more powerful through some bizarre promotion-by-seniority system for no defined end purpose.

This is why I feel we have the system we do today... The culture as you put it. It's to counteract those inaccuracies that cannot be recreated in the NS world. Of course the current system needs alot of tweaking, there's no doubt in that. But the system or culture you suggest is, in my opinion, equally flawed.
It doesn't counteract inaccuracies, it compounds them. Aswell of having IC nations that don't act like RL ones (which I don't think is either unexpected or undesirable), you also have an OOC system that means IC nations cannot act like RL ones, and the whole "experience" becomes frustrating and futile because nothing of any significance gets done. I've been here since Aprial 2004, and structure of power in NS, apart from people leaving and others taking their place, has not changed one bit. It's stagnant, and because of that its pointless.

To be quite frank with you, I would rather my nation had a life expectancy of a few months that were fun and involved lots of enjoyable RPing than that it had an indefinite life expectancy in which it did nothing except preserve itself for no real end purpose. If you disagree then maybe roleplaying is not for you, because I can assure you that no other RP site operates such an idiotic system, for the simple reason that people get bored and leave. As far as I can see, II has only survived because NS has such a massive player base to start with, and some of us remember the old days when things were just that much more interesting than they are now.

If NS does become a battle arena that refuses to admit politics exist, I'm probably out.
I don't know where you get the impression that this is what I'm advocating. Are you reading the same post? You seem to think that politics (or diplomacy, or whatever) and war are mutually exclusive, when if you had studied history even briefly you would know that the two are mutually dependent on each other.

LOL, that is so sad Hurtful Thoughts, did someone actually post that!?

Prae, I do agree with some points you've made. But others, I will never agree to. Roleplay cannot function without proper OOC communication and planning, it's just a pure impossibility.

My view is that OOC used to be for discussing if something was beliviable or no but in trying to make the other person agree the whole OOC context has come to make everything to do with the RP transparent, and now it has gone for away from its orignal purpose. So technically yes, but honestly no; the type of OOC that is bein used in Eath II has deviated far from its first purpose to better discuss certain points, not the open ended affair it is now.

I have no ambition to RP with someone who fails to recognise the political ramifications of their actions, especially when it pretty much forces me out of every organization I ever joined. (namely ISAF and GDI, Velkya and Questers respectively among others)
So the US, Europe, and Africa can say to Iran "We arn't going to pretend you exist because you don't care about the political ramifications of your actions".

You say you want to RP realistically? Yes, it's true Germany invaded Poland without asking "OOCly" if it was okay. But Germany had a non-aggression pact with Poland signed in 1927. Hitler publicly denounced and ignored said pact and charged in on September 1st, 1939. Within a day half the world cut off any communication they ever had with Germany for violating its word in a pact based on trust, and Britain and France went as far as declaring war to protect Poland.
LOL! That is the most crude descriptions of the start of WWII I have ever heard! Britain and France signed a Defense Pact with Poland, they couldn't care less that Germany "broke their trust" several times before-hand. As for declaring war they only did that so they could jump in the war by making Germany the agressive state; without a doubt in everyone's mind. They pretty much said "good night and good luck Poland" and promptly stayed behind the Maggot Line. Half the world cut off communication, more like Britian and France. US was neutral, along with a host of other countries. Spain, Russia, Japan, Italy, Hungry, Romania, and Finland were all so happy with Germany with only Belgium and the Netherlands to back up France and Britain.

So if they're going to acknowledge the fact they don't have to inform me that they are invading they damn well better RP out the ramifications. Of course, in the NS world politics seem to be worth a load of horse shit.

Only in Earth II, and a few under a month RPs, which is why this thread has been made.

Hence why this "realistic roleplay" of which you speak is a paradox unto itself. Without political ramifications to worry about, people can declare war on whoever the hell they want and have a field day. They can throw war declarations like confetti at a parade. This is why I'm so against this method of RP. It's a contradiction of terms. If you want to roleplay like the real world and all, then you have to also take in the political scope of things as well and not just the war and fighting. Sure, it can be fun. But it can also ruin a person's roleplay experience. What if they weren't ready to lose at something yet? What if they wanted to carry out another RP with their nation, but now that someone invaded them they have to worry about that instead and have to wait ages to build themselves up again if they lose before they can start the RP. So many things can go wrong that can just ruin someone's career on NS, especially people like myself who don't keep many puppets. (infact I have a shitload of none)

To accomplish that you need a good team of RPers who will use the political ramifications as a means to war and keep the political balance and teach the young newb what he can and can't do. Another severe deficient aspect of II.


But oh well. Really, what's my opinion worth? I've been ignored alot more than usual lately, anyway. Just my two cents.

I'm paying attention, arn't I?

If NS does become a battle arena that refuses to admit politics exist, I'm probably out. I'll stick around to make the occasional smart ass remark or something, but you shouldn't expect to see me around much. It just ain't my style. IMO everything on NS is based on an honor system... When people disobey this honor system then you can start raising a bitchstorm. But I realise my utopian vision of a world without metagamers is of course untrue.
Well that truth is abundant in many areas, you jut need to see them, E20, AMW, and European War all practive that. You just have had a depression brougt on by spam banter and copy and pasting of EII.

Tagging for now. I'll have a reply ready later. Cba to now.

Prae, i gotta admit, i completely agree. II went tragiocally downhill, which meant i just gave up and left. Everytime i've come back, its been just as bad. But now I'm back with a new nation, and this time, I'm gonna do my damndest to set off some good RPs that bring back the old 2003-2004 days of II.

Mac,

Formerly McLeod03.

Nice to see you back Mc :)


I agree with most points you raised Prae, whilst the overall quality has indeed gone down I still think that there are gems out there. I know you dont argue that they dont exist, I just want to show others that there are some good RP's out there.

Passion Play is a good example, however it does suffer from the amount of participants (although this is somewhat reduced now) and the obvious timing difficulties that this places upon those that cant post too often leading to the RP advancing at a slow IC rate. But this isnt always a bad thing, a slow RP seems to develop quality so long as the players stick with it which as you elude to is far too uncommon on II today.

I've been RPing here since Mid-03, whilst I won't cite specific examples the influx of new players since then (particularly in 05) has definitely damaged the quality of RPing as a whole because whilst there are many great writers that joined in that time there are also many who throw themselves in without knowing facts or vague awareness of what they are saying.

As for the views on the IGNORE, I've honestly been tempted recently to break my "I've only ever ignored one person" record due to some quality issues and a belief on my part that some people were not even reading myself and my allies posts and then posting wildly inaccurate and often completely irrelevant posts.

On another matter entirely I think that the "If you RP any of my losses in your post its GODMODDING" view is entirely irrelevant and out of date. Admittedly I did take that stance a while back but I realise now that it is a method of allowing the people you are playing with to fully bulk out their post how they like, especially when you are playing with good RPer's who have made some effort to research your equipment/training so that they accurately know what your people/stuff would react to specific situations. In several recent circumstances ive seen people RP my losses better than I could ever have done.


I realise that not much of that was actually responding to the, mostly, good points that have been raised on the thread by several posters and that it does jump around alot and not make too much sense, but I wanted to try to put my opinion out there.

My view is that OOC used to be for discussing if something was beliviable or no but in trying to make the other person agree the whole OOC context has come to make everything to do with the RP transparent, and now it has gone for away from its orignal purpose. So technically yes, but honestly no; the type of OOC that is bein used in Eath II has deviated far from its first purpose to better discuss certain points, not the open ended affair it is now.
We are of a different breed, my friend. The short age of RP etiquitte seems to be coming to an end. I'm not sure how I feel about that, though. In some ways, I am thrilled. In others, I am not. Only time will tell what will become of II, I guess.

So the US, Europe, and Africa can say to Iran "We arn't going to pretend you exist because you don't care about the political ramifications of your actions".
How many times do I have to say that the current state of NS is not like the real world? I admit I haven't truly said it in that exact context, but I have implied it several times. And if people want it to change, both realms of political and military must do so before we can even attempt to compare NS to the real world.

LOL! That is the most crude descriptions of the start of WWII I have ever heard! Britain and France signed a Defense Pact with Poland, they couldn't care less that Germany "broke their trust" several times before-hand. As for declaring war they only did that so they could jump in the war by making Germany the agressive state; without a doubt in everyone's mind. They pretty much said "good night and good luck Poland" and promptly stayed behind the Maggot Line. Half the world cut off communication, more like Britian and France. US was neutral, along with a host of other countries. Spain, Russia, Japan, Italy, Hungry, Romania, and Finland were all so happy with Germany with only Belgium and the Netherlands to back up France and Britain.
Whatever, dude... I'm not even going to waste my time replying to that because really my knowledge on the beginnings of WWII is relatively limited, considering my underfunded public school decided to give me a whole three weeks on that particular period of time, and most programming I've watched on the History Channel deals with the area between 42-45. I was merely using an example a friend of mine used in a different offsite nation RPG (unrelated to NS) over how someone broke a non-aggression pact for their interests. He proceeded to bash that person's face into the ground several times over.

To accomplish that you need a good team of RPers who will use the political ramifications as a means to war and keep the political balance and teach the young newb what he can and can't do. Another severe deficient aspect of II.
Aye, something I agree with you on wholeheartedly.

I'm paying attention, arn't I?
Surprisingly. I appreciate the gesture, I really do.

Nowhere do I say that "OOC communication and planning" is a part of II that should be removed.
You did say, however, that there is no obligation for contacting someone OOCly beforehand to iron out the details of such an RP. Of course they may not agree to it. But there's the risk you take over having both of you look like asses when the arguments begin. (A la the current GASN situation. Neither side really appears in the right to an outsider, and neither side is right from my vantage point either.)

Diplomacy is not a rigid thing. You may think allies turning on each other is bizarre but it happens. NS has a realpolitik, every-man-for-himself kind of diplomacy, not a fluffy UN everyone-be-nice-to-each-other kind. What you're basically saying here is not only should it be the latter when it is the former, but that the latter should be OOCly enforced, even though it is an IC and not an OOC matter.
I'm not advocating an OOC enforcement, and I am certainly not advocating people act as if it be a rigid and fluffy UN kissy nice-nice type situation. I am advocating that people actually acknowledge there are usually dire consequences to their breaking of such pacts, which it seems they throw away like mere rubbish.

If I were to RP other peoples' diplomatic reactions to my actions then I would quite clearly be godmoding. Diplomacy and politics are creations of peoples' interactions with each other. If people ICly don't care much about breached treaties unless it has direct reprocussions for them (as until the post-WWI era they generally didn't in RL) then that's what they want to do. I don't see what right you have to mandate what IC actions they 'ought' to take.
I'm not saying you should RP other people's responses. I'm saying people should RP their own responses of breaking off relations and such. Which is, I do realise, completely wishful thinking which will never occur. But I can always dream, can't I?

...like I said, NS diplomacy and politics differs from the real world in what IC nations choose to do in response to things. What I am objecting to is an inherently unrealistic OOC system of organising the game which makes it impossible to do anything except character and trade RPs. This is categorically different.
I've taken part in several well-played-out and pre-arranged war RPs. (they were, however, offsite) I would link you to them, but alas they have been washed away with time as the internet always changes.

Then they should write a book? There is a clear difference between roleplay and storywriting. Stories are based on the author's whims to entertain or to make a point. Roleplay, on the other hand, is an interactive experience that takes place in conjuction with other people. Roleyplaying requires that people respond to others' actions. Otherwise it doesn't work and the whole thing becomes dull and pointless, as II is now.
My friend there is little difference. I always considered the roleplay merely a coorperative effort of storywriting. Perhaps I've been wrong all along then, which with with my luck I wouldn't be surprised. (Meant as a joke, of course... Something to keep some humanity in me.)

This proves my point exactly. NS is not meant to be about having a "career" where you simply wait around to become more powerful through some bizarre promotion-by-seniority system for no defined end purpose.
You took my use of "career" out of context. I meant it as my time spent here at International Incidents, not as a series of events that leads to an eventual promotion. I would go into more detail, but I don't feel like making a larger ass of myself than I already have.

It doesn't counteract inaccuracies, it compounds them. Aswell of having IC nations that don't act like RL ones (which I don't think is either unexpected or undesirable), you also have an OOC system that means IC nations cannot act like RL ones, and the whole "experience" becomes frustrating and futile because nothing of any significance gets done. I've been here since Aprial 2004, and structure of power in NS, apart from people leaving and others taking their place, has not changed one bit. It's stagnant, and because of that its pointless.
I can't fight this one, my friend. You're very right. We both agree on the problem. It's the solution we can't seem to agree on.

To be quite frank with you, I would rather my nation had a life expectancy of a few months that were fun and involved lots of enjoyable RPing than that it had an indefinite life expectancy in which it did nothing except preserve itself for no real end purpose. If you disagree then maybe roleplaying is not for you, because I can assure you that no other RP site operates such an idiotic system, for the simple reason that people get bored and leave. As far as I can see, II has only survived because NS has such a massive player base to start with, and some of us remember the old days when things were just that much more interesting than they are now.
I agree, but I want to be able to choose when this happens for my nation. I had a bit of a civil war planned out for future use where a large part of my armed forces would start a coup and Cravan would be embroiled in some serious internal strife. This wasn't for a while away, but I think it's slightly more colorful than getting assraped by six nations in an invasion I didn't agree to then occupied and have my civilian population enslaved.

I don't know where you get the impression that this is what I'm advocating. Are you reading the same post? You seem to think that politics (or diplomacy, or whatever) and war are mutually exclusive, when if you had studied history even briefly you would know that the two are mutually dependent on each other.
Yes I am... Are you reading my posts? I'm saying that some nations only see the war aspect, and not the political realm. I know you aren't advocating it, and noone really would knowingly, but this 'culture' just invites abuse for those who don't like to RP politics.

I think I've made enough of an ass of myself already, since I do admit defeat in my skills to maneuver in and out of your rebuttals to the both of you. ^_^ I'll be retreating to the Meritocracy forums for a soothing disucussion to help me cool down. Between the Zomg invasion of GASN and the newblings clinging to me for guidance, plus piling schoolwork and RL clashes, it may be time for me to take a second vacation from II. Of course this one won't be as long as the first. But I think it may be needed.

Common II Concept: Dogpiling is a 'n00b tactic'

Yes, that's right - I don't think dogpiling is a n00b tactic. Let us refer to a few case studies:

World War Two - Major Combatants

Germany
Italy
Japan

vs

British Empire
USA
French Republic and Empire
USSR
China

World War One - Major Combatants

Germany
Austro-Hungarian Empire

vs

British Empire
French Republic and Empire
Russia
Belgium
Japan
Italy (later)
USA (later)

Napoleonic Wars - Major Combatants

France

vs

Britain
Russia
Prussia
Austria
Spain (intermittently)
Portugal

As you can see, three of the defining world conflicts were in fact dogpiles, and damnable n00bs such as "Britain" and "the United States" should have been boldly ignored by the excellent RPer, Germany! No wait, that's stupid.

Anti-dogpiling "rules" were created to protect people from overwhelming odds by making it so its only acceptable if you fight 'points match' battles.. However, the simple fact of the matter is that in the real world, nations face the threat of overwhelming odds, and nations rarely declare war unless they think they can win, which means they will try to get superiority over their enemies. This game is called Nationstates. If you want to play 'points match' battles make Closed RPs.

Solution: Dogpiling no longer be looked down upon, unless it is against a extremely new player who doesn't want to be invaded. It is right to give new players a chance to get their bearings. It is not right to make the game fundamentally unfair and unrealistic so that people are never called upon to seriously risk the well-being of their imaginary nations.

Dogpiling is indeed, a noob tactic. Why? Because everyone believes themself Germany 1914/42; USA 2005; Britain 1812; and France during the strongest years of Napolean. You basically have USA 2005 going to war with another USA 2005, who is then dogpiled by about twenty other USA 2005's, and the RP quickly ends when the force of numbers and technology crushes the lone USA 2005. How is this good roleplay or fun for anyone? The victors didn't get challenged, and the loser probably had no fun, and at the end of the day, aren't we all here to have fun and not get totally squashed?

Common II Concept: If in doubt: ignore.

This concept is not one that is often spoken, but it often does exist. If someone comes across something they don't like the look of in an RP, they don't try to get on with it, they go to the OOC thread to threaten to ignore. There are certain situations in which an ignore is a legitimate response (if someone is claiming a fleet of mach 13 fighters that destroy your capital, for instance), but does it really matter if $player posts blowing up your tank with his ATGM? Really?

In general, II would be better if ignores were generally looked down upon as a bad tactic (and I call it a tactic because that is basically what it is - the equivalent of the RL nuclear deterrant). If people had to avoid ignoring but in the most dire of circumstances, RPs would be much more fun, less stressfull, and might actually be able to reach a conclusion before being ignored.

I can agree with this: outright ignoring of everything is just stupid. There should be a dedicated effort on both sides to work everything out before hand so such things don't come up, and the RP isn't bogged down in needless bickering. However, I'd say some of this stems from the over reliance people have on technology; if there was a little less focus on technology and always winning I think the threat of ignores would go down.

Common II Concept: You must always tell your opponent OOC everything that you are going to do.

I don't understand this. At all. Why do you need to know OOC if someone is going to attack you a few days before hand? Why? I suspect the answer is simple - people don't like to be caught off-guard. They like to be prepared for everything. Newsflash: real nations don't get to prepare for everything. II RP is meant to be a simulation of RL - this is why it's fun. How can you have a simulation of a RL where surprise attacks have been historically very important tactics if you can't do surprise attacks?

You cannot really compare II/NS to the real world and expect it to hold up to logic. Modern nations do not just suddenly declare war on one another without either side having sufficient warning. Certain events must fall in a certain order before any nation will attempt war on the other: mobilisation, propoganda, the sort of shit other nations will likely be looking out for. Also I think it is entirely incorrect to assume II RP is meant to be a simulation of RL; there is FT, PT, PMT, all the shit that goes on in II RP that makes that assertion totally false.

Of course, many would say that this is blurring the difference between IC and OOC. This argument is facile and deceiptful. If you only want to know OOC, and aren't going to use the knowledge to help you IC, then why do you need to know? Maybe you have RL issues that mean you can't reply? Fine, write a post like "[OOC: I have RL issues that mean I can't reply]" when the thread is posted. Maybe you just want to know? Well, ok. Why do you want to know? If you don't need the information for any practical purpose and you don't want to use it to cheat, then why do you need it? Why does the benefit of giving it to you outweigh the negative effects of there no longer being a genuine surprise?

Generally, the sharing of information cuts down on bickering later, and takes care of alot of it before hand.

Common II Concept: You have to ask me before you attack me.

I can see where this one is coming from. It's saying that if you don't want to be attacked, then you should be left alone. Fair enough, I guess? Unfortunately, no. In a perfect world there would be nothing wrong with this, but in II where people are so tied up OOCly with their nations' IC safety, and equate their success as an RPer and their fun in the game with the success of their IC nation, it is abused by people simply to avoid damage.

This is another point where I must disagree: people have the right not to ever interact with you, or anyone else if they don't feel like it. NS is not a wargame, it never was. There is no button you can hit that deals me 99HP damage and stuns me for the next turn. Everything within NS is based entirely on the willingness of the other to consent.

This sounds very reasonable, doesn't it? It's not. "Unwanted RPs" may not be what you really want at that specific moment in time, but without "unwanted RPs" II cannot work. If you can ignore a war simply because you don't want to lose (or some contrived variant of the two legitimate reasons) then what's to stop everyone else ignoring your wars? If everyone ignores all wars as a default (or sets pre-conditions so they can't take uncomfortable losses) then how can anyone RP in a game inherently centred around nations and, by extention, the quest for greater power/survival? How can anyone have fun?

Solution: The real solution to this is for people to stop viewing war RPs they might lose as a bad thing rather than another oppurtunity to have a fun RP, but in the meantime it should become socially unacceptable to ignore a war RP for any reason other than OOC lack of time / previous ignores, and do away with this silly concept of having to ask permission.

I can agree, and disagree at the same time with this. I disagree in that you shouldn't force people to RP things if they truly don't want to; this is not counter-strike or command and conquer, this is at best a wierd-ass wargame that would give a practitioner of Surrealism a siezure. However, I do agree that losing should be set in a different light, most of the reasons why people seem to wank so hard and also ignore RPs is because, as you said, people thing losing is a negative event.

Nice to see you back Mc :)



Good to be back.

*cough*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498492
*cough*

/postwhoring

We'll have to get a decent RP going, show these young whippersnappers how its done.

Roleplay cannot function without proper OOC communication and planning, it's just a pure impossibility.

As Prae stated, I don't believe he think OOC communication and planning shouldn't exist, only that you shouldn't be forced to tell your opponent everything OOCly. If they can't know it ICly, then you don't have to tell them OOCly.

Of course, in the NS world politics seem to be worth a load of horse shit.

Politics is everywhere... what do you think an alliance is but a political agreement?

Just because people don't attempt to sit down with their enemy and talk it out doesn't mean politics don't exist, just that people prefer war over diplomacy.

What if they weren't ready to lose at something yet? What if they wanted to carry out another RP with their nation, but now that someone invaded them they have to worry about that instead and have to wait ages to build themselves up again if they lose before they can start the RP. So many things can go wrong that can just ruin someone's career on NS, especially people like myself who don't keep many puppets. (infact I have a shitload of none)

This part of what attempts to keep it partially realistic. You don't get to decide when you are invaded or by who, how many allies, or whatever (unless you agree OOCly on the matter).

NS is about ruling a country and delving into the international world. Should that world bite, you have to accept it.

If you don't want a war, there are measures you can take? Try NOT joining an alliance or staying out of big international issues that have extremists on both sides.

IMO everything on NS is based on an honor system... When people disobey this honor system then you can start raising a bitchstorm.

It is. And ignoring an invasion because you don't want to be invaded right now or have your nation decimated isn't part of the honor system... it is dishonorable.


Diplomacy is not a rigid thing. You may think allies turning on each other is bizarre but it happens.

*nods head and points to Italy in WWI*

NS has a realpolitik, every-man-for-himself kind of diplomacy, not a fluffy UN everyone-be-nice-to-each-other kind. What you're basically saying here is not only should it be the latter when it is the former, but that the latter should be OOCly enforced, even though it is an IC and not an OOC matter.

Agrees.

If I were to RP other peoples' diplomatic reactions to my actions then I would quite clearly be godmoding. Diplomacy and politics are creations of peoples' interactions with each other. If people ICly don't care much about breached treaties unless it has direct reprocussions for them (as until the post-WWI era they generally didn't in RL) then that's what they want to do. I don't see what right you have to mandate what IC actions they 'ought' to take.

Yeah, you can't make people RP diplomacy when they just want war. It may be slightly unrealistic, but NS can only be realistic in so many areas... mainly, the interaction part. How a nation acts isn't supposed to represent real world workings.

Stories are based on the author's whims to entertain or to make a point. Roleplay, on the other hand, is an interactive experience that takes place in conjuction with other people. Roleyplaying requires that people respond to others' actions. Otherwise it doesn't work and the whole thing becomes dull and pointless, as II is now.

Something I was trying to point out to someone on another thread (and failed).


LOL! That is the most crude descriptions of the start of WWII I have ever heard! Britain and France signed a Defense Pact with Poland, they couldn't care less that Germany "broke their trust" several times before-hand. As for declaring war they only did that so they could jump in the war by making Germany the agressive state; without a doubt in everyone's mind. They pretty much said "good night and good luck Poland" and promptly stayed behind the Maggot Line. Half the world cut off communication, more like Britian and France. US was neutral, along with a host of other countries. Spain, Russia, Japan, Italy, Hungry, Romania, and Finland were all so happy with Germany with only Belgium and the Netherlands to back up France and Britain.

*cough* Maginot Line *cough*


Well that truth is abundant in many areas, you jut need to see them, E20, AMW, and European War all practive that. You just have had a depression brougt on by spam banter and copy and pasting of EII.

Woohoo! Three cheers for the European War (of the Napoleonic Era).


You did say, however, that there is no obligation for contacting someone OOCly beforehand to iron out the details of such an RP. Of course they may not agree to it. But there's the risk you take over having both of you look like asses when the arguments begin. (A la the current GASN situation. Neither side really appears in the right to an outsider, and neither side is right from my vantage point either.)

The thing is, you don't have to agree on it. It is war. One of the main points of this is that you don't have to get the opposing nation to agree to be invaded, because they shouldn't be allowed to ignore the situation because they don't feel like being invaded.

The only person who would look like an ass is the one who ignored a perfectly legit invasion.

I'm not advocating an OOC enforcement, and I am certainly not advocating people act as if it be a rigid and fluffy UN kissy nice-nice type situation. I am advocating that people actually acknowledge there are usually dire consequences to their breaking of such pacts, which it seems they throw away like mere rubbish.

The problem is, there are only dire consequences to breaking pacts if there are in fact dire consequences to breaking pacts. You can't just say that there should be dire consequences so people should respect that... if there is no ramification of breaking a pact, than there is no ramification.

My friend there is little difference. I always considered the roleplay merely a coorperative effort of storywriting. Perhaps I've been wrong all along then, which with with my luck I wouldn't be surprised. (Meant as a joke, of course... Something to keep some humanity in me.)

Roleplaying does create a story; however, the main point is not to create a fun and interesting story... it is to accomplish something such as taking over a foreign nation in the case of a war.


Dogpiling is indeed, a noob tactic. Why? Because everyone believes themself Germany 1914/42; USA 2005; Britain 1812; and France during the strongest years of Napolean. You basically have USA 2005 going to war with another USA 2005, who is then dogpiled by about twenty other USA 2005's, and the RP quickly ends when the force of numbers and technology crushes the lone USA 2005. How is this good roleplay or fun for anyone? The victors didn't get challenged, and the loser probably had no fun, and at the end of the day, aren't we all here to have fun and not get totally squashed?

It isn't about having fun! Roleplaying is about something actually happening.

It is just flat out realistic that dogpiles happen.

First Gulf War?

You cannot really compare II/NS to the real world and expect it to hold up to logic. Modern nations do not just suddenly declare war on one another without either side having sufficient warning. Certain events must fall in a certain order before any nation will attempt war on the other: mobilisation, propoganda, the sort of shit other nations will likely be looking out for.

There is a difference between properly RPing the beginning of mobilization, transportation, & preparation and telling a nation OOCly that you are going to invade.

If you are going to invade, then you should create an IC thread where you begin mobilizing and such. If someone fails to do this, then that is just poor RPing, which is a completely different issue (though extremely rampant... see Blackhelm rampage).

Also I think it is entirely incorrect to assume II RP is meant to be a simulation of RL; there is FT, PT, PMT, all the shit that goes on in II RP that makes that assertion totally false.

Ugh... what a poor argument, saying that it isn't meant to simulate RL because there are other tech/time levels involved.

There are certain things that are meant to represent RL and certain things that aren't.

This is another point where I must disagree: people have the right not to ever interact with you, or anyone else if they don't feel like it. NS is not a wargame, it never was. There is no button you can hit that deals me 99HP damage and stuns me for the next turn. Everything within NS is based entirely on the willingness of the other to consent.

Yes, it is based off willingness, but everyone should be willing to deal with what comes at them and not just ignore it because they don't feel like it.

Let's not intentionally make this as unrealistic and just flat out stupid as possible.

It isn't about having fun! Roleplaying is about something actually happening.

Roleplay isn't supposed to be fun, then?

I dunno about you, but I RP to have fun. If fun is not the purpose of NS, then just fuck it all. I'm not wasting my time with some meaningless thing not even meant to be fun. I mean seriously, it is a game... And games are meant to be fun. There are times I feel people take it a bit too seriously.

It is. And ignoring an invasion because you don't want to be invaded right now or have your nation decimated isn't part of the honor system... it is dishonorable.

And what are you implying, there, if anything?

Roleplay isn't supposed to be fun, then?

I dunno about you, but I RP to have fun. If fun is not the purpose of NS, then just fuck it all. I'm not wasting my time with some meaningless thing not even meant to be fun. I mean seriously, it is a game... And games are meant to be fun. There are times I feel people take it a bit too seriously.


Yes it is, but if people are going to ignore your attack on them, simply because they feel like it, then the only fun is for them. If anyone can attack anyone at any time, it makes it mroe interesting, and more fun. The Fun doesn't come from winning, it comes from telling the story, and putting in twists and turns. I don't care about losing, is the journey that i find fun.

Yes it is, but if people are going to ignore your attack on them, simply because they feel like it, then the only fun is for them. If anyone can attack anyone at any time, it makes it mroe interesting, and more fun. The Fun doesn't come from winning, it comes from telling the story, and putting in twists and turns. I don't care about losing, is the journey that i find fun.

Same here. I'm trying to... You know what, nevermind. I'm really not making any progress here and I'm just digging my grave deeper.

Roleplay isn't supposed to be fun, then?

I dunno about you, but I RP to have fun. If fun is not the purpose of NS, then just fuck it all. I'm not wasting my time with some meaningless thing not even meant to be fun. I mean seriously, it is a game... And games are meant to be fun. There are times I feel people take it a bit too seriously.

Having fun is great and nobody wouldn't do this if it wasn't fun, but you shouldn't make it unrealistic and ignore everything because you feel like it.

Wars aren't about making a cool story... if you want to do that make a character RP. Wars are about actual changes happening.

And what are you implying, there, if anything?

I don't think I am implying anything... It is pretty explicit.

YES! I've seen all these things and HATE THEM! Good job Prae.

I've been here since the moment I.I. was created, in fact I was the 2nd person to post here.

During this time I've found that the best way to change things is to lead by example, especially if you are a visible player. I.I. has changed a lot over the last 3 years, but regardless of the downs there has been nothing but upward progress.

My $.02.

I don't know if there is any way to "fix II" except by being careful who you rp with in the first place. Personally, I use "ooc" for sorting out issues in a conflict such as tech levels rather than being forewarned of a surprise attack. To be fair, anyone attacking me for no good reason would make me shake my ooc head in puzzlement.

Now, being as one who has a helluva busy schedule for the next 8 months (as well as others in my region and alliances), what usually kills rps from my own experience is real-life being darned busy. As well, when I get the feeling of everyone wanting to post their missile+5, tank+4, and fighter jet+6 just for the sake of posting along with some smugness attached to it, then I usually leave the rp.

Their are reasonable players our there but I think you find them by watching the boards carefully and managing to devote the time to do so. I think that one way to "fix II" is to ignore much of the crap. Find people who are decent, have fun, and not worry about the rest.

Now I have to find some time to actually start catching up on some much needed posts and refresh my original reason for joining NS in the first place; which were to have fun, read some cool stories and write (or more accurately participate) in some exciting rps instead of the dull palette I see before me.

I agree with the OOC thing, except it almost got one player banned from NS when someone photoshopped a fake series of hatefull telegrams and claimed they were legitimate.

If you're talking about what I think you are, then you are grossly incorrect when you say it almost got the player banned and saying that it was claimed to be legitimated when a lengthy OOC post explaining it was not came in, and was never once said to be true OOC.

"Let him who has an ear listen...Here is wisdom"

Praetonia, we've had some past differences, but these are all excellent points that I totally agree with, and I think most if not all of the best RPers are those who practice these points.

I think what we need is to have more international incidences. But not necarsserily wars.
There suprisingly is such a thing as a peaceful Rp. a break from the perpetual conflict of NS would be nice.

I forgotten the exact quote. but it think it was brilliant.
If the real world was like II. The atmosphere would have long been destroyed by the exhausts of missile spam, and several untouched island tribes would have started wondering why the sky was on fire.

Peaceful...RP? Thou speakest in riddles!

Seriously though.

What II needs is more focus on story, though not at the expense of what a nation realistically can have. Sure its fun to have WMDs and Superweapons, but they shouldn't just be there to be used unless they better the story. I for one prefer the nitty gritty of a good ground battle, a nice indepth assault, with well-developed arcs and plots.

I love political intrigue. What we need to do is come together more as a community. Because there isn't just one II, theres god knows how many. Theres a Crisis of Infinite Earths, Universes, Galaxies. What we need is to come together and make II better as a whole, to educate the newbs and the n00bs, to try and improve the general standard of RP. Many people come into the game and don't understand the heirarchy thats developed, the rules that have sprung up, how things are done.

We need to show them that they can play by the rules and have fun. Because fun is what its all about :)

Peaceful...RP? Thou speakest in riddles!

Seriously though.

What II needs is more focus on story, though not at the expense of what a nation realistically can have. Sure its fun to have WMDs and Superweapons, but they shouldn't just be there to be used unless they better the story. I for one prefer the nitty gritty of a good ground battle, a nice indepth assault, with well-developed arcs and plots.

I love political intrigue. What we need to do is come together more as a community. Because there isn't just one II, theres god knows how many. Theres a Crisis of Infinite Earths, Universes, Galaxies. What we need is to come together and make II better as a whole, to educate the newbs and the n00bs, to try and improve the general standard of RP. Many people come into the game and don't understand the heirarchy thats developed, the rules that have sprung up, how things are done.

We need to show them that they can play by the rules and have fun. Because fun is what its all about :)


Hear hear, well said that man.

Peaceful...RP? Thou speakest in riddles!

Seriously though.

What II needs is more focus on story, though not at the expense of what a nation realistically can have. Sure its fun to have WMDs and Superweapons, but they shouldn't just be there to be used unless they better the story. I for one prefer the nitty gritty of a good ground battle, a nice indepth assault, with well-developed arcs and plots.

I love political intrigue. What we need to do is come together more as a community. Because there isn't just one II, theres god knows how many. Theres a Crisis of Infinite Earths, Universes, Galaxies. What we need is to come together and make II better as a whole, to educate the newbs and the n00bs, to try and improve the general standard of RP. Many people come into the game and don't understand the heirarchy thats developed, the rules that have sprung up, how things are done.

We need to show them that they can play by the rules and have fun. Because fun is what its all about :)


Yeah, this sounds like the best way of going about it. Whether anyone will do anything at all is another matter.

Oh they won't, but an ideal is a good thing to have. Gives you somethign to aim for.

All right all right, we get it. We already know what's wrong, wanna solve the problem?

Stop spamming II with threads like this and make good RPs. Yeesh!

All right all right, we get it. We already know what's wrong, wanna solve the problem?

Stop spamming II with threads like this and make good RPs. Yeesh!

Seconded, all these sorts of threads do is clog the forums with wannabes and distract people from decent RP's which die without post nourishment.

All right all right, we get it. We already know what's wrong, wanna solve the problem?

Stop spamming II with threads like this and make good RPs. Yeesh!

Seconded.

Well if there are so many of these threads how come people do not attempt to solve the problems?

Well if there are so many of these threads how come people do not attempt to solve the problems?

because once you realise that it's fiction the RL related problems go away, if people want a RL style RP then they should simply claim it in the title.

Well if there are so many of these threads how come people do not attempt to solve the problems?

Laziness, forgetfulness, lack of ability. But it's certainly not ignorance.

because once you realise that it's fiction the RL related problems go away, if people want a RL style RP then they should simply claim it in the title.

I am pretty sure in a serious war people want it to be realistic and not some goofy, half-assed, do whatever pleases you fiction...

Either way, you shouldn't have to identify that you want some realism in war.

Character RPs is a different matter that isn't and probably has no need of being addressed here.

I am pretty sure in a serious war people want it to be realistic and not some goofy, half-assed, do whatever pleases you fiction...

Goofy? Half Assed? Isn't that spelt Arsed anyway? As in Half Arsed, whatever, point is I'm far from a goofy war RPer, I RP to have fun and as much as I've tried RPing a Goofy army just aint worth it, and as for the Half Arsed remark, well that's just opinion but it's my opinion that I write Mediocre RP's with a limited knowledge on Technology but I do the best I damn well can.

... and what's wrong with goofy?

... and what's wrong with goofy?

Surrealism > Goofy

Goofy? Half Assed? Isn't that spelt Arsed anyway? As in Half Arsed, whatever, point is I'm far from a goofy war RPer, I RP to have fun and as much as I've tried RPing a Goofy army just aint worth it, and as for the Half Arsed remark, well that's just opinion but it's my opinion that I write Mediocre RP's with a limited knowledge on Technology but I do the best I damn well can.

Umm... no, it is spelt half assed.

I didn't criticize you, your RPing, or your knowledge. I was responding to your comment of, "Once you realise that it's fiction the RL related problems go away." Which basically means you are saying you don't have to keep it realistic because it is just writing...

Surrealism > Goofy

I use surreal goofiness, by the way when are you gonna do your next comic?

Umm... no, it is spelt half assed.

I didn't criticize you, your RPing, or your knowledge. I was responding to your comment of, "Once you realise that it's fiction the RL related problems go away." Which basically means you are saying you don't have to keep it realistic because it is just writing...

Sorry dude, it's really hot here and I'm tired so I'm prone to snapping, forgive me.

I use surreal goofiness, by the way when are you gonna do your next comic?

I've already started getting back into it, I created a special episode for the Region I'm in and a special episode commemorating Steve Irwin in the Stingray Hunt thread, so expect the next set soon.

I've already started getting back into it, I created a special episode for the Region I'm in and a special episode commemorating Steve Irwin in the Stingray Hunt thread, so expect the next set soon.

Woot.

So first off, Prae, I thank you for making a thread to deal with a major problem of II, and as a creator of a Like thread, I get your motivations. I'm not sure whether Questers and Whyatica fully put out all the questions I asked, but many deal with Cravan's points.

1. Why would nations that have good to close relations with Illior risk Killing all credibility they ever created with the Illiorian government?

Seeing as MANY of the nations that decided to join this alliance had good standing with my government, ICly, this makes no sense, so let me use an example: The Silver Sky. ICly his and my governments are very close, due to having interregional experiences that almost cause a bunch of nations to be wiped off of the face of the earth, and He and I were both part of that group. Now, with that kind of relation, why would he ever risk losing possibly one of his strongest allies, someone that they could turn to very easily in a time of need and get whatever they needed?

Although with your stated "all for me" style of Diploamacy, it might make sense, but unless the attacking nation RPed a HUGE propoganda campaign, or their citizens were completely under the government's thumb, I'd feel that there'd be some questioning of this. Now, for the consequences that would be felt if this had worked: Illior would sever ALL relations with The Silver Sky, in every way possible, and their people would be deported and there would be a hard grudge held against them, along with moving away from Skyan contracts to others, that may be worse, but aren't Skyan. How much damage this would do to him, I don't know, but he'd lose an IC friend, but I'd hope we'd be able to keep up the good OOC relationship we have.

2. Where was all the IC organization for this attack? Cause to us who were being invaded, this all seemed to be thrown together on a whim (even though it wasn't) for OOC reasons (which it was, but there was no IC reason behind it), specially in alliances. I noted that I had not seen once a post where governments got together and were persuaded to join past enemies and attack a bunch of people. Now this leads into point 3

Now Questers Pointed out here that no nation can RP everything that happened, but Whyatica did note that he had proposed the RPing of a backstory to eliminate this problem.

3. Why would nations that had such close ties ICly to nations like Sarzonia ally themselves with a nation Like Doomingsland (If I remember correctly, Eternal enemies), and totally went against any IC reasoning, as many of the nations in the Sovereign League were in on the attacks, and doing exactly what they were meant to stop?

and here Questers admitted he couldn't answer that.

Now, to address your actual points Prae,
1. Dog Piling= N00b tactic
From my experience on II, the dog pilings have ruined many a RP that I've tried to do or start, and as such, I tend to dislike them. Although they are a Viable tactic, I've found them to be more an annoyance.

2. If in doubt, Ignore it.
Now, here's where I agree, as I too have seen some bad calls in my three years on II. As my memory serves me, I don't think that I've made too many ignores based on little things, but more of a combination of Godmodding, and other things, so this is valid.

3. You have to tell a nation everything you do
I have to agree again, due to fear of metagaming. I try to separate OOC and IC with extreme Prejeduce, so to hopefully squash that problem, but you are right in that not all people are like that.

Now, with the GASN example, I MUST disagree. It was not on the grounds that you did not tell everyone that I disagreed with the RP, it was a lack of ANY basic planning, with the attacked being involved. I know that you disagree with telling the "enemy" any sort of information that wouldn't be ICly available, but with the amount of nations that your "coalition" had in it, and the amount of nations in GASN, it looked like a total "cluster ****" to me, cause ICly, I couldn't tell who was being attacked or by what. A little planning with the members of GASN would have allowed for a more organised sort of RP, that would have allowed for freeform RPing, but still reasonably organized. In all my time on II, I've found the Major alliance wars work better when theaters are organised, by both sides, and if it was to be a mano-a-mano RP, people could be easily matched with close to equal partners. I bet you didn't even realise GASN was in a worse situation than you thought, and I only realized it now, as almost Every GASN head of state is in Cravan at the moment. Now with some basic discussion about our military readiness, state of readiness, and other basic information, it would have allowed us to RP it more realistically.

4. You have to ask me before attacking me
I see this more as a courtesy, as the GASN affair was forced on us, and people like me have very Limited time at the moment, and I do agree that nations shouldn't be able to say no on the grounds that they just don't want to be attacked, there should be more viable reasons than:
1. I can't due to RL
2. An OOC dislike or Ignore.
Possibly being involved in a Major RP or story should be other viable reasons, as they would take most of the other player's time, and in my eye, take precedent, as they were started earlier, unless the new attack is a part of an ongoing RP which the soon-to-be attacked nation was involved in.

and as a final note,
RPing is meant to be fun, and misunderstandings are generally what I see to destroy RPs, and generate bad feelings, as I will say this, that orignally before talking to Questers on MSN, I lost respect for him, but after clearing a lot of misunderstandings up, he regained that respect. Now, on another note, it isn't nice to be dishonest OOCly when it comes to overall plans, as the GASN debacle demonstrated, as I was told that no genocide would be included, but I had multiple independant sources tell me that this was total BS, and made me feel horrid. Now hopefully this post clears up a lot of things, and Prae, I would be willing to try and explain Cravan's, most of GASNs (although not as well articulated (just trying to help and not criticise)), and My reasoning for the original dissaprovals and ignores further, as time will allow for, as I will do for anyone who wishes to know.

and once again, RPing is meant to be fun and not stressful, which although I know the Coalition meant to be fun, believe me when I say you had a lot of GASN members stressed to the breaking point due to simple misunderstandings and courtesies not afforded, with one even threatening to leave II forever.

Ill tell you what needs to be done on these forums, not just earth 2.

1) the scaring away of new people by dog pile, because no one was willing to just say "read the stickies." i am not talking about the noobs but the newbs who come on, tell them read the stickies and thats it.

2) the removal of earths WTV-WTV, having 10 players here and 13 there, 16 there so on, so on takes away players from the main ns crowd, also leading to to people concentrating on only their groups and leading to bordom (SP?) sure do rps together, but closing it off to the rest of us from main ns, means no new opponents, and more people leave because of all these closed earth 141514 threads that have amazing stories, but no one can play?

3) lack of origenality (SP?) i would honestly say for everyone to leave for a month, take a break from NS everyday, and come back with a fresh start and new ideas. we have seen it all war, famine, more war, civil war, n00b war, famine, diplomatic sh!t. the list gos on, but also is the lack of players wanting to try new things. example an rp that was in planing, a theft, character drivin rp (which has been seen but not oversaturated.) but was cut (to my knowleage anyway since i recived no TG saying they started) because we could not get enough people. so try somthing new.

my 2 cents, we need more people, less closed group stuff, and new stories.(or atleast old stories, but new twists.)

Guys, the sooner you stop worrying about all these 'problems', the sooner you will be able to get on with your lives and RP in peace. You're not going to be able to change the mindsets and habits of many by creating some thread and discussing how to do it. As I said earlier, the best way to 'change' things is to lead by example.

I.I. also seems to constantly fall victim to the 'flavor of the month' syndrome. I have no clue what GASN is (and I could honestly give a shit), but they seem to fall under this category. I wouldn't concern myself with it, because next month there will be a whole new thing to hate/complain about.

For the sake of everyone's sanity, it's best to just play the game how you want to and not worry what others are doing. Setting off on crusades to change I.I. is all well and good, but speaking from experience they are futile and way too stressful to be worth doing. The wankers, godmoders, and general morons will disappear and usher in a whole new generation of pests, so there is no getting rid of them.

As a result I stick to my own devices and choose who I interact with carefully, and God knows I've dealt with more than my fair share of idiots in the past. But I simply don't worry about it nearly as much as I used to, and it helps me enjoy NS better.

Well if there are so many of these threads how come people do not attempt to solve the problems?

Speaking for myself, I only posted my thoughts. I don't think it's my job to solve the "II" problem at all. I just rp. As well, I'm certainly not going to start interacting ICly with nations that I don't even know just for the sake of solving some perceived "problem". It sounds rather snotty, I know, but really I just like to rp for the sake of relaxing from work and family and therefore, want to spend my little free time having fun instead of trying to solve anything.

But as I said earlier, the "problem" can be solved when you find a good group of rpers that you interact well with.

This thread officially fails.

This is a role-play forum, not a hyper-realistic war simulation. If I want to be in a war with Questers (which I am) and not his army of allies, then if Questers agrees, I'm RPing with him and him alone, if he doesn't agree, I'm not RPing with him at all

As for your keeping shit secret out of character - go and play "Axis and Allies" with some other people obsessed with realism on the internet. I want to know what's going on so I can gear the RP that way better. Only a failure of an RPer would use OOC knowledge against you ICly, and you simply don't RP with them.

Also, if you were to randomly throw some bullshit thread on me, out of the blue about how you’re going to annex me and screw up the nation I’ve worked three years on, I’ll tell you to go and suck one, because it’s my nation, not yours. And when it’s my nation, I call the shots. Period. If you don’t like it, too bad. Also, a lot of people have a limited time schedule, and actually have better things to do than respond to your RP thread that you sprung on them.

This quote: “II RP is meant to be a simulation of RL”.

No. Just no. If you want to RP that way, fine, you can, but when I RP in II, I’m not going to conform to your rules just because that’s the way you like it. The RP is free-form, and you have no right to dispute that whatsoever.

As for: “in II where people are so tied up OOCly with their nations' IC safety, and equate their success as an RPer and their fun in the game with the success of their IC nation”

So, can Kriegorgrad, in the throes of being attacked by Questers, smuggle nuclear devices into Praetonia and detonate them all over, destroying your nation’s history in a series of brilliant nuclear blasts? No? Oh, is that because it applies to you? Now you’ll say “that’d be badly RPed”, but what I spent a whole thread doing it? Why don’t we do this sometime, and see how true to your morals you really stick.

And don’t worry, I won’t do it soon, and I won’t tell you anything about it before it happens, I’ll just write it all up in word and put it in II in a series of posts. Fun, right?

I have no qualms with losing in an RP, I’m getting beaten now, but I wouldn’t be allow myself to be beaten, or even attacked without permission. Why? I have better things to do than cater to your needs for an ultra-realistic RP.

Prae, i gotta admit, i completely agree. II went tragiocally downhill, which meant i just gave up and left. Everytime i've come back, its been just as bad. But now I'm back with a new nation, and this time, I'm gonna do my damndest to set off some good RPs that bring back the old 2003-2004 days of II.

Mac,

Formerly McLeod03.

Exactly the same. My old nations were CornixPes and CornixPes II.

Prae I agree with all of your points, when I returned to the game I was sad to find II still in the same state, but I am glad we still have some sane people around.

Cheers.

Umm... no, it is spelt half assed.

No. An Ass is a donkey. An arse is... well, a pair of buttocks.

So half assed is a semidonkey.

Could just be one of those crazy american things, mind. In the UK, there is [a rather distinct] distinction. Hence, an Arsebandit is a person who is homosexual, and an Assbandit is someone who steals farm animals.

I'm sure you were just saying what you are aware, DMG, but it pays to realise that this is Forum is an English Language one (as far as I know), not American English. Nor, I should remark, is it British English (or any other version of English).

It just pays to be aware, and if someone queries you can point something like that out, rather than just label them as being in the wrong.

Ummm Northford dear.

Even though you have the moral high ground, alot of posters here are American. Websites don't have nationalities, and, using grammar to humiliate somebody is just well... stupid.

Actually DMG is right - its half assed.

alot of posters here are American.


*Nods*. Hence why I told 'im the forum isn't British English either.

Oh, and Yallak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arse

Anyway, I cba to hijack a thread. *Leaves*

Edited to add:http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query=arsed+&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Yallak<---- read that. **Nods**

Shall we just say it depends on the region.

Kudos to Kriegorgrad...

*Nods*. Hence why I told 'im the forum isn't British English either.

Oh, and Yallak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arse

Thats singular though. When used as half-blah the blah becomes assed instead of arsed - stupid yes, but thats what the dictionary told me (shut up im bored so i looked it up)

--------------------

Anyway more on topic, Praetonia makes some good points but they also may not work in practice (not simultaneously anyway):

I agree that this ignoring RP's because the odds aren't equal or in your favour is becoming annoying and is generally unproductive in everyway.
I can also agree that people shoundn't be required to inform someone of an impending attack or reveal things to them OOCly which would undoubtably be used ICly (conciously or sub-consciously).
However, when you couple the above with "it should become socially unacceptable to ignore a war RP for any reason other than OOC lack of time / previous ignores" it leaves these ways of RPing open to abuse.
Lets say a larger nation (or multiple nations), launches an attack on another player without warning (or previous acceptance) because they can - according to the solutions you've provided, that player can either accept the attack (an undoubtably have his nation crushed) or he will be branded as a 'poor RPer' or such if he refuses. Where's the fun in that for the player who is attacked?

[I hope that makes sense - it's late and i'm not going to proof read it to make sure it does]

using grammar to humiliate somebody is just well... stupid.

Unless of course it is:

OMG! You doing what? Your not being that nce!!!!

LOL, I try to keep my grammer a little above average.

It seems to me that I tend to favor Kreig's style of play, and very much so, so I second Barent, but I do recognize that Prae has some valid points too.

This thread officially fails.

Unsure if you mean Earth II or this. Doesn't matter, that kind of behavior of saying a little over-bearing remarks like that is the kind of typical II behavior we are trying to stop. Obviously, you arn't trying to read and understand what Prea is trying to put forth; no matter, you fill NS Forums perfect example of a "II Player".

This is a role-play forum, not a hyper-realistic war simulation. If I want to be in a war with Questers (which I am) and not his army of allies, then if Questers agrees, I'm RPing with him and him alone, if he doesn't agree, I'm not RPing with him at all.
Well that's very selfish, "nener- since you arn't going to play like I want then I am not going to play with you". Prae is just trying to get that type of childish behavior if not completely sidelined then at least restricted. There is more to the game than just you and your feelings; there is a lot of people out there that follow highly up-holded rules of trying to be as fair as they can. That makes sure bad feelings don't appear; you on the other hand just seem oblivious to that kind of thinking and are more self-centered about having your nation even if it means the foundations for it arn't something to be proud of. Like scoring one goal and have a "10" light up on the score board. It just doesn't make any sense to do what you want on a online forum where people may want you to consider their points. If your just going to pretend everyone here who doesn' let you go willy nilly all over II is a moron than I advise you to try and pick up play by yourself nation games. Like CIV IV, since obviously you arn't going to accept what other people say about your obvious lack of grace.


As for your keeping shit secret out of character - go and play "Axis and Allies" with some other people obsessed with realism on the internet. I want to know what's going on so I can gear the RP that way better. Only a failure of an RPer would use OOC knowledge against you ICly, and you simply don't RP with them.
This paragraph is the biggest flip-flop I have seen in a longtime. First you say people concerned about OOC info should just f**k off and play Axis and Allies. Then you say only a failure would use OOC info. Which is it? You admit to using it to gear your RP better than go on and say only a failure would use it ICly? A very confusing statement, at least try and not do this to much more.


Also, if you were to randomly throw some bullshit thread on me, out of the blue about how you’re going to annex me and screw up the nation I’ve worked three years on, I’ll tell you to go and suck one, because it’s my nation, not yours. And when it’s my nation, I call the shots. Period. If you don’t like it, too bad. Also, a lot of people have a limited time schedule, and actually have better things to do than respond to your RP thread that you sprung on them.

Well in Axis and Allies (which you think Prae should go and play) annexation without any battles would be laughed at. On the other hand your version of NS Forums and II says nothing like AE needs to happen and you can do whatever you damn well please. Of course, now since it is concerning your nation flip-flop back over to "realism is key".


This quote: “II RP is meant to be a simulation of RL”.
No. Just no. If you want to RP that way, fine, you can, but when I RP in II, I’m not going to conform to your rules just because that’s the way you like it. The RP is free-form, and you have no right to dispute that whatsoever.

Never mind, now it is back over to "Realism is the worst".


As for: “in II where people are so tied up OOCly with their nations' IC safety, and equate their success as an RPer and their fun in the game with the success of their IC nation”

So, can Kriegorgrad, in the throes of being attacked by Questers, smuggle nuclear devices into Praetonia and detonate them all over, destroying your nation’s history in a series of brilliant nuclear blasts? No? Oh, is that because it applies to you? Now you’ll say “that’d be badly RPed”, but what I spent a whole thread doing it? Why don’t we do this sometime, and see how true to your morals you really stick.

And don’t worry, I won’t do it soon, and I won’t tell you anything about it before it happens, I’ll just write it all up in word and put it in II in a series of posts. Fun, right?

Exactly! That is what Prae is trying to get at; just not in a so twisted form. As long as you let him RP some kind of resistance once you post it up then most people will say, "oh shit, there goes Prae". Obviously you don't consider this good etiquee because the whole plot line wasn't deliberated before hand, Prae doesn't get to use the ignore cannon on you, and of course your going to get in a snit.


I have no qualms with losing in an RP, I’m getting beaten now, but I wouldn’t be allow myself to be beaten, or even attacked without permission. Why? I have better things to do than cater to your needs for an ultra-realistic RP.
So you spend all this time to do what? The internet's main but that it has going for it is that there is more than just you and they can effect your nation without your due consent. That is what makes this and a lot of other games fun; we think that a game of dice where you can ignore your bad rolls and rejoice in your good rolls is no game at all.

Okay, I really lack the incentive to answer that scarily bloated excuse of a response, Moorington, but I'll answer a few bits.

First paragraph: wrong. You are the example of an IIer, the typical "PLAY-TO-WIN ON A TEXT BASED RP GAME" sort.

Second paragraph: no, what's selfish is someone being attacked out of the blue, and finding the idea of them having better things to do that perpetuate the sad little idea that II is the real world on paper. If I don't want to be attacked, and I have other things to do, have fun RPing with air. NS is about a bit of fun for me, and if my being attacked randomly isn't fun: tough for you, you've been ignored for attacking.

Third paragraph: tsk tsk. I said keeping it secret out of character, as in, it's okay to let your opponent know what's going on, and if you're going to keep your info secret, you may as well play "AE", as you put it.

Fourth paragraph: this must be the first paragraph you understood without incident...oh dear, not quite. You somehow think that this paragraph meant I was advocating realism, and if that's what you thought. Well, just get some sleep, I think you might've lost a bit too much of it over Nationstates.

Fifth paragraph: nice try at sounding clever, but you failed on the fourth paragraph already.

Sixth paragraph: dear God. You need to stop RPing and go and play an RTS game. This RP is free-form, and I'm not having my nation ruined by some competitive person who has to compensate for something by kicking ass through his nation.

Seventh paragraph: because it's fun. That's why, not that you'd understand, as you seem the sort who would prefer Nationstates to be an RTS on paper.

No paragraph: turns out this was quite a lengthy reply, heh, thanks for killing time. But I just noticed your creation date. 05er. Dear God...no respect anymore.

How fun is it knowing the story before hand? It's like the author of a book, reading the finished copy for fun. They already know what's going to happen, they know the plot, the details and the conclusion so what's the point?

If you plan out the RP not only do you know the plot and details, the 'surprises' that unplanned events hold are completely unsurprising. Personnally, I like being surprised and in and RP if it was RP'd well go for it. PROHT got some of his special forces in to my capital...just down the street from my main character's place (Chairwoman Katherine Schleicher) and I didn't approve of that. It was supposed to be a nice little conference but somehow it turned into a I don't even know yet. But its fun. I didn't see it coming, and now that I look back I see hints and suggestions that I didn't clue in on. He gave me enough of a chance to RP a prevention. But the surprise was still good, even though it was unauthorized.

If you were to RP smuggling nuclear weapons into Praetonia, I'm sure he wouldn't mind if you did it properly and left subtle hints or slight IC oversights that would give him a chance to put two and two together.


As for your comment about spending three years working on a nation...big deal. Nations come and nations go. So what? You lose your 'nation'. You now have the chance to recreate it or create a whole new one. Different views, different things...or if you 'lose' your nation you can RP an accelerated birthrate. You never truly lose your nation. If you're so concerned about keeping 6 billion people in your nation...should've created a puppet or an extra nation or two.

To me, free-form RP and OOC planning are kind of contradictory. Free-form, to me, is something that has very little or no planning or pre-meditated plot. The fact that one wants frank, straight forward OOC knowledge over a well RP'd subtle IC hint is kind of sad. OOC knowledge and pre-planning takes away from the freedom of the RP as the RP must follow the plan which has been agreed upon. Where is the fun for the attacking nation now? Tactics mean nothing, weaponry means nothing and chances are they won't even get to conquer anything. If one knows one is going to lose, one just RP's losses in excess and then eventually surrenders. The attacker meanwhile can just sit back and say "I attack you here" while you say "look I lose 100,000 soldiers. I am retreating now".

I will never plan on RP OOCly unless I purposely state that it is simply for nation development (an introduction of a nation or technique, an announcement and propaganda or simply a small start to a larger, more indepth RP) and the other RPer's know, and agree to it.

And yes, we did pull the "You didn't even ask/consult those they planned to attack beforehand. But that you have taken out of context.

I had to find the threads by accident or had to get tipped off by an off site forum providing a link to the thread in question. By the time I found the thread it was already getting old and stagnant.

----------

They should at least have taken it upon themselves to inform the attacked that they were under attack. Not start a thread and hope those involved magicly find it.

If I'm going to get dogpiled, it should be for the right reasons. Not just because everybody else is. Unless you actually see something to gain from it such as oil.


These are pretty valid points. I've been declared war on before and nobody bother to inform me there was a war on... Apparently some Nation had selected me randomly to be invaded. Then they got upset when they discovered DB isn't actually independent and what they'd just done was effectively declare war on Texas without expecting the rest of the US to get involved.

I don 't mind dog piling per say, but I HATE being dog piled by poor poor RPers who just state numbers of vehicles. I know I'm kinda quiet on the forums these days... So many poor poor RPers *sigh*