Third World Changes

General discussions about the Particracy Classic including role-play planning and suggestions.

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Yolo04 » Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:33 pm

QV73 wrote:
Luis1p wrote:I mean, being the player in Lourenne, and the only player in there for most of the time, I don't see why someone playing in the TW nations shouldn't be given an equal opportunity and chance to rise to a higher ranking, even up to a GP.

I'm not saying that they can't rise at the moment or don't have that opportunity. But perhaps the limits/cap on the TW rankings could be changed or just eliminated. Yes, it definitely is a very difficult job to try and get an underdeveloped nation to great power status. But I mean, if I could do it, even with the broken IG systems that I don't even use, why shouldn't someone else do so with a TW nation?

I'm all for improving the current rankings of the TW system and eliminating any of the caps in future should everyone agree on it. In my preference, nothing should really stand in the way of a player who is willing to RP to a certain status


100% agree


Vascania shall rule the world…and it’s tea
List of Parties:
Image Keymon, Four Pillars Party (MQP): ACTIVE

Dankuk, Hwanghu Dang Party (4613): INACTIVE
User avatar
Yolo04
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:03 pm
Location: West Virginia, USA (haha country roads jokes are so funny)

Re: Third World Changes

Postby jamescfm » Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:55 pm

Could Moderation at least provide the reasoning why forum-based countries have been "capped" at regional power? The argument that there has not been enough role-play in them doesn't seem to make sense to me. In the examples of individual countries, that is a reason why they are not currently great powers but it does not seem sensible as a reason why they could not be.

Over the past couple of years, I would argue that the majority of our great powers have been de facto single-player countries and at the same time, there have been various times when forum-based countries have been jointly controlled. For these reasons it cannot be the number of players in the country that is relevant. If Ostland over the next eighteen months demonstrated the same level of role-play that has existed over the past eighteen months in Dorvik, why would it not be eligible for great power status? For me this seems like an arbitrary distinction and it it the decision's seemingly arbitrary nature that leads to speculation about whether it is just a stigma against countries referred to as "Third World".
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Auditorii » Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:56 pm

QV73 wrote:
Auditorii wrote:"decolonized for over a thousand IG years" doesn't equate necessarily the same way for TW nations and "player" nations. TW nations have had far less RP, many of them going long periods of time being totally empty and devoid of any significant events. As for the countries that you've mentioned they've had DOZENS of players who contributed HUNDREDS of posts and articles to build them up to where they are, so that is not an equal footing regardless of current player count or status. It is completely different.


That's a reasonable point, I'm certainly not stating these nations don't have a long climb ahead of them to get to parity with the non-colonised ones. I just think having this layer in the rankings be completely inaccessible to the far-east nations is unnecessary and may discourage people in these nations from investing their time into good development RP. Dorvik has historically had major parties that were not Farsun-controlled, but for hundreds of IG years has been dominated by Farsun and Farsun alone. Similar story in Kazulia and Lourenne. You're a great RPer but if your concern is accessibility to as broad a range of players as possible for great powers, I simply don't get ya.

Why not just not upgrade anybody this time? Why remove the layer? It seems a bit excessive to me.


but I've never said that they can't access the rankings, if I did perhaps a better statement would be what I responded to Lucipher, that we don't feel any currently occupied TW nations match up to the status of a Great Power and I can't speak for the future but we don't feel any will match up to player nations currently or in the coming future. TW nations will always have the disadvantages of not being totally known to 100% of the player base, similar to how the forums somehow escape elements of the player base. TW nations can become Great Powers, albeit slightly "differently" than player nations in my opinion. They are usually neglected compared to players nations, I can speak to that personally and I am sure that many players here who have a TW nation underneath their thumb can easily state that they are easy to "forget" and that plays a factor.

In your case, Vascania is a prime example and Ostland for myself, of nations that have consistently put out solid RP and have generally been "active" but they still have periods and gaps (usually a hundred or so years) where nothing happens or very limited happens with them. While this does 100% happen in player nations, its less frequent in those that we tend to see at the "top" of the rankings food chain.
Image Ostland (FBC)
Interim Moderator
Auditorii
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Auditorii » Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:56 pm

jamescfm wrote:Could Moderation at least provide the reasoning why forum-based countries have been "capped" at regional power? The argument that there has not been enough role-play in them doesn't seem to make sense to me. In the examples of individual countries, that is a reason why they are not currently great powers but it does not seem sensible as a reason why they could not be.

Over the past couple of years, I would argue that the majority of our great powers have been de facto single-player countries and at the same time, there have been various times when forum-based countries have been jointly controlled. For these reasons it cannot be the number of players in the country that is relevant. If Ostland over the next eighteen months demonstrated the same level of role-play that has existed over the past eighteen months in Dorvik, why would it not be eligible for great power status? For me this seems like an arbitrary distinction and it it the decision's seemingly arbitrary nature that leads to speculation about whether it is just a stigma against countries referred to as "Third World".


I think that my post above this addresses what you said.
Image Ostland (FBC)
Interim Moderator
Auditorii
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Third World Changes

Postby jamescfm » Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:00 pm

Auditorii wrote:I think that my post above this addresses what you said.

I don't think that it does. Your response answers the question "why are there no forum-based great powers?" but it does not answer the question "why could there never be forum-based great powers?". To put it straight: if Vascania, Ostland (or any other country) was able to maintain role-play to the standard that would make it eligible for great power status if it were a playable country, why would it not be permitted to ascend to great power status?
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Auditorii » Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:06 pm

jamescfm wrote:
Auditorii wrote:I think that my post above this addresses what you said.

I don't think that it does. Your response answers the question "why are there no forum-based great powers?" but it does not answer the question "why could there never be forum-based great powers?". To put it straight: if Vascania, Ostland (or any other country) was able to maintain role-play to the standard that would make it eligible for great power status if it were a playable country, why would it not be permitted to ascend to great power status?


"that we don't feel any currently occupied TW nations match up to the status of a Great Power and I can't speak for the future but we don't feel any will match up to player nations currently or in the coming future."

We do rankings generally once a month, twice if something arises or situations arise that might warrant a more immediate change. Right now, from our own discussions, we don't feel that any TW matches up to what the current in-game Great Powers have done (issues aside) and even the ranking of Regional Power has some doubt cast over it imho for both Ostland and Vascania. So if I've made it seem I'm opposed to a TW Great Power, I'm not, I just know that the issues facing TW nations tend to hamper their development as GPs and even RPs. If someone were to do it, I'd gladly give it to them and I am sure Vesica would agree with me on that.
Image Ostland (FBC)
Interim Moderator
Auditorii
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Pragma » Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:10 pm

I am liking your magnanimous side, Farsun. Of course I think your suggestion that there may be a good argument for Vascania being downgraded from 'regional power' is completely incorrect, but apart from I respect that you are not at the moment looking to upgrade any nation. I just think that it would be best just to not upgrade anybody, rather than putting out any kind of firm anti-far-eastern-great-power line - even if temporary.
Image Vascanian Empire
User avatar
Pragma
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:29 pm
Location: your mother

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Auditorii » Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:16 pm

QV73 wrote:I am liking your magnanimous side, Farsun. Of course I think your suggestion that there may be a good argument for Vascania being downgraded from 'regional power' is completely incorrect, but apart from I respect that you are not at the moment looking to upgrade any nation. I just think that it would be best just to not upgrade anybody, rather than putting out any kind of firm anti-far-eastern-great-power line - even if temporary.


I'm not speaking or thinking of down ranking Ostland or Vascania, they are imho the strongest in terms of economy, politics and military in the TW regions. I think that considering them Regional Powers is shaky, but I consider them to be apart of the "Big 5" in Dovani, Temania and Vascania. The others being Istapali for East Dovani, Midway for central Dovani and the last kind flips between New Alduria and some southern Dovani nations such as Hanzen and Dalibor.
Image Ostland (FBC)
Interim Moderator
Auditorii
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Pragma » Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:18 pm

I suppose the term 'regional power' is useful in its flexibility, in that it inherently will depend on the context of the other nations in its 'region'. I thus do defend the position of the 'big five', though I must say that Istapali and Midway have not been very much RPed with recently and I for one would like to see that change - if we're on the topic of 'third world changes'. ;)
Image Vascanian Empire
User avatar
Pragma
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:29 pm
Location: your mother

Re: Third World Changes

Postby Auditorii » Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:20 pm

QV73 wrote:I suppose the term 'regional power' is useful in its flexibility, in that it inherently will depend on the context of the other nations in its 'region'. I thus do defend the position of the 'big five', though I must say that Istapali and Midway have not been very much RPed with recently and I for one would like to see that change - if we're on the topic of 'third world changes'. ;)


Indeed, I chose them mostly because I think having a single "notable" country in each region might provide players interest in playing it. Midway mostly because of the presence of the Midway Canal and its huge importance to Dovani.
Image Ostland (FBC)
Interim Moderator
Auditorii
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron