[Proposal] More Feeders

[Glen-Rhodes]

You're simply wrong here. Yes, a lot of the same gameplayers would still be involved, but that doesn't mean nothing new and interesting would happen. We could see new and interesting developments in the relationship between the new Feeders and existing regions, in the forms of government they adopt, in the alliances they pursue, in the changes to the balance of power they facilitate.

No, we wouldn't see interesting developments at all. Because once these new feeders are locked down by an existing force, they're not going to adopt different or competing foreign policies. We have 8 separate GCRs already-- if nothing interesting is happening within that network, adding more regions controlled by the same group of players isn't going to change anything. The foreign politics are going to be established by the pre-existing elite. There won't be new ideas, because nobody has any new ideas, otherwise we'd be seeing them right now. If Balder gets control of a new feeder, Onder is going to dispatch an acolyte, imperialists are going to flood in, and that feeder will adopt the common Independent-imperialist FA. It's going to be joined to the IJCC, and it's going to fall in line with the pre-existing bloc, because it's the same people running everything. The exact same dynamic would play out if a defender coalition controls a region. I imagine defenders learned their lessons from last time.

We could see newer players, or even older ones, who have never had the opportunity to lead a Feeder or Sinker, and maybe never will because of how long it takes to advance in the existing GCRs, able to lead one of the new Feeders. We could see a new generation of leaders doing things that could surprise us. We won't know unless we try.

New leaders happen all the time in Gameplay. (We could get more, if more GCRs would be democracies *shrugs*.) You're kidding yourself if you think a player drawn from existing Gameplay communities is going to bring something radically new to the table. It doesn't matter if somebody hasn't been a GCR Delegate-- there are norms, cultures, and ideas entrenched in our communities. If you draw a leader from there, they're going to have existing relationships they want to keep, existing friends, etc. We can know that this doesn't bring radical changes to all of Gameplay, because we already have a lot of experience with new regimes rapidly forming from a blank slate: coups. All that ever changes is GCRs adopting different pre-existing rules-- defender to raider; independent to imperialist; democracy to dictatorship. I'd be more convinced of this argument that we'd see radical change if anybody was coming up with new ways to play the game right now.

Throwing in 5 new feeders isn't going to magically trigger the development of new ideologies and frameworks. And if you don't have that, then there's no reason to believe it's going to lead to a revitalization of Gameplay. Gameplay is an emergent game made up of ideas, not one defined by mechanics. We made all this up. If we're not making new things up now, we're not going to make new things up when new feeders are created.

Balder became imperialist and adopted strict control of the region. That wasn't a new idea. Osiris was unstable, sure, but it fluctuated between long-standing typologies: the defender-leaning democracy, the raider dictatorship, and the Independent monarchy. And with both, they drew from existing groups to those groups' demises. The interesting stuff happened in the margins. I don't think it's worth adding 5 or more new feeders just for marginal activity. The number of feeders and sinkers has nothing to do with the lack of dynamism in Gameplay. We've figured out how to lock down control of these regions, which is something we hadn't for the longest time.

[Weed]

8 GCRs

8 separate GCRs

*looks confused at fingers*

[Glen-Rhodes]

8 GCRs

8 separate GCRs

*looks confused at fingers*

The Pacific
The West Pacific
The North Pacific
The East Pacific
The South Pacific
Lazarus
Balder
Osiris

... Where's the confusion? The Rejected Realms don't count.

[Cormactopia Prime]

New leaders happen all the time in Gameplay. (We could get more, if more GCRs would be democracies *shrugs*.)

Actually, Glen, we see newer players leading in Lazarus and Osiris and, until Neenee, also in TWP. Meanwhile, TSP keeps electing Tsunamy, Balder keeps Solorni perpetually in the Delegacy and keeps electing the same rotating people as Statsminister, and TRR just elected Frattastan. This isn't about the democracies being friendly to new players and the others not. This is about most of the GCRs being hostile to trying anything new and different.

I don't see you proposing anything that would actually help make gameplay remotely interesting or exciting again. I guess you're fine with the boredom.

[Lord Dominator]

Hey, at least with new regions for the existing oligarchies to spread out in, they'll be more spread out by definition, and thus still need new people

[Reventus Koth]

The Rejected Realms don't count.

Thank god you're back to saying batshit crazy stuff, I was getting concerned that I had agreed with you a few times these last few days.

At any rate, something's got to give with the stagnation GP's been experiencing without UCRs having any reasonable impact on the game. If we're not going to nerf the GCRs somehow, we might as well spread them out a bit. Osiris and Balder being founded was one of the big catalysts for getting me into GP all those years ago, I think it's worth a shot.

[McChimp]

AGAINST.

You’re complaining about how feeders have so many WAs, but a year ago TEP had like 300 endos on their 8 month delegate. And excluding TNP at 1k because of their superior technology, other feeders had heir endos on the 200-400 range and the sinkers had their endos in the 100s. These were consistent statistics for years. They’re not that great, the recent boom in endorsements is recent due to a deal by all GCR delegates to make “gaining endorsements” something like a competition.

Meanwhile there have been UCRs like 10000 Islands with 1000 endorsements in the past, and in modern times there are many UCRs with above 300-350 endorsements on their delegate

I’m saying endorsements just don’t pop out of the blue. You need players to work for them. I even wrote a guide for UCRs.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=450459

Against.

Take a hike.

There isn't really a case for change.

You lose a Delegate election and your solution is to give yourself the chance to have your own GCR?

Regarding the World Assembly, adding a couple more players who automatically get a couple hundreds or more votes isn’t going to change anything. There’s no meaningful difference between 8 elite powerful GCR delegates versus 13 elite powerful GCR delegates. Adding Osiris and Balder didn’t change anything about the WA mechanically.

get involved in a GCR instead of sitting on the sidelines complaining about how it's unfair or boring.

These are the players who make up the majority of the arguments against this proposal.

Every single one of them is entrenched in an existing feeder. Their recruitment base and WA voting power would be significantly reduced if it were implemented.

THEIR CRITICISM OF THIS PROPOSAL COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE OBJECTIVE.

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

AGAINST.

You’re complaining about how feeders have so many WAs, but a year ago TEP had like 300 endos on their 8 month delegate. And excluding TNP at 1k because of their superior technology, other feeders had heir endos on the 200-400 range and the sinkers had their endos in the 100s. These were consistent statistics for years. They’re not that great, the recent boom in endorsements is recent due to a deal by all GCR delegates to make “gaining endorsements” something like a competition.

Meanwhile there have been UCRs like 10000 Islands with 1000 endorsements in the past, and in modern times there are many UCRs with above 300-350 endorsements on their delegate

I’m saying endorsements just don’t pop out of the blue. You need players to work for them. I even wrote a guide for UCRs.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=450459

Against.

Take a hike.

There isn't really a case for change.

You lose a Delegate election and your solution is to give yourself the chance to have your own GCR?

Regarding the World Assembly, adding a couple more players who automatically get a couple hundreds or more votes isn’t going to change anything. There’s no meaningful difference between 8 elite powerful GCR delegates versus 13 elite powerful GCR delegates. Adding Osiris and Balder didn’t change anything about the WA mechanically.

get involved in a GCR instead of sitting on the sidelines complaining about how it's unfair or boring.

These are the players who make up the majority of the arguments against this proposal.

Every single one of them is entrenched in an existing feeder. Their recruitment base and WA voting power would be significantly reduced if it were implemented.

THEIR CRITICISM OF THIS PROPOSAL COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE OBJECTIVE.

Half of them absolutely did not criticize the proposal specifically because it nerfed the GCRs they are apart of (half of them are in the NPO...) Nope, not at all.

Although, to be fair, you could argue that people support it so that they can gain power in the new GCRs. Either way, it's the merits of the proposal that are important.

[Mallorea and Riva]

AGAINST.

You’re complaining about how feeders have so many WAs, but a year ago TEP had like 300 endos on their 8 month delegate. And excluding TNP at 1k because of their superior technology, other feeders had heir endos on the 200-400 range and the sinkers had their endos in the 100s. These were consistent statistics for years. They’re not that great, the recent boom in endorsements is recent due to a deal by all GCR delegates to make “gaining endorsements” something like a competition.

Meanwhile there have been UCRs like 10000 Islands with 1000 endorsements in the past, and in modern times there are many UCRs with above 300-350 endorsements on their delegate

I’m saying endorsements just don’t pop out of the blue. You need players to work for them. I even wrote a guide for UCRs.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=450459

Against.

Take a hike.

There isn't really a case for change.

You lose a Delegate election and your solution is to give yourself the chance to have your own GCR?

Regarding the World Assembly, adding a couple more players who automatically get a couple hundreds or more votes isn’t going to change anything. There’s no meaningful difference between 8 elite powerful GCR delegates versus 13 elite powerful GCR delegates. Adding Osiris and Balder didn’t change anything about the WA mechanically.

get involved in a GCR instead of sitting on the sidelines complaining about how it's unfair or boring.

These are the players who make up the majority of the arguments against this proposal.

Every single one of them is entrenched in an existing feeder. Their recruitment base and WA voting power would be significantly reduced if it were implemented.

THEIR CRITICISM OF THIS PROPOSAL COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE OBJECTIVE.

We're aware of where people are from. It's not particularly helpful for people to focus on that. Whether there is a UCR conspiracy or a GCR conspiracy to add/take away feeders or whatever is great discord banter but it's getting rather annoying in the Technical forum.

[Galiantus III]

I mean, that's why this discussion is happening at all - feeders are the main hubs of activity at the moment, so gameplayers want it to at least be interesting if things continue that way.

Or you could do what a lot of GPers do, get involved in a GCR instead of sitting on the sidelines complaining about how it's unfair or boring.

For the past year I have been involved with Lazarus to at least a small degree, and as of several hours before you posted, I am an ambassador for Lazarus to Balder. I am involved as I want to be right now, but I am not blind to gameplay's problem of moving at a snail's pace on pretty much everything.

---

You keep saying that if we want things to change, the player base is where it needs to happen. According to you, we just don't have any new ideas. Well I have firsthand knowledge that this is not the case:

I have spent the majority of my time here on NS trying to rally people to fight against the WA using the same mechanics which allow tag-raiding to happen. I tried about five different methods to get people involved, but the most people I could get for an update ever was two. There was also a time I got TBH to try and use it, but after they did it once it never caught on. From an OOC perspective I really don't understand why no one is eager to try it, or why this feels like an independent idea of mine (seriously, why has no one tried this before?).

I was new. I had a new, unique idea for gameplay, and I was mocked and ridiculed by those who would have benefited the most by trying it out. I have put in the work to change the game, and nothing has happened. That is why I am here in technical, trying to find a way to make gameplay better with game mechanics rather than trying to change a culture I have been at war with for nearly four years total. Can you please empathize with me and the other people asking for a change here?

[Flanderlion]

@McChimp if you organise the views and discount those who are GCR to protect status quo, and pro GCR to get their own/hurt status quo gameplay, you are left with views that don't want more feeders due to the decrease in activity for new players, but want to reduce the votes of larger delegates (or remove) to balance the WA. And Galiantus of course, who seems to be ideas for the sake of it - but I don't think he has a strong agenda bar whatever he comes up with. Almost missed it but Bears wanted welcome TGs delayed, which I disagreed with but that was detailed elsewhere.

--

From a GP POV sure, additional GCRs might help activity for a brief period of time, but will return back to status quo with nothing but shrunk net activity (as agglomeration of activity creates more activity).

As I said earlier much better way of helping GP is lowering barriers to entry and less region destruction/more region building/less end games.

Maybe for the WA it might slightly change things, but we've had several past and present GenSec members saying it won't make a difference and larger delegates votes GCR or UCR need to be shrunk, not to mention countless GA regulars and normal players echoing that view here and in other related threads.

For new players, I'm convinced split activity is bad, as I think an active gameside or love of the core game is what gets most players to stick around.

More activity concentrated creates its own activity, the benefits of agglomeration.

--

Only real change I found in this thread that seemed to be for making a better environment was Ava's. From a personal view the Sinkers as current aren't exactly ideal. But the idea that refounding into a consistently active region seems a decent one.

Ideally Sinkers would just be consistently active, but we've seen for years that they don't manage to be active consistently. Going through RMBs again, TWP of the Feeders didn't have a post in last hour, letting the side down dramatically, and Lazarus for once and Osiris did.

Second option would be to just distributing refounded nations in Feeders instead (or I guess 100% of new nations to sinkers but personally I think it'd lead to a worse outcome). Although TWP shows that Feeders aren't perfect environments they're a lot better, and you have more than a 80% chance of an active RMB. Obviously people would be radically against making Feeders have refounded nations, but if it's about the nation's coming back surely what's right for them is more important than who loses/gains. But the outcry re that from Sinkers probably rules that out.

Option 3 would be to put 10% of new and refounded nations into each of the Feeders and Sinkers, and divide the final 20% (realised I did the maths wrong last time I wrote this) of new nations into feeders and 20% of refounded into sinkers. This would give a possibly worse outcome to 30% of new nations depending if Sinkers step up their game with an influx of new nations, while giving a better outcome to all refounded players.

I'm for the first two, ideally the 1st but it's been many years and the Sinkers really haven't shown too much hope of turning their activity around. Option 2 I like, but obviously the current imported sinker communities would be radically against it. Option 3 is probably the most tenable one, but risks bad outcomes for 30% of new nations which I'm not really sure if it's acceptable.

Thinking about all 3 options, especially risk to reward and the work for that vs. what we'd get if admin spent time on other features, I'm back to the view that status quo is best. Admin time is better spent on accounts (lower barriers to entry), observing WA members (so new/nations who don't answer issues often's stats don't get decimated), lowering WA votes of larger delegates proportionally and hiding total vote until after voting (so WA is about persuading majority and individuals rather than the few, but is still not equal), and annexation (less region destruction more region building) are the best way to help GP/the WA, especially due to the risk of worse outcomes for new nations if you fiddle with what mostly works. Preferably a way for nations to signal "I'm sick of my region, send me ads for others" as well. Not to mention a gazillion other features not as related to the WA/GP like the black market cap increase.

Tldr: People not in GP mostly want votes shrunk but Feeders to stay big for the benefits of increased activity. Admin time would get far better results, and less damage to new players would be done, with different features rather than fiddling with GCRs.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

snip

By fiddling with the percentages, you're just making it more complicated, and it forces you to think about extra problems down the line. Just make feeders and sinkers do the same thing, with founded and refounded nations spawning in all at the same rate. Then give them a goofy new composite name that nobody likes, like sfeendikers.

[McChimp]

We're aware of where people are from. It's not particularly helpful for people to focus on that. Whether there is a UCR conspiracy or a GCR conspiracy to add/take away feeders or whatever is great discord banter but it's getting rather annoying in the Technical forum.

This thread has the potential to affect more than just its participants and those who will eventually decide. People might appreciate context later. That aside, evaluation of motive isn't some low tactic that ought to be confined to NSGP-it's an accepted feature of debate in any context.

[Minoa]

I totally understand the concerns of the OP, but the only recommendation that I can make at this time is that the Atlantic would be the next logical step in the names for the new feeder regions, i.e.:

• The Atlantic
• The North Atlantic (TNA)
• The East Atlantic (TEA)
• The South Atlantic (TSA)
• The West Atlantic (TWA)

Although the acronyms are quite uncanny, overlap is inevitable with only 17,576 possible three-letter acronyms.

[Galiantus III]

We're aware of where people are from. It's not particularly helpful for people to focus on that. Whether there is a UCR conspiracy or a GCR conspiracy to add/take away feeders or whatever is great discord banter but it's getting rather annoying in the Technical forum.

This thread has the potential to affect more than just its participants and those who will eventually decide. People might appreciate context later. That aside, evaluation of motive isn't some low tactic that ought to be confined to NSGP-it's an accepted feature of debate in any context.

But it's not important: even if Souls' entire motive is to gain control of a feeder with less effort, that is not something Admin will take into account. They are interested in having a fun game that attracts more people, and if they determine that adding new GCRs in whatever form will most likely do that, they will add new GCRs. The same is true of any other technical change that is reasonable to code.

[Kavagrad]

Yes, bring us some C H A O S

ahem... entirely sensible proposal, GCRs are too dominant and the game needs a shakeup. I'm in favour.

[Guy]

The issue for me is more this: The feeders are more or less where you'd like them to be in terms of activity. Any less and I think we'll start going back to the days of "boring feeders that don't do anything", which was pretty common until a few years ago. (A certain feeder had very close to no government or military activity for years - really.)

Which is not to say that maybe more feeders could be a good idea, but I'm not sure that it'll really have the desired effect. Potentially a (maybe even strong) positive payoff, but for me there's too much of a risk of a negative payoff, I think.

I'd prefer to focus on whether there isn't enough UCR activity at the moment, and the underlying reasons for that. My personal opinion (which at some point should probably be tested against the evidence) is that the abundance of recruitment (i) Spread nations out too thinly; (ii) Makes new nations stay in feeders due to being bombarded with TGs.

To me, the obvious solution is to abolish stamps. But if anyone has alternative ideas on why UCRs appear to have gotten somewhat more stale (in general! please don't @ me with "there are some really exciting UCRs out there!"), and how to fix it, please do.

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

*looks confused at fingers*

The Pacific
The West Pacific
The North Pacific
The East Pacific
The South Pacific
Lazarus
Balder
Osiris

... Where's the confusion? The Rejected Realms don't count.

Fight me, Glen.

[Kavagrad]

*looks confused at fingers*

The Pacific
The West Pacific
The North Pacific
The East Pacific
The South Pacific
Lazarus
Balder
Osiris

... Where's the confusion? The Rejected Realms don't count.

Um, what?

[Galiantus III]

I'd prefer to focus on whether there isn't enough UCR activity at the moment, and the underlying reasons for that. My personal opinion (which at some point should probably be tested against the evidence) is that the abundance of recruitment (i) Spread nations out too thinly; (ii) Makes new nations stay in feeders due to being bombarded with TGs.

I think it's a combination of recruitment and the shear number of UCRs out there. It's a tragedy of the commons situation, because each individual UCR benefits from maximizing their recruitment efforts, but by doing so, UCRs on the whole get fewer active players. You suggested abolishing stamps, which would return the state of recruitment to something more competitive - which I think would be good, but it still doesn't solve the problem of nations being spread too thinly. I personally think that it should be more difficult to create and maintain UCRs, as this would both concentrate more players in each region and reduce the number of regions recruiting.

[Roavin]

The Rejected Realms don't count.

Thank god you're back to saying batshit crazy stuff, I was getting concerned that I had agreed with you a few times these last few days.

At any rate, something's got to give with the stagnation GP's been experiencing without UCRs having any reasonable impact on the game. If we're not going to nerf the GCRs somehow, we might as well spread them out a bit. Osiris and Balder being founded was one of the big catalysts for getting me into GP all those years ago, I think it's worth a shot.

Fight me, Glen.

Um, what?

TRR is a GCR, but not one where nations spawn (whether founded or refounded). So, yes, 8.

[Flemingisa]

Except glen never mentioned “GCR’s where nations spawn” So he is wrong Roavin. How about a new idea. How about welcome telegrams come at the same time as the first recruitment telegram?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I totally understand the concerns of the OP, but the only recommendation that I can make at this time is that the Atlantic would be the next logical step in the names for the new feeder regions, i.e.:

• The Atlantic
• The North Atlantic (TNA)
• The East Atlantic (TEA)
• The South Atlantic (TSA)
• The West Atlantic (TWA)

Although the acronyms are quite uncanny, overlap is inevitable with only 17,576 possible three-letter acronyms.

They all already exist as regions.

[Alkasia]

... Where's the confusion? The Rejected Realms don't count.

What exactly do you think GCR stands for?

[Flanderlion]

... Where's the confusion? The Rejected Realms don't count.

What exactly do you think GCR stands for?

In context of this thread 8 was the right number (I used 9 initially and changed it to 8 later on). Or you'd use 15, as warzones are all GCRs. TRR doesn't have nations spawning in it, so isn't relevant as such to the thread more so than other UCRs for region comparison.