Warzone Mini-Seeders

[Vuori Kunin-Grrs]

A promising proposal which is now the title of this topic, originally made by Canton Empire and being elaborated on by yours truly, suggests that Warzones could be mini-Feeders mini-Seeders (essentially, a mixture of Feeder and Sinker - Seeder! ). This could help with increasing the dynamic contrast of the NationStates Gameplay as well as creating new communities without having to create new GCRs.

Killing several birds with one stone:

• Reducing the over-sized feeders (bad for technical reasons)
• Diluting GCR influence
• Giving a more lasting/reliable opt-out from being invaded for those that want it
• Reducing messy re-foundings, which wipe regional history
• Including a significant enough incentive to ensure a sizeable stock of "invadable" regions remains
• Creating a more "consensual" R/D game
• Giving the SC a new tool

Looking at this, adding mini-Seeder capability to Warzones (assuming a population of around 500-700 nations that is determined in the paragraph after the next paragraph) would solve the first two problems completely and somewhat solve the third, fifth, and sixth problems, as the incentive to invade Warzones would be most likely be great enough to draw at least some, and at most, a lot, of attention away from the innocent founderless region out there that practices Roleplay; Warzones would serve as a more important priority/stock of invadable regions, and as a more important priority and being Warzones, their residents would know the R/D risk being there (if not, moving as they learn more about NS), and Warzones being paid more attention to than the regions that don't want to be raided/invaded.

Warzones, being mini-Seeders, would create six havens of semi stability/instability which would have considerable influence and effectively continuously disturb the entirety of Gameplay and thus create a more focused R/D Gameplay onto those Warzones, which would be prime invadable regions that would reduce the instances that regions who don't participate in R/D get involved in it. This would permanently destabilize Sinkers by a small amount and Feeders even less. This would also increase Gameplay activity somewhat, but most likely, it would simply increase the possibility of a Sinker invasion and thus permanently destabilize Gameplay somewhat towards the Sinkers, assuming that Warzones each still only have 500-700 nations have a number of nations proportional to the current influx of founded and refounded nations listed below, which would again reduce instances that regions not wanting to get involved in R/D are victims of it.

The method in which Warzones would receive nations collectively (with each receiving an equal amount of the whole) would be as follows:

• 16.66% (1/6) of all newly founded nations;
• 16.66% (1/6) of all refounded nations.

Simply put, there would be a 1 in 6 chance that a nation that either founds or refounds enters the Warzones, and approximately a 3% chance (or a 1 in 36 chance) that a nation enters any one Warzone/every Warzone receives 1/6 of the 1/6 newly founded nations and 1/6 of the refounded nations.

Unlike the venter proposal, there will be no major micromanagement, or indeed any management at all, made by the leaders of Feeders nor Sinkers on how nations found/refound into the Warzones, and rejected nations will continue to enter The Rejected Realms simply because rejected nations are not nations starting up in any way and TRR is already the smallest of the major GCRs while receiving rejected nations. Additionally, the game would simply automatically spawn nations into the Warzones based on the specifications listed in the list.

Warzones. We have 6 of them, and all of them are Game Created Regions, with the following distinctions from a normal region:

• They lack the Founder position.
• All bans are temporary.
• The region cannot be password protected.

Originally created with an idea from Reploid Productions to save natives from raids and give raiders a place to eject nations without deletion before Regional Influence was implemented in 2006, Warzones have fell into disrepair and are not being used for their purpose at all, especially as Regional Influence has essentially eliminated the reason to use Warzones in the first place. As a result, a solution for Warzones should be formulated, as they are by far the most outdated feature on NS, and the inactivity and general cloud of nothingness around them have clearly been detrimental to the players who essentially waste their time trying to reactivate Warzones while they're dead. The question is, "What solutions do we have for the future of Warzones?"

[NationHelper]

Warzones. We have 6 of them, and all of them are Game Created Regions, with the following distinctions from a normal region:

• They lack the Founder position.
• All bans are temporary.
• The region cannot be password protected.

Originally created with an idea from Reploid Productions to save natives from raids and give raiders a place to eject nations without deletion before Regional Influence was implemented in 2006, Warzones have fell into disrepair and are not being used for their purpose at all, especially as Regional Influence has essentially eliminated the reason to use Warzones in the first place. As of now, they currently serve no purpose other than for certain players who wish to try the "novelty" of trying to grow a community in them. Other than that, they are essentially at the level of small User Created Regions and are downright useless in the R/D scene.

Warzones have been unsuccessful creations compared to the growth of the community elsewhere in NS, and have been dreadfully inactive, only having the barest sparks of activity before dying down again. Because of this, we should formulate a solution for Warzones, and possibly their future existence, as they are by far the most outdated feature on NS, and the inactivity and general cloud of nothingness around them have clearly been detrimental to the players who essentially waste their time trying to reactivate Warzones while they're dead. The question is, "What solutions do we have for the future of Warzones?"

Let 'em be. 'At's what I say.....

[Trotterdam]

What is your goal?

Are you trying to have a second go at making warzones interesting enough for raiders to make them bother other regions less?

Or do you just hate the idea of any region being inactive?

[NationHelper]

What is your goal?

Are you trying to have a second go at making warzones interesting enough for raiders to make them bother other regions less?

Or do you just hate the idea of any region being inactive?

Exactly my point. There are tons of small, inactive regions, but are we getting rid of them? No! Warzone Asia is the 402nd largest region.

[Frisbeeteria]

What possible problem is caused by their mere existance?

The solution seems obvious to me. If you don't like Warzones or find them useful, don't visit them. Don't put puppets there. Don't raid there. If someone else has different ideas for their use, they can implement those ideas. It doesn't need a technical solution.

[Vuori Kunin-Grrs]

What possible problem is caused by their mere existance?

The solution seems obvious to me. If you don't like Warzones or find them useful, don't visit them. Don't put puppets there. Don't raid there. If someone else has different ideas for their use, they can implement those ideas. It doesn't need a technical solution.

What I mean is, if they aren't useful in the first place, then why are they still here? What things could be done to increase Warzones' activity,
and if there are none, then because of the Warzones' obsolescence, should we make them regular regions as their function is no longer useful in any way?/Do NSers still want Warzones and their capabilities?

If NSers sincerely don't want Warzones, then the solution is not what it seems, Frisbeeteria. What it means is that, NSers don't care or want for Warzones and therefore, we don't need them anymore. They were for another time, and Reploid Productions' Warzones should revert to normal, being the inactive regions they are.

[Luna Amore]

How does reverting them to normal regions benefit anything? At best, it upsets the few players who use them.

There's got to be more to the proposal other than 'shut 'em down', because that doesn't help anytihing.

[Die Luftraum]

How does reverting them to normal regions benefit anything? At best, it upsets the few players who use them.

As one of those few players, I agree with this statement.

To the OP: Warzones are what you make of them. If you want to make the warzones more productive, invade one yourself and create a successful region and community out of it. Don't ask for the game mechanics to be changed if this is entirely an issue that can be resolved by the community. It is irksome that you are complaining about an aspect of the game that you are not part of. We in the warzones accept that our communities will always be at risk for invasion, and we wouldn't want it any other way. Why do you think we reside in these regions in the first place? The trend of inactivity among the warzones has nothing to do with game mechanics.

[NationHelper]

What possible problem is caused by their mere existance?

The solution seems obvious to me. If you don't like Warzones or find them useful, don't visit them. Don't put puppets there. Don't raid there. If someone else has different ideas for their use, they can implement those ideas. It doesn't need a technical solution.

What I mean is, if they aren't useful in the first place, then why are they still here? What things could be done to increase Warzones' activity,
and if there are none, then because of the Warzones' obsolescence, should we make them regular regions as their function is no longer useful in any way?/Do NSers still want Warzones and their capabilities?

If NSers sincerely don't want Warzones, then the solution is not what it seems, Frisbeeteria. What it means is that, NSers don't care or want for Warzones and therefore, we don't need them anymore. They were for another time, and Reploid Productions' Warzones should revert to normal, being the inactive regions they are.

Exactly! You said, "NSers don't care or want for Warzones". They don't care about it, so don't bug the mods. I honestly don't think anyone except you wants them deleted. Warzones did nothing wrong, they are just like about 20,000 other regions, they do nothing. Are we going to delete those other 20,000? Of course not!

I would also like to add that if those regions got deleted, yours would to, as it only has 3 non-WA members. Just stating a fact, not insulting.

[Socio Polor]

I find Warzones quite useful as practice targets for new and inexperienced raiders. Vise versa for defenders as well

[NationHelper]

I find Warzones quite useful as practice targets for new and inexperienced raiders. Vise versa for defenders as well

That's what they're used for.....

[Socio Polor]

I find Warzones quite useful as practice targets for new and inexperienced raiders. Vise versa for defenders as well

That's what they're used for.....

Indeed.

[Canton Empire]

Perhaps venting part of the influx of the feeders to the Warzones until they reach a certain size? This was a suggestion on the NSGP discord.

[United German Regions]

Perhaps venting part of the influx of the feeders to the Warzones until they reach a certain size? This was a suggestion on the NSGP discord.

No, a warzone is a pretty bad spot to put a new nation who just started playing. They would begin answering issues and figuring stuff out while getting cozy and have some pretty poor encounters when being kicked from the spawn during a raid.

[Canton Empire]

Perhaps venting part of the influx of the feeders to the Warzones until they reach a certain size? This was a suggestion on the NSGP discord.

No, a warzone is a pretty bad spot to put a new nation who just started playing. They would begin answering issues and figuring stuff out while getting cozy and have some pretty poor encounters when being kicked from the spawn during a raid.

That's why a special telegram could be sent to new nations in a Warzone.

[NationHelper]

I think we should just settle on it and say that warzones aren't a problem that needs fixing. (I mean we don't need 11 feeders)

[Canton Empire]

I think we should just settle on it and say that warzones aren't a problem that needs fixing. (I mean we don't need 11 feeders)

I mean, maybe their size should be bumped to about 100 to 150 nations, and allow them to be occupation practice. If they drop drastically under that number, the system kicks in and bumps the population again.

[United German Regions]

I think we should just settle on it and say that warzones aren't a problem that needs fixing. (I mean we don't need 11 feeders)

I mean, maybe their size should be bumped to about 100 to 150 nations, and allow them to be occupation practice. If they drop drastically under that number, the system kicks in and bumps the population again.

Once again, that is more pain towards new players, it is like an open world game. You first join and a level 100 comes and steals the few things you gathered.

[Flanderlion]

This is a solution searching for a problem. They exist, and they aren't harming anyone by just continuing on like normal. Let them exist in peace rather than attempting to flood them with random nations, and the associated less desirable people who will follow, or worse trying to destroy the warzone regions and their communities entirely.

Canton, despite you being the delegate of Warzone Africa, you haven't even made it close to a week of residing there, and this reads like an attempt to get free recruitment instead of working on recruiting for Republic of Channel Island or WZ Africa (if you actually last there for more than a month).

And La Nav, we've had this covo on these forums before with warzones.

Also "downright useless in the R/D scene", which was why Equilism and allies threw a fit when TGW raided it? And why several militaries deploy to warzones every so often?

Putting new nations in A) TRR, B) Warzones, or C) extremist regions isn't a good idea. Ideally new nations would stay only being founded in GCRs, but [v] has threatened other things.

They don't need to provide any special bonus to people who occupy it etc. - people try to occupy them either way. They are an interesting unique group of regions, and the forgotten six GCRs don't need to be changed, and shouldn't. If inactivity is really a problem per say, then that is on the delegate and whoever who should be recruiting for the region, it's not the games problem.

[Seradahn]

It's simple, you don't. They've existed since the dawn of man. So erasing them would be impossible.

[United German Regions]

It's simple, you don't. They've existed since the dawn of man. So erasing them would be impossible.

That is irrelevant, we are discussing 'fixing' not erasing. The largest proposed idea was the thought of sending newly spawned nations to the warzones but it will likely not happen.

[Reploid Productions]

They've existed since the dawn of man.

Quick point of note:
No they haven't. The Warzones were first created about the same time as Influence was added.

So erasing them would be impossible.

Again, inaccurate. Erasing them is entirely possible. It would take me or any of the game moderators approximately four mouse clicks to remove Warzone status from one of the regions, and to empty and lock it so it would CTE at next update. Actually doing so, while not impossible, is merely extremely unlikely. (Similarly, if there was demand to add MORE Warzones, game mods can actually designate a region with Warzone status. There just hasn't been any particular demand for such.)

[Canton Empire]

This is a solution searching for a problem. They exist, and they aren't harming anyone by just continuing on like normal. Let them exist in peace rather than attempting to flood them with random nations, and the associated less desirable people who will follow, or worse trying to destroy the warzone regions and their communities entirely.

Canton, despite you being the delegate of Warzone Africa, you haven't even made it close to a week of residing there, and this reads like an attempt to get free recruitment instead of working on recruiting for Republic of Channel Island or WZ Africa (if you actually last there for more than a month).

And La Nav, we've had this covo on these forums before with warzones.

Also "downright useless in the R/D scene", which was why Equilism and allies threw a fit when TGW raided it? And why several militaries deploy to warzones every so often?

Putting new nations in A) TRR, B) Warzones, or C) extremist regions isn't a good idea. Ideally new nations would stay only being founded in GCRs, but [v] has threatened other things.

They don't need to provide any special bonus to people who occupy it etc. - people try to occupy them either way. They are an interesting unique group of regions, and the forgotten six GCRs don't need to be changed, and shouldn't. If inactivity is really a problem per say, then that is on the delegate and whoever who should be recruiting for the region, it's not the games problem.

Again, the idea isn't originally mine

[Vuori Kunin-Grrs]

Perhaps venting part of the influx of the feeders to the Warzones until they reach a certain size? This was a suggestion on the NSGP discord.

Actually, in my opinion, this would be a really good idea. Though admittedly Canton Empire may be biased, the six warzones would essentially be somewhat like mini-Feeders in this case, but having an element of The Rejected Realms mixed in (not being able to ban nations permanently). Having the Warzones being mini-Feeders and having them maintain a large population in the hundreds and possibly the low thousands would allow a much larger dynamic contrast in the Gameplay environment we have today.

Adding to this, with the mini-Feeder designation of Warzones, they will become semi-stable, and no new Game Created Regions need to be made as mini-Feeders, which has been suggested in the past. The Warzones would essentially be the smaller mini-Feeder companions to the Pacifics, albeit with some differences, and their own Gameplay mechanics will ensure that they maintain at least some measure of stability.

Of course, as Warzones are what they are, they would always get couped occasionally, but this would be beneficial to the overall activity in Gameplay and supporting the basic goal to make Gameplay more dynamic and not have a couple of very stable Feeders. As Warzones are semi-unstable, they being mini-Feeders would also make them much more encouraging to invade, which was exactly what their purpose was set to be in 2003. This would ultimately be a very beneficial change to the Gameplay environment, I believe, and would help create new spheres of influence, and therefore, new potential points of conflict.

[Canton Empire]

Perhaps venting part of the influx of the feeders to the Warzones until they reach a certain size? This was a suggestion on the NSGP discord.

Actually, in my opinion, this would be a really good idea. Though admittedly Canton Empire may be biased, the six warzones would essentially be somewhat like mini-Feeders in this case, but having an element of The Rejected Realms mixed in (not being able to ban nations permanently). Having the Warzones being mini-Feeders and having them maintain a large population in the hundreds and possibly the low thousands would allow a much larger dynamic contrast in the Gameplay environment we are today.

Adding to this, with the mini-Feeder designation of Warzones, they will become semi-stable, and no new Game Created Regions need to be made as mini-Feeders, which has been suggested in the past. The Warzones would essentially be the smaller mini-Feeder companions to the Pacifics, albeit with some differences, and their own Gameplay mechanics will ensure that they maintain at least some measure of stability.

Of course, as Warzones are what they are, they would always get couped occasionally, but this would be beneficial to the overall activity in Gameplay and supporting the basic goal to make Gameplay more dynamic and not have a couple of very stable Feeders.

The middle paragraph especially.

This kills two birds with one stone. The Venter idea and making the Warzones relevant to GP. I propose that this change be instituted on one or two of the Warzones as a trial run.