NationStates Jolt Archive

We're discussing some ways in which we might change and improve NationStates.

If you'd like to see what's being discussed and make your suggestions, check this link. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=586807)

Nationstates the game, or forum, or both?

I thought Hera was the shape of things to come?

The game, but as all of you also have game accounts, I thought you might want to see what's up for discussion.

hmm... perhaps making this a sticky?

The game, but as all of you also have game accounts, I thought you might want to see what's up for discussion.
Ah. The forum's a bit more important, but I still like the game. I think I'll check it out.

Ah. The forum's a bit more important, but I still like the game. I think I'll check it out.

Their's a game to this? :eek:

*looks at calendar*
*is suspicious...*

Sarkhaan, would we try to April Fools you on this?


....ok, stupid question. But you might wanna check when that thread started... and the nations involved... and ask yourself if they could all me in on it and NOT let something slip.

Sarkhaan, would we try to April Fools you on this?


....ok, stupid question. But you might wanna check when that thread started... and the nations involved... and ask yourself if they could all me in on it and NOT let something slip.

It does provide some nice setup, however...

It does provide some nice setup, however...

I still miss Nation Dates.

:(

Rule 1-No Jews Allowed.

People with hats are cool, though.

I still miss Nation Dates.

:(

There was a "Nation Dates"?

Now that I'm single again, that would be awesome.

There was a "Nation Dates"?

Now that I'm single again, that would be awesome.

It certainly went over better than the short-lived Nation Prunes.

The future shape of NS? For some reason, I'm seeing something that distinctly resembles a pear in general form, weight distribution and aerodynamics.

I'll add in a link to the other thread which has been going in regards to changes. It started out about feeders and then branched out into the whole of NS, both grand and small changes.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=581943

Given that the changes proposed will affect all nations, we'd like to get all aspects of the community involved.

Count me in, I have loads of ideas.

Given that the changes proposed will affect all nations, we'd like to get all aspects of the community involved.

It's horseshit, and if it's implemented, I'll just retreat to my own private, password-protected one-nation region, which seems to be the exact opposite of what their goal is.

It's horseshit, and if it's implemented, I'll just retreat to my own private, password-protected one-nation region, which seems to be the exact opposite of what their goal is.
This.

As an aside, could an old hand point me towards a FAQ or something on what a nation can do if it doesn't want to get involved in war, yet wishes to play NS?

Is it 'simply' RPing alliance membership/nation events?

I've looked on the non-Generalite boards, but can't find a clear answer.

This.

As an aside, could an old hand point me towards a FAQ or something on what a nation can do if it doesn't want to get involved in war, yet wishes to play NS?

Is it 'simply' RPing alliance membership/nation events?

I've looked on the non-Generalite boards, but can't find a clear answer.

Alliances, diplomacy of various sorts, natural disasters, sports fixtures, etc. Basically anything which turns up in the news is fair game. As is all sorts of ways of exploring the intricacies of one's society: RPing particular characters, discussions between them, interactions between citizens of different nations, etc. Although this is somewhat rarer.

I left the II side of things because it always devolved into war, somehow. Some of the more interesting character RP's always died due to apathetic RPers, including myself.

I say we lift the need for regular logging in on the nation account so I never have to visit NS ever again!

it would be really useful on general where users lose accounts once every blue moon...and it will really piss off the game developers :p

I left the II side of things because it always devolved into war, somehow. Some of the more interesting character RP's always died due to apathetic RPers, including myself.

this.

if I wanted to do a 12 page essay with a 12 year old I'd be a paid teacher

This.

As an aside, could an old hand point me towards a FAQ or something on what a nation can do if it doesn't want to get involved in war, yet wishes to play NS?

Is it 'simply' RPing alliance membership/nation events?

I've looked on the non-Generalite boards, but can't find a clear answer.I've never done any RP'ing at all, just toyed with my nation and posted on the forums. My region consists of me, myself, and I since everybody else who came to NS with me got tired and left, long ago. You could start your own one-nation region, or come over to mine.

I've never done any RP'ing at all, just toyed with my nation and posted on the forums. My region consists of me, myself, and I since everybody else who came to NS with me got tired and left, long ago. You could start your own one-nation region, or come over to mine.
Cheers very much, but I'll stay in Discordia for now.

And thanks for the answers, you and UvV both.

As a Generalite, I would not like to see invasion made easier. If it were not for the sustained efforts of WYTYG et al, the DCS, a region almost exclusively of Generalites, would have been destroyed on some teenager's whim. While it would be useful if Founder powers transfered to another nation in the region after the Founder has left, or ceased to exist (as is the case in my region; I have no idea what the password is :rolleyes:), I would not want any change that made it easier for someone to boot me from my blissful isolation. Thank you for your consideration!

It's horseshit, and if it's implemented, I'll just retreat to my own private, password-protected one-nation region, which seems to be the exact opposite of what their goal is.

You're not alone in that, though I personally wouldn't bother. Regions like mine that have plenty of endorsement power and numerous allies are still safe for habitation.

Is it possible to design a proper algorithm to compute what your nations military would be like, based on your economy, population, society and type of government, so that RPing is more consistent, preventing godmodding etc... This could be another bit added to the front page, just describing generally the level of military technology, the amount of funds it has, and the amount of people in it.

Is it possible to design a proper algorithm to compute what your nations military would be like, based on your economy, population, society and type of government, so that RPing is more consistent, preventing godmodding etc... This could be another bit added to the front page, just describing generally the level of military technology, the amount of funds it has, and the amount of people in it.

Several such calcs have already been designed by players. I'm not sure that our policy of allowing free-form roleplay would be consistent with having an official NS calc.

I'm not sure that our policy of allowing free-form roleplay would be consistent with having an official NS calc.

Well, people already get attacked for God modding if they have a small population but have a thousand nukes or whatever, so it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

Well, people already get attacked for God modding if they have a small population but have a thousand nukes or whatever, so it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

Sure. But making it official site policy for roleplay means the Moderation staff gets to enforce it. And frankly, I'd rather stick my hand in a bag of fire ants than try to Moderate roleplay to that degree.

On the other hand, we could simply use an opt-in system where players can agree to abide by the official calc and hold themselves to it. That would create less drama, though there would certainly be some.

Sure. But making it official site policy for roleplay means the Moderation staff gets to enforce it. And frankly, I'd rather stick my hand in a bag of fire ants than try to Moderate roleplay to that degree.


But I thought it was already moderated. I mean, isn't it actionable if someone says he has 20,000 nukes and starts rping with them, but only has a tiny population?

But I thought it was already moderated. I mean, isn't it actionable if someone says he has 20,000 nukes and starts rping with them, but only has a tiny population?

Only in the sense that people who post such things usually end up posting them in such a way as to be spam. Or trolling. Basically, in the course of their nonsensical attempts at being leet haxxorz, they usually break some rule or another.

But all in all, as Moderators, we don't particularly care if your nation is composed of godlike magical beings, super-advanced aliens, or if your entire population lives in missile silos because of having so many nukes.

As an aside, could an old hand point me towards a FAQ or something on what a nation can do if it doesn't want to get involved in war, yet wishes to play NS?


I think UvV answered your question, but just in case you meant something like "I'd like to RP a nation, but I don't want it involved in wars":

Godmodding by itself is not actually illegal; what gets godmodders in trouble is the sort of uproar it causes. But it's a question of what you can get away with. If the people you RP with don't call you on (whatever you claim), then you've got (whatever you claim). This sort of thing may get up the noses of the nations who feel they play NS "properly", but there's no real "properly".

So, if you don't want to get involved in wars, RP a Deathstar or a magical shield or a mystic king whose regular ritual sacrifice protects the Land or a nation of Invisible Wabbits or a captive but co-operative invincible dragon or a country caught in a timewarp or ... whatever.

And if anyone says they're going to war with you, challenge them to a national dance-off. :D

Several such calcs have already been designed by players. I'm not sure that our policy of allowing free-form roleplay would be consistent with having an official NS calc.

Indeed. From another point of view, it would be much more restrictive than the current free-form system.

Is it possible to design a proper algorithm to compute what your nations military would be like, based on your economy, population, society and type of government, so that RPing is more consistent, preventing godmodding etc... This could be another bit added to the front page, just describing generally the level of military technology, the amount of funds it has, and the amount of people in it.

It's a nice idea, but how would it account for varying technology levels? There's people who run ancient nations, near-modern nations, modern nations, post-modern nations, all flavours of future tech from 20 to 200000 years ahead, and don't even think about the fantasy nations. It also assumes there's a strong link between the society a person plays and what their NS nation presents, which isn't always true - consider nations which are shattered remnants of a civil war, or straggled survivors of a nuclear holocaust. Or players who play a left-wing anarchy, which can't be particularly accurately represented. Or those who model themselves quite accurately on a real nation, ignoring their actual national statistics.

Basically, there are already calculators for people who are going to be paying attention to such information, but many players run nations which simply break out of the molds a calculator sets. Even if you gave it a bunch of options, a bit of computer code will never be able to keep up with the crazy ideas creative humans come up with.

The game, but as all of you also have game accounts, I thought you might want to see what's up for discussion.

There's a game?

I think we should able to push a button that says: Go to war.
And then the other state accepts or makes a treaty.
If they accept, whoever has better military influence wins!
And yes, this is just because I really want to go to war with Big Wang 123...

No. That's already in NS2, except for the "Accept or Treaty" part.

I think the game should be redone to include a war engine. And maybe a graphical interface, with a world map where all of the nations are positioned, and trading with nations that are far away takes a realistically long time. (You are going to introduce trade, aren't you?) Then you could allow players to create CGI avatars of their national leaders and have them interact in fully-functional virtual environments. And take it as an opportunity to tone down the ridiculous populations some people have -- a hard cap of about, say, one hundred million should just about do it. Getting more people would require buying a "population upgrade" for only $9.99 a month plus tax and the cost of shipping all that in pennies to Melbourne.

I have lots of ideas! :D

I think the game should be redone to include a war engine. And maybe a graphical interface, with a world map where all of the nations are positioned, and trading with nations that are far away takes a realistically long time. (You are going to introduce trade, aren't you?) Then you could allow players to create CGI avatars of their national leaders and have them interact in fully-functional virtual environments. And take it as an opportunity to tone down the ridiculous populations some people have -- a hard cap of about, say, one hundred million should just about do it. Getting more people would require buying a "population upgrade" for only $9.99 a month plus tax and the cost of shipping all that in pennies to Melbourne.

I have lots of ideas! :D

Wrong forum.

Furthermore, NS2 is where things vaguely like that get added. There are going to be no more major changes (such as any of those you list) to NS (according to the last admin comments on it I read).

Wrong forum.

Furthermore, NS2 is where things vaguely like that get added. There are going to be no more major changes (such as any of those you list) to NS (according to the last admin comments on it I read).

There aren't? Damn, what are we paying these admins for anyway?!

There aren't? Damn, what are we paying these admins for anyway?!
We are not paying the admins and mods here in NS1. They volunteer their time and energy, out of the goodness of their hearts, in order to keep the game running and whack them troublemakers.

We are not paying the admins and mods here in NS1. They volunteer their time and energy, out of the goodness of their hearts, in order to keep the game running and whack them troublemakers.

And we love them for it! <3 to the infinity power!

There aren't? Damn, what are we paying these admins for anyway?!
...What then would be the point of us asking for your suggestions?
Yes, we're looking for ways to add to and improve NS1.

Having read through the various threads on the subject, it seems to me that the reason I love NationStates so much has not been canvassed to a great extent. My enjoyment can be summed up in one word - "creativity". I love creating a nation that fits my own warped sense of reality; I love creating a football crazy nation of tree-huggers and RPing the resulting lunacy; above all I love creating a huge NSwiki encyclopedia of my nation.

Any formula for war (or any other activity for that matter) is a form of prescription and will restrict creativity. Enforced calculators will end up being a matter of doing the sums and declaring the winner.

Enhancing creativity is the key. Having more ways to customise the politics, look, history of a nation or region would be fantastic. I suspect there will be bandwidth problems, but it would be nice.

As a counter to some of the comments I've read, my view is that regional influence saved NationStates. Raiders were turning NS into a complete pain in the arse. Mental energy that could better be spent on other matters was being wasted on protecting our region. In the end, the raiders succeeded then promptly moved on. What was the point, other than schadenfreude? Following that debacle we refounded the region and continue our quiet enjoyment of the game. As the re-founder I know that, if I do anything other than give the WA delegate complete freedom, everyone will simply leave. That's democracy for you.

(Mind you, our region has a name to fight for - Forest. We don't really need to recruit. Environmentally friendly NSers always find us.)

The essence of NS is its simplicity which, paradoxically, encourages creativity.

As a counter to some of the comments I've read, my view is that regional influence saved NationStates. Raiders were turning NS into a complete pain in the arse. Mental energy that could better be spent on other matters was being wasted on protecting our region. In the end, the raiders succeeded then promptly moved on. What was the point, other than schadenfreude? Following that debacle we refounded the region and continue our quiet enjoyment of the game. As the re-founder I know that, if I do anything other than give the WA delegate complete freedom, everyone will simply leave. That's democracy for you.

In your case, what raiders did (emptying the region) was illegal under the game rules; you could have gone to the mods and gotten the raiders deleted and your region restored. Under Influence, should anything happen to you as Founder, raiders may come in and destroy your region without any recourse from the game mods. As you can see, without your Founder account things are much worse for your region.

Influence made things harder for raiders, yes, but it also put the stamp of mod approval on anything they did manage to pull off, no matter how obnoxious. And raiders were only ever a minority of the people using the WA-conflict mechanic anyhow, so restricting them slapped down the fun of a lot of non-raider regions (the Gatesvilles and NPOs and Equilisms and Taijitus of the world, plus almost every feeder government that ever existed). This is why I'm suggesting it needs to be tweaked.

In your case, what raiders did (emptying the region) was illegal under the game rules; you could have gone to the mods and gotten the raiders deleted and your region restored. Under Influence, should anything happen to you as Founder, raiders may come in and destroy your region without any recourse from the game mods. As you can see, without your Founder account things are much worse for your region.

Influence made things harder for raiders, yes, but it also put the stamp of mod approval on anything they did manage to pull off, no matter how obnoxious. And raiders were only ever a minority of the people using the WA-conflict mechanic anyhow, so restricting them slapped down the fun of a lot of non-raider regions (the Gatesvilles and NPOs and Equilisms and Taijitus of the world, plus almost every feeder government that ever existed). This is why I'm suggesting it needs to be tweaked.

Just to clarify - the raiders didn't kick anyone out. They gained control of the then UN delegate's position then, after a week, moved on. The long term residents of the region subsequently organised a move into a temporary region, Forest 2, then when our original region emptied, we re-founded it.

I'm interested in your comment on how restricting raiders reduced the fun for non-raider regions. How? The threat of raiders, prior to re-founding, was a hassle our region would have a preferred to do without. Tweaking influence is not a problem, so long as nations can, if they choose, have the ability to be left alone by raiders.

One of things I noticed after influence was introduced was the (temporary) explosion in raider puppet nations as raiders attempted to dilute the influence of delegates by sheer weight of numbers. After a while, when it became apparent that the strategy was ineffectual, the puppets died away.

I'm interested in your comment on how restricting raiders reduced the fun for non-raider regions. How?

Freeform political sim. I don't mean that in the sense of freeform RP, there's a basic framework of rules, but everything else is a very naturalistic outgrowth of real-world politics. Feeder politics work this way, as do a lot of UCRs - not all of them, of course, but certainly most of the bigger ones. I can't expect you to easily comprehend this as your region doesn't play this way; again, it's mostly the domain of larger regions that look outside their borders. But neither can I explain RP to raiders, or talking about politics all day to RPers, or interregional politics to Generalites, and so forth. NS as a game has a lot of cultural boundaries that people are afraid to cross, and I'm seeing a lot of people commenting on aspects they don't understand. I ask that you please take a while to learn about the other guy before condemning him.

I'm interested in your comment on how restricting raiders reduced the fun for non-raider regions. How? The threat of raiders, prior to re-founding, was a hassle our region would have a preferred to do without.

Some regions, like mine, have a good time protecting smaller regions (and larger regions we have diplomatic relations with) from the raiders. Defending is just as much fun as raiding, and you have the bonus of feeling like you're on the moral high ground. :)

Prior to becoming a Mod, I had a good time playing my part in defending various regions from raider attacks.

But neither can I explain RP to raiders, or talking about politics all day to RPers, or interregional politics to Generalites, and so forth. NS as a game has a lot of cultural boundaries that people are afraid to cross, and I'm seeing a lot of people commenting on aspects they don't understand. I ask that you please take a while to learn about the other guy before condemning him.

It is very hard to find people who have played in all the playable aspects of this game, it's true. I'm probably a rare exception in that I was originally a Generalite, moved into regional politics and the raider/defender game, and then moved into the UN/WA scene, and then started doing some RP.

And I actually enjoyed all of it and stayed with each of those things for an extended period of time.

Freeform political sim. I don't mean that in the sense of freeform RP, there's a basic framework of rules, but everything else is a very naturalistic outgrowth of real-world politics. Feeder politics work this way, as do a lot of UCRs - not all of them, of course, but certainly most of the bigger ones. I can't expect you to easily comprehend this as your region doesn't play this way; again, it's mostly the domain of larger regions that look outside their borders. But neither can I explain RP to raiders, or talking about politics all day to RPers, or interregional politics to Generalites, and so forth. NS as a game has a lot of cultural boundaries that people are afraid to cross, and I'm seeing a lot of people commenting on aspects they don't understand. I ask that you please take a while to learn about the other guy before condemning him.

Some regions, like mine, have a good time protecting smaller regions (and larger regions we have diplomatic relations with) from the raiders. Defending is just as much fun as raiding, and you have the bonus of feeling like you're on the moral high ground. :)

Prior to becoming a Mod, I had a good time playing my part in defending various regions from raider attacks.

Oddly enough, having a founder with ability to eject anyone is a greater source of security (and abuse) than influence. Re-founding our region was the key to providing the hassle-free environment that members sought.

Influence is not the problem. The problem is the differing expectations between nations that want to be left alone and those that want to enjoy the mechanics and intrigue of regional control. Influence was an attempt to resolve that discord. Increasing security will reduce gameplay. Extending gameplay will reduce security. Wherever you draw the line, people on one side will want it moved.

Perhaps the real issue to be addressed is founderless regions. One solution is that, on the demise of a founder, the region dies with them and all the members end up in a region like Lazarus. Naturally, the region could be re-founded after the next update.

There would be some interesting outcomes.
1. Founders would be encouraged, by other nations, if not by themselves, to hang around.
2. There would be a free-for-all when a founder dies. Nations would scramble to re-found the region.
3. It would encourage nations to consider carefully the regions they moved to.
4. Influence would no longer matter - its primary effects are to protect founderless regions and to keep delegates in power.
5. Every region would have a founder thus raiding could only take place if the founder allows it.

That last point is a problem for the pro-raider lobby. There would need to be some benefit for a regional founder to allow the possibility of raiding.

Anyway, if other regions want to raid and be raided, that's fine. What I'd really like to see is more updateable and displayable info about my nation and my region. It's the creativity, not the conflict, that many (if not most) enjoy about the game.

5. Every region would have a founder thus raiding could only take place if the founder allows it.

That last point is a problem for the pro-raider lobby. There would need to be some benefit for a regional founder to allow the possibility of raiding.


I don't know if this is how it works already, but if only regions open to invasion were permitted to raid? Then the raiders could all raid each other, and the rest of us would be left in peace :)

http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134kjlh1cfn81vc34/flash/f-Philosophical-Progress-7158.jpg

This will eventually happen.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=587999

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=587999

Survey replies are now closed and the results posted here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=590035

Listen I think the next imenent thing to happen is anarchy. Several nations will disagree, arguements,and more.We need to do msomething NOW!:hail:

I do hope you are taking my solution to the Jewish question seriously.