Re: WA Map Reforms Committee

Ireland Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:38 am

I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

New-Zealand Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:57 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
None of you have to support my idea of the revocation of the Land Grab, and that has nothing to do with the petition, so if you're opposed to the revocation of the Land Grab, why are you removing your name from the petition.

Also, I'm not being selfish at all, Eurussia, and I'm not holding any grudges. Where you get that notion is beyond me. I think you're taking my words from here and making connections to completely different matters.

It's not the freedom for nations to expand that I'm opposed to, nor is it people's fun that I'm opposed to, but I am opposed to nations claiming huge swaths of land that, quite frankly, ruin the roleplay history for myself and others.

Also, please do not write in red ink. We're all going to read what you say, so you don't have to make it stand out any more than it already does.

I don't think having a huge land after an expansion ruins someone's RP history. Why? Because it even adds another RP story and history for that country!

The bottomline here is you simply dislike a few nations and create this kind of committee of I don't know then unleashed your grudges over the entire map and later on after having nothing to defend your arguments you now simply talking about the land grab when from the very beginning you criticize the map left and right.

You petition this and that then later on this and that only. Then what are we really reforming here? Your hatred towards those few nations because you were unable to claim some lands or is there any other reason? Nevertheless, there is nothing to reform on the map as it is perfectly fine. And expansion are normal as a celebratory act for everyone during "ANY" milestone on the region.

If you could think of other else then you are free to suggest it. Besides, I even supported the equator and that is the one that you should have been focusing on since it's a good idea coming from you with which I don't know if you're really interested in working out.

Eurussia calm down, that was unwarranted. Marquette is simply against some nations taking massive land claims and abusing the land grab situation (He is not the only person who feels like this). However, I'm currently under the impression that in order to solve this, he wishes to repeal all the land claims of the New Years land grab. Now on this front, I do not agree with him. I do not see the next to get rid of countless fair claims (and ruin the fun of many) in order to repeal the unfair claims (and bring justice to the few abusers).

Next, on the topic of the equator and deserts. I suggest that when we expand the map (which will be happening soon) we basically split the map horizontally down the middle and expand by adding a new bit in the middle. This way, the equator can be placed in the middle, and the middle can have all the deserts it needs. However, nations currently on the middle, will not have to become deserts because they won't be in the middle anymore, they'll either be on the north end or the south end cause the equator (centre row) is made up of the newly added islands.

New-Zealand Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:00 am

A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Marquette (of Pacific) Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:48 am

New-Zealand wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
None of you have to support my idea of the revocation of the Land Grab, and that has nothing to do with the petition, so if you're opposed to the revocation of the Land Grab, why are you removing your name from the petition.

Also, I'm not being selfish at all, Eurussia, and I'm not holding any grudges. Where you get that notion is beyond me. I think you're taking my words from here and making connections to completely different matters.

It's not the freedom for nations to expand that I'm opposed to, nor is it people's fun that I'm opposed to, but I am opposed to nations claiming huge swaths of land that, quite frankly, ruin the roleplay history for myself and others.

Also, please do not write in red ink. We're all going to read what you say, so you don't have to make it stand out any more than it already does.

I don't think having a huge land after an expansion ruins someone's RP history. Why? Because it even adds another RP story and history for that country!

The bottomline here is you simply dislike a few nations and create this kind of committee of I don't know then unleashed your grudges over the entire map and later on after having nothing to defend your arguments you now simply talking about the land grab when from the very beginning you criticize the map left and right.

You petition this and that then later on this and that only. Then what are we really reforming here? Your hatred towards those few nations because you were unable to claim some lands or is there any other reason? Nevertheless, there is nothing to reform on the map as it is perfectly fine. And expansion are normal as a celebratory act for everyone during "ANY" milestone on the region.

If you could think of other else then you are free to suggest it. Besides, I even supported the equator and that is the one that you should have been focusing on since it's a good idea coming from you with which I don't know if you're really interested in working out.

Eurussia calm down, that was unwarranted. Marquette is simply against some nations taking massive land claims and abusing the land grab situation (He is not the only person who feels like this). However, I'm currently under the impression that in order to solve this, he wishes to repeal all the land claims of the New Years land grab. Now on this front, I do not agree with him. I do not see the next to get rid of countless fair claims (and ruin the fun of many) in order to repeal the unfair claims (and bring justice to the few abusers).

Next, on the topic of the equator and deserts. I suggest that when we expand the map (which will be happening soon) we basically split the map horizontally down the middle and expand by adding a new bit in the middle. This way, the equator can be placed in the middle, and the middle can have all the deserts it needs. However, nations currently on the middle, will not have to become deserts because they won't be in the middle anymore, they'll either be on the north end or the south end cause the equator (centre row) is made up of the newly added islands.

I like what you're saying. The only thing in opposed to or want to point out is not to make ALL the lands near the equator desert. There need to be a lot of rainforests, like in Brasil and the East Indies.

Great Eurussia Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:47 pm

New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?

Great Eurussia Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:49 pm

New-Zealand wrote:
Next, on the topic of the equator and deserts. I suggest that when we expand the map (which will be happening soon) we basically split the map horizontally down the middle and expand by adding a new bit in the middle. This way, the equator can be placed in the middle, and the middle can have all the deserts it needs. However, nations currently on the middle, will not have to become deserts because they won't be in the middle anymore, they'll either be on the north end or the south end cause the equator (centre row) is made up of the newly added islands.

Yes, this is what we have planned for the equator. However, we can only adjust the topography of those unclaimed lands, but with those lands that are owned by nations already, it is an individual discretion to change their topography or not. But anyone can still oppose if they try to have a snow even if they are near the equator :-D

Ireland Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:54 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?

Yes

Dromoda Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:56 pm

A Republican Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?
Yes

No

its hard to draw them and even if i did the rivers would probably be in the wrong position as the player desires

Ireland Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:59 pm

Dromoda wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?
Yes
No

its hard to draw them and even if i did the rivers would probably be in the wrong position as the player desires

I rreally don't care where they are or where they go.

Dromoda Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:02 pm

A Republican Ireland wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?
Yes
No

its hard to draw them and even if i did the rivers would probably be in the wrong position as the player desires
I rreally don't care where they are or where they go.

but some people do.

Ireland Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:03 pm

Dromoda wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?
Yes
No

its hard to draw them and even if i did the rivers would probably be in the wrong position as the player desires
I rreally don't care where they are or where they go.
but some people do.

True but if you don't want to do it then don't.

Great Eurussia Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:18 pm

Dromoda wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?
Yes
No

its hard to draw them and even if i did the rivers would probably be in the wrong position as the player desires

I agree. Any nation should just draw their own rivers when they make their own national maps on their factbooks.

Ireland Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:04 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:I agree the map should be enlarged but we dont need an equator. We dont need the climate changed it is fine the way it is. Though I would suggest rivers.

Yes! Rivers would be great! We should so include that when we next expand the map.

Unfortunately, rivers would be sized as the same as with those manmade canals :-( Would this be okay? What do you think?
Yes
No

its hard to draw them and even if i did the rivers would probably be in the wrong position as the player desires

I agree. Any nation should just draw their own rivers when they make their own national maps on their factbooks.

That's fine with me.

New-Zealand Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:55 am

Yea that's fine by me too.

Sponsored content