NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of years ago I started to wonder how NationStates would eventually end - it only changes slowly (the game admins often say how difficult it is to add new features), and it's almost certain that a similar but better game will come along and take its players (some players are starting to talk about the game Cybernations in these terms).

I imagined that nations only interested in role-play or world rankings would end up in regions on their own (or left in the feeder regions), while some of the larger and more active player-created regions would probably merge with each other to keep their sizes constant, and the feeder regions would diminish in importance.

Voting in the UN would become more rational, and some of the flawed but 'unrepealable' resolutions (such 'End Slavery', one of the first resolutions, that hasn't been repealed despite effectively banning prison) would then become repealable.

How do you imagine NationStates will end (assuming it does at some point)?

A couple of years ago I started to wonder how NationStates would eventually end - it only changes slowly (the game admins often say how difficult it is to add new features), and it's almost certain that a similar but better game will come along and take its players (some players are starting to talk about the game Cybernations in these terms).

I imagined that nations only interested in role-play or world rankings would end up in regions on their own (or left in the feeder regions), while some of the larger and more active player-created regions would probably merge with each other to keep their sizes constant, and the feeder regions would diminish in importance.

Voting in the UN would become more rational, and some of the flawed but 'unrepealable' resolutions (such 'End Slavery', one of the first resolutions, that hasn't been repealed despite effectively banning prison) would then become repealable.

How do you imagine NationStates will end (assuming it does at some point)?I believe that, yes, inevitebly one day a better version of the game will be developed (or already has), but people will stick with this one for the same reason that everyone still loves Nintendo. It is the origional. Or the best of several origionals. Besides, insubordinates and AWOLs will be taken care of in the proper way. :sniper:

The community has outgrown the game; NationStates is no longer a nation or political simulation, but a social club.

There is no real threat of conflict, no fear of losing, no risk. It is impossible for a game to be successful without these qualities.

Those would be why the game is failing (and has been for at least a year now). CyberNations (or other games) may be a factor, but, even those of us deeply involved in CN recognize that it does not have and probably never will have the same qualities that made NS great.

I do recall a petition of sorts that went around the offsite fora last January(ish), outling many of the problems players saw cropping up, and proposing solutions (removal of founders is the one I recall off the top of my head). I don't believe anything came of that, though most of the people who signed it (including the person who started it in the first place) have since either left NS completely or only spend a marginal amount of time here.

I keep hoping the lights will just go out.

The community has outgrown the game; NationStates is no longer a nation or political simulation, but a social club.

There is no real threat of conflict, no fear of losing, no risk. It is impossible for a game to be successful without these qualities.

People said the same thing about the game Tribes 2. Now you can't find over 100 people on that game when it used to be up towards the hundreds of thousands. Although the Die Hard Tibes 2ers are still playing the game, most have moved onto games like Battlefield 2 and others.

While all this talk of the End of NationStates is interesting, I'm sorry to be the one to spoil it by noting NS isn't dead yet. In fact, it even has a great chance of growing further.

NationStates is such a simple game that it may last, much like chess has lasted for eternity. It's 'gameplay' rules are about as simple as you can get, while setting up the potential for endless interaction. While many regional communities have very little to do with NationStates itself much of the time, the mechanics of the game provide a locus and playing field for these communities.

While the current lower population is worrying, all that needs to happen for it to be undone is a recirculation of NationStates among the general population. A vast majority of the many millions on the internet have never heard of NationStates-- if lots of personal websites etcetera start linking to it again, and if people spread it by word of mouth, than a resurgency is entirely possible.

I agree. The fact that NS is so simple means that newbie players can start slow without worried about getting clobbered by old-timers. They can learn at their pace. And the community's interactions and imagination can and does compensate for the game's limits.

And I recently did my part for word of mouth, when I mentioned on another website what I did with my free time. :)

NationStates can only be as fun as the players make it. Mods and Admins can add all the cool features they want but we, the players, must go out and make fun for ourselves. Just like in real life fun and interesting things rarely come to you, this same principals applies to the game. So my advice to you is, if you don't like it you change it. Are wars fun? Hell yes! Go start one. Are conflicts fun? You bet your ass! Go make one. Its true that the game has become a bit stagnate but that’s not because the game itself is dieing its because the players are just laying around saying "Why am I not having fun?! Why isn't fun coming to me?!". I mean I would have quit this game in a week if I had not found out about raiding (and for advertising purposes I wouldn't have bought and read Jennifer Government if not for raiding :P). It only goes to show that people like conflict and if there isn't one sometimes you can't just wait for one to come along, you have to make it yourself.

Those would be why the game is failing (and has been for at least a year now).You have a strange definition of "failing".

How do you imagine NationStates will end (assuming it does at some point)?

With the firey destruction of Jolt's servers.:D

With the firey destruction of Jolt's servers.:D
Oh noes! The end is nigh!!! ;)

1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

That may well be your funniest post ever, Czardas, my friend. :D

Hey, I've had 10,000 worth of practice. ;)

(in superior tones) Really, Czardas, a simple "heat death of the Universe" would have been sufficient.:p

That may well be your funniest post ever, Czardas, my friend.
Actually, though, I agree with the newer, fluffier, more tie-dyed Cluich: it is.

Ardchoilleans;11829256']Actually, though, I agree with the newer, fluffier, more tie-dyed Cluich...

You don't really think that character can last, do you? ;)

God I hope not. Can Dr. Leary have him assassinated or something? Maybe have him "trip and fall into the FREAKING DEATH STAR core?"

Sure, but that only means that Nadnerb comes back, and he was recalled to Cluichabad for being too...um...acerbic for certain people. ;)

But yeah, having Dr. Leary order his assassination would be sweet. I can't stand Larebil myself. We could consider it "suicide by mod character." :D

A couple of years ago I started to wonder how NationStates would eventually end - it only changes slowly (the game admins often say how difficult it is to add new features), and it's almost certain that a similar but better game will come along and take its players (some players are starting to talk about the game Cybernations in these terms).

I'm not so sure. I played CN for a while, and couldn't really get into it. Not because I was loyal to NS, because I was at the time actually planning to retire from NS, but because it was too easy. Developing a nation took far less of a creative process, it was much too mechanical, ironically because it has features like war (that have long been requested in NS) built into the game. I like the creative process that goes along with a text-based game, and I doubt I'm alone in this. I think CN attracts a different kind of player base than NS, and as a result I don't think CN will take our players. Sure, there are some NSers who decided that they were bored with NS and essentially did switch to CN, but I'm seeing a fair amount of those players making a return to NS and renewing their activity here.

I imagined that nations only interested in role-play or world rankings would end up in regions on their own (or left in the feeder regions), while some of the larger and more active player-created regions would probably merge with each other to keep their sizes constant, and the feeder regions would diminish in importance.

I agree that if the game did start to die, the feeders would become less important. With very few nations being created by new players, the feeders would lose their usefulness as recruitment centers as well as some of their endorsement power.

I doubt, though, that the larger regions would merge, unless they were very close ideologically or ethnically. And even then, folks tend to have a sentimental attachment to the old name and the old structure, and as a result are frequently reluctant to change regions once they've been there for a while, in some cases for years.

Voting in the UN would become more rational, and some of the flawed but 'unrepealable' resolutions (such 'End Slavery', one of the first resolutions, that hasn't been repealed despite effectively banning prison) would then become repealable.

I have rather serious doubts about this, but I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of UN voting becoming more rational.

How do you imagine NationStates will end (assuming it does at some point)?

Probably when Max stops supporting it.

i have no idea what you are talking about. cybernations sucks arse.

To my mind it will end, not in a bang, but in a whimper.

The game is fairly dead to me, evidenced by the fact that I know even fewer players now then know me. To me, since the question was posed as open to all, the game began it’s death a long time ago. The website is still up. Nations still log in. But to me, the game died when possibility became sanitized from the game.

Despite the fact that griefing was consistently dealt with by the Mods in an effective manner, the more players complained the more Mods felt that by limiting what others players could do they would enhance the overall game experience. Not so. While I would never be a fan of any pure free-market system, co-opting all regions to the whims of moderators made the game too predictable, too safe, and too boring. I could add that I know it’s not just me who believes this, though that’s not going to stop anyone from disagreeing. Of course the one’s who are disagreeing, either like the closed dynamic of the game now or simply haven’t left yet.

Also, because for some reason no player dare speak ill of moderator actions less other players will trounce on them, I’m in no way close to a mod hater- been friends with many and feel that few were malicious, even when they over-moderated. But the game prospered when Max allowed the players to form it and make it’s shape- one of the early players here, so not just guessing.

The closed parts of the game were always the least interesting. Back when the game was interesting, there was even the possibility of Nationstates2. I see that’s really taken off of the ground.

Retiring back into his cob-webbed grave,

~Ack

Also, because for some reason no player dare speak ill of moderator actions less other players will trounce on themUm...

Um...

Knock it off, Mister.

Knock it off, Mister.

Help! Help! Hack's being oppressed! Did you see him oppressing Hack?

/Holy Grail

:p

Um...

In my experience, obne hundred years ago when I played, it was other players who were generally less reasonable then mods... It seemed most posts critical of a mod decision that didn't include a disclosure of not being anti-mod... well, resulted in an accusation of being anti-mod. I've disagreed with many mod decisons (again, one hudred years ago), but only found one to be illogical or unreasonable in several combined intereactions.

Every generation of players seems to have one of these threads.

There is absolutely no question that players get tired of the game and leave to seek greener pastures, but that doesn't mean the game is dying. It's also true that the game has evolved over time, and people who liked "the old way" like to accuse mods of breaking the game in an attempt to fix it. Despite that, somehow the game manages to retain about the same number of players, subject to minor swings either way.

This game is more of community-oriented than many games I've played, primarily because the actual game is so simple. The raiding / roleplaying / UN / regional politics / General / etc. communities all have their attritions and growths, and many players assume that changes in their communities signal the death knell of all other communities. Changes such as the addition of Influence radically changed the invasion game, but I'll bet that most Generalites and roleplayers barely noticed it. I'd also bet that the departure of certain members of "General Royalty" went unnoticed by the vast majority of other players.

This game is what you make it, and people keeping finding ways to make it interesting. It's in no danger of going away.

This game is what you make it...
That's not entirely true. Sure, you can add aspects to the game, but the mods will take away the ones they don't like. If people were allowed to play NS to its fullest potential, there would be many more avenues of play available.

You can't blame us, we were trying to make it fun.

That's not entirely true. Sure, you can add aspects to the game, but the mods will take away the ones they don't like. If people were allowed to play NS to its fullest potential, there would be many more avenues of play available.

You can't blame us, we were trying to make it fun.

I get the feeling we have very different understandings of what "play" and "fun" mean.

Sure, you can add aspects to the game, but the mods will take away the ones they don't like.
We must therefore like NSwiki, NS Tracker, NSEconomy, Pipian, Sunset Calculator, and about a bazillion offsite forums, IRC channels, and other bits of interactivity that have grown out of this game. Plenty of people have made this community more exciting and interesting out of their own efforts.

You can't blame us, we were trying to make it fun.
As for the parts that the mods/admins DO control, yeah, there have been changes. Most of them have been put in place to prevent abuse by utter bastards whose idea of "fun" is to destroy other players' fun. It only takes 1% idiots to destroy the fun of the 99% rule-followers. I don't know you, Beachcomber, so I can't say which group you belong to. I suspect you're in the rules-following group.

I can and will place the blame on the rules-breakers. If you want to get pissy about it, blame them, not the mods.

Whilst I don't think the game is dying right now, rampant speculation is fun.
Voting in the UN would become more rational, and some of the flawed but 'unrepealable' resolutions (such 'End Slavery', one of the first resolutions, that hasn't been repealed despite effectively banning prison) would then become repealable.
I'm not sure about this. If the game gradually died, I don't think you'd see much change. If it began to cave more heavily, I think you'd see a lot delegacies go. Depending, then, that would have one of two effects:
- make it much easier for proposals to reach quorum (if there is a higher ratio of active delegates), meaning we'd be able to get what we wanted to vote, but also have to wade through a ton of crap that at present doesn't stand a chance of making it to the floor;
- make it much harder for proposals to reach quorum (if there is a lower ratio of active delegates), meaning it'd be nigh on impossible to get anything to the quorum without enormous TG campaigns, which might mean virtually no crap gets there, but might also mean reasonable proposals get stifled.

That would in turn have effects on the dynamic of the game - for example, at the moment, if Individual Self-Determination were repealed, there'd be a scrabble to replace it; if it was going to take three solid days of constant TGing to get a proposal to quorum, there'd be much less of a contest, and it'd really be down to who cared more.

So I'm not sure it'd be as simple as you suggest, at least not initially. Clearly, though, if we were down to a few hundred UN members, then it would take on a rather different shape.

I'm a relative newcomer with about 8 months in this game, but I haven't seen any sign of the mods stealing our fun. The only major change I've seen is Influence. That certainly changed things, but I don't think it ruined anything. The biggest downside that I know of is that a new invader probably can't boot his biggest threats (mainly the delegate that he replaced) because of influence. But the upside is, an invader doesn't have to worry about griefing; he's allowed to boot anyone that he can.

I haven't seen any sign of the mods stealing our fun. The only major change I've seen is Influence.
There were a whole raft of Invasion Rules that were somewhat arbitrary and difficult to enforce. There are doubtless 'legitimate' invaders who were deleted for griefing because they ejected 12% rather than 10%, or who waited 24 hours to telegram out the password, only to find their Delegate was deleted.

Under the same rules, 'utter bastards' would take over regions, eject the only natives, then password lock and abandon the region. They would give out false passwords and conspire to make the game unpleasant for the raided regions, just because they thought they could. Raiding could be fun, but the system abusers ruined it for legit players.

It couldn't really be fair until the human element was removed from the equation. Depending on mods (or anyone else, for that matter) to investigate the relative fairness of each claim, especially when the game didn't (and couldn't) record essential information like nativity, made it virtually impossible for all sides to be satisfied in a dispute. By moving to a programmatic solution, i.e. Influence, we've removed that judgement call and automated the decisions.

Had we figured out the parities involved and implemented Influence three years ago, people probably would have been happier. It took multiple trial and error fixes to get to that point, though. With the resources we had, that was the best way we knew how. Sorry that some folks still manage to hold grudges three years later.

Frisbeeteria

It's also true that the game has evolved over time, and people who liked "the old way" like to accuse mods of breaking the game in an attempt to fix it

Seems like an oversimplification to me, but ok.

This game is what you make it, and people keeping finding ways to make it interesting.

Max did make a mistake, in terms of expanding options and opportunities to interact, in the decision to give moderators (especially those with invested player relations) more and more expanded and unchecked permission to change outcomes they deemed unfavorable. And, feel free not to believe me, but I’m not anti-mod… just recounting the truth as I experienced it, far too many times.

I’ve never argued that mods aren’t the boss, or even that they shouldn’t be, just that they aren’t infallible. And with an ‘Act First, Maybe Talk Later’ attitude that I encountered from time to time it became clear that any opportunity of treating an invader fairly was a joke. Concentrating more power into mod hands and less into the hands of players was not, to my mind, the right direction.

Never argued you guys can’t make the rules, just that I disagree with some of them.


HotRodia
I get the feeling we have very different understandings of what "play" and "fun" mean.

Does it matter? If we are talking rules and mod-interactions, and we are, then does it matter if you find it fun? Over-moderation is interference in what mods don’t like versus simply preventing unavoidable griefing when moderation is unavoidable.

If NS was America, then Nazis wouldn’t have the right to march. That’s a good thing, right? Who likes Nazis? Erm, nobody. Though I’d much rather have a free society where people have the right to be stupid and others have them right to treat them as stupid.

Also, Frisbeeteria, I could imagine you as being a neutral partispant in an actual conversation a lot easier if you didn't throw around words like 'pissy' and phrases like 'Sorry that some folks still manage to hold grudges three years later.'

Erm, yeah, that shows an open mind.

unchecked permission to change outcomes they deemed unfavorableOur power has never been unchecked.

And, really, much of the increase of power was because groups of invaders refused to follow the rules. "Play nice" was too vague so more stringent rules were created. Those weren't enough, so even stronger ones were created. Now, we've hardcoded everything, and UN multis are growing more common.

To be perfectly blunt, if certain players weren't jerks, we wouldn't be needed.


And, well, there are players who continue to hold a grudge years later. Remember Sheol?

I can and will place the blame on the rules-breakers.
Then you're being terribly short-sighted. The mods should have punished rule-breakers and left legit players alone. These hypothetical situations of ejecting 10% instead of 12% or whatever don't begin to address the extent of mod abuse that drove many people from the game.

Mods began to view all those who participated in a style of play they didn't like as rule-breakers. Initially, you could go to Max for an appeal, but eventually he lost interest in the game and even that avenue dried up.

The Max appeals were largely symbolic, anyway, since the mods would typically delete your nation, and then make no attempt to rectify the situation once they were shown to be acting outside their bounds. Reinstating a nation with no UN status and no endorsements didn't put a nation back into the position that was frequently the result of a lot of hard work.

This is a long dead argument, however.

My main objection is the idea that somehow it is the players' fault. Frankly, I place the blame on Max for not keeping the mods on a shorter leash, although it's easy to excuse him for losing interest in a game he created on a lark when it seemed to give him more grief than anything else.

Also, Frisbeeteria, I could imagine you as being a neutral partispant in an actual conversation a lot easier if you didn't throw around words like 'pissy' and phrases like 'Sorry that some folks still manage to hold grudges three years later.'
I'm not a neutral participant. I'm a senior game mod. Is it really surprising that I have a tendency to see the mods' point of view?

The part about 'pissy' and grudges wasn't really directed at anyone in this thread. Working the tasklist for the past year or two has given me insights into levels of pissiness and grudges that you wouldn't believe. There are people who post some of the most vile abuse they can think of on the tasklist, because we've deliberately left it open to people without nations. You guys occasionally see the negatives. We see it daily and in volume that has to be seen to be believed.

Ackbar, no offense, but you cannot imagine how hard it is to maintain open-minded fairness in moderating this game. The fact that so few of us have burned out or blown up is testament to the strength of character of my colleagues. Do we occasionally make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also listen with open minds (most of the time, to most of the people) and do our best to mitigate those mistakes when possible.

I'll admit that there have been mod decisions that negatively impacted some players unfairly, if you'll admit that the dozen or so of us are not the sole reason that a game with thousands of players has had a few issues. C'mon, be slightly realistic.

Then you're being terribly short-sighted.Pot; kettle.

We've gone 'round and 'round before, Beachcomber. I'm sure you can imagine my responces (and how you'll misinterpret them), so I'll just leave it with an emphatic: I deeply disagree with almost everything you posted.

Does it matter? If we are talking rules and mod-interactions, and we are, then does it matter if you find it fun? Over-moderation is interference in what mods don’t like versus simply preventing unavoidable griefing when moderation is unavoidable.

If NS was America, then Nazis wouldn’t have the right to march. That’s a good thing, right? Who likes Nazis? Erm, nobody. Though I’d much rather have a free society where people have the right to be stupid and others have them right to treat them as stupid.

Actually, it does matter what I think is fun. Just as it matters what any other player thinks is fun, because when a bunch of other people start ruining their fun, Mods get to deal with the complaints and make new rules to deal with it, then enforce those rules.

Also, I don't think "Moderate when unavoidable" is a particularly good standard, anymore than "practice safe sex when unavoidable" or "take reasonable safety precautions when unavoidable" would be.

To use your Nazi example, would stopping the Nazis only when they make it unavoidable to do so be the best idea, or would it be better to stop them before they get in power and slaughter millions of people?

To address your last point, people do have the ability to come on this site, create a nation and agree to the TOS, and then break that agreement (let's call that stupid). And we can and certainly do treat them accordingly.

If NS was America, then Nazis wouldn’t have the right to march. That’s a good thing, right? Who likes Nazis? Erm, nobody. Though I’d much rather have a free society where people have the right to be stupid and others have them right to treat them as stupid.

Hello, Godwin!

Oh, and it's "If NS were America..." The subjunctive is your friend.

Infidel! NS will never end.

Hello, Godwin!

Oh, and it's "If NS were America..." The subjunctive is your friend.

At some point, I fear that protecting people from possible offence takes on what Mills coins as "the tyranny of the majority" (an idea furthered by the writing of James Madison). Sorry to go the Hitler route, if you prefer I can say that NS moderation, if Ns history was projected over the field of American History, would have likely have made KKK marches illegal in order to protect the rights of African Americans.

Perhaps then Godwin can be avoided and the broader issue can at least be approached.

Also, will reply to other posts later. Sorry.

Except that... um... we don't censor unpleasant ideologies. To use your analogy, we allow the Nazis to march and give speeches (see: Forums), but clamp down when they start beating the shit out of people (see: Griefing).

Now, maybe you think we jump in when a shoving match starts (ejecting too many people) and you feel that we should only stop them when they start killing people wholesale (National Stalinist Griefer), but that's a matter of degrees, as opposed to this twisted claim that we're outlawing a legit mode of play completely.

And, again, even though you may not believe me, major policy changes were never made without Max's okay, and influence certainly wasn't made without his input. So if you don't like the system, you're kinda hosed. The designer is happy with the current set-up.

And Max is nowhere near as disconnected and disinterested as some like to paint him.

Except that... um... we don't censor unpleasant ideologies.

Mods do worse than that. They "censor" styles of gameplay that they personally don't like which are perfectly legal, both in the spirit and letter of the so-called rules, and which Max personally approves of.

Now, maybe you think we jump in when a shoving match starts...

You should take action when rules are broken and for no other reason.

...major policy changes were never made without Max's okay...

That may be true, but it's irrelevant when mods disregard the rules at will.

In the typical case, mods can do whatever they want, because they are dealing with abrasive (probably cheating) idiots who will hang themselves given 2 inches of rope. They are still often technically in the wrong, but no one cares when you're dealing with scum.

The problem is that mods often behave in a similar fashion towards intelligent, rule-abiding players and refuse to acknowledge the difference. Maybe after the player's gains have been safely subverted, there will be some public hand-wringing and some empty talk about change, but things never change for the simple fact that it's easier for Max to allow the mods to do whatever they want because they provide the necessary maintenance that he's unwilling to do than to please a certain kind of player that is in the minority. And, in the general case, the mods probably do the right thing.

Nothing shocking there, most of the world is set up that way. It's just disappointing.

Boy, has this thread degenerated...

Welp, excuse me while I pretend to sidestep this whole argument over whether or not the Mods want to screw over players for their jollies or that their human beings trying to a(relatively) hard job and get shat on by people who think the former and actually use this sentence to give my opinions over it and then move on as if I hadn't given out a single one.

NS isn't dying. With over 100,000 nations active on it, forums that have killed servers, players that have been here for over three years and completely free-form roleplaying availible to anyone at anytime(servers permitting), I'd say NS has done very, very, very, very, very well for a plublicity stunt meant to sell a book(well, scratch one very... I haven't bought one).

Why do people think NS is dying? I don't speak for everyone, but here are my opinions on that:

1: My nation has a population of 8.076 billion people. Meaning I'm my own friggin planet... as are many other people. Cramming a world's population into a few European and African nations... I feel like that Oil Rig nation a while back. My point is, for RPers, once you reach about 1 billion, size doesn't matter anymore. Your military has reached a point where it will have trouble supporting itself without massive amounts of natural resources and your economy(even Frightening) will have trouble supplying the citizens and teh military at the same time. So, most of us just ignore how many people we have for the most part.

2: Been there, done that. After over 3 years, I've pretty much seen it all on NS, if I haven't tried it myself. From space fleets, to vampires, to undead occult Jedi, to demons and angels and clones, cyborgs lions, tigers and bears and a weapon that releases genetically altered rabbits that breed like... genetically altered rabbits. I've been raided by griefers and booted from a region, I've founded regions, I've helped forge long standing alliances. In short, a lot of the veterans are longing for something... new. Something they haven't seen before. Wombat News was one such thing, but now taht the Wombat is gone, we're back to business as usual.

I now return you to your previously scheduled argument.

Why do people think NS is dying? I don't speak for everyone, but here are my opinions on that:

1: My nation has a population of 8.076 billion people. Meaning I'm my own friggin planet... as are many other people. Cramming a world's population into a few European and African nations... I feel like that Oil Rig nation a while back. My point is, for RPers, once you reach about 1 billion, size doesn't matter anymore. Your military has reached a point where it will have trouble supporting itself without massive amounts of natural resources and your economy(even Frightening) will have trouble supplying the citizens and teh military at the same time. So, most of us just ignore how many people we have for the most part.

2: Been there, done that. After over 3 years, I've pretty much seen it all on NS, if I haven't tried it myself. From space fleets, to vampires, to undead occult Jedi, to demons and angels and clones, cyborgs lions, tigers and bears and a weapon that releases genetically altered rabbits that breed like... genetically altered rabbits. I've been raided by griefers and booted from a region, I've founded regions, I've helped forge long standing alliances. In short, a lot of the veterans are longing for something... new. Something they haven't seen before. Wombat News was one such thing, but now taht the Wombat is gone, we're back to business as usual.

I now return you to your previously scheduled argument.

Those are good points. My biggest nation (this one) is larger than China and richer than the US. Realistically, I should be taking over oil-rich nations constantly just to keep my citizens enjoying their high-tech lives. I'm already past the point of realistic sustainability. Worse, with so many giant nations, a small newcomer might feel intimidated.

I'm a long way from having done everything, but I've done & seen quite a bit, either with this nation, or one of my fairly numerous other nations (I don't consider them "puppets"). Naturally, the longer I play, the more likely I am to say "been there done that". But as long as new people discover this game, there will be plenty of people who HAVEN'T done/seen it all.

I'm already past the point of realistic sustainability.
The secret to NS success, and why everyone can continue to get bigger and better:

"NationStates Reverses Entropy"


That is all.

OK Guys if you honostly want to know what I think here it is,

The mods are human OK. They are not computer they make stupid mistakes too.
Also, The mods are overworked and under payed.
They are goin to get pissed ever once an a while at people who refuse to follow rules.
I'm not trying to be 100% pro-mod because they have and will do some REALLY stupid things but they are human and they clear the scum out of the game so think about the game wothout them! ;)

I already know how nationstates is going to end, I watched it end personally, then laughed and danced upon its grave. But I'm not going to tell you how it ends.

I already know how nationstates is going to end, I watched it end personally, then laughed and danced upon its grave. But I'm not going to tell you how it ends.
'Shrooms aint the answer, man.

'Shrooms aint the answer, man.

awww.:( then what is? :confused:

The answer lies in faith in the Mods, who shall protect us from danger and grant us great wisdom. In this particular case, the great Frisbeeteria has enlightened us: "NationStates reverses entropy". :)