BirdNES 3: Discussions & Questions

[Abaddon]

So if there are obvious problems with the world setup, I guess they'll never be fixed?

You do not have to draw that conclusion from what I said. I am saying its all fine and dandy shouting Beej should have kept things within historical sense.. but I am saying, now that we are at a situation that isn't.. how do we rectify it?

Why do we give these games a historical setting?

Its a theme. People enjoy the roleplay element. It also provides more specific goals and challenges.

 

[North King]

You do not have to draw that conclusion from what I said. I am saying its all fine and dandy shouting Beej should have kept things within historical sense.. but I am saying, now that we are at a situation that isn't.. how do we rectify it?

Rebalancing the stats? People have done it before.

Its a theme. People enjoy the roleplay element. It also provides more specific goals and challenges.

What makes it an intriguing theme?

 

[Abaddon]

Rebalancing the stats? People have done it before.

Agreed Now, was that hard?

What makes it an intriguing theme?

Personal taste, Moderator and player effort.

 

[Adrogans]

Its a theme. People enjoy the roleplay element. It also provides more specific goals and challenges.

Except that so many players play the same regardless of what/who they are playing as so often I feel roleplaying is limited to non-existant for some people.

 

[Kentharu]

No NES should work around balancing national stats.

This is not Diplomacy. This is not chess.

 

[North King]

Personal taste, Moderator and player effort.

How does that justify the historical genre of NES? >_>

 

[Abaddon]

How does that justify the historical genre of NES? >_>

We need to justify individual genres?

Also, isn't people liking them enough reason?

 

[Kentharu]

People who like the role playing element and then say they don't think history should have anything to do with the NES baffle me. That is like saying you like things that are red, except those things that are... red.

If you don't understand the historical aspect then how can you understand the motives of your particular ruler/nation and thus play them appropriately.

If you want to draw from the classic RP game DnD (pre 4.0) you wouldn't, for example, have a paladin going around breaking the law and causing chaos. Let it be noted that I do know there can be lawful evil paladins. There are a lot of possibilities for what a paladin can do, but there are restrictions on what a paladin WOULD do. He certainly wouldn't break the law.

Just like England wouldn't spend money it wasn't suppose to have in the first place.

 

[North King]

We need to justify individual genres?

Also, isn't people liking them enough reason?

Well, there is a point to this.

Why do people like historical genre NESes?

Because it allows them to fiddle with events and see how things could have played out?

Then wouldn't it be better to have a more realistic NES in order to best feel like we're tinkering with history rather than with vague expys of earth nations?

etc.

 

[Abaddon]

People who like the role playing element and then say they don't think history should have anything to do with the NES baffle me.

I don't think anyone has said this...

Well, there is a point to this.

Why do people like historical genre NESes?

Because it allows them to fiddle with events and see how things could have played out?

Then wouldn't it be better to have a more realistic NES in order to best feel like we're tinkering with history rather than with vague expys of earth nations?

etc.

Not sure where you are trying to lead on from here.. or how you are going to get back to checkers.. but.. erm... I agree?

 

[North King]

Not sure where you are trying to lead on from here.. or how you are going to get back to checkers.. but.. erm... I agree?

If we look for historical realism, having things be plausible is funner.

If plausible things are good, then England having unrealistic economic capabilities isn't good, because it ruins immersion and turns it into a fantasy NES.

Even if they did that by using the black box, it still breaks realism.

Ergo, it's a problem that needs to be fixed.

Ergo, "As long as the stats are correct at the start, everyone plays with the same rules. The Mod should not fudge things if someone progresses their nation better than others. Whatever England did to raise its economy, Spain or anyone could have.. they just didn't think of it," doesn't jive with your opinion right now.

...yeah.

 

[Abaddon]

But I am not looking for Historical realism..I am not that kind of player... so no dice, sorry!

 

[Kraznaya]

Then why are you trying to play NES purportedly based on a completely historical setting?

 

[Abaddon]

Then why are you trying to play NES purportedly based on a completely historical setting?

Because from that point on, Beej allows players to lead their own nations as they see fit. Its an enjoyable ride. King Ryan of Spain anyone?


#I enjoyed Beej's second NES better because it WASN'T Historically based.. but I enjoy all different kinda NES. In fact, they (historical) are far from my favorite and I usually avoid.. but not one Beej is modding.

 

[North King]

...But you agreed?



NINJAEDIT

 

[Abaddon]

...But you agreed?



NINJAEDIT

I agreed for people who like historical genre NESes it is better to have a more realistic NES.

I am not one of those people. An this still has nothing to do with Checkers...

 

[Terrance888]

What is Nixon's Dog?

Spoiler :

Correct!


All I have to say is, if you want to follow history as close as possible, read a book.

I know that some of us don't do our home work (I do!), or enough (not sure about that for myself), but I feel we have a good enough atmosphere as far as the first week after an update goes. Then the serious OOCs starts leaking in.

 

[North King]

...Charles, please learn to not only read but to comprehend.

No one in this entire thread has suggested we follow history as it was in the history books. And in fact, this has been pointed out. In this thread. In the last couple of pages. You keep bringing the idea up, as though someone's arguing for it. No one is. You're not arguing against anyone. If you could somehow stumble across the point of the discussion in the future and address it, then that would be nice.


Abaddon, it's late, I'll explain tomorrow. Though I thought it was fairly obvious from the start.

 

[Abaddon]

That 16k post better be a ripper, night dude.

 

[Adrogans]

I think the simple difference in opinions here are degree more than anything else.

I tend to be more towards NK's side but am more willing to allow for some changes, but at the same time as NK said there is no way Bavaria should have the income of France as an example. While for Abaddon this would be acceptable.

NK is arguing basically that historical limitations/realities (so annoying to find the right word for what I have in mind) be kept but the actual results and actions can be changed. While Abaddon is arguing essentially that any change can be made.