Paying Cash $$$ for a second UN nation!
Fantasan
13-09-2003, 11:33
I have a wild and wacky proposition for Max Barry to consider. Many people in this game would love to have 2 UN member nations, for various reasons. Some are so desperate, that they cheat and violate the sacred rule of only 1 UN member nation.
Therefore, to help these weary souls, I propose that Max sets up a "pay per member" service, for people who would like to have more than 1 UN naiton. It could be simple. If you want a 2nd UN member under your control, just send the almighty Max $3.00, along with the name of your current UN nation, and the name of the second nation you want to be allowed in. Your extra nation will be given UN membership for your $3.00 and have it for the life of that nation.
Honestly, Max, you could easily make 50 grand doing this.
No! NO! A thousand times no! Keep NS1 out of the money area please!
The rule is there so that nations don't endorse themselves give lots of support to a particular proposal... this would cause chaos!
HC Eredivisie
13-09-2003, 11:40
great idea, wait Bill Gates will take over NS by creating thousands of UN nations :shock:
imported_Blab
13-09-2003, 11:47
If you want a 2nd UN member under your control, just send the almighty Max $3.00,
How can you have a powerhouse economy with a mind like that? For the life of that nation
Make it $300. Now you're talking substance.
Fantasan
13-09-2003, 11:48
There could be a limit on the number of UN nations you have. Perhaps a maximum of 2 or 3. Still a limit, but not so limiting as the current system. Besides, most people are too cheap to dish out the 3 dollars.
I think the current system is perfect. Why go and change it? Besides, this will take coding to exclude nations that have paid from the multi checks.
Luna Amore
13-09-2003, 13:07
Besides, most people are too cheap to dish out the 3 dollars.*nudges Fanta* When you're trying to sell something to Max, telling him that most people won't buy it usually isn't the best idea.
Goobergunchia
13-09-2003, 18:39
The whole point of having one UN nation is so players don't have disproportionate influence on the UN. This could lead to a "buying" of the UN...not a good idea IMHO.
Many people in this game would love to have 2 UN member nations, for various reasons.
Which are...?
I don't really like this plan,whoever has the motivation to pay for U.N. nations would have unfair influence,imagine if a large invading group managed to get all its members to buy two extra U.N. nations,tripling their power
*shudder*
Kandarin
13-09-2003, 21:10
People should be allowed to play this game on a level playing field regardless of their real-life financial situations.
In short, no.
Qaaolchoura
14-09-2003, 01:40
Think about this.
Currently you can not get yourself UN delegate powers (to approve proposals) unless you cheat.
Say that I were to start a new region, paying six dollars to have two UN multis. Or even worse a region, like, Massachusetts had been briefly with only one UN member (now it has two) and one sends in two UN puppets and tgets UN Delegate Status.
Plus that way one can usuall (but not always as some players lothe the UN) identify a main ntion by UN status.
Tactical Grace
14-09-2003, 03:28
I don't really like this plan,whoever has the motivation to pay for U.N. nations would have unfair influence,imagine if a large invading group managed to get all its members to buy two extra U.N. nations,tripling their power
*shudder*
I know, my UN nation is the Delegate of a region about to get griefed unless the Founder wakes up. It took months of cold war before our enemies got the opportunity to try. Had they been able to control two UN nations each . . .
I have devoted much of the time I have spent playing this game to making the lives of a handful of "adopted" griefer regions very difficult. The thought of those heartless b*stards paying a few $$$, €€€ or £££ to have clone armies fills me with distaste. I admit that sometimes I really wanted a second UN nation. Like when I needed to fight two wars at the same time, or was tied down by Delegateship. But I always stood by the fact that the rules are what they are for a reason. It might be inconvenient sometimes, but I have come to realise that the one UN nation rule is for the best.
Three nations just tried to take over my region(actually yes that could have been enought to do it) but I am founder and I was on at the time and checked out the region they had come from and they had invaded it(but no access to regional control there HA!) so they came here and I kicked them
Tactical Grace
14-09-2003, 03:49
We got attacked by 14. It should be enough, unless our allies come through. But I have fought in a couple of wars in which there were up to two dozen UN nations on each side, so this is a humiliatingly small force to which to lose.
Now just imagine each of those 14 players being committed enough to buy an extra UN nation. We are nearly halfway up the top 100 regions in NS in terms of size, and we would stand little chance if the attack was timed right and the Delegate had access to Regional Controls. What chance would any other region have? None. NationStates would be a griefers' playground, the last thing we need now that it looks as though the situation is finally getting noticably calmer.