Nuclear powers

[Siggon Kristov]

I like that if I want to I can have my own rules for a conflict.

Yes, no problem if you have your own rules in your own RP...
It's even better when the winner is decided before the start of the war, so everyone knows the plan.

There is still nothing wrong with developing an index if things get too unreal.
We're not saying we're going to jump into a group's conflict and say "No, according to the NPI, player B's nation is stronger than player A, so player A should automatically lose, and he can't have this or that or whatever"
When a thread turns into an OOC conflict, maybe we can at least have an idea of which nation should have the edge.

The NPI isn't even being made to regulate conflict or RP; it's just to give us an idea of which nations are more powerful.

[Khaler]

The winning-attitude is the problem, and it does not go away with things like the NPI, that only makes it worse. Now people might argue over it, and in the end some times nation A may win and some times nation B, but if we start using some kind of charts and indexes, nation A will always win and nation B will always lose. And while that cuts the OOC-whining, it just limits the RP-possibilities, which is always a bad move.

The NPI will define the power of a nation, but does not unreasonably restrict RP. For example, by any measure, the US is among the most powerful, if not the most powerful, nation in the world. Yet that does not necessarily mean that all of its enemies are automatically doomed to annihilation. Look at the Viet Cong and the Taliban. They've given the Americans one hell of a lot of trouble. Same with the NPI. It is a measure of how powerful a nation is; how a nation uses its power is at the sole discretion of the players. We will not use the NPI to say, "I've got a higher score than you do, so you die! [Hysterically evil laugh]". It's more, "This is what you've got. Do what you will with it".

The economics and other stats of this game are broken and static, they can not be changed through the players actions, thus such set of standards will render certain nations to always win and others to always lose regardless what the players do in those nations.

it was never meant to be used for international conflicts.

Lots of the inputs can be changed. For example, you can easily adjust your military budget or any other aspect of your budget. Budgets spent on different areas are the most important factor in determining your NPI, by far. Then there are several other modifiable inputs such as whether conscription and paramilitaries and allowed, or the distribution of seats in the national legislature, or your budget surplus. Unchangeable stuff like your land area play a comparatively smaller role.
The NPI is not static. Only very small parts are frozen; the rest is just as changeable as military strategy. It also allows legislation to have some sort of flow-on effect to RP; otherwise the game and RP are nearly completely autonomous.

Honestly, I understand your point and what you want, but it just will not work. It has not worked in the past and it will not work now or in the future. Only thing such Index does is inflate some players national egos, which ruins all RP as they will burst in with "based on NPI, I should win" to start with. It will just ignite more OOC-whining, this time directed at the NPI and how unfair it supposedly is. It is too complicated for its own good, as people can nitpick parts that they think are unfair, and the whining just gets worse and worse.

[Siggon Kristov]

The winning-attitude is the problem, and it does not go away with things like the NPI, that only makes it worse. Now people might argue over it, and in the end some times nation A may win and some times nation B, but if we start using some kind of charts and indexes, nation A will always win and nation B will always lose. And while that cuts the OOC-whining, it just limits the RP-possibilities, which is always a bad move.

The NPI will define the power of a nation, but does not unreasonably restrict RP. For example, by any measure, the US is among the most powerful, if not the most powerful, nation in the world. Yet that does not necessarily mean that all of its enemies are automatically doomed to annihilation. Look at the Viet Cong and the Taliban. They've given the Americans one hell of a lot of trouble. Same with the NPI. It is a measure of how powerful a nation is; how a nation uses its power is at the sole discretion of the players. We will not use the NPI to say, "I've got a higher score than you do, so you die! [Hysterically evil laugh]". It's more, "This is what you've got. Do what you will with it".

The economics and other stats of this game are broken and static, they can not be changed through the players actions, thus such set of standards will render certain nations to always win and others to always lose regardless what the players do in those nations.

it was never meant to be used for international conflicts.

Lots of the inputs can be changed. For example, you can easily adjust your military budget or any other aspect of your budget. Budgets spent on different areas are the most important factor in determining your NPI, by far. Then there are several other modifiable inputs such as whether conscription and paramilitaries and allowed, or the distribution of seats in the national legislature, or your budget surplus. Unchangeable stuff like your land area play a comparatively smaller role.
The NPI is not static. Only very small parts are frozen; the rest is just as changeable as military strategy. It also allows legislation to have some sort of flow-on effect to RP; otherwise the game and RP are nearly completely autonomous.

Honestly, I understand your point and what you want, but it just will not work. It has not worked in the past and it will not work now or in the future. Only thing such Index does is inflate some players national egos, which ruins all RP as they will burst in with "based on NPI, I should win" to start with. It will just ignite more OOC-whining, this time directed at the NPI and how unfair it supposedly is. It is too complicated for its own good, as people can nitpick parts that they think are unfair, and the whining just gets worse and worse.

What would or wouldn't "work" as you say? What are you talking about, because I'm lost...
The NPI isn't being used to regulate conflict; it will only be used as a reference by players who choose to do so.

As for the main point of this thread, it's nuclear weapons...
We simply believe the NPI could be used to give an idea of which nations would be more likely to possess them. We're not saying we're going to tell the rest of the nations that they can't possess them.

[Khaler]

As for the main point of this thread, it's nuclear weapons...
We simply believe the NPI could be used to give an idea of which nations would be more likely to possess them. We're not saying we're going to tell the rest of the nations that they can't possess them.

So in other words, you are creating more grounds for OOC-fights. "Look at this stat, it says that your country is less likely to have nukes!" and there we go again.

The NPI isn't being used to regulate conflict; it will only be used as a reference by players who choose to do so.

Which is how it should be, but makes it no different from the imaginary Robot Power Index that states that me, myself and I win all wars, always. What I'm saying is that if it is not enforced, it will be used only by those who are benefited by it and ignored by those who are not, thus only adding gas to the OOC-fights. Just like Robot Power Index would ignite OOC-fights if it would exist, so will NPI. As long as it puts people in unprefered positions there are people who will oppose it.

In the end, all this is irrelevant. If player A does not want to lose, he will not lose, ever, despite what indexes and lists there are. The RP will just die and get burried. The point of RP is willing co-operation, which should be ensured beforehand.

Now it is nice that people go through much effort to create GDP-lists and things like the NPI, but people here have a habit to use any kind of weapon they can to win OOC and these stats provide those people exactly what they need. Which is why I think they should be kept as far away from RP as possible, only as interesting stats to go inspect for fun.

[Siggon Kristov]

As for the main point of this thread, it's nuclear weapons...
We simply believe the NPI could be used to give an idea of which nations would be more likely to possess them. We're not saying we're going to tell the rest of the nations that they can't possess them.

So in other words, you are creating more grounds for OOC-fights. "Look at this stat, it says that your country is less likely to have nukes!" and there we go again.

The NPI isn't being used to regulate conflict; it will only be used as a reference by players who choose to do so.

Which is how it should be, but makes it no different from the imaginary Robot Power Index that states that me, myself and I win all wars, always. What I'm saying is that if it is not enforced, it will be used only by those who are benefited by it and ignored by those who are not, thus only adding gas to the OOC-fights. Just like Robot Power Index would ignite OOC-fights if it would exist, so will NPI. As long as it puts people in unprefered positions there are people who will oppose it.

In the end, all this is irrelevant. If player A does not want to lose, he will not lose, ever, despite what indexes and lists there are. The RP will just die and get burried. The point of RP is willing co-operation, which should be ensured beforehand.

Now it is nice that people go through much effort to create GDP-lists and things like the NPI, but people here have a habit to use any kind of weapon they can to win OOC and these stats provide those people exactly what they need. Which is why I think they should be kept as far away from RP as possible, only as interesting stats to go inspect for fun.

The point of the NPI was to see which nations are regarded as more powerful, not which nations have more chances of winning a war. Luthori and Zardugal were being accused of pretending to be flawless societies with the best everything and the most powerful everything.

Want to change your NPI? Alter your nation's budget.

[EEL123]

As for the main point of this thread, it's nuclear weapons...
We simply believe the NPI could be used to give an idea of which nations would be more likely to possess them. We're not saying we're going to tell the rest of the nations that they can't possess them.

So in other words, you are creating more grounds for OOC-fights. "Look at this stat, it says that your country is less likely to have nukes!" and there we go again.

The NPI isn't being used to regulate conflict; it will only be used as a reference by players who choose to do so.

Which is how it should be, but makes it no different from the imaginary Robot Power Index that states that me, myself and I win all wars, always. What I'm saying is that if it is not enforced, it will be used only by those who are benefited by it and ignored by those who are not, thus only adding gas to the OOC-fights. Just like Robot Power Index would ignite OOC-fights if it would exist, so will NPI. As long as it puts people in unprefered positions there are people who will oppose it.

In the end, all this is irrelevant. If player A does not want to lose, he will not lose, ever, despite what indexes and lists there are. The RP will just die and get burried. The point of RP is willing co-operation, which should be ensured beforehand.

Now it is nice that people go through much effort to create GDP-lists and things like the NPI, but people here have a habit to use any kind of weapon they can to win OOC and these stats provide those people exactly what they need. Which is why I think they should be kept as far away from RP as possible, only as interesting stats to go inspect for fun.

Let us put it this way. People will whine anyway. At least give them a reason to, as opposed to groundless, mindless, inexplicable complaints over nothing tangible.

And you don't seem to like stats. Shall we throw out Rildanor? The next time I RP with you, Tukarali will have an army of 62 million men.

[Khaler]

And you don't seem to like stats. Shall we throw out Rildanor? The next time I RP with you, Tukarali will have an army of 62 million men.

Which means we will not RP. If we can't co-operate, we should not even try my friend. See how simple this issue gets if we just let it go by its own weight? We do not need any of that crap as RP is voluntary by definition in this game, only the "I want to win"-people need stats and stuff to force others into something they do not want to be part of.

And yes, in my last RP we did throw out Rildanor too. Co-operation instead of trying to win works magic.

[Siggon Kristov]

only the "I want to win"-people need stats and stuff.

Not really.
By the way I RP in Gaduridos and Beluzia, both nations are terribly weak, and the stats will reflect that.

I think your perspective is really that all the "I'm afraid of losing"-people are afraid to see stats and stuff.
We're not making or enforcing any rules, and we're not trying to regulate anyone's RP. There really needs to be no whining about us doing our index stuff. You're trying to say they're about pre-determining the outcome of wars; that's not true. We just want to do them for the sake of maybe economic RP, or something else to put in the wiki. Every nation expecting to be the best... It's not going to work.

[Khaler]

only the "I want to win"-people need stats and stuff.

Not really.
By the way I RP in Gaduridos and Beluzia, both nations are terribly weak, and the stats will reflect that.

I think your perspective is really that all the "I'm afraid of losing"-people are afraid to see stats and stuff.
We're not making or enforcing any rules, and we're not trying to regulate anyone's RP. There really needs to be no whining about us doing our index stuff. You're trying to say they're about pre-determining the outcome of wars; that's not true. We just want to do them for the sake of maybe economic RP, or something else to put in the wiki. Every nation expecting to be the best... It's not going to work.

Yeah, and that is great as long as using it is voluntary. Hell, even I might use it for some stuff, I don't know. I have no issue with NPI, but this is what I have problems with: "Maybe we could use the NPI. Any country under a certain score shouldn't have nukes, unless they have a very good explanation."

[EEL123]

And you don't seem to like stats. Shall we throw out Rildanor? The next time I RP with you, Tukarali will have an army of 62 million men.

Which means we will not RP. If we can't co-operate, we should not even try my friend. See how simple this issue gets if we just let it go by its own weight? We do not need any of that crap as RP is voluntary by definition in this game, only the "I want to win"-people need stats and stuff to force others into something they do not want to be part of.

And yes, in my last RP we did throw out Rildanor too. Co-operation instead of trying to win works magic.

OK, I won't literally have a ridiculously big army. But my point is that we need a sort of framework of RP. Warm and cuddly co-operation isn't everyone's cup of tea. I get a buzz out of thrashing the other guy (or trying to) within reasonable limits (i.e. Rildanor, and now the NPI), not working with them towards a pre-determined outcome that everyone knows from the very beginning.