Wank-power theorem

Lead in

This thread was inspired by the whole 'superpower' discussion. (See here) where it was argued that no one nation is -capable- of achieving the level of dominance that is necessary for superpower status.

But this begs a more basic question of what actually determines power in NS. This is why I have developed the theorem that power equals wank. (P=W), which is limited only by credibility. For a definition of wank, I point to the NSWiki entry on wank which defines it as “the abusive over-use of a particular strategem, technique, or style.”

Knoots theorem

The biggest power in NS is, by definition, the player or nation with the wankiest claims whose claims are still accepted by the players of other nations. The amount of power a nation directly corresponds to the amount of wank.

There is a “Wank-power optimum”, at which any marginal increase in the claim of existing power would not increase but decrease a nations power through the use of IGNORE.

Postulations

I will now present the postulates leading to this conclusion. I'm sure you’ll say: that idea can’t be true?! I am a superpower because I am superior! After all, there are hardcoded aspects of the game. Really? Look at my frightening economy!

Postulate of irrelevant population There are no vast differences in power as a result of population. Because NS nations grow very rapidly, populations soon reach a level of economic production where ‘everything is possible’. A nation of 3 billion population and a nation with a 3,5 billion population are essentially peers, when speaking in terms of capabilities. With such numbers, the population becomes much less important then it would have been when comparing a nation of 50 million to a nation of five million people because a nation of five million people will have a hard time maintaining, say, a carrier or a huge nuclear arsenal that is sufficient to have MAD with its rivals. In NS, virtually every nation has all these strategic options.

In addition, virtually every player who is the least bit senior has a three billion-or-so population and this makes relative differences between the potential powers small.

Postulate of irrelevant economy Economic ranking is fairly unimportant in determining superpower status. This is because any man and his dog can have a frightening economy. Any half-wit with ambitions can figure out how to answer the issues in a way that you get a frightening economy (with or without hurting other rankings.) In the NS economic system rankings are effectively determined independently, so nations do not gain at the expense of other nations. There is no limit in terms of resources. A “frightening” economy is a deliciously vague asset that everyone who takes this game seriously has or can have. Nations with top rankings are common. The same goes for rankings: just answer the issues and you’ll reach the top percentile eventually. It does not matter if you rank 400th for your IT or 1200th because in both cases you are in the top of the NS world. The relative difference is small.

Taking care of these two indicators of things you can actually ‘see’ in the game, in turn, leads to the...

Postulate of equal power Once a certain level is reached in terms of population and economy, all nations are essentially peers. There may be differences, but no nation has a huge leverage over another nation.

From the postulations follows that everything that was coded is essentially irrelevant to power. So… if hardcoded aspects of the game are unimportant in your quest for becoming the biggest superpower in NS.. What remains, then? Answer: “everything that is not hardcoded power”.

Postulate on the source of power in NS Power, therefore, lies in everything that is not specifically coded. These are the things you claim on how it is in your nation, the things you roleplay, “the shit you make up”. The only theoretical limit is the imagination of the player behind the nation and his ability to type really high numbers when describing the size of his army and the abilities of his or her demi-god mechanoid commando telepaths in gravships. Therefore, the more exaggerated the claims are the more powerful a nation becomes. The only way to become more powerful is the abusive over-use of a particular strategem, technique, or style. Wank. The amount of power a nation directly corresponds to the amount of wank.

Hence, in NS, power = wank. An accepted superpower is just another player like you whose wanky claims of being superior to his/her peers happen to be accepted. (Honorary C'tan wank is the NSWiki term, see the article linked above.)

Limitations

The limit to power through wank is other players. At some point, ones claims become so outrageous that other players will ignore them. Impenetrable shields, invisible bullets, divine intervention and armies that encompass 50 percent of the population will generally (but not always) get ignored.

Where exactly this limit is, depends on the crowd you hang out with. In the International Incidents forum, limits to the size of ones army are strongly relaxed compared to what NS players will deem acceptable. Different rules apply to future tech and modern tech. More on this below...

Wank-power optimum

There is, therefore, a shifting optimum of wank and power. The optimum situation for a nation is to make claims regarding power that are so big that they are just not ignored, while everyone in the same situation claiming anything more powerful would be ignored. At this point, any marginal increase in the claim of existing power would not increase but decrease a nations power through the use of IGNORE.

This optimum is not an “objective value” that is the same for everyone. OOC reasons and roleplaying ability heavily affect this. As Rezo put it when talking about a player who successfully balances near the wank-power optimum: "[He] rips off the wankiest science fiction [he] can find, while being accepted as existing, since, unlike Xanthal, [because he knows] what a 'paragraph' is."

Some nations can get away with roleplaying a God, a personification of evil or an Elven Queen with many gravships purely by merit of other players accepting it for whatever reason whereas other would be ignored for claiming exactly the same. Roleplaying ability, likeability and such heavily weigh in here.

Disclaimer

This post was NOT written to encourage nations to seek the wank-power optimum for themselves. Rather it was an attempt to describe the situation as is. Metagaming and wank on the brink of what is acceptable does not equal good and/or fun roleplaying.

Corollary to the theorem

Another thing (which should be noted about this theorem) is that it presupposes a more or less rational player striving for power optimalisation. This may not be true for all players. I could make some notes that it may be striving for ‘sactisficing’ rather then searching fo

On power It becomes relevant to define power at this point (with several posters raising the issue). In sociology (which I deem more relevant here then physics) power is usually defined as the ability to impose one's will on others, even if the others resist. This can be using military force but it also covers influence and wealth etc.

Power is always relational: it is meaningless to say that a particular social actor "has power" without also specifying the other parties to the social relationship. Power is almost always reciprocal , but usually not equally reciprocal. Because power is both relational and reciprocal, sociologists speak in terms of the balance of power between parties to a relationship: all parties to all relationships have some power: (If you can agree, this definition will be added to the entry )

You have to see my comments in that light, not in some conception of ‘democracy’ or ‘nice Rping’. My “ignore” limitation is not just the use of IGNORE cannons but it may also be nations *refusing* to do things with you or simply not seeking you out int the first place. At any rate: it is refusing to accept the means of control you claim to have. Hence, it is not a notion of democracy but simply a notion of how many others can you influence and how much.

On Intelligence / Roleplaying and the Liang Corollary Another point that was raised implicitly by SB/AMF and explicitly by Nwliang and Syskeyia is the factor of “roleplaying ability” (which Liang calls intelligence. I think the term Rping ability is more fitting because it is a bit broader yet still relevant and distinguishable from wank. Hope you do not mind. )

To repeat the Liang Corollary to the Knoot theorem a bit more tightly formulated: A nation's wank can be negated by a certain amount of [Roleplaying ability], and [Roleplaying ability] can increase (and likewise, decrease) one's relative power. Greater Wank will negate one's acceptance, and thus also result in a decrease of power when met with [Roleplaying ability].

The thing here is… I’m sympathetic to the thought but I’m not totally convinced that ‘good roleplaying’ will actually make a big difference. It depends on how you look at it, really. I would like to see a convincing argument that it will actually make a difference.

I do happen to disagree with the notion that wank will negate ones acceptance. Someone who has a really small army might double its size (and thus its ability project military power) without consequence. This means that you can double your military strength without any negative consequence just because you alter your claim. Another example would be... yes... the Ctan who roleplays as a sort-of *God*. The idea of the wank-power optimum is that this decrease in power only happens from a certain point on when other players will not accept your claims anymore. Roleplaying ability therefore does not counter wank but it might improve it. Mathematically:

Wank (W) + Roleplaying ability (A) = Power (P) limited by Credibility (above the P-W optimum)

Again, I find it a sympathetic thought. But why would RPing ability be a RELEVANT factor compared to wank/bigger claims? And by this I mean really making a difference in the long term.

On Mega nations Well…. I don’t think the existence of mega nations invalidates the theorem. In the end, the single unified army and all the advantages of a mega nation are just claims. And you yourself also suggested the weaknesses that come with it. And when have the Klatch or the Reich ever been united anyway?

Asserted off-topic commentary Thelas… while that is an interesting way to spin things, I think you missed the point. The point was that there are no hard, objective reasons and that subjectivity is the name of the game. Thelas, being seen as “the pakleds of the elves” (dunno where I got that statement, but credit belongs to someone else) just happens to have a lower 'wank-power optimum'

Sys: I like the John Adams of NS thing. :P Anyway, seeing everyone else going to war with “Alaska-size battelships, Texas-size tanks with Dora-caliber gatling guns” does prompt a response, and that way the wank-power optimum slowly becomes higher. I think an extreme example is the roleplaying community in II where everyone is basically forced to have huge armies. Likewise you see it in the NS forum with gravship proliferation even in modern tech nations.