Plot Limit Rule change

[Akiiryu]

After some discussion with O, I would like to propose a change to the map rules which would allow an expansion of the maximum from 4 to 5 plots.

 

Th is proposal is due in part to rp considerations and because of plot locks. Take , for example, plot 55. Akiiryu wants to claim this plot (why would it in all realism leave it hanging there?) and I doubt any other player wants it because it is effectively locked (no real chance for expansion). I had considered giving up land to make this annexation, buit that just seems unrealistic.

 

So you don't just think this proposal is drive by my own wants/needs I can tell you other players would also like to make this rule change.

 

The changed rules would be as such:

+ 4 Plots: Minimum pop - 2 billion + 1000 posts

+ 5 Plots: Minimum pop - 3 billion + 2000 posts

 

Comments, suggestions?

 

In any case I would like plot 55 to be considered claimed until this is sorted out.

[Orioni]

During the original voting on the allowed number of plots, the votes were divided. "4 plots" won with 7 votes, but if you take a close look you will notice that 12 members wanted a higher number then that. There are so many open plots in Europa, who knows if they'll ever get filled up.. Therefore I've voted for.

[Nevareion]

I would agrre with the point about there being so many open plots. So yes. Also it is encouragement/reward for being an active froum member.

[Emakera]

I think we shouldn't stop with five.

[Haken]

I would agrre with the point about there being so many open plots. So yes. Also it is encouragement/reward for being an active froum member.

Indeed. How much I like to halt Akiiryan imperialism grabbing more land, Europa could use less empty plots.

[Assurym]

There are indeed too many open plots. 5 would be better.

[Bainbridge Islands]

I agree with Nev - it rewards longevity and participation. Additionally, it will fill up the map nicely! - a YES!

[Adaptus]

I'm ok with it. It's a good point that, about the unrealistic elements of this, i'm for it.

[Miiros]

I'm all for it. I shall create an trading empire reminiscent of the old Carthagians! WOO! If only I had enough posts.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Miiros (see edit history)

[Tagmatium Rules]

I'm entirely against this.

 

If you look at the map at the moment, several larger nations already have all the decent plots as it is. If we allow the larger nations to gobble up plots, then what will go to the smaller nations?

 

No offence meant, Aki, but I actually cannot see any RP reason to expand the amount of plots a nation is allowed from four to five, and I really doubt that it will add anything to the quality of RP in the region. I can see that I've actually lost this argument before I've begun it as I have failed to notice this topic until now, until a link was placed in the Map Requests thread.

 

My main point is that it is needless for a nation to have more than four plots, as the map will just end up being gobbled up by larger, older nations, therefore leaving any new nations to Europa with either really rubbish places, or none at all. This would then mean that the map needs expanding or changing again, putting us back at square one.

 

At the moment, a nation can?t annex part of a plot without either it being temporary or that nation giving something in return. This is so that the plots themselves are not rendered worthless due to strategic chunks taken out of them. The idea is for them to remain attractive to new nations or smaller neighbours expanding. (See Heading North or my own stuff.) This idea doesn?t go away if we change it to five plots, indeed, I would say it actually increases, as more plots will be gobbled up by larger nations. Some areas on the map are already jam-packed with nations, such as the western bit which I?m on, or the south east. Once a nation then grabs five plots, where are other nations to expand? We will then start to have colonies in other parts of the region, leading to all the problems we had on the old map. Take a look at the area near my nation, for instance. If I grab a fifth plot, and Nev does as well, where are SG, Aristo and Suverina going to expand to? There just isn?t enough room for them there, so they might spread south to another part of the region.

 

The idea that its encouragement and reward for an older, more active member is fairly valid, but I must say that I think that new players ought to be considered in this sphere as well, and that plots possibly should be open to a new nation before its eligible for annexation by a larger, older nation. I know that probably won?t work that well, though, as otherwise a nation may not be able to expand at all, as who knows when a future new player will appear and claim that spot as the home land for their nation?

 

Basically, to sum up my rant, I think this is an idea that really doesn?t have any justification RP-wise. Some people may say that it fills up the map and gets rid of empty plots, but to be frank I think that is the problem with any rule change, as it leads to large swathes of land being taken up by older nations that possibly don?t have any reason to gobble up land, apart from, one might say, a drive to look bigger on the map and putting themselves before any new players to the region, although that comment is by no means aimed at anyone in this region.

[Haken]

I'm entirely against this.

 

If you look at the map at the moment, several larger nations already have all the decent plots as it is. If we allow the larger nations to gobble up plots, then what will go to the smaller nations?

Bah, decent plots... that's subjective. You've still got a large variety of landlocked plots, plots with sea access, islands... What more do you want?

 

No offence meant, Aki, but I actually cannot see any RP reason to expand the amount of plots a nation is allowed from four to five, and I really doubt that it will add anything to the quality of RP in the region. I can see that I've actually lost this argument before I've begun it as I have failed to notice this topic until now, until a link was placed in the Map Requests thread.

I do see some positive point for RP.

-When nations have more neighbours, RP gets more intense.

-It's more realistic.

-It can make the map more balanced.

 

My main point is that it is needless for a nation to have more than four plots, as the map will just end up being gobbled up by larger, older nations, therefore leaving any new nations to Europa with either really rubbish places, or none at all. This would then mean that the map needs expanding or changing again, putting us back at square one.

Four or five, it's a small difference and it will hardly change the map much, especially with such an enormous strict rules.

 

As I said, the map has still a hugh amount of plots left. More than half are still open and I don't think they will get filled up very soon. We don't see many new nations that last long. And now and then an old one dies. The map is big enough.

 

At the moment, a nation can?t annex part of a plot without either it being temporary or that nation giving something in return. This is so that the plots themselves are not rendered worthless due to strategic chunks taken out of them. The idea is for them to remain attractive to new nations or smaller neighbours expanding. (See Heading North or my own stuff.) This idea doesn?t go away if we change it to five plots, indeed, I would say it actually increases, as more plots will be gobbled up by larger nations. Some areas on the map are already jam-packed with nations, such as the western bit which I?m on, or the south east. Once a nation then grabs five plots, where are other nations to expand? We will then start to have colonies in other parts of the region, leading to all the problems we had on the old map. Take a look at the area near my nation, for instance. If I grab a fifth plot, and Nev does as well, where are SG, Aristo and Suverina going to expand to? There just isn?t enough room for them there, so they might spread south to another part of the region.

Looking at your nation, you have five plots directly attached to you. Only one borders two other nations. There are still many ways open te expand: islands, directely over the sea, in another part of Europa or as I said, just a neighbouring plot. Some parts may get cluttered, but that's not necessairly a bad thing. The real world is cluttered too! It just makes RP more interesting. With neighbours you can't, for exemple, be attacked from four different directions. While with all free plots around you, it's a big space to take into account. In real life, it is often a very difficult, but strategicaly important factor to open up a new front.

 

With nations having a colony in another part of Europa, you'll have the advantage that you don't have to wait two weeks for your fleet to arrive. Again strategical importance and a more intense RP.

 

Ofcourse, with close nations, you also get more importance in economy, joint building operations and political negotiations.

The idea that its encouragement and reward for an older, more active member is fairly valid, but I must say that I think that new players ought to be considered in this sphere as well, and that plots possibly should be open to a new nation before its eligible for annexation by a larger, older nation. I know that probably won?t work that well, though, as otherwise a nation may not be able to expand at all, as who knows when a future new player will appear and claim that spot as the home land for their nation?

Not quite following, sorry...

 

Basically, to sum up my rant, I think this is an idea that really doesn?t have any justification RP-wise. Some people may say that it fills up the map and gets rid of empty plots, but to be frank I think that is the problem with any rule change, as it leads to large swathes of land being taken up by older nations that possibly don?t have any reason to gobble up land, apart from, one might say, a drive to look bigger on the map and putting themselves before any new players to the region, although that comment is by no means aimed at anyone in this region.

Not all large nations want to become "large nations". I only have three, for exemple, while with these rules I could already have five. Like in reality, you get more distinct big nations and small nations, which makes the map less artificiel and has an importance with inside travelling distances (for armies specifically). Having a large nation can have positive and negative aspects. It's up to the player.

 

Edited September 18, 2006 by Haken (see edit history)

[Tagmatium Rules]

I know I've thrown down the gauntlet a bit here...

[Haken]

The "ah" was just so that I could work with the quotations better. Check my post now.

[Tagmatium Rules]

I really don't see why we have to change a rule that already has worked well enough for the last few months to allow people to expand more. I still don't see much reason for it, and I think Aki's first argument ("why would it in all realism leave it hanging there?") is a bit invalid, but I also conceed that I have actually lost this argument before I've really started, due to the large amount of people already voting "yes" to the rule change, including people who voted for four plots first time round (), but those people can look through the last poll at their leisure.

 

I have to say the whole thing irritates me in the extreme, because I can mentally see vast tracts of land disappearing to nations who already have four plots, because they wish to see themselves larger on the new map, without considering the new players (which I note was an argument used by some first time around).

 

I'm still massively against this, and I really cannot see my position changing at all.

 

EDIT: The whole post thing could be rendered obsolete by the fact that a member could post almost entirely in the Games section, adding nothing to RP whilst carving out a large empire on the map. I also think it encourages spamming.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Tagmatium Rules (see edit history)

[Nevareion]

Tag made me change my mind now...

 

Damn early voting.

[Haken]

+ 5 Plots: Minimum pop - 3 billion + 2000 posts

 

orioni: 5642 posts, 5.12 billion

Pirilao: 4680 posts, 3.374 billion

Koku: 4037 posts, 3.456 billion

Tagmatium Rules: 3579 posts, 3.73 billion

Ide Jima: 2493 posts, 5.132 billion

Akiiryu: 2256 posts, 3.931 billion

Haken: 2169 posts, 4.449 billion

Tamurin: 2099 posts, 4.107 billion

 

We're speaking of at the very most 8 extra plots. I think Europa can spare that.

 

[Bainbridge Islands]

(A quick note before I go to work...) I can understand Tag's concers, as I've seen other reigons that have fallen under the very issue that he makes (the first that comes to mind is "Africa", I believe), where there are only a few massive nations with smaller nations kinda floating around. But Europa's map is quite empty (my opinion) and with the higher post requirements (3 billion = a year to a year and a half of play {a complete guess this early in the day}), it provides individuals who have participated for a long time the possiblity of expansion. Spamming is a concern, but at this requirement, I'd say it would take a while to meet the criteria. A counter to this is simply raising the requirement from the current proposed linear increment to a steeper increment (just make the population requirement higher, I guess). As it stands (as I just read Haken's post), its only eight more posts for Europans who have demonstrated they are willing to participate - not just "flash in the pans", who dissapear after 21 posts.

[Nevareion]

What if the fifth and final plot could not be adjacent to your main nation? It had to be a colony in effect.

[Haken]

What if the fifth and final plot could not be adjacent to your main nation? It had to be a colony in effect.

Than Akiiryu will be pissed at you.

[Tagmatium Rules]

First there's the rule, next comes the exception to the rule and finally the exception is the rule.

 

Can Europa spare eight choice plots?

 

I don't think it can.

 

A colony's even worse.

[Nevareion]

Just trying to suggest a compromise

 

I shall leave it up to everyone else then.

[Tamurin]

I strongly oppose that.

 

We had a hard time to make the 4-plot-compromise. If we soften this, we'll just open the door. There will be a six-plot-discussion soon, then a seven-plot-discussion and then an endless-plot-discussion...

 

The new map is filling up nicely. We shouldn't fill it up with massive old nations.

 

Plus: If we make postcount a condition to plots, we'll only promote forum spamming.

[Bainbridge Islands]

I'd say that the individuals who will be affected by this need to decide wha they believe. It'll be a (long) while before I (or many others) will need to be concerned about this issue. What is the general consensus of those who would benefit from this, and meet the (proposed) expansion critera?

Edited September 18, 2006 by Bainbridge Islands (see edit history)

[Orioni]

I'd say that the individuals who will be affected by this need to decide wha they believe. It'll be a (long) while before I (or many others) will need to be concerned about this issue. What is the general consensus of those who would benefit from this, and meet the (proposed) expansion critera?

Tagmatium Rules: 3579 posts, 3.73 billion = Against

Tamurin: 2099 posts, 4.107 billion = Against

 

Pirilao: 4680 posts, 3.374 billion = ???

Koku: 4037 posts, 3.456 billion = ???

Ide Jima: 2493 posts, 5.132 billion = ???

 

Akiiryu: 2256 posts, 3.931 billion = For

Haken: 2169 posts, 4.449 billion = doesn't mind

orioni: 5642 posts, 5.12 billion = would like to

 

@ Tagmatium: If you want, we can still create a final deciding poll to vote a second time.

[Pirilao]

Change the rule