NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,

If I could suggest one improvement to this great game it would be to limit the number of endorsements a nation can give out to other nations (i would say limit it to one, but 2 to 5 might also work).

I think this would force players to consider who they are giving their endorsement to instead of just sharing them around to whoever. Nations looking to become delegate might then have to come up with more compelling ways of collecting endorsements rather than "Hi, i have given you my endorsement, please return the favour" telegrams.

I guess implementing such a change would have repercussions on the current order in the game and it may also be technically difficult, but there it is anyway, just an idea...

Hmmm...intresting thought....

If a nation could only give out 3 endorsements...it would be harder to get and keep the delegate postion. That might be fun to play with.

It would deal with endorsement swappers, but I personally don't like it, as I endorse almost all new members as an incentive for them to remain in my region.

When I first started playing, I thought you could only give out one endorsement. It took me quite a while to figure out you could endorse more than one person, and before I discovered that, I remember thinking what a stupid rule that was. I was quite relieved to find out that I could give an endorsement to anyone I wanted.

This might solve the ever present problem of endorsement trading, but the results wouldn't be all good. Small regions would seldom if ever get delegates. Even in large regions, it would be extremely difficult to give endorsements. You couldn't support more than one person in the interests of being fair.

Besides... endorsement trading makes the game fun. Where would we be without it? :P

if someone wants to vote for more then one person to increase the chances of someone they like to become a deligate then why shouldn't they be able to?

it's all a matter of playing with the numbers.. if they can't at least try to make the system work then many people may just leave their regions and the pure number of regions could ballon, total havoc would break out, the extra data could snap the servers fragile supports and the website could suffer :shock:

-your what it lesson for now-

This is an interesting idea, and has been proposed before, however, there are no plans to implement this as it would require a fundemental rewriting of game code.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

I could see it implimented in NSII the Wrath of Khan, but not here, as it would cause so much Heck to be rasied, it wouldnt be worth the time it took to do.

That particular change would probably do a fair amount of good. I think one endorsement is too few, but maybe something between 3 and 5 would be good. Another thing to consider is that, in the current system, a nation must have two endorsements before it can submit a UN proposal -- that would probably have to change if endorsements became a sort of valuable currency.

Perhaps it should be made so that a nations endorsements disappear after it has been inactive for 10 days or something like that.
It would stop delegates (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=francos_spain) being propped up by nations who sign up, join the UN, hang around for a few days and then leave.

Interestng idea, but I am not sure if limiting the scope and potential of politicking will make the game more fun. Instead, I suspect the opposite, tho again I do find it interesting.

This is an interesting idea, and has been proposed before, however, there are no plans to implement this as it would require a fundemental rewriting of game code.

SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

I thought that might be the case... oh well.


I think endorsement swapping ruins the potential of what regional politics could be. The politics would mirror real life a lot more if nations actually had to campaign to become delegate and give other nations a real reason to give them their endorsement.

I look forward to seeing if that is changed in NS2.

I look forward to seeing if that is changed in NS2.
As I mentioned, I endorse nations (at least those that I politically agree with somewhat) to get them to stay in my region. It works, but I also end up as delegate. :evil: Perhaps if delegate was allowed to resign?

I think endorsement swapping ruins the potential of what regional politics could be. The politics would mirror real life a lot more if nations actually had to campaign to become delegate and give other nations a real reason to give them their endorsement.


I understand it is purely academic at this point, since Salsa has said it is currently a no-go. However, I would love to simply throw in my 2.13 cents if you don’t mind.

I can't even imagine that endorsement swapping ruins the potential of regional politics. I, honstly, don't even comprehend of that. While it does change what the game could be, true, I wouls say that the full potential of what the game can be is reched only through the ability to endorsement swap.

I can't imagine any real world condition that would limit countries by stating, you can only have 3 allies, choose them well. I don't see how this would do anything but make the game dynamics more shallow.

Endorsement swapping also heightens the dynamics of regional relationships by insisting that regional delegates and players not only be aware of the outside world, but consider befreinding like-minded folks in order to preserve the order and security of their home regions.

Again, just a difference in thought, but I don't think such a change would actually make the game better.

I think endorsement swapping ruins the potential of what regional politics could be. The politics would mirror real life a lot more if nations actually had to campaign to become delegate and give other nations a real reason to give them their endorsement.


I understand it is purely academic at this point, since Salsa has said it is currently a no-go. However, I would love to simply throw in my 2.13 cents if you don’t mind.

I can't even imagine that endorsement swapping ruins the potential of regional politics. I, honstly, don't even comprehend of that. While it does change what the game could be, true, I wouls say that the full potential of what the game can be is reched only through the ability to endorsement swap.

I can't imagine any real world condition that would limit countries by stating, you can only have 3 allies, choose them well. I don't see how this would do anything but make the game dynamics more shallow.

Endorsement swapping also heightens the dynamics of regional relationships by insisting that regional delegates and players not only be aware of the outside world, but consider befreinding like-minded folks in order to preserve the order and security of their home regions.

Again, just a difference in thought, but I don't think such a change would actually make the game better.

I guess it depends on how you view endorsements.
I see them as having one main purpose which is to decide the delegate of the region. In that case they are basically a vote for who you want your regional UN representative to be, sort of like voting for a president or a prime minister, and you don't vote for every candidate running for president and the candidates don't telegram everyone in the country and ask to swap votes.
I said "ruining the potential of regional politics" with that view in mind. The potential i refer to is that running for delegate could be like campaigning for president in RL.

But I see your point with regards to relations with other nations and that is definately valid.
Maybe in NS2 there will be more parameters built into regional politics to widen its scope?

Endorsements are the only "currency" within this game -- that is, they are the only thing you can give another nation which is of any game value, so I would hate to suddenly be told, you only have $3 in your pocket.

Endorsements are the only "currency" within this game -- that is, they are the only thing you can give another nation which is of any game value, so I would hate to suddenly be told, you only have $3 in your pocket.

Well, using your money analogy, if everyone had unlimited money in real life (like we do endorsements in this game), money would be completely worthless as a currency.
Limiting something usually increases its value and if you did only have $3 in your pocket, you would (i hope) spend it a lot more wisely than if you had unlimited money. :)