Feedback: RP nation label

[Auditorii]

Howdy all! An idea that has been floated but also one I’ve thought about after some internal discussions with some players.

The concept revolves around tagging certain nations “RP Intensive” (working title) which would permit Moderation to be more liberal in their approach to inactive, non-RPing players within nations.

Note this is purely feedback and I’m just trying to gather wider community opinion.

[NuclearGandhi69]

What would put a nation under this label?

[Auditorii]

What would put a nation under this label?

My general concept at first would be nations with a long RP history on the forum. It’s no secret that the RP component of this game (mostly forum based) has largely overtaken the game mechanics, side of the game. This is means to protect those nations who have long running RPs across multiple players.

[Rogue]

While im sympathetic to the idea, as PT classic is arguably best played in RP, i doubt it would work in practice and i believe we had the discussion before and decided not to go with it.

[Doc]

I’m absolutely in favor of protecting the RPd history of the country against the, to put it charitably, f’d game mechanic that allows newly arrived players to game the algorithm, gain a slim majority and change the entire flavor of the country with zero regard for the extensive RP that has already been done there. I don’t believe that people should just select a country, move there and completely retcon just because they’d like to select a parochial option that isn’t currently available. And I don’t know how a country which has been played one way for centuries would just wake up one day, fully embrace the opposite of that and forget all of history.

To me that’s equivalent to a nation raid and an informal retcon, and it is far too easy right now for players to just do. It absolutely destroys continuity in countries with extensive forum RP.

[Drax]

Here are a couple of ideas from a relative latecomer. Think new player bonus is a good thing which helps get new players involved. On the other hand think frankly idea of new player changing nature of a nation developed into something interesting overtime should be impossible. Moderation can limit this and should.

Now there is a big difference in asserting socialists gain influence and change political system because of mechanics of game and change nature of political system from claiming penguin descended immigrants from Antarctica have seized control of Rildanor and Eskimo has replaced Canrillaise as the language.

Not every nation has "rich cultural diversity" but many do. Maybe most. At least one seems to reflect abandoned bad ideas but that should not prevent protecting the good ones.

[Doc]

“… over time” would be understandable. Over 20 years in response to exogenous shock, over 100 years through political evolution (committed and active roleplay). After your first election where you only selected bills to carefully tailor your positions to the exact positions necessary to gain a slim majority? No. That should not be permitted. Not unless you are first RPing the rise of a totalitarian state that rules by killing off all its opponents, and actively RPing a resistance.

My point is that intense RP should precede major changes to the political, social and cultural characteristics of a nation, especially one with a long established history. And people should be required to RP the kind of parties their voting record suggests they are. Consistency, both internally and externally in RP should be prioritized. And if this gives advantage to longer term players, so be it. I do t know why all the advantage has to be given to those who haven’t played in a country at all but go there specifically to set it up a completely different way than it is.

[Drax]

Wonder if each should be approached differently as far as rules go. Cultural can be controlled more easily by Moderation. Personally I care more about cultural preservation but that's just me.

Realize lot of work goes into constructing system that looks like a real intricate and unique political system. Have seen Rogue do it and heard Rob lamenting work of a year or two being undone by someone sweeping in and trashing everything. Think something should be done but not everything should get equal weight.

[Auditorii]

After some questions posed by some members, I was wondering what people thought about a slightly altered concept known as "RP Intensive" nations.

This would essentially provide a provision for nations to apply for or have the status of "RP Intensive" applied to them. This would provide Moderation as well as members the ability to ask for inactivation on the basis of failing to RP (within reasonable amount of time when joining a nation), significantly alter government without justification through RP (i.e. government shifting to a monarchy after centuries of being a republic (or visa versa), etc.) or generally just failing to maintain activity in general with nations with the "RP Intensive" label (Note that this will be viewed on the basis of national parties/population).

[imperialpearl]

I think the idea of "RP Intensive" nations is one which should have been implemented a long time ago. One of the many things which drew me to take up an FBC (Forum-Based Country), is the fact that regardless of how much effort a player puts into building a new foundation for the nation they occupy, much of it, if not all of it can be undone in a matter of days. We've seen countless occasions where nations who very rich and deep RP history have been obliterated overnight either through nation raids or via new players. Whilst I am more lenient in understanding the motivations and tendencies of new players, it is really inexcusable when it comes to nation raids. There are certain nations whose entire political systems have years and months of RP to back them up (Mikuni-Hulstria comes to mind) and I think it is sad when players play ignorant with the fact that people have toiled long and hard to build such systems only for it to be destroyed in a fortnight. I think a potential addition to this would be the have these "RP Intensive" nations exist similar to Culturally-Open requests. It is important to allow for change, where change is most likely to bring about something positive. If a nation is deemed RP-intensive and a player wants to change a protected aspect of that nation, they have to show the build-up towards justifying that change, in the same way, we have to justify changes to the cultural protocol.

TLDR: Protect the RP to at least show some respect and consideration for the literal hours, days, weeks, months and even years which has gone into making it all possible