Did User-Created Regions ruin NationStates?

[Skundi]

Personally, in response to this whole topic, I feel that without UCRs, there would be a more minuscule amount of nations with authority and influence, due to the fact 150,000 nations would be spread over 9 regions. What this could mean then, is that the majority of players would fall into inactivity because all they’ll really be doing is issues (maybe other sub-elements if NS but not much). This could bring the inactivity, nations CTEing and the site becoming smaller. So, based on this idea, UCRs have allowed more nations to have authority, helping expand the site. So because it does this, surely UCRs benefit the site itself.

I’d also like to bring up the basis of this site: and that is anyone is allowed to express their political views to an extent and this can be through nations and regions. So this thread is effectively going against the principles of the site - by limiting creation of regions and restricting nations being able to express their views.

So, after my two main points (and trust me, there are many more), I have proved why I disagree with this thread.

Most people already in fact focus just on issues, or maybe WA voting or debate, or general, or just roleplay on the rmb or chat on it. Most nations by a Gameplayers perspective are inactive or just lurkers (In the sense they at least periodically login).

Your point is valid, but what I’m saying is that there would be even more players like that. We could see current active gameplayers becoming inactive or focusing on issues. Therefore, there could be a negative affect on the site

[Galiantus III]

Your point is valid, but what I’m saying is that there would be even more players like that. We could see current active gameplayers becoming inactive or focusing on issues. Therefore, there could be a negative affect on the site

It sounds like where we have perceived disagreement is the ideal number of regions, not whether they are UCRs or GCRs. A world with only 9 regions would indeed limit activity, and is not what I am asking for. I am asserting that the other extreme, 20,000 regions, is also detrimental to the formation of active communities. I imagine that in a world without UCRs, an alternative process for introducing new regions to the game would exist.

I originally posted this topic because I read a comment by a new player in the "find-a-region" thread that frustrated me. What most people look for when they seek a region is a stable, active community where they can feel accepted. They aren't interested in gameplay. Regional power as a game is more similar to N-day or cards, yet it is somehow the basis for thousands of NS communities. And that's what regions are - a part of a game. It is detrimental to the site that the only way to form a viable community is within a structure that is inherently unstable. UCRs were a bad way to do this. As a structure they subvert the interests of both gameplay and the other communities they are supposed to help.

[Skundi]

Your point is valid, but what I’m saying is that there would be even more players like that. We could see current active gameplayers becoming inactive or focusing on issues. Therefore, there could be a negative affect on the site

It sounds like where we have perceived disagreement is the ideal number of regions, not whether they are UCRs or GCRs. A world with only 9 regions would indeed limit activity, and is not what I am asking for. I am asserting that the other extreme, 20,000 regions, is also detrimental to the formation of active communities. I imagine that in a world without UCRs, an alternative process for introducing new regions to the game would exist.

I originally posted this topic because I read a comment by a new player in the "find-a-region" thread that frustrated me. What most people look for when they seek a region is a stable, active community where they can feel accepted. They aren't interested in gameplay. Regional power as a game is more similar to N-day or cards, yet it is somehow the basis for thousands of NS communities. And that's what regions are - a part of a game. It is detrimental to the site that the only way to form a viable community is within a structure that is inherently unstable. UCRs were a bad way to do this. As a structure they subvert the interests of both gameplay and the other communities they are supposed to help.

Of course, and I can see where you’re coming from, but the fact that a region can only survive through having a stable community means that there are going to be small regions that don’t have a stable community because they don’t want one, or the fact that there are gameplay regions is simply because that is what the nation in charge has chosen for it to be. And yes, there might be regions in your eyes that don’t have good qualities for a region but so what? This is a sight that encourages expressing views and just because they don’t have or do what other nations do (like you pointed out with the gameplay situation) doesn’t really mean much. It means that every region is unique, which makes this site so special. UCRs all possess different things, and it is all down to the leadership.

To respond to your first paragraph, what you’re technically saying (in my view) is that there would be more GCRs, which could lack excitement and uniqueness, which is what I said about UCRs, and plus, it’s hard enough to find the perfect region, so imagine how hard it would be without UCRs. I think it just adds an extra bit to the game, and like all the elements you mentioned in the opening post, nations focus on different things, so not all nations necessarily need to put all their time into a region.



I do apologise if I have waffled in this post, if I haven’t made sense please tell me

[Galiantus III]

It sounds like where we have perceived disagreement is the ideal number of regions, not whether they are UCRs or GCRs. A world with only 9 regions would indeed limit activity, and is not what I am asking for. I am asserting that the other extreme, 20,000 regions, is also detrimental to the formation of active communities. I imagine that in a world without UCRs, an alternative process for introducing new regions to the game would exist.

I originally posted this topic because I read a comment by a new player in the "find-a-region" thread that frustrated me. What most people look for when they seek a region is a stable, active community where they can feel accepted. They aren't interested in gameplay. Regional power as a game is more similar to N-day or cards, yet it is somehow the basis for thousands of NS communities. And that's what regions are - a part of a game. It is detrimental to the site that the only way to form a viable community is within a structure that is inherently unstable. UCRs were a bad way to do this. As a structure they subvert the interests of both gameplay and the other communities they are supposed to help.

Of course, and I can see where you’re coming from, but the fact that a region can only survive through having a stable community means that there are going to be small regions that don’t have a stable community because they don’t want one, or the fact that there are gameplay regions is simply because that is what the nation in charge has chosen for it to be. And yes, there might be regions in your eyes that don’t have good qualities for a region but so what? This is a sight that encourages expressing views and just because they don’t have or do what other nations do (like you pointed out with the gameplay situation) doesn’t really mean much. It means that every region is unique, which makes this site so special. UCRs all possess different things, and it is all down to the leadership.

To respond to your first paragraph, what you’re technically saying (in my view) is that there would be more GCRs, which could lack excitement and uniqueness, which is what I said about UCRs, and plus, it’s hard enough to find the perfect region, so imagine how hard it would be without UCRs. I think it just adds an extra bit to the game, and like all the elements you mentioned in the opening post, nations focus on different things, so not all nations necessarily need to put all their time into a region.



I do apologise if I have waffled in this post, if I haven’t made sense please tell me

Again, I am not against having UCRs. All your points are valid. The purpose of my post is to highlight how the specific implementation of UCRs has been detrimental to Gameplay and communities wishing to do their own thing. And more regions is not necessarily good. There are plenty of duplicate regions, and regions made for the sole purpose of isolation, or to be trophies of gameplayers. In my mind this bogs down any unique regions trying to build a community by making them harder to find. It would thus be beneficial to thin out these regions so the regions built around unique ideas can grow into something meaningful. I don't mean they have to be large or very active, but the game structure should promote activity and player interaction, not smother it.