Mini-GCRs

[Unibot III]

This idea is coming off an idea from Gameplay.

The proposal is to create 4 new mini-GCRs. Eventually someone would come up with a name for them, but for the purposes of demonstration, I'll call them venters. They would probably average about 1,000-1,200 nations in size - roughly the size of the largest UCRs - but would be a bit less than half the size of TRR.

I'm tentatively titling venters after the four coloured seas: The Black Sea, The Red Sea, The Yellow Sea, The White Sea.

Venters collectively would receive:

10% of all nations created daily. (1000/10 = approx. 100.)
10% of all regions reactivated daily. (500/10= approx. 50.)
10% of all nations rejected daily. (100/10 = approx. 10.)

But here's the tricky part: GCRs would decide each venters' share of the "imports." The venters would not all receive an equal share like other GCRs do. In their regional controls, each feeder would be able to set how much they want each venter to receive in terms of the runoff (and their breakdown would have to add up to 100%) and the distribution eventually used by the game code would be an aggregation¹ of these settings. It would work the same for sinkers and reactivated accounts, or TRR and rejected nations.

The direct result of this proposal would be a hyper-political scenario. The venters would be small enough (probably about 50-200 endos on the delegate) to be couped and would have to strike bargains and treaties and concrete political relationships with GCRs. You can imagine feeders and sinkers that are close to some venters in ideology, increasing their share of the immigration and feeders and sinkers that are antagonistic to other venters, punishing their immigration with a low or zero share.

GCRs would have publicly available piecharts showing them the source of their daily imports and exports of nations back and forth between venters.

---

1. I imagine Elu and Ballo just winced in pain in reading that. The aggregation would be a step-by-step algorithm as a tie-in to the nation creation process.

Step 1: The code decides which feeder a new nation is to be assigned. As is already done. (Assigned probability is 20%)
Step 2: Before the new nation is sent to that feeder, there''s a 10% chance that the algorithm proceeds to Step 3, otherwise the nation goes to their assigned feeder like normal.
Step 3: The code assigns said nation to a venter, the probability of each venter being assigned is based on the distribution set by the feeder they were originally assigned to by Step 1.
Step 4: The new nation is created in the venter assigned to them in Step 3.

[Flanderlion]

Just going to quote my response from there.

I'm liking Unibot's idea a little more than I like the idea of giving UCRs nations for free while keeping their founders (oligarchy option).

20% or 30% go to the mini-Feeders, 20% - 30% split between democracy option (founderless) and all GCRs if they qualify would also be included in the pool, so Sinkers/Warzones/whatever doesn't miss out. Oligarchy would just be the status quo normal option, and the founder succession would be permanently passworded (can be visible, but just causing new nations to have to type in 'open' into the box) and have some other massive recruitment penalties. Feeders would shrink about 40% from losing half their new nations.

I'm guessing we're going to get something to shrink the Feeders (thanks to TNP's ridiculous level), and this seems like it'd be more interesting politics wise etc. I mean, ideally, I'd have status quo, but I don't think that's going to happen long term unless the game suddenly stops growing (this is the general trend rather than focusing on the ups and downs for month/season/holidays).

Edit: This isn't in tech...

I don't think they should get ejected nations, TRR struggles with activity as it is. They'd probably be fine with just new nations rather than getting refounded nations, but that's alright either way.

Also, I think it should be 5, not 4 seas/venters/whatever. So each starts of with a 2% share rather than decimal, but that's not really important to the main idea.

[Indo-Malaysia]

Sounds like a great idea.

[Unibot III]

Just going to quote my response from there.

I'm liking Unibot's idea a little more than I like the idea of giving UCRs nations for free while keeping their founders (oligarchy option).

20% or 30% go to the mini-Feeders, 20% - 30% split between democracy option (founderless) and all GCRs if they qualify would also be included in the pool, so Sinkers/Warzones/whatever doesn't miss out. Oligarchy would just be the status quo normal option, and the founder succession would be permanently passworded (can be visible, but just causing new nations to have to type in 'open' into the box) and have some other massive recruitment penalties. Feeders would shrink about 40% from losing half their new nations.

I'm guessing we're going to get something to shrink the Feeders (thanks to TNP's ridiculous level), and this seems like it'd be more interesting politics wise etc. I mean, ideally, I'd have status quo, but I don't think that's going to happen long term unless the game suddenly stops growing (this is the general trend rather than focusing on the ups and downs for month/season/holidays).

Edit: This isn't in tech...

I don't think they should get ejected nations, TRR struggles with activity as it is. They'd probably be fine with just new nations rather than getting refounded nations, but that's alright either way.

Also, I think it should be 5, not 4 seas/venters/whatever. So each starts of with a 2% share rather than decimal, but that's not really important to the main idea.

A fifth venter would be acceptable. I'm rooting for THE CORAL SEA. Partly because it's a clever play on words and partly because a pink-themed GCR sounds awesome, haha.

As for TRR, I'm an ex-delegate of TRR, so perhaps I might get in trouble for advocating a 10% loss of immigration, but - I think it'd be in TRR's interests to be 'in the game.' A 10% reduction would be only scarcely noticeable to TRR and in return, TRR would hold a monopoly on a small rejection market. It would be fun for TRR, giving us something new to discuss internally (which venters to support, which ones to not support) and it would give us more influence over the venters that we wouldn't have otherwise. For TRR, it's the difference between receiving 700 nations and 630 nations a week - in return for this small reduction, TRR gets an opportunity to invest in venters - hobnobbing and trading for influence. It would be a major source of interest internally in TRR as the government formulated its response and incorporated venters into its foreign policy.

[The Stalker]

Pretty sweet idea, be cool to see this happen.

[Canton Empire]

I concur with The Stalker.

[The Great Devourer of All]

I wholeheartedly support this.

[Amy Madison]

I have to imagine this wouldn't be easy to code, but I do like the idea.

[Unibot III]

I have to imagine this wouldn't be easy to code, but I do like the idea.

Eh, I'm trying to think up the elements of what you would need.

- Basic HTML forms and select buttons for the regional controls.
- A warning that would trigger when your distribution didn't add up to 100%.
- 4-5 GCRs (no founder, no passwords perhaps.)
- Changes to the FAQ.
- Changes to the nation creation code, the reactivation and rejection code with new unfixed probabilities of being sent to the venters.
- Automated pie charts.

I'm not sure, but I would hesitate to guess this wouldn't be a major change in terms of code, it'd be a major change in terms of gameplay. But then again, even the smallest changes are very challenging from what I hear due to the complexity (or rather, sensitivity) of the original source code.

(Admins would be able to answer more definitely.)

[Flanderlion]

I have to imagine this wouldn't be easy to code, but I do like the idea.

Eh, I'm trying to think up the elements of what you would need.

- Basic HTML forms and select buttons for the regional controls.
- A warning that would trigger when your distribution didn't add up to 100%.
- 4-5 GCRs (no founder, no passwords perhaps.)
- Changes to the FAQ.
- Changes to the nation creation code, the reactivation and rejection code with new unfixed probabilities of being sent to the venters.
- Automated pie charts.

I'm not sure, but I would hesitate to guess this wouldn't be a major change in terms of code, it'd be a major change in terms of gameplay. But then again, even the smallest changes are very challenging from what I hear due to the complexity (or rather, sensitivity) of the original source code.

(Admins would be able to answer more definitely.)

Not to mention, a new tag, whatever is settled on. I still wanted a GCR tag but that got rejected.

FAQ wise it's just a paragraph that'd need to be edited:

You begin in one of the Pacific regions (known as feeders) or one of the Sea regions (known as venters): these tend to be large, vibrant, and somewhat spammy. Stay there if you like, or move somewhere else! You can shift regions whenever and as often as you like.

Also, it'd probably require a witty news post.

I still think splitting the refounded/ejected nations wouldn't be good due to the activity of the Sinkers/Catcher. 10% of active nations makes a big difference, but refounded/ejected nations are generally less active. It'd give them more relevancy, but do they really need it? Also I'm guessing that'd it be more effort to slice part of those regions life blood from them.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

To be honest, all of the GCRs should have similar status and only have 50-100ish endos. But if we suggest that, we'll get dozens of people in here from them complaining.

[Unibot III]

I still think splitting the refounded/ejected nations wouldn't be good due to the activity of the Sinkers/Catcher. 10% of active nations makes a big difference, but refounded/ejected nations are generally less active. It'd give them more relevancy, but do they really need it? Also I'm guessing that'd it be more effort to slice part of those regions life blood from them.

Again, I can't speak for TRR. But I know if I were still delegate I would rather have control over where these 10 nations daily are going (and use this distribution as the backbone of venter foreign policy) than retain that 10. As you've pointed out, TRR's immigrant nations aren't really as "high quality" as other GCRs, so the loss of 10 nations daily, isn't a big deal because it's not a matter of quantity in TRR's case anyways - you have to exercise a lot of effort into reaching out to individual nations on the RMB and putting a personal touch on it.

Excluding TRR from the venter streams would basically leave TRR irrelevant to the venters and therefore, we wouldn't be a part of the fun.

[Pierconium]

I like this idea.

[Christian Democrats]

I think this is a terrible idea. If anything, the admins should just double the number of feeders by adding:

• The Atlantic
• The North Atlantic
• The South Atlantic
• The West Atlantic
• The East Atlantic

The user-created versions of these regions are small enough and inactive enough to expropriate.

To bring the new feeders up to parity, the admins would just need to suspend creations in the Pacifics for a few weeks.

[Flanderlion]

I think this is a terrible idea.

Always someone. There are people who hate Feeders, people who love Feeders, and everyone in between in favour over two threads. Why are you against game wise? Excluding the name of the person who suggested this.

Not sure I like your counter idea of stealing some persons region when there are other options. All five of your suggested regions exist with varying state of activity (or inactivity).

And personally, suspending new nations to bring any new region, Venter or Feeder, up to parity isn't really going to do much more than put the numbers similar. They won't be equal culture wise, history wise, RMB etc. wise and more importantly, influence wise. You try for parity for the future, you can't just make regions equal in a couple of weeks when we're talking about GCRs.

Regarding ejections, it's not something that I feel strongly on, so if TRR wants to give up a percentage of ejected nations in return for influence over other regions, I'm not going to stand in their way.

[Mallorea and Riva]

What are the downsides to this?

[Galiantus VII]

Only downside I see to this is the possibility of it being somewhat confusing to new and returning players, but that is nothing compared to all the fun we could have with this feature.

[Unibot III]

Only downside I see to this is the possibility of it being somewhat confusing to new and returning players, but that is nothing compared to all the fun we could have with this feature.

I believe it wouldn't be confusing to new nations because in reality it doesn't matter if the region you begin is technically a feeder, sinker or catcher - a GCR of a relatively healthy size with a good community is all that is necessary. There wouldn't be a difference for newcomers in that experience (you're so lost, you come into the game like a baby on cocaine.)

For returning players it could be a bit confusing, but it'd be worth the shock in my opinion.

[Unibot III]

What are the downsides to this?

I would say the major downside is that it's changing a status quo in the GCRs that's remained largely unaltered since 2003. In that sense, it flies in the face of about fourteen years of precedent or so. But I do think we're in need of a change-up. It was eight years after the last sinker until Osiris/Balder were created and the SC/GA was created - and those changes really propelled the game forward (and past the drought that the game had been in). It's coming on six years since Osiris and Balder and the SC/GA were created. (Wow.)

The advantages of the venters proposal is -

• The relatively influential size of the new GCRs would be unavoidable. They would be the largest regions after the existing GCRs. You wouldn't be able to forget about them like Warzones.
• The size of the new GCRs wouldn't take away from the existing GCRs in a noticeable way.
• With others GCRs controlling the taps, the venters would find themselves in a highly political situation. Like nothing we've ever had before.

I do have some open questions about how venters should operate:

Should they be passwordable?

(Passwords would block their ability to absorb created, rejected and reactivated nations.)

Can you be rejected to the same venter you're rejected from?

(Just a loophole that's theoretically possible.)

Can you work yourself around a ban by being rejected or reactivated in the venter you're banned from?

(This is currently possible with our existing sinkers.)

The conservative option (and less buggy option) would be to say no and no and yes. But I believe it'd be kind of cool. Venters could attack each other and place a password on themselves to raise their own intake of nations. And if a venter was being purged, TRR would probably raise that venter's share of rejections to 100% to lower the rogue delegate's effectiveness by 10%.

[Whovian Tardisia]

It irks me with TRR being able to offload rejected nations to venters. It makes sense somewhat, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I like the idea though, it would certainly make the delegacy of big GCRs more fun.

[Unibot III]

It irks me with TRR being able to offload rejected nations to venters. It makes sense somewhat, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I like the idea though, it would certainly make the delegacy of big GCRs more fun.

TRR would not be able to eject. Changing that would be changing TRR at a fundamental level.

[Escade]

My original thoughts about the need for new GCRs was that currently, especially since the advent of the regional officers, it has become possible for feeders to become stable but also in some ways stagnant. Delegate becomes a security position and an element of the game that was present when I joined (before the Milograd coup) has been effectively neutered. While in real life and, in terms of community building, the stability is actually wonderful - there needs to be another outlet that makes NS less boring than the real world as it were.

Once feeders began to hit over 100 endos that means things have gotten a little too comfortable. The creation of satellites or colonies or whole new regions could add another element to gameplay.

One option is to create three new regions named after female gods to match the sinkers Osiris (Egyptian), Lazarus (Parables), Balder (Norse) that function differently in some key characteristics. A Greek, Roman, and Celtic\Other might work here : Persephone (Greek), Luna (Roman), Joan of Arc (would be cool and match Lazarus in a sense). The names would give each region a rich culture to work from and build around.

The ways these regions could function differently:
1. They are both feeder\sinker and take on a certain number of new\revived nations
2. Delegate is a position which changes randomly:
- Meaning that, for example, the nation with the most endorsements stays delegate for 30 days before being ejected\de-endoed
- Once a nation has become Delegate for a term, it cannot ever be delegate again (obviously workarounds include changing WA nations)
- My favorite is that a random WA nation receives all of the endos of the region for a period of lets say 30 days
3. Influence does not function in the region, only endos do
4. Delegate is chosen by RMB Polls rather than endos
5. Another programming\technical side feature that ensures a certain amount of freshness, originality, chaos and encourages new players

[Galiantus VII]

For returning players it could be a bit confusing, but it'd be worth the shock in my opinion.

Lol. Might give returning players a reason to stay back for longer.

Can you be rejected to the same venter you're rejected from?

(Just a loophole that's theoretically possible.)

I think not, as this would essentially waste the influence being spent on trying to eject the nation in the first place. And this isn't really a hard thing for the game to check either, because it would call the path-finding method to determine where to send the nation before actually moving the nation - it's not like the nation is bouncing to TRR then being sent to a venter. The game has to find the target before it decides where to move the nation to.

Then again, you could always give venters control of which feeders and sinkers they accept nations from and bar anyone accepting nations from TRR from being able to ban in the first place.

--

But here's a question (or four): why do we need venters to be GCRs in the first place? Why not have feeders and sinkers give a minimum of 10% of their new nations to some combination of other regions? And why not allow regions receiving from them to distribute to other regions as well? Wouldn't it be neat if someone built up a nice little community in one of the warzones by cutting a deal with a feeder?

The thing is, the feeders have more inactive, dying nations than they really want, and everyone else has to do more recruiting than they really want. Giving feeders the opportunity to trade this sort of thing would benefit them WILDLY. You think real countries fight hard over oil? Wait 'till you see nations lining up to get their form of life-blood from the feeders. I guarantee you will see regions fight wars over this, inside and outside the feeders and sinkers, and among themselves. Seriously, the amount of politics and activity you could generate with this could be absolutely huge.

[Unibot III]

I think it's important for venters to be GCRs because it has a sense of legitimacy independent of a founder. When you're a foundered region, you're always kind of a domain to that founder and a feeder/sinker shouldn't be someone's private domain. It's a public domain.

[Christian Democrats]

I think this is a terrible idea.

Always someone. There are people who hate Feeders, people who love Feeders, and everyone in between in favour over two threads. Why are you against game wise?

• Too complicated for most players (and especially new players) to understand.
• Would decrease the sizes of the sinkers, which are already much smaller than the feeders.
• Making some regions dependent on others through game mechanics is a really bad idea.
  
  • Ideally, there should be Westphalian sovereignty among the game-created regions.