NationStates

Gameplay exists because of regions. Everything we do here is based in some way on the rules, structure, and characteristics of regions. What I mean when I ask "Did UCR's ruin Nationstates?" is this:

Did the promise of limitless secure regions destroy the community and regional politics of NationStates?

In my opinion, yes. I will explain my reasoning in a moment, but first let me look at the game as a whole.

NS, as a game, can be broken into five sub-games that live both gameside and on the forums. In (rough) order of player participation, they are:

1. Answering Issues
2. The World Assembly
3. Role Playing
4. Cards
5. Gameplay

Domains
Each of these games has their own domain. As I explained, Gameplay lives in the regions. Issues exist at the national level, with national stats being a world competition. The WA exists on its own page. RP exists on regional RMBs and forums, and the NS forums. Cards, the newest of the sub-games, has their own game-side page.

Now, there is some cross over between use of domains. In the case of regions, although they are the primary domain of Gameplay, other sub-games use them. RPers use regions to host their activity on the RMB and any forums or Discord servers they have, and regional mechanics give rise to the system of WA delegates that help the WA to function properly.

Participation Levels
Within each sub-game, there is also a concept of how involved individual players are in the game. For example, some issues players might only log in once a week, while others might contribute to the issues pool by writing their own issues. Gameplay has the same sort of division, but the line is less obvious, because it has to do with whether players are conscious of and acting based on regional mechanics or not.

It should be fairly obvious who is in the very top tier of gameplay as a sub-game. That would be raiders, defenders, GCR politicians, and the like. But the lower tier is who, exactly? In my opinion, the lower tier of gameplay is anyone who considers themselves a member of a regional community. Or in other words, you participate in gameplay the moment you invest yourself in a region.

Regional Communities
For the most part, the sub-games of NS exist within their own sphere and community. There are of course players who get involved with multiple aspects of the game, and the communities that exist surrounding them; but some communities plant their home either partially or entirely in a specific region. By my definition above, this makes them gameplayers.

I should be clear, however, that players creating vanity regions, or groups of friends, or members of class regions, or players who move to a region and never participate in things with other regional members, don't qualify as gameplayers. They either don't participate in the community at all, or the core of the community is something other than the region itself. If there is either no community to invest in, or the community would exist on its own independent of the region, then members of that community are not gameplayers.

User Created Regions
So this brings us to the existence of UCRs. Anyone can make a new region, for whatever reason. This isn't inherently a problem, but it creates issues for communities that would otherwise thrive, and it degrades the quality of gameplay overall. I understand the connection isn't totally clear, so let me present a hypothetical: What would have happened if UCRs never existed?

Suppose for a moment that the only regions which exist were GCRs, and somehow new regions came into existence to maintain the same population density we see now in the GCRs. This means all active players would be concentrated in about 30 large regions, rather than disbursed throughout thousands of disparate regions. But what's the big deal? Well:

This means players not interested in gameplay would form communities based on something other than a region.


Conclusion
Essentially, the introduction of UCRs resulted in a fusing of regions with communities. This granted a free win in the realm of regional politics by the creation of new real estate you could guard without threat. Instead of having to compete in the realm of regional politics to pursue competing objectives, a player can found a region with the same promises as 50 other founders and never realize them. This kills activity. This only maddens communities who did not want to do gameplay. And this maddens gameplayers seeking quality politicking.

Ultimately, limitless UCRs existing in the same space as limited GCRs has forced many communities across NS to participate in gameplay and compete unnecessarily for activity and growth. Many communities that could have improved NS have been destroyed by raids or stagnation. That is why I say UCRs ruined NationStates.

---

So now that I'm done ranting, what do y'all think, Gameplay?

Edit: This absolutely is NOT a proposal to remove UCRs or something of that nature. I am more interested in discussing the unintended side-effects of having UCRs exist under the current model for so long. There are imperfections in any system. As evidenced by my involvement in UCRs, I whole-heartedly support the existence of UCRs.

What?

The fact that any kid with money can build a region does make this game harder for UCRs. But good fucking god, it would be moronic to label UCRs as a problem in its entirety. They make this game interesting. Without UCRs, you’d have no real gameplay, as the 9 or so GCRs would be the only grounds for politics, raiding and defending. Roleplay would probably exist, but they would be forced to share their space with gameplayers and NSGers rather then having the ability to make something themselves. A good thing about NS is that it leaves you the freedom to play as you wish, which includes founding your own region. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to say UCRs are the problem.

Armaros wrote:What?

The fact that any kid with money can build a region does make this game harder for UCRs. But good fucking god, it would be moronic to label UCRs as a problem in its entirety. They make this game interesting. Without UCRs, you’d have no real gameplay, as the 9 or so GCRs would be the only grounds for politics, raiding and defending. Roleplay would probably exist, but they would be forced to share their space with gameplayers and NSGers rather then having the ability to make something themselves. A good thing about NS is that it leaves you the freedom to play as you wish, which includes founding your own region. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to say UCRs are the problem.

This has more or less said everything that I wanted.

To further evaluate, I would like to add that UCRs have the opposite effect of ruining NS (i.e. they really don't)... GCRs, even in their current state, can get really, really huge and sometimes, people just love to talk to each other over a smaller region, or on a singular idea or an aspect that they hold dear to. I have gotten myself into many UCRs, and most of them have a tightly-knitted community given the lower numbers, and perhaps the aforementioned idea (e.g. Singapore, which I am in, we talk more about the everyday life there OOCly, as well as with Forest, and I am closer to these people than the rest of the regional people).

Did WA hurt you, or...? And no, this ain't a rhetorical or a snark question. I mean, given the custom fields and all...

This feels like an NSG thread...Which, by the way you entirely ignored in your list of things to do on NS.

Armaros wrote:What?

The fact that any kid with money can build a region does make this game harder for UCRs. But good fucking god, it would be moronic to label UCRs as a problem in its entirety. They make this game interesting.

Think of my post as devil's advocate. I like UCRs a lot. I used to rag on GCRs all the time. I think there are some changes that would benefit the game tremendously, so I explore arguments like this.

Without UCRs, you’d have no real gameplay, as the 9 or so GCRs would be the only grounds for politics, raiding and defending.

I think it is a reasonable assumption Admin would either create new regions or devise some automatic process for creating new regions as needed, if UCRs weren't a thing. And I think raiding and defending has drawn players away from the political sphere into this weird world where we try and exploit little details about update.

Roleplay would probably exist, but they would be forced to share their space with gameplayers and NSGers rather then having the ability to make something themselves.

Is that a bad thing? And do you need a region to make a community? There are all sorts of communities throughout NS independent of regions. I don't see why the systems they are using couldn't be used by other communities.

A good thing about NS is that it leaves you the freedom to play as you wish, which includes founding your own region. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to say UCRs are the problem.

Indeed. Without UCRs we wouldn't have had Gatesville or some of the other major regions that made NS history so interesting.

Galiantus III wrote:This means players not interested in gameplay would form communities based on something other than a region.

The fact that these communities have no tie to NS other than a meeting point would just mean the site would die. People associate with regions, keeping them connected to their site, even if most of their activities occur off site. For example, Europeia. You could be a part of Europeia, excel there even, without even touching the NS site except to make sure your nation stays alive. However, Europeia is the region. So you stay connected to the site, you keep your nation alive, you engage in foreign affairs. If we were to make a community based off of something other than the region, there would be no tie to the site anymore.

Essentially, the introduction of UCRs resulted in a fusing of regions with communities.

As I said above, this is what keeps us tied to the website. Even if people are to create a million failing regions with the same goals, eventually those people will start to group up 2 or 3 people at a time, until there's a solid little group that noticed each other from similar tagged regions. Those people then form a region with 10 members at the start, and they pick up steam. The founding of infinite regions is not an obstacle.

And without these secure regions, founders can create their own governments. Europeia again as an example, would not fare well if HEM couldn't give the new Chief of State their regional powers. If the delegate was the source of power, one corrupt delegate, and the constitution these regions create is useless. And unlike GCRs, UCRs don't have the numbers to combat coups as easily.

Galiantus III wrote:

Armaros wrote:What?

The fact that any kid with money can build a region does make this game harder for UCRs. But good fucking god, it would be moronic to label UCRs as a problem in its entirety. They make this game interesting.

Think of my post as devil's advocate. I like UCRs a lot. I used to rag on GCRs all the time. I think there are some changes that would benefit the game tremendously, so I explore arguments like this.

This one just doesn’t make sense.

Without UCRs, you’d have no real gameplay, as the 9 or so GCRs would be the only grounds for politics, raiding and defending.

I think it is a reasonable assumption Admin would either create new regions or devise some automatic process for creating new regions as needed, if UCRs weren't a thing. And I think raiding and defending has drawn players away from the political sphere into this weird world where we try and exploit little details about update.

Admin won’t even implant some pretty good ideas to make this game less boring as it currently is, so I don’t know how you got to that.

Roleplay would probably exist, but they would be forced to share their space with gameplayers and NSGers rather then having the ability to make something themselves.

Is that a bad thing? And do you need a region to make a community? There are all sorts of communities throughout NS independent of regions. I don't see why the systems they are using couldn't be used by other communities.

They would presumably instead build their own communities on discord and forums, drawing away even more activity on site in favour of off site places.

A good thing about NS is that it leaves you the freedom to play as you wish, which includes founding your own region. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to say UCRs are the problem.

Indeed. Without UCRs we wouldn't have had Gatesville or some of the other major regions that made NS history so interesting.

Yes, but beyond that, it leaves creativity and freedom to do as they wish (within site rules) for players, which is one good point in favour of this game. Taking UCRs away would probably drop the game to new lows in activity.

Armaros wrote:What?

The fact that any kid with money can build a region does make this game harder for UCRs. But good fucking god, it would be moronic to label UCRs as a problem in its entirety. They make this game interesting. Without UCRs, you’d have no real gameplay, as the 9 or so GCRs would be the only grounds for politics, raiding and defending. Roleplay would probably exist, but they would be forced to share their space with gameplayers and NSGers rather then having the ability to make something themselves. A good thing about NS is that it leaves you the freedom to play as you wish, which includes founding your own region. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to say UCRs are the problem.

Pretty much this.

And as was said earlier, some people prefer to be involved in politics of a smaller region. I know I do.

Taking away UCRs would take away player freedom. That's not a recipe for an increased activity. When you are brand new to the game and unaware of its mechanics, you might feel cheated by being placed in a random region that you didn't choose. It's good that players are able to choose to move out from a GCR to an UCR, otherwise we would see much more people would quit the game at day 1 (by being disappointed in the lack of choice).

99,5% of UCRs is thrash. But that remaining 0,5% makes the game richer, not poorer.

UCRs most certainly did not ruin the game. UCRs played a pivotal role in all of NS history, from the rise of the Farkers and original raiding orgs to the rise of XKI, the ADN, and the RLA, among others. Dynamic play was established by the rivalry of these UCRs, over each other and the GCRs. From UCR activity the GCRs were battlegrounds for supremacy between UCR-UCR and UCR-GCR rivalries. UCRs were huge in the original place of the game. Some of the best players came from UCRs, some of those still prevalent in specific GCRs today.

The dynamics shifted in the more modern day to a point where GCRs hold the sway instead, but that most certainly doesn't mean UCRs ruined the game. If anything, it means that UCRs suffered a major blow by the shift in power and became less relevant. Random people have been making failing regions for which they recruit for over a decade, and it is only relevant today because of the rise of stamps and script recruitment wherein those failing, inefficient regions are given a stronger voice in recruitment through the lack of effort it takes to run an API recruitment script and the pay-to-play nature of stamps.

10000 Islands
Europeia

I refute it thus.

Answering issues, cards, and voting in the WA are all Gameplay not a separate entity. Gameplayers as we tend to call ourselves; see internal regional politics, inter-regional politics, and military actions only as Gameplay. That is not true. One can even argue that those first two are basically simulation/roleplay while the military bit is Gameplay as much as answering your issues. You're interacting with the game directly.

I personally just define one as Basic Gameplay and the others as Greater Gameplay (since you're expanding on more than just directly interacting with the game). The World Assembly of all straddles that line.

Anyways as far as UCRs. Maybe in the earlier days GCRs were more important as major hubs due to low nation population and lack of ucrs with years of experience, but UCRs did become the prominent thing to greater gameplay. It wasn't until at least late 2009 and that people started focusing back on the GCRs. Most of them were dead or basically had the oldies who had already been around close to the beginning of the game.

In this cycle of the game, maybe UCRs should bounce back to some prominence. I think that attracts more newcomers without centralizing them to the ideals of a handful of places.

The opposite is more true. GCR have more problems.
1. Low selection.
2. Not much happens.
3. Poor roleplay that gets lost in thousands of messages.
4. Less community involvement.
5. No focus.

There is one reason I might like this -- it would allow GCRs tailored to one aspect of the game. I would love a World Assembly focused GCR.

United Massachusetts wrote:There is one reason I might like this -- it would allow GCRs tailored to one aspect of the game. I would love a World Assembly focused GCR.

TNP has one of the most impressive WA focuses in all of NS, so...

Valentine Z wrote:Did WA hurt you, or...? And no, this ain't a rhetorical or a snark question. I mean, given the custom fields and all...

lol I am/was anti-WA. Nothing against it in particular. I just see a lack of anti-WA regions using gameplay against it, because that is something you can legit do. I tried starting my own regions to do it, it didn't work, and at this point I don't care enough to make it happen. But I will totally support any military that starts it up.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:

Armaros wrote:What?

The fact that any kid with money can build a region does make this game harder for UCRs. But good fucking god, it would be moronic to label UCRs as a problem in its entirety. They make this game interesting. Without UCRs, you’d have no real gameplay, as the 9 or so GCRs would be the only grounds for politics, raiding and defending. Roleplay would probably exist, but they would be forced to share their space with gameplayers and NSGers rather then having the ability to make something themselves. A good thing about NS is that it leaves you the freedom to play as you wish, which includes founding your own region. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to say UCRs are the problem.

Pretty much this.

And as was said earlier, some people prefer to be involved in politics of a smaller region. I know I do.

Taking away UCRs would take away player freedom. That's not a recipe for an increased activity. When you are brand new to the game and unaware of its mechanics, you might feel cheated by being placed in a random region that you didn't choose. It's good that players are able to choose to move out from a GCR to an UCR, otherwise we would see much more people would quit the game at day 1 (by being disappointed in the lack of choice).

99,5% of UCRs is thrash. But that remaining 0,5% makes the game richer, not poorer.

Agreed. Smaller regions are needed. Veriety is needed. My assumption is that if UCRs had not been added, Admin would have continued adding regions for players to go to as needed. So it doesn't mean smaller regions could never have existed.

Also, I am not advocating removing UCRs - that's ridiculous. I am simply observing what has happened since they existed, exploring what the world might look like without them, and pointing out there were indeed negative results. I think there are some technical changes that could address the real issues with activity and gameplay, without removing UCRs.

Xoriet wrote:UCRs most certainly did not ruin the game. UCRs played a pivotal role in all of NS history, from the rise of the Farkers and original raiding orgs to the rise of XKI, the ADN, and the RLA, among others. Dynamic play was established by the rivalry of these UCRs, over each other and the GCRs. From UCR activity the GCRs were battlegrounds for supremacy between UCR-UCR and UCR-GCR rivalries. UCRs were huge in the original place of the game. Some of the best players came from UCRs, some of those still prevalent in specific GCRs today.

The dynamics shifted in the more modern day to a point where GCRs hold the sway instead, but that most certainly doesn't mean UCRs ruined the game. If anything, it means that UCRs suffered a major blow by the shift in power and became less relevant. Random people have been making failing regions for which they recruit for over a decade, and it is only relevant today because of the rise of stamps and script recruitment wherein those failing, inefficient regions are given a stronger voice in recruitment through the lack of effort it takes to run an API recruitment script and the pay-to-play nature of stamps.

I agree with everything you said, but I think the issue of founders is worth addressing. I am totally in favor of having a way for communities to exist free of gameplay, I just think regions are not the way to do that. I would prefer a system where Communities and Regions are separate from each other, such that communities can exist indefinitely without fear of being raided, while regions exist as for competitive gameplay use. Stuff along the lines of what Atlantica said in #neutral_ground:

United Massachusetts wrote:There is one reason I might like this -- it would allow GCRs tailored to one aspect of the game. I would love a World Assembly focused GCR.

If communities existed independent of regions I think that sort of thing would happen naturally. Most communities would go off and do their own thing, but some communities would be interested in bending existing power structures to their will. A community with lots of control in a region could tailor it to their specific interests, especially if we assume way more than 9 GCRs.

United Massachusetts wrote:There is one reason I might like this -- it would allow GCRs tailored to one aspect of the game. I would love a World Assembly focused GCR.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but there is no GCR that is focused on roleplay either.

Fecaw wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:There is one reason I might like this -- it would allow GCRs tailored to one aspect of the game. I would love a World Assembly focused GCR.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but there is no GCR that is focused on roleplay either.

Dunno if it's changed, but The East Pacific has basically been that.

Also what’s different between a roleplay UCR and roleplay GCR? Without UCRs you wouldn’t know they existed. They’d all just be “regions”

I must preface this statement by saying that I am not going to read anything in this thread as I took one look at the OP and quickly stopped. But I will say that the title brought some joy to my blackened heart.

At this point I could go on about how I think founder mechanics should work and how GCRs should be able to do things. But it draw ire from people and I don't feel like defending my thoughts on the subject.

GCR regions just simply can not roleplay in most cases. Like.. at all. If there are maps, nations would have to be TINY due to the huge amount of requests to get on, RP is simply impossible due to being lost in thousands of RMB messages or forgotten, and are overcrowded in most cases, leading to few people being able to rise up the ranks.

No.

/thread

Lord Dominator wrote:No.

/thread

Alternate answer: 'Only if you're an original hardline "Francoist."'

Imbalistan wrote:GCR regions just simply can not roleplay in most cases. Like.. at all. If there are maps, nations would have to be TINY due to the huge amount of requests to get on, RP is simply impossible due to being lost in thousands of RMB messages or forgotten, and are overcrowded in most cases, leading to few people being able to rise up the ranks.

Wrong.

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.

Skundi wrote: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).