| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Poll: Tech Era | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 16 2008, 09:16 AM (906 Views) | |
| Sedulius | Oct 16 2008, 09:16 AM Post #1 |
Field Marshal
|
This is a broader and more organized poll as to what tech era we as a forum wish to make the NS2 world start in. Whether or not we stay in that era of technology is a different matter to be voted on elsewhere. EDIT- Sorry if I'm missing anything important. I had to cut down the choices as there is a limit to the amount that can be posted. I realize that the greatest strength of this poll is also its greatest weakness. It is possible there could end up being one vote per category, though that is unlikely. However, the purpose of this poll is to show exactly where people want to start, not to make a final decision. When the votes are in, the votes can be grouped for specific eras and centuries, and a new poll can be made accordingly. Edited by Sedulius, Oct 16 2008, 09:30 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| Ulgania | Oct 16 2008, 12:01 PM Post #2 |
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
It looks like the bell curve is going to be the industrial revolution. Makes sense since that's when Marxism-Leninism starts. |
|
|
|
| Filo | Oct 16 2008, 12:54 PM Post #3 |
General
|
Between the 1000 AD and 1200 AD |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Oct 16 2008, 01:02 PM Post #4 |
Science and Industry
|
The Punk of the Steam (1850-1900) |
|
|
|
| Sedulius | Oct 16 2008, 01:52 PM Post #5 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Looks like it. I'll let this run a bit longer and then append a second poll for the top three periods. |
|
|
|
| Telosan | Oct 16 2008, 02:42 PM Post #6 |
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
C'mon guys, 1870! |
|
|
|
| Sedulius | Oct 16 2008, 05:21 PM Post #7 |
|
Field Marshal
|
New poll. Technology advancement. |
|
|
|
| Arya Hindustan | Oct 17 2008, 12:37 AM Post #8 |
Private
|
I wouldn't mind starting anywhere actually. Just make sure we move on from there, not by following a rigid time scheme, but by the flowing of the game. |
|
|
|
| Telosan | Oct 17 2008, 06:23 AM Post #9 |
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I agree time should move on cause staying in one period can get boring after a while. But, I'm not sure how we'd figure out when to move on. |
|
|
|
| Filo | Oct 17 2008, 06:59 AM Post #10 |
|
General
|
This is the truble... Here, on this foru, where the time don't pass a player cannot play for a week, two or even six month and found a place may be changed but familiar. If the tech will change and time will pass if i lack for a day or two will happen something strange, then another thing. Here the time is relative to the RPG and if necessary two players may conclude that a single event, or a long war, was before or after another so to not disrupt the game...but is time exist and non-relative all this will be no more possible. ciao |
|
|
|
| Arya Hindustan | Oct 17 2008, 07:44 AM Post #11 |
|
Private
|
It wouldnt be interesting to keep RP-ing the same technology, because if we would be able to RP 100 years but none of the countries actually made any developments, it just would not make sense. |
|
|
|
| Union | Oct 17 2008, 09:07 AM Post #12 |
Pyrenees Republic
|
So we can start at 1900. After a year, we'll be in 1901. After twenty years, it'll be 1921. ^^ |
|
|
|
| Arya Hindustan | Oct 17 2008, 10:37 AM Post #13 |
|
Private
|
Then I dont think some of us will be even physically able to RP even WWI. We dont have to follow a rigid time scheme. When we have important events like global war, like economic boom, things can go slowly. But when events are only at regional levels, yeah the maybe quite faster. |
|
|
|
| Union | Oct 17 2008, 11:22 AM Post #14 |
|
Pyrenees Republic
|
:lol: I meant concerning tech levels only. I endorse fluid time. |
|
|
|
| Sedulius | Oct 17 2008, 01:18 PM Post #15 |
|
Field Marshal
|
The main thing is that if we did do advancements, we do it in a certain way. I think two years of playing industrial era would be fun, but after a while people would get bored with it. Bored enough that they might stop playing (even veterans). A tech advance ensures new material is introduced to keep things interesting. As I said, if the active forum majority (2/3rds) wishes to advance in technology, then we should. We shouldn't be imposing rules on something the majority might someday want. If we did, they'd probably be changed by that majority anyways. For those of you who want to stay in the same era: if you are the majority, there is no problem. Even if more people do want to advance, if it is not 2/3rds of the active players, you would still be fine. Do you understand what I'm putting across? The game should be run how the majority wishes it to be run. I think we should stay open to the possibility that most of us at some time might want to advance. That will likely be a year or two down the road, and that said, there won't be much of problem if someone leaves for a while. Even if they left at the end of those two years and came back six months later, the tech wouldn't have advanced that far (Industrial to WWI isn't a huge leap, nor is WWI to the Thirties, nor the Thirties to WWII, etc). However, I do think tech advancement should be gradual within a period (example: muzzle loading would eventually be replaced by breach loading in artillery and rifles. example 2: single shot rifles would eventually be replaced by bolt-action five shot rifles. example 3: By 1900, mounted machine guns would have come around. ). Only a large event (such as World War I breaking out) would constitute a great leap in technology (example: replacement of cavalry by armor). Logically, technology would advance because of a great war. It doesn't necessarily have to advance in the same way (if Germany had won WWI, things really might have gone steampunk. Think about it). If we do advancement in a logical way, and if we only do it when the majority wishes, there shouldn't be a problem. |
|
|
|
| Sedulius | Oct 17 2008, 01:21 PM Post #16 |
|
Field Marshal
|
New poll. Took the top 4 periods. Would have done top three, but 1850 and 1930 are tied. |
|
|
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 17 2008, 01:46 PM Post #17 |
Resident?
|
With all due respect, basing a decision on a forum such as this on the democratic process is pretty silly to begin with. How many members have I seen come, make a few hundred posts and leave? Too many to count. So imagine being an RD, or a TC. Anyone can vote, but longevity can't be vouched for in advance. I think we should plan on remaining relatively static in our technology. Filo makes a good point, not everyone here is a regular user, and a fluid time scheme would discourage them from being involved. Furthermore, the new forum will not be set in stone, if the players who are active decide to open the issue of advancement, it can be tackled. What I am against is planning to move ahead. It will not get boring. Look at our world here. Tech level has been constant, but you don't see too many people leaving due to boredom. This forum is 1)active and 2)consistent because of two factors: 1) Tech level is constant 2) There is no advancement of time By having these rules, we allow people who cannot consistently spend extended periods of time here to involve themselves sporadically. I know that I have times, such as right now, when I have difficulty finding time to get to the computer, and I know that many of us veterans have taken "breaks" or periods off because of life's troubles or changes. If we plan to advance tech levels and time, than there will always be a sense of anxiousness, as some people (such as Dobakwie) want to reach the present or future, without appreciating the setting we are in. People might become bored because they know what's on the way, growing sick of spears because they know that if we advance they'll get guns. As TC stated earlier, the premise that a technologically inferior nation can prevail over the superior is not commonplace, not even remote at times. And nobody has answered my question as to the advancement of technology, will it be on a nation by nation basis or en masse? Either way will cause problems nobody can completely foresee. |
|
|
|
| Telosan | Oct 17 2008, 02:19 PM Post #18 |
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
My idea stated below. I agree with the 2/3 vote. We should have that, and ALL members should have to vote OR until we reach a 2/3 majority. When we have advanced, everyone has 1 week to state or RP the advancement in their nations description. Advancement should be voted on, but it should be held off untill a war is completed, unless all sides agree on advancing anyway. I think we should advance through time as it offers many different ways to RP, and larger countries could actually fall through time, and others rise from the ashes. We should vote where to start, as we are doing, then RP to say, 2200, where we assume the earth becomes uninhabitable and the world dies. Then we would go to the earliest date and start over. By voting our way through time, we could very possibly vote to advance, then the NEXT day, advance again if we are in an era that not many like. Instead of just arguing our cases, lets vote. |
|
|
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 17 2008, 02:30 PM Post #19 |
|
Resident?
|
Simply put, if the new forum takes the form of what you have proposed, I will not be participating. Firstly, I repeat my ideas concerning the democratic process. Secondly, every nation advancing equally in technology is ridiculous Thirdly, wartime is the source of humanities greatest inventions, ranging from greek fire to the microwave. To block advancement during war is counter intuitive. Fourthly, moving quickly through time and than starting over does not allow for story-building on a microscopic scale, which is what the RPers here and the forum itself is built upon. Fifthly, people are going to have to suck it up at some point. The solution to an inconvenient time period is to adapt, not change it at the expense of the forum. Furthermore, I would like to once again draw attention to the fact that attendance should not be compulsory on a daily basis. This will discourage people from participating, much more so than boredom. |
|
|
|
| Alberto | Oct 17 2008, 02:33 PM Post #20 |
Resident Italian
|
What about extending the NSWR rules into a 1800-like world ? |
|
|
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 17 2008, 02:35 PM Post #21 |
|
Resident?
|
I would be be very happy with that |
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Oct 17 2008, 03:03 PM Post #22 |
Anarchitect
|
YES. |
|
|
|
| Telosan | Oct 17 2008, 03:14 PM Post #23 |
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
Alright. was just stating my idea. Leaving just because you didn't get your way is being a sore loser. Not that I'm saying time-changing is definatly going to happen. |
|
|
|
| Rhadamanthus | Oct 17 2008, 03:26 PM Post #24 |
Legitimist
|
No it is not. It would just be him not forcing himself to play a game he isn't interested in playing. |
|
|
|
| Sedulius | Oct 17 2008, 04:59 PM Post #25 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Well, honestly, the only time period I'd be interested in playing statically is the medieval one. A static industrial era just doesn't make sense. As I stated, advancement should be extremely gradual. Two years in the industrial era sounds gradual enough to me. Edited by Sedulius, Oct 17 2008, 05:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
11:38 AM Jul 13