[Cards] Forced to answer issues?

[Hampton Island]

As I am learning about this card game, it has been brought to my attention that the only way to get packs of cards is to answer issues. Dismissing is not good enough.

Opinion: This goes against the spirit of the game. As a national leader, I have the right to dismiss what I feel is either crap, a non-issue, or something that simply should not entail a reply by the head of state. Unfortunately, in my own personal opinion, most of the issues are disappointing, as they basically take a real world "story of the day", change a couple names around, and voila, a real world "story of the day" becomes important in my nation.

That's not how I want to play NS, and never before have I needed to play NS like that. If I want to play the card game, which I would like too to some extent, in order to acquire packs, I have no other option but to answer issues.

A "dismissal" needs to be considered an answer. That's the spirit of NS as created back in the day, was it not?

[Strike]

The risk of that is then nations can just dismiss without fear of affecting their nations policies which may also be counterproductive.

There is nothing currently stopping you from just using a puppet nation to answer issues with and collect cards, then whenever you get one you want for your 'primary' nation just gift it over

[Blueflarst]

They are obviously trying to force people having worse stats if they want cards

[Borovan3]

Cards should be rewards for answering issues. Dismissals are choices that a leader makes but the cards are incentives rewards choosing to answer issues whether they end up ruining your stats or changing your government. Kinda like doing something and then in turn you get something. You don't get if you do nothing.

[Hampton Island]

Here's my current five issues:

#426- Women In Uniform under fire....

-- Implies I have had a recent skirmish. I have not RP'd that with my nation. This is a dismissal because it is not relevant to what I am currently doing with my nation.

#1007- Putting Your Foot In it....

-- Not an issue for a national leader. This gets resolved at the municipal level. Dismissed.

#1043- Foundering Fashionistas...

-- Not an issue for a national leader, despite the attempt to draw me in an say it was my nieces fashion line. Where have I heard that before? I don't like these too close to the 5th wall plot lines that just change a name around. Dismissed.

#169- Cow Hunting...

-- A decent issue. A couple options too extreme for my liking, but I can settle for one of the options.

#644- The old grey matter....

-- I would actually love to see more issues in this game like #644. One of the rare times I will readily answer an issue. Doesn't make any unreasonable assumptions.

In this case, I liked 2 out of 5 issues, which is actually pretty high, so I answered them. I am willing to answer issues.
The other three, I have no interest in answering for the reasons I specified. My dismissal was a conscious decision on how to handle what the game presented to me. Therefore, I should not be penalized by not being able to get packs of cards for them.

[Arxosa]

Well, yeah. Isn't that the point? When NS was first created, answering issues was basically the entire game. Since then as the game has evolved and added stuff like UCRs, roleplay, R&D, etc. a lot of players (including myself) have been less regular about answering issues or even stopped addressing them entirely. I figured that the purpose behind more recent features like banners, policies, and now trading cards was to revive interest in what was originally the mainstay of the game.

[Borovan3]

Well if you feel like you need to dismiss most issues, then that's unfortunate. When I answered issues I usually answer most of them to know in anticipateing what is going to happen and see the line effect. I avoid the ones that are of no interest to me but if you need to get cards just get a joke puppet and answer issues.

[Merconitonitopia]

-- Implies I have had a recent skirmish. I have not RP'd that with my nation. This is a dismissal because it is not relevant to what I am currently doing with my nation.

-- Not an issue for a national leader. This gets resolved at the municipal level. Dismissed..

Hampton Island, I feel that you missing the point of the game somewhat.

[Bagheera]

#426- Women In Uniform under fire....

-- Implies I have had a recent skirmish. I have not RP'd that with my nation. This is a dismissal because it is not relevant to what I am currently doing with my nation

Yeah, you're never going to be able to enjoy this game with that mentality...

How do you expect the game to function the way you want it to? You would like it to read your every factbook and customize issues suited to what you wrote? That would be some impressive "Google-level" deciphering of input...

[Bears Armed]

One [partial] solution is to try drafting issues that you would be willing to answer, preferably in the 'Got Issues?' forum where you can get feedback from the editors and from other experienced authors, and submit any that get a good enough reception there. Authors automatically receive the issues that they wrote, as soon as those are accepted into use, even if their nations wouldn't qualify for those issues otherwise.

[Sacara]

I’m on the other end of the spectrum — I think NationStates ought to get rid of the dismiss button, or at least add consequences to it.

On one of my puppets, I only answer issues that deal with military spending, and I dismiss anything and everything else. That’s entirely unrealistic and quite quickly you run into a lot of problems. I’m glad that Cards force users to answer issues.

[Gandoor]

I’m on the other end of the spectrum — I think NationStates ought to get rid of the dismiss button, or at least add consequences to it.

Yeah no, if that ever happened I would legitimately leave the game.

I, and other players, shouldn't be forced to answer issues that we don't want to or otherwise be punished for choosing to dismiss them.

[Sacara]

I, and other players, shouldn't be forced to answer issues that we don't want to or otherwise be punished for choosing to dismiss them.

It's entirely unrealistic for @@LEADER@@ to just dismiss every issue they encounter. Sure, a few you could split under the rug, but many require a decision to be made. Dismissing issues should have certain consequences.

[Luna Amore]

I can state with 100% certainty that the dismiss button isn't going to be removed.

I'd also be against adding consequences to dismissals.

[Wrapper]

I, and other players, shouldn't be forced to answer issues that we don't want to or otherwise be punished for choosing to dismiss them.

It's entirely unrealistic for @@LEADER@@ to just dismiss every issue they encounter. Sure, a few you could split under the rug, but many require a decision to be made. Dismissing issues should have certain consequences.

Disagree. Dismissing issues is a decision in favor of status quo, and shouldn’t have an effect statistically.

[Sacara]

Disagree. Dismissing issues is a decision in favor of status quo, and shouldn’t have an effect statistically.

There are certain issues in which a decision is needed -- such as the one with the drone hovering over a terrorist and @@LEADER@@ has to decide whether to authorize the strike or not. There are more than that, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense to dismiss an issue when a decision is required.

[Sacara]

I can state with 100% certainty that the dismiss button isn't going to be removed.

My thoughts are only allowing a certain amount of dismisses for a certain amount of time. Real life leaders cannot just dismiss every issue they are faced with without consequences.

[Ru-]

I noticed that I don't have a chance to get a pack for dismisses also, and while it annoies me, I am fine with it as a feature. Tbh, I was expecting this thread to be posted for quite awhile now.

I answer issues when I see an option that I genuinely think is a good idea, or at least a decent one. If I get no good options I dismiss. If I get a super old issue that i havd already answered 500 times already I might just dismiss just because i'm tired of entertaining it. Nothing wrong with this, or for not getting cards for it.

[The Transmondian Commonwealth]

I’m on the other end of the spectrum — I think NationStates ought to get rid of the dismiss button, or at least add consequences to it.

Nah, sometimes dismissing is the most appropriate response for your nation.

Disagree. Dismissing issues is a decision in favor of status quo, and shouldn’t have an effect statistically.

There are certain issues in which a decision is needed -- such as the one with the drone hovering over a terrorist and @@LEADER@@ has to decide whether to authorize the strike or not. There are more than that, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense to dismiss an issue when a decision is required.

What if it's just not relevant to your nation because you aren't supposed to have drones?

[Sapnu puas]

I do know this much:

You can't earn cards by dismissing issues; you have to answer them.

[The Blaatschapen]

A bad thing is, that the dismissal rate % that Issue Editors use to gauge interest in issues, is now affected by people who answer an issue anyway because of card packs.

I, myself, created two puppets who just pick the first choice in every issue. It will be interesting to see how they end up (both started without options picked in the beginning, ie. Inoffensive Centrist Democracy). After all, first choice is the best http://www.dailycal.org/2012/07/11/new- ... t-is-best/

But if the first choice has a bias from the editors and over time both nations do not end up in the middle, but both end up on the roughly the same side of the spectrum, the issue answer order might be biased

[Wrapper]

I, myself, created two puppets who just pick the first choice in every issue. It will be interesting to see how they end up (both started without options picked in the beginning, ie. Inoffensive Centrist Democracy). After all, first choice is the best

I’m doing the same thing! I have two puppets that always pick the first choice (they’re still ICDs)... and another one that always picks the last choice. That one’s currently Iron Fist Consumerists, but it’s changed a couple times.

[Gandoor]

Disagree. Dismissing issues is a decision in favor of status quo, and shouldn’t have an effect statistically.

There are certain issues in which a decision is needed -- such as the one with the drone hovering over a terrorist and @@LEADER@@ has to decide whether to authorize the strike or not. There are more than that, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense to dismiss an issue when a decision is required.

Except not every issue necessarily applies to how someone considers their nation to be 'in-character'.

I mean, the example you gave of the drone strike against a terrorist issue is a perfect example for me and this nation. With how I RP and play this nation in general, that's not a situation that my nation's leader would ever face because it doesn't fit in my nation's story. So why should I, under your hypothetical system, be 'forced' to answer an issue that, for RP purposes, is based around something that cannot happen in my nation.

And really that's why I disagree with your premise that there needs to be 'consequences' for dismissing issues, not every issue is going to be relevant to how someone plays their nation and the game shouldn't punish them for wanting to play their nation as they want.

[Yaybor]

I, myself, created two puppets who just pick the first choice in every issue. It will be interesting to see how they end up (both started without options picked in the beginning, ie. Inoffensive Centrist Democracy). After all, first choice is the best

I’m doing the same thing! I have two puppets that always pick the first choice (they’re still ICDs)... and another one that always picks the last choice. That one’s currently Iron Fist Consumerists, but it’s changed a couple times.

I have a couple of such puppets too, but with a couple of problems. One, I didn't think of it when I first created them, so some issues didn't get answered "right". More important, when I hit an issue with an interesting looking option that I haven't answered before, I can't resist picking that answer.

[Yaybor]

There are certain issues in which a decision is needed -- such as the one with the drone hovering over a terrorist and @@LEADER@@ has to decide whether to authorize the strike or not. There are more than that, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense to dismiss an issue when a decision is required.

Except not every issue necessarily applies to how someone considers their nation to be 'in-character'.

I mean, the example you gave of the drone strike against a terrorist issue is a perfect example for me and this nation. With how I RP and play this nation in general, that's not a situation that my nation's leader would ever face because it doesn't fit in my nation's story. So why should I, under your hypothetical system, be 'forced' to answer an issue that, for RP purposes, is based around something that cannot happen in my nation.

And really that's why I disagree with your premise that there needs to be 'consequences' for dismissing issues, not every issue is going to be relevant to how someone plays their nation and the game shouldn't punish them for wanting to play their nation as they want.

Yup. I have several puppets that aren't mainstream nations. PT, non-human, whatever, and some issues don't logically fit.

And some issues, especially the older ones, are just plain boring.