by Libertas Regionem » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:01 pm
News: John Podesta taken into custody after FBI Raid of Comet Pizza, center of the Pizzagate Scandal. / President Trump congratulates Marie Le Pen as France exits the EU and pressures other nations to do so. / Support for BLM decreasing extremely, says poll. / Congress passes Law to enforce EVerify systems at every place of employment as part of goal to decrease illegal immigration. / Islamic State steadily losing ground after American-Russian coalition begins. / "Russian Hacking" Conspiracy a Fraud, says new leaked CIA document.
by Galway-Dublin » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:03 pm
by Enfaru » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:41 pm
by Gurori » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:34 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:18 am
by The Intergalactic Universe Corporation » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:21 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:People are missing the point here, I think. Nobody is asking for a war simulation. What is being sought is more tools to describe diplomatic stances.
I agree, it'd be nice to have options other than "endorse".
Maybe what would be cool would be to have something like four diplomatic states, of which you can only ever have one in place:
- Nothing. You don't care enough about that nation to have a stance.
- Endorsement. Region only, of course, same function as presently.
- Hostility. Anywhere in the world. Flag it up on the logs, but on the front screen under endorsements just say "X nations have declared themselves hostile to @@NAME@@". Only if you reciprocate hostility would you then get a front page insert saying "@@NAME@@ is at war with (other nation's name)". Some nuance could then later be added, for long running wars, for recently declared wars. The code could perhaps cap you out at just naming the three nations you have been at war with the longest. Maybe something like "@@NAME@@ is at war with many nations, most notably A, B and C."
Because war would only result from mutual hostility, you could control this to some extent.
To stop spamming of hostilities, you could allow just one declaration of hostility per update. That'd make it a significant thing.
- Interest. This is basically saying you're watching that nation with interest, but have no other diplomatic stance on. This wouldn't need to be anything other than ("X nations have expressed that they are watching @@NAME@@ with interest.") No game effect would be needed, it's basically just a measure of noteworthiness.
You could then link these things to sections in the dossier, so that you can click a dossier tab to list endorsed nations, nations you are at war with, nations who you are hostile with, vice versa, and so on.
The issue editor's dream would then be to be able to use a piece of code to insert real nation names into issues, like @@RANDOMWARENEMY@@ or @@RANDOMALLY@@. You could have an issue saying something like "During your nation's ongoing conflict with Candlewhisper Archive..."
How cool would that be?
Obviously these are just mad ideas, and the people behind the coding would have to decide whether they're worth implementing or not.
HoloNet News: Congress To Meet Next Monday | Public Sector Sees Slower Wage Growth In 2036 | Public Debt Expected To Reduce Again | Consumer Spending Up For Chinese New Year Season
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:37 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:People are missing the point here, I think. Nobody is asking for a war simulation. What is being sought is more tools to describe diplomatic stances.
I agree, it'd be nice to have options other than "endorse".
Maybe what would be cool would be to have something like four diplomatic states, of which you can only ever have one in place:
- Nothing. You don't care enough about that nation to have a stance.
- Endorsement. Region only, of course, same function as presently.
- Hostility. Anywhere in the world. Flag it up on the logs, but on the front screen under endorsements just say "X nations have declared themselves hostile to @@NAME@@". Only if you reciprocate hostility would you then get a front page insert saying "@@NAME@@ is at war with (other nation's name)". Some nuance could then later be added, for long running wars, for recently declared wars. The code could perhaps cap you out at just naming the three nations you have been at war with the longest. Maybe something like "@@NAME@@ is at war with many nations, most notably A, B and C."
Because war would only result from mutual hostility, you could control this to some extent.
To stop spamming of hostilities, you could allow just one declaration of hostility per update. That'd make it a significant thing.
- Interest. This is basically saying you're watching that nation with interest, but have no other diplomatic stance on. This wouldn't need to be anything other than ("X nations have expressed that they are watching @@NAME@@ with interest.") No game effect would be needed, it's basically just a measure of noteworthiness.
You could then link these things to sections in the dossier, so that you can click a dossier tab to list endorsed nations, nations you are at war with, nations who you are hostile with, vice versa, and so on.
The issue editor's dream would then be to be able to use a piece of code to insert real nation names into issues, like @@RANDOMWARENEMY@@ or @@RANDOMALLY@@. You could have an issue saying something like "During your nation's ongoing conflict with Candlewhisper Archive..."
How cool would that be?
Obviously these are just mad ideas, and the people behind the coding would have to decide whether they're worth implementing or not.
by Flanderlion » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:46 am
by Thermodolia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:49 am
Kiosanda wrote:Idea is : If you press it, it'll send a notice to the nation and they can either also declare war back, deny it, ignore it, or try to make peace with the nation. (A treaty, perhaps)
by Japan and Pacific States » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:12 am
Current Events:All is well
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:13 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:I can see the tonnes of people declaring hostility on the mods now
Maybe a limit in how many people can declare hostility on you? To avoid mass-cyberbullying?
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:15 am
Japan and Pacific States wrote:I think that if something like this idea were to go through it should be a two party thing. As in you click the "declare war" button but it has to be agreed upon by the other nation.... Otherwise this website will just become like Bloc.com (Nationstates knock off that allows for warfare between nations and the stats make no sense what so ever) But anyway yes. if it were implemented it should be done like that otherwise there will just be a number of larger more advanced nations bullying smaller nations which only have pitchforks or muskets.
by Maljaratas » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:23 pm
by Trotterdam » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:43 pm
by Enfaru » Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:58 pm
Trotterdam wrote:Doesn't someone usually chime in around this time with a comment of "That's what factbooks are for."?
Purely-declarative diplomatic statuses with no gameplay effect don't add much. The ability to reference other players' nations (instead of NPCs like Blackacre or Wezeltonia) in issues might be amusing, but it would cut off players who don't happen to violently hate anyone from receiving some issues (and so encourage some people to pick a random enemy just for the issues rather than really putting much roleplay thought into it), unless there are "default" enemies, allies, etc. as a fallback. It'd also make it harder to write issues to remain applicable to every nation, since, for example, I might have to dismiss an issue about naval warfare not only if I'm landlocked, but also if my enemy is landlocked. Or, say, what if my enemy doesn't actually have a military, or has a really weird military with soldiers who are stark naked except for their rocket boots, and ride Tricerotanks? Issue validities would have to look at the other nation's stats as well as my own in order to make sense, which goes against the "purely cosmetic diplomatic status, it's still a solo game" idea.
by Arkadacia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:03 pm
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:40 pm
Trotterdam wrote:Doesn't someone usually chime in around this time with a comment of "That's what factbooks are for."?
The ability to reference other players' nations (instead of NPCs like Blackacre or Wezeltonia) in issues might be amusing, but it would cut off players who don't happen to violently hate anyone from receiving some issues (and so encourage some people to pick a random enemy just for the issues rather than really putting much roleplay thought into it), unless there are "default" enemies, allies, etc. as a fallback. It'd also make it harder to write issues to remain applicable to every nation, since, for example, I might have to dismiss an issue about naval warfare not only if I'm landlocked, but also if my enemy is landlocked.
Arkadacia wrote:This has been gone over repeatedly.
NS is not a real simulation of running a nation, it's more equivalent to faffing about and playing a mobile game with a forum attached to it. Warfare, trade, etc, will probably never be added.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Troperia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:50 pm
by Tyrnica » Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:58 am
by Excidium Planetis » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:37 pm
Tyrnica wrote:Perhaps war statuses could tie in with statistics in some way. For example, if you don't declare hostility on another nation for a certain amount of time, your Pacifism statistic receives a boost, which could turn into a multiplier the longer you go without antagonising anyone.
Similarly, declaring hostility or war repeatedly could increase stats like Arms Manufacturing or Weaponisation to account for the war, and having Charmlessness and Tourism be affected in the same way; after all, who wants to visit a war-torn country without good reason?
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Wallenburg » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:20 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Unogonduria
Advertisement