While We Wait: Part 2

[Insane_Panda]

Isn't it funny how different NES2 I was from the rest of the das series? Madagascar of all places was one of the leading world powers. In every other one, it's been some combination of France, England, Germany, Russia, the United States, and Japan...

Isn't it funny how Germany and France and England and Russia and the United States contain abundant natural resources and are very well suited to population and economic growth?

Not all regions are created equal.

 

[Oruc]

Isn't it funny how Germany and France and England and Russia and the United States contain abundant natural resources and are very well suited to population and economic growth?

Not all regions are created equal.

Doesn't stop it from being rather boring

 

[Israelite9191]

Isn't it funny how Germany and France and England and Russia and the United States contain abundant natural resources and are very well suited to population and economic growth?

Not all regions are created equal.

There are numerous locales equally suited. The most obvious would be China.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Well, yes, but that involves a rather extended alt-history. Most of Das' ones which became NESes all happened between the 16th-19th centuries, where history had already advanced to a degree that China would not surpass Europe.

I am not saying that Europe is the only place where the superpowers can be, but that it is realistic for them to have been superpowers. Far more so than Madagascar.

I would love to see an asian centered alt-historical NES, but no need to disparage the wonderful NESes which das has run.

 

[Symphony D.]

There are numerous locales equally suited. The most obvious would be China.

The point remains some regions are good at naturally supporting strong powers and others are very bad at it. Madagascar happens to be one of the very bad ones. In fact, the only game I can think of where Madagascar would have a pretty good shot at industrializing realistically... is ITNES.

So of course you're going to see the same regions become powerful when you're using the same globe and the same history, and likely even if you don't use the latter. Same kinds of things; different names, different ideologies--same power.

Doesn't stop it from being rather boring

Then play some other setting?

Some people here love cannons or pointy-sticks and will gladly defend them to the death. Some people here like taking the helm of a historical power. People who do one and thumb their nose at the other simply smack of hypocrisy. Personal taste. No accounting for it. Might not like it, but that doesn't mean there isn't some reason to it.

General rule in NESing: if you don't like something, fix it yourself, because nobody else will do it for you.

 

[Oruc]

Then play some other setting?

I usually do dickhead, I rarely play in alt-hists.

 

[Thlayli]

This thread's cruisin' for a closin' if we start calling names.

Anyways, the current AFS will probably bring us some very unconventional great powers.

 

[~Darkening~]

I look down upon being pompous unless I'm the agent provocateur.

You know, I would make some comment about your ego (compared to your statements about others'), but I think everyone already knows the double-standard .

For one, "attempt" is an incorrect term there. For two, done that twice handily, what's the challenge?

I said 'attempt' to convince the fact it never ends . And the challenge- how about proving that you can be even a bigger jerk than before ?

Also: I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to propagate and justify the "play to win" argument. 4SRSLY, it's dead, and I will beat that dead horse in extreme and needlessly graphic and wordy detail if anyone ever tries to use it again outside of very specific instances. Savvy?

You know, I'm quite glad I skipped that arguement . Anyhow, it appears to me that you play to win . *watches Symph go off screaming with a smile*

And you know, using the same old Pirates comment for the fifthieth time just makes you ever-so cooler .

I don't really see how cowardice is much better, since never rising to a challenge means you'll never know if you can beat it or not.

Same blame.

Never presume a man does not have Ninja at his disposal! Or IM capabilities on the computer they're using.

Its been so peaceful over the last few days .

No, but an event that boils down to a list of completely arbitrary and pointless medals which does nothing to the geostrategic context and adds absolutely nothing to the setting (even in the realm of "backstory" really) isn't particularly exciting unless it gets blown up. And lets face it, that's what the Olympics comes down to in NESing.

Who in the bloody hall said anything about lists? Honestly? Just because its been done doesn't mean it will continue! The Olympics I'm thinking of, even if I have to write the bloody article myself, will not feature a prominent list. Maybe a recording, but it won't be bolded. Or else Azale will receive a nice boot .

Do we bother with every NBA Final? Or the Superbowl? Or the FIFA World Cup? The World Series of Baseball? The Tour de France? World Chess Tournament play-offs? No, because they'd all be equally pointless to the outcome of anything that actually mattered, other than gee-whiz factor. A story about yon average household in yon faraway inconsequential country with nothing at all exciting happening in the least would add some quantity between 1.1 to factors more to a game than do the Olympics or any equivalent sporting event.

Are any of those the Olympics? None, save one or two, have even close to the background of the Olympics, and the comparision doesn't work. You can't compare Abba and Leftfield!

 

[Insane_Panda]

What is playing to win but playing in character? Nations are always interested in furthering their own interests, and furthering ones own interests means making ones nation stronger.

Who doesn't want to play to win? I see the whole argument as an attempt by a few to satisfy their own egos through dragging down others and making up for their own lack of success. Oh, why, if we kill all the bourgeoisie, then we'll be rich! No, you will all just be poor.

 

[~Darkening~]

What is playing to win but playing in character? Nations are always interested in furthering their own interests, and furthering ones own interests means making ones nation stronger.

Who doesn't want to play to win? I see the whole argument as an attempt by a few to satisfy their own egos through dragging down others and making up for their own lack of success. Oh, why, if we kill all the bourgeoisie, then we'll be rich! No, you will all just be poor.

Surpise . Panda, I think you don't get the difference in 'playing to win' and 'playing-in-character'. Those playing in character generally are for their advancement. At the same time, those playing in character are not afraid to do something that would set them back. Those playing to win simply annex everything one turn after another. Examples: HRE[otfn] was played-to-win. You simply dominated the world, not really advancing anything that laid out of your intrests. Did anything bad happen from your orders on purpose? Not that I can remember .

I see the whole argument as an attempt by a few to satisfy their own egos through dragging down others and making up for their own lack of success.

Hilarious how you and Symph can talk of other's egos .
And, I can admit it without an issue- I mostly fail .

 

[Insane_Panda]

Also, Darkening, throughout Symphony's NESing career, his nations have always been very interesting, and he has contributed many stories.

The difference between you and him isn't that he is obsessed with winning and you guys are more involved in the story, the difference is that he is just better at NESing.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Surpise . Panda, I think you don't get the difference in 'playing to win' and 'playing-in-character'. Those playing in character generally are for their advancement. At the same time, those playing in character are not afraid to do something that would set them back. Those playing to win simply annex everything one turn after another. Examples: HRE[otfn] was played-to-win. You simply dominated the world, not really advancing anything that laid out of your intrests. Did anything bad happen from your orders on purpose? Not that I can remember .

Exactly. I played to advance my own interests as the HRE. Thats what nations do. Thats what history is about. Some nations were better at it than others. They are the ones who suceeded.

 

[~Darkening~]

The difference between you and him isn't that he is obsessed with winning and you guys are more involved in the story, the difference is that he is just better at NESing.

There you go. You just bloody admitted it. How you be better at something that isn't a competition? Your bloody insistance on winning is your problem. You think I have a problem with Symph's winning? Ask the bloke how many times I've sucked up to him, how many times I mention the pwner to other people, and ask Farow about our last little chat . I have no problem with Symph being better at anything than me. I'm not a bloody competitor. I do what I do out of the stupidity I like to consider my thoughts. If I wanted to cry about Symph, do you think I would be loosely allied to him so much?

*Brain shutdown*

You know Panda, I remember why I considered you the most annoying now . Someone actually has Swiss beat ! Like I said, you're a bloody competitor- you play this as a game. Every dripping word you say backs it up. And this, provided with a little stubbornness, proves that you play to win, not entierly in character.

Exactly. I played to advance my own interests as the HRE. Thats what nations do. Thats what history is about. Some nations were better at it than others. They are the ones who suceeded.

*Twitch* History? nations being about advancement? What bloody book have you been reading? Do you honestly think most rulers gave a damn about anything other than their own power? They didn't care for their people, they cared for their selves. Not to mention, according your theroy of "Playing in History", you leave out the fact that not everybody was a bloody genius. Show me one of your leaders who wasn't a military god/ reformer .

 

[Insane_Panda]

Then why engage in these attacks and arguments if you weren't so concerned?

Furthermore, explain to me how NESing is not a game, and how it is not a competition. It is a competition of nations. You don't join a NES to run your country into the ground, you join a NES to successfully advance your nation.

And furthermore, if our orders are to be an example, Symphony and I have been far more devoted and involved in our Nations than many other players. If you look at my orders, the majority of the text is not spent on war, it is spent on domestic activities, and I went to great lengths to develop a suitable backstory and history for my Empire, and I wrote the largest amount of stories. I did not do it just to attain Best Player or Best Storywriter, I did it because I was genuinely interested in France and the HRE and I wanted to see it succeed.

 

[Symphony D.]

I do not require other people to defend my actions.

I have done things which have set my country back, tremendously, usually in terms of economic capability, in order to secure a long-term--beyond the length of the game--advantage for my country in terms of positioning. When was the last time you paid 14EP for a single EC and some surrounding territory because it made sense for one to two centuries into the future and in terms of immediate in-game economic payoff that wouldn't actually affect your EP income? 10EP for a bunch of tiny desert islands only good for naval positioning in 50 years? Never? Oh, well, I guess you're not playing in-character.

I do not play in-character? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in most games over the sort of duration of which I'm playing, I establish the character of my nations myself, and their goal is usually their self-survival and improvement. That is most readily accomplished by elimination of enemies, and a securing of a stable position. I believe that is the general goal of most governments. If you have some evidence to the contrary that they are instead supposed to implode randomly, please feel free to present it.

I don't write stories? That's pretty simple: I do, I just only do it when I have some actual inspiration, because I don't like whoring out my writing for puny little bonuses.

And if you think all these things regardless, great for you, because this is an activity I engage in for fun on the Internet. The opinion of anyone here--myself included--has a true value to others about the same as some 13 year-old kid on Live screeching insults into your ear over a game of Halo. The only reason it matters for anything is because people are willing to invest a meaning into it.

So if you want to demonize me, criticize me, make me your own personal George W. Bush of NESing and project whatever you want onto me, great. I've always relished the prospect of being a villain. It just makes it easier for me to lay out all the annoyances I have without the need to try and be civil or polite about it.

This goes for everybody, not just ~Darkening~, because I know I have some enemies out there in the audience. Yes, you know who you are *waves*. And I suppose it just as well applies to other players. Let he who is without fault cast the first stone at another.

 

[Kal'thzar]

whilst I agree with Panda that nations seek to further their own intrests, the manner in which it is carried out in NESing is something I find distastefull.

that is, outright annexations of large tracts of land. I mean even as I play LuckNES, I'm still a bit uneasy about annexing all of the Dutch's lands/colonies. etc. To me, it takes away from the realism from the game, and whilst I like to succeed, succeeding in something so easy to manipulate leaves something to be desired.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I do not require other people to defend my actions.

Well, pardon-moi. These are not just attacks on you. Had I been more actively engaged in the debate, Darkening would have (and has) leveled the same charges against me as he did you.

This whole whiny argument about how I or you or anyone else plays to win is just pissing me off, really.

 

[JosefStalinator]

This debate really brings to life anti-americanism in the world. Apparently no consensus = no validation, and pursuing one's interest (both national and personal, which often go hand in hand) is a bad thing. Not all of us are looking out for all of bloody humanity.

Someone has to win in the end; our goal is to ensure it's us.

 

[Symphony D.]

whilst I agree with Panda that nations seek to further their own intrests, the manner in which it is carried out in NESing is something I find distastefull.

that is, outright annexations of large tracts of land. I mean even as I play LuckNES, I'm still a bit uneasy about annexing all of the Dutch's lands/colonies. etc. To me, it takes away from the realism from the game, and whilst I like to succeed, succeeding in something so easy to manipulate leaves something to be desired.

The responsibility of bringing the cold, roiling waves of reality crashing down upon the lofty ambitions of players is the responsibility of the moderator. If vast tracts of land of a totally different culture should fall and not a peep should be heard, then either the player is extremely efficient at counterinsurgency, or more likely, the moderator is not explicating the situation realistically.

Or, to put it another way: don't hate the playa', hate the game.

And to put the final nail in this discussion, I do not play to win. I play to not lose, and both terms are relatives defined by me, not adjudicated upon by the moderator in some pithy little sentence-long award at the end of a game, that nobody gives a damn about. And for any character that is not suicidal, that is playing in character.

There has only been one instance I am aware of where somebody looked at a situation and said to themselves "We must stop these people, or they will win the award at the end of the game, and that is unacceptable!" That was in NES2 VI, and it was in statements and actions made by neither myself nor Panda, but against us. Yet for some reason, we are the headliners for the theory. Isn't that an irony? There is no widespread Play-to-Win mentality. Winning is not an absolute in some permanent frame of reference. It is all subjective.

Let the argument die.

 

[The Farow]

Okay, I really do not want to be dragged into this.

My opinion is similar to Kal'thazar which upsets me so often. Often now in NESing when a nation is defeated the entire country is annexed with little or no effect to the nation. I mean an example would be das's NES but recent LuckNESes also show it. In fact it makes the nation more powerful rather then weaker. Massive empires as you get further and further into the modern ages are impossible to maintain and usually not worth it.

Just my opinion. I really do not think it is a failure of the player but if the rules to put limits on exponentially growing power.

Panda and Symphony, I could care less what their motives were in the game and I think they did a great job with their nations. They both put a lot of work into them and they were well in the constraints of the rules.