NationStates Jolt Archive

This postion and post has been disavowed, abandoned and rejected by the origional poster, me, and indeed has no more relevance in the foundership thread. Can everyone please stop going back to it, as no one holds this position any mroe and basjhing it holds no useful purpose, and give what remains of my ego a rest. Thank you.

I would suggest taking a look at this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=581943), and add to the discussion there. If you haven't already. Lately a movement towards change in NS to help combat the Great Decline has been stirring support from players of all generations. It's inspiring really.

Sad decline! I don't think there's been a sad decline. We dropped about a third of our playerbase when NS2 came out, as you'd expect. That aside, we've held up damn well for a six-year-old game, imho.

I am interested in ideas for change & expansion, including revoking Founder powers. But a game with 50,000 active accounts is not "in the doldrums!" And it's silly to blame game changes made years ago for a recent traffic drop.

;14605641']And it's silly to blame game changes made years ago for a recent traffic drop.
Especially when that traffic drop also affects sectors of the game that have nothing to do with the invader/defender side of things and are consequently unharmed -- and possibly even benefitted -- by the existence of Founders. Activity in the WA has declined, activity in the 'Nationstates' sub-forum has declined, activity in a number of long-established regions whose members have traditionally concentrated on building stable communities (protected by Founders) with offsite forums has declined... and making invasion easier would hardly encourage those aspects of the game...

And besides, is Invading and Defending really the "lifeblood" of the game ?

Sad decline! I don't think there's been a sad decline

Yeah, and I was totally hoping "the Great Decline" would catch on. I use it in "like" every third sentence. But call it "sad" if you like....

I still think that getting rid of the foundership would be a purely beneficial one to NS. For one, it would redress the balance between small and medium-large regions, with millions of three to four man regions being set up as people who cannot be bothered with rising through an exisitng regin strive to become king of my own little world. Believe me, ive been, and lived in small regions for some time, and most of them are wastes iof talnet and potential, with a pathetically small player base which dies off afdter a few weeks, losing thre game a lot of talent. Threat of destruction by raiders would band these regions together for defence, thus boosting their activity and overall performance. As stated on the thread reccommened to me by Unibot (thnaks for that by the way) 'stabkle' regions would generally have nothing to fear, as they are too active to be attacked. Indeed, the trheat of atytack, imaginary or not, may stimulate players in stable regions to recruit more, merge with other regions, and reach out to form treaties. This would swiftly build connections ion the NS world, increasing activity. Invader/Defender groups also provide a simple way to get new players into the game. Once you first start off you often have no diea about how the game works and Invader/Defender groups, with their simple military ethos, gives you something to do, as well as waening you onto the forums (to plan attacks etc), drawing you into the forum aspect of the game which, no offence to anyone, is the main draw. Many establsiehd raiders and defenders later go on to found or join 'stable' and active regions on their own bat, having learnt how to master the game throgh raiding. The idea proposed in the Feeder deletion thread, of letting founders choose whether to be founders, is also a very good one, my only concern being that foudners will always go for the safe option, making it ionly a small improvement.

Okay, and what of those who showed up to play this game with a few friends, like those in my region? We aren't interested in power, we aren't interested in raiding or defending (to my knowledge, lol), and we just want to have fun in our own little corner of the world.

Ok, well, firstly, soon there won't be any corners of the world left, if the rate iof decline continues. Also, your small friendship region is probably a good and active base enough so it doesn’t get invaded. You could try merging with other smaller regions, recruit more, or form alliances with defenders and other players. Alternatively, you could password protect your region. Maybe a scheme could be implemented whereby certain regions can choose to password protect themselves, in return for waiving their recruitment rights. This would strike a balance between protecting small 'stable communities' and allowing other regions, who do not password protect, an advantage.

Ok, well, firstly, soon there won't be any corners of the world left, if the rate iof decline continues.

No corners left? So NS is turning into a circle? :p

Also, your small friendship region is probably a good and active base enough so it doesn’t get invaded. You could try merging with other smaller regions, recruit more, or form alliances with defenders and other players. Alternatively, you could password protect your region. Maybe a scheme could be implemented whereby certain regions can choose to password protect themselves, in return for waiving their recruitment rights. This would strike a balance between protecting small 'stable communities' and allowing other regions, who do not password protect, an advantage.

This still presumes that the only thing people do on NS is invade/defend. Many people don't want to do that (including me), and I don't see anything wrong with this. I would like to see more of the very small regions to come into the community a bit more, but I wouldn't force them.

Ok, well, firstly, soon there won't be any corners of the world left, if the rate iof decline continues. Also, your small friendship region is probably a good and active base enough so it doesn’t get invaded. You could try merging with other smaller regions, recruit more, or form alliances with defenders and other players. Alternatively, you could password protect your region. Maybe a scheme could be implemented whereby certain regions can choose to password protect themselves, in return for waiving their recruitment rights. This would strike a balance between protecting small 'stable communities' and allowing other regions, who do not password protect, an advantage.


I have to agree with Somewhereistonia, many players just see the whole invading and defending thing as an annoying waste of time. There are a multitude of ways of getting to know the game, and a multitude of reasons for playing it.

For instance I enjoy creating a fully realised and complicated nation with a rich culture, history and politics, I do this through r.p. at the w.a., in International Incidents, and by building an NSwiki presence for Urgench, I supplement that with r.p. on off-site forums. And I'm certainly not the only one to follow this pattern.

All of this would be significantly hampered if my small and old region ( a quiet one with its founder still in residence ) were constantly under attack from annoying noobs trying to "get to know the game".

Why a region would want to trade being able to recruit new members just to password protect themselves from bands of marauding raiders is beyond me, and why the game should suddenly be radically skewed in favour of one particular way of playing it is also beyond me.

And besides, is Invading and Defending really the "lifeblood" of the game ?
For some, it is. For other players, they are *very* happy to be well clear of it.

Ok, well, firstly, soon there won't be any corners of the world left, if the rate iof decline continues. Also, your small friendship region is probably a good and active base enough so it doesn’t get invaded. You could try merging with other smaller regions, recruit more, or form alliances with defenders and other players. Alternatively, you could password protect your region. Maybe a scheme could be implemented whereby certain regions can choose to password protect themselves, in return for waiving their recruitment rights. This would strike a balance between protecting small 'stable communities' and allowing other regions, who do not password protect, an advantage.
Soon there won't be any corners of the world? That doesn't make sense. I don't know about Dalmatia's region, but mine's been here since 2003.

Why should it suddenly be thrown open to raiding when I have no interest in that aspect of the game? Why should any small region?

What's the attraction for twenty raiders to wipe out a region of three, and what is your purpose in declaring that that should be made easier for them? If they can spy, gain the confidence of, and the password to a region, they can raid it anyway. Why should a group of unblooded newbies who might all join from the same school be handed the power to do what the great raiding regions do with hard work?

I have a small region because I didn't like being in the multitudinous east pacific; I sincerely doubt that I would like being thrown back into that situation. And yeah, speaking as a player here, not a mod.

Why should we be put in that position? Because you don't like our small regions? And why should we give up recruitment rights? Because we don't play the way you do?

Hear, hear!

NS has a multitude of ways to have fun, not all of which appeal to everyone. I do hope that the siren song of "my way is so much fun that, for the sake of the game, everyone should be encouraged/forced to play it that way" can be resisted.

I note that there are regions out there which recruit on the basis of their inactivity. This is a positive for some folks.

One size of region, and one style of play, do not fit all.

Badness Gracious and Katganistan, I concur.

Unibot, you've put forth some great ideas for improving NS, so I mean no offense, but I don't agree with the notion of "Great Decline" or the suggestion of Juken that it is a continuous slide. Players have sorted themselves between the new and original NS and the release of new NS was going to siphon off some players. Looks pretty stable to me, with variations that seem to be seasonal as much as anything.

To compare the excitement and numbers of 2003-04 NS to today is an invidious comparison.

The majority of NS players (I dropped the "1" because we play in original NS, the other game is "new NS" - LOL) in my corner of the NS cosmos do not log in every day, do not join off site forums - or if they do, they lurk, do not post on Jolt forum, and spend their first days just sorting out the lingo (RH, RMB, OOC, UCR, etc.), the controls, and how issues affect their nation.

When no longer an NS n00b, most of them remain in feeders. There's safety in numbers and the absence of regional drama (well, mostly - there has been some excitement even there at times, which proves raiding ain't dead - ask A Slanting Black Stripe!). If they do venture out, many create quiet little regions. Some, literally, are families - parents and kids - or other like minded social groups who want their own RMB and community. They want nothing to do with inter-regional politics of any sort. Lemme tell ya, we've contacted hundreds and found 20 regions who were interested.

The players that find larger and more active UCRs are possibly more active, but I would argue not by much in terms of overall percentage. If you hold an election, it takes them a week to vote, if they do at all. They lurk in that UCR because they like the atmosphere and the neighbors. They came to play issues and the rest of NS is secondary to them.

The importance of Founder is to me:

complete freedom to set up your region your way, which is the genius of NS - complete freedom to rule your nation your way
Founders have to respond to ALL nations in the region, not just WA nations, to succeed - or their nations relocate and the region dies
the ability to create a stable community based on common interests - whether that's raiding/defending, discussing RL politics, playing BB arcade games, discussing philosophy, or and endless fascination with how NS works


So lemme ask:

How do you get new regions if Founders are eliminated?
What happens to nations (which is most of them) who don't join WA and their stake in regional influence if WA Delegates have all the influence?


My second question is in part about the importance of puppets. My region is perhaps more transparent than many in this regard, but it's worth noting that Founders ought to respond (or choose not to at their peril) to every reasonable voice in their region. In my case, it might be a region Founder elsewhere playing a puppet as an Ambassador, or a soldier in a raid or defend region who also maintains a presence in my region. Unless they tell me, how the heck do I know who they "are?" And when they do tell me, taking everyone at face value is a big mistake if I want my region to thrive. Puppet influence is an important part of the game and if you force WA Delegate influence on Founders or eliminate us entirely from influence, regional politics becomes tyranny of minority - not more democratic.

To paraphrase an extremely active region founder who does play ambassador in my region, some players on NS are kids and he doesn't want them coming in and busting up furniture and spoiling his fun. Because NS is fun. Not that it couldn't be tweaked (bigger Factbook PLEASE!!! :hail:), but as is it remains a hoot.

The mods have made it abundantly clear that the old raiding game had become a daily migraine of trying to sort good guys from bad guys - which is impossible - and meting out rewards and punishments that inevitably left some players ticked off. Don't blame their solution for making raiding less fun. Make raiding more fun. To quote the feeder brainstorming thread, if "warzones suck" then make them suck less. Don't turn all of NS into a warzone.

There are many clever ways to play the influence game and Founders who intend to be successful do face palace intrigue, duplicity, and mendacity along with loyalty and the need for coalition and consensus. There's no lack of drama in active regions with Regional Controls to WA Delegate turned off. If you're a raider, perhaps you'll find that boring. I don't.

.Just to clairfy, unlike what many people here have suggested, I am not actually a raider or defender. I am just worried about the decline of the NS world, and am using the limited information at my disposal (when invading and defending was allowed to be everywhere, lots of nations, when it wasn't, decline.) However, I take your all very well preseneted points, and am moving towards the 'choice of foundership', wjere regions can choose whether to be founders or not. As for the beleif, stated in some posts, that NS is perfectly fine, nation numbers have been declining for ages, if we are in a cycle, its looking increasingly unlikely we will ever see the upswing. I know this may not affect thsoe in the 'stable regions' but everywhere else is feeling the pinch, with an increasing lack of new recruits. Frankly, I regard such talk of 'its all fine' as fiddling while Rome burns. This is a problem, and I believe it can only be sorted out by making some big changes. Bad times, in my opinion, require radical measures.

;14605641']Sad decline! I don't think there's been a sad decline. We dropped about a third of our playerbase when NS2 came out, as you'd expect. That aside, we've held up damn well for a six-year-old game, imho.

I am interested in ideas for change & expansion, including revoking Founder powers. But a game with 50,000 active accounts is not "in the doldrums!" And it's silly to blame game changes made years ago for a recent traffic drop.


I've quoted Violet because they'd be one of those best placed to give an accurate assessment of the actual state of the game.

There has been a winnowing and many members who were never completely happy with how the game worked have defected to NS2 because it offers them more of the things they always wanted. Though that doesn't mean they all wanted more invading and defending.

The 50,000 odd remaining players are largely happy I would have thought with how the game works currently, yes they might suggest some changes here or there, and doubtless the game could be improved.

But that doesn't mean that radical measures need to be taken to halt a decline which is imaginary ( or at least is already over ) and which would doubtless cause many many loyal players who like how the game works to stop playing it, thus dramatically adding to the number of those who have gone elsewhere.

If you want War ( and not the role play kind ) then it can be found, but if you want something more sophisticated than checking stats and wrecking up your neighbours region then NS still provides that experience.

Well, I think the Founder system is very beneficial. Right now the region of The Alliance of Dictators is bigger than ever since 2006, and we've actually refounded ourselves 2 times in the past (performing a mass migration on both occasions) just becouse our Founder died. We're an invader region, and we actively seek new targets without active founder. We also prefer to hold our own home region as a safe haven and base of operation just in case something goes wrong. Keep the founder system intact!

I don't agree Rome is burning.

You're entitled to that opinion but it is not my experience or that of nations in the regions in which my region has ambassadors. No one is bemoaning decline, great or small. They hang where they're happy, have an occasional CTE, and go out and hustle for recruits if they have time and talent. I admit I'm only watching regions that contain 6.5% of NS nations, but there is no ongoing Great Decline in my little "corner (http://cityofulthar.wordpress.com/diplomat-pavilion/)" of NS.

There are plenty of opportunities for founders. I can point to several examples of old regions that have stable populations and brand spankin' new regions that are growing. :D

Is there more competition between regions for nations? Of course. It forces us all to be more clever. New game code might help, but only if it increases opportunities rather than restricting them.

The reason I alluded to raiders was not because I know you to be one, only that eliminating Founders or restricting Founder access to regional control benefits raiders. I don't see how it would possibly benefit any other of the diverse groups who play and how they like their regions to roll. If [violet] and Max want to give Founderless regions a spin to juice up warzones, I have no objection. Locating there is a choice.

I'm pro-choice.

The reason I alluded to raiders was not because I know you to be one, only that eliminating Founders or restricting Founder access to regional control benefits raiders. I don't see how it would possibly benefit any other of the diverse groups who play and how they like their regions to roll. If [violet] and Max want to give Founderless regions a spin to juice up warzones, I have no objection. Locating there is a choice.

I'm pro-choice.

One benefit, for non-raiders, is that it allows more democracy. A Founder has absolute power, while a Delegate can be voted out of office.

Well regardless of your belief towards a decline, things can be changed for the better. Imagine our situation now like global warming, because someday’s I feel like Al Gore on these threads. In other words, I think I sound like an idiot preaching to people about something that might not actually be happening (probably is, but there is still doubt). But the fact remains, if we all close down our coal plants and replace them with wind farms, and exchange our appliances for more efficiency….even if we find out global warming is as big of a red herring as global cooling, those things we did to combat the crisis were still very good things, we just did them without the red tape of conservatism slowing down progress, because we thought we were in a crisis. All I’m saying is, people make mistakes in crises, granted, but people also do some extraordinary things that they would have never done without the pretences of a crisis.

I believe we have arrived at an critical moment in our history.

We can do nothing, and roll the dice, putting faith into the possibility that nothing is happening, that those nations that died were all just puppets (possible). Or, we can choose to handle our problems head on, even if the crisis doesn’t exist, the outcome will be worth the false pretences. As long as we are smart about handling these shortcomings.

I don’t want to insult the bright minds on this thread, because I know for a fact that there are some people here that are far more intelligent then I could ever hope to be. But I have to go out on a limb and say, your not acting like it. There are a number of posts here from very smart people, who aren’t looking further then their own worlds. Look past your own pain, I am not a raider, but I can see that a large community is collapsing because of its “malnourishment”. One very smart colleague of mine compared NationStates to a row of flowers, each flower has its own roots, but each flower is also dead in a drought. I can’t speak for you, but I plan on being able to brag to the n00bs about being there to experience “the Great Revival” first hand, just as much as my elders talk passionately about their golden years. But to see a revival, we need to put aside our differences, sure no one but the truly extreme wants to see NationStates become one big warzone, but also, only the extreme want to see it become a hollow of structured-life, a virtual reincarnation of the House of Lords. This isn’t the time for extremism of ideologies, we can’t wave our demographics around like a shield, that path leads to failure. But we also cannot forget the individual flowers of the garden, as much as the garden itself. All a flower needs is some water and some love, and dahm you’ve got nectar. NationStates isn’t a melting pot, it’s a mosaic.

So please, thing not only about your own positions, and cultures…your own “flowers”. But think about your colleagues. Because I would love to see this garden grow again.

Thank you,

I believe we have arrived at an critical moment in our history.

The point is that there is no greater "we" than the ad hoc mini-communities players consent to from for their own pleasure. Sure every now and then it looks like something more unified might be happening, but stare long enough at leaves swirling in the wind and your bound to start seeing a ballet. Unfortunately this is a mirage, an illusion.

We can do nothing, and roll the dice, putting faith into the possibility that nothing is happening, that those nations that died were all just puppets (possible). Or, we can choose to handle our problems head on, even if the crisis doesn’t exist, the outcome will be worth the false pretences. As long as we are smart about handling these shortcomings.

The game's rules were never arrived at by consultation of some grand founders conference, they are the collective wisdom of a select few who have responded to the game's development over time. Why would that need to change now ? Implying that some huge effort of collective constitutional reform of the entire game should take place is simply ridiculous, this isn't a democracy, and its not like most of the players could actually give a tinker's fuck about "the causes of the Great Decline and its remedies". Most just enjoy the environment this game affords them for one form of minor escapist relaxation or another, what ever form that escapism may take.

NationStates isn’t a melting pot, it’s a mosaic. It's far more cellular than that, certainly there are overlaps and points of merger, but actual this is a game constituted of a vast array of individuals with individual ways of playing. A mosaic? To a point yes, but not one with a recognisable image in it, but a melting pot ? Far less so.

So please, thing not only about your own positions, and cultures…your own “flowers”. But think about your colleagues. Because I would love to see this garden grow again.

Thank you,

I would like to point out that the suggestion contained in the OP was that the game be radically altered in such a way that it would alienate a huge amount of its most avid players, there was nothing particularly collegiate about that.

Now I of course don't think that was intentional and Juken was only trying to make a helpful suggestion, but whatever changes are made to NS should surely have as much benefit to as many kinds of player as possible no ?

One kind of play shouldn't be prioritised to the detriment of all others should it ?

One kind of play shouldn't be prioritised to the detriment of all others should it ?

I can't speak for these cultures then...I never found my "kind of play", but I think if my "kind of play", my way of life was at risk, I'd like somebody to step up and help me in my time of need.

This isn't the time for forgetting why we play and how we play, for "the greater good", this is a time for reminding. We will have to make compromises, granted. But when there is more than one community to satisfy the needs of, our future depends on the compromises we make. Without compromises, there is no hope.

I would like to point out that the suggestion contained in the OP was that the game be radically altered in such a way that it would alienate a huge amount of its most avid players, there was nothing particularly collegiate about that.

Maybe I wasn't just talking to you. :D

I can't speak for these cultures then...I never found my "kind of play", but I think if my "kind of play", my way of life was at risk, I'd like somebody to step up and help me in my time of need.

Sentimental claptrap, this is Technical not a bad online speech writing course. What are you suggesting be practically changed about the game that wouldn't cause drastic upset that might remedy Juken's concern ?

This isn't the time for forgetting why we play and how we play, for "the greater good", this is a time for reminding. We will have to make compromises, granted. But when there is more than one community to satisfy the needs of, our future depends on the compromises we make. Without compromises, there is no hope.

Again quit getting all dewy eyed and dreamy, when you talk about "the greater good " you sound like a loon, this is a game which people play for relaxation and to escape the real world for a bit, nobody is here to work toward some "greater good" ( except perhaps you :))

Do you think that Juken's suggestions were a good idea ? If so how would they improve play in your opinion ? And how would you justify these changes if in fact they just ended up annoying a lot of other players and making the NS experience significantly less enjoyable ?

Okay Urgench. Take some time to read my posts again. Because while I might sound like a "sentimental claptrap", you're starting to sounding like a blind fool.

And I resent "the online speech writing course" stab, I'm just a guy who needed to get some things off his chest. So I'm taking a break for a bit, I hope you at least read through my posts again so you can "rip them to sheds" with a clear understanding of them.

I leave myself out there hanging to be attacked because its better than leaving myself on the sidelines to be attacked by myself.

Thanks for apparently skim reading my post, and replying without understanding.
Unibot

Okay Urgench. Take some time to read my posts again. Because while I might sound like a "sentimental claptrap", you're starting to sounding like a blind fool.

And I resent "the online speech writing course" stab, I'm just a guy who needed to get some things off his chest. So I'm taking a break for a bit, I hope you at least read through my posts again so you can "rip them to sheds" with a clear understanding of them.

I leave myself out there hanging to be attacked because its better than leaving myself on the sidelines to be attacked by myself.

Thanks for apparently skim reading my post, and replying without understanding.
Unibot


I read what you wrote, I found no substance in it, just vague and dreamy urgings e.t.c. This is Technical, a place where people get practical problems solved and make practical suggestions for how problems might be solved.

I'm not attacking your motives for what your trying to say, I'm simply pointing out that you need to be offering a practical solution to whatever problems you think are going on. I've seen posts where you have done that elsewhere, so why not here ?

Why all this Obama-esque vagueness ?

Why all this Obama-esque vagueness ?

Because sometimes, that's what people need.


Technical talk doesn't open the eyes of a bunch of blind friends, technical talk doesn't wake people up. Even if we were to stumble upon a brilliant solution to our problems, it wouldn't be implementable unless we were capable of making the necessary compromises.

I'm simply pointing out that you need to be offering a practical solution to whatever problems you think are going on.

How are we to offer a practical solution, if we don't understand one another!? Thats all I was saying in that big, large blurb. There...thats your Reader's Digest version. Sorry its not technical enough for you.

______________________________________

And obviously you didn't understand what I was writing, because half your points make the assumption I was saying "is" instead of "isn't", thats pretty huge, bud.

Because sometimes, that's what people need.

______________________________________

And obviously you didn't understand what I was writing, because half your points make the assumption I was saying "is" instead of "isn't", thats pretty huge, bud.

Right, this is going nowhere and doubtless a Mod will appear sometime soon to warn us for threadjacking or something.

I haven't presumed anything about what you were saying, because I didn't see us as having a dispute. In fact if you look back you'll see I was asking you serious questions about practical issues, in the hope that you would actually share some practical insights on how the game might be improved.

All that's happened is you've misinterpreted what I'm saying, and not answered any of my questions. And now your getting all sulky about nothing.

I'm not going to continue this exchange because this isn't the place for it.

I'm not going to continue this exchange because this isn't the place for it.

Where is? The Virtual Linguistics Duelling club?

I think my points are valid to this thread, to see some of the blind negativity being thrown around, I think it deserves a mention.

We're not off track. Were trying to find the bloody track for the first time in our lives. Closing this thread would just be setting progress back further. This is totally necessary if we want to see some plausible solutions appear anytime soon.

I said:
The reason I alluded to raiders was not because I know you to be one, only that eliminating Founders or restricting Founder access to regional control benefits raiders. I don't see how it would possibly benefit any other of the diverse groups who play and how they like their regions to roll. If [violet] and Max want to give Founderless regions a spin to juice up warzones, I have no objection. Locating there is a choice.

I'm pro-choice.

You said:
One benefit, for non-raiders, is that it allows more democracy. A Founder has absolute power, while a Delegate can be voted out of office.

Forgive me if this sounds snarky. You founded your nation, right? If you abuse your citizens - take their stuff, steal their first born children to become soldiers, advocate cannibalism, and trash your environment - they can do what? Nothing. Because as a nation founder you have absolute power. Your nation might be considered a pillaged wreck by some and others will high five you for choosing all the "trash my nation" issues consistently. That's fine because it's a GAME and we play it for our amusement.

It's called a region, not a nation, and you do vote for your region. It is an absolute right your nation's citizens don't have because you can leave it and join mine - or leave mine and join yours - in a New York second. The freedom of nation movement between regions in NS is highly democratic.

My region is less than 20% WA. Disenfranchising the influence of 80% of my region's nations is not democracy. Democracy isn't a religion or a right or the only way to run a nation with healthy and happy citizens. Or a region with happy nations.

And let us, although we may disagree on how to get there, never neglect the happy.

My region is less than 20% WA. Disenfranchising the influence of 80% of my region's nations is not democracy. Democracy isn't a religion or a right or the only way to run a nation with healthy and happy citizens. Or a region with happy nations.


But WA-ship still remains the best way to determine if one is a puppet or not. It wouldn't be a democracy if puppets were included, it would be a race to see who can make the most puppets.

On the other thread, I outlined a fairly complex system, so here's my proposal-lite.

There is the WA delegate, and the Regional Delegate.

Each must pay influence costs.

Though the WA delegacy is still the target for raiders, because the Regional Delegacy would be too hard to take in many cases.

The Regional Delegate could be elected through several different methods, a democratic between WA members would be only one of the ways. A secure regional delegate would be an autocracy, were the founder is automatically the RD, or whoever he chooses in the Regional Controls. A volatile delegacy would be a denarchy (daily lottery).

But no matter what, anybody toying with the Regional Controls would have to pay influence costs, not just the WA delegate. Making this a fair, even playing ground. Allowing for a fair target for raiders, and a fair way to defend.

Also to make it fairer, I think Regional Influence would have to be re-evaluated to allow for senior members of the region to gain as much influence as those with lots of WA votes. Because our current system for calculating influence would make the Regional Delegate who isn't in the WA too weak to defend against a rogue WA delegate.

WA-ship remains a choice. WA decisions affect nation category and some players don't want a body that doesn't represent their ideology of play to influence that.

Reality is that MOST of NS is not WA. There is no way to know how many of them are puppets, but it is quite possible many of them are not. I was talking about voices, not individual players. If I have a puppet in another region - and I do - and that puppet becomes influential because of what it says or does, it's a kind of influence the leadership of that region should consider. It's a good part of NS that shouldn't sacrificed.

I don't understand the idea of "spending" influence in an autocracy - which is what my region is. How can one calculate, deplete, or regain absolute power? I'm done with this discussion, because eliminating region founders or founder control over regional controls is a dealbreaker for me and I'm just repeating myself.

There is a difference between an Autocracy and Totalitarianism, one doesn't specifically imply that the leader has full power over his people, just that his/her power is an arbitrary rule, no one but the dictator's decided he/she has power. But, Totalitarianism implies total power over everything.

In my concept, any puppet could become the regional delegate in the right circumstances (yet the RD would probably not be a typical target for raiders). The reason I say that everyone should pay influence costs, is because

1. Governments do not run on 100% efficency
2. Everyone should be on equal footing in this game, founders shouldn't be totalitarians that kill the game for raiders, and raiders shouldn't be able to take the WA delegate position and see no opposition.

1. Governments do not run on 100% efficency

But regions don't have to function like national governments or anything like them.

2. Everyone should be on equal footing in this game, founders shouldn't be totalitarians that kill the game for raiders, and raiders shouldn't be able to take the WA delegate position and see no opposition.


Why ? Why shouldn't players be free to found regions in which they are supreme if the other players in these regions want to have it that way, why should other players be able to come along and ruin this mutually agreed arrangement ?

One benefit, for non-raiders, is that it allows more democracy. A Founder has absolute power, while a Delegate can be voted out of office.
And players can vote with their feet and join another or start a new region when they feel that the Founder's rule is not consonant with their views. How much more democratic can you get?

I can't speak for these cultures then...I never found my "kind of play", but I think if my "kind of play", my way of life was at risk, I'd like somebody to step up and help me in my time of need.

This isn't the time for forgetting why we play and how we play, for "the greater good", this is a time for reminding. We will have to make compromises, granted. But when there is more than one community to satisfy the needs of, our future depends on the compromises we make. Without compromises, there is no hope.
But why must all the compromises be one-sided?

The greatness of NS was that you could play it for whatever aspect interested you most -- now the suggestion is "your happiness is not important to the greater good, and a small number of players will determine what the greater good is."

If the small regions are a SMALL part of the NS world, their existence should not matter one bit. The alleged majority of raiders and defenders would still have plenty of places to raid...

That is, if they chose not to have their own heavily fortified regions that they don't want invaded.

So basically, it IS the three person region that's being targeted here. If the raiders and defenders want a more dynamic game, they should voluntarily take down their passwords, enable delegate control, and play at raiding and defending. But they won't, will they?

The ability to make the raiding/defending game is there with the tools in place -- maybe a change of mindset among those interested in the raiding/defending game instead of punishing small regions would be a better compromise.

So basically, it IS the three person region that's being targeted here. If the raiders and defenders want a more dynamic game, they should voluntarily take down their passwords, enable delegate control, and play at raiding and defending. But they won't, will they?

The ability to make the raiding/defending game is there with the tools in place -- maybe a change of mindset among those interested in the raiding/defending game instead of punishing small regions would be a better compromise.

I think it WOULD be a more interesting game without raiders/defenders hiding behind fortresses. One of my complaints about the raiding game is that the most interesting regions (including raiding/defending regions) are behind fortresses. It would add some much needed spice to the game if the raiders themselves were vulnerable to raids. Unfortunately, many (most?) regions won't deliberately leave themselves vulnerable, so any that did would be at a disadvantage.

What if your region's regional power determined your system of region mechanics.

A backwater or low rated region would use the system we have now, (founder activated)

A moderate, and higher...region would use the bicameral system (influence costs for everyone) that I outlined in my earlier post.

That way, smaller regions wouldn't be at a disadvantage.

________________________

"your happiness is not important to the greater good, and a small number of players will determine what the greater good is."

1. I was saying that we shouldn't forget why we play the game for a "greater good", but remind ourselves why we play.
2. A small number of players already determined what we can do, and can't do, well before me or many of the active players of today for that matter.

Why are you making something so complicated? What's *really* wrong with having a founder that decides what's best for the region? And what happens if a once large region falls back down in regional power? Who would become founder?

It would be a region without an active founder. Just like now.

____________________________________________________

I'm making things complicated because otherwise a very large community in NS is at a real disadvantage, even footing for every demographic needs to be established. Regions need to have vulnerabilities, raiders need to have vulnerabilities, theres a good and a bad for everything...thats practically the message of NationStates if one plays the issues.

It would be a region without an active founder. Just like now.

____________________________________________________

I'm making things complicated because otherwise a very large community in NS is at a real disadvantage, even footing for every demographic needs to be established. Regions need to have vulnerabilities, raiders need to have vulnerabilities, theres a good and a bad for everything...thats practically the message of NationStates if one plays the issues.


I'm really struggling to understand this Unibot. You have a puppet in and I live in a region which is one of the oldest still active in the game. Our region has high regional influence, our region is relatively small, it still has its founder in place, its quiet because its members want it that way. Most importantly we don't get raided by randomers who want to inflict their form of play on us.

Why would you want that to change for our region and all the other regions like it who simply want nothing to do with raiding and defending ?

Like I said before, there are perhaps many ways in which this game might be improved, but this idea seems to be a disimprovement. :confused:

Well Urgench, the Axis has such a stable region,

with a little tune-up on the way Influence calculates, our potential Regional Delegate would be very hard to overpower because they'd be very senior members of the region (in atleast one case). A raider would be unlikely to do much in an old, stable region like the Axis were the RD is a well establishment member.

Well Urgench, the Axis has such a stable region,

with a little tune-up on the way Influence calculates, our potential Regional Delegate would be very hard to overpower because they'd be very senior members of the region (in atleast one case). A raider would be unlikely to do much in an old, stable region like the Axis were the RD is a well establishment member.


But this is full of jeopardy. "very hard to overpower" isn't "impossible to overpower".

"A raider would be unlikely to do much on an old stable region" isn't "a raider would not be able to do anything in an old stable region "

Why would you want to introduce any possibility ( no matter how small ) of raiding in to a region which does not want to have anything to do with raiding ?

Surely you wouldn't suggest that players who do not like raiding be able to take over raider regions and impose their own play preferences on that region without the consent of the nations within it would you ?

I personally agree with Unibots proposal about the regional and WA delegate. I think this could allow the raiders and defenders to play the game whilst protecting the 'secure regions'. I have some suggestions which could help balance the needs of both groups. Firstly, every member of the region can vote for the regional delegate, but only those members with a high influence rank, over superpower say, can be eligible to become regional delegate. In order to allow small regions to reach this, I would increase the speed influence is gained by individuals in smaller regions. To stop raiders circumventing this by just coming in and endorsing their way to high influence too easily, combined into a single person, whilst regional delegate votes could either have more weight in terms of influence than WA delegate, or you could implement a system whereby the more influence you already have in the region, the more influence your vote gives your RD, or the more votes you get. If this is possible, I would also recommend a check to be put on regional delegates to see if they are voting for themselves through puppets. Thanks for reading this. As I say, they are just suggestions. I personally think they are implemented raiding and defending would become a matter of more interesting and longer, as it would be very hard to take a region, and even if invaders seized the delegacy, there would still be a long and interesting fight between the raiders and the RD, the raider hoping to hold on until they have accumulated enough influence to take a shot at becoming RD, whilst the natives/defenders are seeking to retake the WA delegacy or banject them all before that event happens. Battles would be longer and much more hard fought, and not just peak in waves as they do at the moment

The thing we seem to be hearing from some raiders, though, is the opposite of what you're suggesting: that it takes too long NOW to overturn a delegate and take a region. Much of what I've heard from that quarter is they want to speed up the process, NOT slow it down.

Well, hopefully this should make it more exciting, as after taking the WA raiders would then have to establish control of the RD as well. Thiswould then lead to exciting slow burning battles, where raiders and natives/defenders fight a war of attrition with each other, raidrrs to wither hold the WA for as long as they can or seize the RD, by endosring each other and keeping their nations in long enough to gain the required influence to seize control. The opponents would be trying to stop them from doing so and retake the delegacy. If they do want to speed it up then maybe get rid of update times, if that is possible, or make it easier for the raiders to take the WA delgacy. Thsoe are just some suggestions.

Well, actually the idea was that the RD would be unlikely to be taken by Raiders. So that regions could fight back using the RD, but raiders would not longer have to worry about invaders.

And I disagree Katganistan, the complaints with Influence I've heard from most people is that it is too focused on the WA. Senior members of the region that aren't in the WA tend not to have as much influence as a newly residing raider with a couple of votes to back him up.

NS is a distinctly multifaceted game. There are several different ways to play (six by my count (http://twp.nosync.org/index.php?showtopic=7455&st=0&#entry151326)). There are those for whom NS is a game about being the leader of your nation and guiding it via Issues. There are others for whom it's all about being a writer and developing your nation's culture and leaders, and others for whom it's all about being a modeler of economies and militaries tested in calculated wars. There are players for whom it's all about being a soldier or spy attacking or defending regions, and others for whom it's all about being a legislator or diplomat and steering the well-being of regions. There are still others for whom the game is a mere backdrop to General debate culture.

Having explored all of these interpretations at some point or another, I have found that very few NSers consider all of these playstyles to be valid choices. Most players are unaware of some or all other playstyles except their own, or if they know of them think of them as insignificant, deviant or worse. This has caused no end of Drama in NS, of which not the least part is doomsaying as players see the dwindling numbers in-game unaware that there are several times as many active players as they are willing to acknowledge. Therefore, I present this rule of thumb for your consideration:

Anything that excludes one playstyle - or sets one up as the most important playstyle - is a recipe for trouble (or at least Drama).

Influence was received so poorly by - and had effects so disastrous on - the invader/defender community because it acted as a statement (in practice, however inadvertantly in intent) that invading/defending was not an equally valid playstyle as the others, and so had to be isolated from them. Invading/defending, as it turned out, needed effective contact with the other groups in order to function, however disliked it was by them.

Similarly, NS2 received a very negative reaction from invasion/defense and regional/WA political players and, to a lesser degree, RPers. It did so because it is a game that benefits and appeals most to Issues players and has little to offer to any of the others, or at least not enough to merit abandoning a mountain of established community and tradition to begin anew.* Followers of the other playstyles were upset and disappointed because they felt they had been offered a game that improve the experience of all playstyles and instead found a game tailored to improve the experience of only one. It was received as a statement that Issues were the most important playstyle and that hereafter the game would be about them, and that made a lot of people uneasy and unwilling to take part in NS2.

I believe that removing founders would have an effect at least as negative, if not more so. Taking away the option to opt out of the invader/defender playstyle (which is what founders are) would thrust mandatory participation in it upon thousands of regions that are neither prepared for nor interested in it. It would in effect declare invasion/defense to be the primary playstyle of NS, which all others must adequately prepare for. All but the largest regions would at the very least have to stringently monitor their security situation at all times against a threat that most of them scarcely understand. The removal of founders would cause large percentages of the followers of the other playstyles to suffer attacks of which they have no comprehension and against which they have no chance, for as Ballotonia pointed out in the other thread, a properly executed invasion is nigh invincible. I know numerous dedicated players who would do everything they can do make this cataclysm happen.

While the treatment of the invasion/defense playstyle at the hands of the others has been bad for the game, it would be more so to favor it at the expense of the others. Founders should remain at they are.

----------------------
* At this point I should point out that I have not actually played NS2 as of yet, as I have a limited amount of time for webgames, only play them if I have the time to play in depth, and am booked solid in that department. I am operating entirely on what I have observed as a nonplayer as well as things I have heard from players.

NS is a distinctly multifaceted game. There are several different ways to play (six by my count (http://twp.nosync.org/index.php?showtopic=7455&st=0&#entry151326)). There are those for whom NS is a game about being the leader of your nation and guiding it via Issues. There are others for whom it's all about being a writer and developing your nation's culture and leaders, and others for whom it's all about being a modeler of economies and militaries tested in calculated wars. There are players for whom it's all about being a soldier or spy attacking or defending regions, and others for whom it's all about being a legislator or diplomat and steering the well-being of regions. There are still others for whom the game is a mere backdrop to General debate culture.

Having explored all of these interpretations at some point or another, I have found that very few NSers consider all of these playstyles to be valid choices. Most players are unaware of some or all other playstyles except their own, or if they know of them think of them as insignificant, deviant or worse. This has caused no end of Drama in NS, of which not the least part is doomsaying as players see the dwindling numbers in-game unaware that there are several times as many active players as they are willing to acknowledge. Therefore, I present this rule of thumb for your consideration:

Anything that excludes one playstyle - or sets one up as the most important playstyle - is a recipe for trouble (or at least Drama).

Influence was received so poorly by - and had effects so disastrous on - the invader/defender community because it acted as a statement (in practice, however inadvertantly in intent) that invading/defending was not an equally valid playstyle as the others, and so had to be isolated from them. Invading/defending, as it turned out, needed effective contact with the other groups in order to function, however disliked it was by them.

Similarly, NS2 received a very negative reaction from invasion/defense and regional/WA political players and, to a lesser degree, RPers. It did so because it is a game that benefits and appeals most to Issues players and has little to offer to any of the others, or at least not enough to merit abandoning a mountain of established community and tradition to begin anew.* Followers of the other playstyles were upset and disappointed because they felt they had been offered a game that improve the experience of all playstyles and instead found a game tailored to improve the experience of only one. It was received as a statement that Issues were the most important playstyle and that hereafter the game would be about them, and that made a lot of people uneasy and unwilling to take part in NS2.

I believe that removing founders would have an effect at least as negative, if not more so. Taking away the option to opt out of the invader/defender playstyle (which is what founders are) would thrust mandatory participation in it upon thousands of regions that are neither prepared for nor interested in it. It would in effect declare invasion/defense to be the primary playstyle of NS, which all others must adequately prepare for. All but the largest regions would at the very least have to stringently monitor their security situation at all times against a threat that most of them scarcely understand. The removal of founders would cause large percentages of the followers of the other playstyles to suffer attacks of which they have no comprehension and against which they have no chance, for as Ballotonia pointed out in the other thread, a properly executed invasion is nigh invincible. I know numerous dedicated players who would do everything they can do make this cataclysm happen.

While the treatment of the invasion/defense playstyle at the hands of the others has been bad for the game, it would be more so to favor it at the expense of the others. Founders should remain at they are.

----------------------
* At this point I should point out that I have not actually played NS2 as of yet, as I have a limited amount of time for webgames, only play them if I have the time to play in depth, and am booked solid in that department. I am operating entirely on what I have observed as a nonplayer as well as things I have heard from players.



Having played NS2 a bit ( and not enjoyed it ) I must say there is more to it than Issues play, and with the introduction of war and espionage to the already existing alliance system it is more rewarding for more kinds of player than it was at first, including in my opinion Invaders/Defenders.

However in all other respects I completely agree with your analysis of NS.

I especially think it would be egregious to remove Founders now that there is the option of NS2 which is far more suitable to "war" play and less favourable to most other players except Stats watchers.

I more support a collection of systems for Regions. We all admit that NationStates is a mosaic of different ideologies, so why not have a system that is tailored to that? Many of you want more equality, but approve of a system that merely unequals the field for players of other demographics than your own. Founders should be an option for those that want stable, totalitarian regions. But for those who want more (and possible subject themselves to venerability to raiders) from a regional government, the option should be available to them.

I more support a collection of systems for Regions. We all admit that NationStates is a mosaic of different ideologies, so why not have a system that is tailored to that? Many of you want more equality, but approve of a system that merely unequals the field for players of other demographics than your own. Founders should be an option for those that want stable, totalitarian regions. But for those who want more (and possible subject themselves to venerability to raiders) from a regional government, the option should be available to them.



This makes sense, I could completely get behind this idea.

For some, it is. For other players, they are *very* happy to be well clear of it.

I'm one of those players who's very happy to be well clear of invading/defending. Frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with the drama that's associated with invaders voting in a delegate and booting out natives. As far as gameplay is concerned, I like being able to "set it and forget it" with respect to which region my nation is in.

In all honesty, I don't know if I'd support doing away with Founders completely. Perhaps setting the default to allow Regional Delegates (if a region has one) the authority of a Founder might mitigate problems? I'd be troubled by everyone in a region having access to the region's information.

Yeah, Unibots idea sounds like a good one. I aslo agree with Sarzonia.

I can't say its totally my idea, thats just the accumulation of this thread.

I especially think it would be egregious to remove Founders now that there is the option of NS2 which is far more suitable to "war" play and less favourable to most other players except Stats watchers.

The system of "war" play used by invasion/defense players has little in common with the war system in NS2 or indeed any other nation sim. It's a completely different system, and one of the chief parts of its appeal is that it relies almost entirely on human planning and organization and hardly at all on game mechanics. If invasion/defense players did what they did because they were simply pining for a decent war engine, we'd have lost them all when CN came out.

The system of "war" play used by invasion/defense players has little in common with the war system in NS2 or indeed any other nation sim. It's a completely different system, and one of the chief parts of its appeal is that it relies almost entirely on human planning and organization and hardly at all on game mechanics. If invasion/defense players did what they did because they were simply pining for a decent war engine, we'd have lost them all when CN came out.


I accept the major differences between the two. I suppose what I'm getting at is that I think its likely that a lot of those who raided in the absence of a war engine did defect to NS2 to make use of one there. Those who remained on NS and continued to Raid/Defend were a die hard group who were more fascinated by the kind of play which is unique to NS raiding.

It just seems to me that we need to balance the different styles of play fairly. It wouldn't be fair to open up the whole game to raiders but it would be fair to allow them to create regions specially suited to raiding and defending. It would promote goodwill between different kinds of player too, without the possibility of one's non-raider region being wrecked up players might choose to have puppets in raider regions for a bit of a brake from their main nation. Of course the opposite is also true, the weary raider could choose to have a puppet in another kind of region for a bit of alternative stimulation.

A drop down menu when founding a region could help players decide what kind of region they were founding. It would also help figure out the play style demographics of the game to help tailor it better in the future.

I accept the major differences between the two. I suppose what I'm getting at is that I think its likely that a lot of those who raided in the absence of a war engine did defect to NS2 to make use of one there. Those who remained on NS and continued to Raid/Defend were a die hard group who were more fascinated by the kind of play which is unique to NS raiding.

We had something like that happen during the CN release. A minority of invasion/defense players - largely those in the ADN/NPO feud that were most frustrated by their inability to use military capacity satisfactorily in this game - defected to CN. It was not a 'die hard group' who stayed behind, but by far the greater part of the invasion/defense game.

Again, I haven't played NS2, but of the invasion/defense players I've spoken to or heard on the subject, none have expressed a desire to switch over and all have expressed a disdain for NS2. There's a sense of disappointment in the air, as they felt they were led to believe that NS2 would be an improvement on their game only to find that the war system was buggy, introduced in a staggered way, and did not appeal to the reasons why they would want to become invasion/defense players in the first place. In addition, the system of worlds is extremely limiting in ways that are hard to explain to one that is unfamiliar with the invasion/defense system in NS1. I see no reason to believe that a defection of the greater part of the invasion/defense community has taken place and plenty of reasons why it has not and will not in the near future.

The existence of NS2 is not in any way a substitute for adequate support for the invasion/defense community in NS1.

Yes, to be honest I don't think that any invader and defender would go to NS because they want a technical war system, if they wanted to do that, they could go to the trillions of RTS's available on the net.

The existence of NS2 is not in any way a substitute for adequate support for the invasion/defense community in NS1.


That's not really what I've suggested. I've suggested that originally there were two kinds of raider, those who really wanted a war engine such as CN or that which is developing in NS2 who were never that satisfied by NS raiding but who liked certain other aspects enough to hang around and those who were purely interested in the raiding/defending aspects unique to NS.

It is the later who have stayed and who are in need of some attention. The former group have found other places to get their kicks, and opening the whole game up to rading by removing founders would seem to be a move to satisfy the former group rather than the latter.

That is why variation of region type, with specific raider/defender regions would be a good fix for the community of raiders who are interested in the NS specific raiding game. I think ;)

That is why variation of region type, with specific raider/defender regions would be a good fix for the community of raiders who are interested in the NS specific raiding game. I think
Agreed, Urgench.

As long as the region type, which is vulnerable to raiders has some pros to it, not just cons...such as a more in-depth system of government (like the Bicameral system that I've been blabbing about)... along with the opinion for a traditional region, (one delegate, no founder).

I see you're all glossing over the suggestion that raiders change their gameplay by removing their passwords voluntarily so that they can invade each other, and still talking about removing protection from those not wishing to play invasion.

Isn't that a bit self-centered? Again, I see it as punishing those who want their small friend-centered, issue-centered regions because raiders want a more exciting game -- which they could have with the existing system if they were willing to.

which they could have with the existing system if they were willing to.

Obviously the community feels otherwise.

If one looks at any of the Analysis or trend reader sites available, they'll see a direct drop of attendance following April 2006 (Influence is Born), the decline continually slopes down (with a slight revival around the time of the UN's disestablishment) to the point we are at now (with the all time low around Nov 2008).

It would be a bit self-centered not to assume that the game has changed in some ways against its own benefit, why else the serious decline?

You know, I've said somethings in the past that have obviously offended my more conservative colleagues in the game, because the resounding reply is always "If you don't like the game. Theres the door."

But that doctrine isn't exactly working for us, is it?

Again, I see it as punishing those who want their small friend-centered, issue-centered

And I don't see how the system, Urgench and I am proposing would negatively effect isolationists.

I see you're all glossing over the suggestion that raiders change their gameplay by removing their passwords voluntarily so that they can invade each other, and still talking about removing protection from those not wishing to play invasion.

Isn't that a bit self-centered? Again, I see it as punishing those who want their small friend-centered, issue-centered regions because raiders want a more exciting game -- which they could have with the existing system if they were willing to.


I wasn't :) In fact I went a step further by suggesting a type of special raider region which would be set up for that kind of thing, while leaving everyone else to play the game as they wished.

I took your idea and ran with it ;)

If one looks at any of the Analysis or trend reader sites available, they'll see a direct drop of attendance following April 2006 (Influence is Born), the decline continually slopes down (with a slight revival around the time of the UN's disestablishment) to the point we are at now (with the all time low around Nov 2008).

I don't think there's any doubt that Influence significantly reduced the raider game, or that raiders left NationStates entirely. However, I would not let the number of nations or site hits be the bellwether of success or failure. It's common knowledge that raiders use puppets ... lots of them, in fact.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that we lost on average only one player for every 100 nations. I know of at least one player whose departure caused a 1500 nation drop. That's a lot of activity from just one player. There are also new mod tools introduced around the time of Influence that allowed us better blockage of certain spam and troublemaker nations. I think I killed or blocked over 3000 puppets each from just two players thanks to those tools.

I'm not suggesting that we haven't lost players. We have. I'm just saying you need to consider the other factors before tossing numbers into the mix.

Obviously the community feels otherwise.

Obviously, the *section* of the community you speak of feels that way... I speak for a part of the community that DOES NOT feel that way.

I wasn't :) In fact I went a step further by suggesting a type of special raider region which would be set up for that kind of thing, while leaving everyone else to play the game as they wished.

I took your idea and ran with it ;)
Sorry, Urgench, for missing that.

Obviously, the *section* of the community you speak of feels that way... I speak for a part of the community that DOES NOT feel that way.


Which is nice... until the other section leaves entirely, and the backlash of their untimely departure effects the game's quality and longevity for the community you speak for. At that point, I am sure that community would feel differently of how they handled the situation.

Sometimes NationStates can be like a schoolyard of children, in which cases, it truly is a political simulator.

Which is nice... until the other section leaves entirely, and the backlash of their untimely departure effects the game's quality and longevity for the community you speak for. At that point, I am sure that community would feel differently of how they handled the situation.

Sometimes NationStates can be like a schoolyard of children, in which cases, it truly is a political simulator.
So again, you are saying that raiders and defenders are more important than everyone else, and that the game should be centered around them because without raiders and defenders, there is no game.

Am I getting this right?

I think it was in the other discussion thread linked on the first page of this one. In it a guy suggested that a top 20 or 50 or whatever region list be made up and posted on the World page. The rankings would be deterime by WA or nations influence or something(not sure) and this would give regions a boost to try and get onto this list so newbs looking for a UCR would see their region on the list and join. I know this would had saved my old region of four years and died shortly ago. It was around the top fifty biggest region in it hey day and had two townships. The forums was filled with drama,spam, flames and debate and the region say just about every form of goverment system. Even some that don't even extist! The only problem was that eventally people left due to RL or regional conflict and and the old timers simply were too lazy to recuit. The forums were great. It just that nobody wanna to recuit all the time.

With such a list in place it would give regions bragging rights and help nations who don't or can't recuit like bigger or more active players but still have a great communtiy and a strong player base.

Yeah my details are roguh but you guys get what I getting at.

So again, you are saying that raiders and defenders are more important than everyone else, and that the game should be centered around them because without raiders and defenders, there is no game.

Am I getting this right?

No, not at all.

I'm saying we can't let a large demographic suffer, when they could potentially bring down the game with them. I'm not saying we should give them certain advantages that will let them dominant unfairly, because then we lose another large demographic.

But regardless of what your principles are, there is a large demographic that is dieing away.

Do I need to start quoting John Lennon here to get my point across? 'Cause I'll do it...I'm warning you :).

The point as I see it is that the raiders can very easily have their game within the confines of the new rules. They could easily voluntarily not take advantage of the founder rules and allow their own regions to be invaded and defended. However, for whatever reasons, they choose not to do this.

If I am to interpret you as a "voice" for the raider community, it seems what they want is to be able to inflict their version of how the game "should" be played upon everyone else. No one else's idea of how this game "should" be played relies on unwilling participants, like yours does. The idea that people who want nothing to do with you should be forced to interact with you, because that's what you want, is selfish to the extreme. If you want to play the raiding game, then find other like-minded folks and play amongst yourselves. That is what the rest of us do with our own interpretations of playing NS, and we all seem to get along just fine.

Look guys. Here's the problem. You aren't listening to momma. Momma always said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NS is not broken. Until NS2 was released, I'm pretty sure it was actually stronger than ever. All these proposed changes will make some nations happy but will make other nations upset. I'm fairly certain that if the changes were implemented, you would be more likely to see a departure of nations than you would if we retained the status quo. You might get fed up and leave, but the large majority of players in general will remain. Generalites won't leave if the game stays the same. IIers won't leave. They will, however, leave if the game begins to cater to a specific type of player. Most IIers, for example, never took to kindly to NS2 as it directly hampered freeform roleplay by dictating things such as your economy or war to you.

Keep NationStates the way it is. Maybe release some of the million year old names you have locked down. Revive Hogsweat (jk). But don't change the game to cater to the demands of what for all we know is a small minority of players.

Look guys. Here's the problem. You aren't listening to momma. Momma always said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NS is not broken. Until NS2 was released, I'm pretty sure it was actually stronger than ever. All these proposed changes will make some nations happy but will make other nations upset. I'm fairly certain that if the changes were implemented, you would be more likely to see a departure of nations than you would if we retained the status quo. You might get fed up and leave, but the large majority of players in general will remain. Generalites won't leave if the game stays the same. IIers won't leave. They will, however, leave if the game begins to cater to a specific type of player. Most IIers, for example, never took to kindly to NS2 as it directly hampered freeform roleplay by dictating things such as your economy or war to you.

Keep NationStates the way it is. Maybe release some of the million year old names you have locked down. Revive Hogsweat (jk). But don't change the game to cater to the demands of what for all we know is a small minority of players.

Don't forget that Generalites and IIers are also small minorities of the players.

The argument of the Gameplay players in this and the previous thread (original poster of this thread possibly not included) is not that their playstyle needs to be supreme, but that their playstyle has been consistently pushed aside by past updates and ought to be restored to an equal footing. NS is not broken from the perspective of an IIer such as yourself, but from the perspective of players who prefer to approach the game from other angles, some changes are needed.

I have a few suggestions, several of which were posted here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14596456&postcount=218

Additionally, I think allowing the players a closer, though not totally complete, look behind the curtain as far as national statistics would be nice.

Currently a nation description only describes the state of one of the possible national economic sectors, mine happens to be uranium. I think it would be cool to see the strength of all economic sectors on a general scale or chart. It would be nifty to compare a nation's basket weaving sector against their uranium mining.

The point as I see it is that the raiders can very easily have their game within the confines of the new rules. They could easily voluntarily not take advantage of the founder rules and allow their own regions to be invaded and defended. However, for whatever reasons, they choose not to do this.

If I am to interpret you as a "voice" for the raider community, it seems what they want is to be able to inflict their version of how the game "should" be played upon everyone else. No one else's idea of how this game "should" be played relies on unwilling participants, like yours does. The idea that people who want nothing to do with you should be forced to interact with you, because that's what you want, is selfish to the extreme. If you want to play the raiding game, then find other like-minded folks and play amongst yourselves. That is what the rest of us do with our own interpretations of playing NS, and we all seem to get along just fine.

QFT.

I'm not a raider, I'm a Generalite. If you're into raiding, and you feel that the current rules for founders make it too tricky, give them up voluntarily and skirmish with other raiders. Or ask the mods to bring back the Sandbox regions.

While I don't have statistics, I would be incredibly surprised if the raiding community made up more than 1% of total nations or so. Given this, I'm not sure why the game rules for everyone need to change to accommodate the raiders.

NS is not broken from the perspective of an IIer such as yourself, but from the perspective of players who prefer to approach the game from other angles, some changes are needed.

The fact that I cannot seem to escape is that the raiding community's idea of the ideal conditions for "playing" this game rely on unwilling participants. If the raiding community can come up with a satisfactory plan for making the game more fun for them, while allowing anyone who is not interested in "playing" to voluntarily uninvolve themselves, then fine. But, as it stands, I don't see anything being suggested that couldn't be implemented within the current game if the raiding community themselves would just stop taking full advantage of the rules they seem to despise so thoroughly, and I don't see why we should revert the rules back to the way things were, and let raiders inflict their version of the game upon unwilling participants, just to appease their sense of fun.

While I don't have statistics, I would be incredibly surprised if the raiding community made up more than 1% of total nations or so.

"Pure" raiders, who play solely to raid? Absolutely - although while the percentage of players you describe is accurate, the proliferation of raider puppets means that the percentage of nations in the game that are involved in raiding is actually quite high.

While players who act singularly as raiders are a relatively tiny group, you must understand that invasion/defense tactics are used, albeit with less single-minded devotion, by a much larger portion of the playerbase than those who make it their only activity. When we speak of the invasion game we are not talking solely about raiders. Most large regions in NS have at some point been involved in invasion/defense conflict, whether due to ideology, mutual alliances, or simply self-interested realpolitik. This has taken the form of well-organized regional armies, informal militias, secret treaties, clandestine organizations, spy rings, and just about every other military-related stunt you can picture a government doing. There are easily as many players involved in offsite regional and interregional government and diplomacy as there are regularly participating in all the Jolt forums put together. The invasion/defense system is as relevant to the well-being of their gameplay as real-life military actions are to real-life governments. I can give you a bundle of examples if you want, but it'd probably derail the thread. Telegram me.

Unfortunately, the Jolt forum doesn't (and from what I've seen it'd be a tall order to expect it to) serve the needs of their community, so most of them never come here. Those of you who mainly participate on the main forum will never see but a drop in the bucket of the number of people whose main participation is elsewhere in NS.

Unfortunately, the Jolt forum doesn't (and from what I've seen it'd be a tall order to expect it to) serve the needs of their community, so most of them never come here. Those of you who mainly participate on the main forum will never see but a drop in the bucket of the number of people whose main participation is elsewhere in NS.

And it is for precisely this reason that suggesting all players will lose out if some of the raiders don't like the current rules is nonsensical. If every raider in the game left this minute, I (and many others) wouldn't even notice.

Regardless, don't the sandbox regions still exist? If not, why not push for getting those back - they were founderless free-for-all places for raiders to fight in. I don't see why fucking about with my region is needed for raiders to have fun with the game.

Look guys. Here's the problem. You aren't listening to momma. Momma always said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NS is not broken.


But don't change the game to cater to the demands of what for all we know is a small minority of players.

Yeeep. That'll do it.
/thread.

And it is for precisely this reason that suggesting all players will lose out if some of the raiders don't like the current rules is nonsensical. If every raider in the game left this minute, I (and many others) wouldn't even notice.

Regardless, don't the sandbox regions still exist? If not, why not push for getting those back - they were founderless free-for-all places for raiders to fight in. I don't see why fucking about with my region is needed for raiders to have fun with the game.

I would like to repeat at this time that I am not endorsing the suggestion of the original poster in this thread. Quite the opposite. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14622954&postcount=47)

Rather, what I am saying is that the collapse in endorsement-based regional conflict has a far broader effect than simply disenfranchising a small club of raiders. Rather, it has meant that a very, very large part of the playerbase that up until then had been playing a scarily realistic improvised sim of politics and diplomacy (with all the carrot/stick play that comes with it) was suddenly left trying to play politics and diplomacy with a pile of carrots and hardly any sticks at all. While that doesn't mean much to those of you who only play on the forums, it means quite a lot to a segment of the playerbase (of which the raiders you revile are but a tiny percentage) who are at least as numerous as all of you are, who are rarely represented here, and who have as much right to a good game as you do. You are quite right about raiders, but I am hardly talking about true raiders at all.

I would like to repeat at this time that I am not endorsing the suggestion of the original poster in this thread. Quite the opposite. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14622954&postcount=47)

Rather, what I am saying is that the collapse in endorsement-based regional conflict has a far broader effect than simply disenfranchising a small club of raiders. Rather, it has meant that a very, very large part of the playerbase that up until then had been playing a scarily realistic improvised sim of politics and diplomacy (with all the carrot/stick play that comes with it) was suddenly left trying to play politics and diplomacy with a pile of carrots and hardly any sticks at all. While that doesn't mean much to those of you who only play on the forums, it means quite a lot to a segment of the playerbase (of which the raiders you revile are but a tiny percentage) who are at least as numerous as all of you are, who are rarely represented here, and who have as much right to a good game as you do. You are quite right about raiders, but I am hardly talking about true raiders at all.

We keep coming back to this argument that the rule changes negatively impacted the raiding community, but I don't see how it wasn't a voluntary and impllicit impact. The raiding community could, at any time, choose to forego the protections that were afforded the uninterested. At any point they could merely drop the protections on their region and open it up for invading/defending. They choose not to, most likely because they also enjoy the freedom of not having someone else's good time come at their expense.

We keep coming back to this argument that the rule changes negatively impacted the raiding community, but I don't see how it wasn't a voluntary and impllicit impact. The raiding community could, at any time, choose to forego the protections that were afforded the uninterested. At any point they could merely drop the protections on their region and open it up for invading/defending. They choose not to, most likely because they also enjoy the freedom of not having someone else's good time come at their expense.

Indeed they could - but as I have said, I am not talking about the raider community, but interregional politics, of which the raider community is only a small, radical subset. The limitations that Influence caused on the ability of regions to take military action against each other negatively affected far, far more and greater regions than just the motley collection devoted solely to such military action.

Indeed they could - but as I have said, I am not talking about the raider community, but interregional politics, of which the raider community is only a small, radical subset. The limitations that Influence caused on the ability of regions to take military action against each other negatively affected far, far more and greater regions than just the motley collection devoted solely to such military action.

What is preventing them? The foundership rules are entirely voluntary. If there are so many like-minded people who want to play the game this way, then surely they can find one another and agree to forego the foundership rules so that they can have their interregional alliances and whatever else they enjoy. You seem to act like these people had the foundership rules forced upon them, whether they wanted them or not, when in reality all the rule changes did was allow people who are NOT interested in playing that particular way to excuse themselves effectively.

Frankly, the fact that this is even a problem, and that so many regions choose to take FULL advantage of the foundership rules, says to me that there aren't nearly as many people actually interested in this sort of gameplay as you suggest. I still see no reason why I should have to expose my region and my nation to the whims of people playing an entirely different version of this game, just for their enjoyment. They are free to associate amongst themselves.

At the risk of putting words in others' mouths, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I've gotten the impression that part of the fun for raiders is the deliberate undermining of the system. The "warzone" regions don't seem particularly active, as far as I can tell, because they were designed to be fought over. There's not a lot of fun in destroying something that's there to be destroyed--there is more fun in competing against other individuals, and winning. If this is the case, it could help in explaining some of the failures of NS2--interpersonal competition was a designers' goal, not a loophole to be exploited, and hence it failed.

NationStates wasn't supposed to turn into what it did--it was originally log in, answer your issue, log out.. There are plenty of people, I'm confident, who still do just that. Granted, they probably don't care whether they're in The South-By-South-West-Pacific, Tinyregionstan, or the Rejected Realms. I, on the other hand, control three nations in three different regions. The combined number of nations in these regions is ten. I think there are five actual players behind these ten nations. But all of them have value to me, and I'd rather be RPing or writing a wiki article than defending them.

The value of NS shouldn't be measured by one statistic tucked between the Featured Region and the World Census report. To go vaguely utilitarian, if there's a way to make the game more fun for some people, do it. But if there's a way to make the game more fun for some and less fun for others, no single ideology should be allowed to predominate.

Edit: Actually, one change I do think would be good is the introduction of a non-WA-related delegate position.

Maybe release some of the million year old names you have locked down.

If I remember correctly, there are technical issues that have pretty much put this on hold indefinitely.

If I remember correctly, there are technical issues that have pretty much put this on hold indefinitely.
Yeah, our complete inability to access the databases of Jolt and get them to interface with NS properly.

Yeah, our complete inability to access the databases of Jolt and get them to interface with NS properly.

Hmmm...I smell a revolution.

I imagine the game falling apart if every single region was the target of raiders. And I'd imagine no more new regions would come to exist.

I hate to bust your egos, but raiding and defending was never the 'initial' intent, nor direction of the game until players forced it in as a part of the game, and Max decided to roll with it and let the game grow - imagine that - which is something he's been fairly consistent about doing.

Without charge, might I add. And often at his expense.

There's a good deal of players out there who have never gotten involved in regional politics, and had no desire to participate - and were forced to deal with the problems of raiders who had nothing better to do than bother other uninterested players and then march around thumping their chests and acting like they actually accomplished something, until the moderators were forced to set up some guidelines, and eventually, some structure to it all because it was dominating their time just to deal with all the complaining that went on.

Sure, to some, that's what its all about. To others, they're here to socialize. To others still, they're here to role-play. To others, they just like nation-building and seeing what happens. And the list goes on.

But no, raiding and defending never was 'the lifeblood' of the game. Creating a nation and entering into some sort of interaction with it have been - whether that is issues, forums, regional boards, or other activities.

And guess what - this topic has been hashed, and rehashed, and ground on until we've all gotten tired of hearing it Every Darn Year and then some since it first became a problem. As has the topic of 'OH NOES! NS IS DYING! WE MUST SAVE IT BY ... (you guessed it) MAKING IT EASIER FOR RAIDERS BECAUSE WE'RE WHO KEEPS THIS PLACE RUNNING!'

Note the above arguments.

See the fact that the game is, amazingly enough, still running, and for many of us suits us just fine. Long-term, even. 2003 even. Still happily playing, even.

Those who wish to participate in region-crashing/defending can turn off the controls and do so. Those who do not, need not be forced to. I think that's fair enough, no? And with some limitations, no one can act without consequences - which used to be quite the mess, for those of you too 'young' to recall.

There's a lot of players, with a lot of game-play preferences, and no one category ought to have a dominant role over the others - including raiders, who I would stake my name being the cause of more players quitting over the years than any other factor save 'just getting bored with it or moving on', because they put their effort into something only to have someone else take it away - often completely unaware that such things could happen to them.

Its quite simple.

The game isn't a game if there is no challenge. It is also no fun for others if they have no chance to keep things as they'd like, whether you want them to or not.

You want more action? Make it.

You want to freshen up raiding? Find more creative ways of doing it.

You want everyone else to suffer just so you can do as you like when you like however often you like?

To be blunt, get stuffed. It isn't all about you.

I'm all for improvements and changes that benefit the game community as a whole - or even a majority. But what you need to remember, is that none of us actually is the clear majority here. I would imagine 'the majority' on NS is the silent one who quietly plays and doesn't get involved on the forum drama much - so lets take them into account as well.

And the Nation-builders.

And the World Assembly Players.

And the General Forum-goers.

And the Forum Role-players.

And the Regional Role-players.

And the Tech-heads.

And the Socializers.

And the Debaters.

And the News-hounds.

And the Raiders.

And the Defenders.

And the Moderators.

And the Administrators.

The game is, and always has been, big enough for all of us. Don't start trying to take it all for yourselves, and we'll offer you the same consideration. Because in the annals of NS History, your sort of game has been on the chopping block before - and yet, here we are, still with raiding and region-crashing as a part of the game, yet with some measures in place that protect those not desiring participation.

End long-winded, tired discussion of the same old thing from a long-time player.

Hmmm...I smell a revolution.
Hmm? That has been a fact for the entire time we've been here. Working forums is a big improvement over when we were previously running our own forums. If I had to choose between releasing names and working forums, I choose forums.

Hmm? That has been a fact for the entire time we've been here. Working forums is a big improvement over when we were previously running our own forums. If I had to choose between releasing names and working forums, I choose forums.

Oh come on, the old forums worked...






...kind of...









...if you were lucky.:p

Frankly, the fact that this is even a problem, and that so many regions choose to take FULL advantage of the foundership rules, says to me that there aren't nearly as many people actually interested in this sort of gameplay as you suggest. I still see no reason why I should have to expose my region and my nation to the whims of people playing an entirely different version of this game, just for their enjoyment. They are free to associate amongst themselves.


First, I thought you rolled off the face of NS! Good to see you again!

*pounces*

Second, not to join this nebulous unending argument as anything in General tends to become, but I can speak from vast amounts of experience....there is, if not the same amount of people, more, that play that aspect of the game. It's just....they don't go on Jolt so according to Jolt, they do not exist.

I've been around the block ;) , and suprisingly, all factions in NS are basically manned by the same number of people interested in the seperate aspects....it's just that these aspects rarely ever communicate between each other so one assumes the other is not interesting enough to retain members or is an obselete faction. Truth be told, it's all integral to NS and if you don't like an aspect of NS, you are free to not participate. The game is what it is though because certain aspects appealed to certain people and whether or not one likes them individually becomes irrelevent because the majority of people end up liking them.

*ends rant and disappears into my abyss of NS*

^_^

Most of this stuff is over my head, but since I was given the impression that this thread would be interpreted as a community voice on the subject, I want to state for the record that:

* I have no interest in raiding
* I have no interest in joining the WA
* I would quit the game if it comes down to the choice of either (a) playing the way someone else wants me to or (b) leaving.

What is preventing them? The foundership rules are entirely voluntary. If there are so many like-minded people who want to play the game this way, then surely they can find one another and agree to forego the foundership rules so that they can have their interregional alliances and whatever else they enjoy. You seem to act like these people had the foundership rules forced upon them, whether they wanted them or not, when in reality all the rule changes did was allow people who are NOT interested in playing that particular way to excuse themselves effectively.

Frankly, the fact that this is even a problem, and that so many regions choose to take FULL advantage of the foundership rules, says to me that there aren't nearly as many people actually interested in this sort of gameplay as you suggest. I still see no reason why I should have to expose my region and my nation to the whims of people playing an entirely different version of this game, just for their enjoyment. They are free to associate amongst themselves.

Once again, I'm not endorsing the original poster's suggestion, which by the more or less universal consensus of everyone who came here can't be taken all that seriously anyway. Founders are good. Founders are good for you and good for the folks who don't often come Joltwards too. For those who want their regions drama-free, they offer security. For those who wanted to get more serious about their regional politics instead of hanging out on the forums, the existence of Founders meant that disputes couldn't often be settled with pitched battles (which are awfully boring when you get down to it) and forced them to get more creative . The existence of Founders forced hostile relations in interregional politics to transcend the limited form of raiding and become more sophisticated. It became less about the distant prospect of destroying one's adversaries - a pipedream in itself when they could just refound - and more about isolating, outnegotiating, and outmaneuvering them through propaganda, diplomacy and proxy in a manner that inadvertantly wound up more imitative of real-life political systems than any game that was actually planned to work that way ever could.

I mean, we had the Cold War (ADN/NPO) for two years with all the important characters and events without actually trying to do so. It just sort of happened. We had gunboat diplomacy (Gatesville and Taijitu) and democratic imperialism (The Lexicon) and secret societies (Catlandatopia) and Zimmermann Telegrams (oh, did we ever get Zimmermann Telegrams!) and ideological disputes (Proper Francoist Thought) and all sorts of other events of which I can't really think of good parallels in the real world. Lest you think it was all hostility, we had worlds fairs and climate summits and cultural exchange and diplomatic marriages of convenience and even a sort of UN-ish universal democratic organization of world exchange in the form of the Meritocracy for a while (although they weren't actually trying to do that and were a little surprised that it happened). If you've never heard of that whole part of the game, it's because they pretty much dealt with each other and left you forum-bound folks alone, just as you all have been saying so loudly that raiders (who are, as I have been saying, a different player group entirely) ought to, with the more militantly-minded preferring generally to defend their allies and assail their enemies.

Unfortunately, the realism and depth of the regional political sim was dependent on the idea of a world where, as in the real world, nations - regions here - whose primary functions are peaceful must still live in a world where conflict exists, where the possibility, however remote, of danger looms. The addition of Influence rendered most of the conflict-related aspects of the interregional-politics game moot, forcing hostilities to be played out either through mind-numbingly long waits in conflict regions or through operations so undercover and covert that no community participation was really possible. Without clear dangers to divide (and unite) them, the interregional political game has bled players, factions and interest at an astounding pace ever since the release of Influence. Few people seriously considered the idea you suggest, though it came up at times, of playing the game as all-out war under the influence system. Most took it about as seriously as you would if presented with the same idea, because actual conflict was only the smallest facet of what the interregional political game was/is about. They could no more drop their RPs and governments and embassies and chat to become pure raiders than Australia could vote to become the world of Mad Max tomorrow.

I'm sorry if this all seems terribly complicated, and I understand that most forumbound players have had little chance to be exposed to any of the parts of the NS gameplay community beyond the raider fringe. While they're certainly a part of it, they're an extreme and not especially representative of the whole.

Please understand that I am not suggesting that we roll back the clock and remove Influence. What's done is done and the system has a lot of merits. I am saying that it is time to evaluate its effects in full and perhaps make some modifications. I am saying that a very large and significant part of the NS game world, distinct from the raiders Influence was meant to manage effectively, have gotten a raw deal from it in ways that were neither planned nor expected at its initial release. I am saying that if you really believe, as I do, that all ways of playing NS are equally valid, that it is necessary for the well-being of some of those ways to ease up the restrictions on regional conflict. Again, I don't know what such a change would exactly look like, and some input from all sides as to what changes might be in order would be a very good thing.

As for the concern, from RP and General players, that such a change would lead to "your play style butting in on mine" in the form of raiders battering down your doors - there really isn't much to be concerned about. The lion's share of you are in regions that are founded, passworded, or bolstered by such massive stockpiles of Influence that it's unlikely that you'll ever have to deal with vandals at the gate. I know some of you have had bad run-ins with particularly immature raiders in the past, but I ask you not to judge the rest of the gameplay community, which is far bigger and more diverse than they, by their example. Look past the extremes, reach across the aisle, and try to understand the other guy. We'll try our best to do the same with you.

I have to agree with Kandarin. I am a player mainly involved in game play. I am not a raider, nor a defender. Most of us game players are not raiders, and we are not defenders. Though I wonder if some of you guys can comprehend that. I see no reason why the Rp'ers can't do their thing, and let us do our thing.


As far as telling raiders to go to a warzone is not going to cut it. It simply is not that simple. Either is the idea that the founders leave regional control on for the delegates so the region can be raided. A founder can do this yes, but what's the point? The founder can banject the raiders at will. It would be silly to think he wouldn't eject raiders into his region.

I also think that getting rid of founders is a bad idea. Simply because not every region is involved in game play. The only regions involved are regions that the founder has CTE, and for the most part the region is dying. I find it also rare that the raiders eject any natives.

I would like to see some changes in the game. Not to the founders, but less restrictions on game play. I don't want to see it change to the point that people are all getting tossed into the rejected realms, but face it the one thing that eliminates that is founders themselves. Founders protect the region from anything like that happening.

The only thing I would change is the way in which influence works. Influence in UCRS is un-needed, if not irrelevant all together. Founders protect the nation regardless, and founders can banject regardless of influence. It only counts in feeders, and I would like to see the feeders become a bit less stagnant anyway.

Also I would like to point out that every action is not a raid, and that politics is often results in conflict, both in RL, and in NS. NOw given the nature of how NS works, there is no breaking out of arms, but there does need to be a threat, or something to fight for in times on conflict. A delegate seat is a simple thing, but it works, and it's far better than going to someones RMB, and telling them they suck, and you are going to do something. (not that they aren't morons who do do this)

I've quoted Violet because they'd be one of those best placed to give an accurate assessment of the actual state of the game.

There has been a winnowing and many members who were never completely happy with how the game worked have defected to NS2 because it offers them more of the things they always wanted. Though that doesn't mean they all wanted more invading and defending.

The 50,000 odd remaining players are largely happy I would have thought with how the game works currently, yes they might suggest some changes here or there, and doubtless the game could be improved.

But that doesn't mean that radical measures need to be taken to halt a decline which is imaginary ( or at least is already over ) and which would doubtless cause many many loyal players who like how the game works to stop playing it, thus dramatically adding to the number of those who have gone elsewhere.

If you want War ( and not the role play kind ) then it can be found, but if you want something more sophisticated than checking stats and wrecking up your neighbours region then NS still provides that experience.


I have been on NS 1 for many years now and have no intention of leaving it even though I have also started a new version of Kormanthor on NS 2. However I have noticed that alot of the old rules have been changed.

I know that my posts are usually shorter then alot of folks posts but I have other RL responsiblities that must come first over NS writting.

The idea should be that each player runs his or her country the way they wish like it says on the log in page of NS 1.

Very true, Dyszal.

What I would like to see is more personalization for the country, like being able to name a captial city, the terrain, (mountianous, jungle, etc.), I know many talk about such specifics about their country in role-playing, but it would be great to have for those of us who aren't role-players (myself included)

I more support a collection of systems for Regions. We all admit that NationStates is a mosaic of different ideologies, so why not have a system that is tailored to that? Many of you want more equality, but approve of a system that merely unequals the field for players of other demographics than your own. Founders should be an option for those that want stable, totalitarian regions. But for those who want more (and possible subject themselves to venerability to raiders) from a regional government, the option should be available to them.

This is a good idea. What if the founder had to stay in the region to maintain any control over it? Sort of lock that nation in the region.. if the founder nation expires, or chooses to move to a different community, all of the founder's control in a region dissapears unless they move back and are elected WA Delegate.

Ah, so this is why that other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=581943) went all quiet.

Kandarin - I <3 you. *waves at Wham*

Keep Founders - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that part of the system. It provides great benefits for everyone in all elements of NS. I say this as someone heavily invested in military/political gameplay - I do not want Founders to disappear unless the griefing rules are reinstated, because Influence is no protection.

The game we play is one of power. If you give us a tool, we will use it. We must use it to compete to survive. To expect regions engaged in politics and military maneuvering to voluntarily forego the protection of a Founder is exactly like expecting the U.S. to give up its nuclear arsenal. We don't play to create a nice story or a victory scoreboard. We play for our survival. That's what makes it so gripping and it's why we don't show up here unless it's our survival that's at stake.

I'm not going to say anything on Raiding/ Defending - it's not why I'm part of NS, and I have utterly no interest in it. And I also have no desire to have that form of NS interaction try to rope me in...This says it best!

* I have no interest in raiding
* I have no interest in joining the WA
* I would quit the game if it comes down to the choice of either (a) playing the way someone else wants me to or (b) leaving.

And I can almost guarantee that the other nations in Fatal Terrain feel the same way. We don't want to raid, we don't want to have to defend and being forced to participate in that would see ALL of us leaving NS for good. Raiding / Defending is NOT essential to the working of our region, and has never been.

What I'd like to see:

More space available in the regional fact book.

The ability to use BBC on the regional message boards, in world factbook entrys & in TG's - and speaking of TG's...

Something other than TG - or give us the ability to save a copy of the TG we send out ( other than having to c&p it to a file in ones computer )

I subscribe to Tanaara's views on the subject. Raiding/defending was not the reason I joined NS.

And I can almost guarantee that the other nations in Fatal Terrain feel the same way. We don't want to raid, we don't want to have to defend and being forced to participate in that would see ALL of us leaving NS for good. Raiding / Defending is NOT essential to the working of our region, and has never been.

Nobody is forcing you to participate in that. But as a game we went too far in attempting to do away with raiding and so a lot of us who aren't raiders or defenders have effectively been shut out because it turned out that our playstyle required them to at least exist in a meaningful way.

I have no problem with people wanting to do the raid/ defend game, that’s what they enjoy - I just don't want to be forced in to playing that.

I hope we can find away to make what every one wants ( with in reason, some wishes just can't be accomplished ) and make as many people enjoy NS as possible.

I'd love to see discarded nation names released. Though I know that getting that to happen is going to be nigh impossible unless we migrated the NS forums from jolt and they'd Have to give us the data base.

And yes I'd love to see us on our own ad free ( or at least sensibly aded ) message board. I'd be willing to pay a subscription fee. I know there are boards out there that can support our level of traffic – I also know they aren’t cheap – at least the good ones aren’t. And expecting Max to pay for it is ridiculous. But I’ve also seen good, high traffic boards survive happily on affiliate links ( café press, Amazon etc )

For the record, I'm against releasing discarded nation names, as it could seriously screw with record-keeping in NS sports.

I have no problem with people wanting to do the raid/ defend game, that’s what they enjoy - I just don't want to be forced in to playing that.

I am, again, not talking about raiders and defenders. The people I am talking about were only peripherally involved in that, and not in ways that could be easily classified as raiding or defending, and were never forcing you into playing their way. But now none of them can play.

Influence as released just made the true invaders and defenders work harder. For the rest of the involved regional politics/diplomacy crowd, it made conflict play nonviable. Since it was something they only did some of the time, it wasn't in their nature to drop everything and go become pure raiders or defenders or whatnot. But since their setting relied on the existence of some armed conflict, the whole system withered on the vine.

For an analogy of what happened to the interregional politics game when Influence was released, think of what would happen to International Incidents if a PG-13 rating was universally and absolutely enforced. Sure, it'd clean up some serious problems and get rid of some RPers who were making things annoying for other RPers, but it'd also make things harder for a lot of really good RPers who push those boundaries regularly. On top of that, it'd be frustrating for all the RPers who (though not regularly doing so) at least occasionally delve into mature subjects for the development of their RP - which is to say, it'd mess up RP for everyone.

This is what's happened to interregional politics since Influence came out. It's slowed down genuine raiders, just as our hypothetical PG-13 mandate would do away with the occasional annoying RPer who's not creative enough to think of anything beyond hideous violence. But they were only ever a drop in the bucket of the system, and nobody wants to play the citizens of a region set in a world without the possibility of conflict any more than you'd want to RP a nation in a setting that's been sanitized for the children.

Again, I'm not suggesting removing influence - and a look at the replies in this thread make it clear that nobody is actually suggesting removing founders - but the system needs a revamp on some level.

Start using online sports games already able to simulate sports by you creating players or managing a team.

I have set up a RUGBY CHAMPIONS CUP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588263) using the game www.blackoutrugby.com as one example

I suspect it can bring in more people to NS and keep them interested and therefore more active by having other games associated with NS

You probably should be able to find something similar for war using any number of the games out there from Civilization 4 to Rise Of Nations...

I can't speak for anyone else, but we already have a pretty established system for scorination of most sports, so you're essentially asking people to pitch the apple-cart over. Me, I'm quite happy with the way leagues are run here.

I would just like to publicly, as everyone on the forums seem to view me as A) An insane extremist raider leader, intent on destroying all that is good and true in NS, or B) A complete idiot, that I disavow the idea about founder ship I posted at the beginning of this thread. After listening to you many arguments I have come to the conclusion that it was the wrong idea. I would jsut like to say I agree with Kandarins points, that influence should be updated and that interregional politics has been crushed. I would also like to clarify I am not or have never been a raider or defender, but am instead one of the dabblers in warfare that Kandarin and others talked about. I suggest *braces self for barrage of stones* that WA delegates should not be able to be stripped of their powers by founders, and retain their full range of powers. Maybe you could get rid of or simplify influence in Founder created regions, whilst leaving it intact in the feeders. Well, that’s my two cents on the matter. Just remember that I have fully washed my hands of the founder ship idea, and it is from now on nothing to do with me.

Really stupid idea. This "decline" is nonsense. The migration of people to NS2, and who they are, shows who we do not want polluting the game. You play NS2, you move there. Having a thinned out community of dedicated players is better for the game and community.

Really stupid idea. This "decline" is nonsense. The migration of people to NS2, and who they are, shows who we do not want polluting the game

If one puts the statistical populace of NS2 against the numbers we've lost in NS, they would suggest otherwise.

I've lost friends in the game, and therefore I refuse to call them "people who we do not want polluting the game", maybe I liked their pollution. Their presence was welcomed by me at least. I typically describe them as the fat on the bones that kept us from freezing in the winter.

For the record, I'm against releasing discarded nation names, as it could seriously screw with record-keeping in NS sports.

Objections notwithstanding, those names will eventually be released if we manage to resolve the technical issues.

The sports thing may have an impact on a very small number of names, but there are well over two million dead names out there. We're not going to be in a position to limit anything except the nations that were deleted by mods, and former mod names. Pretty much everything else is fair game.

(For the record, the nation most often requested to be illegally restored is "Francos Spain". It won't be among the released names, so don't bother asking.)

May I ask why it's most often requested? Just a lot of fascists, or was there something about that particular nation in NS? (I just got here a few weeks ago.)

Francos Spain was arguably one of the most influential figures in NS - particularly in the gameplay political side of things. He's the reason why there's a 200-nation limit on the regional ban list. He was one of the first to take over a feeder (The Pacific) and simply impose a dictatorship on it, which quickly grew into something much more than a one-man show. He described a political ideology based off Marxism that analyzed the relationship between feeders (the Pacifics, in which new nations are born - so sort of the means of production) and userites (who seek to control the feeders) in a way that still holds some currency today. The whole political culture of The Pacific was based for a long time on this "Proper Francoist Thought," which continues to be the way in which The Pacific describes itself.

In the NationStates Cold War (ca. 2004-5), Francos Spain led The Pacific as the NS version of Russia. Not that anyone intended this to happen, mind you - it was just politics playing out with a cast of characters that have since become legends in NS history. Only once people stopped and looked back did they realize how what had happened in NS scarily imitated real life.

To continue from Nai's excellent post above, Francos Spain was either loved or hated by everyone who got involved with him, but few people who took interest in his politics remained neutral. Plenty of NS military and political groups today look to him either as a great hero or a great villain, but regardless of preference they all acknowledge the role he had in shaping the way they play the game.

Objections notwithstanding, those names will eventually be released if we manage to resolve the technical issues.

The sports thing may have an impact on a very small number of names, but there are well over two million dead names out there. We're not going to be in a position to limit anything except the nations that were deleted by mods, and former mod names. Pretty much everything else is fair game.

(For the record, the nation most often requested to be illegally restored is "Francos Spain". It won't be among the released names, so don't bother asking.)

What about Hogsweat?


jk :p

Please understand that I am not suggesting that we roll back the clock and remove Influence. What's done is done and the system has a lot of merits. I am saying that it is time to evaluate its effects in full and perhaps make some modifications. I am saying that a very large and significant part of the NS game world, distinct from the raiders Influence was meant to manage effectively, have gotten a raw deal from it in ways that were neither planned nor expected at its initial release. I am saying that if you really believe, as I do, that all ways of playing NS are equally valid, that it is necessary for the well-being of some of those ways to ease up the restrictions on regional conflict. Again, I don't know what such a change would exactly look like, and some input from all sides as to what changes might be in order would be a very good thing.

Kandarin, you're absolutely correct. I remember discussing Influence before it was put in place, and while I warned against it having major impact on the invasion/defense game (and even suggested ADN might collapse in the process) I also didn't anticipate the entire interregional gameplay taking the immense blow it did. Interestingly enough, at the time (the representatives of) the invader community were strongly in favor of the Influence idea believing it would solve all their problems. And apparently these days invading still isn't easy enough for some of them :p so some still ask for more.

So now what? It's IMHO important to fully realize how the interregional gameplay was created: organically, slowly over time. There's no magic rule or feature one can put into place which can recreate those wonderful days overnight. Key players have left or have retired. Links between regions have been severed. Back then there was something to fight over, and it was important (at least in the eyes of the players involved). Francos Spain, BTW, has nothing to do with that concept, though his very notoriety would've been impossible had it not been for interregional gameplay. So, we shouldn't try anything sweeping to try to get the old days back. That won't work anyway. And perhaps the changes needed can be small. Thing is, we can't really tell for sure what might do it until it already has happened.

Key element, IMHO, is that we need something we can fight over. Something that matters to a lot of people, yet small enough to not destroy everything else in its wake. So removing Founders is not an option, IMHO. One suggestion I made in the other thread is to allow Delegates to alter the WFE regardless of the settings the Founder has chosen. This would allow regions to fight over eachothers WFE. Perhaps also disallowing the Founder to change the WFE within 24/48 hours of it having been changed by the Delegate (who has no such time limit) ? Or perhaps taking WFE-changing powers away from the Founder entirely, requiring a certain cooperation between Delegate and Founder to shape the region? The political implications might be immense, and any 'WFE insult' would call for payback in spades. If players want it to be that way, ofcourse. Whether they would, only time can tell.

Ballotonia

Now that sounds like a good idea.

How about if you're the delegate of a game created region (feeders, TRR, Lazarus, warzones), you get to add a message or ad to the standard first telegram for every new nation.

Raiders would probably like the ad for their organizations (and therefore warzones would actually matter to them), as well as political regions would like the advertising for their forums and communities.

Or possible a new game created region could be created for these purposes,

Advertopia !?

A lot of this, frankly, strikes me as much ado about nothing.

I haven't seen anything concrete that makes me believe any changes to the game are really needed, much less the fairly significant changes being bandied about in this thread. I see lots of assertions about how NS is supposedly "dying" for various reasons; maybe that's the reality in some NS neighborhoods, but not the one I play in.

I've had the distinct honor of being the delegate of my region for almost a year now. It's a small region by many regions' standards, averaging between 15-18 members normally. Far from being the isolated, dying wasteland that some people here seem to see small regions as, however, ours is stable, thriving and quite active, and has actually pulled in some new members over the past few months.

We've worked hard to keep our region alive, and one of the reasons we've been able to do so is because we have an active and interested Founder. That has enabled us to keep the stability that enables growth and survival.

I fail to see any compelling reason to upset that apple cart to enhance one aspect of the game (namely, raiding) that no one in my region has any interest in, and I really see no reason to do so by removing things like Founders and Influence, which are critical to allowing us to enjoy the aspects of NS that we play the game for. We've managed to build a true community in our region, and if that were threatened or even lost, many of us probably wouldn't bother playing NS anymore.

I guess the short summary of my opinion on this would be to repeat the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line. Despite the assertions of some people, I don't think NS is broken, and even if it was, I don't think changing aspects of the game that contribute to regional stability would be any way to "fix" it.

I guess the short summary of my opinion on this would be to repeat the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line. Despite the assertions of some people, I don't think NS is broken, and even if it was, I don't think changing aspects of the game that contribute to regional stability would be any way to "fix" it.

Well, my summary would be "the frog gets burned when yeh' warm up the water slowly", but okay....

Just don't mess with my game. A lot of this stuff is frankly over my head; I joined Atlantian Oceania to participate in its sports competitions, and if I had to lose out on that because of some "feature" that allowed some other region to change us, take us over, or kick us around, or force us to downsize or whatever it is y'all want to do to each other, I would be pissed. Because NS sports is what keeps me going. After a long day, I know I can log in and see how my teams are doing, and that's something that brings an immense amount of joy to my life. I know y'all aren't gonna mess up NS-wide sports competitions, but I'd be really, really bummed out if my regional sports competitions got messed up because somebody else needed to force their way of playing on me.

I just noticed this thread after having been off NS for a few months... my thoughts... as long as the free-flowing RP setup isn't screwed around with, I'm quite content. :) Let NS2 be more of the game-oriented part, NS1 being the RP-oriented part.

I could be wrong, but isn't RP almost entirely done on forums, and not in-game?

And, not everyone in NationStates is a roleplayer. In fact, according to the current findings of ze' quiz (http://www.esurveyspro.com/Survey.aspx?id=ff04333c-768c-4d83-a6d0-ce2d60867444) being thrown around, roleplayers are not even a majority.

As well, the game mechanics of NS2 do not please everyone...I'd be one of them.

Yes, I realize not all of NS RP's.. if we did, we'd be having server problems similar or worse to that of the original NS servers. *cringes* probably worse, actually. lol

And ya, RP is done in 2 areas... the forums and the regions which are RP-centered. I'm pretty much just saying so long as the RP aspect isn't messed with, I am happy. :) lol

I could be wrong, but isn't RP almost entirely done on forums, and not in-game?

And, not everyone in NationStates is a roleplayer. In fact, according to the current findings of ze' quiz (http://www.esurveyspro.com/Survey.aspx?id=ff04333c-768c-4d83-a6d0-ce2d60867444) being thrown around, roleplayers are not even a majority.

As well, the game mechanics of NS2 do not please everyone...I'd be one of them.
Interesting. A quiz that I certainly wasn't aware of. What's your statistical sample?

A lot of this, frankly, strikes me as much ado about nothing.

I haven't seen anything concrete that makes me believe any changes to the game are really needed, much less the fairly significant changes being bandied about in this thread. I see lots of assertions about how NS is supposedly "dying" for various reasons; maybe that's the reality in some NS neighborhoods, but not the one I play in.

We've worked hard to keep our region alive, and one of the reasons we've been able to do so is because we have an active and interested Founder. That has enabled us to keep the stability that enables growth and survival.

I fail to see any compelling reason to upset that apple cart to enhance one aspect of the game (namely, raiding) that no one in my region has any interest in, and I really see no reason to do so by removing things like Founders and Influence, which are critical to allowing us to enjoy the aspects of NS that we play the game for. We've managed to build a true community in our region, and if that were threatened or even lost, many of us probably wouldn't bother playing NS anymore.

I guess the short summary of my opinion on this would be to repeat the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line. Despite the assertions of some people, I don't think NS is broken, and even if it was, I don't think changing aspects of the game that contribute to regional stability would be any way to "fix" it.

One of the problems I see as far as disagreement seems to come from a lack of knowledge on the game mechanics. Not to mention a little selfishness.

Fact is, there are far fewer nations in NS now than a year ago. I don't mean they just happen to be a lower number, but a drastically lower number. Last august my region had a population of 350 nations, and now we stand about 107.

Now on to game mechanics. You state that influence is critical to your regions stability, when in fact, if influence was completely rid of, your region would not see any change at all. Simply put, you have a founder, and as you stated an active founder. That alone keeps any raiders out of your region. Raiders don't raid regions they can't gain control of. The regions the raiders do gain control of, they are not ejecting anyone but defenders entering the region. Founders also don't work on influence. They are not limited in anyway on what they can do in the regional controls. They can banject anyone regardless of the influence of the founder or the nation being ejected.

So your assertions about it are false. Influence doesn't effect you in anyway.

I say selfish because many people despite it not effecting them, don't want to change anything in anyway, unless of course they get something for it. I am sure many people who RP their nation would love to have the ability to write a short article on their nation. (So I have read) I don't RP my nation, I could care less about where my nations ranks, or what my nation population is. I don't RP my nation, and I don't care about issues. If they did allow the RPers to have the article thing, that's cool, it doesn't effect me at all, so I see no reason to fight for, or against it.

What I do care about is, peoples false assertions on what influence actually does, does effect me, and the game I want to play. What's worse is it's not even my game that you are worried about, because I could care less about raiding. I am not a raider, or a defender. I like playing the inter-regional politics. Inter-regional politics is politics, not every player is the same, and we don't all play the same politics. That means conflict, conflict that is no danger of effecting you. However it seems to me, that the majority of the players on this forum only see's raiders crashing their party, when most of us talking about it are not raiders, and even the raiders in truth are no threat to you.

Now on to game mechanics. You state that influence is critical to your regions stability, when in fact, if influence was completely rid of, your region would not see any change at all. Simply put, you have a founder, and as you stated an active founder. That alone keeps any raiders out of your region. Raiders don't raid regions they can't gain control of. The regions the raiders do gain control of, they are not ejecting anyone but defenders entering the region. Founders also don't work on influence. They are not limited in anyway on what they can do in the regional controls. They can banject anyone regardless of the influence of the founder or the nation being ejected.

I suppose its true.

Anyone got a counter-argument?

When a region has an active Founder, and Delegate access to Regional Controls is turned off, the concept of Influence is irrelevant to that region as a whole.

Ballotonia

So are all Founderless regions fair game for raiding then ? Even if they do not wish to play the raiding/defending game ?

I was under the impression that influence made it possible to get rid of Raiders if they have been succesful in taking over a region. Frankly if raiders took over my region I would be glad of any advantage I could get in being able to kick them out.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me. I am really not understanding what part of interregional politics is impacted by Influence that doesn't have anything to do with the invading/defending game. How is your particular style of gameplay, that has nothing to do with raiding, hurt by Influence? I am honestly curious, because I'm having a hard time seeing how gameplay that isn't raiding is affected in any way by Influence.

Fact is, there are far fewer nations in NS now than a year ago. I don't mean they just happen to be a lower number, but a drastically lower number. Last august my region had a population of 350 nations, and now we stand about 107.

There are still tens of thousands of registered nations; I still don't buy the "sky is falling" theory.

Now on to game mechanics. You state that influence is critical to your regions stability, when in fact, if influence was completely rid of, your region would not see any change at all. Simply put, you have a founder, and as you stated an active founder. That alone keeps any raiders out of your region. Raiders don't raid regions they can't gain control of. The regions the raiders do gain control of, they are not ejecting anyone but defenders entering the region. Founders also don't work on influence. They are not limited in anyway on what they can do in the regional controls. They can banject anyone regardless of the influence of the founder or the nation being ejected.

So your assertions about it are false. Influence doesn't effect you in anyway.

I've been playing NS long enough to know how the game mechanics work. If, for some reason, our Founder were no longer active or interested, Influence would definitely matter - especially if said Founder CTE'd. That is the reason I'd rather not see Influence go away. Just because our Founder, in my home region, is around now doesn't mean he always will be. And I'd rather not see the rules and/or game mechanics changed if they really don't need to be (in my opinion), for dubious and unproven benefit, if they could have an adverse effect on my home region in the future. I'm not opposed to all change, and would love to improve the game as much as anyone. That being said, I'm not going to reject a system that I believe is working fine based on vague numbers and assertions that it isn't, nor will I embrace change for change's sake.

I say selfish because many people despite it not effecting them, don't want to change anything in anyway, unless of course they get something for it.

One could also call "many people" wanting to make sweeping changes to the game to benefit their own particular style of gameplay over others selfish - especially since they stand to "get something" from those changes.

What I do care about is, peoples false assertions on what influence actually does, does effect me, and the game I want to play. What's worse is it's not even my game that you are worried about, because I could care less about raiding. I am not a raider, or a defender. I like playing the inter-regional politics. Inter-regional politics is politics, not every player is the same, and we don't all play the same politics. That means conflict, conflict that is no danger of effecting you. However it seems to me, that the majority of the players on this forum only see's raiders crashing their party, when most of us talking about it are not raiders, and even the raiders in truth are no threat to you.

The region I am in interacts with at least two other regions in the game; multiple players cross over between said regions. We're able to do inter-regional politics and interaction just fine under the current setup, so I'm just not convinced. And my assertions were not false; poorly elucidated, I'll grant, but not false.

I've been playing NS long enough to know how the game mechanics work. If, for some reason, our Founder were no longer active or interested, Influence would definitely matter - especially if said Founder CTE'd. That is the reason I'd rather not see Influence go away. Just because our Founder, in my home region, is around now doesn't mean he always will be. And I'd rather not see the rules and/or game mechanics changed if they really don't need to be (in my opinion), for dubious and unproven benefit, if they could have an adverse effect on my home region in the future. I'm not opposed to all change, and would love to improve the game as much as anyone. That being said, I'm not going to reject a system that I believe is working fine based on vague numbers and assertions that it isn't, nor will I embrace change for change's sake.


Well if you planned on being an isolated region, you probably shouldn't of let your founder die....

Interesting. A quiz that I certainly wasn't aware of. What's your statistical sample?


At the moment the Quiz is still going (we're only at like 200 or so participants), but one question's answer has stabilized and I would put out the educated guess that,

All demographics (roleplaying..general..raiding) are equal in size, with the exception of the regional community variety which is slightly larger.

Well if you planned on being an isolated region, you probably shouldn't of let your founder die....

I'm not quite sure you read any of what you quoted. I'm also not sure how you can "plan" to keep a Founder from dying. If they decide to stop playing the game, you can't make them keep doing so.

Well if you planned on being an isolated region, you probably shouldn't of let your founder die....

I still don't understand why a region which has had the misfortune of having its Founder stop playing the game should automatically become some sort of carcass for raiders to feed on.

I'm not quite sure you read any of what you quoted. I'm also not sure how you can "plan" to keep a Founder from dying. If they decide to stop playing the game, you can't make them keep doing so.That's true...
... unless you have your region founded (or re-founded) by a puppet whose password is shared by several (trusted, & hopefully trustworthy) players, or course: that approach has worked for the IDU, so far, and for both 'Conservative Paradise Reborn' & 'Conservative Paradise' itself since March & June 2007 respectively...

That's true...
... unless you have your region founded (or re-founded) by a puppet whose password is shared by several (trusted, & hopefully trustworthy) players, or course: that approach has worked for the IDU, so far, and for both 'Conservative Paradise Reborn' & 'Conservative Paradise' itself since March & June 2007 respectively...
__________________


Thats what I thinking.... you can just recreate it.......

Thats what I thinking.... you can just recreate it.......
And have raiders take it over in the process, as happened in Final Fantasy.

Thats what I thinking.... you can just recreate it.......

Was that really what you were thinking Unibot or does it just suit your agenda to pretend that your were ?

What so you have to have a Founder not to get raided ? You still seem to be saying that regions without Founders are fair game, which sort of undermines your previously stated desire to allow all styles of player to co-exist without molestation.

What your now saying is only players in regions with Founders are allowed to play the game they want to play, no founder= target for raiders.

Not all players will immediately think to implement Bears Armed's neat little trick, so before they get around to doing that they can be raided and have there region taken over ?

no founder= target for raiders

Um..regardless of any game mechanic changes, no founder does = a target for raiders.

Hello, I’m a relatively new player (started playing in August of last year) bit I am aware of the sad decline of NS in recent times. Having talked with more experienced members of the Nationstates community, I have come to the conclusion that the events that really broke the back of NS were NS2, influence and foundership. Though we can't do anything about NS2, I think we can sort out the latter issues. I propose that the mods end the foundership system. Though it is clearly obvious why it was introduced, it has stilted the invader/defender conflict that was the lifeblood of the game. Removing founder ship will give the invaders more of a chance, thus rekindling the RP wars, whilst the retaining of RI should give natives a fair chance. The predation of Invaders/defenders will also have the benefit of making people merge together, ending the brain drain to smaller regions. I understand that the forums are filled with far more experienced player, who may find all this ludicrous in the extreme, but I honestly believe that this, in combination with more publicity, will help revive NS from the doldrums into which it has sank.

Thank you for reading.

I am against the removal of the foundership because having one is a difference between stability and anarchy. Not many players will want to play a game where they get ejected from a base every day or hour because they will get tried of being unable to found their permanent home. Many countries don't mind about foundership just as long they have a region to call home.

Alternatively, founders and users with region control access should have the ability to toggle region influence in their region of realm. Personally I would keep it on to safeguard my residents as I have done for two years.

Um..regardless of any game mechanic changes, no founder does = a target for raiders.


And you think that's fair do you ? Because the meaningless waffle of your earlier posts suggested that you thought otherwise.

And you think that's fair do you ? Because the meaningless waffle of your earlier posts suggested that you thought otherwise.

I'm just saying, I agree with the earlier poster that removing influence wouldn't change things as much as people think.

I'm just saying, I agree with the earlier poster that removing influence wouldn't change things as much as people think.

So the native nations of a region should have no advantage in defending themselves against raiders, if their Founder stops playing and they don't re-found e.t.c.?

they're just there to be raided ?

So the native nations of a region should have no advantage in defending themselves against raiders, if their Founder stops playing and they don't re-found e.t.c.?


Defending for founderless regions depends on if they want to be isolates or not...

Isolates can put a password on the region.

Non-isolates will grow their region, and get more votes for their delegate to empower him more.

If anything goes wrong, they can always enlist the help of the defender community.

Defending for founderless regions depends on if they want to be isolates or not...

Isolates can put a password on the region.

Non-isolates will grow their region, and get more votes for their delegate to empower him more.

If anything goes wrong, they can always enlist the help of the defender community.


But why should they have to put up with any of this crap and go to all these lengths just because some crowd of other players wants to stomp all over their picnic ?

You've never answered that point, why the hell should a quiet region who's founder stops playing have to be harassed and dictated to by a bunch of vandals ? Days perhaps weeks of their normal enjoyment of this game would be ruined, some might just give up altogether and find another online past time and others will go and join another region.

The destruction of regional integrity and the unpleasantness of having to deal with raiders is justifiable how ?

Incidentally there are also a few regions that are 'founderless' because they were created (by players) back before 'Founders' were made a part of the game.

Because of the problem of regions which lose their founder, I've thought for a while that it would be a good change to have some provision for an order of succession to the Foundership, whether autocratically determined or by some kind of pseudo-democratic procedure.

I think this could be made to fit in with Unibot's idea of having the game support several well-defined kinds of regional government.

Ok, firstly I'd like to reiterate that I havre disavowed my earlie statement at the start of this thread. Secondly, I personally like the WFE idea, where the WA delegate has control of the WFE and where the point of NS war would be to gain prestige by changing the WFE to whatever the victor wishes. for a limtied time period. This seems like a good compromise and will hopefully restart interegional politcs, as their is now a goal and way of conducting wars with other, enemy regions, far better than the current system where loudly abusing each other in the regional forum is the norm, at least in my corner of NS. What does everyone else think *braces for barrage of insults and moans*

So are all Founderless regions fair game for raiding then ? Even if they do not wish to play the raiding/defending game ?

I was under the impression that influence made it possible to get rid of Raiders if they have been succesful in taking over a region. Frankly if raiders took over my region I would be glad of any advantage I could get in being able to kick them out.


In a founderless region, excluding the feeders who are by default founderless. Influence has some effect, but not alot. If your founderless region is being invaded, if you can catch them at it. Well the cost of your influence will be minimal at best. A new nation within the region has no influence, and is banjected without much cost to the delegate.

If the raiders gain the delegacy, then the influence of the natives will likely be high, and the raider delegate will be unable to banject the natives. This I believe was the idea of influence. However in the rare case that a raider wanted to banject the natives, (which is very rare) then they simply wait till they have the influence to be able to do it. Having the delegate spot will also mean that the delegate will earn more influence than anyone else in the region. So getting the influence to banject everyone is just a matter of time.

So influence really doesn't help you get the region back, it only prolongs the inevitable if it's the worst case scenario. However the most likely result of the raid will be a notation in WFE.

Influence really doesn't do anything in a founderless UCR. If anything the implementation of influence just made it legal to banject all the natives. Before a raider could be deleted for griefing, now it's legal, and you are just out of luck if it happens to you.



I've been playing NS long enough to know how the game mechanics work. If, for some reason, our Founder were no longer active or interested, Influence would definitely matter - especially if said Founder CTE'd. That is the reason I'd rather not see Influence go away. Just because our Founder, in my home region, is around now doesn't mean he always will be. And I'd rather not see the rules and/or game mechanics changed if they really don't need to be (in my opinion), for dubious and unproven benefit, if they could have an adverse effect on my home region in the future. I'm not opposed to all change, and would love to improve the game as much as anyone. That being said, I'm not going to reject a system that I believe is working fine based on vague numbers and assertions that it isn't, nor will I embrace change for change's sake.

Lets just say your regions founder CTE, and I was interested in raiding it, and just taking it in the name of raiding, and wanted to banject every native in the region. Unless you can stop my raid. I'll give you a hint, you better know what time it updates, cause I can guarantee you I will know. I will move in right before it does. Then I will have the delegate spot, and you are done. The only thing influence will do is keep you in the region a bit longer. You won't be able to call in friends. I will simply banject any new nation into the region at update, at no real cost to my influence. Then I will banject natives until they are no more natives in the region. I will then password protect the region, and the region is now completely mine. I can then refound the region at my leisure.


One could also call "many people" wanting to make sweeping changes to the game to benefit their own particular style of gameplay over others selfish - especially since they stand to "get something" from those changes.

True, but it's not at the cost of others. If it could be said to be at a cost of anybody it would be to those in the feeders only. That however has shown to go both ways.


The region I am in interacts with at least two other regions in the game; multiple players cross over between said regions. We're able to do inter-regional politics and interaction just fine under the current setup, so I'm just not convinced. And my assertions were not false; poorly elucidated, I'll grant, but not false.

There is many many different types of interactions between regions.

Thats what I thinking.... you can just recreate it.......

And have raiders take it over in the process, as happened in Final Fantasy.QFT

If anything goes wrong, they can always enlist the help of the defender community.

Oh yeah, why don't you go ask the people of City Ankh Morpork (http://www.nationstates.net/region=City%20Ankh%20Morpork) how well that's working out for them?:rolleyes:

Well if you planned on being an isolated region, you probably shouldn't of let your founder die....



At the moment the Quiz is still going (we're only at like 200 or so participants), but one question's answer has stabilized and I would put out the educated guess that,

All demographics (roleplaying..general..raiding) are equal in size, with the exception of the regional community variety which is slightly larger.
The point is, if this quiz has not been publicized, and all Nationstates players therefore didn''t have access to it, then it's worthless. You're basically looking at a sample of, what, likeminded individuals who've been sent the link?

That's hardly an accurate read of the entire NS community. That's a read of a tightly controlled sample. As was this thread until it was publicized in the General, Nationstates, and International Incidents forum. Amazingly, since then, there's been a good deal of open resistance to the idea of removing founders... resistance that wasn't apparent because those interested weren't invited to the party.

That's true...
... unless you have your region founded (or re-founded) by a puppet whose password is shared by several (trusted, & hopefully trustworthy) players, or course: that approach has worked for the IDU, so far, and for both 'Conservative Paradise Reborn' & 'Conservative Paradise' itself since March & June 2007 respectively...
Sharing founder passwords has also led to headaches with NOT so honorable players.

Um..regardless of any game mechanic changes, no founder does = a target for raiders.
Except that influence slows that down -- which is a game mechanic which people in this thread want to get rid of because it "effects" their gameplay.

Never mind the effect that would have on regions that don't want to play defense.

The point is, if this quiz has not been publicized, and all Nationstates players therefore didn''t have access to it, then it's worthless. You're basically looking at a sample of, what, likeminded individuals who've been sent the link?

That's hardly an accurate read of the entire NS community. That's a read of a tightly controlled sample.

The survey was created by a group of NS players of diverse interests and origins. It's there to gather information, not to advance one particular playstyle's agenda. Distribution of links is ongoing and far from complete, and we haven't been showing results (except for the broadest and most handwavey of trends) because we're not yet convinced that the people we've reached so far are even close to a truly representative sample of onsite nor offsite players.

It is biased in that people are much more likely to get links if they're on a forum of some sort, here or elsewhere, but since it's unofficial there's not much we can do about that. Still, we'll see what we get as links get distributed to a broader audience. Stay tuned.

As was this thread until it was publicized in the General, Nationstates, and International Incidents forum. Amazingly, since then, there's been a good deal of open resistance to the idea of removing founders... resistance that wasn't apparent because those interested weren't invited to the party.

As evidenced by the replies from Gameplay players before and after this thread was distributed, as well as the original poster's disavowal of his original idea, it's fair to say that the idea of removing founders hasn't been seriously supported by much of anyone. At this point, the thread has moved on to address some other topics which are a good deal less clear-cut.

As evidenced by the replies from Gameplay players before and after this thread was distributed, as well as the original poster's disavowal of his original idea, it's fair to say that the idea of removing founders hasn't been seriously supported by much of anyone. At this point, the thread has moved on to address some other topics which are a good deal less clear-cut.

Well to be fair, I know at least one person that voice their opinion about removing founders - namely, Max Barry. But that might have changed after reading this thread of abominations.

Really? Other people's opinions are abominations now?
Nice to know.

The idea of removing founders is seen as an abomination, for the most part, in this thread.

Don't go all "Andrew Jackson" on me now.

The idea of removing founders is seen as an abomination, for the most part, in this thread.

Don't go all "Andrew Jackson" on me now.
Your choice of words. Don't blame me if it's necessary for you to clarify them, or go all hyperbolic to make it seem like I'm attacking you in some way.

I didn't refer to it as a thread of abominations.

Unless you don't understand what abomination means? Because I don't see anything here worthy of disgust or hatred.

Your choice of words. Don't blame me if it's necessary for you to clarify them, or go all hyperbolic to make it seem like I'm attacking you in some way

Well, next time you ask for a clarification, how about you don't put it in the form of an attack? Okay?

Point out where I attacked you, please. Was it when I questioned your use of "thread of abominations" to refer to a discussion being held between all sides?

Unibot - seriously son, you need to step away from the computer, and get a grip. You've been here not even a year yet, and you're the one getting all stirred over this whole thing and pointing fingers and accusing and all the rest.

Kat there has been around since forever, is one of the nicest people, let alone mods you're likely to deal with, and in no way attacked you.

Your track record in the thread thus far has included been baseless claims (Max said what where?), baiting, and inflammatory remarks. Might want to stop and ponder that before you take it further - just as a suggestion.

I'd like to see something to where you can make proposals and resolutions, and if you vote against something, you can have the chance of rejecting it from being implemented in your country, and those who can't get off their butts and cast a vote, get stuck with whatever the outcome may be. Because, if you notice, in the real UN, not everything is accepted and implemented by all those who participate and are members of the UN. I think something like this would be good.

Also something like being able to name a capital city, and other cities, break our nations down into provinces or actual states if we want instead of just looking at a broad view of just one entire nation.

Whamabama is correct. If you think Influence actually has changed the game for the better for isolated NS regions, please read the explanation of military gameplay which I posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14640829) (also linked in my sig). Trust those of us who deal with this side of gameplay to know how it actually works. The only effect Influence has had is in 1) killing off our side of gameplay, and 2) leaving you actually defenseless if you don't have a Founder, because the griefing rules that used to protect your region from total annihilation were abolished. Influence does not help you regain the delegacy once a raider has control.

The raid on City Ankh Morpork proves my point. DEN is one of a very few raider organizations left who can conduct a proper raid, but once they do it, there's very little defenders can do to help. Now they're in charge, and if they want, they can just sit there until they have enough Influence to banject everyone and lock the region - before that would've been illegal, but Influence makes it legal. The only way we'll be able to get in is if the DEN delegate royally screws up... or decides to leave on his own.

So no, Influence does not help you. Nor does it help us. Which is why we want to get rid of it, no matter how many times we are told it will never happen.

The advent of Influence only coincidentally helped anyone by reducing military gameplay to a shadow of what it used to be (thus making the frequency of raids lower overall), but in so doing, it also seriously damaged political gameplay which is predicated on the possibility of the use of military force. And military force used in the course of political gameplay is NOT in itself "raiding", any more than WWI or II could be equated to piracy. It simply makes use of the same mechanics of force. Behind what goes on in the game mechanics in political gameplay, however, is a huge and complicated web of personal interactions, alliances, and intrigue... all of which suffers if its plans cannot be carried to fruition in the game environment.

The solution for a region whose Founder is going to retire is to give the Founder nation to another player for safe-keeping. The Founder does not have to be in the WA and so can be treated as just another puppet while retaining all its useful functions in defense of the region.

That is what Equilism has done for the past 3 years - the original player behind our Founder Equility has been back to visit only a handful of times, while Westwind maintains his nation in order to defend our region. That's much safer than refounding and allows for continuity.

Whamabama is correct. If you think Influence actually has changed the game for the better for isolated NS regions, please read the explanation of military gameplay which I posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14640829) (also linked in my sig). Trust those of us who deal with this side of gameplay to know how it actually works. The only effect Influence has had is in 1) killing off our side of gameplay, and 2) leaving you actually defenseless if you don't have a Founder, because the griefing rules that used to protect your region from total annihilation were abolished. Influence does not help you regain the delegacy once a raider has control.

The raid on City Ankh Morpork proves my point. DEN is one of a very few raider organizations left who can conduct a proper raid, but once they do it, there's very little defenders can do to help. Now they're in charge, and if they want, they can just sit there until they have enough Influence to banject everyone and lock the region - before that would've been illegal, but Influence makes it legal. The only way we'll be able to get in is if the DEN delegate royally screws up... or decides to leave on his own.

So no, Influence does not help you. Nor does it help us. Which is why we want to get rid of it, no matter how many times we are told it will never happen.

The advent of Influence only coincidentally helped anyone by reducing military gameplay to a shadow of what it used to be (thus making the frequency of raids lower overall), but in so doing, it also seriously damaged political gameplay which is predicated on the possibility of the use of military force. And military force used in the course of political gameplay is NOT in itself "raiding", any more than WWI or II could be equated to piracy. It simply makes use of the same mechanics of force. Behind what goes on in the game mechanics in political gameplay, however, is a huge and complicated web of personal interactions, alliances, and intrigue... all of which suffers if its plans cannot be carried to fruition in the game environment.

The solution for a region whose Founder is going to retire is to give the Founder nation to another player for safe-keeping. The Founder does not have to be in the WA and so can be treated as just another puppet while retaining all its useful functions in defense of the region.

That is what Equilism has done for the past 3 years - the original player behind our Founder Equility has been back to visit only a handful of times, while Westwind maintains his nation in order to defend our region. That's much safer than refounding and allows for continuity.



How exactly has Influence killed political play then ? Surely if the and more randomly intended business of raiding can be succesful, a la DEN why can't the threat of organised millitary force be made to work ?

There are two different sides to that, and you'll have to follow me a bit in understanding how NS politics actually work on the ground. (I've been meaning to write a primer on the political side of gameplay, too, but it's juuuuust a bit harder to explain.)

One side is that the problem is not so much the mechanic of Influence, as it is the destruction of the moral debate. The raider-defender dichotomy originally dictated a great deal of the political play - it was an ideological battle around which other differences could be developed and elaborated. It was, after all, the only reason people stepped outside their own nations and regions to begin cooperating in the first place. The ADN (Alliance Defense Network)'s opposition to the PRP/NPO (People's Republic of The Pacific/New Pacific Order) was centered around the idea that Francos Spain was an usurper and dictator - that he was nothing more than a raider who refused to leave. On those grounds, the ADN fought his regime and his successors in battles waged with defender armies, and through what was probably the high point of the NS intelligence game - all techniques that had their origins in the conflict between raiders and defenders, and which were put secondarily to political use, always shaded through with the arguments about native rights and sovereignty that were the foundation for defender action. The whole apparatus functioned because it was based on a moral conviction so strong that people kept coming back to fight for what they believed in. The elimination of the griefing rules with the advent of Influence meant that defenders' dedication to upholding justice and self-determination was considered superfluous and the moral argument was dead, replaced by game mechanics sanctioning violence that were said to suffice. The mass exodus of players that followed left gaping holes in the political environment. By destroying the military game, Influence removed the bottom rungs of the ladder to interregional political activity - there was no longer anything to grab people's attention and get them involved in activities beyond their own narrow spheres of interest. There was, quite simply, nothing so important that it demanded more than occasional player cooperation and dedication.

Second, the problem is not just in the destruction of the moral debate at the heart of our game, but also in the mechanic of Influence itself. In the regions where the biggest political power plays take place (the feeders), there are by now so many high Influence nations (and so few sizable armies) that lasting political revolution is, in fact, next to impossible. Francos Spain, for instance, could never have revolutionized The Pacific in the way that he did if Influence had been around in his day - he would never have been able to eject enough of the older nations and newer threats to be able to consolidate power. Influence froze the political field in the feeders beginning at one moment in 2006, privileging from that day on all the older players ahead of all the younger ones with new ideas - and even against all the older ones with controversial ideas. There is a very good reason why Fudgetopia has been delegate of The South Pacific for 1000 days, and the other regimes in the feeders have only ever been temporarily overturned since then.

Politics is about power. Power in NationStates is about how many players you can motivate to work together to accomplish a goal. Thus, since Influence has eliminated the moral motivation provided by the defender/raider dynamic, the only significant source of power nowadays is in the feeders - they are the only source of new nations, and the only way that you can affect the game environment for anyone who does not choose to be part of your region. But in the absence of sizable interregional armies motivated by a heartfelt belief in the importance of their cause, there are no tools for politicians to work with to attain true power, and no field outside of the feeders themselves in which to exercise that power. We have nothing with which to inspire people - no cause that is important enough for them to give up their time and their energy, or even look any deeper than surface level into a game that is deceptively individualistic on the surface.

That is why I suggested (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14537784&postcount=47), first, the reinstitution of the griefing rules with one change - that they be enforced by a Committee (to save the mods the time and energy) elected by the players (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14538714&postcount=49) (to provide an avenue for politics). That was shot down (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14539466&postcount=51), and I understand why, although there is not a single doubt in my mind that it would be fantastic for my side of the game... without harming anyone else's, as far as I can see.

And second, that's why I suggested the creation of one, unique Adzone - something that is not just an advantage, but is actually a useful tool for politicians to work with as well as for - where whoever was the Delegate of the Adzone at a designated time every other week would be allowed to send one game-wide TG, subject to Mod approval. It could be anything from encouragement to vote for (or against) a WA proposal to an announcement of the next greatest sporting event, or from a regional advertisement to a NationStates newspaper published by the players.

After 2.5 years of playing NS politics, it is my considered opinion that this would help significantly to revitalize my side of the game, at a very small cost (deleting one TG every 14 days) for everyone else.

EDIT: And finally, to go code-crazy, I would love to see Regional Endorsements, as I explained in the other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14606895&postcount=224):
it'd be nice if we had a special page for "regional endorsements". The WA Delegate could give endorsements to other regions... and then we could have a list of regions and which other regions had endorsed them. It need have no other coded effect beyond the list of endorsements, which would be labeled by the region the WA Delegate was from. Everyone in political gameplay has a general sense of which regions are the most important and well-known or well-respected, but it would be pretty cool to actually be able to reflect that in code, and it would open up another motivator and avenue for region-wide and interregional diplomacy.

I have said it before, and will say it again. Getting rid of founders would be a horrible, horrible idea. And would NOT stimulate raiding much at all.

Yes. See pages 2-11. ;) (Much love, HEM, it's just that everyone's undoubted enthusiasm for smacking down the idea on the first page is beginning to derail the productive discussion that followed.)

On that note, Kandarin pointed out that my Adzone idea has troublesome consequences in light of the ability of competent militaries to control a region indefinitely. There are a couple of ways to work around this, though to develop them properly will need more time and maybe another thread. The solution in either case would be to take away ejections, passwords, and bans from the Regional Controls. Now, that would both make for an interesting and long-term fight (returning to the very early days of NS), and prevent total domination by a single region or organization.

Just to point out, for the third time, that the post which started this thread has no relevancwe whatsoever in this debate, no one, including me, the orginial poster, supports it so can we please stop referring to it in every tenth post. Also, I aghree with the adzone diea, it sounds really good. I also support the WFE idea proposed earlier in this thread, that would help interegional politcs return without greviosuly damaging a region.

Just to point out, for the third time, that the post which started this thread has no relevancwe whatsoever in this debate, no one, including me, the orginial poster, supports it so can we please stop referring to it in every tenth post. Also, I aghree with the adzone diea, it sounds really good. I also support the WFE idea proposed earlier in this thread, that would help interegional politcs return without greviosuly damaging a region.



You know you can always delete the post in question, then you'll not have to go to the trouble of disavowing the content all the time.

You know you can always delete the post in question, then you'll not have to go to the trouble of disavowing the content all the time.

Let me try that with a thread I created.

*checks*

It would appear that while regular posts can be deleted by their creators, posts that originated a thread cannot be. Juken cannot delete his post.

Let me try that with a thread I created.

*checks*

It would appear that while regular posts can be deleted by their creators, posts that originated a thread cannot be. Juken cannot delete his post.

Well in that case they can always delete the content of the original post and leave it blank...

Well in that case they can always delete the content of the original post and leave it blank...Or simply add their disclaimer, in large friendly letters, there...

One side is that the problem is not so much the mechanic of Influence, as it is the destruction of the moral debate.

That's one, and very important, element. Another element IS a mechanic issue: it used to be that wars were never legally over. Emptying a region by force simply wasn't allowed and would invoke modly wrath. This typically kept an occupation going, tied up resources, and so these things could become an issue of longer-term political powerplay. Far more interesting, IMHO, but only possible if there's continually something worth fighting over.

Nowadays emptying a region IS allowed, so that's what happens time and time again. The wars actually finish, and since the Defender's jobs has historically always been to return the status quo (hand the region back to the natives), Invaders can just try again later, again and again if need be, until they win. Once they win, their victory is locked in and the war over that region is over and done with. So, another reason for the gameplay wars to have taken a plunge like they did is that it has become pointless: one side is guaranteed to be victorious in the end. All they need to do is keep trying.

And with the wars essentially over, there's no point in playing interregional politics at all. The natural response is to throw up a wall (Founders) and forget about everything outside ones own region.

Ballotonia

Ballotonia speaks wisdom. :hail:

That's one, and very important, element. Another element IS a mechanic issue: it used to be that wars were never legally over. Emptying a region by force simply wasn't allowed and would invoke modly wrath. This typically kept an occupation going, tied up resources, and so these things could become an issue of longer-term political powerplay. Far more interesting, IMHO, but only possible if there's continually something worth fighting over.

Nowadays emptying a region IS allowed, so that's what happens time and time again. The wars actually finish, and since the Defender's jobs has historically always been to return the status quo (hand the region back to the natives), Invaders can just try again later, again and again if need be, until they win. Once they win, their victory is locked in and the war over that region is over and done with. So, another reason for the gameplay wars to have taken a plunge like they did is that it has become pointless: one side is guaranteed to be victorious in the end. All they need to do is keep trying.

And with the wars essentially over, there's no point in playing interregional politics at all. The natural response is to throw up a wall (Founders) and forget about everything outside ones own region.

Ballotonia



So the powers that be changed the game to eliminate a particularly troublesome ( and doubtless very wearisome ) problem with its mechanics. What's happened is that players simply play the game differently now.

Presumably their are large amounts of players who never knew the game before the introduction of influence and Foundership, they have played the game with those factors in place without any cognizance of what it might be like to play without them. Eventually they will simply end up being the overwhelming majority of the players.

Things change, deal with it, or perhaps find something else to do.

I'm not trying to be callous, though it may sound it, but I'm saying that the game has changed, its players must evolve to compensate and thrive in the new environment or else become extinct.

Most players currently are thriving in this new environment, some don't even realise its new, what do proponents of new changes want ? To recreate a game that once existed but does so no longer ? Or introduce totally novel improvements which will make the players of this game evolve to meet new challenges ?

The first is futile, the second is intriguing, but so far all I read is griping about how things used to be better in the good old days, not innovation and new ideas.

Some of the things I'd like to see added:

-Warfare
-Greater control over finances
-Greater control over trade
-Game generated maps for regions

Warfare

You know, I got thinking about that. There could be a much simpler system employed into NS1. Simply to engage in war one would click a button on a Nation's page and wait for a response,

once the other agreeded to the war (because war should be an option), the results of it would be calculated (using formulas with the nation's stats), and a very NationStatesian (aka humorous, and exaggerated) description of the war would be generated and displayed in the Nation's bio or something, as well as effecting the population of the nations involved(- or +, baby booms, genocide, assimilation...).

If there were no server constraints, I'd even go as far as to suggest delegates being able to start wars with other delegates which would in turn be, region v.s region.
__________________

I don't know if thats what they have in NS2, but that seems fairly simple to do...and if done correctly would fit in with the rest of NS1 fairly smoothly, and be a really neat feature.

So the powers that be changed the game to eliminate a particularly troublesome ( and doubtless very wearisome ) problem with its mechanics. What's happened is that players simply play the game differently now.

Presumably their are large amounts of players who never knew the game before the introduction of influence and Foundership, they have played the game with those factors in place without any cognizance of what it might be like to play without them. Eventually they will simply end up being the overwhelming majority of the players.

Things change, deal with it, or perhaps find something else to do.

I'm not trying to be callous, though it may sound it, but I'm saying that the game has changed, its players must evolve to compensate and thrive in the new environment or else become extinct.

Most players currently are thriving in this new environment, some don't even realise its new, what do proponents of new changes want ? To recreate a game that once existed but does so no longer ? Or introduce totally novel improvements which will make the players of this game evolve to meet new challenges ?

The first is futile, the second is intriguing, but so far all I read is griping about how things used to be better in the good old days, not innovation and new ideas.

Warfare-based NSers are innovative. the lack of instant conflict resolution pre-influence (founders, rules) forced them to get really creative. However, as in many other games (RTS and fighting games come to mind) diversity and innovation of strategies can only thrive if there's incentive to do so - that is, if there isn't a strategy that's obvious and superior to all the rest, and if there's a number of mechanics that can be fiddled with to produce differing strategies.

In the present (Influence) system, it's possible for an aggressively-minded alliance to storm their targeted regions with sufficient numbers, set a password, and eject people as Influence comes until there's nothing left. Unless some easily preventable mistakes are made, this strategy is invincible. If you're an aggressive, conquest-based group, why try to come up with anything else? You've already got a strategy that is perfect. And if you're not - if you're a defense-oriented group or a region that only rarely goes to war - why try to fight wars, when so much of the time you'll be fighting with people who can use this strategy? You'll never be able to beat them unless they screw up.

In effect, Influence gave a small portion of the conflict game an Ultimate Win Button. Most of those who played that part of the game, including a lot of invaders, find the sort of play that lets you use said Button to be dishonorable and boring to boot. So they've dwindled, while the minority that were willing to turn to the sort of playstyle that lets them use the proverbial Button are better at shoving raids down the throats of players who want to be left alone than they ever were before. This is one of the reasons why changes to the password mechanic (such as the elimination of invisible passwords, or a regular Influence cost to keep them up) have been suggested in the Other Thread. The current state of the password and Influence mechanics interact in a way that stifles conflict activity except to greatly facilitate what would have been called griefing before it was legalized.

(Also, doubleplusthanks to whichever mod changed the topic title)

Thanks, Ballotonia - that's an aspect of the game I never saw. :)

Presumably their are large amounts of players who never knew the game before the introduction of influence and Foundership, they have played the game with those factors in place without any cognizance of what it might be like to play without them. Eventually they will simply end up being the overwhelming majority of the players.

Things change, deal with it, or perhaps find something else to do.

I'm not trying to be callous, though it may sound it, but I'm saying that the game has changed, its players must evolve to compensate and thrive in the new environment or else become extinct.
First, ditto Kandarin.

Second, I'm one of those who never played in the age before Influence. What I know about it is not based on experience, but on a working knowledge of how the game operates today compared to what I hear about its history, plus some logical deduction. And what I see today tells me that the players who are thriving are not playing my side of the game at all - not even an adaptation of it.

My region has been one of a very few political regions to adapt and remain politically active over the last three years, but there are situations in which further adaptation finally becomes impossible. A wooly mammoth can get a haircut when the temperature rises but it still can't breathe underwater when the glaciers melt. We're already hairless; we would like very much not to become extinct.

There's a difference between adaptation, and forcing everyone to play the way someone else does - as people have been very quick to point out when the shoe's on the other foot. What makes the issues or WA-focused style of play the natural evolution of the game, and the whole political world something that just must be sacrificed? This is a game created by people, not by natural law - there is no inevitable force of evolution behind its development, only the biases and abilities of the people involved in shaping it - us.

I believe multiple different styles of play can happily coexist, but not if people do not recognize each other's mutual right to existence. That goes for my side of play (in accepting that playing for the issues is perfectly valid, for instance) as much as for yours. If we tell you what we need and why, and you tell us to deal with not having it or shove off, I don't see how you can deny that there are deep divisions between NS players that lead to a gross devaluation of the experience of some. If it is not acceptable for raiders to drive other players away from the game, why is it okay for other players to do the same to regional politicians?

The first is futile, the second is intriguing, but so far all I read is griping about how things used to be better in the good old days, not innovation and new ideas.
We've brought up the past because our explanation of how our world works and why it's in bad shape has been questioned. In between those explanations, there have been several new ideas. Or at least, if someone has previously talked about regional issues, adzones, organizing the list all nations feature by regional power, an elected griefing investigation committee, or region-to-region endorsements with a rankings list, I am not aware of it. ;)

I think our time would be better spent examining those sorts of ideas as they come up and critiquing them for benefits and drawbacks. Constructive criticism is helpful; criticizing the way people play the game is not. Finally,the fact that something has been tried in the past does not mean we cannot draw on that past experience for inspiration and education, which is what I see happening in this and the other thread.

Posting this separately so it doesn't get lost.

Have another new idea, while I'm thinking of it... everyone always talks about allowing links in the WFE. What if we had a "regional embassies" page instead (or in addition), where the WA Delegate of each region could submit a link to their regional forum? Each time the Delegate changed, the link would disappear and have to be set up again. that way regions without a WA Delegate wouldn't be on the list, which would cut it down to a more manageable size. (You could even tie it to the region-to-region endorsements thing so that only regions with 2 endorsements could submit one, a la WA proposals; or you could combine it with the regional endos/rankings list so that the region at the top of the list would have a link to its forum there.) The downside would be checking the links to make sure they weren't malicious. The upside would be that I wouldn't have to keep my list updated any more. :p

Oh, and an unrelated suggestion for Warzones... allow links in their WFEs, but not elsewhere. That would be a bit more incentive to fight over them.

And what I see today tells me that the players who are thriving are not playing my side of the game at all - not even an adaptation of it.

My region has been one of a very few political regions to adapt and remain politically active over the last three years, but there are situations in which further adaptation finally becomes impossible.

Your region has adapted, and yet your saying nobody is playing an adapted form of the game your region is interested in.


A wooly mammoth can get a haircut when the temperature rises but it still can't breathe underwater when the glaciers melt. We're already hairless; we would like very much not to become extinct.

I don't think I or anyone else suggested actually making it any harder for the mammoths to survive.

This is a game created by people, not by natural law - there is no inevitable force of evolution behind its development, only the biases and abilities of the people involved in shaping it - us.

Those biases and abilities are the force behind the evolution of the game.






I think our time would be better spent examining those sorts of ideas as they come up and critiquing them for benefits and drawbacks. Constructive criticism is helpful; criticizing the way people play the game is not. Finally,the fact that something has been tried in the past does not mean we cannot draw on that past experience for inspiration and education, which is what I see happening in this and the other thread.


I agree with you, and indeed strictly speaking all I'm trying to do is to hold certain suggestions up to proper scrutiny, not simply "criticizing the way other people play the game" as you put it. But if you classify such scrutiny in that way then it appears your not really interested in the kind of critique your suggesting this thread is for.

Personally I have no problem with many of the suggestions in this thread, I do have a problem with a campaign to revive a style of play which caused a lot of unwonted hassle for players and mods alike, a campaign which claims that any opposition to it is somehow bigoted and biased.

Oh, I might as well bring back an old discussion from the World Adjustment Thread,

How about making it possible for a Region to become a feeder?

There would have to be some restrictions of course,

One, a region to sign up for feeder status would have to retain a regional power ranking of moderate.

Two, by becoming a feeder, the founder would be cut off from regional controls.

Three, RMB's would not be legal for ad spam, regardless of a region being a feeder, if it is not a game created region it is not to be spammed. (I thinking this would be the course to go, it would require more moderation, but at least regions wouldn't have to have their culture suffer for an increased traffic flow)

Oh, and an unrelated suggestion for Warzones... allow links in their WFEs, but not elsewhere. That would be a bit more incentive to fight over them.

No, I'm not losing five pounds from debating to see one region gets links and not another (in particular, mine :) )... no way, nice idea, but no way. I would have to hunt down and hurt who ever is responsible... :D

Your region has adapted, and yet your saying nobody is playing an adapted form of the game your region is interested in.

Equilism has 'adapted' by toning down its involvement in external politics and war to a minimum and picking up more internal activities. Running a region based purely on externals isn't really viable anymore - and a lot of regions didn't realize that and tried to adapt without deviating from the external game, thus, ironically failing to 'adapt'. The only exceptions are regions that are based on pure pillage'n'burn tactics, who now have it better than ever, but most regional politics or war players don't want to play that way and you wouldn't like it very much if they did.

I don't think I or anyone else suggested actually making it any harder for the mammoths to survive.

No, but when the observation is made that it's extremely hard for them to survive as it is, many stand up to keep it that way.

I agree with you, and indeed strictly speaking all I'm trying to do is to hold certain suggestions up to proper scrutiny, not simply "criticizing the way other people play the game" as you put it. But if you classify such scrutiny in that way then it appears your not really interested in the kind of critique your suggesting this thread is for.

Personally I have no problem with many of the suggestions in this thread, I do have a problem with a campaign to revive a style of play which caused a lot of unwonted hassle for players and mods alike, a campaign which claims that any opposition to it is somehow bigoted and biased.

The people who caused all the hassle are doing just fine. They're out pillaging regions to their heart's content. It's everyone else remotely related to that style of play who got stiff limitations put on them. I realize that's not what was intended, but that's what has happened and so some sort of review and reform of the system is required.

The people who caused all the hassle are doing just fine. They're out pillaging regions to their heart's content. It's everyone else remotely related to that style of play who got stiff limitations put on them. I realize that's not what was intended, but that's what has happened and so some sort of review and reform of the system is required.


So your answer to that is to get rid of influence ?

Surely some form of enhanced influence would be more effective, one which filtered out the kind of randomised pillaging and raiding which influence was presumably intended to end.

I can understand removing the kind of catch all influence currently in place but only if something more subtle and more aware of the variety of play styles there, are especially those which cause the most general unpleasantness, is there to replace it.

Clearly differentiated kinds of region combined with this kind of enhanced influence would go a long way, IMHO towards solving some of the problems we talking about.

(Also, doubleplusthanks to whichever mod changed the topic title)
T'would be me.

So your answer to that is to get rid of influence ?

A quick review of my posts in this thread shows that I have never once said that, but have been advocating other reforms and tweaks all along while explaining the impact that Influence has had (and thus the need for changes). If you truly believe that I have suggested simply removing influence at some point, I ask that you please provide a link to the requisite post.

I ask that you please provide a link to the requisite post

Sure, here (http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/nonexistence) :D

A quick review of my posts in this thread shows that I have never once said that, but have been advocating other reforms and tweaks all along while explaining the impact that Influence has had (and thus the need for changes). If you truly believe that I have suggested simply removing influence at some point, I ask that you please provide a link to the requisite post.


What you quoted was a question not a statement, it was not meant rhetorically either.

I'm going to presume that you've answered it now.

Interesting. A quiz that I certainly wasn't aware of. What's your statistical sample?
I've taken it, and the survey uses convenience sampling, volunteer sampling, or connivance sampling, whichever way you view it. Either way, it is not an accurate representation of the viewpoints of the entire community, not likely to be as valid statistically. But I'll concede that it is hard to make a survey to comply with the rigorous statistical standards, but I'll take whatever the survey's results as representative of certain segment/s of the community.

I've taken it, and the survey uses convenience sampling, volunteer sampling, or connivance sampling, whichever way you view it. Either way, it is not an accurate representation of the viewpoints of the entire community, not likely to be as valid statistically. But I'll concede that it is hard to make a survey to comply with the rigorous statistical standards, but I'll take whatever the survey's results as representative of certain segment/s of the community.

The segment in question is that of people who are active on a forum, whether it's this official NS forum or an unofficial regional/alliance forum. As zealous as we were in distributing links to the latter (and as grateful as we are to Katganistan for posting links in stickies in the former) distribution beyond forums is limited by the fact that this is unofficial and not backed by the tools available to the game admins. We did get a little RMB distribution in places whose Founders asked for it or in which we already had long-standing puppets (or which have few restrictions, like feeder RMBs). However, we felt that spamming out links that advertise this thing like fairy dust over the small-region RMBs of the world would break some rules. Ditto for mass telegrams.

A list of forums (and RMBs) that got links to the survey will be posted with the survey results when those are posted, which probably shouldn't be too long now. It's a really long list, for what that's worth.

So your answer to that is to get rid of influence ?

Surely some form of enhanced influence would be more effective, one which filtered out the kind of randomised pillaging and raiding which influence was presumably intended to end.

I've been trying to think of a way to retain Influence with tweaks that would prevent -systematically - the cut and burn region griefing that has resulted since its institution, and I can't think of a formula to do it. Those sorts of players can and will manipulate whatever system is put in place as soon as they figure out how it's supposed to work legitimately. The only thing that could stop them (without destroying all military activity entirely) is making such behavior illegal again.

That's what I'm concerned about on the question of Influence, really, more than whether or not we keep it. It should be just as illegal to grief regions now as it was under the definitions given pre-Influence.


How about making it possible for a Region to become a feeder?
I knew I forgot an idea. :p

I'm still concerned about how exactly this would work in terms of recruitment permissions. I would also urge that the ability to become a feeder be determined by the delegate's number of WA endorsements, not just regional power, because WA endorsements at least are more likely to represent real players, and not someone with an army of puppets talking to themselves.

Could someone make a list of ideas and how far they've been developed? I'm losing track, here. If we're going to get anything solid, we need to be more focused than this.

Could someone make a list of ideas and how far they've been developed? I'm losing track, here. If we're going to get anything solid, we need to be more focused than this.

Yeah, I'll go through the feeder forum, and this thread and post the ideas we've brought up.