NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings mods, administrators.

Several of the older gameplay players of NS have been talking recently about what appears to us to be the stagnation of the gamelpay aspect of NS. It was mentioned in a recent article written by Thomasia/Heitara here (http://s4.invisionfree.com/thepacific/index.php?showtopic=3165). Several of us have noted that the regions we inhabit no longer grow in activity, and in fact, have less activitiy than they may have had a year or even two years ago. And we're not talking just about player-created regions, but also the feeder regions.

I, honestly, don't know what to attribute this to you. Over my career in NS (beginning in Dec '02), I've always been amazed at how this game adapts and evolves. Whenever I have thought the game could go no farther, it amazes me in how the players innovative and find new niches to inhabit. Even I admit, though, that this rate of evolution and innovation seems to have slowed, or even stopped. While I admit that every time I have thought this before, I have looekd into the darkest corners of NS, and found that light of innovation, shining back at me, but I cannot find it now, and many of my less optimistic contemporaries have accepted the premise that it is not there.

If we operate under the premise that this game (at least for gamelpay people) is stagnating, the question begs, "Why?" Many people attribute it simply to the fact that the game can't keep everyone, and every game goes through a natural progression of popularity. Others (defenders included) attribute it to how moderation rulings have made it more difficult to invade, which removes the defining principle of conflict among the gameplay world.

I went into the #themodcave last night, and spoke with a mod, who was uanware of these feelings many of us had, and s/he suggested I open up a thread to the general NS population to discuss this. And so I do.

I went into the #themodcave last night, and spoke with a mod, who was uanware of these feelings many of us had, and s/he suggested I open up a thread to the general NS population to discuss this. And so I do.
I'm not sure the moderator would have meant you to open the thread in Moderation.

For now, it's okay here as it, potentially, deals with Moderation tactics.

Greetings mods, administrators.

Several of the older gameplay players of NS have been talking recently about what appears to us to be the stagnation of the gamelpay aspect of NS. It was mentioned in a recent article written by Thomasia/Heitara here (http://s4.invisionfree.com/thepacific/index.php?showtopic=3165). Several of us have noted that the regions we inhabit no longer grow in activity, and in fact, have less activitiy than they may have had a year or even two years ago. And we're not talking just about player-created regions, but also the feeder regions.



If we operate under the premise that this game (at least for gamelpay people) is stagnating, the question begs, "Why?" Many people attribute it simply to the fact that the game can't keep everyone, and every game goes through a natural progression of popularity. Others (defenders included) attribute it to how moderation rulings have made it more difficult to invade, which removes the defining principle of conflict among the gameplay world.


I've been tracking the number of nations, regions, UN members, and UN delegates for about 14 months.

Basically, 2005 showed an increase in number of nations (not necessarily players) in the first quarter and then a decrease in the third quarter. In short, it was looking to me as if the long-term trend has balanced out. *shrug* Would these numbers be of interest to your discussion?


Somebody else may have far better statistics than I, and I'd be interested in seeing those as well.

Respectfully, I don't know how useful those statistics are.

The mod in #themodcave told me that the number of nations in the game has increased since Day 1 and continues to. I can accept that.

There are two dimensions of this I'd like to address.

One is that it could simply be that even though there are more nations, fewer are participating in regional governance in offsite forums. If this is true, I think that's a problem. It shows that although NS has more players, it has more casual players, whereas the number of active players (according to our anecdotal evidence) is decreasing.

It could be that as you say, numbers have been increasing, and there is no problem. Tha we perceive a problem is a problen in and of itself, because if the morale of the game is such that active players feel it is stagnating, that itself, leads to stagnation and player attrition.

I'd suggest looking at it from a different angle: How many players does this game get who get enough enjoyment out of it that they invest significant time and resources into playing the game?

I have to confess an aversion to the whole game-within-a-game of invasions and defending from invasions and the like, especially if tactics such as invasions and griefing have an adverse effect on players who just want to log in and answer issues or field the odd telegram.

Another explanation could be people getting tired of the constant tug-of-war regions end up going through between the ongoing struggle between defenders and invaders. Mind, this is coming from a player who doesn't understand the joy in taking over someone else's region for giggles - to me it sounds mean and spiteful and a pointless show of schoolyard bullying.

The more attention gets drawn to regional politics, the more people learn about how they can protect themselves, and I would imagine, many do so to avoid all the hassle of invaders. While I realize the 'challenge' of this aspect of the game - one that was not originally intended or a part of it might I remind, but was included and allowed for due to players demands - is one that many of you enjoy, there's another side to it as well, with those who don't enjoy it. Also something to bear in mind - 'activity' is not defined by nor limited to regional gameplay. As mentioned before, it's an aspect that developed with the game, not the original game itself. Same goes for how rp has progressed from what I can see, but then, that's to be expected of an active, popular game - growth and adaptation.

I understand this is open to discussion, but wanted to point out that one can't simply 'blame the mods' for all of this and call it good. Gameplay by it's nature generates a lot of complaints and moderation threads and GHP reports etc. It's bound to draw negative attention, or as stated previously, educate people who don't want to bother with it how to take proper precautions.

Even the RP forums have their ups and downs and lulls in action. As long as the various sorts of 'gameplay' exist on NationStates - all of it, be it debate, regional issues, rp, UN, what have you, there will be people playing them. It is what we make it, folks - something to remember when pondering how to revitalize the fun factor for oneself.

I find your view to be a bit narrow-minded. It seems to be solely based on the interregional side of things. A sizable majority of players are happy doing their thing in their own regions. Not everyone plays the invader-defender game - it's unfair to assume that it's the 'right' way to play the game. Europe's offsite forum (RP-based), for example, has never seen the level of activity and new nations joining up as it has recently. Perhaps this is just another shift in the game.

Let me clarify, I'm not tryin to blame the mods or anyone.

I am merely a concerned player. From my perspective (be it narrow or not) the game does not appear to be doing well. I don't wish to blame anyone, but ascertain if there is a problem, and if so, its solution (if there is one).

I recognize Myrth, that my view does not include RP (hence the title of the thread).

If RP is thriving, that's all well and good. I'm very happy for them. But this game has always had the two dimensions of RP and Gameplay, and it would be worriesome if one of these dimensions was faring poorly.

*waves at BB*

maybe Kat (and maybe Hack?) remember the discussion we had on this a while back, I believe what BB says here is the same?

Respectfully, I don't know how useful those statistics are.

The mod in #themodcave told me that the number of nations in the game has increased since Day 1 and continues to. I can accept that.


There have been extended periods in 2005, when the number of active nations has significantly decreased (which I think actually supports your basic theory that NationStates has reached a sort of steady-state).

Hmmm, that theory might be better described in terms of the number of active nations, not total number of nations. For example, if I were to stop using Mikitivity, eventually it would expire ... the number of active nations would drop by 1, but the total number of nations the game has seen would remain the same.

The data won't say anything about the number of players though ... puppets and UN multing muddy that information.

edit:
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/NumberNations.gif

I support Blackbird on this issue. There are many regions that have built their laws and their systems of government and diplomatic networks, and are now wondering 'where does this game now go?' It is that sentiment that is important, not the statistics.

We can all agree that war and invasions may be bad in real life, but this is not real life. Would a game like Civilisation be so enjoyable if you couldn't go and attack other players - and they couldn't attack you? I think not. And I never enjoyed playing Doom on God mode. There is no longer an edge in the gameplay apect of NS. We can all sit behind our comfy walls, protected by founders, congratulating ourselves on the laws we pass and chatting to people within and outside of our region, but so many of our regions are now terminally stable.

NS has many different facets and many ways of playing it and none of these should be neglected. The problems of allowing the gamescape to be ravaged by invaders (should that happen) to the detriment of RPers and issue-players is something that gameplayers are not wise to. But by the same token it is important that gameplayers have something to chew on as well, and, bluntly, that means that there must be a danger of defeat in a war.

We can all agree that war and invasions may be bad in real life, but this is not real life. Would a game like Civilisation be so enjoyable if you couldn't go and attack other players - and they couldn't attack you? I think not. And I never enjoyed playing Doom on God mode. There is no longer an edge in the gameplay apect of NS. We can all sit behind our comfy walls, protected by founders, congratulating ourselves on the laws we pass and chatting to people within and outside of our region, but so many of our regions are now terminally stable.



But by the same token it is important that gameplayers have something to chew on as well, and, bluntly, that means that there must be a danger of defeat in a war.

Actually, there are a number of people whom have enjoyed games like SimCity or even Civilization, while trying to be relatively peaceful.

In NationStates, there are plenty of players (like myself) that are interested in using the game a means to explore the nation and region building process and would prefer to isolate ourselves away from region crashing related issues.

This isn't about playing in God Mode, it is simply wanting to play a different sort of game. I honestly see nothing wrong about either approach.

Admittadly, I have only played NS since May of 2004, and have gotten around to seeing many of the different communities that have spawned from the game...I do see, that while there are an incredible number of casual players of this game, who would rather not have anything to do with the different aspects of the game that have developed over time; I feel that the number of active players, the ones who BUILD the off-site communities, are the ones suffering from the need to satisfy the casual player. As an active player myself, I tend to think of my own player type first, rather than that of the casual player who simply plays the game for the issues and UN voting. With this in mind, as well as the need to satisfy that player group, I still feel that it is the active players that are of greater import to the survival of the game.

Blackbird makes a very analogy with the two different spheres of NS play, Gameplay, and RP. While its arguable that RP is still at an all-time high, the majority of that lies in the off-site forums, from what I've seen. Or at least, what I view as the real blossoming of it. However, RP does not reflect upon the game mechanics themselves, it reflects more on the individual active players, which are members of the group negatively impacted by a general atrophy in the progression of the game itself.

Active players leave, when they have nothing to come back here for. Be it for RP or invading, thats how it is. If the options for Gameplay mechanics remain static as they are, then the number of active players will continue to decrease, and that is the pool which the RP communities get their members from. If only 20 people actively posted on NS forums combined, would the game still be worth having?

Meh, but, I think in that last sentence I lost any coherence I may have had...So, to sum it up:

Active players are neccessary for survival of NS, players leave when they dont think the game is fun, people who are active in Gameplay mechanics tend to be active in RP, and vice versa, by turning away from the needs of active players, eventually the pool will shrink and shrink, as more and more people retire from the game, as whole communities disappear, so do vital parts of NS. Eventually, quite soon, I believe, that shall occur, and the game will die.

All games die without finding something new to do.

So, as the moderator who asked Blackbird to start this thread, let me see if I understand everything that's been thrown into the ring properly: you (collectively) say that you recognise that there are more casual gameplayers than defenders/invaders. You agree that the game has evolved in the past to include the region crashing game because a significant number of players wanted it to.... and that was good, even though a number of players were distressed by people taking over their regions and messing up what they'd built there.... but now that the numbers of gameplayers is falling off and the number of players who prefer not to be invaded or to invade is rising and the game is possibly evolving further to meet the demands of the majority of players, this is a problem.

Respecfully, Kat, I feel you're being very defensive. I understand how this all must seem from your perspective: the very gameplayers who decried invasions and that blight upon the NS world are now reflecting that without that aspect of the game, it's boring. They got what they wished for, and now they want to cry about it.

I do not believe the game is evolving the way it did once, as you say. You say that the game is evolving to meet the demands of the majority of players. I would like to know, honestly, how it is evolving?

The conclusion that many of my similarly old contemporaries have drawn is that Nationstates has stopped evolving. The game has developed in such a way that we began small, built monumental empires to protect ourselves from the chaos that was was when we were young. But now there is far too much order in the game, and far too much stability. It's very difficult to break out of the player-created political constructions we've made for ourselves.

Respecfully, Kat, I feel you're being very defensive.

How is what I said perceived as defensive? I was asking if my summary of my understanding of the situation is correct.

The game has developed in such a way that we began small, built monumental empires to protect ourselves from the chaos that was was when we were young. But now there is far too much order in the game, and far too much stability. It's very difficult to break out of the player-created political constructions we've made for ourselves.

I think we'd be willing to hear your ideas on how to change this... but basically it seems to me that you're really talking about how Gameplayers' choices on how play the game have made the game unplayable for them.

(I'm not dismissing what you're saying -- not in the least. But it seems to me there must be a balance between what you want us to do [which at the moment is very vague] and what the community of players can do to make this game more fun. We will need ideas, I think, for both sides to consider and work on.)

How is what I said perceived as defensive?

I withdraw that then. I think you've characterized the ultimate problem before I've gotten there.

I don't know if the problem (if you accept the premise that the gameplay aspect is stangnating) can be defined (by some of those who hold this opinion) as simply being that the Moderators responded to the majority and made it harder to invade. I think the problem is more deapseated than that. I think it has to do with the very fact that Nationstates is so open-ended, and as time goes on, stability breeds stability, order breeds order. Many games, to avoid this very problem, reset itself. I remember the game I used to play that brought me to nationstates reset every 6 months. I'm not advocating that as a solution, merely showing a solution that addresses that problem, if indeed, that is the problem.

I withdraw that then. I think you've characterized the ultimate problem before I've gotten there.

I don't know if the problem (if you accept the premise that the gameplay aspect is stangnating) can be defined (by some of those who hold this opinion) as simply being that the Moderators responded to the majority and made it harder to invade. I think the problem is more deapseated than that. I think it has to do with the very fact that Nationstates is so open-ended, and as time goes on, stability breeds stability, order breeds order. Many games, to avoid this very problem, reset itself. I remember the game I used to play that brought me to nationstates reset every 6 months. I'm not advocating that as a solution, merely showing a solution that addresses that problem, if indeed, that is the problem.

...interesting idea... but a bit upsetting for those who have worked on getting their nations to be powerful and then having to start from scratch. Wouldn't that ultimately frustrate players who would leave because they felt there was no goal they could attain?

...interesting idea... but a bit upsetting for those who have worked on getting their nations to be powerful and then having to start from scratch. Wouldn't that ultimately frustrate players who would leave because they felt there was no goal they could attain?

Absolutely. That was something that frustrated me in the previous game I played.

I'm not advocating it as a solution, just commenting that it's a solution that might be addressing the problem we might have.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to be very careful not to reach any conclusions. There a those, I imagine, who don't admit that there are fewer active player, or don't believe that that is causin the stagnation.

Some games, too, have random event generators that spice up the game. Within the very simple gameplay mechanics of Nationstates, what would such an event entail? I don't know. Anything I think of is too grand, such as displacing UN Delegates, because honestly, at least in my view, there's very little you can do that isn't tantamount to entirely overthrowing a government of a region.

Blackbird, I, and others have been talking about the issues concerning gameplay for some time, so I hope I am not intruding by jumping in this discussion. I don't think anyone is advocating that those regions who want to RP should be allowed to do so. The simple fact is that their basic operation is so far removed from the game (and I would argue tangential to the game) that it only serves the purpose of being a statistical generator. Their communities may be flourishing, but I sincerely believe it is not in the best interest of the game when the group most protected exists primarily outside the confines of the game.

I imagine your objection to this will be something along the lines that moderators, by enabling the strong founder controls, are ensuring that these groups are able to exist securely within the game. This is true, but in doing so, you create a static environment where the game itself has no interest. My personal feeling is, whatever the objections to the invader/defender dynamic (and I have my own misgivings there as well), at least their conflict is integral to the game and renders nations as important for being more than a placekeeper. RP can occur anywhere, and should NS eventually fail, I suspect it will. But, to preserve this program, and the core regional players, we need to have some ability to impact the world.

I understand that the moderation team exists to ensure that players enjoy themselves and to prevent people from harassing others. From what I have been told, and read within, it seems that some of you also view this form of conflict as peripheral to the game. If I may phrase it suchly, as something that is allowed by the game, but not part of this. This understanding is dangerously insufficient, for the game has evolved to the point where these actions are integral to the game, to all the major regions and many minor regions, and sustain and generate great deals of interest.

Once the novelty of answering issues wears off, somewhere around a month or so, something more is needed to sustain the action. Other suggestions were made, but for a number of reasons that I attribute to no one, the basic game has stayed unchanged since its inception (for which I was present, in November 2002), so the players had to develop the game. Without conflict, diplomacy serves no functional purpose, so the invaders and defenders were created. In the beginning, perhaps the balance favored the invaders too heavily, as regions were assaulted, prompting the creation of founders. However, the balance has since shifted too far in the other direction, as Blackbird notes, and we feel it is vital for the continuation of the game that this be corrected.

By removing the power of the founder function, you will see a new burst of energy go throughout NationStates. Some people may be angry, but in any case, people will have cause to become engaged, and not just cluster in their regions. I do not know what you see as the key element of this game, as you can take several different views on that, but I have always believed that meaningful political interaction is one major component. By opening things up, you will see regions begin to band together, new organizations form (and older organizations revitalized), and you would make a lot of very concerned players happy. The gameplay rests on a delicate balance, as we all understand, but we feel it is necessary that we act because it has shifted so heavily in the balance of the defenders that conflict is grinding to a halt.

If you view this as peripheral to the game, then this will not bother you, but believe me when I tell you there are thousands of people who do not feel that way. Amongst our number are the most engaged and dedicated players in NationStates, and if RP is a legitimate aspect of NS, removed from the action as it mostly is, then our method of play is even more so, because we seek to make the game relevant to our interaction. If these actions are not taken, we fear that our style of play will eventually become eliminated, and perhaps more importantly, so will our bases of players. NationStates may endure, but it would only be a hollow shell of what it once was, should that exodus occur

We only ask that you help us have the chance to play too, and that you consider how some decisions to protect some can oppress others. Thank you for listening, and I hope you will consider our request.

On another note:

Another article by Thomasia (his first article having prompted the post on the Pacific forum that was linked in the first post of this thread) has been released.

It can be found here: http://merit.nosync.org/index.php?showtopic=2112&view=findpost&p=37915

Thomasia, I think everyone who wants to should have a voice in this discussion, and you're not intruding.

Let me, for a moment, though, say what concerns me here.

What concerns me is not so much that Gameplayers wish for something more dynamic. That would interest me too, and I would like to see what suggestions players have. What does concern me is the assertion that one group's needs are more valid than another's, and that we need not be too concerned with upsetting one group of players by yanking the rug out from under them.

The reason that Founders were created was because there are players who refuse to take into consideration the wishes of small regions who do not engage in the Gameplay aspect to be left alone. Removing the only protection these regions have against players who in effect force their style of play on unwilling participants strikes me as rather unfair.

Thomasia, I think everyone who wants to should have a voice in this discussion, and you're not intruding.

Let me, for a moment, though, say what concerns me here.

What concerns me is not so much that Gameplayers wish for something more dynamic. That would interest me too, and I would like to see what suggestions players have. What does concern me is the assertion that one group's needs are more valid than another's, and that we need not be too concerned with upsetting one group of players by yanking the rug out from under them.

The reason that Founders were created was because there are players who refuse to take into consideration the wishes of small regions who do not engage in the Gameplay aspect to be left alone. Removing the only protection these regions have against players who in effect force their style of play on unwilling participants strikes me as rather unfair.

A proposal I've seen that appears, on its face to address this would be to allow regions to be founded, and then prevent those nations from interacting outside their region, much like a school-founded region is done. Of course, you'd have to make allowancse for people wanting to move to and from a region, but perhaps make it so that they can neither enter nor leave one of these founded regions more than once a month. Gameplayers can therefore remain in their unfounded regions and engage in their invader/defender warfare on a much more even and balanced level. And of course, the invaders can't hit anyone who doesn't want to play the game.

Ultimately, it seems to me, Role-Playing communities are inherently insular and not based on the game, as Thomasia has stated. If the NS servers died today, role-play, I believe could continue. Nations could use the basic linear equation of population growth to continue estimating their population and continue role-playing to their heart's content. Gameplayers however, would have nothing to do. Role-playing, I believe, is inherently insular, and there is no impetus to role-play outside of your region if you have a decent RP community within your region. For gameplay however, when the invader-defender was fresh, once a region was involved in that aspect of play, it had to unite with other regions. This led to complex networks of bilateral alliances, eventually giving rise to the grand defender alliances of the modern day. But as this conflict died, so too does the impetus for inter-regional diplomacy and interaction. The most regions have to fear now are spies, which can be effectively countered by our own armies of spies.

Actually, there seems here a tendency to make this Invasion v. Roleplayer... I would submit that targetting roleplayers as your "problem" and saying they are not part of the game is also unfair.

What about the people who do NOT roleplay -- who simply build their nations via the issues (more of which are being added regularly thanks to Sirocco, I might add) and who are interested in quiet diplomatic relations with the other nations within their regions?

Does this then mean that there are two groups of people whose input and wish not to be invaded should be ignored at the request of a third group?

Instead of restricting two groups of non-region crashing people to stay forever in their own regions -- why not have Gameplayers play in the Warzones? I believe they were created for precisely that reason... to have fewer restrictions on the invasion/defense aspect of the game. (Curious, not accusatory here.)

With respect, you obviously have a limited view on how roleplay works. There's a lot more to it, and no one rp 'group' operates the same. Some statwank, some actively use their regions in rp AND gameplay, some just use it for a mappable region to operate from, some use them in alliances on both sides of things, and it goes on from there. To say that roleplayers have less a stake in the game than yourselves, who have just as equally if not moreso taken the game and made it into something it was not originally intended to be, is irresponsible.

Personally, I'm still in favor of there being a flag or tag or something implemented in the game to let people know what regions are up for play, and what regions would like to be left alone - perhaps even on the nation pages themselves to avoid cheating (you know what I'm getting at - the 'I can pick on you but you can't touch me' stuff that would invariably go on).

As Kat observed, pointing fingers at any one group for your percieved lack of fun is unfair. From what I've observed watching this regional gameplay phenomenon unfold, if anything, gameplay in general has brought whatever positives or negatives on itself. I don't see why some solution can't be arrived at that benefits more than one group over the other.

Actually, there seems here a tendency to make this Invasion v. Roleplayer... I would submit that targetting roleplayers as your "problem" and saying they are not part of the game is also unfair.

What about the people who do NOT roleplay -- who simply build their nations via the issues (more of which are being added regularly thanks to Sirocco, I might add) and who are interested in quiet diplomatic relations with the other nations within their regions?

Does this then mean that there are two groups of people whose input and wish not to be invaded should be ignored at the request of a third group?

That certainly seems to make sense. Third thid group of non-roleplayers but gameplayers (we can them nuetrals, as in, neither invaders, nor defenders, in the gamelpay world) can get that foundered status, and not participate in the invader or defender part of the game. They can engage in their quiet diplomatic relations as such. I would posit to you though, that with founders, they won't. In fact, this third group, as you describe, I believe is rare in NS. Most regions that don't participate in the established invader/defender dichotomy, in my experience, still invade and defend, just on a much smaller basis and within a much smaller sphere of regions. In my theoretical parlance, I've always called this regions micro-view regions, because they have a much smaller view of the world, generally restricting themselves to a few regions of close ideological resemblance with whom they are allied and an equal number of idealogically opposite foes.

But I'm digressing here. My point is that micro-view regions (your third group), still invade and defend and engage in conflict, and because of founders, this group of players are much more a rarity in the modern world. Prior to founders, these regions were plentiful, as there were many regions untouched by the defender-invader conflict, simply because of a lack of troops to penetrate that far. Now with founders, they don't penetrate that far because there's no point: invaders can't invade them, and defenders don't care to go where there hasn't been an invasion. And additionally with founders, these regions' potential for conflict, which many of them want, is significantly diminished.


Instead of restricting two groups of non-region crashing people to stay forever in their own regions -- why not have Gameplayers play in the Warzones? I believe they were created for precisely that reason... to have fewer restrictions on the invasion/defense aspect of the game. (Curious, not accusatory here.)

I believe the primary reason the warzones weren't successful with mainstream defenders and invaders are that it's hard to motivate people to go to them. When you have the possibility of an actual invasion, not too many defenders want to mess around in the War Zone. In my experience, most of the groups in the War Zones actually were neither invaders no defenders, but larger regions transitions from invaders to defenders (such as Galts Gulch), or self-declared nuetrals (such as the Pacific or the Young World), although there are some notable exceptions (such as the West Pacific).

Instead of restricting two groups of non-region crashing people to stay forever in their own regions -- why not have Gameplayers play in the Warzones? I believe they were created for precisely that reason... to have fewer restrictions on the invasion/defense aspect of the game. (Curious, not accusatory here.)

Warzones? What are those?

As for the region thing, we can't just have 'region types.' Everyone but attacking groups would want to be in the type immune to invaders. Also, I think that it is nice for the founder to have the ability to do all sorts of things in their region because they created it.

Here's an idea (and this probably won't float well, but here goes) What if there was a time limit on founder power? Say, six months after the region was created for a regular region. After that, the regional delegate is the only one in control.

Either that or there could be a size limit. If a region gets over X # of nations, the founder looses control.

I would like to offer my thoughts on this topic, too.

Since beginning this game in Oct of the first year ('02?) I have mostly concerned myself with region building. It takes a lot of work and dedication and recruiting and prodding to gather together enough nations to hit 'critical mass' for activity. The way I figure it, you need an average of five people posting per day (offsite forum necessary) and to get that, you need at least 20 nations that log on regularly.

Once a region hits this level, it can sustain itself, but only if it allows for the natural attrition from the game as people leave the game for other pursuits. You have to recruit regularly, and base your recruitment on some sort of ideal that will draw a certain type of nation. Most regions don't have enough dedicated members to keep a whole region going. And the one or two people trying to get it going end up getting tired and losing interest.

There is so much to offer in this game. So many levels to play on. For my own brainchild region, I have tapped the market for nations not wanting to participate in the invasion part of the game. We spend our time talking politics and economics and current events. One of the biggest discussion starting points is the UN resolutions. We almost always have lively discussions on that. In my opinion, the game has never gone stale on that level.

Just recently I have been paying more attention to the economic figures. I used to choose issues on knee-jerk principles, and my civil and political ratings were through the roof. I nearly imploded my economy though. So now I visit the NS Tracker and ThirdGeek and i'm trying to figure all that out. So I'm still finding new avenues to interest me in the game.

If people are getting bored, then they aren't trying hard enough, IMHO.

If you were to do anything to liven up the game, my suggestion is to tie in TRADE BETWEEN NATIONS as a function of the game. Allow people to buy goods from each other and actually have the funds transfered. It would create a whole new level of competition, but on a different level than the current 'war' mentality

I know there are already 'storefronts', but if i'm not mistaken, they aren't tied into the actual economic figures of the game nation.

And i realize that the program would probably have to be pretty huge, and maybe it isn't really feasible, but it would solve the problem of keeping the game interesting and competitive, while still catering to the majority desire for peace.

With respect, you obviously have a limited view on how roleplay works. There's a lot more to it, and no one rp 'group' operates the same. Some statwank, some actively use their regions in rp AND gameplay, some just use it for a mappable region to operate from, some use them in alliances on both sides of things, and it goes on from there. To say that roleplayers have less a stake in the game than yourselves, who have just as equally if not moreso taken the game and made it into something it was not originally intended to be, is irresponsible.

Personally, I'm still in favor of there being a flag or tag or something implemented in the game to let people know what regions are up for play, and what regions would like to be left alone - perhaps even on the nation pages themselves to avoid cheating (you know what I'm getting at - the 'I can pick on you but you can't touch me' stuff that would invariably go on).

As Kat observed, pointing fingers at any one group for your percieved lack of fun is unfair. From what I've observed watching this regional gameplay phenomenon unfold, if anything, gameplay in general has brought whatever positives or negatives on itself. I don't see why some solution can't be arrived at that benefits more than one group over the other.

I don't pretend to be an expert on roleplay. Generally speaking, my limited knowledge of it comes from observing the Senate of the Meritocracy (which has fabulous roleplay, if I could plug them for a moment).

I'm not saying that roleplayers don't use gameplay. I'm saying roleplayers use gameplay less. I would also say that I don't intend to separate these groups into two discrete categories. There is a great deal of overlap. The Meritocracy, for instance, has roleplayers RP their gameplay actions. But in the Meritocracy as well, when gameplay therefore suffers, so does RP.

When you say RPers base their RP off of gameplay, I call those people gameplayers who also RP, if you get my distinction. If gameplay were to suffer, so would their RP. They accept gameplay consequences in fashioning their RP. Those regions would not want to be cut-off from a gameplay world.

Those regions who primarily use the NS game mechanics as a place to toss all their nations together and use their economic stats would benefit from being cutting off from the gameplay world (as they are cut off and do benefit), by having founders. Let me also, to try to build a little RP credibility here, say that I was one of the developers (albiet not the main one, Jasque was that) of GUSTO, an ecomomic add-on to Nationstates. GUSTO was based on expanding Jasque's Meritocratic economic code, which was pirated by someone to make NSEconomy (although now he gives them credit).

While that's nice and all, it still doesn't answer several of the observations or points I brought up, such as any one group having more 'ownership' or 'right to style of play' in the game, or the fact that gameplay as it is now is an aspect that evolved, not one that was laid out to begin with, or possible solutions to keep several groups happy (can't please everyone, I think we're all aware of that). I don't care if you call people 'gameplayers who rp' or 'rpers who gameplay' - it doesn't really matter. 'Players' is the operative term there, and we have a bunch who choose to use the game in a plethora of ways on this site. While the effort with statistics is laudable, it is again, only a portion of the game - one that again, not everyone uses, even in rp.

We all have our preferences and biases when it comes to this game, and many of us feel we've put a lot into it, in whatever arenas we've chosen to participate in. That is invariably going to color whatever perception we have of where the game 'ought' to go from here, or how much enjoyment we're currently getting out of it. Again, I put forward the opinion that you get out of it what you put into it, and if you aren't having fun, perhaps it's time to find new ways to enjoy it - hopefully not at the expense of large groups of others.

By removing the power of the founder function, you will see a new burst of energy go throughout NationStates. Some people may be angry, but in any case, people will have cause to become engaged, and not just cluster in their regions.

This may be true for some people, but I for one do not participate in the RP invasion/defensive stuff between regions and for a very good reason. I am more interested in a stable region where I can concentrate on seeing the effect of my decisions on my own nation, and limited inter-nation RP amongst a stable group. I do know this - if Founder controls were disabled and invasion/takeover allowed or encouraged in all regions, you will see a large number of people leave the game entirely, including myself.

If a system allowed regions to "opt in" to such a roleplay environment that would be one thing - to force regions into such a situation will force many people out of the game - those who do not play in a particular way - simply because they are not participating in an arbitrarily decided way - one that was not required when they started the game.

If you accept the premise that the invading/defending side of the game and the resulting politics are becoming stagnant, then we would have to find something that can be done that will allow the RPers and other neutrals to keep their safe regions while mixing up the invading/defending.

Would it be possible to set up regions so that they can *choose* to have a founder or not? As in, if a person decides their region will be used primarily for RPing and being neutral, they can set up a region with a founder as protection. Perhaps to even give them some of the same settings as school regions have in terms of being safe from people moving in? (not exactly sure what those would be) Once a founder made a decision, it couldn't be changed, unless they made another region.

Under that, regions made without founders would be open to the invaders/defenders and their politics. And possibly even current regions with founders could be given the opportunity to choose to lose the founder?

Also, as another possibility to slightly change the way things are played, could all the feeder delegates lose the ability to ban nations?

There are many more than two or three types of players in this game. The roleplayers and gameplayers are the obvious ones, but I think you'll find the vast majority of players simply use this as a gathering place for friendly discussion. As a mod, I have a broader view of the activity of the 'quiet regions', with nation restorations and the rare complaints of spam or abuse. Those players FAR outnumber the invader/defenders.

I started this game with a group of 60-70 players from another forum. We played the silly numbers game, answered our issues, and voted in the UN, but eventually just settled in for occasional logons and chats. We lost a lot of players after the first month or two, but gained a few others based on our offsite discussions of the pleasures of the game, and minor interaction with a new set of people on the NS forums. I'm probably the only one who really ventured outside of our original core group to join the broader game.

I came in via the UN, which isn't roleplay, and isn't gameplay. It's more of a debate society with occasional (and frequently disruptive) guests. I had a genuine interest in shaping the laws that make up the 'official' rules of the game. Yes, it's smaller than either the RP or invasion game, but those players are every bit as much NSers as any other group.

There are the wiki writers, and the code geeks, the mappers and flaggers and national anthem writers. And let's not forget the Generalites, or for that matter the Barry fans, who came here for and because of their appreciation of the author who founded this game.

I think it's the height of arrogance for any single group to decree that their way of playing is "the right way" to play NS. Yeah, the invasion game is not what it was. Neither is the dictator game that Francos Spain was playing in The Pacific when I joined. Nor is it the golden era of GDODAD in the RP realms. Things change, people move on. The fact that some of the old-timers are getting bored doesn't mean the game is failing.

I'd like to see changes in the invasion game too, (changes that make my mod job easier by simplifying our overly-complicated rules would be nice), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the world needs to return to the way it was. Let's look for ways to make it interesting again, without destroying it for other players.

While that's nice and all, it still doesn't answer several of the observations or points I brought up, such as any one group having more 'ownership' or 'right to style of play' in the game, or the fact that gameplay as it is now is an aspect that evolved, not one that was laid out to begin with, or possible solutions to keep several groups happy (can't please everyone, I think we're all aware of that). I don't care if you call people 'gameplayers who rp' or 'rpers who gameplay' - it doesn't really matter. 'Players' is the operative term there, and we have a bunch who choose to use the game in a plethora of ways on this site. While the effort with statistics is laudable, it is again, only a portion of the game - one that again, not everyone uses, even in rp.

We all have our preferences and biases when it comes to this game, and many of us feel we've put a lot into it, in whatever arenas we've chosen to participate in. That is invariably going to color whatever perception we have of where the game 'ought' to go from here, or how much enjoyment we're currently getting out of it. Again, I put forward the opinion that you get out of it what you put into it, and if you aren't having fun, perhaps it's time to find new ways to enjoy it - hopefully not at the expense of large groups of others.

Respectfully, I don't feel it's necessary for you to attack me in this.

As I've been very careful to state in this thread, I'm only stating the anecdotal evidence several of us have found: gameplay activitiy is stagnating, due to fewer nations. I think this is an issue the moderators and administrators of Nationstates would care about, as it is a vital aspect of the game. If you choose to accept the premise that it is stagnating, I'd hope the entirety of the community of Nationstates would be willing to try to analyize the problem, and hopefully, find its cause, and better still, find a solution amicable to all parties.

I'm not advocating a solution at the expend of others. I'm simply trying to explore options at this theoretical level and try to determine if they solve this problem (if indeed, one admis that this problem exists).

I (and the people whose opinions I share in the gameplay community) are not trying to hurt other groups by changing gameplay. We simply remember a time in our communities when we were not struggling to survive. Some of the largest regions in this game (in fact, the largest region in the game, the West Pacific) are desperately trying to cope with player apathy and attrition. We've created scripts to try to help us send out recruitment telegrams to nations, to bring them to our offsite forums. We've created hardcore RP areas, less hard RP areas, debate areas (for both NS and RL issues), UN resolution think tanks (voting bodies and deliberative bodies), legislative assemblies, courts, executives, ministries, and nearly every single form of government we can imagine. We've tried exploring every crevice of the game, and every wrinkle of our minds for a way to bring more players.


~


Regarding a way to separate those who want to participate in RP and those who want to do Gameplay, my proposal still stands. Quote from prior post: "A proposal I've seen that appears, on its face to address this would be to allow regions to be founded, and then prevent those nations from interacting outside their region, much like a school-founded region is done. Of course, you'd have to make allowancse for people wanting to move to and from a region, but perhaps make it so that they can neither enter nor leave one of these founded regions more than once a month. Gameplayers can therefore remain in their unfounded regions and engage in their invader/defender warfare on a much more even and balanced level. And of course, the invaders can't hit anyone who doesn't want to play the game."

If you accept the premise that the invading/defending side of the game and the resulting politics are becoming stagnant, then we would have to find something that can be done that will allow the RPers and other neutrals to keep their safe regions while mixing up the invading/defending.

Again -- Warzones?

Would it be possible to set up regions so that they can *choose* to have a founder or not? As in, if a person decides their region will be used primarily for RPing and being neutral, they can set up a region with a founder as protection. Perhaps to even give them some of the same settings as school regions have in terms of being safe from people moving in? (not exactly sure what those would be) Once a founder made a decision, it couldn't be changed, unless they made another region.
Personally, if I went through the trouble of creating a region of my own, I would not care for the idea of someone voting me out of authorship.

To turn the question around -- why don't invaders and defenders simply turn on delegate controls in their regions and allow for invasions to be decided by numbers rather than by using kickbans?

Under that, regions made without founders would be open to the invaders/defenders and their politics. And possibly even current regions with founders could be given the opportunity to choose to lose the founder? see my comment abover.

Also, as another possibility to slightly change the way things are played, could all the feeder delegates lose the ability to ban nations?

Interesting idea -- and one which I believe feeder delegates will bitterly oppose.

Just throwing this out there for discussion:

How would the invasion / defense game change if we added one more feeder region? How would it change if we added five more feeder regions?

And how would either of these changes impact the overall game?

I guess I expected SOME reaction to the suggestion of TRADE capabilities. (post #29)

It seems like such a good way to make the game more interesting and provide an outlet for competition that peaceful nations can participate in.

Then if someone likes destroying, they can start trade embargoes, and if they like defending, they can try to get aid to the nation/region. Alliances would take on new meaning...

i think it would improve aspects of the game, for almost all types of players

I guess I expected SOME reaction to the suggestion of TRADE capabilities. (post #29)

It seems like such a good way to make the game more interesting and provide an outlet for competition that peaceful nations can participate in.

Then if someone likes destroying, they can start trade embargoes, and if they like defending, they can try to get aid to the nation/region. Alliances would take on new meaning...

i think it would improve aspects of the game, for almost all types of players

I missed that above ... how would that mechnically work (in theory) for say me. I'm in a region and don't want to leave. Could only UN members place embargos on nations? Would their be a negative feedback / cost to their own nations?

One potential pitfall would be just about every UN resolution author is going to find their nation the subject of silly embargos from noobies whom strongly oppose the resolution currently at debate.

Personally, if I went through the trouble of creating a region of my own, I would not care for the idea of someone voting me out of authorship.
Actually, I by no means intended the people to be able to decide. Simply that a founder could decide to permanently lose their foundership and give their region over.
Again -- Warzones?

To turn the question around -- why don't invaders and defenders simply turn on delegate controls in their regions and allow for invasions to be decided by numbers rather than by using kickbans?
First, the warzones. I think the problem with them has become that noone has a stake in them. They are noone's regions, and therefore not worth fighting for. Regions/groups take them solely to be able to say that they took them, not to be able to say they saved a region or that they conquered a region.

I think you meant turn regional controls off... Part of what makes the invading/defending fun is the ability to ban and finding skillful ways to get around that.
Interesting idea -- and one which I believe feeder delegates will bitterly oppose.
Actually Kat, I am the delegate of a feeder. ;) I think it would be nice if feeder delegates were decided by the people based on who was simply willing to put in the time and effort.

Quote from prior post: "A proposal I've seen that appears, on its face to address this would be to allow regions to be founded, and then prevent those nations from interacting outside their region, much like a school-founded region is done. Of course, you'd have to make allowancse for people wanting to move to and from a region, but perhaps make it so that they can neither enter nor leave one of these founded regions more than once a month. Gameplayers can therefore remain in their unfounded regions and engage in their invader/defender warfare on a much more even and balanced level. And of course, the invaders can't hit anyone who doesn't want to play the game."

I see the current crop of feeder Delegates as losing in this sort of idea, and while I have nothing against them (in fact, I like many of them via my UN interactions), a way to modify this might be for the game to create and close feeder regions. You could even have an immigration count down in a feeder allowing players to know when the region will no longer be a feeder -- in order to give time to invaders to plan on how to take the next *random* feeder.

The current feeder regions could retrain their permanent status, but once every three lunar cycles (or whatever) the non-perm regions would simply stop getting new nations. Perhaps 1 in 4 nations starts in one of these non-perm regions ... thus the feeder delegates would be losing 25% of their potential endorsements, but the others would have a mobile pool to recruit from (for a limited period).

I'm not sure I like the idea, but I'm just tossing out some out-of-the-box ideas here.

Actually Kat, I am the delegate of a feeder. ;) I think it would be nice if feeder delegates were decided by the people based on who was simply willing to put in the time and effort.

I sit (:D) corrected; shall I revise to say that I believe SOME feeder delegates will be quite put out by the suggestion? ;)

Respectfully in return, I fail to see the attack in my response - that was certainly not my intent. I'm challenging the tone and direction of posts made by yourself and a couple of others, not trying to attack you. This is twice now you've jumped the gun a bit, the previous being Kat early on. I'm starting to sense a bit of defensiveness on your part, while if you read, I'm not advocating rp over gameplay - I'm asking that consideration be given to as broad a spectrum of players as possible.

You talk about 'struggle to survive'. Shall we bring up the regions that your struggle has ended up destroying, and the number of players who have quit the game entirely over the frustration involved in feeling helpless in the face of the invader/defender onslaught that has only relatively recently developed some measure of control? I'm trying to illustrate that there is a bigger picture here that you might be missing due to understandable and not at all mean-spirited bias - as many of us tend to develop when investing ourselves and our time in this game.

Given your description of tactics used to generate interest, is it not possible that you have inadvertently turned off potential players with what might be interpreted as overzealous efforts? While I have to dispute the claim of 'exploring every crevice', I can understand how rules such as banning regional advertisements from the rp forums could curtail some of that. In any case, it never hurts to also look inwards as well as outwards when trying to find reasons or solutions to a percieved problem.

I am an advocate of the system proposed whereby regions are given the option to have a founder, but this negates the possibility of them partaking in gameplay; meaning all gameplay regions are founderless. I don't see how this excludes those who simply want to answer issues or engage in UN/RL debate, as they too could have founders on their regions. The current problem is that all the gameplay regions are founded (or at least the vast majority of them) and as such are invulnerable to military conflict, which is a major factor in any political simulation. I would even go as far as to suggest that founders are a major part of the reason the current invading/defending of non-gameplay regions exists, since the only kind of war possible is a proxy war via another region. Remove founders in gameplay regions and it opens up a whole new area of play whereby regions can genuinely conflict - or genuinely threaten conflict - rather than throw words at one another.

The reason I am in feeder politics and not user-created-region politics is that I find them much more realistic, and part of this is that security is a very real issue, indeed, it is security that has shaped nearly every aspect of my home region, The Pacific. This is what makes it interesting, and this is what makes it one of the most discussed, controversial and attacked regions in the game. While obviously no other region will experience it to the extent The Pacific has, security concerns are a very real part of politics, and I think other gameplay regions (which generally try to have real political institutions etc.) will benefit immensely from this new dimension.

The point I'm trying to make here is that this, for me at least, is not simply about the fairly infantile practice of invading and defending, it is about creating a more realistic political set-up that brings the concerns of real-life nations to the virtual nations (ie. regions) of NationStates. Furthermore, I believe that this would actually protect the non-gameplay regions, where it seems to be the belief that any form of advance for gameplay must be to the detriment of all other regions.


Secondly I wish to address the point of Pacific delegates losing control of the eject button - this is a terrible idea. The Pacific delegacys, if based purely on a system of endorsements, is nothing to do with popularity or how well you run a region, it is entirely down to who can endorsement swap the fastest. Removing delegate controls will see a switch in delegate twice a week, decimate the communities, governments and cultures within them and turn them into barren wastelands. This, in my opinion, is not a good thing for gameplay, roleplay or anything else.

I apologize if this is naieve, but what exactly are the Warzones? I've never heard that term before.

warzones are regions for invading and defending. They have no founders and a temporary ban list for people who are ejected. Mostly armys go there to "train" in defending or invading.

Pugna']warzones are regions for invading and defending. They have no founders and a temporary ban list for people who are ejected. Mostly armys go there to "train" in defending or invading.

Thanks! I found the answer in NSwiki though. http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Warzones
(This is a neat thing, cookies to Goobergunch)

Why not turn the feeders into warzones?

EDIT: you'd have to change how much anyone could delete though

Unlimited's idea of creating "Founderless by choice" regions moved to this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460122

I rather like this idea. I'd like to hear expansions and thoughts on it.

How would regions that have *lost* their founders be treated? Specifically, I'm in a founderless region that was ironically founded with the intent to move away from the invasion game.

Here's an idea (and this probably won't float well, but here goes) What if there was a time limit on founder power? Say, six months after the region was created for a regular region. After that, the regional delegate is the only one in control.

Either that or there could be a size limit. If a region gets over X # of nations, the founder looses control.

I think this idea has some merit to it. It would give people time build up their region to a level where they can most likely defend themselves, and to a level where they are already stable so if they get successfully invaded, it won't be very harmful. If someone can't build a region up to that level, or merge with other such regions to create a larger region, then (and I know this is going to sound bad, but, well, get over it) that's their own fault. I've seen schemes similar to this in other games. For example, on Diablo II, you could fight other players, but only if their character was at or above a certain level (9, IIRC). This gave people a chance to actually build up a character and not be immediately slaughtered.

Next, I'd like to ask, how much damage can an invasion really cause? I don't think anyone is asking for the griefing rules to be repealed. If all you do is answer issues, it doesn't matter what region you're in or what happens in it. If you're only worried about the UN, you should be focused either on building a region up to a good size or finding one of a good size so that you can actually have some strength in the UN. If you're large enough for that, it's unlikely you'll be invaded. In most roleplay situations I've seen, who the delegate is doesn't really matter. And, once again, the invaders wouldn't be able to do any real damage since they can't grief. If the delegate nation is important, than you could always continue acting as if the displaced delegate is still delegate. Chances are, the invaders will leave within a few days and you can get your preferred delegate back in. Very few invaders I've talked to (or at least competent ones) actually invade to cause harm, anger people, stress people out, or destroy regions or communities. The delegate does not have the power to do those things anyway, unless the regional inhabitants allow them too.

If founders were removed, or a time limit imposed, it may actually help those smaller regions with no founder that are currently the only possible targets (outside of feeders, which aren't very viable targets). If invaders can target major or prominent regions, they most likely won't bother with the smaller ones. If invaders can directly target their enemies, (defenders and such) then they are less likely to fight wars by proxy, involving innocent regions who have no wish to get involved. I am quite confident that no invader is going to, upon hearing of the abolition of founders (or time limits for founders), pump their fists in the air and say "woohoo! let's go crush some communities!"

Warzones have proven themselves to not be a viable alternative, because, as someone stated earlier, no one has any stake in them. They don't really matter or affect anything. I told someone I was going to be busy in a warzone one night, and they replied with something about that not being real defending.

Now, I'm a defender myself, and I'm also much newer than most of the people that have been posting in here. But it isn't just some crazy old farts getting nostalgic and missing the good ol' days that are getting bored. What's the point of defending, if there's nothing worth invading? I have and do do the more political and diplomatic stuff. I only started defending six months after I joined the game. I certainly haven't done everything that this possible within this game. But what's the point? There's no chance of any real conflict, no real chance of losing or winning, not anything worthwhile. At the current rate, even the "gameplayers" are being pushed out of the game. Defending/Invading is one of the few things, other than issue answering and UN debating/voting, that actually occurs within the game, even if it was only an accident. Without this, it is quite probable that many of us will leave NS.

Finally, NS is a game. In games, people lose. It is supposed to be a political simulation game. In politics, people lose. NS has gotten to the point where no one can lose. The game seems to have become so intent on protecting those who either don't seem to be playing it or would "lose" without those protections. But, the way the game is, you wouldn't be able to truly lose anyway. You can always come back, you can always rebuild, you have an unlimited number of chances to succeed. Back to my Diablo II analogy, even when you do die, you're not out of the game. You come back, retrieve your stuff, or as much as you can, and continue on. In NS, you come back and rebuild.

Would you allow existing regions to convert to GameZones?
Yes, but only at the discretion of an existing founder. And Mik, if a region is *already* founderless, they should probably be protected by default, and if they want to join the invading/defending, they have to change their region.
Wouild feeders be exempt? (I think so - I think only Founders should have the ability to remove their own foundership)
Feeders have no founders, so the delegates in place would be the same as the delegates in the founderless regions. But as is, they would be part of the "gamezones" (coining a new phrase? :p). You can't really shut off the feeders like you could other regions.
How would this be an improvement over Warzones, apart from players being able to create many more of them?
People would have more investment in their home regions, or satellite regions. Warzones by their nature aren't really anyones. They're *too* chaotic. People like defending and invading things that matter to other people. The warzones seem pointless when there's almost always someone's actual region being invaded. As Unlimited said, this would bring it back to people playing around in their own regions as opposed to others.
What rules would apply? What rules wouldn't apply? How would you maintain a balance over raw numbers?
I'm not sure you would *need* much of a change beyond the no founder rule. Perhaps a lessening of the kick percentages? I'm not sure what you mean by maintaining a balance over the raw numbers...

I created a new topic for GameZones. Let's take that separate from this main topic.

I rather like this idea. I'd like to hear expansions and thoughts on it.Would you allow existing regions to convert to GameZones?

Wouild feeders be exempt? (I think so - I think only Founders should have the ability to remove their own foundership)

How would this be an improvement over Warzones, apart from players being able to create many more of them?

What rules would apply? What rules wouldn't apply? How would you maintain a balance over raw numbers?Let's hear it.

A modification of a proposal I've heard thrown about is thus:

A region chooses to go gameplay or not. If not, their UN nations cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa. A nation that is not in the UN cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa frequently (put some realistic cap on it, thereby preventing any slow invasion sort of thing). Thus, a gameplay region has no founder and is vulnerable to invasion. Gameplay regions can fight amongst themselves. Feeders remain unchanged. A non-gameplay region does whatever it wants; it can have offsite diplomatic relations with gameplay regions. Those relations just won't be based on military aid.

Warzones are not effective at generating support for invading them, because you're not fighting over anything moral. Politics has a moral element in it. It's easy to raise troops to fight a battle when it's for defending your homeland, but it's a great deal harder to raise troops to capture a meaningless piece of land with no gain other than pride. Similarly, for invaders who base their principles off of fighting off imperialist defenders, it's not a blow to defenders to hold a warzone, where it is most definitely so to hold a defender region, or a contested defender battleground. Additionally, for "defenders" who in great part base a lot of their gameplay on principles of being morally superior than invaders, invading a warzone is anathema to them.

Dread Lady Nathica:

I apologize if I'm being defensive.

We've looked inwards quite a bit. We've struggled to determine why our regions are failing.

My "struggle" has destroyed no reasons, and I resent the implication that defenders have destroyed regions. I am a defender, and I've made a career defending regions from invaders, who would seek to destory them and subvert the democratic means and mechanisms of the natives. This if course, an argument for another time, I would say.

IIf all you do is answer issues, it doesn't matter what region you're in or what happens in it.
I disagree. If all a nation wants to do is answer questions in a region it created, then why should it be forced out because someone thinks kicking three nations out of the region they are in is fun?

Finally, NS is a game. In games, people lose. It is supposed to be a political simulation game. In politics, people lose. NS has gotten to the point where no one can lose. The game seems to have become so intent on protecting those who either don't seem to be playing it or would "lose" without those protections. But, the way the game is, you wouldn't be able to truly lose anyway. You can always come back, you can always rebuild, you have an unlimited number of chances to succeed. Back to my Diablo II analogy, even when you do die, you're not out of the game. You come back, retrieve your stuff, or as much as you can, and continue on. In NS, you come back and rebuild.

How do I win?

Ah, but what is "winning," grasshopper? There is no way to win as such. Which is better, a left-wing civil rights paradise with no money, or a right-wing economic powerhouse where the poor are left to fend for themselves? (That's a rhetorical question.)

One way to succeed, at least in a sense, is to make it onto the top rungs of a United Nations report. These are compiled once per day, one for each Region and one for the entire world. Nations are ranked on anything from economic strength to the most liberal public nudity laws (the UN has a lot of time to fill in). There's a certain glory in making it onto one of those.
It hasn't gotten so that no one can lose -- it was never intended to be a game one could definitively win. Think of it as The Sims Politics.

I disagree. If all a nation wants to do is answer questions in a region it created, then why should it be forced out because someone thinks kicking three nations out of the region they are in is fun?




It hasn't gotten so that no one can lose -- it was never intended to be a game one could definitively win. Think of it as The Sims Politics.

I disagree with that interpretation. It didn't mean you can't "win", it meant you had to create your own criteria of what "winning" was. That's what open-ended games are. If I play a map of say, SimCity Classic, and I say, "I want X amount of money", that's still having me "win" by own criteria, but not winning as such.

That's how I've always viewed the NS open-endedness. Once, invaders and defenders could win. At the end of the night, invaders or defenders would have more regions, in quantity or quality, than the other, either successfully invaded or defended. Now, however, some believe (in part due to the constraints on gameplay), it's no longer possible to invade a region of quality (i.e. any major defender region), and thus, invaders lose impetus to invade; defenders really can't defend anymore.

Thus, the criteria of winning we once had, once achievable, is no longer.

Very few invaders I've talked to (or at least competent ones) actually invade to cause harm, anger people, stress people out, or destroy regions or communities.
There are TONS of those sorts of invaders out there. Those are the idiots who keep us busy. The guys who play by the rules rarely even hit the mod radar screen. Legal players may in fact be the majority, but they're not the ones that cause non-gameplayers to scream for protection. Instead, it's the three guys in the school library who create ten UN nations each and clean out half a dozen one-nation regions before we catch them. That's why the rules are so restrictive.

Some of the legal invaders report on these illegal idiots. Frankly, without both invaders and defenders reporting on rulebreakers, our job would be enormously harder. Still, I'd be delighted to get the mods out of the griefing business altogether, and let it be skill versus skill.

I disagree with that interpretation.

What did I interpret? I took it directly from what Max wrote in the FAQ.

Secondly I wish to address the point of Pacific delegates losing control of the eject button - this is a terrible idea. The Pacific delegacys, if based purely on a system of endorsements, is nothing to do with popularity or how well you run a region, it is entirely down to who can endorsement swap the fastest. Removing delegate controls will see a switch in delegate twice a week, decimate the communities, governments and cultures within them and turn them into barren wastelands. This, in my opinion, is not a good thing for gameplay, roleplay or anything else.
Removing the delegate controls in feeder regions would make the feeders harder to control, yes, but that doesn't mean it *couldn't* be done. I'm not sure exactly what would end up happening, but I suspect that the offsite forums would continue to be the main governing force in the regions. Whole campaigns would be waged to keep the "appropriate" person in place according to the government of the region.

The delegacies of the feeders are currently held (assuming the systems last) by governments that either elect or keep their delegates in place for a determined amount of time. When everything is working in accordance with the offsite forums, there's virtually no controversy over the delegacy. And most feeders have been stable for *long* periods of time.

Removing the delegate controls in feeder regions would make the feeders harder to control, yes, but that doesn't mean it *couldn't* be done. I'm not sure exactly what would end up happening, but I suspect that the offsite forums would continue to be the main governing force in the regions."UN Delegate: The Republic of Kandarin (elected 448 days ago)."

Seems Delegate controls aren't that important...

Some of the legal invaders report on these illegal idiots. Frankly, without both invaders and defenders reporting on rulebreakers, our job would be enormously harder. Still, I'd be delighted to get the mods out of the griefing business altogether, and let it be skill versus skill.

I could actually see this. Defender groups going out and forcibly enforcing the griefing rules from inside the invasion scenerio. A group is griefing? Send em to the rejected realms with a well-timed and placed 'defensive' invasion! They keep at it? Dance with them! Keep moving and kicking.

"UN Delegate: The Republic of Kandarin (elected 448 days ago)."

Seems Delegate controls aren't that important...
Thanks for arguing my point Hack :D But I think part of the argument against that is that the RR doesn't have nearly as many UNs as the feeders, where people endoswap completely without paying attention to what's going on.

I *do* think feeders could manage to survive, but it would have a bit more chaos in it. Which was the point of this discussion, introducing instability.

I missed that above ... how would that mechnically work (in theory) for say me. I'm in a region and don't want to leave. Could only UN members place embargos on nations? Would their be a negative feedback / cost to their own nations?

One potential pitfall would be just about every UN resolution author is going to find their nation the subject of silly embargos from noobies whom strongly oppose the resolution currently at debate.

If you could set up a program whereby nations could buy things from each other, and the game actually reflect the money changing hands, embargoes would be placed by getting other nations to quit buying products from the targeted nation/region.

Along with this would have to be some sort of program to keep track of inventory. If I produce Trout, or Uranium, the rate at which i have it available to sell should change with the policies I enact. I could boost the trout fishing industry and sell trout internationally, cheaper than the next guy. My international diplomatic skills would be called into play: the more trade contracts i make, the more fish i sell. Marketing would begin to figure in, and region names will carry more weight. Large corporate regions could form and effectively influence the UN on trade issues. The economic politics would take on new meaning. Even invading would take on new meaning. You would invade someone's market share.

Regions could be based on trading between themselves, or making coalitions to sell to other regions. Prices could be set by each nation for their own products, creating competitive market values according to supply and demand. UN resolutions affecting trade would actually have something to apply to.

I just see it as a logical extension of the game, and a way to spark some interesting and less hostile interaction.

What did I interpret? I took it directly from what Max wrote in the FAQ.

You seemed to intimate from posting that that the invader-defender conflict was not intended (because one could "win" and "lose", and thus, its decline is welcome.

oh, and n00bs that tried to embargo over a UN resolution would probably find themselves without any trading partners.

And the new Defenders would be those who break the embargoes and trade with the nation so their people don't starve and their businesses keep runniing.

There are numerous economic add-ons to NS. And to the best of my knowledge, NS does not want to implement anything like that. I recall that Jasque once told me he had offered to help do some of that for NS (like he had done when he made GUSTO and the Meritocratic Census), but his services were declined.

My "struggle" has destroyed no reasons, and I resent the implication that defenders have destroyed regions. I am a defender, and I've made a career defending regions from invaders, who would seek to destory them and subvert the democratic means and mechanisms of the natives. This if course, an argument for another time, I would say.

You're free to resent if you like, but the fact remains, that 'innocent' (for lack of a better term) regions have gotten caught up and thrown into turmoil on account of the invader/defender struggle. I never once said -you- have hurt anyone, and in fact went out of my way to note that your approach did not seem to be mean-spirited at all.

Heft, you've thrown a lot of 'ifs' in your argument, many of them without much merit. If where you are doesn't matter, why bother invading to begin with? I don't see why people should just take it in stride and roll with the punches so that some of you can play the game the way you like. As for the argument of 'it doesn't hurt anyone', I would have to say that attitude is naieve. People have argued quite fervently in previous discussions that they like being where they are in the region they've chosen and do not enjoy the disruption, and oftimes abusive treatment that goes on with many invasions/defense counterattacks. They've all had to deal with it, regardless given that invasion is legal gameplay. Do they have less rights than Gameplay enthusiasts to enjoy their style of game?

Rules have been implemented to deal with the less savory aspects that Gameplay has developed, and people who do not get involved with it have been punished/deleted for inadvertently breaking those rules while being unfamiliar with them. Yes, it's their responsibility to read up or research before taking regional actions, but the point remains, there wouldn't be those rules if Gameplay tactics hadn't gotten to a point that rules were needed. Their game has been ruined/altered on account of Gameplay, regardless of whether or not they participated actively. Are they less deserving of being able to enjoy because they haven't read up on one aspect of the NationStates game?

People have quit from being frustrated with their region being messed with. How many Moderation complaint threads have we seen on Gameplay infractions/concerns? While I think the General forum probably takes the top spot on 'number of related Moderation threads' due to the nature of it, I would hazard a guess that Gameplay comes in a close second at least. Surely there is ample evidence of people 'being hurt', at least as much as one can be by investing themselves in an online game.

You say that "The game seems to have become so intent on protecting those who either don't seem to be playing it or would "lose" without those protections." and "it is quite probable that many of us will leave NS." Protection of various sorts has come about because there were too many complaints about abuse. You can blame your own fellow Gameplay folks for that one - the problem children at least.

Leaving? While I'm sorry to see people go, I hate to break it to you - people leave all the time. And every time this comes up you'll hear the 'back in the good old days' argument get dragged out, with most people forgetting that the 'good old days' really weren't all that great. You seem quite comfortable when arguing from a 'winning' side mentality, telling those who 'lose' to suck it up and deal. I would imagine if the tables were turned, we might hear a slightly different tone to your arguments. That does tend to be the way of things.

Perception is reality, folks. The problem is, there are a lot of differing perceptions when it comes to this sort of thing, and every one of them have their valid points. While I may not agree with some of the Gameplay aspects, I'm not going to sit here and say they don't have a right to play. But it's arrogant and irresponsible to have the attitude that nothing you do can negatively impact others, or that any one person's idea of fun ought to hold a measure of importance higher than someone who's idea of fun doesn't agree with the first's. In any case it's late, I'm rambling at this point and have probably either repeated myself or maundered on far too long anyway, so ... meh. I'm out for the night.

If you could set up a program whereby nations could buy things from each other, and the game actually reflect the money changing hands, embargoes would be placed by getting other nations to quit buying products from the targeted nation/region.

Along with this would have to be some sort of program to keep track of inventory. If I produce Trout, or Uranium, the rate at which i have it available to sell should change with the policies I enact. I could boost the trout fishing industry and sell trout internationally, cheaper than the next guy. My international diplomatic skills would be called into play: the more trade contracts i make, the more fish i sell. Marketing would begin to figure in, and region names will carry more weight. Large corporate regions could form and effectively influence the UN on trade issues. The economic politics would take on new meaning. Even invading would take on new meaning. You would invade someone's market share.

Regions could be based on trading between themselves, or making coalitions to sell to other regions. Prices could be set by each nation for their own products, creating competitive market values according to supply and demand. UN resolutions affecting trade would actually have something to apply to.

I just see it as a logical extension of the game, and a way to spark some interesting and less hostile interaction.

Just wanted to reply to say your idea Tropical Montana is intriguing.
Maybe if there were a way to "slow down" nations moving from region to region without the economic resources to back them up (er, wait a second -- my own nation's economy is "Imploded" and, um, my defender days would be over :D )

Just the fact that this discussion is going on displays the certain vitality of this fine game. I know a bunch of us from the central Gulf coast region of the USA were off NS for significant periods in September -- November thanks to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, so there can be outside RL forces that will dictate participation in NS.

For me, the most tension / fun I've had playing NS has been helping in and / or coordinating the legal refounding of founderless regions. Certainly there's some situations where founderless regional conflict has gone too far so Moderation intervention seems unavoidable (ie: Cuba, Holy Land, etc).
Ultimately though, it is the comradeship / friendships and interactions that are enhanced / discovered through the playing of this game, whatever one's emphasis or orientation of gameplay.

I can't seem to recall...didn't we at one time discuss the implementation of a delegate ejection limit (like that which was imposed upon the Pacific during those mass ejections) to prevent griefings? Was this found to be technically impossible/too difficult to implement (*kicks memory*)?

I do agree that in the gameplay aspect of NS interest (in general) has waned and good players have decreased activity/left the game/are planning to leave on a larger scale than I've ever personally witnessed before. We haven't had this problem in my region as of yet, but we don't limit our activities to gameplay (and we're weird :P). This downward trend did seem to start with the time randomization and the limit of updates (one update per nation per night then you're done, etc), which in a lot of ways limited the amount of strategy, skill, and attention required to successfully engage in gameplay activities. I do tend to think of regional and interregional politics as a vital part of gameplay--and it is also a form of role play itself--but participation in this aspect has also been on the decline lately for the most part.

The only reason a lot of "old school" defenders got started in the practice was due to our own founderless regions being invaded. Invasions carried out by certain groups can and do disrupt the games of innocent nations and regions that simply want to answer their issues or RP on the NS forum or their own--in some cases this creates more gameplay participants, but in the more destructive raids it causes more damage than it's worth, period. A fail-safe to the complete destruction of regions would be very helpful; until then law-abiding gameplay participants will continue to spot and report griefings as we're able. It seems as though there has to be a solution somewhat close to a middleground in respecting all aspects of NS player interest, I just have no idea where that is...

I also agree that something needs to be done with the feeders, but I'm torn as to what. Currently, our player-created regional forums are far more active than any one of the feeder forums at any given time. This is not to say that everything should revolve around regional forum activity, but for whatever reason the feeders seemed far more active in the past, and as a result the game seemed more enticing and engaging to new players. Today a lot of the player-created region players have gone back to double as feeder residents as well, so I do think activity overall in those regions has gone down considerably (this does require some thought back to those "good ol' days" :P). I don't pretend to have the answer but tend to agree for the most part with Eras. There have been attempted invasions and successful defenses of the Rejected Realms on numerous occasions. Hundreds of players have "mobilized" several times in the past in the span of only a few hours due to excitement in any of the feeders.

These things are definitely worth discussing, and I will definitely be back to read through it all more thoroughly when I'm not so sleep-deprived. Thanks for starting this topic, BB, and thanks to everyone contributing--your differing thoughts have definitely started my wheels turning.

I like this discussion allot, but it is slowly starting to turn into a NS2 discussion, when people ask for new features to be added. All the game needs is less moderator attention on invaders/defenders. There are many players who like to eject lots of players, which is still bad, but not necesarily. Maybe the rules should adapt to a part where the new invader/defender Delegate is allowed to eject all UN members, especially the ones who were endorsing the former delegate. Also a new invader/defender Delegate shouldn't stop the region from growing, and allow the natives to bring more puppets in (Invaders should leave after their victory, and not complain about the problems it gives when they stay.) Personally, I find it silly to endorse a Delegate who is hardily active, or one who isn't able to defend the region. An inactive Delegate is often not voting in the UN and therefor not representing the region anyway. An invasion might just as well be what brings the region back alive. Let the new Delegate taunt the ejectees to come back, without being mean. He is not allowed to password the region, so they should be able to come back, as they can't be kept on the banlist (Maybe that should change too).
At this moment invasions are so heavily moderated, that many think that invading is illegal, despite what the FAQ says. A moderator should abolish the punishment of deletion on griefing. Simply kick out the grievers and let them on the banlist. Remember that many founders let themselves open to invasions.
Giving a Delegate founder controls, and than delete the Delegate for 1 to many ejections, because he isn't a native, is very harsh. Deletions only confuse invaders. That is why many "smart" invaders attack with puppets, just because they are afraid for those deletions. The thrill of war is what keeps this game alive. New gamers who only do issues, slowly bore other hardcore members of your region to death. Some of them become active, tell you that they want to be part of the region's goverment, and are never heard off again. That is so dissapointing to long term players. Give them the thrill of of a mean war, and things might shift a bit.

I'm coming to this to an extent late, ignorant, and irrelevant, and I don't want to derail the discussion of gameplay, but I thought I'd just stick an additional oar in. Gameplay does, to an extent, affect UN play - which I'd peg as my primary 'bit' in NS.

Firstly, the linking of UN membership and gameplay obviously can't be changed. But it can be frustrating to collect delegate lists, and begin TG campaigns...only to find a small but significant percentage of regions have changed hands. Furthermore, it's not always clear who's going to end up with the delegacy. This is something we just have to live with, and it's not too problematic. What really would be a problem, though, is creating a number of regions - for the non-gameplay types - which would be 'out of bounds'. Comparisons have been made to the 'classroom regions'. Classroom regions are fine, of course, and it's great kids learn using NS: but we can't TG them. I would very much hope that aspect wouldn't be included in the 'out of bounds' regions, because otherwise, it would have the potential to kill TG campaigns (which are vital, because I don't know of any proposal, other than the repeal of FFRA - which failed - that made it to quorum without one).

Secondly, we definitely have seen declining numbers in terms of UN voting. I don't know whether proposal numbers have dropped. Certainly, though, there are perennial complaints about the number of repeals - something I certainly don't object to, but which is perhaps indicative of a view the UN has 'done' certain areas. For new players, who submit well-worded human rights proposals, only to have us crash all over them saying been there, done that, it must be a bit frustrating. I know voting numbers are a bit artificial - the perpetual non-voting of one Feeder delegate probably 'softens' numbers a bit - but it's easy to see things are 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 less. That's significant. So, while I don't speak for anyone else in the UN, I'd suggest it's not just gameplay that's seeing a slump in activity.

A moderator should abolish the punishment of deletion on griefing. Simply kick out the grievers and let them on the banlist.
Mods will continue to delete cheater griefers (multis, that is) regardless, but let's open the door to a discussion on the other part.

What would be the point of leaving a griefer on the banlist? Assuming he's part of a legit invasion, one of his endorser buddies is likely to gain the delegacy next and could simply remove him from the list. Being kicked from the region isn't much punishment for illegally kicking natives or preventing any defense with a locked-down password. And UN ejection is effectively meaningless when most invaders use fresh, unknown puppets with every invasions. Even deletion is little more than a slap on the wrist to players who can create a new nation in 30 seconds.

Propose an effective punishment that works within the game, and we'll listen. We don't get pleasure from deleting griefers. Give us a real alternative.

Damn. I was all set to endorse some variant of the proposals made by Unlimited and Erastide, then Gruenberg went and pointed out a flaw.

Mods will continue to delete cheater griefers (multis, that is) regardless, but let's open the door to a discussion on the other part.

What would be the point of leaving a griefer on the banlist? Assuming he's part of a legit invasion, one of his endorser buddies is likely to gain the delegacy next and could simply remove him from the list. Being kicked from the region isn't much punishment for illegally kicking natives or preventing any defense with a locked-down password. And UN ejection is effectively meaningless when most invaders use fresh, unknown puppets with every invasions. Even deletion is little more than a slap on the wrist to players who can create a new nation in 30 seconds.

Propose an effective punishment that works within the game, and we'll listen. We don't get pleasure from deleting griefers. Give us a real alternative.
ban them from the un so that they cant grief any more.

Pugna']ban them from the un so that they cant grief any more.
That is what happens when you make multi UN nations. Deletions follows when you grief as well. You can't simply eject them from the UN, because the ejected Delegate will still have regional control.
My example was for grievers only. Sometimes they turn into grievers, just because they ejected 1 or 2 natives to many.
It is a dilema, because without the deletion of the grieving nation, they still have regional control and can easily unban themselves from the region.

I LOVE the idea of a trade system. However, it will likely require a lot of testing, and we need to find out exactly WHAT NSers want in a trade system.

I think it probably will require an expansion on the number of industry types in existence. Do the mods have a list of how many there are now? I'm sure there aren't enough to meet the needs of a viable and interesting trade system, and it MUST be interesting, not just a numbers game.

Perhaps we would have some way of simulating the effects of nations tending to support nations of similar ideology. For instance, liberal nations (UN category) would charge less among each other, but more when trading with, say, dictatorships, if at all. This could add a new dimension to the commie V. socialist V. capitalist v. dictatorship current that runs through rl (the Cold War is a good example).

So, while I don't speak for anyone else in the UN, I'd suggest it's not just gameplay that's seeing a slump in activity.

You don't have to. The 2005 data of number of nations and number of UN nations shows that there has been a drop in the number of UN nations relative to the number of total nations.

I could also plot out the number of regions and UN delegates, but I think your point that there has been a slump in UN activity is supported by the data. And I also agree that it is difficult for new players to submit a "legal" proposal given that many ideas have been visited by the UN in its two year history. However, I'd simply ask that the UN mods simply treat well meaning and well written duplicate ideas with something of a light touch and try to encourage those proposal authors to find a unique idea ... there are an infinite number of free trade possibilities available (up until something like the United Nations Security Act comes along and deals with it "all").

(First, sorry if some see this as derailing. I know it's not directly relevant to the OP's point, which concerned gameplay, but it seems to 'fit' in the general mood of the discussion.)

You don't have to. The 2005 data of number of nations and number of UN nations shows that there has been a drop in the number of UN nations relative to the number of total nations.

I could also plot out the number of regions and UN delegates, but I think your point that there has been a slump in UN activity is supported by the data. And I also agree that it is difficult for new players to submit a "legal" proposal given that many ideas have been visited by the UN in its two year history. However, I'd simply ask that the UN mods simply treat well meaning and well written duplicate ideas with something of a light touch and try to encourage those proposal authors to find a unique idea ... there are an infinite number of free trade possibilities available (up until something like the United Nations Security Act comes along and deals with it "all").

I was actually going more on votes cast per resolution: 1200 as opposed to 1600 (as a very broad generalisation). And I think, respectfully, you're choosing the wrong example with UNSA: UNCoESB would be a more relevant example, in that it really does create the potential for more redundancies (as in, bye bye Biological Weapons, bye bye Dolphins). And, of course, I'm not saying we should have to relegalise euthanasia every other week: I think it's safe to say issues such legalised prostitution and gay marriage have been 'done' by the UN, and really don't need redoing. Furthermore, I'm not defending people who don't read passed resolutions.

That said, it just feels like the UN forum is quieter, and less interesting, and the UN as a whole less active. I know I haven't been here long, in the scheme of things, and I don't have any graphs, but it's an impression I get. And I don't just put it down to some notable posters leaving, or to some 'sweeping' resolutions, or to the 'rise of the sovereignty movement' - I mean, come on, we once had a mod telling us the UN 'wasn't a legislative body', I don't think a few nuclear-armed dolphin-slayers can compete - but simply to the fact that things are generally stagnating. Add to that the anti-repeal sentiment of some, and we have a problem.

I don't think it's pressing, and I think consideration of gameplay should come first. But I do hope it is remembered that UN membership is intrinsic not only to gameplay, but to, er, UN play. And as such, anything that completely closes off delegates would be a Bad Idea. Classroom regions are fine, until you have delegates with 50 endorsements who you can't lobby in any way.

You seemed to intimate from posting that that the invader-defender conflict was not intended (because one could "win" and "lose", and thus, its decline is welcome.

Who's putting words in whose mouth? I said NOTHING about its decline being welcome. I asked for this thread to be started here, and I am asking for everyone to participate in the discussion so that every possible kind of NS player's opinion is represented. What is being taken out of context is that in response to the comment that the game is "now unwinnable", and I am pointing out what the FAQ says about how the game is structured.

Kindly argue with what is actually said, not with assumptions.

Propose an effective punishment that works within the game, and we'll listen. We don't get pleasure from deleting griefers. Give us a real alternative.
Well, I don't know if this would work, but it might be a good idea:

If a griefer is "caught", maybe the griefing nation could be deleted/not deleted, but then the mods use whatever methods they use to detect multis to find all nations controlled by that player. Then, those nations get a little red notice after their nation name in regional rankings (like the UN button, only red and saying "IG" for "invader griefer" or something). The rules would be made a lot less complicated and relaxed, so it would be hard to "accidentally" break the rules, and the red notice would go away after a certain period of time (3 weeks or so maybe), or after good behavior.

I support Blackbird's perspective on this 100%, as i see the situation, the NS game either evolves, or experiences a slow and pointless death.

I support Blackbird's perspective on this 100%, as i see the situation, the NS game either evolves, or experiences a slow and pointless death.

What you're forgetting is the regional stuff isn't The Game™. It's an aspect of it.

In any case, after getting some info from people more in the know, have a suggestion.

The concern seems to be for regional stuff getting stagnant and there being too much a status quo. In another thread, folks mentioned maintaining hundreds of puppets just to play the regional game. Wouldn't limiting how many puppets players could have, like the current UN limit of one, eliminate some of that and make things more challenging?

No, NOT suggesting limiting it as severely as that. I know even rp'ers like to try different things, and people who don't participate in either like to see how different choices come out with different nations on just playing the issues. Rather than hundreds, why not limit it to 20-25 or so? Ample room for use and alternate nation creation, and spreading around in regions while eliminating the monopoly some might have in being able to invest that much time and energy into organizing so many puppets.

Just a thought, no idea how many people actually maintain huge numbers of puppets or how all that works, but I've seen enough mentioned on the boards and in IRC over the years that I figure it's worth at least getting some commentary on.

Wouldn't limiting how many puppets players could have, like the current UN limit of one, eliminate some of that and make things more challenging?
That's a good idea, but I see a couple of problems:

What if you had the max number of puppets, some of which you didn't want, but wanted to create a new one? There would have to be a way to delete or "deactivate" puppets.

What if you forgot about some? Sometimes I will create a puppet to see how a particular stat works, or see if I can get a different government category, or to found an auxillary region. I've long forgotten their passwords, and some might have died. I don't want to get deleted for association with old puppets.

Personal responsibility for your puppets - just like we've always had. *shrugs* If you have too many, oh well - let them die off, since mods don't delete them. Keep track of your nations on a chart or something - it's not that difficult. If you change your mind on some, let them die off, then ask for a res from the GHP. Things like that I wouldn't be so worried about. I'm more interested on how it would affect Gameplay, since that's the question at hand.

Propose an effective punishment that works within the game, and we'll listen. We don't get pleasure from deleting griefers. Give us a real alternative.

Early this year (Feb-May 2005) there was a special forum for certain admins / invaders / defenders. This forum existed to discuss possible new invasion rules. It included discussion on how to make Admin/Mods' jobs easier with regard to griefings.

The IMHO most significant suggestion which came from that forum was to turn off all delegate's abilities to eject anyone. It eliminates griefings entirely, so there's no point in that case to ponder what an appropriate punishment would be ;)

Shall I re-post the argumentation provided back then in this thread? A lot of what is being discussed in this thread strikes me as a replay of the previous discussion. Note: AFAIK, that prior discussion did not result in any gamechange whatsoever.

Ballotonia

The IMHO most significant suggestion which came from that forum was to turn off all delegate's abilities to eject anyone. It eliminates griefings entirely, so there's no point in that case to ponder what an appropriate punishment would be ;)

Ballotonia
You're missing the point. The purpose of this topic is bring back the exitement, not killing it off.
I am pondering about a way to reduce the amount of moderating to invasions, which is highly restrained, IMHO.
There must be a way that invaders can get their ways, without mods have to read through loads of whiney posts and logs of yesterday until last month. I think that invasions are almost impossible without the risk of being deleted, ejected from the UN or at least receive a warning. It was the invading and defending what made this game exiting. Most big invader's "organizations" have left the game, because they lost a billion puppets on trying to play it their way. Some of them have been deleted because of 1 or 2 ejections over the limit, and others because they couldn't resist to grief the heck out of the losing party.

To those who have been talking about implementing trade relations among nations:

Me and some of my comrades who worked on the GUSTO initiative (gusto.jactivism.com <-earlier implementation; gusto.politizens.com <-later implementation), which was a very developed economic simulation of trade between nations. Our project head, Jasque offered to implement something like that for NS. As I've been told, Max expressed interest, but not enough interest to continue returning Jasque's e-mails.

I'd like to particularly thank Gruenberg for his input.

Some people here have made statements to the effect that any stagnation that occurs among the Gameplay community is only relevent to that section of the game. I thin Gruenberg's statements show otherwise in regards to the decline of the UN resolutions part of the game. Whether or not one causes the other, or both stem from a common problem, I don't know if we can say yet, yet I would be surprised indeed if they were not linked in some way. A hypothesis that in part due to the decline of gameplay regions that were involved in UN resolution writing, UN resolution writing has decreased. It could also be, however, that simply as the game progresses, there exists less and less to be written about the UN, and thus, these two things are unrelated. One could hypothesize that the entirety of NS is slowing down (as games do), and the UN resolutions problem and the gameplay regions problem are simply feeling this first, since those communities suffer most from lack of numbers. To my understanding of RP communities, a couple dozen active members can make a community, whereas defenders/invader and UN resolutions needs scores and thousands respectively of nations to achieve significant success.

Mods will continue to delete cheater griefers (multis, that is) regardless, but let's open the door to a discussion on the other part.

What would be the point of leaving a griefer on the banlist? Assuming he's part of a legit invasion, one of his endorser buddies is likely to gain the delegacy next and could simply remove him from the list. Being kicked from the region isn't much punishment for illegally kicking natives or preventing any defense with a locked-down password. And UN ejection is effectively meaningless when most invaders use fresh, unknown puppets with every invasions. Even deletion is little more than a slap on the wrist to players who can create a new nation in 30 seconds.

Propose an effective punishment that works within the game, and we'll listen. We don't get pleasure from deleting griefers. Give us a real alternative.
Here are two ideas that may or may not be worth anything.

That user has to use a unique E-mail to get into the UN, right? Kick the griefer from the UN, kick them from the region, and make the E-mail invalid in the UN for a period of time. After that period is up, they can then rejoin the UN and keep going, with a hash mark or something next to their name. 2 or 3 Strikes and DEAT.

The only problems:
it takes like 30 seconds to make a new nation
people have multiple e-mail accounts.

This does, however, bring up another interesting possibility. Create a new UN status that nations can be in, and call it 'UN suspension' or something. What happens is when a griefer gets kicked from a region, their UN account gets locked. They can't endorse anyone for a certain time period (probably like a week or two or more), all of their endorsements are withdrawn, and their UN pip thing is displayed in red. Also, they are unable to be endorsed during the 'suspension.' When the time period is up, their UN status returns to normal, with a hash mark beside their name. Once again, 2 or 3 strikes and DEAT.

What this second option does is it preserves the person's UN membership, while kicking them fron the region. Their UN membership is worthless for the time period, and is an extreme hinderance. If they try to get around their state of UN limbo, then they'll trip the site's UN Multi safeguards. You would have to block 'withdrawl from the UN' while the person is being punished for griefing, but this seems to be a decent way to get around the problem and keep it fun.

^that would require years of coding to be perfect.....i dont think the admins have enough time on there hands to do that.

you can easily just get another email then apply for the un again. Blocking an email address wont work.

Behold, this is why we use the second option. It forces them to stay in the UN, thereby keeping the knife of the Anti-UN Multi software poised.

EDIT:
^that would require years of coding to be perfect.....i dont think the admins have enough time on there hands to do that.
It would be a (probably-not-so) simple matter of copying over the modifications the UN makes to an account into a new setting, modifying the setting, make it temporary (the server can handle time limits, just have it tick down with the updates!)

It would probably be a pain to code, but it would lessen the punishments against peoplewho are trying to legitimately invade. Of course those who are 'cheat'-griefing would still be DEATed on sight.

With respect to Nathi's idea, I doubt puppet limitations would have any impact. I probably need around five to ten puppets active at any given time for full efficacy in the invasion game, and the rest are just for fun. Heck, most of the puppets I have active now are for ease of communication. There's also the issue of shared puppets that would have to be addressed.

The IMHO most significant suggestion which came from that forum was to turn off all delegate's abilities to eject anyone. It eliminates griefings entirely, so there's no point in that case to ponder what an appropriate punishment would be ;)



How about a fixed and limited amount of nations a Delegate can eject each day, 2 for example, that way griefing is ruled out, but also if there is any abusive nations they can be delt with too.

How about a fixed and limited amount of nations a Delegate can eject each day, 2 for example, that way griefing is ruled out, but also if there is any abusive nations they can be delt with too.
Our regions are not the same size. A one nation region can be totally griefed, but someone experiencing a four or five nations puppet spamming brigade would have their hands tied ... and even a one nation region can be harassed by an otherwise legal set of puppets. It also severely restricts invader/defender's current ability to sit at the front door and toss opponents back out.

Sorry, but that would break the game in excess of any current woes. Nah.

You're missing the point. The purpose of this topic is bring back the exitement, not killing it off.

Why would removing the eject button for delegates ruin invasions? It would mean no invader could get kicked out by defenders. A lot of defenders would no longer have a reason to defend, and would have ample reason to instead support the side they agree with. It would return the whole invader/defender aspect from a pure technical excercise into a political one (gathering support for ones own side). Note this is what invasion/defense was like in the beginning, before the ejection button ever existed...

Ballotonia

I think that part of the decline in the gameplay is a result of the game becoming more sophisticated, requiring more time invested, and losing the interest of the younger players who have been spoon-fed entertainment through XBox their whole lives.

I wish i could come up with a suggestion to help keep the invader-type players interested, but all i can think of is "go find another online war game". There has to be plenty of them out there.

True, the UN used to have more activity, but some of the resolutions were real doozies. The standards have increased and the game got over a lot of youngster's heads. As has been mentioned, it only takes a couple dozen players to make a region work, but many more to successfully invade. It seems to me that the game's growth potential is by giving smaller groups the ability to significantly interact.

I have heard several here comment on their interest in a TRADE aspect of the game. It appears that the coding is already available.

Then, perhaps, invading/griefing infractions could be dealt with by making the offending nation pay restitution, a set figure multiplied by the number of nations they eject or the number of nations in the griefed region. That would limit invaders to only being able to extend and risk so much capital on invasions.

You would have to close a loophole for borrowing funds from puppets/other nations...

But anyhoo, economic sanctions could be used to keep griefers in check, while still allowing them to invade. (Mod warnings could also come with monetary fines)

As long as there seems to be some interest, i'll keep pushing the TRADE aspect.

I agree whole-heartedly on the trade aspect, but there doesn't seem to be interest among the administrators (respectfully) to write the code for all of that. Indeed, we've been told (many times in the course of this thread) that solutions everyone's looking for are those that require minimal amounts of coding. I've been told in other places that major coding and change implementations are going to be done in NS2. I'll eagerly await that, but I don't know what's been done on that. A post by [violet] this past October seemed to indicate it was still at a planning stage.

How about a fixed and limited amount of nations a Delegate can eject each day, 2 for example, that way griefing is ruled out, but also if there is any abusive nations they can be delt with too.

An invader group sends in 20 endo-swappers to a Pacific region. Sure, swapping by the same group is forbidden, but actually *proving* it is hard.

Personal responsibility for your puppets - just like we've always had. *shrugs* If you have too many, oh well - let them die off, since mods don't delete them. Keep track of your nations on a chart or something - it's not that difficult. If you change your mind on some, let them die off, then ask for a res from the GHP. Things like that I wouldn't be so worried about. I'm more interested on how it would affect Gameplay, since that's the question at hand.

I do exactly that -- keep a chart of my puppets. A bunch of them were created to refound regions of invaders and professed Nazis and turned into memorials against invaders and Nazism. To be sure they are aware now of this tactic, which serves as an effective guard against them going overboard with their griefing or offensive gameplay.

Please explain what you mean about "(p)ersonal responsibility for your puppets."

With respect to Nathi's idea, I doubt puppet limitations would have any impact. I probably need around five to ten puppets active at any given time for full efficacy in the invasion game, and the rest are just for fun. Heck, most of the puppets I have active now are for ease of communication. There's also the issue of shared puppets that would have to be addressed.

Well said. I also have a number of puppets in regions without founders in order to repel potential griefers who fail to distribute the password (I'm sure many other defenders do the same). Then there's the regions I have an affinity with in RL -- like many of us in the USA we may have lived in different places in our real lives (so in NS for example, I keep up with fellow players in the NS regions of Chicago, Louisiana, RPU, Sweden, etc...)

I do exactly that -- keep a chart of my puppets. A bunch of them were created to refound regions of invaders and professed Nazis and turned into memorials against invaders and Nazism. To be sure they are aware now of this tactic, which serves as an effective guard against them going overboard with their griefing or offensive gameplay.

Please explain what you mean about "(p)ersonal responsibility for your puppets."
I mean just what I said, in reference to Ceorana's comments here:

What if you forgot about some? Sometimes I will create a puppet to see how a particular stat works, or see if I can get a different government category, or to found an auxillary region. I've long forgotten their passwords, and some might have died. I don't want to get deleted for association with old puppets.

It's not a new concept - we've always been responsible for our creations. I'm not seeing any insult there, if that's what you were inferring or questioning. I was simply saying 'we're already held accountable for what we do with our puppets' so that particular argument doesn't hold water. Concerns such as what Goober brought up, concerning a limit on puppets limiting people's creativity/freedom too much, is another thing entirely - which is why I asked for input from people who regularly employ large numbers of puppets. I'm curious as to how it's managed, what's done with them, how it all works, and whether or not measures concerning them could help rejuvinate the Gameplay aspect of NS or not.

I still essentially remain of this belief:

The great beauty of NationStates is its simplicity. It's a simple (perhaps "open-ended" is more correct) game. You really don't do all that much within the barebones mechanics of the game. It's an exercise in human sociology. Will complex political individuals (as are the people who are drawn to a witty political simulation such as this) be confined to such simple mechanics? The answer was no. Notwithstanding a limit of about 10 messages on an RMB, people formed government. I well remember when my region governed itself simple through telegrams and RMBs. I even *chuckles in remembrance* remember the debate we had over whether or not to *gasp* use an offsite forum. But we went there, as did hundreds of other regions. The openness of the game allowed us to create our own political institutions. Soon, to my (and others') amazement, we saw whole governments form, with thriving legislatures, executives with full-fledged cabinets and courts with developed case law develop.

But we are man, and politics, at least as the West is taught it, is often defined by conflict. And conflict was found. Invaders were born, and defenders were born to stop them. Years (literally) of build-up of infrastructure of the efforts of hundreds perhaps thousands of players went into creation of a Defender super-structure (and indeed, an Invader one). Both sides created armies, and alliances, and indeed, empires. Intelligence agencies were designed and spymasters gained noterity.

After years of conflict, ultimately the war is won. Defenders won. Whereas once, large regions were in fear of being invaded (and thus has impetus to be active) they no longer so fear. Fear was motivation. It was motivation for reaching out to other regions, to forming alliances, to forming diplomatic relations with other regions. Without that, you're simply forming alliances for the sake of it. Without an enemy, what use is an intelligence agency? What use our intelligence sharing agreements? Without the necessity of armed forces, what use are military agreements? Indeed, what use is there for a military?

Why did Defenders win? I can't speak for the world on that count, although there are many theories. Some people (both defenders and invaders) say that the rules are such that it is harder to invade. Others still, take a moral route, showing that ultimately, in an open-ended world (as NS is), order triumps over chaos, creation over destruction, which I find to be quite a comforting thought, frankly.

Whatever it may be, the problem is out there. The efforts of hundreds of players against a threat which once was now have no outlet.

Some people here have implied (although have been careful not to state it outright) that it is selfish to bring this up, or they have implied that I and others seek a solution that would adversely affect other regions. I do no such thing. I do not believe the Gameplay world in the only world of NS; it most certainly is not. I do not believe it should be valued more than other aspect of the game.

What I do believe, however, is that there does exist a problem: the Gameplay world is failing. If there is a solution, I do not seek one that hurts others in the game; I am a defender, and I proudly wear that name, I have embarked on a Nationstates career where I have tried to *not* hurt people, to protect people from invaders.

There are many views you can take on this matter. You can state that it is a function of the game. Spectrums of conflict rise and fall, and this one is gone, and if players no longer wish to play, so be it. Games too, rise and fall, and perhaps NS1's time is dawning upon us. Because I have been privilaged to speak with some of the mods, I know that they are good people, with the best interests of the game and its players at heart, and I would hope, fervantly indeed that they, and the entire NS community, would put our collective heads together and try to address this problem.

*sigh* I hate to repeat myself, but Nationstates is a game for many different kinds of players, not just Gameplayers, and we need to take as many styles of play into consideration as possible. Does that mean Gameplayers should not be heard? Absolutely not. However, I have some problems with this last post.

You say, "Because I have been privilaged to speak with some of the mods, I know that they are good people, with the best interests of the game and its players at heart, and I would hope, fervantly indeed that they, and the entire NS community, would put our collective heads together and try to address this problem." Well, isn't this whole thread -- and the Gamezones one that split off from this -- about all of us putting our heads together and coming up with new ideas to make it more fun for everyone?

You say, "After years of conflict, ultimately the war is won. Defenders won. Whereas once, large regions were in fear of being invaded (and thus has impetus to be active) they no longer so fear. Fear was motivation. It was motivation for reaching out to other regions, to forming alliances, to forming diplomatic relations with other regions. Without that, you're simply forming alliances for the sake of it. Without an enemy, what use is an intelligence agency? What use our intelligence sharing agreements? Without the necessity of armed forces, what use are military agreements? Indeed, what use is there for a military?"

Shouldn't we come up with ideas that will make it interesting for all players, not just defenders/invaders? Because the game is more interesting for some because they "fear" losing the work in creating their region the way they wanted it, why should those not interested in that aspect have to play it? There are some who enjoy shaping the laws of this world in the UN rather than Gameplay. Should we force all player nations to be bound to the effects of the UN whether they are are able to be voting members or not? Should we make it a requirement that everyone become the delegate of some region, gain enough votes, research, write and submit a proposal?

You say, "What I do believe, however, is that there does exist a problem: the Gameplay world is failing...

Games too, rise and fall, and perhaps NS1's time is dawning upon us."

Isn't it a little overly dramatic to say the whole game will die if we don't cater to just one kind of player?

It seems like most people are interested in having a constructive discussion about this, and we've already a second thread on the possibilities of Gamezones and how they might work, but impassioned repetitions that the game is dying because the gameplay aspect is no longer fun honestly is not helping -- in fact, it may be offputting to those who don't engage in that aspect of play and who are trying suggest compromises, or who are willing to hear you out. And I realize that as a defender you don't want to hurt others, but we are talking about changes we can make to the game which will necessarily impact on thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. I don't say you're selfish for bringing it up (that seems to be another assumption that's been made here and attributed to others) and I understand that you have a particular bias for playing the game a particular way, but simply repeating that the game is dying and the way to revitalize it is in only this manner does not take into account the way many -- possibly even most -- of the players play the game.

I hope you can understand the responsibility in making sure everyone's needs are met here.

Discussion is great. At the risk of sounding rude, lets see more of it rather than what appears to be a lot of 'my game is dying, somebody fix it for me'. There's been several suggestions tossed out by several posters already, good or bad. And there is as mentioned, the Warzones thread, and I think some others elsewhere going on? Of those things, what seems to be appealing to you, Blackbird? And what ideas do you have to rejuvinate your preferred portion of the game?

Perhaps, after all these posts, it would be good to recap and gather up what's been suggested in a cohesive list, and where appropriate, show why or why not they're viable - something the Gameplayers are more suited to doing as this thread is about their concerns, and some of us aren't as qualified to say what would or wouldn't work for what you're aiming for.

I have to agree with DLN here. The game is not dying. There is still allot to be discovered here. My region is fighting for Warzone supremacy, and we are kinda stuck on four warzones currently. We could have captured all the warzones, if it wasn't for those meddling Galch Gulch soldiers and Dilbert :p
We will win them eventually. This game is far from dying. The only thing dying is your imagination.

Carinthe']I have to agree with DLN here. The game is not dying. There is still allot to be discovered here. My region is fighting for Warzone supremacy, and we are kinda stuck on four warzones currently. We could have captured all the warzones, if it wasn't for those meddling Galch Gulch soldiers and Dilbert :p
We will win them eventually. This game is far from dying. The only thing dying is your imagination.
What is with people putting words in other people's mouths in this thread, neh? I never claimed that Gameplay isn't 'dying'. I wouldn't know - I don't engage in that part of the game. I suggested that more discussion and suggesting be done rather than the continued percieved message of 'fix things for me'. Note 'percieved' there. Perhaps I'm just reading the tone wrong - easy enough when dealing just with text.

While I'm sure we're happy that you're happy with your game, Carinthe, there's obviously concern from others in that they are not. That's what the thread is about - discussion on how to improve Gameplay for those looking for improvements, while hopefuly not at the detriment of others who are enjoying their interpretation of the game - which is not to say that the aim of said players is to 'ruin' it for others, which has been another noted misconception here.

Personal responsibility for your puppets - just like we've always had. *shrugs* If you have too many, oh well - let them die off, since mods don't delete them. Keep track of your nations on a chart or something - it's not that difficult. If you change your mind on some, let them die off, then ask for a res from the GHP. Things like that I wouldn't be so worried about. I'm more interested on how it would affect Gameplay, since that's the question at hand.

I was more referring to things like the nation who figured out how to get every UN category at the beginning. He had to make probably at least double the 27 UN categories to figure it out. If there was a 20 puppet limit, and no way to delete puppets, it would have taken him at least three months to have done that, to allow those puppets to die off so he could try new ones.

*sigh* I hate to repeat myself, but Nationstates is a game for many different kinds of players, not just Gameplayers, and we need to take as many styles of play into consideration as possible. Does that mean Gameplayers should not be heard? Absolutely not. However, I have some problems with this last post.

You say, "Because I have been privilaged to speak with some of the mods, I know that they are good people, with the best interests of the game and its players at heart, and I would hope, fervantly indeed that they, and the entire NS community, would put our collective heads together and try to address this problem." Well, isn't this whole thread -- and the Gamezones one that split off from this -- about all of us putting our heads together and coming up with new ideas to make it more fun for everyone?

Absolutely, and I commend you for allowing me ane encouraging me to open this thread.

Why did I make another impassioned plea? I felt the discussion was a little getting off-track. I'm certanily no trying to strifle anyone, but a lot of suggestions were made (such as those economic ones) that really probably don't have a place here. NSers from Gameplay who are intrigued by the machinations of politics and war probably aren't going to be as intrigued by economics. Some of them will, no doubt (myself included), but I would count that group as a small minority.

all players[/I], not just defenders/invaders? Because the game is more interesting for some because they "fear" losing the work in creating their region the way they wanted it, why should those not interested in that aspect have to play it? There are some who enjoy shaping the laws of this world in the UN rather than Gameplay. Should we force all player nations to be bound to the effects of the UN whether they are are able to be voting members or not? Should we make it a requirement that everyone become the delegate of some region, gain enough votes, research, write and submit a proposal?

I can't tell if your questions are rhetorical or not. I'll answer them on their face. We should come up with ideas that make it interesting for all players, of course. I've never suggested otherwise. I think you disregard "fear" though. Fear is a great motivating factor in politics. Fear and pride. No one wants to lose their work. Why do the Democrats (sorry for non-USAers here) run against the Republcians? They fear (yes, fear) that the Republicans will dismantle programs they support and add programs they don't. Semantics-wise, you can term it different (i.e. "They have a different program they want implemented"), but ultimately, it comes down to fear of what happens if you do nothing, if the other side wins.

Fear exists in NS too. In the regions and alliances I participate in, for instance, I've often feared what would should my opponents gain power, and vice-versa, surely. However, with an ultimate protection of the region, fear is gone. Why does the United States (or any country for that matter) engage in diplomatic relations with the rest of the world? Because there are material benefits. Increasingly, as an observer of Nationstates, I find fewer and fewer benefits in engaging in foreign relations (and within the context of gameplay, engaging in foreign relations has been my bread and butter). If there's no fear of an outside force taking over your region, there's little reason for alliances. Cultural exchanges, universities and such sometimes promote alliances, but more often formal agreements, and those sort of things appeal to fewer players. For the more casual player, the "I want to go move my nation, be a part of a military type player", cultural alliances have less appeal.


You say, "What I do believe, however, is that there does exist a problem: the Gameplay world is failing...

Games too, rise and fall, and perhaps NS1's time is dawning upon us."

Isn't it a little overly dramatic to say the whole game will die if we don't cater to just one kind of player?

I did not say that. As I've been saying throughout this thread, others (notably Greunberg) have presented evidence that other aspects of the game are also decreasing in activity, and Gruenberg specifically provided data regarding UN resolutions. I theorized that perhaps that decrease in activity in that aspect of the game was linked to the decrease in gameplay in that it might have a common problem: potential decrease in player usage of the entire game. Just a theory.

It seems like most people are interested in having a constructive discussion about this, and we've already a second thread on the possibilities of Gamezones and how they might work, but impassioned repetitions that the game is dying because the gameplay aspect is no longer fun honestly is not helping -- in fact, it may be offputting to those who don't engage in that aspect of play and who are trying suggest compromises, or who are willing to hear you out. And I realize that as a defender you don't want to hurt others, but we are talking about changes we can make to the game which will necessarily impact on thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. I don't say you're selfish for bringing it up (that seems to be another assumption that's been made here and attributed to others) and I understand that you have a particular bias for playing the game a particular way, but simply repeating that the game is dying and the way to revitalize it is in only this manner does not take into account the way many -- possibly even most -- of the players play the game.

I hope you can understand the responsibility in making sure everyone's needs are met here.

Regarding people who have implied I'm selfish for bringing this up, I'm not referring to you, Kat. Others for instance, have said things like this in response to my posts, "But it's arrogant and irresponsible to have the attitude [snip] that any one person's idea of fun ought to hold a measure of importance higher than someone who's idea of fun doesn't agree with the first's." Such statements seem to imply that I don't care what other groups think, or that i somehow believe as a Gameplayer I'm "entitled" to have my views heard over a cacophony of others. You're certainly not guilty of saying those things, Kat, but others are.

As I said in an above paragraph (for clarification, above the one I just wrote), I repeat myself to try to give people an understanding of what the Gameplayer is looking for out of these discussions. I think what a lot of people discussing here need to understand is where the Gameplayer is coming from. The Gameplayer is a type of player who enjoys the nitty and gritty of politics. Some of them enjoy cultural pursuits, others military (as in, moving nations with UN status), other intelligence (as in, having a nation pretend to be a member of another faction in order to gain militarily or politically relevent classified information). As laudable as some of the suggestions here are (such as economic add-ons, which, I personally, have always been under the impression that are too complicated to code and may or may not be included in NS2), I don't believe all of them are narrowly tailored to both only affect the gameplayer and appeal to him/her. I believe a lot of this discussion is yielding positive results, but we need a reminder of the goal. Yes, I certanily agree that we need a narrowly tailored solution, but in making it narrowly tailored, we can't sacrifice the "solution" part of it.

I was more referring to things like the nation who figured out how to get every UN category at the beginning. He had to make probably at least double the 27 UN categories to figure it out. If there was a 20 puppet limit, and no way to delete puppets, it would have taken him at least three months to have done that, to allow those puppets to die off so he could try new ones.
That kind of goes against 'keeping interest' then, doesn't it? After all, if it takes a bit longer to get it, while remaining insteresting as there is a goal in mind, doesn't that suggest a longer playing time, and along with that, less chance of 'getting bored' and perhaps more opportunity to get involved with some of the other aspects of the game?

For example, I didn't start off roleplaying. I started off just playing the game, seeing what issues came up and how they changed my nation. I didn't even look at the forums for some time. Other interests have ebbed and waned after having had enough time to take a better look at them in being around a while.

Might that not hold the same were your example one that lasted longer? Three months after all, isn't really that long a time in the grand scheme of things, yet you make mention of it as if it were an eternity. ;)

Regarding people who have implied I'm selfish for bringing this up, I'm not referring to you, Kat. Others for instance, have said things like this in response to my posts, "But it's arrogant and irresponsible to have the attitude [snip] that any one person's idea of fun ought to hold a measure of importance higher than someone who's idea of fun doesn't agree with the first's." Such statements seem to imply that I don't care what other groups think, or that i somehow believe as a Gameplayer I'm "entitled" to have my views heard over a cacophony of others. You're certainly not guilty of saying those things, Kat, but others are.

No one has said you're selfish for voicing concerns - you are mistaken there. If said observations concerning your responses do not apply, then don't let them ruffle you so. Saying that such attitudes would be 'arrogant and irresponsible' is not calling you that, after all. It's saying that if this is the case, it would indeed be arrogant and irresponsible of those holding said attitudes. Perhaps you should re-read some of your own previous statements to understand how such concerns might have come about, rather than crying foul when someone's opinion differs from your own. You have after all, gotten fairly defensive a time or two, and leapt to several unfounded conclusions along the way, and attributed things to others that simply weren't the case. Perception sometimes can be quite flawed, for any one of us.

Regardless, I'm still curious to see a clear layout of your own suggestions as to how to remedy your percieved problem rather than more 'I want change, but your ideas don't work for me'.

DLN:

As I've posted in this thread and the gameplay thread, my idea for a solution is something like this:

"A region chooses to go gameplay or not. If not, their UN nations cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa. A nation that is not in the UN cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa frequently (put some realistic cap on it, thereby preventing any slow invasion sort of thing). Thus, a gameplay region has no founder and is vulnerable to invasion. Gameplay regions can fight amongst themselves. Feeders remain unchanged. A non-gameplay region does whatever it wants; it can have offsite diplomatic relations with gameplay regions. Those relations just won't be based on military aid."

Thus, to sum things up.

Gameplay Regions
Can freely move nations (including UN) across all Gameplay Regons
Can freely move non-UN nations across all Regions
Cannot move UN nations or UN status (from one nation to another) from a Gameplay Region to the a non-Gameplay Region with impunity; can only do so once per X amount of time (1 month was my initial suggestion)
Gameplay Regions have no founders, but griefing rules still apply.

Non-Gameplay Regions
Can freely move nations (including UN) across all non-Gameplay Regions
Can freely move non-UN nations across all Regions
Cannot move UN nations or UN status (from one nation to another) from a non-Gameplay region to the a Gameplay region with impunity; can only do so once per X amount of time (1 month was my initial suggestion)
Non-Gameplay Regions have founders; all present rules regarding invasions and such apply

Implementation
All founderless regions become Gameplay Regions.
All foundered regions have the opportunity within X amount of time (1-2 months sounds about right) to become a Gameplay Region. Decisions are irreversible.

Long-Term
Gameplay Regions have no founder listed, not a dead founder. Perhaps a clear title of "Gameplay Region" would be appropriate as well.
Non-Gameplay Regions have founders listed, even dead founders. Even if founder dies, region remains a Gameplay region.
When regions are created, they can choose to be Gameplay or non-Gameplay, with the possible addition of a one-time switch option within one month.

DLN:

As I've posted in this thread and the gameplay thread, my idea for a solution is something like this:

"A region chooses to go gameplay or not. If not, their UN nations cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa. A nation that is not in the UN cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa frequently (put some realistic cap on it, thereby preventing any slow invasion sort of thing). Thus, a gameplay region has no founder and is vulnerable to invasion. Gameplay regions can fight amongst themselves. Feeders remain unchanged. A non-gameplay region does whatever it wants; it can have offsite diplomatic relations with gameplay regions. Those relations just won't be based on military aid."

Thus, to sum things up.

Gameplay Regions
Can freely move nations (including UN) across all Gameplay Regons
Can freely move non-UN nations across all Regions
Cannot move UN nations or UN status (from one nation to another) from a Gameplay Region to the a non-Gameplay Region with impunity; can only do so once per X amount of time (1 month was my initial suggestion)
Gameplay Regions have no founders, but griefing rules still apply.

Non-Gameplay Regions
Can freely move nations (including UN) across all non-Gameplay Regions
Can freely move non-UN nations across all Regions
Cannot move UN nations or UN status (from one nation to another) from a non-Gameplay region to the a Gameplay region with impunity; can only do so once per X amount of time (1 month was my initial suggestion)
Non-Gameplay Regions have founders; all present rules regarding invasions and such apply

Implementation
All founderless regions become Gameplay Regions.
All foundered regions have the opportunity within X amount of time (1-2 months sounds about right) to become a Gameplay Region. Decisions are irreversible.

Long-Term
Gameplay Regions have no founder listed, not a dead founder. Perhaps a clear title of "Gameplay Region" would be appropriate as well.
Non-Gameplay Regions have founders listed, even dead founders. Even if founder dies, region remains a Gameplay region.
When regions are created, they can choose to be Gameplay or non-Gameplay, with the possible addition of a one-time switch option within one month.


Sorry, but I think this is a rather ridiculous idea. The cause of the gameplay-aspect stagnated, is because the game code was changed (I'm not saying though all changes to the game's code are bad), more regulative, more complex, more restrictive.. and now you're wanting to make it more restricted, more complex??
I'm no techie, but wouldn't it be rather difficult to code all those regulations.. different kind of regions, time-regulations, restrictions on joining the UN.. This is just making it more difficult. It basically limits the opportunity for casual players too, who participate in actions only every now and then (FYI not everyone is a full-time invader/defender).

A few examples of change in game-code that ruined the gameplay element. The random update-times. What's the big advantage in having regions updated at random? Nothing at all.. But by making it random, you made timed attacks, defenses, liberation impossible. Another example, the possibilty of multiple updates made it possible to do several actions in 1 update. If invaders didn't succeed, they could quickly move on to another region and give it another try. Defenders had to be alert if invaders started moving at the last minute... Now, who's gonna want to stay up late/ get up early to do maybe 1 action.. If your nation wasn't updatet already during the time you were in another region.

Though, I do not consider founders a cause of the downfall of the gameplay element. Invading/defending was still thriving after founders got introduced. The gameplay slump isn't caused by a lack of founderless regions.. there always be founderless regions, founders ceasing to excist..
Furthermore, I think removing founders would actually be a bad idea. Founderless regions may suffer less from apathy (although that's not necessarily always the case), more stimulated to be more concerned about regional security issues. If there is a founder, it doesn't matter much who gets to be delegate,.. In a founderless region, electing a delegate is a matter of confidence and trust. Removing founders would create huge insecurity. Founders were used to protect regions from griefings (eg Europe got one because people feared someone might kick out a couple of hundred nations). Every region would be vulnerable,.. one has to keep in mind the other types of players too, people who don't want to get involved with invasions and all that. Also, removing founders would kill other parts of the game; region hawking, region building..


And implementing warzones was no solution. It's fun 1 time, and could be used as a practise area, but let's admit it.. they're boooring. For invaders there aren't any natives to boss around, and for defenders there are no natives to protect.. You can't show off with how you beat this or that army. Nobody cares! Except maybe those Youngworldians..

Thus, to sum things up.

<snip>
As Unlimited pointed out in the split thread, the ability to create an effectively founderless region has always existed. Just use a disposable puppet and let it die. 28 days later, founderless region exists. Yet no one has tried this. Why not?

The remainer of your suggestion is to effectively turn this into two separate games via code changes. One of them has existed for over 3 years, and works on some level despite all complaints. The other is untried, untested, and apparently uninteresting, as the players have the ability to effectively run a pilot to see who might be interested.

The more I think on it, the more I think Founderless gameplay regions are nothing more than WarZones writ large. Our six Warzones are underutilized, for reasons that Puppet nr 784512 described clearly. I don't see that making large changes to move in that direction as having an obvious payoff, and it seems my opinion is shared by others.

Let's keep looking, but I think this one is a dead end. Time to move on to other ideas.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but...

Some regions have interest in both sides of the game, does this not force them to pick one side and drop another, or split their region up? And players who play in both, with the same nation? It's not as black and white as you make it out to be here.

I'm thinking that the problem here is that most of the regions able to be effectively invaded (other than the warzones, which we have already discussed) are pretty much dead. If a region doesn't have a founder and doesn't have a lot of nations, then chances are it's just a bunch of casual players logging on every couple of days and answering issues. However, when they get invaded, they don't like it, because they just want to play the game how they want to play it. So instead of playing the invasion (calling defenders, regrouping, planning, etc.) they end up just whining, and the invaders haven't, in the native's minds, conquered the region fairly, they've just annoyed the natives.

In other words, the invadable regions aren't worth it to invade, which is bad for the invaders.

My thought is maybe to make it easier somehow to invade larger regions. This could involve, perhaps, some other positions besides delegate, like vicedelegate, vicevicedelegate, etc. Then, invaders/a small faction of natives could kind of "wedge in" to the bottom spot, which would be a small-scale invasion, and work up.

I don't know if that's feasible, but it could lead to other ideas.

I imagine that it would be immensely difficult to code...

Are you talking like a situation where there are subregions (like states) and sub-sub regions (like counties)?

My thought is maybe to make it easier somehow to invade larger regions. This could involve, perhaps, some other positions besides delegate, like vicedelegate, vicevicedelegate, etc. Then, invaders/a small faction of natives could kind of "wedge in" to the bottom spot, which would be a small-scale invasion, and work up.


What you are suggesting sounds like an infiltration action, which is already possible... Although no other positions besides delegate and founder are coded in the game, many big regions have some kind of regional government..

What you are suggesting sounds like an infiltration action, which is already possible... Although no other positions besides delegate and founder are coded in the game, many big regions have some kind of regional government..
Not really. Getting into a regional government through the normal process isn't invading, it's moving to the region. I'm talking about a way to get a GAMEPLAY position without having to get the delegate spot, who may already have 399 endorsements, making an invasion near-impossible.

The remainer of your suggestion is to effectively turn this into two separate games via code changes. One of them has existed for over 3 years, and works on some level despite all complaints. The other is untried, untested, and apparently uninteresting, as the players have the ability to effectively run a pilot to see who might be interested.

The more I think on it, the more I think Founderless gameplay regions are nothing more than WarZones writ large. Our six Warzones are underutilized, for reasons that Puppet nr 784512 described clearly. I don't see that making large changes to move in that direction as having an obvious payoff, and it seems my opinion is shared by others.

The difference is that with Blackbird's idea, it would be mandatory in order to participate in gameplay, whereas anyone now can have a founder and participate in gameplay.

A region will always choose to be able to participate in gameplay and have a founder if it is possible. It ensures both stability, and the fun of gameplay. Blackbird's idea would make it a choice. The region would have to decide which it prefers. Does it go for security, or gameplay?

Your pilot case would be an example of a choice between security/gameplay, and just gameplay.

In which you keep forgetting those regions and nations who wish to participate in both gameplay and roleplay...

You can have roleplay in an insecure region....

However, you cannot have gameplay in a secure one.

It is a choice between gameplay and security, not gameplay and roleplay.

Insecurity can coexist with roleplay.

It is a choice between gameplay and security, not gameplay and roleplay.
Once again, you're oversimplifying the choices. The game does not consist of only roleplayers and invader/defenders (which you refer to as gameplayers). Lots of people play the game with other interests that often require a secure region, such as UN participation, regional gathernig places, or linguistic similarities.

There are 30,714 UN nations as I write this. I'm guessing (based on observed activity) that we have perhaps 1000 people who might be involved in the invasion game (I'm betting it's closer to 200-300). There might be 1000 roleplayers in II and NS. Unless all of them are cheaters, that leaves an awful lot of people who do neither. Don't take their silence for assent.

You can have roleplay in an insecure region....

However, you cannot have gameplay in a secure one.

It is a choice between gameplay and security, not gameplay and roleplay.

Insecurity can coexist with roleplay.

Hum.. Does anyone see the analoigy with the current situation?
There are insecure regions (founderless regions) and secure regions (regions with a founder). Why make it more difficult? This proposal just makes things more and more complicated, while we need to simplify.

The fun of Nationstates is that it is an open platform, there's all sorts of activities.. Splitting everything up isn't the answer.

Hum.. Does anyone see the analoigy with the current situation?
There are insecure regions (founderless regions) and secure regions (regions with a founder). Why make it more difficult? This proposal just makes things more and more complicated, while we need to simplify.

The fun of Nationstates is that it is an open platform, there's all sorts of activities.. Splitting everything up isn't the answer.


I think you missed the whole point. :rolleyes:

Read it again. I think Fris gets it, even if he does disagree.

To Fris, I only mentioned roleplayers in response to CG, so don't start saying I'm the one oversimplifying. :p
Could you tell me how Blackbird's idea prevents anyone from doing anything?

I don't know if this would solve much, but since the format for code is already in place so to speak ...

You know how you apply to the UN, and then get a 'tag' on your nation denoting membership in it? Could something similar be implemented for regions who don't wish to participate in the invade/defend game? Same sort of setup, tag is visible, can relinquish it if desired - just leave the choice with the founder so there's no fuss that way. Might even be able to loosen up some of the current rules that gameplayers are finding restrictive then, perhaps?

What if a founder goes inactive? Refound the region if a change is wanted - same as it is now. No big that way.

Why make it a thing for people who don't want to participate? Well, I would suppose that it only makes sense. You want to be left alone, take the steps necessary to get left alone.

For those who will invariably complain with 'I didn't know', eh, just put up a temporary link/notice on the main login site (as has been done before, I believe for things) so no one can claim ignorance, and add the new explanations to the Rules Shop thread and anywhere else it's appropriate, call it good.

Would anything like this be even mildly feasible?

What if a founder goes inactive? Refound the region if a change is wanted - same as it is now. No big that way.


I'm a bit concerned about how we'll handle founder-less regions that do *not* want to participate in the "gameplay" aspects of the game (which sounds silly to me ... EVERYTHING is playing a game).

Take my region: the International Democratic Union. We typically have between 50 and 60 nations, about half of which do not regularly check in. While it would be possible to telegram them asking them to leave en mass, our nations would have to wait for any inactive nations to move or expire before we could create a new IDU with a new founder.

Basically for mid-sized regions, this could be seen as a big deal.

Alright, so founderless regions that have inactive folks, have a poll, or post a thread with signatories or the like to get the tag applied. A majority wishes it, or is active enough to respond, call it good to go.

Or, given one of the things I'd suggested was a loosening of the current gameplay rules that many seem to think are so restrictive, allow for removal of the inactives for refounding or the like, so long as they're at least notified by tg.

No solution is going to be perfect, Mik. If that's the only concern, founderless regions would be no worse off than they already are, no?

Would anything like this be even mildly feasible?
It would be nice if there was an easy way to ensure that regions didn't protect themselves by getting the tag while at the same time going out and invading or defending other regions. But that would require even *more* oversight by the mods. So if a tag is given to a region and those regions have their populations even *more* protected, that's just locking up more regions tighter.

It seems that something would just have to happen across the board, like a loosening of the invasion rules. But that would make some regions unhappy when they subsequently get invaded.

No solution is going to be perfect, Mik. If that's the only concern, founderless regions would be no worse off than they already are, no?

Of course nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't bring up these points in a "discussion" thread and seek the highest benefit / lowest cost methods to make everybody better off.

Your idea (not quoted) of allowing Delegates to eject inactives *expressly* for a one-shot move from a founderless (currently gameplay legal) region to a new founder based (gameplay or not branded region) is a good solution and would avoid doing much more than adding images to the regions.

I think I can speak for most of my region when I say we trust our Delegates to bump players if we were planning to refound the region. Would other founderless, non-gameplay regions like this ... I don't know.

The difference is that with Blackbird's idea, it would be mandatory in order to participate in gameplay, whereas anyone now can have a founder and participate in gameplay.

A region will always choose to be able to participate in gameplay and have a founder if it is possible. It ensures both stability, and the fun of gameplay. Blackbird's idea would make it a choice. The region would have to decide which it prefers. Does it go for security, or gameplay?

Your pilot case would be an example of a choice between security/gameplay, and just gameplay.On the contrary, they would continue to choose both.

I can tell you right now what the ASE would do if the Gameplay/Non-Gameplay idea was implemented. We would move our defender military to a disposable gameplay region and leave those not involved in the other region.

We would keep defending and at the same time sit pretty behind our high walls. I simply don't think that that is a solution that stands a chance of working.

Reading through the discussion, it seems like the consensus is to find as simple a solution as possible. I ask pardon in advance for my ignorance of what is and is not technically feasible, but I have an idea that might be of some assistance in advancing the discussion The key to enlivening the gameplay world is to find ways to make invasions possible. I am very mindful of the fact that changing the rules often has unintended consequences, so I want to throw a few ideas out there and see what others think.

In reading this debate, it has become obvious to me that only some players are interested in the "gameplay" aspect of the game, and we have every wish to respect the variety of styles of play in NationStates. Because of that, I think we might be best served by narrowly defining a finite number of regions to be part of the gameplay zone.

One way that I could imagine this being accomplished is by tagging certain regions and the nations in those regions as part of the warzone. This could be accomplished by having some marker that identified nations, on creation, as participants in the process. This tag, however, would have no relevance outside the warzone, and invasions could not originate from outside these areas. In these areas, it would supplant UN membership for control of a region. Regions would elect to participate, or not, but if they did not do so, they could not choose to invade either.

I can see the question that arises here is how would you track the oragnizations who would try to hide outside the warzone with their forces secure. I think the best way to do this is to institute a policy whereby griefing is not considered in this zone. The adjustment is drastic, but as participation in this zone would be voluntary, the players would be aware of the rules change. We would need to be self-regulating, but in a contained environment, I expect gameplay itself would resolve the biggest problems. To achieve this, you would obviously need to designate these regions as being without founders.

The changes in the games would require more players to be watchful, and if we limited the number of regions, I think gameplay would have a real positive benefit as diplomacy, for the purpose of uniting numbers, would benefit. It would also circumvent the obvious problem that players, to get an advantage, will try to dodge the rules for short-term benefit at the long-term expense of the viability of the game as a whole.

To make it relevant, the feeders should be included, and any major regions that are involved in that world. To assume leadership in these places, the controlling body would not be the UN nations, but whomever had more of the nations possessing these gameplay tags. For the sake of simplicity, and maybe opening up the UN, it might be wise to remove the added voting power of the Delegate from these regions, realizing the power of the Delegate is in controlling a region, not in skewing the vote of the UN. Certainly, the purposes for which these nations are used suggest that the resolutions of the UN are secondary as a concern.

Now, I don't know how achievable that is, but it would allow us to continue our style of play, in a voluntary manner, using only a slight modification of what is currently existing. It respects the integrity of other regions, and other varieties of gameplay. And, although it might be different than what others suggest, it could really shake up the current defender/invader conflicts. It will force us in that world to work together, to protect ourselves, and when we want to exert change, and instead of having armies that floated freely, the changes would effectively create a finite territory. So, everyone would be forced to be a defender of their home, but also to carefully consider their own commitments. In either case, it would give us all something new to try. It's not quite invader defender in the classic sense, but in a way, it would create mega-countries and give gameplay a real jolt that we could all use.

I hope my approach is minimalistic enough to be feasible. If my explanation is not as clear as I intend, please ask, and I will try to respond, even though I am not a regular here. At four in the morning, my mind isn't the most adept. Thanks again for your time and attention. :)

A simple rulechange that oposing UN members (Native or not) can always be ejected, by both attackers or defenders, leaving non-UN members untouched (The griefing rule is way to harsh.) In long term we'll find more and more regios with founders, because nobody likes his/her longterm members to be ejected.
Good side of this is that mods have less work. Downside is that some delegates will take their position a bit to serious.

Bump.

Let's keep the debate going.