A plea for expansion

[Northern Freikur]

Raiders are already an excuse for trolling / annoyance / being a general pain in the arse, warfare being added into the game would be obnoxious, invasive, and annoying. That and it's been denied repeatedly. If you want a political simulator with warfare, trade, and all that good stuff, go buy a grand strategy game and have fun. The base NS experience isn't, hasn't, and never will be, a complex and deep game.

What if it was optional?

I could get behind that.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Raiders are already an excuse for trolling / annoyance / being a general pain in the arse, warfare being added into the game would be obnoxious, invasive, and annoying. That and it's been denied repeatedly. If you want a political simulator with warfare, trade, and all that good stuff, go buy a grand strategy game and have fun. The base NS experience isn't, hasn't, and never will be, a complex and deep game.

I have never joined a raiding party in my life nor do I intend to so I can't speak from experience in that respect but If it's such an annoyance as you claim that it is, why does it continue to be allowed? If it's so annoying, make a proposal for it to be banned. I'm willing to back it up provided you would make such a proposal. And yes, the aim of this proposal is to make it deeper and intensify the game a lot more but bear in mind that I have always stated that it ought to be a voluntary, not a compulsory thing. Thus, players/nations who have no interest in that part could simply stay out and continue with whatever they were doing.

[Luna Amore]

Things that strike me as major downfalls to this:

- Old nations are unbelievably advantaged. A new nation simply can't compete with a 13 year+ nation. Under the current system, that's not so much an issue. You mentioned small nations banding together which brings me to my next problem.
- Puppet masters would dominate. There's no limit to the number of nations you can have. Take a look at Ancient Lands. That's a massive puppet dump handled by (it looks like) a handful of players. Combined, that near 1500 nation region has 21 trillion population. Under your proposed system, they could band together.
- It shifts the goals from answering issues to managing puppets

In any case, the other guy is just a reactionary who falsely and insidiously implies that he speaks for the community whilst failing to see that there's no such thing a a unified community in here. Not to mention the fact that his argument is also contradictory in the sense that on the one hand he claims that the community is large and vibrant since 2002, but on the other hand he fails to see that as a result of it being large and vibrant it also implies that people within the community will come along and propose changes. It's part of what keeps said community large and vibrant, rather than a bunch of stagnant conservatives.

It's never a good idea to follow up suggestions with attacks at the people who disagree. No idea is universally accepted. You are suggesting a very major change which would undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences that haven't been discussed yet. That major a change would have to be considered from every angle. You shouldn't shirk away from criticism.

As a side note, we are currently at our highest nation levels ever.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Things that strike me as major downfalls to this:

- Old nations are unbelievably advantaged. A new nation simply can't compete with a 13 year+ nation. Under the current system, that's not so much an issue. You mentioned small nations banding together which brings me to my next problem.
- Puppet masters would dominate. There's no limit to the number of nations you can have. Take a look at Ancient Lands. That's a massive puppet dump handled by (it looks like) a handful of players. Combined, that near 1500 nation region has 21 trillion population. Under your proposed system, they could band together.
- It shifts the goals from answering issues to managing puppets

In any case, the other guy is just a reactionary who falsely and insidiously implies that he speaks for the community whilst failing to see that there's no such thing a a unified community in here. Not to mention the fact that his argument is also contradictory in the sense that on the one hand he claims that the community is large and vibrant since 2002, but on the other hand he fails to see that as a result of it being large and vibrant it also implies that people within the community will come along and propose changes. It's part of what keeps said community large and vibrant, rather than a bunch of stagnant conservatives.

It's never a good idea to follow up suggestions with attacks at the people who disagree. No idea is universally accepted. You are suggesting a very major change which would undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences that haven't been discussed yet. That major a change would have to be considered from every angle. You shouldn't shirk away from criticism.

As a side note, we are currently at our highest nation levels ever.

First of all: yes, I acknowledged the 192.000 number as much in my opening statement.

Second: I don't shirk from criticism, it's why I continue to be here otherwise I would have just left this part as soon as I started it. It just irritated me that I was being spammed with false counterarguments, which weren't even counterarguments to start with. (Never mind the fact that he launched the initial personal attack by claiming that there was some sort of problem because I supposedly didn't understand how the community worked. But that is beside the point now, as it's water under the bridge.)

Finally: I concur with you in the sense that the changes could potentially be huge and the Mega Nations (10 billion plus and over) would have an advantage in both trade as well as warfare. The same goes for said "puppet dumps", such as the aforementioned Ancient Lands. (I've taken a look at it and oh my sweet orange Jesus is that thing big.)

I never said that it would be easy, but hey, what did J.F.K. say? ,,We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard."

Here's an idea in order to let the entire thing not to get too off-balanced: how about, we allow a player to enter only after a nation has reached a certain point in order to prevent it from being crushed? In a similar fashion like one can choose a capitol, a leader and a faith after having reached a certain level.
Second, can't there be a system in place in order to prevent the entire thing being overrun by puppets, like say, each player is only allowed to play with an X number of puppets at the time. The player is allowed to rotate the number of puppets, but to never have more than X number online at the interactive part of the forum.

Just a thought on how to overcome such technical issues. If you really would like to discuss such things with me in earnest, TG and I'll send my email to you so we can discuss the details, as I understand that it could potentially be the largest change yet. (But hey, to boldly go where no one has gone before right? And I'm not even a Trekkie, although I like the new Star Trek movies.)

[Arkadacia]

Raiders are already an excuse for trolling / annoyance / being a general pain in the arse, warfare being added into the game would be obnoxious, invasive, and annoying. That and it's been denied repeatedly. If you want a political simulator with warfare, trade, and all that good stuff, go buy a grand strategy game and have fun. The base NS experience isn't, hasn't, and never will be, a complex and deep game.

What if it was optional?

Assuming there's a big "opt out of all stupid gameplay nonsense" button, I'd be fine with it. Skeptical, but tolerant of the idea.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

What if it was optional?

Assuming there's a big "opt out of all stupid gameplay nonsense" button, I'd be fine with it. Skeptical, but tolerant of the idea.

The entire thing is based on voluntary participation. I stated as much in my opening bid.

[Gran Tomania]

The idea is interesting, even if i agree with the Staff when they recall the limits of the current context for such a major change. Imho the game iteself need some more overhauls before war&trade, just think about how inaccurate and unfair the stats are for a conflict without some serious RP interpretation.

Here's an idea in order to let the entire thing not to get too off-balanced: how about, we allow a player to enter only after a nation has reached a certain point in order to prevent it from being crushed? In a similar fashion like one can choose a capitol, a leader and a faith after having reached a certain level.
Second, can't there be a system in place in order to prevent the entire thing being overrun by puppets, like say, each player is only allowed to play with an X number of puppets at the time. The player is allowed to rotate the number of puppets, but to never have more than X number online at the interactive part of the forum.

I like the noob-protection idea, but i like less the idea of a even-small puppet-army: i would suggest to allow only WA members to wage war betwen themselves, so that gameplay wont change too much from the current raiding system; puppets have no gameplay effect aside from spam or flood and should stay this way

[Bedetopia]

Oh look, one of my allies is #1 and I'm #15. We can crush 90% of the world together, great.

Seriously though, I think that dividing the playerbase is a bad idea. Some regions could start banning players because they refuse war or trade.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

The idea is interesting, even if i agree with the Staff when they recall the limits of the current context for such a major change. Imho the game iteself need some more overhauls before war&trade, just think about how inaccurate and unfair the stats are for a conflict without some serious RP interpretation.

Here's an idea in order to let the entire thing not to get too off-balanced: how about, we allow a player to enter only after a nation has reached a certain point in order to prevent it from being crushed? In a similar fashion like one can choose a capitol, a leader and a faith after having reached a certain level.
Second, can't there be a system in place in order to prevent the entire thing being overrun by puppets, like say, each player is only allowed to play with an X number of puppets at the time. The player is allowed to rotate the number of puppets, but to never have more than X number online at the interactive part of the forum.

I like the noob-protection idea, but i like less the idea of a even-small puppet-army: i would suggest to allow only WA members to wage war betwen themselves, so that gameplay wont change too much from the current raiding system; puppets have no gameplay effect aside from spam or flood and should stay this way

First up: sorry it took me some time to respond but this was the weekend and I had other and better things to do than spend my time here on NS. In any case: WA members only could also be a good thing, leaving the puppets out of the equation. (I used to be a WA member, but left after I found it boring and its laws and resolutions had no effect on me.)

In any case, let's summarise what we have so far:

- Genuine war & trade, which in turn, has an effect upon stats.
- Voluntary only. Players can hop in or out whenever they want.
- Encourages players to be creative: what do they have to offer and what do they want to purchase?
- Encourages players to care about that stats, rather than dismissing them as is currently genuinely the case.

- Another thought: acces only after having reached a certain level.
- Furthermore, as suggested by player above: no puppets, WA members only.

Naturally, more suggestions are always welcome.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Oh look, one of my allies is #1 and I'm #15. We can crush 90% of the world together, great.

Seriously though, I think that dividing the playerbase is a bad idea. Some regions could start banning players because they refuse war or trade.

Not necessarily. First of all, banning others from refusing to join one side or another should be left to the admins only, or perhaps as it has been suggested elsewhere on this forum, a group of arbiters. (But that's another discussion.) Another thing: the entire thing is voluntary, therefore no player can be forced by other players to join anything. Granted, a player could lose out with things such as his economy or population declining as a negative result of war/trade, but I don't like the idea of a player being coerced into an alliance. If such a thing were to occur, the admins could indeed act as arbiters in order to determine whether the situation can still be deemed fair play or not.

On a side note, just to play the devil's advocate, what would be so wrong if "real" politics were to enter into it? Nothing like al ittle Game of Thrones here on NS right?

[Tim-Opolis]

Second, can't there be a system in place in order to prevent the entire thing being overrun by puppets, like say, each player is only allowed to play with an X number of puppets at the time. The player is allowed to rotate the number of puppets, but to never have more than X number online at the interactive part of the forum.

Oh boy, and you expect that to be enforced or implemented how exactly? It's a cute idea sure, but to be frank it seems that your suggestion is going to boil down to something requiring a significant amount of moderation oversight, to the point where it without a single doubt falls into the "far too much of a pain in the ass for volunteers to bother with" category of suggested implementations to NS. And as obvserve, without oversight, there's nothing stopping me from using all of my 200+ puppets with populatilns ranging in on average 2-6 billion to control the world; at least until all the other GPers with assloads of puppets show up. As much as I'd love for us R/Ders to have yet another game feature to creatively oppress, I feel that would ruin the fun per se.

Anyways, as other established folks like Kringalia have said, this goes against the whole spirit of NS and really isn't going to happen. I must admit you do write far longer paragraphs than most people who propose it but the end result, especially given that I wager implementing this would be a fuckton of time spend coding that I wager Admin would rather use on other projects, continues to be the same unrealistic proposal that we get every time somebody comes around asking for this to be added.

Want war and trade and the like? Head on over to the hive of scum and villainy we know as Cybernations. Apologies for the semi-gravedig, figured it was important to address the unfeasible nature of both the proposal and in particular the puppet prevention.

[Canton Empire]

It would change the kind of game we play. NS has the charm of being a purely political game, where issues (and the WAGA, I suppose) are the only war to change a nation. There are many trade and military games out there, without the need to add one more.

one could argue that politics and economics go hand in hand

[Reploid Productions]

Second, can't there be a system in place in order to prevent the entire thing being overrun by puppets, like say, each player is only allowed to play with an X number of puppets at the time. The player is allowed to rotate the number of puppets, but to never have more than X number online at the interactive part of the forum.

Oh boy, and you expect that to be enforced or implemented how exactly? It's a cute idea sure, but to be frank it seems that your suggestion is going to boil down to something requiring a significant amount of moderation oversight, to the point where it without a single doubt falls into the "far too much of a pain in the ass for volunteers to bother with" category of suggested implementations to NS. And as obvserve, without oversight, there's nothing stopping me from using all of my 200+ puppets with populatilns ranging in on average 2-6 billion to control the world; at least until all the other GPers with assloads of puppets show up. As much as I'd love for us R/Ders to have yet another game feature to creatively oppress, I feel that would ruin the fun per se.

Anyways, as other established folks like Kringalia have said, this goes against the whole spirit of NS and really isn't going to happen. I must admit you do write far longer paragraphs than most people who propose it but the end result, especially given that I wager implementing this would be a fuckton of time spend coding that I wager Admin would rather use on other projects, continues to be the same unrealistic proposal that we get every time somebody comes around asking for this to be added.

Want war and trade and the like? Head on over to the hive of scum and villainy we know as Cybernations. Apologies for the semi-gravedig, figured it was important to address the unfeasible nature of both the proposal and in particular the puppet prevention.

First of all, as suggested by player above, the implementation of WA members only isn't a bad thing, at would prevent the place being overrun by puppets.
And yes, I already acknowledged as much that it would be difficult, but like I stated before in my opening bid: there's no technical reason why it can't be done.
And as for Kringalia, I'm sorry but that kid is just a heckler with non-arguments. He doesn't have to agree with me but so far I have only seen him attempt to back up the unsupported statement "NS is a simple game" with the equally unsupported statement "which is a good thing." I've stated before that I'm a teacher so judging essays is one of my tasks and if he would have written an essay with such statements I would have flunked him. But enough about him.

And as for the expenditure of creating an interactive part of the forum: I don't know how much time/effort it would take, but I have already offered to help, which indicates that I'm willing to spend time one it. The more people join in, the easier it should be.

And finally, with regard to Cybernations:

{MODEDIT: Picspam removed]

[The Great state of Atlantis]

It would change the kind of game we play. NS has the charm of being a purely political game, where issues (and the WAGA, I suppose) are the only war to change a nation. There are many trade and military games out there, without the need to add one more.

one could argue that politics and economics go hand in hand

I already did that when I countered one of his pseudo-arguments.

[Miarie]

If this does happen, there should be two different modes, one for the original game, and another for the trading and war. Nations should be in both modes at once, but what happens in one does not have any effect on your nation in the other, and you should be able to enable/disable trading and war mode.

[Kringalia]

And as for Kringalia, I'm sorry but that kid is just a heckler with non-arguments. He doesn't have to agree with me but so far I have only seen him attempt to back up the unsupported statement "NS is a simple game" with the equally unsupported statement "which is a good thing." I've stated before that I'm a teacher so judging essays is one of my tasks and if he would have written an essay with such statements I would have flunked him. But enough about him.

Yes, enough about me. I always addressed your arguments, rather than your character. I would certainly appreciate if you extended me that same courtesy. I remain steadfast in my belief that NationStates is a better game precisely because of its simplicity. If one wants a detailed micromanagement game, one can find many, most prominently The-Game-That-Tim-Named. If one wants a simple political game, where much of the experience is developed by the players themselves, NS is the better option. To change that would remove a lot of the appeal for much of the players, myself included. I chose NS (and have continued playing it for the past three years) instead of Game B or Game C because it lacked those features, optional or not.

You have as evidence the 13 years of continued success and the various communities that arose naturally, some focused on core game aspects like issues answering and the World Assembly, others focused on new aspects like roleplaying and NSG, and others focused on creating new ways of using game features, like military gameplay. NS is certainly in need of changes, and if they have a usefulness, I would be more than happy to support them. I like the addition of regional polls and of regional officers, to name two. Why? Because they add to the game experience without altering the spirit of what NationStates is at its core. As Max has said many times, NS was created as a game where one developed their own nation , based on the universe of Jennifer Government, without having to bother about other nations declaring war or having to maintain good economic conditions through trade.

In that sense, whether these features were optional or not is irrelevant, because the problem is with their addition itself. There should not be trade and war features because changes to the game should add to the experience, in comformity with how the game is meant to be. These features would not add to the game, they would alter its very purpose, and as one of the people who decided to try NS out because they lacked the features you are proposing, I have no option but to strongly oppose them.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

So far this sounds like you want to play a different kind of game.

That's fine, I have no problem with that. As other pointed out, there are other games around which seem like a good match for what you are describing. Yet rather than playing those games you seem determined to graft them on to NationStates.

What I'm not hearing is why. What is it about NationStates that you think would provide a good basis for an economics and warfare game? How would the E&W game you want differ from the other E&W games already out there, and how much of that difference is a good match for what people enjoy about NationStates?

[Reploid Productions]

<snip>

Picspam memes have no business in Technical discussions. Quit it.

[Canton Empire]

What about a war level where only nations of a similar level can fight eachother?

[The Great state of Atlantis]

And as for Kringalia, I'm sorry but that kid is just a heckler with non-arguments. He doesn't have to agree with me but so far I have only seen him attempt to back up the unsupported statement "NS is a simple game" with the equally unsupported statement "which is a good thing." I've stated before that I'm a teacher so judging essays is one of my tasks and if he would have written an essay with such statements I would have flunked him. But enough about him.

Yes, enough about me. I always addressed your arguments, rather than your character. [So did I, but you were the one who started to heckle and launched the personal attack remember?] I would certainly appreciate if you extended me that same courtesy. I remain steadfast in my belief that NationStates is a better game precisely because of its simplicity. If one wants a detailed micromanagement game, [I never suggested that my proposal should focus on micromanagement.] one can find many, most prominently The-Game-That-Tim-Named. If one wants a simple political game, where much of the experience is developed by the players themselves, [Yes, this is another proposal, as I am indeed another player.] NS is the better option. To change that would remove a lot of the appeal for much of the players, myself included. I chose NS (and have continued playing it for the past three years) instead of Game B or Game C because it lacked those features, optional or not. [It's precisely the fact that it would be optional in order to ensure that nothing would change for you. I have said that many times already. Again: if you don't want to play, then stay out of it and nothing more will ever be asked of you. You won't be judged and your gameplay wouldn't change in the least bit.]

You have as evidence the 13 years of continued success and the various communities that arose naturally, some focused on core game aspects like issues answering and the World Assembly, others focused on new aspects like roleplaying and NSG, and others focused on creating new ways of using game features, like military gameplay. [This isn't necessarily about military options. If everyone wants to become peaceful merchants, that would be just as fine. Moreover and again, all those changes that have hitherto occured are also intended to expand the game itself. This proposal simply builds upon those foundations by taking the game as it currently is and proposing to take it to a new, extended level of gameplay in order to extend people's experience/immersion into the game itself.] NS is certainly in need of changes, and if they have a usefulness, I would be more than happy to support them. [They do have a certain usefulness, I already stated that multiple times over but just to repeat myself: the goal is to make it livelier than it currently is.]I like the addition of regional polls and of regional officers, to name two. Why? Because they add to the game experience without altering the spirit of what NationStates is at its core. As Max has said many times, NS was created as a game where one developed their own nation , based on the universe of Jennifer Government, without having to bother about other nations declaring war or having to maintain good economic conditions through trade. [You can still do that.]

In that sense, whether these features were optional or not is irrelevant, [No, it is relevant, as it lies at the very core of the proposal itself.] because the problem is with their addition itself. There should not be trade and war features because changes to the game should add to the experience, [They do, or at least, that is the intention of the proposal.] in comformity with how the game is meant to be. These features would not add to the game, they would alter its very purpose, [No it wouldn't, as you could always opt to stay out of it and nothing would ever be asked of you.] and as one of the people who decided to try NS out because they lacked the features you are proposing, I have no option but to strongly oppose them.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

So far this sounds like you want to play a different kind of game.

That's fine, I have no problem with that. As other pointed out, there are other games around which seem like a good match for what you are describing. Yet rather than playing those games you seem determined to graft them on to NationStates.

What I'm not hearing is why. What is it about NationStates that you think would provide a good basis for an economics and warfare game? How would the E&W game you want differ from the other E&W games already out there, and how much of that difference is a good match for what people enjoy about NationStates?

Plain and simple and as I have already stated in my opening bid: the goal is to make it livelier and thus funner than it currently is. I would like to take the Lego example here. When you're working on a Lego project, you have two options after that project is finished, static display or play the hell out of it. This is the same thing: in this scenario you could opt for the static display and only click through your issues and roleplay until you're tired of it. Or you can take your nation and litterally play with it. instead of the mere slow development you would currently have. (And no, I don't play with Lego anymore, but I merely used the metaphore here.) Am I absolutely determined to graft it onto NS as you state it? Personally, I would refrain from using the word determined but I do believe that it would make it more interesting. It's a frequently heard argument: ,,If you don't like game A, then go and play game B." But it is precisely because I think NS has potential that I believe that it can expand, rather than just give up, which is always the easy way out but not only wouldn't it alter anything, but I also believe that the slowness is the primary cause for players to leave in the first place.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

What about a war level where only nations of a similar level can fight each other?

Not impossible, I only fear that it would take even more time to process.

[Drayxaso]

What about a war level where only nations of a similar level can fight each other?

Not impossible, I only fear that it would take even more time to process.

If the challenge rankings were used to calculate it, it could work, but it would be nowhere near foolproof.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Not impossible, I only fear that it would take even more time to process.

If the challenge rankings were used to calculate it, it could work, but it would be nowhere near foolproof.

Indeed, not a bad idea, as it would utilize an already existing aspect within NS. It saves time and attempting to create regulations.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

If this does happen, there should be two different modes, one for the original game, and another for the trading and war. Nations should be in both modes at once, but what happens in one does not have any effect on your nation in the other, and you should be able to enable/disable trading and war mode.

Not impossible, but I fear that that it could be difficult to implement. It would mean that every nation has both the active as well as the passive stance working simultaneously. As for the enabling/disabling option: I already addressed that within my original proposal. The entire thing should be voluntary/optional and players shold be able to hop in or out of it whenever they like.