Petition: Female Named GCR

[Tano]

Omg a new GCR what is this even.

Think of all the endo-tarting. The battles between people to try and gain a foothold.


*salivitates*

Anyways, my vote goes for Proserpina, the Roman version of Persephone.

[Cerlon]

I still maintain that this is an awful idea and that, if we're going to do it, it certainly shouldn't be a spur of the moment thing.

Give it time. This summer would certainly be better.

[Wind in the Willows]

Terrible idea.

[Tano]

Terrible idea.

Mind elaborating on that?

[PrussianEmpire]

I still maintain that this is an awful idea and that, if we're going to do it, it certainly shouldn't be a spur of the moment thing.

Give it time. This summer would certainly be better.

I second this and support Tano's idea for the name.

[Unibot III]

I think the people complaining about it happening are scared they don't have the time at the moment to invest in controlling it.


The admins should take people's neat plans and screw it up with a new sinker. When everything is all settled like now is the perfect time for this. Political Gameplay should be uncomfortable.

[Nullarni]

I think the people complaining about it happening are scared they don't have the time at the moment to invest in controlling it.


The admins should take people's neat plans and screw it up with a new sinker. When everything is all settled like now is the perfect time for this. Political Gameplay should be uncomfortable.

I agree. I find it amusing that the only ones against it are steeped in GCR politics. They don't want another major player around until they can guarantee their ability to subjugate it. Very interesting if you ask me.

[The Blaatschapen]

I think the people complaining about it happening are scared they don't have the time at the moment to invest in controlling it.


The admins should take people's neat plans and screw it up with a new sinker. When everything is all settled like now is the perfect time for this. Political Gameplay should be uncomfortable.

It's not the admins job to rustle political gameplay. It's up to you guys yourselves to do that.

[Feux]

I think the people complaining about it happening are scared they don't have the time at the moment to invest in controlling it.


The admins should take people's neat plans and screw it up with a new sinker. When everything is all settled like now is the perfect time for this. Political Gameplay should be uncomfortable.

Sounds to me like someone has time to subjugate it.

[Cormacville]

I fully support creation of a new GCR -- in fact, why stop at one, some new Atlantic Feeders would be great too -- and I support Persephone, Ishtar, or Inanna (or hey, three new Sinkers!) as name options that are easy to spell and pronounce. I prefer Persephone.

I also find it odd that some are opposing this. If you don't want to be involved nobody is asking you to be. Your current regions will still be there.

Edit: For the record, I don't actually suggest creation of that many GCRs but I reject the idea that the existing GCRs have to be too full in order to create some new opportunities for fun and activity in this game. The game has frankly been lagging lately and there's nothing wrong with admins stepping in and doing something to generate activity.

[Carta]

I think the people complaining about it happening are scared they don't have the time at the moment to invest in controlling it.


The admins should take people's neat plans and screw it up with a new sinker. When everything is all settled like now is the perfect time for this. Political Gameplay should be uncomfortable.

Or are very happy with their regions having 4,000 nations for a bit. I like Lazarus' current size, it's not "too full".

If we want to make a new sinker, that's fine, it could be fun.

[Aden Protectorate]

I fully support creation of a new GCR -- in fact, why stop at one, some new Atlantic Feeders would be great too -- and I support Persephone, Ishtar, or Inanna (or hey, three new Sinkers!) as name options that are easy to spell and pronounce. I prefer Persephone.

I also find it odd that some are opposing this. If you don't want to be involved nobody is asking you to be. Your current regions will still be there.

Edit: For the record, I don't actually suggest creation of that many GCRs but I reject the idea that the existing GCRs have to be too full in order to create some new opportunities for fun and activity in this game. The game has frankly been lagging lately and there's nothing wrong with admins stepping in and doing something to generate activity.

I support this.

[Cerlon]

We might as well wait to hear more from [v] after these five pages.

[Cormacville]

Or are very happy with their regions having 4,000 nations for a bit. I like Lazarus' current size, it's not "too full".

This is actually a compelling argument for creating more GCRs, particularly more Feeders but it wouldn't hurt to have another Sinker. It shouldn't be easy to take over a GCR but it also shouldn't be impossible, and in most Feeders we've gotten to that point due to their Delegates' endo counts. Diluting the endo pool a bit and giving each GCR Delegate fewer endos, by creating more GCRs and spreading out those endos, would be a great way to stop GCRs from being impenetrable fortresses.

[Molsonian Republics]

GCR?

[Aden Protectorate]

GCR?

Game created region.

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

GCR?

Haha, nice one.

[Molsonian Republics]

GCR?

Game created region.

Thanks.

[Albus Perceval Wulfric Brian Dumbledore]

GCR?

Game Created Regions.

[Aden Protectorate]

Game created region.

Thanks.

Welcome.

[Solorni]

Shouldn't it be a feeder though? They have more endoes than the Sinkers do.

[Todd McCloud]

Or are very happy with their regions having 4,000 nations for a bit. I like Lazarus' current size, it's not "too full".

This is actually a compelling argument for creating more GCRs, particularly more Feeders but it wouldn't hurt to have another Sinker. It shouldn't be easy to take over a GCR but it also shouldn't be impossible, and in most Feeders we've gotten to that point due to their Delegates' endo counts. Diluting the endo pool a bit and giving each GCR Delegate fewer endos, by creating more GCRs and spreading out those endos, would be a great way to stop GCRs from being impenetrable fortresses.

Actually, that is not too bad of an argument with making the feeders more dynamic. But would it thin out the already (in some cases) thin GCR's?

[Cormacville]

This is actually a compelling argument for creating more GCRs, particularly more Feeders but it wouldn't hurt to have another Sinker. It shouldn't be easy to take over a GCR but it also shouldn't be impossible, and in most Feeders we've gotten to that point due to their Delegates' endo counts. Diluting the endo pool a bit and giving each GCR Delegate fewer endos, by creating more GCRs and spreading out those endos, would be a great way to stop GCRs from being impenetrable fortresses.

Actually, that is not too bad of an argument with making the feeders more dynamic. But would it thin out the already (in some cases) thin GCR's?

I don't think one more Sinker would necessarily dilute the other Sinkers too much. But yes, I do also support the creation of 2-3 new Feeders in order to make them more dynamic.

Another option would be the suggestion someone else made earlier in this thread when they suggested making the new Sinker a Feeder-Sinker hybrid, that receives both new and refounded nations. Rather than doing this with just the new Sinker, admins could do this with all the Sinkers, which would prevent them becoming too diluted while also diluting the Feeder endo pool a bit. If they then also created another Feeder, that should bring endo counts to a level, in my view, that would make it possible but not easy to take over a GCR.

So basically my suggestion is this: Make all the Sinkers hybrid regions that receive both new and refounded nations, create a new Sinker and a new Feeder.

[Feux]

Actually, that is not too bad of an argument with making the feeders more dynamic. But would it thin out the already (in some cases) thin GCR's?

I don't think one more Sinker would necessarily dilute the other Sinkers too much. But yes, I do also support the creation of 2-3 new Feeders in order to make them more dynamic.

Another option would be the suggestion someone else made earlier in this thread when they suggested making the new Sinker a Feeder-Sinker hybrid, that receives both new and refounded nations. Rather than doing this with just the new Sinker, admins could do this with all the Sinkers, which would prevent them becoming too diluted while also diluting the Feeder endo pool a bit. If they then also created another Feeder, that should bring endo counts to a level, in my view, that would make it possible but not easy to take over a GCR.

So basically my suggestion is this: Make all the Sinkers hybrid regions that receive both new and refounded nations, create a new Sinker and a new Feeder.

Lets not get carried away now Cormac.

[Todd McCloud]

Actually, that is not too bad of an argument with making the feeders more dynamic. But would it thin out the already (in some cases) thin GCR's?

I don't think one more Sinker would necessarily dilute the other Sinkers too much. But yes, I do also support the creation of 2-3 new Feeders in order to make them more dynamic.

Another option would be the suggestion someone else made earlier in this thread when they suggested making the new Sinker a Feeder-Sinker hybrid, that receives both new and refounded nations. Rather than doing this with just the new Sinker, admins could do this with all the Sinkers, which would prevent them becoming too diluted while also diluting the Feeder endo pool a bit. If they then also created another Feeder, that should bring endo counts to a level, in my view, that would make it possible but not easy to take over a GCR.

So basically my suggestion is this: Make all the Sinkers hybrid regions that receive both new and refounded nations, create a new Sinker and a new Feeder.

Interesting. I don't know if that's possible, especially since a sinker's been a sinker for years now, but we've sort of seen sinker creation in the past. But wouldn't this cause an eventual growth of the sinker regions, effectively making them the largest in the game? I'm fine with a sinker staying a sinker I think.

If we want to make two more feeders, which sounds interesting I must admit, I suggest The Upper Pacific and The Lower Pacific. Might as well take advantage of all directions here, lol.