| James the Fair | Friday, December 20, 2013 - 02:14 am 
Once again I thought of yet another suggestion, but this time it would replace the war levels. So I thought of a reputation level which should, depend on what actions you take as a leader, be measured by a bar/meter from 0 to 100 like this.
0 ATROCIOUS ---------------- 100 EXCELLENT
Reputation
Depending on what reputation level you have, whether your level is above 50 or below 50 you will see either of these effects explained below. So depending on what level you are at, the more frequency you will see of these effects.
* Going towards an excellent reputation, you will see migration to your country, infrastructure like education, health etc. automatically built for FREE and increased taxes for example.
* Going towards an atrocious reputation, you will see unrest, sabotage and the destruction of your infrastructure across your country, people migrating away from your country and reduced taxes for example.
What effects your reputation every game month?
* An enormous size of military and nuclear arms as this should be seen as an abuse of power and a threat to the world. So the larger your military or nuclear arsenal, the more your reputation will be REDUCED to a certain level.
* An excellent welfare level should be seen as a country of envy and high living standards to the world. So the higher your welfare level, the more your reputation will be INCREASED to a certain level.
War effects when attacking players
* Attacking a player with a better reputation by 10, would see your reputation reduced by 10 for example.
* Attacking a player with a worse reputation by 10, would see your reputation increased by 10 for example. |
| Serpent | Friday, December 20, 2013 - 06:39 am
Why shouldn't your 'reputation' score increase with a huge military? Maybe your people like the idea of feeling well protected thereby giving them a sense of security they couldn't have by being in a country with much inferior means and abilities to protect itself. |
| LB Musty | Friday, December 20, 2013 - 07:31 am
Maintaining purely defensive armies shouldn't have any negative effect on reputation as you can't possibly use defensive units in an aggressive manner. That being said, both offensive and strategic weapons could contribute to bad rep but only if they're used aggressively. |
| Christos | Friday, December 20, 2013 - 02:00 pm
As far as reputation goes, as a great philosopher once said: "among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised". I just thought it was relevant to your discussion :P |
| James the Fair | Friday, December 20, 2013 - 09:24 pm
LB Musty is right, there shouldn't be any negative effect at all if you only have defensive armies since you cannot use them offensively. I should have noted that as this makes sense, Just in case if someone of an excellent reputation was ever attacked by somebody with a much larger army with a much worse reputation.
Serpent I feel that having a huge military, especially if its all mostly offensive/strategic weapons, should definitely have an effect on your reputation as you dont really have a true reason to have such a huge stockpile on such weapons. When I think of this, I think of the likes of Hitlers Germany or Stalins USSR.
When I think of someone with a huge defensive force with a generally good reputation on this game, I would think of countries like the USA or even modern Russia. |
| johndoe677 | Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 01:22 am
in real life there is no distinct difference between offensive and defense weapons an army is an army |
| LB Musty | Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 03:49 am
That might be true but in this game there is a very clear distinction... |
| Serpent | Saturday, December 21, 2013 - 03:53 am
Exactly Mr johndoed677. Besides IMO a strong offense is a good defense. Also Mr James, who says the USA has defensive weaponry and furthermore who says they have a 'good reputation'?
However that being said, Your idea might have some merit if the rep score was based on wars vs players. |
| James the Fair | Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 04:22 am
So you're saying that the reputation should go down only if attacking other players? Well yes maybe it should. I suppose if someone with an excellent rep attacks somebody of ABOUT the same rep, I think there should be a dramatic drop in rep for that player, rather than the "war effects" section I mentioned at the top. Perhaps the players rep should drop by 50% when this happens? then that way that player might feel some negative effects if it's low enough.
Maybe the only way to eventually increase your rep back to an excellent one again would be to keep the welfare level high (probulary above 100) at all times.
Serpent if you think there could be some merit in this reputation score idea of mine, please suggest some more ideas on this page as i'm thinking about revamping this if it's credible enough. |
| johndoe677 | Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 04:24 am
I was simply pointing out the stupidity of James analogy that USA has good reputation and Germany bad one because of their apparently defensive/offensive militaries..... I wasn't commenting on the suggestion
as for the suggestion its dumb... people get their reputations on the forums and in interaction.... the GM cant even make a decent military index don't see why there should be a reputation index that hardly adds anything to the game |
| johndoe677 | Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 04:26 am
plus I don't want automatic infrastructure created... its unrealistic and I turned that setting off for a reason.... migration is nerfed and I can set my own tax rate just fine |
| johndoe677 | Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 04:26 am
plus what if your using your offensive army to defend noobs?..... its siimply a function we don't need |
| maclean | Sunday, December 22, 2013 - 09:43 am
The analogy also breaks down when you consider that Hitler had a great reputation among his own people, and except for the so-called "undesirables" (his philosophy, not mine) a fine standard of living until about late 1943. Of course, he provided a lot of the amenities to the German populace by looting the goods and clothing and houses of those he murdered in the concentration camps... If there is to be any reputation rating that has a basis in reality, it will exist between players; "by their fruits ye shall know them" 
Unfortunately, it is now almost impossible to give a helping hand to a struggling or new player except by standing up and saying, "look at me, I made it! How about you?". Which is pretty much no help at all. |
| James the Fair | Monday, December 23, 2013 - 04:56 am
After thinking this through and reading all of your comments. I've realized this idea is not going to work at all since the reputation is based how the other people think of you, rather than with your population. The title of this idea alone is misleading.
It's true that Hitler was very popular with the majority of his people and provided a good standard of living for his people from the beginning of his reign, which I know as a fact.
Serpent I never said that the USA has defensive weaponry in real life. I was really meant to say of how the USA as a country could have looked like on this game.
Johndoe, of me saying of the USA having a good reputation as well as Germany having a bad reputation was stupid of me. What I really meant to say there was to how this idea of mine could have been compared to their militaries, but I've obviously gotten mixed up between a players reputation to other players, and a players reputation to their populations.
I myself think the USA globally has a bad reputation to the other countries throughout the world, especially in Europe compared to where I am here in the UK. I still feel however that the USA still has a lot of it's influences in other countries which keeps their reputation with them "pretty good", especially in countries like Canada and Australia.
However overall this idea could never work as this would confuse and complicate matters further for any player here. |
