On Empires

[Doc]

This was on the Feedback: Legacy Controllers thread, https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-284-post-...ml#pid4395

but I decided it probably wasn't appropriate for that discussion as it wasn't on topic there. But I wanted to bring it over here anyway.

In the past efforts to create empires have been tried some within the then existing rules and some clearly not.
If going to have them think there should be clear rules on how to get there.  Not make that part of RP creativity. 
My thinking is whatever the moral equivalent of a second account ends up being, it should not be the path to an empire.
A political or economic or military influence "empire" as currently experienced in RP though does not need over regulation since already works pretty well.

There are no plans of making "Imperial ambitions" regulated in any way, that happens via RP or it doesnt simple as that.

To ensure that self-serving action does not take place when having multiple control roles, there are going to be restrictions on interactions  between the nations in question.

In re: building Empires through RP or not at all.

I take issue with this sentence:  "A political or economic or military influence "empire" as currently experienced in RP though does not need over regulation since already works pretty well."

As a person who has tried to build an Empire through RP with, I'd say, moderate success, I think there ought to be something considered that would allow an imperial path without requiring controllers in other countries.  Because a political, or economic, or military influence "empire" does not work really well in fact.  It hardly works at all.

Here's the problem I have discovered when building an empire through RP:  Each member of the empire is its own country.  So, literally the best you will get is a coalition, not an Empire.  The Anantonese Empire is not an Empire.  I can't compel other players to do anything they don't want to do, the way an Emperor would.  I can't make them come to war, I can't tax them, I can't IC make them do anything at all that they are not IC inclined to do.  And when one of the members of the AE gets themselves into a jam and the Empire SHOULD come to their aid, that member can say "Eh, I think I just want to do this one myself," and the Empire has no say in it at all.

So, literally AT most the AE is a coalition.  Not even a confederation.  I have seen mutual defense treaties with more teeth, because as the leader of this coalition, I don't even have the power to compel other members of the Empire to do anything at all.

Same with Luthori and their commonwealth, and I would say the Commonwealth would look exactly like AE in terms of interstate relations, if Mordusia wasn't so absolutely pro-Luthori.  And the same with Canrille.

So what you all are effectively doing is denying the possibility of any sort of centralized empire period.  And I think 1) that sucks for those players who would like to try to build one, which the mods may admittedly not really care too much about, and 2) it really cuts off any possibility to use these countries which are empty for anything other than place holders, especially when we have so few players, and the ones who are here have limited interest in RPing something to help other players do their thing, if there is nothing in it for them.

I know its been said before, and been summarily dismissed.  But since we're on the topic, I figured I'd say it again.

[GreekIdiot]

I think it's not a dismissal per se, but a slight hesitance. To elaborate,

You all know that ever since I was asked to manage the game by Wouter I have generally maintained a position for the community that of self-management. Meaning if the community wants it, we do it, if the community doesn't, we don't.

I set the overall direction; how we get there is based on what the community generates and the mods take care of the details.

This case falls under the same context: in terms of the Legacy Edition, there will absolutely be a mechanism (there already is) where players will be able to set a union for their nations, thus granting edit rights to the player who manages the union. It's the same mechanism that will let you pick a HOS from the list (aka Luthori => Mordusia) instead of setting your own, a currency (aka CFR => Shekel) and so forth.

i.e. I set Beiteynu under the 3rd Point Federation, I leave, Mbites can continue to manage Beiteynu

-

However, since we're in uncharted territory, I understand the mods being hesitant (I have not been involved in the ruleset making and have only merely provided feedback and advise when Mbites asked me to).

The reason?

Classic died so we're trying to get back to a sense of normality to conclude the transition, which is painful and confusing by itself. To better achieve that, while all of these massive changes are taking place, the overall decision is to stick to what's known and comfortable as much as possible.

Mods and me have generally presumed that after Legacy hits the floor and we get comfortable with it, we'll start exploring refinements - empires and multiple primaries are 2 parts that have already been discussed, meaning there's a high probability of focusing on them, first.

-

So, all in all, don't think it's a dismissal; just a "hold the fort guys", let's stick to what we know till we can get back to normality, I guess.

At the end of the day, Legacy comes packing with endless opportunities for stuff like empires. We can absolutely work with ideas - we just need to get back to playing the game properly, as a community, first.

[Mbites]

While I understand the point about the empty 'placeholders' (as I also agreed with that in Dredd's thread) there are two things that massively rub me the wrong way and I'd like to apologize beforehand if I sound hostile.

1) Yeah, it sucks for the players that aim to do an empire, but the community doesnt owe you to accomodate your ambitions. All the Technical difficulties can be overcome with OOC prep-work, of course that is exhausting but thats just the price of a multiplayer game. I've seen working iterations of multi-player empires and i've seen complete breakdown of supernational unions in all shapes and forms. 

"So what you all are effectively doing is denying the possibility of any sort of centralized empire period."
We're not, we're denying the possibility of utilizing specific elements for empire building, elements that have conceptually been used for something else. 

Which leads me to the logical conclusion of this debate, the actual point of it; because in my opinion, most people here havent made the connection to fundamental idea behind this potential change, that this game is no longer political party simulator and its something different. And my answer regarding that, is for now at least, what Greek said. We're in the progress of switching to an entirely different modus operandi, and I've tried in my role of building the basis for a ruleset to codify long-standing RP practices for the start and initial phase of Legacy. They'll likely be subject to change and I assume that this specific debate is going to be predominant when reworking inevitably starts.  

2) There are absolutely players who help each other's stories. I've seen that very often, denying that is a very distorted statement fueled by your own experiences which certainly arent the truth for everyone else. 

On a different note; I love that its always sending out very broad and general semi-ideas which are mostly personal frustration caused by one's own behaviour, aimed at the mods but no actual proposal or specifics. But hey; If you guys have a real proposal that not just "mods could uh- you know- do all the work and rule every case as well as debate it with us-" then I am all ears, try to make it fair for everyone though.

[Doc]

While I understand the point about the empty 'placeholders' (as I also agreed with that in Dredd's thread) there are two things that massively rub me the wrong way and I'd like to apologize beforehand if I sound hostile.

1) Yeah, it sucks for the players that aim to do an empire, but the community doesnt owe you to accomodate your ambitions. All the Technical difficulties can be overcome with OOC prep-work, of course that is exhausting but thats just the price of a multiplayer game. I've seen working iterations of multi-player empires and i've seen complete breakdown of supernational unions in all shapes and forms. 

"So what you all are effectively doing is denying the possibility of any sort of centralized empire period."
We're not, we're denying the possibility of utilizing specific elements for empire building, elements that have conceptually been used for something else. 

Which leads me to the logical conclusion of this debate, the actual point of it; because in my opinion, most people here havent made the connection to fundamental idea behind this potential change, that this game is no longer political party simulator and its something different. And my answer regarding that, is for now at least, what Greek said. We're in the progress of switching to an entirely different modus operandi, and I've tried in my role of building the basis for a ruleset to codify long-standing RP practices for the start and initial phase of Legacy. They'll likely be subject to change and I assume that this specific debate is going to be predominant when reworking inevitably starts.  

2) There are absolutely players who help each other's stories. I've seen that very often, denying that is a very distorted statement fueled by your own experiences which certainly arent the truth for everyone else. 

On a different note; I love that its always sending out very broad and general semi-ideas which are mostly personal frustration caused by one's own behaviour, aimed at the mods but no actual proposal or specifics. But hey; If you guys have a real proposal that not just "mods could uh- you know- do all the work and rule every case as well as debate it with us-" then I am all ears, try to make it fair for everyone though.

Several points:
1.  I have very rarely said anything negative about moderation, and I often, even if its through gritted teeth sometimes, supported what moderation does in their role as moderation.  I often defend moderation vocally and publicly, and am not on some crusade against moderation.  This comment is not aimed at moderation, the members of the moderation team, or any choices that the moderation team has made in the past, and if I have a problem with some decision that moderation has made, I address it with them privately.  This post was a response to the comment which I quoted above, that while building the new rules, you don't intend to have any mechanism outside of RP in "any way".  That's not a "Well, maybe we revisit in the future."  That is a pretty definite statement that the discussion as far as empires are concerned, is over, its decided, and whatever others wish, the rules won't be revisited.  That's how I read it.  I can't speak to how many others read it, but this is not a criticism of that decision.  It was written more in the spirit of "maybe there is something that you all are not considering."

2.  If I felt a real proposal would stand a chance, I would work one out.  But As Greek said, and as you made clear, major changes to the rulesets aren't really on the table.  I never got the sense that they were, at least not at the moment.  The statement "There are no plans of making "Imperial ambitions" regulated in any way, that happens via RP or it doesnt simple as that. " pretty much says to me that "we will not be considering any proposals to change that rule."  or the rule about empty countries from other discussions.  So I am not sure who makes these vague, half thought out suggestions, but it wasn't me.  I am prepared to help, I asked if anyone needed any help, and I have helped where I was welcomed to do so.

3.  Of course the community doesn't owe me anything.  I wasn't asking for just me, nor am I the only one who has ever asked about it.  It is apparent that many people seem to think of me as this self serving monster.  I don't know how I got this reputation.  I use my country as an example a lot, because that's what I know and don't like to speak for other people.  If that comes off as me wanting some special privilege for just my self and the country I happen to inhabit, then that's a failure to communicate properly.  but I ask for the things that I would like to see, would like to use.  I don't ask for those things JUST for myself and nobody else:  I assume all who wish to use those things will avail themselves of them, and we can't know how many people would use them if they could when they don't exist:  It may be just me, but it may be others too, I don't know.  But if nobody asks, nobody gets anything.  And I happen to want things.

4.  Mbites, you and I get along alright, personally.  But your response struck me as defensive and sarcastic, and personally speaking, I don't think my comment deserved that.  I happen to disagree with a decision which apparently has been made that you expressed in the post I was responding to.  I wasn't attacking you personally, or your decision making process.  I wanted to engage in a discussion about it, rather than letting it just be a closed point.  I feel like I am less likely to do that in the future.

[Mbites]

Several points:
1.  I have very rarely said anything negative about moderation, and I often, even if its through gritted teeth sometimes, supported what moderation does in their role as moderation.  I often defend moderation vocally and publicly, and am not on some crusade against moderation.  This comment is not aimed at moderation, the members of the moderation team, or any choices that the moderation team has made in the past, and if I have a problem with some decision that moderation has made, I address it with them privately.  This post was a response to the comment which I quoted above, that while building the new rules, you don't intend to have any mechanism outside of RP in "any way".  That's not a "Well, maybe we revisit in the future."  That is a pretty definite statement that the discussion as far as empires are concerned, is over, its decided, and whatever others wish, the rules won't be revisited.  That's how I read it.  I can't speak to how many others read it, but this is not a criticism of that decision.  It was written more in the spirit of "maybe there is something that you all are not considering."

2.  If I felt a real proposal would stand a chance, I would work one out.  But As Greek said, and as you made clear, major changes to the rulesets aren't really on the table.  I never got the sense that they were, at least not at the moment.  The statement "There are no plans of making "Imperial ambitions" regulated in any way, that happens via RP or it doesnt simple as that. " pretty much says to me that "we will not be considering any proposals to change that rule."  or the rule about empty countries from other discussions.  So I am not sure who makes these vague, half thought out suggestions, but it wasn't me.  I am prepared to help, I asked if anyone needed any help, and I have helped where I was welcomed to do so.

3.  Of course the community doesn't owe me anything.  I wasn't asking for just me, nor am I the only one who has ever asked about it.  It is apparent that many people seem to think of me as this self serving monster.  I don't know how I got this reputation.  I use my country as an example a lot, because that's what I know and don't like to speak for other people.  If that comes off as me wanting some special privilege for just my self and the country I happen to inhabit, then that's a failure to communicate properly.  but I ask for the things that I would like to see, would like to use.  I don't ask for those things JUST for myself and nobody else:  I assume all who wish to use those things will avail themselves of them, and we can't know how many people would use them if they could when they don't exist:  It may be just me, but it may be others too, I don't know.  But if nobody asks, nobody gets anything.  And I happen to want things.

4.  Mbites, you and I get along alright, personally.  But your response struck me as defensive and sarcastic, and personally speaking, I don't think my comment deserved that.  I happen to disagree with a decision which apparently has been made that you expressed in the post I was responding to.  I wasn't attacking you personally, or your decision making process.  I wanted to engage in a discussion about it, rather than letting it just be a closed point.  I feel like I am less likely to do that in the future.

I'd like to start with 4) since I think from reading the whole thread again, that some sentiment got transformed in transport here. The last part was me venting at the cost of the topic, I am sorry about that, that one was a little sarcastic, it was uncalled for, caught me at the wrong time and place. I was also not attacking you personally here, sometimes these things slide into a response of mine when I get into the 'flow' of writing.

3) "You" also meant as a general "you in the role of a player" no one owes anyone anything. And yeah, those are valid points.

1) I did not mean that you were 'attacking moderation' that got lost by my wording; What I meant with "aimed at mods" was that people expect mods to come up with an a specific proposal when someone suggests something and to do a lot of case-by-case review work. I do not feel attacked by you and I appreciate your offer of help and that you have given feedback. 

2) I think that that it was my fault for miscommunicating here, the response I wrote to Drax was haphazardly written with not much thought behind it. This was not intended to mean that there can be no discussion or that it is over; It was more of a 'nodding off' what Drax said, so agreeing without any more substance behind it. There probably is some merit in revisiting the fundaments of interactivity between empty nations and maybe even play around with rule-mechanics on empire, I think those are very difficult things to handle though and as you/most people know me as a laissez-faire kind off Roleplayer a proposal from my end is increasingly unlikely since I would not even know where to start with something like that. Also what Greek said about maintenance was what I said a little more defensively; we'd like to focus on self-maintenance.

Summarily I think I should have chosen a lot of my wording better on responses and maybe should have left the venting to a different more private circle since there was not much graspable about it anyways. I hope this answer finds you in the right spirit and you can excuse my 'defensive' post from earlier, I appreciate the feedback. The rest of what I have written here do, I think, adress some of the points made here, aside from what I've misworded or misguidedly written, I do stand by in my opinion.

[Doc]

Mbites, I appreciate your words and accept them.

I'll leave it alone and if you all ever feel that you are ready to formally begin looking at changes, I will still offer to help as much as I can.  Like you, I also care very much about this community, and like you I am willing to donate my finite time and effort into trying to improve it.

Please keep ideas for change pinned for another time, when that discussion can open up, and otherwise, if I can be of any help in what you all are currently working on, I will.