NationStates

It is not without a fair degree of reluctance that I’m writing this, yet nevertheless I decided to give it a shot: in lieu of the recent changes which have been made to the game (stats & greater pace of issues) this is a ploy for the expansion of nationstates into a more interactive game.

What do I mean by that? First of all, before I elaborate, if anyone accuses me of wanting Nationstates 2 back, I have never played that game in my life as I wasn’t even aware of its existence in the first place so the accusation is baseless in the sense that I cannot be accused of wanting something to return when I don’t even know what it entails.

I also don’t intend to plea for extending the game into the realm of something like say, World of Warcraft, Skyrim or any other similar game which involves quests, slaying dragons and what not. So in case of anyone accusing me of merely wanting this game to become a clone of the aforementioned games is also untrue, as I don’t know what those games entail either. As a matter of fact, I’m not much of a gamer in the first place. To put it even more precise: I’m not a gamer at all.
But when someone goes: ,,You’re not a gamer, so why do you plead for this game to expand then?” My response is simple: this isn’t about me or my tastes, but acknowledging and exploiting the potential Nationstates has.

Although slightly redundant, I would like to start by taking a brief overview at the current state of the game. Statistics are a little difficult to come by, but since there are roughly 192000 nations in the entire game, it would be a safe bet to say that the number of actual players is about half that. (Assuming that several players have multiple nations/puppets.) This number might at first glance seem impressive, but in the larger scheme of the internet one quickly realises that it is a mere drop in the well, a rather insignificant number which is so small that one can even doubt if the existence of the game itself is justified if its ultimate goal is to generate awareness for Mr. Barry and his books. Therefore my plea is not merely based on wishing to create a wider awareness of Mr. Barry’s books. (And yes, I have read them and although he may not be a George Orwell, the fruits of his labour are certainly enjoyable.)

The first thing the game relies on are the issues which every nation/player faces on a daily bases. Regardless if one chooses to opt for 1 or 4 issues, they will pop up every 6, 12 or 24 hours depending on one’s settings. There are roughly 500 issues in the game, of which the vast majority was written by players themselves, but no nation qualifies for them all, so if one qualifies for say, 300 issues, it doesn’t take a lot of time for anyone to learn to choose the desired outcome or when there is no desired outcome to be found, simply dismiss the issue.

If one moves on, one can observe the game’s greatest asset, the forums: these have always been the place where players/nations can post the things which are on their minds. Their roleplaying, help with writing issues, discussing all sorts of things. Here is the factor which I would like to focus on a little bit later.
The final aspect of the game is the statistics which every come with every nation and go up or down depending on which choices a player makes. Also, a bit more on those later.

Now here is the idea which I have: to dismiss the concept of making Nationstates a “Simple Game” as this statement is indeed true, but it is being falsely used as an argument instead of a mere statement. You can’t go to war or trade with other nations because Nationstates is a simple game is not a reason, but an empty statement without arguments as to exactly why it is a simple game.

Hence, I plead for the actual option on going to war or trading with other players. Although with that said, I don’t plead for making it a mandatory thing. Indeed, large, militaristic nations could and would be favoured over smaller ones, particularly if they form alliances but one the other hand: many smaller nations might also be able to overcome a large one.

This entire actual trading/politics/going to war would subsequently have a genuine effect on the statistics, which would make them more interactive as well, making the latter something to genuinely care about, rather than just state: ,,I don’t care about statistics.” on any players signature on the forums. On a sidenote: this also begs the question: if no one cares about statistics, why have them in the first place? In any case, to repeat myself but merely to make myself clear: it doesn’t nor should it be a mandatory thing to join in, players could and should be allowed to hop in or out of the interactive part of the forum at any time but they should have to bear in mind that their presence or absence might also have consequences on this part of the forum.

Ultimately, it would not only make the forum livelier, but it would also make players care more about their statistics than is currently generally the case. Moreover, it could potentially attract more players and thus generate more awareness for Mr. Barry’s books. There is no technical reason why such a thing cannot be achieved. In an era where games such as Warthunder or Assassin’s Creed exist the simple expedient of creating a section of a forum which is more interactive should be an easy feat to accomplish. Moreover and again: it should be done, as it would be the best way possible to garner more attention in the wider world. Standing still isn’t an option, as people begin to get bored and disappear which would keep this game and the attention it creates perpetually small and insignificant. Finally, should anyone be willing to accept my plea, it should go without saying that I am of course more than willing to help in whatever way possible.

Yours Faithfully,

Siep Kooijman

(Yes, this is the first and probably the only time that I sign with my real, actual name, merely to show the weight that I attach to my plea.)

Moved to technical. If that really is your real name, I would suggest removing it.

The Great state of Atlantis wrote:This entire actual trading/politics/going to war would subsequently have a genuine effect on the statistics

This is the real key. At the moment, you can shape your nation however you like, and there is no real win condition. The moment nations can invade each other, conquest becomes the most visible goal, and everyone has to care about military power. That fundamentally changes everything. For a lot of people, improving military power will become the only thing they care about, and instead of issues being thorny ideological choices, they will be simple pick-the-best-military-option tests. Then instead of the broad spectrum we have today, we have a bunch of nations who are all better or worse at building their military.

I'm simplifying, and there would be mitigating things we could do, but that's the underlying issue. Trade is similar with economic power, although not quite as problematic.

[violet] wrote:

The Great state of Atlantis wrote:This entire actual trading/politics/going to war would subsequently have a genuine effect on the statistics

This is the real key. At the moment, you can shape your nation however you like, and there is no real win condition. The moment nations can invade each other, conquest becomes the most visible goal, and everyone has to care about military power. That fundamentally changes everything. For a lot of people, improving military power will become the only thing they care about, and instead of issues being thorny ideological choices, they will be simple pick-the-best-military-option tests. Then instead of the broad spectrum we have today, we have a bunch of nations who are all better or worse at building their military.

I'm simplifying, and there would be mitigating things we could do, but that's the underlying issue. Trade is similar with economic power, although not quite as problematic.

What about gradual land expansion, made like the gradual population expansion?

There are side-projects on this forum that could quench your thirst for extended gameplay. That's the beauty of NS! Simple but extensible!

Here's one:
NS Battle Simulator
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=333152

I like the idea.
Good luck~

Last I checked, war/trade were not going to be added by order of our Lord and Savior Max Barry. Your idea still favors the capitalist and militaristic nations over the other ones, even if it's not mandatory. That's why.

And how would it draw more attention to the forums?

[violet] wrote:

The Great state of Atlantis wrote:This entire actual trading/politics/going to war would subsequently have a genuine effect on the statistics

This is the real key. At the moment, you can shape your nation however you like, and there is no real win condition. The moment nations can invade each other, conquest becomes the most visible goal, and everyone has to care about military power. That fundamentally changes everything. For a lot of people, improving military power will become the only thing they care about, and instead of issues being thorny ideological choices, they will be simple pick-the-best-military-option tests. Then instead of the broad spectrum we have today, we have a bunch of nations who are all better or worse at building their military.

I'm simplifying, and there would be mitigating things we could do, but that's the underlying issue. Trade is similar with economic power, although not quite as problematic.

Allow me to respond here: I think it's a bit presumptuous to automatically assume that every player/nation on the interactive part of the forum would instantly and automatically opt for all sorts of military expansions instead of becoming peaceful merchants. Moreover and like I stated before: if a player/nation decides to opt out then that would be fine just as well. Another thing, what would be so wrong with winning or losing an online game, regardless of what what stands to gain or lose? (A new tile perhaps?) One can win or lose a game of online chess or checkers, or one's tank can get blown up in World of Tanks and while players generally care whilst playing, even when they lose they still might have a laugh afterwards. And even when a player/nation believes that it has overstayed because it's losing out on the trade market or in a brawl of some sort, then they could still return to the safety of the original game in order to rebuild their nation. This in turn would also be the foundation of a learning curve on the part of the players, encouraging them to learn from the mistakes they have made. And if the more interactive part of the forum turns out to develop itself into a genuine market, the only thing which would be required would be the implementation of the algorythm of XE.com, which calculates real nations' currencies against one another. It would also encourage people to genuinely put some creativity into what they would like to purchase or sell for the better of their nations. Another question which comes to the forefront is why exactly would economic power be problematic. Of course, should, under the most extreme circumstances, the entire thing turn into a wild, chaotic slaughterhouse, it can be just as easily be closed as it could be deemed a failure and closed down after all. Still, overall, NSG stands nothing to lose from giving it a genuine try.

Leppikania wrote:Last I checked, war/trade were not going to be added by order of our Lord and Savior Max Barry. Your idea still favors the capitalist and militaristic nations over the other ones, even if it's not mandatory. That's why.

And how would it draw more attention to the forums?

Assuming you are being ironical, there is absolutely no reason why it can't be at least proposed. Moreover, the man is not a bad author, but no deity, saviour or any other of the sort so why not make a suggestion to the man? Particularly if it's a thought out one? I presume that there's no wrong in two adult people talking to one another, as Barry is 8 years my senior. (So now you ought to know my age as well when you're any good at maths.) Another thing, never, at any point in time has it been made clear as to eaxctly why this couldn't or shouldn't be an option. Again and to repeat myself: the mere statement of NationStates being a simple game is one thing, but to my knowledge, this statement has never been backed up by arguments. And as for increasing awareness, two options spring to mind: the first one could come from the community itself, by simple word-of mouth and telling friends and loved ones about the game. The second option would be online advertising. Other options also exist but I'm a teacher, not a commerial man so I'll leave those suggestions to other players/entities/third parties who are more savvy about promotional actions.

I really hope this is never implemented. I can't speak for everyone, but the fact that there are no trade or war features, optional or not, is precisely why I joined NationStates in the first place.

Kringalia wrote:I really hope this is never implemented. I can't speak for everyone, but the fact that there are no trade or war features, optional or not, is precisely why I joined NationStates in the first place.

That still doesn't take away the fact that standing still and remaining conservative bordering on the reactonary isn't an option either. Click through your options and stay out of it. Nothing more shall ever be asked of you. If you didn't intend to join in the first place, then why join the discussion? Even if it would be implemented, which considering the conservative response I get so far, I severely doubt, it still wouldn't change anything for you.

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.

Kringalia wrote: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.

No it wouldn't as it wouldn't be a mandatory thing, somehow it appears that you fail to grasp this crucial aspect. If, say, nation X grows really economically powerful but opts to go out, then that same nation's power would mean nothing with regard to the rest of the game. Simply put, that nation would simply revert to the original gameplay. And even if the game would somehow be changed, how terrible would that be? Change is good. Standing still isn't.

The Great state of Atlantis wrote:No it wouldn't as it wouldn't be a mandatory thing, somehow it appears that you fail to grasp this crucial aspect. If, say, nation X grows really economically powerful but opts to go out, then that same nation's power would mean nothing with regard to the rest of the game. Simply put, that nation would simply revert to the original gameplay. And even if the game would somehow be changed, how terrible would that be? Change is good. Standing still isn't.

Kringalia wrote:the fact that there are no trade or war features, optional or not

It's not about how optional your features would be. My problem is I don't want NS to be a war and trade game. I like it because it lacks those features, because the game itself is about politics. Change is good only insofar as there is a point to it. Your proposed changes would be a terrible thing for NationStates, removing its uniqueness and turning it into one more generic war and trade game, of which there are many. It would do you good to take a look at why nations keep playing this game, and what has made it successful for over thirteen years. It definitely hasn't been war and trade.

Kringalia wrote:

The Great state of Atlantis wrote:No it wouldn't as it wouldn't be a mandatory thing, somehow it appears that you fail to grasp this crucial aspect. If, say, nation X grows really economically powerful but opts to go out, then that same nation's power would mean nothing with regard to the rest of the game. Simply put, that nation would simply revert to the original gameplay. And even if the game would somehow be changed, how terrible would that be? Change is good. Standing still isn't.

Kringalia wrote:the fact that there are no trade or war features, optional or not

It's not about how optional your features would be. My problem is I don't want NS to be a war and trade game. [It's not about what you want. It's about making it livelier than it currently is. And ad nauseam: you can always stay out of it when you don't like it.] I like it because it lacks those features, because the game itself is about politics. [Politics, trade and war are all intertwined.] Change is good only insofar as there is a point to it. [There is a point: making it livelier than it currently is.] Your proposed changes would be a terrible thing [How so? Moreover, I wouldn't use such big words so lightly.] for NationStates, removing its uniqueness and turning it into one more generic war and trade game, of which there are many. It would do you good to take a look at why nations keep playing this game, and what has made it successful for over thirteen years. It definitely hasn't been war and trade.

The sole reason why it refuses to die is because the owner keeps it up. Not because it's so incredibly popular. An estimated 50- to 80000 players globally is a marginal number compared to other games so there would be nothing wrong with getting a chunk of that market as well.

If you want to play a war and trade game, why don't you go play a war and trade game? NS "refuses to die", as you say, because it has a vibrant community that likes to play it's different aspects, and has expanded beyond the initial issues-answering aspect since it was launched in 2002. If you simply can't understand what it is that people like about NationStates, then that's a problem. It's meant to be different from the rest of the market. And that's a good thing.

Maybe the war/trade features could be purely voluntary? Like you click a little button to make you immune to war or trade or both.

The proposal is already about making it voluntary. Doesn't make it any less bad.

"The market"? "That market"?

I've never thought of NS as being about "That market".

I like the player-base that makes up the community here, not the gameplay; they are making things interesting for me, not the omnipotent omnipresence of our Lord and Site Owner, Max Barry. "It refuses to die" because it isn't dying - the game dies when there isn't a community.

That said, I am slightly interested at the suggestion for additions (though not the market-based overtone).

Kringalia wrote:If you want to play a war and trade game, why don't you go play a war and trade game? NS "refuses to die", as you say, because it has a vibrant community that likes to play it's different aspects, and has expanded beyond the initial issues-answering aspect since it was launched in 2002. If you simply can't understand what it is that people like about NationStates, then that's a problem. It's meant to be different from the rest of the market. And that's a good thing.

I have taken the liberty of trawling a bit though this part of the forum and it seems that every time someone makes a proposal for any kind of change whatsoever your response is automatically a reactionary stance. However, contrary to your implication, what it does prove is the fact that there is no such thing as a unified community on NationStates and that I am not the only one who came along with similar proposals. For instance, the discussion on appointing players as arbiters instead of leaving it only to the moderators was also vehemently objected to by you. In any case, your implication that I don’t know “how the community on NationStates works" is flawed in the sense that there is no “community” in the absolute sense of the word and there are thousands of people who make suggestions of all sorts. Are you going to resist all of them and falsely claim that they too, don’t know how the community works? Your utter conservative stance now merely resembles a kid who pounds his little fist on the table screaming ,,NOOOOOOO!!!!” when he’s faced with something he doesn’t like. It reminds me of the scene from inglorious Basterds (Sic.) with Hitler pounding on the table going ,,NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!” You seem to forget the fundamental fact that a community is a living, breathing entity which evolves over time, not some stagnant group of people all adhering to the same “GOOD THING” as only you claim that it is and even when it is a good thing, (as I already acknowledged as much in my opening statement.) that still doesn’t mean that it cannot evolve.

Oh and by the way, implying that there is some sort of problem because according to you I don't understand how the community works, well you know how the song goes right? Sing along..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPRkYWVinF0

It would be nice to add more game play. But alas that's not going to happen.

I'm just thinking, what if the Warzones (like any nation entering a warzone) had like a special version, where you automatically are forced to use the military things, BUT if you win against the current delegate, that delegate is removed from power, all the delegate votes are removed (like delegate votes are made completely useless) so it will be a true warzone, the toughest are at the top.

I'm sorry I'm talking like this would be a easy thing to program, I understand that this would take a great deal of effort to do this. It's just, it would help RP regions to settle things, we've all seen the real poor regional RPs, you know, the world war RPs where you are rping as your main nation. I think it would make roleplaying easier and more fun.

Commonwealth of Hank the Cat wrote:I'm just thinking, what if the Warzones (like any nation entering a warzone) had like a special version, where you automatically are forced to use the military things, BUT if you win against the current delegate, that delegate is removed from power, all the delegate votes are removed (like delegate votes are made completely useless) so it will be a true warzone, the toughest are at the top.

I'm sorry I'm talking like this would be a easy thing to program, I understand that this would take a great deal of effort to do this. It's just, it would help RP regions to settle things, we've all seen the real poor regional RPs, you know, the world war RPs where you are rping as your main nation. I think it would make roleplaying easier and more fun.

Hey, I'm not against it. What could be done for instance is that the admin would put up a sign which would say something like: ,,You are now entering the interactive part of the forum. Any decision you make will have a genuine effect upon your nation, whether it's peaceful trade or going into battle and you might even lose everything so be wise."

Remember Gandalf? With Frodo whining: ,,I wish the Ring had never come to me." And he goes: ,,Those are always the complaints of people who live through such times, but that is not their decision to make. It is up to us to do the things with the time we have." Yeah I'm paraphrasing it a tad but you get the point.

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 as 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.

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.

Arkadacia wrote: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?