29-01-2025, 07:37 PM
They aren't all unused for forgotten but it just kinda feels like a hoarder mentality where theres unreasonable sentimentality and connection to a product that sits dormant, allowing wars, and perhaps mods taking the reigns of the nation being attacked or something could allow some new RP with otherwise completely un-interactable entities.
Personally I like the idea of rankings somewhat because if theres zero authority figure its just everyones call so its total dis-unity. Powergaming is certainly an issue but maybe were there a little group of experience people/staff with longstanding experience and knowledge of nations and their behaviors they could agree upon the status of nations worldwide. If you play the game and can't acknowledge faults about your nation that aren't self manufactured thats just immature in my opinion, im sure north korea would love the world to think it has one of the top 10 militaries in the world and a booming economy, but its evidently false, we can know this based on its behaviors and situation. Were there to be a general consensus on the matter with player feedback I think there can be a middle ground where you avoid toxic arguing, and if someone is gonna be toxic about fairness and realism in the game is that really the kinda playerbase we wanna cater rules to? The rules and fun of a game shouldn't be focused for hanging on to players in an already small playerbase under essentially strongarming the rules for everyone to protect their countries egos.
Should there be rules in place to prevent powergaming? Of course. Should there be guidelines and effort that must be put in to make big changes, effect other players, and be under moderation review? Sure. But as it stands I feel a lot of these rules are resulting in isolationist single party rule with no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back, thats fine then, but other players who want to be expansionist and assert influence abroad and such also in my opinion shouldn't be given a hard no with no exceptions.
Personally I like the idea of rankings somewhat because if theres zero authority figure its just everyones call so its total dis-unity. Powergaming is certainly an issue but maybe were there a little group of experience people/staff with longstanding experience and knowledge of nations and their behaviors they could agree upon the status of nations worldwide. If you play the game and can't acknowledge faults about your nation that aren't self manufactured thats just immature in my opinion, im sure north korea would love the world to think it has one of the top 10 militaries in the world and a booming economy, but its evidently false, we can know this based on its behaviors and situation. Were there to be a general consensus on the matter with player feedback I think there can be a middle ground where you avoid toxic arguing, and if someone is gonna be toxic about fairness and realism in the game is that really the kinda playerbase we wanna cater rules to? The rules and fun of a game shouldn't be focused for hanging on to players in an already small playerbase under essentially strongarming the rules for everyone to protect their countries egos.
Should there be rules in place to prevent powergaming? Of course. Should there be guidelines and effort that must be put in to make big changes, effect other players, and be under moderation review? Sure. But as it stands I feel a lot of these rules are resulting in isolationist single party rule with no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back, thats fine then, but other players who want to be expansionist and assert influence abroad and such also in my opinion shouldn't be given a hard no with no exceptions.