Discussion about R/D Game and RP Opting Out

[Premislyd]

Then you'd be forcing them into a game they don't want to play.

Password-protect your regions. Simple.

Then the ebil raiders will have to use the Security Council, another in-game mechanic, to get rid of the passwords oooooo

[The Orson Empire]

Oh, for the love of God, just refound your bloody regions already and make use of the mechanism that already exists for this purpose. You're not special, you don't get to opt out of game mechanics, stop moaning and demanding the mods hold your hands and do something you're too lazy to do for yourselves.

And I will take all 3000 pages of RMB posts with me

Get an offsite forum then.

[Esternial]

And I will take all 3000 pages of RMB posts with me

Get an offsite forum then.

Don't worry. We'll find a solution right here. No need to go that far.

[The North Polish Union]

I sincerely hope that the mod team will not implement exceptions for RP regions (or any regions, for that matter), as this could do serious damage to the R/D Game, which is just as much a legitimate part of NS as RPing is, and NS as a whole.

Its unfair to those who want to play a game if other players wish to opt out of part of it because they don't like it. In Civilization, for example, one can attempt to win either through conquest, cultural achievements, or space colonization. Even if one wishes to attempt to gain victory through one of the latter two means without any military conflict, some military conflict will be unavoidable due to the nature of the game, which would suffer immensely if even one of the paths to victory were removed.

The interplay of R/D and RP in NS is quite similar to what I described in Civ. In fact, since NS (unlike Civ) has no concrete set of goals for "victory," instead leaving it to the individual player to decide what constitutes "victory," no one's criterion for victory in NS are any more or less legitimate than any other person's (providing those criterion stay within site rules). This is the same as achieving the victory criteria for winning Civ via space ship constitutes just as legitimate a victory as winning Civ via reaching those for conquest. The fact that RP and R/D have different means to achieving their respective "victories" does not, and should not, delegitimize one way of playing the game over another any more than the fact that achieving the various types of victory in Civ requires different means to achieve each type of victory (admittedly, the means to each end in Civ are somewhat more similar to each other than the ones here are).

In short, I would say that restricting the scope of R/Ders to act towards their specific ends is not just damaging to part of the game, but to the entirety of the game (imagine how dull Civ would be for warhawkish players if their ability to make war in-game was seriously restricted). The same would apply to a proposal to seriously restrict the ability of RPers to achieve their specific ends. Furthermore, these sorts of proposals attempt to give one section of the NS population (in this case, RPers) a greater legitimacy as opposed to other sections of NS (in this case, R/Ders). This sort of caste-esque distinction between two types of player groups can only lead to further polarization and distrust between the communities and would eventually certainly damage NS as a whole. Therefore, as someone who has (and still does) participated in both RP and R/D, I would implore the Moderation team to consider upholding the status quo, so to speak, and not implementing any changes of this sort which would damage NS as a whole.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Oh, for the love of God, just refound your bloody regions already and make use of the mechanism that already exists for this purpose. You're not special, you don't get to opt out of game mechanics, stop moaning and demanding the mods hold your hands and do something you're too lazy to do for yourselves.

Then you'd be forcing them into a game they don't want to play.

Are you fucking serious? RP regions are now so special that they shouldn't have to have founders if they want to be secure?

Who the bloody hell do you people think you are? This site does not revolve around you.

[Vanhania]

Oh, here is a idea. Why don't RP regions with out founders just found a new region with a founder that way they can't be raided. I say this as someone against raiding and as a roleplayer. If you don't want to be part of the R/D game then get a region with a founder.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Then you'd be forcing them into a game they don't want to play.

Are you fucking serious? RP regions are now so special that they shouldn't have to have founders if they want to be secure?

Who the bloody hell do you people think you are? This site does not revolve around you.

But does the site revolve around R/D?

[Vanhania]

Are you fucking serious? RP regions are now so special that they shouldn't have to have founders if they want to be secure?

Who the bloody hell do you people think you are? This site does not revolve around you.

But does the site revolve around R/D?

It doesn't revolve around RP either.

[Aurora Confederacy]

Password-protect your regions. Simple.

Then the ebil raiders will have to use the Security Council, another in-game mechanic, to get rid of the passwords oooooo

given your current flag that to me says you're more into the gameplay, fair do to that, however what proposal have you got that is hereby constructive that you can bring to the table that helps move this discussion along in a civilised manner that helps bring a solution to the current problem we have of enavling RP regions and RD regions to coexist in harmony with eachother without RD regions wanting to trash RP regions??

[Esternial]

I sincerely hope that the mod team will not implement exceptions for RP regions (or any regions, for that matter), as this could do serious damage to the R/D Game, which is just as much a legitimate part of NS as RPing is, and NS as a whole.

Its unfair to those who want to play a game if other players wish to opt out of part of it because they don't like it. In Civilization, for example, one can attempt to win either through conquest, cultural achievements, or space colonization. Even if one wishes to attempt to gain victory through one of the latter two means without any military conflict, some military conflict will be unavoidable due to the nature of the game, which would suffer immensely if even one of the paths to victory were removed.

The interplay of R/D and RP in NS is quite similar to what I described in Civ. In fact, since NS (unlike Civ) has no concrete set of goals for "victory," instead leaving it to the individual player to decide what constitutes "victory," no one's criterion for victory in NS are any more or less legitimate than any other person's (providing those criterion stay within site rules). This is the same as achieving the victory criteria for winning Civ via space ship constitutes just as legitimate a victory as winning Civ via reaching those for conquest. The fact that RP and R/D have different means to achieving their respective "victories" does not, and should not, delegitimize one way of playing the game over another any more than the fact that achieving the various types of victory in Civ requires different means to achieve each type of victory (admittedly, the means to each end in Civ are somewhat more similar to each other than the ones here are).

In short, I would say that restricting the scope of R/Ders to act towards their specific ends is not just damaging to part of the game, but to the entirety of the game (imagine how dull Civ would be for warhawkish players if their ability to make war in-game was seriously restricted). The same would apply to a proposal to seriously restrict the ability of RPers to achieve their specific ends. Furthermore, these sorts of proposals attempt to give one section of the NS population (in this case, RPers) a greater legitimacy as opposed to other sections of NS (in this case, R/Ders). This sort of caste-esque distinction between two types of player groups can only lead to further polarization and distrust between the communities and would eventually certainly damage NS as a whole. Therefore, as someone who has (and still does) participated in both RP and R/D, I would implore the Moderation team to consider upholding the status quo, so to speak, and not implementing any changes of this sort which would damage NS as a whole.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. There are possible solutions that won't significantly impact R/D.

You'll have to realise that leaving it as it is now is also damaging NS as a whole, and also creating fractures between communities. A lot of your arguments, NPU, can be used both ways.

The current status quo might work for you and your peers, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

But does the site revolve around R/D?

It doesn't revolve around RP either.

Which means both should be equally represented and fairly treated.

[Premislyd]

Then you'd be forcing them into a game they don't want to play.

Are you fucking serious? RP regions are now so special that they shouldn't have to have founders if they want to be secure?

Who the bloody hell do you people think you are? This site does not revolve around you.

Do you have any proof that proves that it doesn't revolve around me?

Are you fucking serious? RP regions are now so special that they shouldn't have to have founders if they want to be secure?

Who the bloody hell do you people think you are? This site does not revolve around you.

But does the site revolve around R/D?

Nope. And it certainly doesn't revolve around RP either.

Then the ebil raiders will have to use the Security Council, another in-game mechanic, to get rid of the passwords oooooo

given your current flag, that to me says you're more into the gameplay, fair do to that, however what proposal have you got that is hereby constructive that you can bring to the table that helps move this discussion along in a civilised manner that helps bring a solution to the current problem we have of enavling RP regions and RD regions to coexist in harmony with eachother without RD regions wanting to trash RP regions??

I'm not into gameplay.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Are you fucking serious? RP regions are now so special that they shouldn't have to have founders if they want to be secure?

Who the bloody hell do you people think you are? This site does not revolve around you.

But does the site revolve around R/D?

Of course not. R/D is a marginal aspect of the game that I personally dislike.

The game revolves around regional management, principally via WA mechanics. R/D is tied into that, but peripherally.

[Registug]

And I will take all 3000 pages of RMB posts with me

Get an offsite forum then.

And what, put 3000 pages of RMB on that?

the exact number of pages in sapphire is 2990. 25 posts per pages, that comes out to 74, 750 posts on the RMB

what a fucking easy move. Just one click of a mouse and it all appears safe and sound on an offsite forum of my choosing, with no issues of transfer, connection speed, loading times or storage space

Being serious now, I've tried to archive all of that. It won't fit on my computer, it took a year to get 100 pages of 2990 into thirty different word documents, and in the end it was all too big for my google drive.

I don't think you quite understand how immense all those pages are.

[Aurora Confederacy]

however, my question hereby remains, Premislyd, what can you put on the table that helps move the discussion along in a civilised manner?.

after all you have already been reported for spam

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Then you'd be forcing them into a game they don't want to play.

Password-protect your regions. Simple.

It's like you're not even trying to pay attention. Haven doesn't want to participate in R/D. It has a password. Mall's proposal wants to remove Haven's password for no reason other than to let raiders in. This would be a precedent for making passwords useless to defend from raiders.

[Esternial]

Do you have any proof that proves that it doesn't revolve around me?

Premislyd, please, if you've got nothing interesting to say, don't say anything at all.

[Great Nepal]

I sincerely hope that the mod team will not implement exceptions for RP regions (or any regions, for that matter), as this could do serious damage to the R/D Game,

All other aspects of the game have managed just fine under same system.

which is just as much a legitimate part of NS as RPing is, and NS as a whole.

Yes which means they should be equal: just like how you can choose not to take part in II, others should be able to choose not to take part in R/D.

Its unfair to those who want to play a game if other players wish to opt out of part of it because they don't like it.

So when are you going to get that post up in P2TM or II? I mean if not forcing people to play aspect of game they dislike is unfair then surely it stands to reason that everyone should be forced into RP, General and F7 just like they currently are forced into R/D.
Alternatively we could not do that because its silly, if people want to opt out of an aspect of the game then they should be able to and those with interest in said aspect can continue to play that aspect. This already exist for every aspect of game but R/D and every other aspect of the game has managed to survive and thrive without forcing everyone to participate: why can not R/D do the same?

[Euroslavia]

I'm heading off of the forums til tomorrow evening, but all I ask is that discussion remain civil and for everyone to exercise extreme caution with taking things personal or throwing out personal attacks. If we can keep this civil, it'll ultimately be a win-win for everyone in sorting things out and determining our best course of action from here on, in keeping this game that we all enjoy innovative and open to the ideas of the community.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Password-protect your regions. Simple.

It's like you're not even trying to pay attention. Haven doesn't want to participate in R/D. It has a password. Mall's proposal wants to remove Haven's password for no reason other than to let raiders in. This would be a precedent for making passwords useless to defend from raiders.

Which is a great reason to vote against the proposal. It would never have passed.

It is an awful reason to demand special treatment.

[Aurora Confederacy]

euro can you put that gif in a spoiler please, its making me dizzy,

ps, have a good day

[Premislyd]

however, my question hereby remains, Premislyd, what can you put on the table that helps move the discussion along in a civilised manner?.

Status quo is fine enough. It's worked since Jolt's days. Just 'cause you younguns got your knickers twisted and feel the need to bitch about it doesn't mean that you should get any special treatment over the non-RP regions.

Do you have any proof that proves that it doesn't revolve around me?

Premislyd, please, if you've got nothing interesting to say, don't say anything at all.

You should heed that comment yourself then, buddy.

[Euroslavia]

euro can you put that gif in a spoiler please, its making me dizzy,

ps, have a good day

Whoops, good point. Done!

[Aurora Confederacy]

thanks. Euro

[Aurora Confederacy]

Password-protect your regions. Simple.

It's like you're not even trying to pay attention. Haven doesn't want to participate in R/D. It has a password. Mall's proposal wants to remove Haven's password for no reason other than to let raiders in. This would be a precedent for making passwords useless to defend from raiders.

therefore I believe the best option is to bring in an invite system as well as possibly a swearing in of a WAD, this will remove the need for passwords altogether among player founded regions but at the same time stop raiding as in order to get into a region, you first ask the WAD or Founder (or both), they then invite you in and you accept as the WAD/Founder have to un-ban you from a region, this however resets itself to the default when you leave.

Gameplay founded regions and founderless regions will remain unaffected, and so retain the passwords, thus keeping the present status quo, regions where the founder is alive but non resident are still branded under the invite system as just because a founder is non resident doesn't mean he/she is not interested in it, for a regional founder may have moved in order to participate within an RP.

[The Dark Star Republic]

however, my question hereby remains, Premislyd, what can you put on the table that helps move the discussion along in a civilised manner?.

Status quo is fine enough. It's worked since Jolt's days.

That doesn't make any sense. The situation being discussed here only came about a year after the move from Jolt: Liberations weren't introduced until 2009.