GCR's a bit to stable?

[Lalop]

Regions like TNP are a bit to OP for my liking. There delegate has hundreds of more endorsements then even the next biggest feeder. I would say there is only 2 unstable GCR's at the moment Lazarus and Balder. The rest are untouchable, and that is why feeder supremacy works, because its impossible for userrites 'like myself' to take over a region with that much power and endorsements. Personally I think it would be prudent for a new feeder to A -Solve the problem of regions like TNP going above server capacity, and B- Adding more action into the game. What do you think though?

[Mojoland]

I think it should be 'too' rather than 'to'.

[Cotolon]

This topic in technical is probably what you're looking for.

Although I'd leave out your desire to raid a GCR, doesn't go down well over there.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

Regions like TNP are a bit to OP for my liking. There delegate has hundreds of more endorsements then even the next biggest feeder. I would say there is only 2 unstable GCR's at the moment Lazarus and Balder.

Balder?! How the hell is Balder unstable. I think it has the lowest endo cap.

[Armaros]

Regions like TNP are a bit to OP for my liking. There delegate has hundreds of more endorsements then even the next biggest feeder. I would say there is only 2 unstable GCR's at the moment Lazarus and Balder.

Balder?! How the hell is Balder unstable. I think it has the lowest endo cap.

absolutely, and the highest endo count of all sinkers.

[Tinhampton]

...feeder supremacy works, because its impossible for userrites 'like myself' to take over a region with that much power and endorsements.

I know, right? I mean, we should let every random fucker who wants one have their own feeder, shouldn't we?

[The Church of Satan]

Oh do excuse the GCRs for being too secure. I mean how dare they!? They should be ready to accommodate anyone with the desire to take over their region, right? You have got to be kidding me!

[Fecaw]

We have warzones for instability. If you do want to take over a feeder, try getting elected through their own processes.

...feeder supremacy works, because its impossible for userrites 'like myself' to take over a region with that much power and endorsements.

I know, right? I mean, we should let every random fucker who wants one have their own feeder, shouldn't we?

Feeders for Sale! Gooood feeders! $2 for a feeder!

[Pergamon]

lol I just got reminded why I subscribed to Francoism.

[Aenglaland]

Regions like TNP are a bit to OP for my liking.

TNP, and the rest of GCRs, must always be stronger and safer than UCRs.

[Wabbitslayah]

lol I just got reminded why I subscribed to Francoism.

o/ hail

[Lord Dominator]

lol I just got reminded why I subscribed to Francoism.

I was reminded why I disliked subversion in general

[Augustus Rex]

lol I just got reminded why I subscribed to Francoism.

Where can I purchase my subscription? Userite Daily has too many onderwalls.

[Jar Wattinree]

*hailing Pacifica intensifies*

[Xoriet]

Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.

[Galiantus III]

Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.

I'm beginning to think that the introduction of UCRs way back when was a bad idea. I think there is a good case to be made that GCR stability and power is largely a result of spreading people throughout so many other regions, and a far better game situation would be one with 50 feeder/sinker/catcher regions and zero UCRs... And I am saying this as someone who has both spent the majority of my time in UCRs, and has supported R/D as the best segment of NS gameplay.

[Lord Dominator]

Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.

I'm beginning to think that the introduction of UCRs way back when was a bad idea. I think there is a good case to be made that GCR stability and power is largely a result of spreading people throughout so many other regions, and a far better game situation would be one with 50 feeder/sinker/catcher regions and zero UCRs... And I am saying this as someone who has both spent the majority of my time in UCRs, and has supported R/D as the best segment of NS gameplay.

The problem there of course is that you then have the large number of people who use the UCRs to get away from everyone else who would now be shoved into a region with the everyone else in question.

[Consular]

Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.

I mean, from a certain perspective too much stability isn't good for the game as a whole.

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.

I mean, from a certain perspective too much stability isn't good for the game as a whole.

It isn't good for the game. A stable game is a boring one, and whether the game is interesting or not is the only important factor.

[Galiantus III]

I'm beginning to think that the introduction of UCRs way back when was a bad idea. I think there is a good case to be made that GCR stability and power is largely a result of spreading people throughout so many other regions, and a far better game situation would be one with 50 feeder/sinker/catcher regions and zero UCRs... And I am saying this as someone who has both spent the majority of my time in UCRs, and has supported R/D as the best segment of NS gameplay.

The problem there of course is that you then have the large number of people who use the UCRs to get away from everyone else who would now be shoved into a region with the everyone else in question.

The introduction of UCRs is something that will never be done away with, which is why I have suggested that only founderless regions get WA delegates. It would allow for people to go isolate themselves, but also prevent anyone wanting power from using the "get away" mechanic to their advantage.

[Jar Wattinree]

The problem there of course is that you then have the large number of people who use the UCRs to get away from everyone else who would now be shoved into a region with the everyone else in question.

The introduction of UCRs is something that will never be done away with, which is why I have suggested that only founderless regions get WA delegates. It would allow for people to go isolate themselves, but also prevent anyone wanting power from using the "get away" mechanic to their advantage.

Huh, I've never seen this suggested in Technical before.

[Lord Dominator]

Of course that'd only be anywhere near acceptable as a feature if the remaining delegates had a decent drop in voting ability given that you'd be knocking off every major non-GCR delegate other than TCB's

[Lalop]

Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.

I mean, from a certain perspective too much stability isn't good for the game as a whole.

Exactly

[Galiantus III]

Of course that'd only be anywhere near acceptable as a feature if the remaining delegates had a decent drop in voting ability given that you'd be knocking off every major non-GCR delegate other than TCB's

And I can support a change like that.

--

To everyone giving me flak for this, the main reason I keep bringing this up is because I was once in the same camp as the OP of this thread. My position has changed over time, and I recognize that the the issue is not the GCRs being too stable, but that the feeder/sinker/catchers are individually more capable of power than other individual regions - especially other founderless regions. Not even the warzones have the same kind of potential as them. Limiting WA power to founderless regions (including GCRs) would make UCRs more interesting overall, and should result in regions with similar power levels as current GCRs, given that smaller regions are susceptible to raids.

[Unibot III]

Who let the NPO Senators out? Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof!

Peace, Strength & Full of Shit, Comrades. Your founder, Francos Spain took advantage of an endorsement gap (created by a server bug) to coup the Pacific and begin the ''glorious" August Revolution. NPO again took advantage of an endorsement gap to coup the North Pacific. Then you whipped yourselves with performative guilt after Milograd's coup in the South Pacific and again in Lazarus. You might be right Game-Created Regions aren't meant to be playthings, but you cats have been the chief antagonists to local governance in the Game-Created Regions since 2003. Your pursuit of "pacifica" unification and contempt for democracy has motivated a number of ill-advised adventures into GCRs; the NPO state itself was founded through subversion. You have no right to come here and lecture anyone about meddling in places you don't belong, your predecessors turned meddling into an artform.

Now to the question at hand. Yes, the Game-Created Regions are very stable. But more importantly, they're not exhibiting structural innovation and they're not as active in-game beyond perfunctory constitutional functions. The whole of Gameplay as a political organism is reaching equilibrium. Political turnover is limited, but intergovernmental activity is even more limited - there's very little of a geopolitical dynamic present. Which is a fancy way of saying 'nothing is happening.' The concern here isn't a lack of political instability or entropy, but the ongoing de-politicization or metaization of Gameplay and the absence of external crisis. Gameplay has finally adapted to major flash-points of the past (e.g., the creation of new GCRs, Predator, Devontians), the Cold War has ended, and Gameplay has shredded itself of a lot of its ideological convictions, identity, and purpose in favour of a game defined by personalities sans complex geopolitical challenges. It doesn't really matter who is leading Game-Created Regions but it matters that they believe in something and they have something to care about which necessitates competition and cooperation.