While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[christos200]

Although, I should not be surprised that Masada is like he is when he is a German. He might as well have been a Nazi with such behaviour, had he been borned a few years earlier.

 

[Crezth]

Although, I should not be surprised that Masada is like he is when he is a German. He might as well have been a Nazi with such behaviour, had he been borned a few years earlier.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Tee hee hee.

 

[Kozmos]

Although, I should not be surprised that Masada is like he is when he is a German. He might as well have been a Nazi with such behaviour, had he been borned a few years earlier.

signature material right there.

 

[Daftpanzer]

I propose that christos200 is a double-login of a NESer created for the purposes of trolling the forum.

 

[JohannaK]

Well, I propose we put all of this behind us and resume talking about that much promising DaftNES.

 

[Luckymoose]

Ok. I will say names: Luckymoose is a bigot. Now that I clarify this, is anyone okay? This is the guy I am talking about, not all NESers.

Also, to clarify something else. Masada is an idiot. Good? I am more sympathetic now?

I'm a bigot? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word. That Slavic government of yours should have invested more money into primary education.

 

[Daftpanzer]

Well, I propose we put all of this behind us and resume talking about that much promising DaftNES.

Well, if this is the one you mean, here's a Pre-Beta map (this was actually pretty quick to make, getting better with Photoshop):

Spoiler :

Currently I'm thinking each side will have openings in:

• Major Army Groups (with air and/or naval attachments)
• Rearguard / Anti-Partisan player
• Naval Commander(s)
• Independent Air Force(s)
• Special Forces / Special Weapons player

Is it better for players to control small groups of units within a larger NPC war?

Who gets to control IP spending for each team?

Should there be an overall commander for each team? Should they be elected?

 

[JohannaK]

It would be interesting to have a few players in each position all competing for primacy over their colleagues in directing the strategy to be followed. Let the players decide if they want a Supreme Allied Commander, and in the meanwhile there will be a lot of fun caused by everyone pursuing their own goal.

 

[Tsoate]

I like my nations to have the ideology of the Chinese Empire. I like the idea that all people living in my nations (in Ancient times) to be the civilized people who live Under the rule of the Heaven, the divine Emperor and that all those who do not are uncivilized Barbarians who should not have relations as equal with my nations. Does this make people angry? Maybe. It made the Mongols angry in RL, and they took over Beijing and forced the Ming to build the Great Wall in order to porotect themselves. It also made many Westerners angry. But I like that my nations have this ideology and have fun with this.

You still don't get it do you?

Each NES is different. You can't go in with pre-conceived ideas of what you want to be, and apply it to ever NES game. It is offence, lasy, and immersion breaking for everyone else involved. NESing takes effort, it desires originality. Yes tropes exist, but you must strive to avoid them.

When you join a NES, look to weave a story that fits with others, to the world/era/time it is based in. You can't just blindly charge into each one saying you are a Chinese Idioloy Empire.

 

[christos200]

EDIT.

Moderator Action: Off the charts even for my lax sensibilities. Action taken.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tsoate]

Christos, I really suggest you cease with the name calling.

 

[Tycho]

So much for getting back on track with a conversation that didn't involve flinging insults left and right.

 

[Terrance888]

That's so cool daft!

Is it safe to say the not Germans aren't slaughterin not Jews in this game?

 

[Tsoate]

Well, if this is the one you mean, here's a Pre-Beta map (this was actually pretty quick to make, getting better with Photoshop):

Spoiler :

Currently I'm thinking each side will have openings in:

• Major Army Groups (with air and/or naval attachments)
• Rearguard / Anti-Partisan player
• Naval Commander(s)
• Independent Air Force(s)
• Special Forces / Special Weapons player

Is it better for players to control small groups of units within a larger NPC war?

Who gets to control IP spending for each team?

Should there be an overall commander for each team? Should they be elected?

Gosh that is a frightfully humungous map, really quite impossible to view on my laptop screen! It is roughly 4 times larger than my screen! Please reduce it in size.

It would make very interesting interplay if we had control of our own individual units (with opportune for individual private IP) with a commander deciding how to divide the larger IP. They should be voted for by their own forces at the start of the game.

The commander can then sway our own actions with promise of more support the next turn (IP) but we can also peruse our own goals hoping to further advance our own forces.

 

[Wrymouth3]

I like my nations to have the ideology of the Chinese Empire. I like the idea that all people living in my nations (in Ancient times) to be the civilized people who live Under the rule of the Heaven, the divine Emperor and that all those who do not are uncivilized Barbarians who should not have relations as equal with my nations. Does this make people angry? Maybe. It made the Mongols angry in RL, and they took over Beijing and forced the Ming to build the Great Wall in order to porotect themselves. It also made many Westerners angry. But I like that my nations have this ideology and have fun with this.

Where does David Lo Pan fit into this picture? He had a pretty important role as well.

 

[Kozmos]

I just discovered communist Superman. This makes me very pleased.

 

[Azale]

I just discovered communist Superman. This makes me very pleased.

Red Son was a lot of fun to read.

 

[Tycho]

Gosh that is a frightfully humungous map, really quite impossible to view on my laptop screen! It is roughly 4 times larger than my screen! Please reduce it in size.

It would make very interesting interplay if we had control of our own individual units (with opportune for individual private IP) with a commander deciding how to divide the larger IP. They should be voted for by their own forces at the start of the game.

The commander can then sway our own actions with promise of more support the next turn (IP) but we can also peruse our own goals hoping to further advance our own forces.

Why not have a smaller basic map in the updates, and a larger map provided for those that want to see it (for download or viewing on another page).

 

[North King]

I would not be opposed to integration if it was possible to make it very clear from the outset what kind of player standards of behavior and expectations a given game was operating under, such that players would know what was expected of them on joining, and those expectations and standards could be enforced. As was determined a few months ago through much gnashing of teeth, they can't because that's "discriminatory," and the system is entirely reliant upon the good sense and discretion of the player interested in joining—which is clearly unreliable and highly fallible.

Removing GM control over their games makes it inadvisable to expand the playerbase uncontrollably since the GM has no say over whom they have to take. The policy of CFC on inclusion makes me uninterested in merger as a result either as a player or hypothetically as a GM. When the work of the many can be "ruined" by the one with no recourse, that's a pretty good incentive to reduce access and adopt an elitist position.

So defined, I am an elitist, and I have no compunction against being called such. I have little confidence in the IOT playerbase to show due discretion given my interaction with and observation of them to date. That's unfair, since I'm generalizing a community by the actions of a few individuals. But it's human nature and it is what it is. (That said, I feel the same about many NESers too, so take that for what you will.)

Much as I like to include new players, I gotta agree with Symphony here. I actually have next to no controls over people who join End of Empires as-is, and while the backstory does a pretty decent job of intimidating away people who aren't looking for a serious cradle NES...

I don't know. I have a lot invested in my work here -- somewhere on the order of five years -- and as a result I have become something of a conservative. But on the other hand, I think that attitude is justified. I have invested enormous amounts of time here, and while I'd like to actively recruit new people, I'd like to have a very clear idea of what I am recruiting them to. That is, I want people to be accepted into a vibrant community, where the players are capable of serious roleplaying and extremely intellectual fun. The consistent community culture is pretty important -- it helps acclimate people, and subconsciously influences them to fall into line with the social norms of the community. Smashing another group into the mix seems like a recipe for disaster, as you'll have two cultures with divergent aims, no clear subculture for newcomers to understand, and a lot of clashing viewpoints.

In other words, the hypothetical Nebberpug community will be a rudderless ship, probably not super inviting to newbies as outside of individual NESes (...slash Nebberpugs) it will give off the [correct] impression of politicking and navel gazing and a generally toxic, polarized environment.

I don't see why this is desirable.



Forgive incoherence/ramblyness, I have limited cognitive functioning on weekdays.