NationStates at 21

[Unibot III]

NATIONSTATES AT 21

This survey, the second in the "State of NS Gameplay" series, sought to once again capture a snapshot of the NS Gameplay community and probe its opinion on current issues. You can view our previous release from 2021, here.

Given the number of survey questions involved (and frankly, my declining amount of personal time), I have elected to pull a "Deathly Hallows" and split the release of the survey results arbitrarily into two parts.

Methodology

Collection ran for this survey from July 25 till Aug 06, 2023. In total, 111 respondents responded over the course of the survey's collection period. 6.3% of respondents identified themselves as having little or no involvement with NS Gameplay and subsequently were screened and held out of scope for Qs 8-28 as those questions required more than general NS knowledge.

Similar to our previous survey, 28.83% of respondents reported their involvement in NS was primarily in one (or more) of the feeder or sinker regions, while 8.11% of residents reported their involvement was primarily in a frontier region. The remaining 57.66% reported their involvement was in a conventional User-Created Region primarily, while 5.41% of respondents were "not sure."

Thanks again to all that participating in this survey. Your participation made this analysis possible!

---

PART I -

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE

When our previous survey was conducted in 2021, nearly 40% of you reported that the North Pacific was the most influential region in NationStates, a near-majority thought GCRs were too powerful in contrast to UCRs, and a staggering +70% conceded that raiding was "at a low point" and that NationStates Gameplay was "experiencing an extended period of interregional peace."

As Bob Dylan once noted, "The Times They Are a-Changin..."

Today, public opinion suggests that NationStates Gameplay has experienced a seismic shift in terms of its geopolitics with a raiding movement ascendant and Game-Created Regions, including the North Pacific, declining in stature and global influence. On balance, gameplayers shared a positive and optimistic outlook for NationStates and anticipate more interregional conflict on the horizon. Let’s dive in, shall we?

_______________________

Brotherhood of Malice, The League seen as most influential

When asked which region or group was the most influential in NationStates currently, respondents most frequently cited the Brotherhood of Malice (17.5%) and The League/Concord (10.2%).



In contrast to 2021, the North Pacific and other feeders were rarely referenced. It is also worth highlighting that the top choices this year for "most influential" are all centrally concerned with military gameplay ("R/D").

There were several responses that referenced "defenders" in general as a bloc, often as 'Libcord', or "raiders" as a 'raider unity' bloc - I have taken the liberty of grouping those together as distinct responses. On rare occasions, respondents would also cite two or three regions as write-ins, in these occurrences, like in 2021, their votes were split as partial votes for each respective region.

Raiders have the upper hand militarily, say majority of respondents

More than half (51.49%) polled, including more than half of defender respondents, believe raiders are stronger militarily than defenders at the present moment, although just over a quarter of respondents believed that they are evenly matched. Only 8.91% of respondents overall said defenders were stronger than raiders militarily. It is worth noting that raiders were most likely to select that they were "evenly matched" (43.75%) and residents of frontier regions were most likely to regard raiders (66.67%) as having the advantage on the battlefield.



Defending less popular; raiders most self-reported alignment

The most common political/military alignment among respondents was "raider" (29.3%) followed by "defender" (21.2%). Also cited was, "independentist" (14.3%), "neutral" (8%), and "anti-fascist" (7.4%).



Comparing these results against historical data from 2021 and 2005 suggests the raiding movement has undergone a historical resurgence.



NSGP experiencing a "calm before the storm" — interregional conflict is on the rise, most believe

56.8% of respondents polled said they believe that interregional conflict is on the rise in contrast to recent years versus 28.8% who disagreed.



When asked to describe the current geopolitical climate with a word or phrase from a smörgåsbord of terms, however, the most popular choices were "the calm before the storm" (24.04%) and "a lull" (10.58%) which suggests something of an interlude.

Other popular choices included "The Wild West" (9.62%), "A breaking point" (8.65%), "a reset" (8.65%) and "a gold rush" (7.69%). Less popular descriptors were "a crisis" (4.81%), "a decline" (4.81%), "a renaissance" (3.85%), "a revolution" (3.85%) and "a war" (2.88%).

Gameplay seen as more dynamic, more alive; respondents report satisfaction with its pace overall

In contrast to previous years, respondents were far more likely to agree that gameplay was dynamic now (61.54% versus 32.5% in 2021) and far less likely to describe gameplay as boring (17.31% versus 34.9%) or dead (4.81% versus 30.2%).



A near majority (46.2%) also say they find the game moves at "just the right pace" for them.



A little older, but showing few signs of slowing down

The average gameplayer has been playing NationStates for 8.53 years (2014), up from 5.35 years in 2021. The spike in population for 2020 is still visible but the "Class of 2016" (which was another banner year in our 2021 survey) has since faded.



It is worth noting that self-reported level of activity has not waned: gameplayers cited very similar levels of activity this year as they did in 2021. Self-reported activity also followed the same striking logarithmic pattern.



NationStates still not on a decline, say majority

When asked is "NationStates in the midst of a decline," a near majority (48.6%) said that it not, versus 26.1% that said it is.

As with the previous survey, players that joined NationStates between 2008-2012 ("The Great Revival") bucked popular opinion and were inclined to agree that NationStates in the midst of decline (52.94% said it is). Residents of frontier regions, however, were most likely to be optimistic about NationStates, with two-thirds disagreeing that NationStates is in the midst of a decline.



Overall these results are a noticeable improvement from 2021 and an almost exact inverse of Kandarin's landmark 2009 survey (in that poll, 48.17% had believed NS was "seeing the effects of a Great Decline.")

[Unibot III]

---

PART II -

THE NEW FRONTIER

Since the previous survey, two years ago, NationStates has introduced "frontier" regions, "governors," "successors," and "injunctions" in April. When we polled respondents in 2021 regarding frontiers, a plurality (37.5%) were optimistic that the shake-up, significant as it is, would be a "positive and beneficial change" to the game overall. I think it is fair to say those respondents from the prior survey will see much to be vindicated about in the results of this year's poll...

However, before we delve into the data, a note regarding nomenclature: throughout this text and in the graphics too, this survey refers to regions that are neither feeders/sinkers, nor frontier regions as user-created regions (UCRs) due to the lack of an equivalent, official term. This is a less than ideal term, since frontiers are also user-created regions – but you've been warned!

_______________________

Wide majority (63.5%) say that frontiers has been positive & beneficial change

NationStates Gameplay may have been skeptical about frontiers in 2021, but they aren't today! A significant majority of respondents believe that the introduction of frontiers has been a positive and beneficial change to the game overall.



When asked more specifically what they found positive and beneficial about the change, respondents highlighted the security advantages for UCRs, greater equality between GCRs and UCRs, and a more dynamic and exciting game environment.



Feeders seen as providing newcomers with a better initial experience, but opinions vary

A near majority of respondents (45.2%) when asked said they believed that feeder regions provided newcomers with a better "first experience" with NationStates than frontier regions.



However, it is worth noting that these results differ greatly between residents of GCR and UCR regions. Residents of feeder and sinker regions overwhelmingly held the view (74.19%) that GCRs offered a better first experience, whereas UCR residents were inclined to say it made 'no difference' whether you spawned in a GCR or Frontier, the experience was comparable.



Fewer view GCRs as "too powerful" but the frontiers disagree

In our previous survey, GCRs were seen as "too powerful in contrast to UCRs" by a near majority of respondents (49.2%). Popular opinion has since cooled on this question with a similar plurality (47.1%) now disagreeing with the statement.



Like with this survey's predecessor, we saw strong differences in opinion on this question between those who reported living primarily in a GCR versus a UCR. Residents of GCRs were again overwhelmingly likely to disagree (67.74%) with the statement, but it was residents of frontier regions more specifically who were most likely to believe that GCRs hold too much power in contrast to UCRs.



GCRers older, less active, more likely defender or independent than average

As an aside, our poll found that gameplayers who reported living primarily in GCRs have played the game somewhat longer than the average player and are likely to identify as a defender or independent. Meanwhile, gameplayers who live primarily in a UCR have joined NationStates more recently on average and report higher levels of activity.

Those who primarily reside in frontier regions share similarities with both their UCR cousins and residents of GCRs: they appear older, more active, and most likely to identify with a non-conventional alignment, such as "non-aligned," "imperialist," or "neutral."

Some evidence that the recruitment crisis may be waning, opinions mixed

Although in our previous poll, respondents were mostly likely to agree that "recruitment [was] too difficult these days" (40.60% versus 23.10% disagree), NationStates Gameplay today is more divided on whether recruitment remains too difficult. Crisis averted, perhaps?



Growing dissatisfaction with the state of NS news media today; majority say today's media is poor or very poor overall

When asked whether or not they felt the "state of NS news Media [has] improved or worsened in the past few years," 58.6% said it had worsened, 11.5% said neither, and only 7.7% reported that it had improved. A failing grade for NationStates' press gallery!

Although respondents generally felt the "quality" of news content was good, they expressed their dissatisfaction with the regularity of content, the number of extant outlets, the diversity of opinions available, and editorial bias.



Don't count on your average gameplayer for 'Trivia Night'; most respondents failed knowledge-based questions

As a fun exercise, this edition of the NS Gameplay Survey asked respondents to answer two knowledge-based questions.

The first question asked "In what year was the World Assembly created?" The answer is 2008. The World Assembly replaced the NS United Nations in April 2008 (April Fools!) after NationStates was filed a 'Cease-and-Desist' order by the actual United Nations. 37.5% of you selected the correct answer and 45.2% took your shot and guessed a random year. God bless.



The second trivia question, "Which one of the following regions was *never* a member-region of the FRA?" proved more difficult.

For the younglings in the front: the Founderless Regions Alliance (FRA) was at one time a major defender alliance - think Aegis but with more Brits and less Europeia. 31.4% of you selected the correct answer which is that The South Pacific was never a member-region of the FRA, 19.6% were honest and selected "Not sure," 15.7% admitted they had never heard of the FRA, and the rest of you guessed incorrectly, Gay (12.7%), Global Right Alliance (11.8%), The Rejected Realms (4.9%), or Lazarus (3.9%).

Only 14.7% of respondents selected correctly for both the first and second trivia question.

Knowledge of NS History on the decline overall; once popular historical events & leaders, like Pope Hope and Francos Spain, receding into obscurity

In addition to the trivia questions, respondents were also asked whether or not they were familiar with a number of players, groups, or events from the annals of NS Gameplay history. The results strongly suggest, as one might have imagined, that general awareness and name recognition dips among respondents who were not contemporaries of these historical subjects.

For the ease of analysis, I have filtered the data into an index with 5 representing a strong familiarity with a subject, and lower than a '3' suggesting no certain name recognition at all with the subject (even without context).



For instance, the results suggest the average gameplayer who started NationStates in 2011 would be familiar with the UDL and the UIAF (major defender and imperialists from that time) but the average player from 2018 would not be able to tell you which one wore tights or whose essays were longer. Most players surveyed were broadly familiar with the Predator Scandal, but awareness is on the decline.

Over time, the trend for subject awareness follows a generally sigmoidal pattern as the subjects gradually recede from public memory...



Looking to the future, most Gameplayers want to 'make their mark' on the game, fewer aspire for leadership role

When asked what personal ambitions they have for NationStates, most respondents said they wanted to make their mark and strike new friendships with other players. Less than a third were interested in an executive position. WA commendations were more widely desired than WA condemnations.

Some write-in options included "All of 'em," "I would like to be a mod," (look out Sedge!), "write some issues," "rise to admin," "achieve NS infamy," (piece of cake), "make history within raiderdom," "Win NDay," "Become Number #1 in a world stat," and "Change the nature of Gameplay." A few lucky respondents also reported having already achieved their personal goals in NationStates.



Optimism abound for the future of NationStates; most (62.5%) believe it will survive another decade

I may have joined NationStates when I was fifteen, but you crazy bastards think it'll be around when I'm in my forties!

62.5% of respondents see NationStates surviving for another decade. When those same respondents were asked whether they saw NationStates surviving another decade further, 41.5% of respondents answered yes and 58.5% hesitated and took a moment to contemplate the wi-fi on Mars.



Thank you to all those that contributed to this year's NS Gameplay survey. By helping answer this year's survey, you've added to a snapshot in time of today's issues and popular opinion that can be analyzed, over-analyzed, and cherry-picked for literally a decade, or decades if a quarter of you are to be believed.

[Jar Wattinree]

I'd like to claim that my chosen phrase, which for some reason didn't make any sort of cut, is the perfect descriptor for NSGP... whether or not you get the Metal Gear reference.

[Unibot III]

I'd like to claim that my chosen phrase, which for some reason didn't make any sort of cut, is the perfect descriptor for NSGP... whether or not you get the Metal Gear reference.

There were surprisingly few write-in responses for that question! One was “slowly sinking into quicksand” and the other was “the war economy.”

[Jar Wattinree]

I'd like to claim that my chosen phrase, which for some reason didn't make any sort of cut, is the perfect descriptor for NSGP... whether or not you get the Metal Gear reference.

There were surprisingly few write-in responses for that question! One was “slowly sinking into quicksand” and the other was “the war economy.”

That explains it. No creativity whatsoever!

[Mlakhavia]

Decided to squash the graph on 'which faction is most influential' down into alignment, because comprehending data like this can be interesting. I put TCB as 'raider-aligned' and TNP as 'defender-aligned', which were the only regions on the original chart that easily fit into either category. The former is obvious -- while independent, the Communist Bloc is still thoroughly in with TBH/Sparkalia/BoM, and participates readily in a lot of raider unity operations (most recently TPUR; PRAF however abstained from Yessssss on the grounds that it wasn't right-wing nor did it have right-wing allies). The latter was a bit more difficult to square into 'defender-aligned', given recent diplomatic events, but the fact remains that you're almost always going to see the NPA participating on a liberation; it's not like they're going to pile where BoM is present, lol. Other political objectives may differ slightly, but roundly I'm comfortable with designating them as 'defender-aligned'.

This graph has a small issue in that I added 'feeders in general' to 'other', which is obviously a bit silly considering TSP is out-and-out defender nowadays. But considering the percentage designating this category is ultimately negligible when it comes to broad data visualisation, I decided to neglect that because basically every other feeder has more nuanced military policy.

-
As an aside, a point of pride for me to finally see TCB appearing on this one. Obviously whoever wrote us in was ill-informed, because we aren't the most influential region in gameplay whichever way you slice it, but it's still nice to see. :p

[Reventus Koth]

I'm surprised at how much I broadly agree with the results so far, and how much they overall reflect my exact answers. Long gone are the days of me being out of touch on my armchair, I suppose

I'm glad to see that the region I co-lead is seen as so massively influential. I'll do my best to maintain our spot on the chart next year as well.

[The Orwell Society]

Nice to see the results are in.

[Wymondham]

Definitely agree with the results so far. The bit about the 'clasd of 2016' declining as a percentage of the population, is definitely reflective of what I've seen although I'd add that a lot of the class of 2016 people are still around in some shape or form, they're unlikely to have been active enough to see this poll.

[Frattastan II]

I'm surprised at how much I broadly agree with the results so far, and how much they overall reflect my exact answers.

You have become average. A sad day.

[Unibot III]

I'm surprised at how much I broadly agree with the results so far, and how much they overall reflect my exact answers. Long gone are the days of me being out of touch on my armchair, I suppose

As someone who is solidly in the armchair, maybe even fossilized, I’ve found the results a bit surprising because the results have changed so much in two years. In 2021, almost half of the folks who wrote in said TNP was most influential, this time, they barely made it on to the board.

I am also still surprised by the pervasiveness and the breadth of criticism of GCR influence. It’s just not something that I have ever really concerned myself with. It was a surprise for me in 2021 and I’m still surprised that it’s so common a view as it is.

Definitely agree with the results so far. The bit about the 'clasd of 2016' declining as a percentage of the population, is definitely reflective of what I've seen although I'd add that a lot of the class of 2016 people are still around in some shape or form, they're unlikely to have been active enough to see this poll.

I wonder why they’re leaving?

-snip-

I like your graph! I was thinking of doing something similar but didn’t feel confident enough about the attributions to alignments (I’m old and out of touch.) I tried grouping various actors in the pie graph with a shared colour palette instead.

I had also written a blurb up about how the geopolitical climate appears “blobular” with two perceived spheres of influence that are seen as mostly homogeneous. I then promptly deleted this sentence. Blobular. Blobularity. Blobulartized.

[Wymondham]

Definitely agree with the results so far. The bit about the 'clasd of 2016' declining as a percentage of the population, is definitely reflective of what I've seen although I'd add that a lot of the class of 2016 people are still around in some shape or form, they're unlikely to have been active enough to see this poll.

I wonder why they’re leaving?

Speaking from my experience, and from what I've seen with friends who joined around the same time, a lot of us who joined NS in and around 2016 and then went into GP were mostly around the same age. Which means that a lot of us were between 17 and 20 the last time this survey was carried out. Now a lot of us are between 19 and 22, meaning that we've now gone to university, started full time work and generally touched grass. All of which tend to be negatively correlated with activity on nation-states. After discussing this with a few other people they've noted that you tend to get a number of NSers who leave between ages 18-22 and return after turning 23 or thereabouts, simply because people's schedules and social lives tend to have settled by that age meaning they have time to return.

[Unibot III]

I wonder why they’re leaving?

Speaking from my experience, and from what I've seen with friends who joined around the same time, a lot of us who joined NS in and around 2016 and then went into GP were mostly around the same age. Which means that a lot of us were between 17 and 20 the last time this survey was carried out. Now a lot of us are between 19 and 22, meaning that we've now gone to university, started full time work and generally touched grass. All of which tend to be negatively correlated with activity on nation-states. After discussing this with a few other people they've noted that you tend to get a number of NSers who leave between ages 18-22 and return after turning 23 or thereabouts, simply because people's schedules and social lives tend to have settled by that age meaning they have time to return.

This makes sense — that would be a life cycle effect; personally I was more active in university than high school (no curfew ). I scribbled my NS notes on stolen company envelopes throughout the day (there’s literally one that says “United Defenders —Something?—”.) I think it’s a research question I would like to tackle in the future edition — like, what brought you to NS, and if you’ve left at some point, why did you leave? That sort of contextual information is otherwise hard to obtain.

[Mlakhavia]

-snip-

I like your graph! I was thinking of doing something similar but didn’t feel confident enough about the attributions to alignments (I’m old and out of touch.) I tried grouping various actors in the pie graph with a shared colour palette instead.

I had also written a blurb up about how the geopolitical climate appears “blobular” with two perceived spheres of influence that are seen as mostly homogeneous. I then promptly deleted this sentence. Blobular. Blobularity. Blobulartized.

Yeah no, this could definitely benefit from people more involved in Gameplay than yourself, but, as always, you remain NationStates' premier anthropologist, a position that's threateningly difficult to replace.

What I'd note is that the fact that the chart suggests more people consider defenders, as a whole, more influential than raiders, yet raiders are winning far more often, speaks to the region-building brilliance of a lot of defender leaders as opposed to the sheer military power commanded by raiders. Certainly, there's a lot of powerful infrastructure in TL/C, TSP, XKI, et cetera, and even defender-aligned TNP (though I imagine they're feeling the loss of r3n's scripts), whereas BoM/TBH/LWU etc are far more focused on the military circumstances. I'd draw a line between community-building and region-building though. TCB as ever remains a foreign affairs anomaly, being raider-aligned but still fiercely competent at gameside engagement and regional development, partly by necessity due to its imposed founderlessness.

Regardless, in the era of frontiers where military power can now be exercised as a mechanical demonstration of force, I think that might be changing. Imagine setting up a new defender frontier knowing that you could wake up to a 100-nation raider pile recruiting from it! I'd imagine that's why XKI's planned frontier still remains, ironically, a stronghold. Regardless, defenders still have some bite to their bark - as displayed by South Pacific - so we'll see who wins in that department. It's exciting stuff.

[The North Polish Union]

I am also still surprised by the pervasiveness and the breadth of criticism of GCR influence. It’s just not something that I have ever really concerned myself with. It was a surprise for me in 2021 and I’m still surprised that it’s so common a view as it is.

Really? The creation of the admin-created regions is one of the monumental historical errors of NationStates that ought to be (and is only now starting to be) rectified.

A privileged clique of mere endotarters who think that their endotarting skill gives them the authority to demand new regional controls for their region only, strongarm actual communities (UCRs) over which players are or are not getting WA resolutions about them, base their 20-year-old regimes on extreme authoritarian political theories, and now some of them are starting to operate TG recruitment programs to prop up the dessicated corpse of their hollow and artificial 'communities'.

And you are surprised at the pervasiveness and the breadth of criticism? I think its not nearly enough.

[Mlakhavia]

base their 20-year-old regimes on extreme authoritarian political theories

i dislike francoism and entitled feederism in general, but the fact that PFT is based on marxism is the coolest thing about it. hail pacifica.

[Unibot III]

I am also still surprised by the pervasiveness and the breadth of criticism of GCR influence. It’s just not something that I have ever really concerned myself with. It was a surprise for me in 2021 and I’m still surprised that it’s so common a view as it is.

Really? The creation of the admin-created regions is one of the monumental historical errors of NationStates that ought to be (and is only now starting to be) rectified.

A privileged clique of mere endotarters who think that their endotarting skill gives them the authority to demand new regional controls for their region only, strongarm actual communities (UCRs) over which players are or are not getting WA resolutions about them, base their 20-year-old regimes on extreme authoritarian political theories, and now some of them are starting to operate TG recruitment programs to prop up the dessicated corpse of their hollow and artificial 'communities'.

And you are surprised at the pervasiveness and the breadth of criticism? I think its not nearly enough.

Hot take! But my feeling is that many UCRs put very little effort into having an interregional presence and the ones that do, like Europeia, have always had influence in NSGP.

If you’re an isolationist UCR or a region that’s mostly concerned with itself and domestic issues, you shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t have a lot of influence abroad.

Back in 2008, when I joined the game, nobody cared about GCRs - they were all almost uniformly dead — in part, because these regions were isolationist and neutral. The largest region in NS, Lazarus, was basically a political graveyard. These regions stuck to themselves. They were quiet, unbothered governments that didn’t matter much to anyone. GCRs gained influence by involving themselves more in the interregional affairs around them and when they become more isolationist/neutral, these regions decline sharply in their geopolitical significance.

Yeah no, this could definitely benefit from people more involved in Gameplay than yourself, but, as always, you remain NationStates' premier anthropologist, a position that's threateningly difficult to replace.

(Hah! I did an actual anthropology essay on NS one time in university. ) I deliberately don’t dwell much on analysis in these reports for that reason.

An active player can give an informed opinion on, for instance, why they think TNP fell off the map. I see my place as more asking questions and beginning a discussion.

What I'd note is that the fact that the chart suggests more people consider defenders, as a whole, more influential than raiders, yet raiders are winning far more often, speaks to the region-building brilliance of a lot of defender leaders as opposed to the sheer military power commanded by raiders. Certainly, there's a lot of powerful infrastructure in TL/C, TSP, XKI, et cetera, and even defender-aligned TNP (though I imagine they're feeling the loss of r3n's scripts), whereas BoM/TBH/LWU etc are far more focused on the military circumstances. I'd draw a line between community-building and region-building though. TCB as ever remains a foreign affairs anomaly, being raider-aligned but still fiercely competent at gameside engagement and regional development, partly by necessity due to its imposed founderlessness.

Yes I agree. My sense is that defenders have the soft power, invaders have the hard power. But I would go further and map out the communication network at play. Like which Discord servers are big for which groups? I suspect that the geopolitical map is echoing the social network, rather than simply something ideological.

Regardless, in the era of frontiers where military power can now be exercised as a mechanical demonstration of force, I think that might be changing. Imagine setting up a new defender frontier knowing that you could wake up to a 100-nation raider pile recruiting from it! I'd imagine that's why XKI's planned frontier still remains, ironically, a stronghold. Regardless, defenders still have some bite to their bark - as displayed by South Pacific - so we'll see who wins in that department. It's exciting stuff.

It’s worth noting that frontierites were most likely in the survey to identify invaders as having the military advantage.

[Zeorus]

data's nice and all, but when are you going to cover more Wilco songs?

[clarifying edit: this post is not intended to mock Unibot's creative oeuvre in any way and is a jest.]

[Unibot III]

data's nice and all, but when are you going to cover more Wilco songs?

[clarifying edit: this post is not intended to mock Unibot's creative oeuvre in any way and is a jest.]

Oh good god!!! Please stop.

I was playing “California Stars” yesterday if that counts.

[One Small Island]

Nearly three times as many people identified as Warzoners this time around! The movement is growing!

[Unibot III]

Nearly three times as many people identified as Warzoners this time around! The movement is growing!

Congratulations. I wonder if the new Warzone has helped to draw attention and renewed interest to the Warzones in general.

[Aynia Moreaux]

Very interesting as always! Hard to believe the last one was two years ago o.o

I feel like the results reflect my answers a lot, and it's cool to see the flip flopping visually mapped out.

[One Small Island]

Nearly three times as many people identified as Warzoners this time around! The movement is growing!

Congratulations. I wonder if the new Warzone has helped to draw attention and renewed interest to the Warzones in general.

The new Warzone certainly drew attention, but did not do much to renew interest in the Warzones, but I'm almost certain that the fact that a group of active GPers took over WZTD accounts for the increase in warzoner participation in the survey.

[Timiskrane]

Congratulations. I wonder if the new Warzone has helped to draw attention and renewed interest to the Warzones in general.

The new Warzone certainly drew attention, but did not do much to renew interest in the Warzones, but I'm almost certain that the fact that a group of active GPers took over WZTD accounts for the increase in warzoner participation in the survey.

Worth also noting the sample size. Reverse engineering from the number of respondents, NationStates at 19 had either 2 or 3 people respond Warzoner, while this one had either 4 or 5. So the massive jump of people IDing as Warzoner is actually... 2 new people (who I'm pretty sure I know who they are). Percentages can get wonky, especially when the sample size is this small. I would be willing to bet that this survey overrepresents Warzoners just because of them generally being more active in GP and willing to answer a survey like this, and those numbers don't actually extrapolate out to the broader NS population.

[One Small Island]

The new Warzone certainly drew attention, but did not do much to renew interest in the Warzones, but I'm almost certain that the fact that a group of active GPers took over WZTD accounts for the increase in warzoner participation in the survey.

Worth also noting the sample size. Reverse engineering from the number of respondents, NationStates at 19 had either 2 or 3 people respond Warzoner, while this one had either 4 or 5. So the massive jump of people IDing as Warzoner is actually... 2 new people (who I'm pretty sure I know who they are). Percentages can get wonky, especially when the sample size is this small. I would be willing to bet that this survey overrepresents Warzoners just because of them generally being more active in GP and willing to answer a survey like this, and those numbers don't actually extrapolate out to the broader NS population.

I am well and truly shocked that there are not 770* active warzoners, this has destroyed my entire view of the game.

_{*19216 x .04 = 768.64. Or Number of WA nations at the time of this response x percent of people in survey who responded that they identified as Warzoners = answer, rounded up to account for those players who do not join the WA.}