The Back Room

[jasignhagj]

I think my hegemony would have been good, but I don't have the time or will to mod it. Anything off Earth isn't interesting to me, as there's no fight over limited territory.

[Resistance]

Mather,

 

If warfare were banned from hegemony I wouldn't play hegemony, full stop. I personally don't believe that hegemony should strive for realism, it should strive for the enjoyment of the players; whether it is unrealistic or not. I personally don't find crunching-numbers and racing for technology fun at all. The other reason you listed for it I don't think is a good enough reason, if you want to punish Zerg rushing then you create a method of penalizing it, you don't ban it all together.

The problem with any technology based game is that it will turn out the same as AOEIII always turns out, a person will increase there resource production (the same as getting to the fourth stage) and thus will out power all the other players (buying stocks, increasing technology) by the time the player manages to reach the first players grandeur they will be working at a far greater production ratio and so no matter what the other players do they won't be able to catch up.

In effect the game will play out like those kitsch game shows where a person wearing a suit of banknotes runs into the audience and as a result is heaped on-top on with working to middle class people.

 

Icu,

I don't know enough abour EUIII to make a significant comment about it.

But thanks for your post, you have just given me A FANTASTIC IDEA which I will post when formulated.

[Ieyfura]

I've actually seen people play out their ass in Super Street Figher IV and Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition and they can win. Mainly because, it's so hard to predict the people who don't have a set playstyle. It's annoying, but I guess not having a strategy is a strategy. :o

Edited June 9, 2011 by Rainy_Day
Removing quote

[Resistance]

Regardless of your opinions about how I play there is no need to be so aggressive. Your post was just a direct personal attack, it had nothing to do with the criticisms about your suggestion. If you are unable to take criticism then don't make suggestions. It don't understand what you are talking about, I enjoyed every minute of that hegemony because there was no number-crunching.

 

 

I said that the game 'should strive for the enjoyment factor of the players' but if you think differently then you can choose to, if a person wishes to 'play out of their ass' then as long as they're having a good time let them continue. I like going into things all guns blazing.

 

Just to clarify things I just made an agreement to be your ally with intent of using you as a puppet nation, since you didn't comply I attacked you.

 

--

 

Edit: Just found this which is an absoloutely fantastic piece of kit if you're a spontaneous fisher. and these jump shoes which look so fun.

[Icuownage]

The reason your playstyle annoyed people and was considered bad was

 

A) 100% military is boring

B) If everyone went 100% military, everyone would essentially have the same stuff, OR the higher budget countries would continue to be omni powerful

C) You left for a holiday and let someone else control your nation, something that if frowned upon

 

When you have a huge military, everyone literally just says "I send X troops to Y and they destroy stuff" because once you have such a large force you just either lose all tactical thinking or simply think you do not need it as you have too much raw power. Which is a horrible way to play the game, as it just becomes a game where you say you attack there, and then there and then there and then there. It gets sooo boring.

 

Now people will have different play styles. Look at Dusty/Nero in comparison to Mather. Mather prefers technological thinking and creating weird techs to create an advantage against his opponents. While Dusty prefers military means, which although works, it only works for him because he does it sensibly and he knows what he wants.

 

So what I am saying is, if you are choosing to say that hegemony is 100% a military game, you should still not go 100% military, because it removes the fun with strategic and tactical thinking. You should perhaps think about what you really want to achieve with a war, and how you shall achieve it.

[The_Mather1]

Just to clarify things I just made an agreement to be your ally with intent of using you as a puppet nation, since you didn't comply I attacked you.

Right there is proof of what I previously said, which I still stand by.

 

Also, I take this chance to mention that you requested my alliance, or more begged for it.

 

You are, and I say this with true words alone; an immature, inconsiderate, thoughtless, wannabe-manipulative crybaby. This is not intended as an insult, I am merely telling you how you are actually acting.

[Icuownage]

Okay, now up til now have I been on your side Mather, but that last post, was pretty much a hate post.

 

Cool the jets bro, just cause he is annoying you doesn't mean you have to be so agressive, and if he is doing it on purpose like you saying he is then he wins.

 

You infact sound like "Crybaby"...

[Resistance]

I'm not saying that Hegemony is a fully military game but I feel that Mather's suggestion of completely removing combat from the game would just be tedious and boring, a game should never ban anything; it should just lightly ease you in the right direction. Completely banning military would ruin the game. Runescape is a good example, Runescape probably is a 20-30% combat but if combat was taken away it wouldn't be runescape.

Archimage did a very good job of forcing people to create the right balance between technology and military prowess with his system which I have forgotten the name of, I found it slightly overcomplicated but otherwise I think it was definitely a positive thing.

 

Edit:

I thought you would've attacked Rocco if you were my ally eliminating my only major threat, because you didn't I just decided that forcing you to attack him would return better results and so you did.

 

Insulting me then telling me that its not an insult doesn't nullify what you're saying.

 

Edit2: How am I crybaby?

[The_Mather1]

That was not an attack, I am just being honest with him, it's just the truth that seems cruel.

He's screwed me over time after time, but after whining here after I banned him from my server, I decided I've forgiven him too many times, I will no longer look the other way. I now confront him so he can see how he really is and change, which he failed to do on his own. I am giving him the chance too few of you gave Hex.

[Nexaduro]

Ross, can you take care of this Mather/Resistance thing? I've kinda fallen behind. Remember the upper left hand corner.

 

Also this. Who wins the dance battle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64xLGkykENM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrVEqWquA-4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8b6P9YuvTM

[The_Mather1]

Res, because of:

1. How you reacted when I tried to prevent you from taking the boats in H&H.

2. How you reacted when your nation was split in Hegemony.

3. How you reacted to being banned, or just deOPped at first on my server.

 

The reason warfare can be banned in Hegemony but not combat in RuneScape is because in RuneScape, you are the hero, you are supposed to kill the "bad guys", while in Hegemony you're a ruler, you're supposed to keep your people safe, taking a life is a last resort option.

[Resistance]

I don't want to prolong the argument anymore, Mather. I had a response written up but its not worth prolonging the argument, its just unnecessary and we won't reach a resolution because you're just making personal attacks.

[The_Mather1]

I'm not making personal attacks, I'm honest. What I have said about you is not how I think you are, it's how you are acting. If you feel that's not how you actually are, then I suggest you change the way you relay yourself.

[Nexaduro]

Shut it you two, or I'll start reading the conversation and acting on it. I'm kinda tired and cranky.

[Ieyfura]

@Nex

 

I'm going to have to go with the first of the 3 dancers. His style and energy is a lot more impressive than the other 2. The 3rd had some style, but lacked the proper energy flow. The girlll.....well, she just wasn't that good to begin with. :D

[Nero]

The reason warfare can be banned in Hegemony but not combat in RuneScape is because in RuneScape, you are the hero, you are supposed to kill the "bad guys", while in Hegemony you're a ruler, you're supposed to keep your people safe, taking a life is a last resort option.

The problem I see is that you seem to think that everyone in Hegemony is ruling for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, trying to be the people's hero or something.

 

I certainly wasn't playing in that style was I made the Fourth Reich in the first Hegemony, or the Kingdom of Spain in the medieval hegemony. You want to make a hegemony game based on your own method of play, yet you don't stop to consider that not everyone (actually, nobody that I can think of), plays hegemony in the same style as you. Everybody plays it differently, so everything should be open to do.

[archimage_a]

I think there should be some balance between 'I have a massive army, I win everything' and 'I tried social stuff'.

 

 

Hegemony always feels like you are building a house of cards in a room of other card builders and people who open windows.

Makes the game fairly hard to play as anything but a window opener...though if everyone plays that, then you just get a lot of wind.

[Nero]

Much more fun to play both.

[archimage_a]

Depends on the person.

[Jehosaphat]

I don't play Hegemony, because I end up trying to micromanage EVERYTHING. Literally, EVERYTHING.

 

I'll have excel documents for changes in GDP and everything. It gets disgusting.

 

Oh, and micromanaging like that eats all my time. ALL OF IT.

[Retech]

The reason warfare can be banned in Hegemony but not combat in RuneScape is because in RuneScape, you are the hero, you are supposed to kill the "bad guys", while in Hegemony you're a ruler, you're supposed to keep your people safe, taking a life is a last resort option.

The problem I see is that you seem to think that everyone in Hegemony is ruling for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, trying to be the people's hero or something.

 

I certainly wasn't playing in that style was I made the Fourth Reich in the first Hegemony, or the Kingdom of Spain in the medieval hegemony. You want to make a hegemony game based on your own method of play, yet you don't stop to consider that not everyone (actually, nobody that I can think of), plays hegemony in the same style as you. Everybody plays it differently, so everything should be open to do.

 

Yeah. Even when I was trying to help the poor and downtrodden as Imperial Russia, it was only so that they became more prosperous = more money for me. Since that's always easier than actually invading anything.

[The_Mather1]

Obviously it's for your own benefit, but doing something that is not in the best interest of your nation would obviously lead to dissent and possibly revolution.

 

EDIT: Two things that just sound wrong OOC:

I left my underwear in the kitchen.

Part of my robe was stuck in the freezer.

 

Hope I made you laugh.

 

EDIT2: Two things that sound wrong IC and OOC:

I prefer my showers at the same temperature as my tea.

I am like a lobster, I enter the water brown (chocolate, russet or sepia, it's a bit hard to compare my arm to the screen) (yes, I tan very fast), I exit the water bright red (well, actually orange; bittersweet).

[The_Mather1]

What happened?

[Ieyfura]

Haven't posted here for a while because I've been in the hospital, but I'm home now and it's summer so if someone starts a Hegemony game I might join.

 

Welcome back. Glad to know that whatever it was, it's getting better. :) (I hope)

 

EDIT: Well then, good to know it's better for sure. xD

[Grim_]

Ouch, sorry to hear that. On a completely unrelated note HOLY [cabbage], I've just found another favorite setting, that is to say planescape.