A plea for expansion

[Drayxaso]

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 specialty of the nation could even give them benefits for certain situations:
Ex: "Industry: (Industry Name)" stats could increase the profits of trading with a nation where this is not a major industry.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

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

The specialty of the nation could even give them benefits for certain situations:
Ex: "Industry: (Industry Name)" stats could increase the profits of trading with a nation where this is not a major industry.

Precisely, I agree. Couple your idea with the entry protection (Entry after having reached a certain level, in order to avoid getting crushed.) and nations can decide for themselves whether they intend to trade or go into battle. If a nation wants to build Industry X, then the player could opt to stimulate industry X in all quietness before throwing himself onto the active part of the forum and even prior to doing that, he could use the calculating aspect in order to determine whether or not he's strong enough to either trade or take on other players. In that respect, the calculator could also act as a deterrent.

[Drayxaso]

The specialty of the nation could even give them benefits for certain situations:
Ex: "Industry: (Industry Name)" stats could increase the profits of trading with a nation where this is not a major industry.

Precisely, I agree. Couple your idea with the entry protection (Entry after having reached a certain level, in order to avoid getting crushed.) and nations can decide for themselves whether they intend to trade or go into battle. If a nation wants to build Industry X, then the player could opt to stimulate industry X in all quietness before throwing himself onto the active part of the forum and even prior to doing that, he could use the calculating aspect in order to determine whether or not he's strong enough to either trade or take on other players. In that respect, the calculator could also act as a deterrent.

Still, each conflict/trade should prompt the person to see if they wish to join. Then if some random nation decided: AN looks shiny, must bomb, the target wouldn't be forced into a war if they had allowed trade and warfare.

[Reploid Productions]

Making a quick note here.

We tried war/trade + random issues. It was called Nationstates 2, and it failed horrendously. The only way to avoid your nation's stats being all messed up was to simply not use either tool, at all. No attacking or embargoing other nations, no being allies with or favoring trade partners to other nations.

Warfare and trade simulation just flat-out does not work with our system. War and trade require a much greater degree of micromanagement than we will ever allow, and as evidenced by the failure that was NS2, you can't successfully micromanage the stats needed for war/trade when your nation's stats are changeable via randomized issues. A common complaint during NS2's run, for instance, was that half the world was starving to death because issues that impacted food production only came up randomly. Your people would be starving and you'd keep getting an issue about, say, production of boxer shorts.

Others have already addressed the bulk of the other problems. Most "run a country" games where you have trade/war also have something else we don't: regular stat resets and/or pay-to-win microtransactions. Older countries in those games simply have an advantage that cannot be surpassed by newer players, save for paying real money to get ahead and thus creating a pay-to-win situation. Resetting everybody's stats a few times a year to maintain a level playing field without a pay-to-win situation will only piss everybody off.

Nationstates is simply not set up to work in such a manner, and the Powers That Be have no interest in the amount of effort needed to rework the entire game so that it could be successfully added.

[CoraSpia]

Making a quick note here.

We tried war/trade + random issues. It was called Nationstates 2, and it failed horrendously. The only way to avoid your nation's stats being all messed up was to simply not use either tool, at all. No attacking or embargoing other nations, no being allies with or favoring trade partners to other nations.

Warfare and trade simulation just flat-out does not work with our system. War and trade require a much greater degree of micromanagement than we will ever allow, and as evidenced by the failure that was NS2, you can't successfully micromanage the stats needed for war/trade when your nation's stats are changeable via randomized issues. A common complaint during NS2's run, for instance, was that half the world was starving to death because issues that impacted food production only came up randomly. Your people would be starving and you'd keep getting an issue about, say, production of boxer shorts.

Others have already addressed the bulk of the other problems. Most "run a country" games where you have trade/war also have something else we don't: regular stat resets and/or pay-to-win microtransactions. Older countries in those games simply have an advantage that cannot be surpassed by newer players, save for paying real money to get ahead and thus creating a pay-to-win situation. Resetting everybody's stats a few times a year to maintain a level playing field without a pay-to-win situation will only piss everybody off.

Nationstates is simply not set up to work in such a manner, and the Powers That Be have no interest in the amount of effort needed to rework the entire game so that it could be successfully added.

In fairness though, war/trade wasn't the only reason that ns2 was shit.

Their was a certain thing called Jolt which did a bit of that.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Precisely, I agree. Couple your idea with the entry protection (Entry after having reached a certain level, in order to avoid getting crushed.) and nations can decide for themselves whether they intend to trade or go into battle. If a nation wants to build Industry X, then the player could opt to stimulate industry X in all quietness before throwing himself onto the active part of the forum and even prior to doing that, he could use the calculating aspect in order to determine whether or not he's strong enough to either trade or take on other players. In that respect, the calculator could also act as a deterrent.

Still, each conflict/trade should prompt the person to see if they wish to join. Then if some random nation decided: AN looks shiny, must bomb, the target wouldn't be forced into a war if they had allowed trade and warfare.

So basically what you're suggesting is an extension of the voluntary, switch on/off part. If say, player X attacks player Y, but player Y has his trade/war active part switched off, then player X's assault would have no effect. I do not disagree with you, although I would personally finetune your idea in the sense that if Player X intends to go into battle or trade with player Y but doesn't know that Player Y has his active part switched off, player X should be made aware of that fact. Perhaps some sort of automated message/TG which says: player Y has currently switched off his active part, come back later or ask him to join in.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Making a quick note here.

We tried war/trade + random issues. It was called Nationstates 2, and it failed horrendously. The only way to avoid your nation's stats being all messed up was to simply not use either tool, at all. No attacking or embargoing other nations, no being allies with or favoring trade partners to other nations.

Warfare and trade simulation just flat-out does not work with our system. War and trade require a much greater degree of micromanagement than we will ever allow, and as evidenced by the failure that was NS2, you can't successfully micromanage the stats needed for war/trade when your nation's stats are changeable via randomized issues. A common complaint during NS2's run, for instance, was that half the world was starving to death because issues that impacted food production only came up randomly. Your people would be starving and you'd keep getting an issue about, say, production of boxer shorts.

Others have already addressed the bulk of the other problems. Most "run a country" games where you have trade/war also have something else we don't: regular stat resets and/or pay-to-win microtransactions. Older countries in those games simply have an advantage that cannot be surpassed by newer players, save for paying real money to get ahead and thus creating a pay-to-win situation. Resetting everybody's stats a few times a year to maintain a level playing field without a pay-to-win situation will only piss everybody off.

Nationstates is simply not set up to work in such a manner, and the Powers That Be have no interest in the amount of effort needed to rework the entire game so that it could be successfully added.

In fairness though, war/trade wasn't the only reason that ns2 was shit.

Their was a certain thing called Jolt which did a bit of that.

Allow me to respond here: I have already stated in my opening bid that no one can accuse me of wanting Nationstates 2 back, as I have absolutely no experience with that game whatsoever. I don't know what it was, how it worked -or appearently not- so the comparison is not entirely justified. Moreover, I never suggested nor implied that this interactive version should be about micro management. You simply take your nation, as is, you go online and play with it and players get to decide, albeit that hte outcome of their decisions have a direct effect on their stats. Mind: it is not the players who will be able to manipulate their stats, but their stats which will fluctuate as a result of their decisons.

Another thing, which occurred to me: I can't help but to feel that it is testimony to of maintaining a bit of a double standard here because:

A: the current stream of issues already have a direct effect on players' nations' stats.
B: there are heaps of trade and war options within the existing issues, which in turn all have an effect upon the player's statistics.

Considering both facts, the trade and war option would only be the next logical step, as such actions too, would directly effect a nation's stats. So again, effort aside, there is no technical reason why it can't be implemented.

Still, let's pause for a second an see which counterarguments have been presented so far and how I, as well as other players, have dealt with them.

1) It would fundamentally alter the experience of the players. Not necessarily, as this would be solely voluntary, so if you don't want to join, nothing would ever change for you.

2.1) Major nations would be favoured over smaller ones. Implement acces only after having reached a certain level, in order to avoid being crushed.

2.2) The area would be flooded with puppets. Access only for WA members. No puppets on pain of death. (Yeah irony.)

3) You want NS2 back and that game failed. No, I don't know anything about NS 2 so the accusation is baseless and I can't be accused wanting something to return which I don't even know what it was in the first place.

4.1) This requires micromanagement. I never suggested that, or implied it. Granted there might be teething problems but the idea is that players themselves manage their nation, as well as their relation with other players with as little outside interence as possible. Earlier on, I suggested that there is an algorhitm which calculates nation's currencies against another so that is a piece of existing technology already. Another suggestion from another player: players can use the challenge button in order to decide what they want to do. If anything, the vast majority of the alleged micromanagement would fall upon the shoulders of the players themselves, not the staff.i]

4.2) It takes a massive amount of time/effort in order to implement it. [i]I already acknowledged as much in my opening bid and I never stated that it would be easy, that's why I offered my assistance. I'm not the AllFather of computers but it would just be plain rude not to offer help. Moreover and finally, I genuinely believe that it would enhance people's experience, making them genuinely care more about their stats than is currently generally the case.

I'm not sure whether or not I have the time this weekend to continue this conversation, with the weekend coming up and my ATB (A giant, pitch-black fully hydraulic Cube Stereo with Sunringle wheels and 24 different gears.) suffered an acute and catastrophic failure today, with a 6" long, 0.25" wide crack on the right side of the rear rim directly next to the valve. Cause: instant metal fatigue, so I'll be occupied with replacing that, as well as checking the calipers, the chain and possibly the replacement of my tires as well. In all, I've got my work cut out for me but for what it's worth: I enjoy this conversation, as the goal of my suggestion is to make the game livelier than it currently is but this conversation already does that to a certain extent.

Talk to you guys later. Ciao!

Siep.

[Luna Amore]

Allow me to respond here: I have already stated in my opening bid that no one can accuse me of wanting Nationstates 2 back, as I have absolutely no experience with that game whatsoever. I don't know what it was, how it worked -or appearently not- so the comparison is not entirely justified...
...3) You want NS2 back and that game failed. No, I don't know anything about NS 2 so the accusation is baseless and I can't be accused wanting something to return which I don't even know what it was in the first place.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this. Your knowledge (or lack) of NS2 doesn't change the fact that this idea is reminiscent of that failed game. That is why some of us are a little more hesitant. Fundamentally changing a game could be great. The Admin have improved on this game quite a lot since 2002. Major changes like this require major consideration. We shouldn't (and can't with limited admin time) make sweeping changes just to 'liven the game up'.

1) It would fundamentally alter the experience of the players. Not necessarily, as this would be solely voluntary, so if you don't want to join, nothing would ever change for you.

Even with an opt out, it would fundamentally change the game from single player to multiplayer. Nation stats are solely in the control of the player (barring WA nations with GA resolutions, but that is consistent and minimal).

2.1) Major nations would be favoured over smaller ones. Implement acces only after having reached a certain level, in order to avoid being crushed.

2.2) The area would be flooded with puppets. Access only for WA members. No puppets on pain of death. (Yeah irony.)

These two together would still benefit older nations overall. The big get bigger under this setup.

4.2) It takes a massive amount of time/effort in order to implement it. I already acknowledged as much in my opening bid and I never stated that it would be easy, that's why I offered my assistance. I'm not the AllFather of computers but it would just be plain rude not to offer help. Moreover and finally, I genuinely believe that it would enhance people's experience, making them genuinely care more about their stats than is currently generally the case.

For OPSEC reasons, we can't let just anyone mess around with the code, so this would fall on the shoulders of a small number of admins with limited time.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Allow me to respond here: I have already stated in my opening bid that no one can accuse me of wanting Nationstates 2 back, as I have absolutely no experience with that game whatsoever. I don't know what it was, how it worked -or appearently not- so the comparison is not entirely justified...
...3) You want NS2 back and that game failed. No, I don't know anything about NS 2 so the accusation is baseless and I can't be accused wanting something to return which I don't even know what it was in the first place.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this. Your knowledge (or lack) of NS2 doesn't change the fact that this idea is reminiscent of that failed game. That is why some of us are a little more hesitant. Fundamentally changing a game could be great. The Admin have improved on this game quite a lot since 2002. Major changes like this require major consideration. We shouldn't (and can't with limited admin time) make sweeping changes just to 'liven the game up'.

1) It would fundamentally alter the experience of the players. Not necessarily, as this would be solely voluntary, so if you don't want to join, nothing would ever change for you.

Even with an opt out, it would fundamentally change the game from single player to multiplayer. Nation stats are solely in the control of the player (barring WA nations with GA resolutions, but that is consistent and minimal).

2.1) Major nations would be favoured over smaller ones. Implement acces only after having reached a certain level, in order to avoid being crushed.

2.2) The area would be flooded with puppets. Access only for WA members. No puppets on pain of death. (Yeah irony.)

These two together would still benefit older nations overall. The big get bigger under this setup.

4.2) It takes a massive amount of time/effort in order to implement it. I already acknowledged as much in my opening bid and I never stated that it would be easy, that's why I offered my assistance. I'm not the AllFather of computers but it would just be plain rude not to offer help. Moreover and finally, I genuinely believe that it would enhance people's experience, making them genuinely care more about their stats than is currently generally the case.

For OPSEC reasons, we can't let just anyone mess around with the code, so this would fall on the shoulders of a small number of admins with limited time.

First of all, my apologies for not replying the past weekend but my bike is thoroughly fucked, my lappy is a bit wonky (age?) and I was busy replacing a faucet in my shower so I had other things to do. (Seriously, what is up with the machinery in my apartment? The intercom died on me and needed fixing, my oven needed replacing and I need to buy a new lamp for the living room next week.)

In any case: let's take a look at the above arguments, as written by this staff member.

1: perhaps something can be learned/salvaged from NS 2. The game died around 2002 if I believe I'm correct and ever since, technology, along with all of its capabilities has evolved. (Check out a cellphone from '02 with today's phones, like comparing a brick with a surgical tool.) Ergo: if we perhaps learn as to why NS2 failed, we might be able to extract the flaws with today's tech and salvage some of it and implement it in this version. Although if that wouldn't work, that would be just as fine. Tabula Rasa and start again.

2: with regard to how things would change. for those of the players who would opt to stay out the answer is simple: nothing would ever change for them. I've said so numerous times. On the other hand, those who do participate would find themselves in a multiplayer situation which is indeed the goal of this suggestion. I've said it before: multiplayer = more fun, because it's interactive. Another thing: it caters to people who don't necessarily roleplay, as I know that it's a big thing in here on the forums but not everyone -myself included- adheres to it. (I'm 35, pushing 36 and I have only roleplayed once in my life when I was 21, It was in an old-school Dungeons & Dragons cardgame.)

3: the big get bigger. Not necessarily. Big nations might get favoured to some degree, but as suggested by another player: that's what the challenge button is for, as a deterrent to go to war against a player who is a lot larger. Two other things: 1) a nation might be big, but it might still lose out on things so it might shrink instead of grow. Remember, I used the chess/checkers example earlier, You win some, you lose some. 2) Even when and if a nation would be large, that still wouldn't mean anything as soon as that player would opt out again after having played on the interactive part. In other words: as soon as you sign out from the interactive part and revert back to the passive stance, the size of any player's nation has no further/additional meaning anymore.

4: it would fall on the shoulders of a small staff. I guess that we have reached the hart of the matter. Because as Dr. Dre used to put it so eloquently: ,,No deals and no cheese, no boats, no snowmobiles and no G's." In all, there is simply not enough cash and there aren't enough people around to make this work. Machiavelli wrote in his "Arte della Guerra", ,,There are four things which are required to go to war and these are men, iron, bread and gold and out these four things the first two are the most important, for men and iron find bread and gold but bread and gold do not seek men and iron." I have reached the conclusion here that there aren't enough men and that there isn't enough iron, let alone bread and gold available to turn this ship around. I had some ideas about import/export and how to implement currency exchange over the weekend when I was unscrewing a leaky pipe, but I'll shelve that for now, as I think that the server/bandwith won't be able to cope.

I have already decided that I'll stay until I have reached five billion, another nine months or so. After that, there will be not much more -if anything- for me to gain in this game, a few banners or tiles left aside. I could stay until I reached 10 or even 20 billion but that would take another 7/8 years and I'll be in my 40s by then, with mr. Barry in his 50s. I don't know whether or not this game would still exist by then or what it would look like but I'm pretty sure I may have forgotten about it. On a final note: about 5000000 nations used to be in here. Imagine what the game would be like if with the improvements we could get a mere 10% of those players back. Shame....

[Phydios]

Your use of the 5,000,000 number is very misleading. It's nations created since the beginning of the game, not nations active at any one time. Every site has turnover, and the fact that many people have left does not mean there's something wrong overall. We have never had more people active at one time than we do now.
Oh, and there's another way you're being misleading. When mentioning the number of active players, you claim that 50,000 is a good number because of puppets. Yet when talking about the number of players that have left, you set it at 5,000,000, or roughly the number of nations that have been created. You make no allowance for puppets. This has the effect of maximizing the number that have left and minimizing the number that have stayed, making your argument appear more plausible than it is.
As others have said, you seem to want a different game. NS does not plan to be that kind of game. Several mods and admins have tried to explain this to you, along with the reasons. "NS is a simple game" is used as an argument against expansion because the game is intended by its creator and owner to be simple, and has been so for over 13 years. (And for the record, NS2 ended a lot later than 2002. I don't know the exact dates, but I can't find any pre-2003 record of it, and we (NS1) didn't leave Jolt hosting until 2009. So that narrows it down a bit.) If you get bored, leave. We hold no ill will against people that aren't satisfied with NS, even long-term players. But the site's not changing because you think it should. We've heard that argument before...even since I joined, and the staff has heard a lot more than me.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Your use of the 5,000,000 number is very misleading. It's nations created since the beginning of the game, not nations active at any one time. Every site has turnover, and the fact that many people have left does not mean there's something wrong overall. We have never had more people active at one time than we do now.
Oh, and there's another way you're being misleading. When mentioning the number of active players, you claim that 50,000 is a good number because of puppets. Yet when talking about the number of players that have left, you set it at 5,000,000, or roughly the number of nations that have been created. You make no allowance for puppets. This has the effect of maximizing the number that have left and minimizing the number that have stayed, making your argument appear more plausible than it is.
As others have said, you seem to want a different game. NS does not plan to be that kind of game. Several mods and admins have tried to explain this to you, along with the reasons. "NS is a simple game" is used as an argument against expansion because the game is intended by its creator and owner to be simple, and has been so for over 13 years. (And for the record, NS2 ended a lot later than 2002. I don't know the exact dates, but I can't find any pre-2003 record of it, and we (NS1) didn't leave Jolt hosting until 2009. So that narrows it down a bit.) If you get bored, leave. We hold no ill will against people that aren't satisfied with NS, even long-term players. But the site's not changing because you think it should. We've heard that argument before...even since I joined, and the staff has heard a lot more than me.

Dude, already I stopped to care. Nevermind I brought it up. I'll just click through my issues for about nine months or so and be done with it. It's boring so there ye have it. I've got other and better things to do than this. I told you before: I'm not a gamer in the first place and this was the one and only attempt ever in recorded history to improve something but apparently the Gods didn't want me to be a gamer. And truth be told, I don't think my wife and kids would appreciate it either. So bye NS, I'll click through my issues and be done with it in nine months, as nothing will ever come of it in the first place.