What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Afrocentric » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:59 am

I don't get it, what is so appealing about it and why is it that some of us are comfortable with this line of thinking? Does the idea of playing in a nation that isn't a generic USA clone with no problems, a weak/non-existant culture and a homogeneous population that speaks English somehow make you shit your pants?

Somebody help me out.

(BTW, I know I'm a fucking hypocrite, but at least I admit it.)
Image
Image
Image

Urban Party of Kirlawa, Kirlawa - Inactive
Democratic Reform Party, Talmoria - Inactive
Labour Party, Saridan - Inactive
Urban Party of Rutania, Rutania - Inactive

http://www.soundcloud.com/djtechnotikofficial
User avatar
Afrocentric
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:20 am
Location: Maryland / Rutania

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Martinulus » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:50 am

Isn't this a never-ending discussion surrounding an issue we're never going to solve?
Image
Hosianisch-Demokratisches Verbund - Hulstria and Gao-Soto

Notable previous parties:
Folkepartiet (People's Party) - Kazulia
User avatar
Martinulus
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 11:53 am

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby CCP » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:49 am

Afrocentric wrote:(BTW, I know I'm a fucking hypocrite, but at least I admit it.)


Yea, seriously, you tell us, Afro. I'd still love to have you in Ibutho. I asked you to start an African Superpower with me several (real life) years ago too. I imagine many people in generics would give you the same answer you gave me: they've spent so much time working on those countries that culture-converting or leaving seems like a waste.

But someone tell me if this has been suggested before: one solution to this might be to close off some of the empty countries to force active/veteran players to clump up in fewer countries instead of using so many 1-player countries as personal fiefs. Active/veteran players tend to be the most committed to the cultural game, so they'd probably be more likely to compete with eachother to culture-convert or culture-protect countries if they were playing with other actives/veterans. Right now, if culture-generics resist culture-defining, the culture-definers can just leave to create paradise elsewhere. I think the game would just benefit from more forced interaction/competitiveness in general.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Afrocentric » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:06 pm

CCP wrote:But someone tell me if this has been suggested before: one solution to this might be to close off some of the empty countries to force active/veteran players to clump up in fewer countries instead of using so many 1-player countries as personal fiefs. Active/veteran players tend to be the most committed to the cultural game, so they'd probably be more likely to compete with eachother to culture-convert or culture-protect countries if they were playing with other actives/veterans. Right now, if culture-generics resist culture-defining, the culture-definers can just leave to create paradise elsewhere. I think the game would just benefit from more forced interaction/competitiveness in general.


I think that's been floated before, well a variation of it at least.
Image
Image
Image

Urban Party of Kirlawa, Kirlawa - Inactive
Democratic Reform Party, Talmoria - Inactive
Labour Party, Saridan - Inactive
Urban Party of Rutania, Rutania - Inactive

http://www.soundcloud.com/djtechnotikofficial
User avatar
Afrocentric
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:20 am
Location: Maryland / Rutania

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby SelucianCrusader » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:18 pm

Afrocentric wrote:I don't get it, what is so appealing about it and why is it that some of us are comfortable with this line of thinking? Does the idea of playing in a nation that isn't a generic USA clone with no problems, a weak/non-existant culture and a homogeneous population that speaks English somehow make you shit your pants?

Somebody help me out.

(BTW, I know I'm a fucking hypocrite, but at least I admit it.)

QFE.

However, I think many noobs simply doesn't know about the lore, the rules or the forums at all, and I doubt this issue will be fixed until the RP-aspects of the game get more integrated into the game itself. I doubt the basic coding of the game needs to be changed to give us some nation description page with the cultural protocols and a clear hint that most of the gaming is done at the forums and at the wiki. After all, Wouter seems to have recently updated the names of the provinces on the map and has been adding more legislation proposals during the past years, that proves that the game isn't as unimprovable as we might think.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Farsun » Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:17 pm

Politically, economically and militarily its the easiest. It permits people to use the military of the United States with their economics unimpeded and that is something that we have all had to contend with. Many people assume that just because John Smith is the PM and they are from the UK that they can play as the UK and have nuclear attack submarines or that their economy cannot fault, because in accordance with the system that "game mechanics" come first it means that nothing can be done to change what someone says. For instance, the Dorvish economy has suffered numerous times to economic recession and such because of RP between nations and people. The Dorvish military isn't the worlds best, for instance the Indralan military which has undergone a massive boom in recent decades was once defeated by a coalition of nations that were comparably weaker than it.

It's just something that provides comfort, even people who hate the United States or dislike them will use them because it fits into their head of ideas that they are invincible and cannot be touched. It's wrong and quite frankly the reason why this game has failed miserably due to lack of RP.
Dorvish Social Nationalist Party
OOC Administrator of the Artanian Union & Bureaucrat of the Particracy Wiki
Farsun
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:47 pm
Location: New York, United States.

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby EEL123 » Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:59 pm

Farsun wrote:John Smith is the PM and they are from the UK
If he hadn't had a heart attack in 1994 he would have become PM.
House of Razama
EEL123
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Razamid Caliphate (Kafuristan)

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby Afrocentric » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:02 pm

So, what I'm getting at is that we somehow should set some kind of limit to how powerful a nation is; maybe labeling which nations are superpowers, regional powers and which nations are third world? That would make it fair, but lead to bitching, so what if we were to create some dynamic ranking system that determines power. I'm thinking a scale between 0 through 1; 0 being powerless and 1 being "superpower". Luckily, I have a formula for this such occasion, although I should warn you all, I'm not good at math, so bear with me if my stuff is a bit messed up.

Okay, I'm thinking such a formula would be as follows: POWER (P) equals the initial score (I) or the current status of a nation based either as a 1, 2 or 3. After that, it's the level of activity on the forum in the IG past month; a number between 1 and 10 (A), it's history multiplied by it's initial ranking; a number between 1 and 10. (H), Amount of RP in past year; a number between 1 and 10 squared to the most utilized type of RP conducted, so if the nation mostly engaged in external (2) or internal(1) RP; this is known as (R) and finally, activity on the foreign policy front (F); a number between 1 and 10 multiplied by the sum of number of treaties signed minus the number of treaties withdrawn from in the past 2 IG months. Add that up and then divide it by 113, which is the maximum possible score a nation can achieve (3+10+10(3)+10(2)+10(5)) and then find your number. It will be a percentage between 0 and 1; that is the score.

Example:

P = I + A+H(I)+R(x)+F(s-w)/113

P = 2+5+5(2)+8(2)+4(2-1)/113

P = 33 + 4(2)/113

P = 41/113

P = 0.3628 or .36

So this nation would have a score of 0.36, making it a minor power. The good thing about this is that the nation has the ability to move up, however, it will literally be impossible to become a Superpower or actually see a rapid increase in your rating given what would need to occur. Basically, this method assures a much more realistic approach to solving our issues of power in the game and it can be changed and added too so we could include a couple of military parameters if we wanted.

After the first time we run the formula, "I" will now be replaced by the current power index score (Pi) and the highest number will be out of 190 (10+10+10(10)+10(2)+10(5)). This time, to calculate your score, move the decimal place over a space, so instead of .36, it will become 3.6 and then proceed to do the same calculations you did before.

P = Pi + A+H(Pi)+R(x)+F(s-w)/190

P = 3.6+4+6(3.6)+5(2)+2(1-1)/190

P = 58.96 + 2(0)/190

P = 58.96/190

P = 0.3103 or .31

Again, the nation would still be a minor power, but with a little less influence in the world.


Power Index
1: Superpower - A state with a dominant position in international relations that is able to exert influence or project power on a global scale.
.81-.99: Great Power/Potential Superpower (.95-.99)] - A state with strong influence over nations around them and across the world.
.61-.8: Regional Power - A state that exercises influence and power within a region.
.51-.6: Middle Power - A state that exerts a strategic degree of power over it's neighbors and in some cases region.
.31 -.5: Small Power - A state that cannot be ignored despite being used by the greater powers; this is the most common type of state in Terra.
.1-.3: Minor power - A state that is often dominated by others, but is able to exert a minimal amount of influence in certain areas (i.e. natural resources, arms).
0: No power - A state that is dominated by any state, wielding no influence or power whatsoever.


What do you guys think?
Image
Image
Image

Urban Party of Kirlawa, Kirlawa - Inactive
Democratic Reform Party, Talmoria - Inactive
Labour Party, Saridan - Inactive
Urban Party of Rutania, Rutania - Inactive

http://www.soundcloud.com/djtechnotikofficial
User avatar
Afrocentric
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:20 am
Location: Maryland / Rutania

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby CanadianEh » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:39 pm

I for one really like that idea,

Will you be taking into account how free the market is, because let's be honest a free market a stronger economy. If the market is not free and regulated there are some advantages though like better life, healthcare, education higher HDI (in most cases) and many more things, so there are some up sides to Socialism and sone down sides same thing goes for Capitalism.
Kirlawa Liberals - Inactive
Baltusia Conservatives - Inactive
Rutanian Democratic Party - Inactive
Conservative Party of Luthori - Active

In all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom -- John Locke
User avatar
CanadianEh
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:22 pm
Location: Canada / Luthori

Re: What's the appeal of playing a generic-USA clone?

Postby CCP » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:59 pm

So a country has this rank, and that stops them from doing what? If a Small Power tries to RP above (or below) their rank, what happens?

And I don't completely follow how this connects to the generics issue, but maybe that's cause I don't play enough to know.

In general, I'm against caps on players' choices in a RP game. It strikes me as limiting the open-endedness of the game which I always thought was the value of particracy.

Could voluntary RP treaty organizations be more flexible/less limiting solutions? I know some have been tried before and failed for lack of maintenance/interest. But (and please excuse me if I'm mistaken), if a player won't abide by/stay active in their own voluntary RP group, would they abide by/use a formula?

Also, the RP rules and/or organizations that have endured look to me to be the ones that support and protect/entrench the things their members want to do (IML comes to mind). Please tell me if I'm being naive/uninformed, but it seems like it can't be difficult for players seeking an active foreign policy game to cooperate in maintaining loose game-play enhancing standards (without imposing hard caps on those who aren't interested).

And on generics + foreign policy RP: along the lines of walling off nations, designating certain nations as newbie/generic nations could work. In exchange for being free of cultural protocals (and veteran harassment/raids), players in those countries could be blocked from participating in RPs with culturally protocalled nations. A simple permanent resolution on the nation page could do, explaining to players where they are and what the rules are. Once they're ready to engage with non-generics, they can move to one.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests