NATION

PASSWORD

[Proposal] Faction Gameplay

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18547
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:30 am

Wallenburg wrote:I'd rather we didn't screw up the WA voting system more than it already is.

This.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Helseth
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 06, 2013
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Helseth » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:59 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:I'd rather we didn't screw up the WA voting system more than it already is.

This.

and pray tell what is going to stop the potential of multiple voting blocs similar to WALL from happening? Nothing but region's interests inn being more involved inn the WA. As it is now, I have heard of 3 to 4 possible blocs forming. I imagine a UCR bloc that can't get anywhere near WALL or larger UCR blocs ability, would just recruit in more smaller regions to make up for it.

Though I can't see really much more than 3 or 4 (including WALL) being very successful, but it's entirely possible and would cause ramifications in the WA. Sometimes, things change. You have to adapt. Gameplay has been doing exactly that for a long time. For better and worse.

Even with this idea, it won't stop proposals and campaigns. Whether it's easier or harder in the first place depends on the author, the proposal, the campaigning.


How about, let's think of it this way:
What compromises and ideas can GA and SC regulars think of that may make Koth's proposal more balanced or at least more easier to stomach for those who dominate their time in those sections of NS? Maybe there is none, maybe some people just will outright not accept anything, or maybe there is something that can be agreed on.

Sometimes we need some change, and additionally, this would probably take a good time to even implement. At least come up with some constructive help or some constructive criticism rather than "if it effects the WA at all noooooo!".

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20204
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:20 am

Helseth wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:This.

and pray tell what is going to stop the potential of multiple voting blocs similar to WALL from happening? Nothing but region's interests inn being more involved inn the WA. As it is now, I have heard of 3 to 4 possible blocs forming. I imagine a UCR bloc that can't get anywhere near WALL or larger UCR blocs ability, would just recruit in more smaller regions to make up for it.

Though I can't see really much more than 3 or 4 (including WALL) being very successful, but it's entirely possible and would cause ramifications in the WA. Sometimes, things change. You have to adapt. Gameplay has been doing exactly that for a long time. For better and worse.

And for the WA, this idea would definitely be for worse. Voting blocs are already such an insurmountable problem that WA players have been forced to either join those voting blocs or make new ones to rival them. The damage to the WA of a bloc 5-10 times the size of WALL would be indescribable.
What compromises and ideas can GA and SC regulars think of that may make Koth's proposal more balanced or at least more easier to stomach for those who dominate their time in those sections of NS? Maybe there is none, maybe some people just will outright not accept anything, or maybe there is something that can be agreed on.

I'm not interested in a "compromise" when the WA already has to kiss the boot of the gameplay community to get anything done. Honestly, we need less gameplay influence over the WA (at least the GA), not less.
Sometimes we need some change, and additionally, this would probably take a good time to even implement. At least come up with some constructive help or some constructive criticism rather than "if it effects the WA at all noooooo!".

Here's my constructive criticism: this sounds like an interesting idea for gameplay. Leave the WA out of this. The WA community has already made too many sacrifices to gameplay. Get rid of the faction leader's additional WA votes and we won't have a problem. Don't get rid of them and I will fight this with my dying breath.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Helseth
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 06, 2013
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Helseth » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:25 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Helseth wrote:and pray tell what is going to stop the potential of multiple voting blocs similar to WALL from happening? Nothing but region's interests inn being more involved inn the WA. As it is now, I have heard of 3 to 4 possible blocs forming. I imagine a UCR bloc that can't get anywhere near WALL or larger UCR blocs ability, would just recruit in more smaller regions to make up for it.

Though I can't see really much more than 3 or 4 (including WALL) being very successful, but it's entirely possible and would cause ramifications in the WA. Sometimes, things change. You have to adapt. Gameplay has been doing exactly that for a long time. For better and worse.

And for the WA, this idea would definitely be for worse. Voting blocs are already such an insurmountable problem that WA players have been forced to either join those voting blocs or make new ones to rival them. The damage to the WA of a bloc 5-10 times the size of WALL would be indescribable.
What compromises and ideas can GA and SC regulars think of that may make Koth's proposal more balanced or at least more easier to stomach for those who dominate their time in those sections of NS? Maybe there is none, maybe some people just will outright not accept anything, or maybe there is something that can be agreed on.

I'm not interested in a "compromise" when the WA already has to kiss the boot of the gameplay community to get anything done. Honestly, we need less gameplay influence over the WA (at least the GA), not less.
Sometimes we need some change, and additionally, this would probably take a good time to even implement. At least come up with some constructive help or some constructive criticism rather than "if it effects the WA at all noooooo!".

Here's my constructive criticism: this sounds like an interesting idea for gameplay. Leave the WA out of this. The WA community has already made too many sacrifices to gameplay. Get rid of the faction leader's additional WA votes and we won't have a problem. Don't get rid of them and I will fight this with my dying breath.

I think on a whole the GCRs have too much voting power, mind you. Let's imagine the GCRs were nerfed in that regard in some way. Would the Faction proposal still be unfeasible to you?

User avatar
Kuriko
Diplomat
 
Posts: 650
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Kuriko » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:25 am

I think this idea has merit on a whole lot of levels, but I don't know if I like how it'll take away delegate voting power in the WA from regions in the factions (if I'm reading this right?). Will this idea combine all endorsements on every regional delegate to create one large voting amount, or will it allow the delegate's voting power to remain sovereign with each delegate using their extra votes how they or their region wants? I'm bringing this up because some regions, like TNP and XKI, have it where the delegate votes the way the community tells them too through forum votes.
Delegate of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~
Citizen of the 10000 Islands and The Rejected Realms

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20204
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:37 am

Helseth wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:And for the WA, this idea would definitely be for worse. Voting blocs are already such an insurmountable problem that WA players have been forced to either join those voting blocs or make new ones to rival them. The damage to the WA of a bloc 5-10 times the size of WALL would be indescribable.

I'm not interested in a "compromise" when the WA already has to kiss the boot of the gameplay community to get anything done. Honestly, we need less gameplay influence over the WA (at least the GA), not less.

Here's my constructive criticism: this sounds like an interesting idea for gameplay. Leave the WA out of this. The WA community has already made too many sacrifices to gameplay. Get rid of the faction leader's additional WA votes and we won't have a problem. Don't get rid of them and I will fight this with my dying breath.

I think on a whole the GCRs have too much voting power, mind you. Let's imagine the GCRs were nerfed in that regard in some way. Would the Faction proposal still be unfeasible to you?

My immediate concerns surround the existing interference in this proposal, rather than the question of the influence that GCRs currently exert on the WA. Again, I have no problem with gameplayers looking to spice things up as long as they don't drag an entirely different community into it. I wouldn't ask the II community to enforce WA law in their nation RPs, or issues editors to change all their issues so that WA nations can't select issue options that would violate WA resolutions. Likewise, GP shouldn't ask the WA to surrender control of WA votes to colossal faction leaders.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Kranostav
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:56 am

Helseth wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:And for the WA, this idea would definitely be for worse. Voting blocs are already such an insurmountable problem that WA players have been forced to either join those voting blocs or make new ones to rival them. The damage to the WA of a bloc 5-10 times the size of WALL would be indescribable.

I'm not interested in a "compromise" when the WA already has to kiss the boot of the gameplay community to get anything done. Honestly, we need less gameplay influence over the WA (at least the GA), not less.

Here's my constructive criticism: this sounds like an interesting idea for gameplay. Leave the WA out of this. The WA community has already made too many sacrifices to gameplay. Get rid of the faction leader's additional WA votes and we won't have a problem. Don't get rid of them and I will fight this with my dying breath.

I think on a whole the GCRs have too much voting power, mind you. Let's imagine the GCRs were nerfed in that regard in some way. Would the Faction proposal still be unfeasible to you?

I wouldn't say the GCRs have too much voting power, we also tend to have the most active and experienced WA ministries. We foster plenty of new authors and get new nations involved in the WA. I just don't see this being a feasible way to change the WA.
The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The WA El-eats Chef of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423 and #460

User avatar
Helseth
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Aug 06, 2013
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Helseth » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:05 am

Kranostav wrote:
Helseth wrote:

I think on a whole the GCRs have too much voting power, mind you. Let's imagine the GCRs were nerfed in that regard in some way. Would the Faction proposal still be unfeasible to you?

I wouldn't say the GCRs have too much voting power, we also tend to have the most active and experienced WA ministries. We foster plenty of new authors and get new nations involved in the WA. I just don't see this being a feasible way to change the WA.

Disagree here. But this isn't entirely related to the discussion.

User avatar
Reventus Koth
Envoy
 
Posts: 293
Founded: Apr 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Reventus Koth » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:33 am

Let's quell this here and now, then.

When I drafted the proposal, I included Faction WA votes because I thought that they needed an additional incentive to be utilized at all. Having discussed a ton of potential for Gameplay with this idea that has nothing to do with WA voting, I am very much on board with the idea of taking the additional voting power out of the proposal entirely. It was never the hill I was willing to die on.
Formerly known as Ambroscus Koth, +1843 posts. Trust no one.

User avatar
Kranostav
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:14 am

Reventus Koth wrote:Let's quell this here and now, then.

When I drafted the proposal, I included Faction WA votes because I thought that they needed an additional incentive to be utilized at all. Having discussed a ton of potential for Gameplay with this idea that has nothing to do with WA voting, I am very much on board with the idea of taking the additional voting power out of the proposal entirely. It was never the hill I was willing to die on.

Im sure WA factions could be created similar to that of WALL where members share WA opinions and approvals but do not bound each other to vote a certain way or to sacrifice voting power (all of this while not using ingame mechanics). It is an interesting concept so I'm not totally against it, however my camp of exclusively WA gameplay gives me the view I have on how changing the WA voting system could impact things.
Last edited by Kranostav on Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The WA El-eats Chef of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423 and #460

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Pergamon » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:20 am

I like the general idea, the overall idea to have greater factions coded into the game itself, rather than have it like we have it now where everyone just "defines itself" as being part of a specific sphere.

However, I do not like the idea how it is proposed right now.
I cannot support an idea that basically would mean that the idea and the dream of Pacifica is ultimately destroyed.
I cannot support an idea that forces us to interact with UCRs in order to stay relevant.
I cannot support an idea that by design makes Francoism completely invalid and ultimately leads to the destruction of the NPO.

Basically this proposal how it is RN, would undo everything the NPO is, the NPO would cease to exist. Whatever TP would become after that, is no longer NPO.
I would support a version of this proposal that would not entail that the NPO and everything it stands for and it is, as well as has been, has to die.

Being broken by a technical change is a shitty way to go.

Just my 50ct.
Last edited by Pergamon on Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Senator Emeritus of The Pacific - Ret. Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Reventus Koth
Envoy
 
Posts: 293
Founded: Apr 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Reventus Koth » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:44 am

Pergamon wrote:I like the general idea, the overall idea to have greater factions coded into the game itself, rather than have it like we have it now where everyone just "defines itself" as being part of a specific sphere.

However, I do not like the idea how it is proposed right now.
I cannot support an idea that basically would mean that the idea and the dream of Pacifica is ultimately destroyed.
I cannot support an idea that forces us to interact with UCRs in order to stay relevant.
I cannot support an idea that by design makes Francoism completely invalid and ultimately leads to the destruction of the NPO.

Basically this proposal how it is RN, would undo everything the NPO is, the NPO would cease to exist. Whatever TP would become after that, is no longer NPO.
I would support a version of this proposal that would not entail that the NPO and everything it stands for and it is, as well as has been, has to die.

Being broken by a technical change is a shitty way to go.

Just my 50ct.

I understand your concerns, Perg. And despite my personal opinions about Francoism as a player, as someone pushing a technical proposal that attempts to minimize cultural genocide in the GCRs I have to accept that you're partially correct.

You'd have been more correct before I decided to steer away from the idea of Impact contributing directly to WA voting power, though. As it stands now, there is no mechanical loss to the NPO if they choose not to play kingmaker in the UCRs. Pacifica is still a feeder, and it's still susceptible to userite manipulation same as it ever was.

The only downside for the NPO not engaging in the sort of sphere of influence Gameplay that this proposal creates is that it isn't an Imperial power. And that's fine, it doesn't have to be. Pacifica also has no reason to be subservient, it could easily be a faction all its own and go about the same what it always has. Is there a core mechanic I'm missing that would well and truly destroy the foundation of Francoism?
Formerly known as Ambroscus Koth, +1843 posts. Trust no one.

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Pergamon » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:59 am

Reventus Koth wrote:
Pergamon wrote:I like the general idea, the overall idea to have greater factions coded into the game itself, rather than have it like we have it now where everyone just "defines itself" as being part of a specific sphere.

However, I do not like the idea how it is proposed right now.
I cannot support an idea that basically would mean that the idea and the dream of Pacifica is ultimately destroyed.
I cannot support an idea that forces us to interact with UCRs in order to stay relevant.
I cannot support an idea that by design makes Francoism completely invalid and ultimately leads to the destruction of the NPO.

Basically this proposal how it is RN, would undo everything the NPO is, the NPO would cease to exist. Whatever TP would become after that, is no longer NPO.
I would support a version of this proposal that would not entail that the NPO and everything it stands for and it is, as well as has been, has to die.

Being broken by a technical change is a shitty way to go.

Just my 50ct.

I understand your concerns, Perg. And despite my personal opinions about Francoism as a player, as someone pushing a technical proposal that attempts to minimize cultural genocide in the GCRs I have to accept that you're partially correct.

You'd have been more correct before I decided to steer away from the idea of Impact contributing directly to WA voting power, though. As it stands now, there is no mechanical loss to the NPO if they choose not to play kingmaker in the UCRs. Pacifica is still a feeder, and it's still susceptible to userite manipulation same as it ever was.

The only downside for the NPO not engaging in the sort of sphere of influence Gameplay that this proposal creates is that it isn't an Imperial power. And that's fine, it doesn't have to be. Pacifica also has no reason to be subservient, it could easily be a faction all its own and go about the same what it always has. Is there a core mechanic I'm missing that would well and truly destroy the foundation of Francoism?


1. The proposal how it is would not allow GCRs to bind together in a single faction anymore, but rather force GCR to field their own factions.
2. Within their factions GCRs are forced to interact with as much GP UCRs as possible in order to stay relevant.

It causes a fundamental problem KotH. In NS every sphere uses its relevance differently, for their specific political aims. It is a matter of fact that a power requires to stay relevant in order to further their own agenda. The core mechanic behind this would destroy the foundation of Francoism because it creates a dilemma. A dilemma which means: In order to have Francoism intact, the NPO requires to isolate completely and accept utter irrelevance. This also means that no agenda could be pushed anymore as well, as entirely irrelevant power, it makes the NPO itself invalid. It's a checkmate situation.

One could say, we could ditch Francoism completely and adapt to these new mechanics to become something different, with different views and aims. This would allow the NPO to stay relevant, but to what price? It gave up everything it used to be in this scenario. The NPO at this point basically CTE'd. It is, as I said, a total checkmate.

I pretty much prefer to have the faction I served faithfully for years not to die. Who wouldn't undererstand it?

As I said, the initial idea is great but I pretty much would love to see it more fleshed out, where different playstyles actually are viable and even fairly competitive with each other.
How things are proposed RN, they force mixed factions (UCRs+GCRs). There must be an addition that gives UCRs binding together into a good organized coalition as much weight as GCRs binding together, allowing a multitude of factional playstyles. Perhaps even each of them could hold an unique own benefit, so that each form to play this game has something exciting. (Mixed/Pure UCR/Pure GCR)

I agree that the Meta should be broken, don't get me wrong. But I consider it wrong to replace the Meta with a new Meta. If we discuss this, I think we have the chance to discuss and propose something that gives NS something important: more depth and the opportunity that a Sandbox game, becomes Sandbox again, without any enforced Meta in effect: A world of opportunity. In which players make their own choices how to approach the political landscape of NS, in which every single tactic and approach has something exciting and viable and is able to compete with the others.

That's what I mean KotH, and hence I said your general idea is actually great.
Last edited by Pergamon on Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Senator Emeritus of The Pacific - Ret. Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Reventus Koth
Envoy
 
Posts: 293
Founded: Apr 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Reventus Koth » Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:24 am

Though I'm sure my wording may have betrayed me, there's nothing mechanically stopping multiple GCRs from forming a faction together. It's still very much within the real of possibility. I just don't anticipate it happening with any sort of permanence because the incentives aren't there as much. If nothing else it gives Francoists a stage to prove that their GCR supremacist ideals have basis in reality: when there's so much incentive to mingle, will the GCRs still band together?

Yes, this proposal as written would make it so The Pacific has to do more than its current nothing in Gameplay to justify its political importance. I don't think that's a bad thing, and if you're concerned that this proposal would expose the flaws in the NPO for what they are, then perhaps it's time for a change anyway.

Soft power wouldn't go away if factions were to be implemented, by the way. The Pacific is still very capable of using its WA power and soft power to affect the game the same way it currently does. And it's not like the NPO doesn't have experience in other games with systems like this. I think Pacifica will be fine.
Formerly known as Ambroscus Koth, +1843 posts. Trust no one.

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Pergamon » Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:36 am

Reventus Koth wrote:Though I'm sure my wording may have betrayed me, there's nothing mechanically stopping multiple GCRs from forming a faction together. It's still very much within the real of possibility. I just don't anticipate it happening with any sort of permanence because the incentives aren't there as much. If nothing else it gives Francoists a stage to prove that their GCR supremacist ideals have basis in reality: when there's so much incentive to mingle, will the GCRs still band together?

Yes, this proposal as written would make it so The Pacific has to do more than its current nothing in Gameplay to justify its political importance. I don't think that's a bad thing, and if you're concerned that this proposal would expose the flaws in the NPO for what they are, then perhaps it's time for a change anyway.

Soft power wouldn't go away if factions were to be implemented, by the way. The Pacific is still very capable of using its WA power and soft power to affect the game the same way it currently does. And it's not like the NPO doesn't have experience in other games with systems like this. I think Pacifica will be fine.


You missed my point. Are we going to smash the current Meta or the NPO?
Again: Replacing the old Meta for a new one should not be what we are looking for. We should be looking for a way to have no Metagame at all.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Senator Emeritus of The Pacific - Ret. Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Reventus Koth
Envoy
 
Posts: 293
Founded: Apr 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Reventus Koth » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:09 am

Pergamon wrote:
Reventus Koth wrote:Though I'm sure my wording may have betrayed me, there's nothing mechanically stopping multiple GCRs from forming a faction together. It's still very much within the real of possibility. I just don't anticipate it happening with any sort of permanence because the incentives aren't there as much. If nothing else it gives Francoists a stage to prove that their GCR supremacist ideals have basis in reality: when there's so much incentive to mingle, will the GCRs still band together?

Yes, this proposal as written would make it so The Pacific has to do more than its current nothing in Gameplay to justify its political importance. I don't think that's a bad thing, and if you're concerned that this proposal would expose the flaws in the NPO for what they are, then perhaps it's time for a change anyway.

Soft power wouldn't go away if factions were to be implemented, by the way. The Pacific is still very capable of using its WA power and soft power to affect the game the same way it currently does. And it's not like the NPO doesn't have experience in other games with systems like this. I think Pacifica will be fine.


You missed my point. Are we going to smash the current Meta or the NPO?
Again: Replacing the old Meta for a new one should not be what we are looking for. We should be looking for a way to have no Metagame at all.


We pretty much hashed this out on Discord but I'll just finish this here anyway: this proposal isn't designed to create a new meta, it's designed to foster new emergent Gameplay using what we have now as a baseline that can be added onto mechanically. There is no way to avoid a metagame, because that is what Gameplay is. It just doesn't need to be so dull.
Last edited by Reventus Koth on Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Formerly known as Ambroscus Koth, +1843 posts. Trust no one.

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 607
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:26 am

Really interesting idea here. My personal suggestion would be to start by making factions a cosmetic thing now then hash out any details about power later. This means these parts of the proposal would be implemented first: Require 100 WA nations for a faction to be created, dissolve factions that fall below 100 WA nations, and let delegates and/or founders move their region around with the same delay as it takes to create an embassy.

My reasoning here is twofold: First, everyone seems on board with the basic idea of factions, but disagrees on the details of how power should work within the factions. Second, regions should be given a chance to factionalize themselves before any kind of power game comes into play, so that regions have a chance to group themselves.

Now assuming that we utilize the impact system, I am opposed to foundered or passworded regions generating impact for their faction. If they can, then a group of players wanting to maximize power could hide behind founders and gain an unfair advantage. The Impact system is assuming that military gameplay is a viable way to prevent this from becoming a numbers game, but founders counter military gameplay.

The other issue I see with impact as currently implemented is that it would reward puppet spamming. With impact generation happening based on the ratio of WAs to non-WAs, if I want to hurt a faction, all I have to do is throw random puppets at their regions with the highest concentration of WAs. And Pergamon is right that this would unfairly disadvantage GCRs.

I suggest the impact generated by each region should be the square root of the number of WA nations in it. This means one region with 100 WA nations would generate 10 impact per update for their faction, and 100 regions with one WA nation would generate a total of 100 impact per update for their faction. This, in addition to limiting impact generation to non-passworded founderless regions, would force regions to play a balance between optimizing power and optimizing security. In this way, GCRs could in fact join together in the way Pergamon wants, without being disadvantaged.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.



The NPO is basically North Korea, if North Korea colonized Mars and the Kims were inbred with Martians.

Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 4596
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:53 am

Personally I was thinking Impact should be related in some way to % of WA nations endorsing delegate, which rewards regional development, though that would need work to avoid the teeny regions with 2 WAs. And on the plus side, then breaking another faction's Impact generation by spamming over non-endoing WAs serves as a way to actually damage other Factions (sorta) while costing the Faction(s) doing the act at the same time.
Osiris Vizier of WA AffairsDee Vytherov-SkollvaldrDeputy Forest KeeperLieutenant in The Black HawksWA Minister of Lazarus

User avatar
Paplem
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Apr 25, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Paplem » Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:29 pm

Reventus Koth wrote:Hey everyone, Koth here. I have a proposal for NationStates Gameplay that is designed to be a fundamental overhaul to the way emergent political conflict works in this game by rooting it in mechanics that should already exist to support it. The problems with Gameplay in 2018 can be summarized in the following points:

  • Gameplay is mechanically basic and lacks complexity
  • Power has centralized around GCRs, leaving the UCRs mechanically and narratively uninteresting
  • R/D has become narratively bland, prioritizing quantity of raids and defenses over political intrigue
  • Gameplay is stagnant and difficult to make a splash in because of lack of avenues for conflict

My proposal seeks to address all of these points while not taking away from the cultural, mechanical, and political importance of GCRs, UCRs, and R/D. This system would exist on top of the current mechanics, and provide another level of in-game political intrigue that brings attention back to nationstates.net as opposed to off-site communication platforms that contribute the entirety of narrative development in Gameplay.

Let's call it Factions.

Right now, we can say that there are mechanically two levels of GP: the Nation and the Region. Players exist on the Nation level and contribute, via the World Assembly, to the mechanical power of the Region they reside in. At the Region level, WA Delegates and their endorsements form the basis of the Raider/Defender subculture, which was originally an unintended side effect but is now a bona fide aspect of NSGP. GCR culture is founded upon the necessity of securing their Founderless regions with dedicated WA nations endorsing their Delegate.

The crux of my proposal hinges on adding another level to GP: Factions (or alliances, or whatever you want to call them). They exist above the Region level, they are entities that will be comprised of Regions like Regions are comprised of Nations. Like regions, they will have additional game mechanics which add intrigue to the world of NationStates and provide for in-game methods of true warfare, which games such as [REDACTED] have had since their inception.

At the Faction level, regions act like nations, with their Founders (or WA Delegate in their absence) acting as representatives to the faction they are part of. Founders can also choose to delegate this responsibility to the WAD. The World Assembly system is used to determine a region's power within their faction. The region with the most endorsements on their WAD would become the Chair of the Faction, or maybe they're elected.

The Faction Chair is an incredibly important and influential role to play. It is expected that every feeder and sinker would inevitably be the Chair of their faction, because I can't imagine two GCRs existing in the same faction when, with the amount of endorsements they have, they could easily Chair their own faction and wield far more power over the game. A Chair region would be able to contribute a number of votes in the World Assembly proportional to their faction's overall power (which I'll call Impact later), much like how the WAD's power in the WA is equal to its endorsements. A Chair also has the power to rename their faction, appoint Electors, incorporate Territories into the faction, and utilize the faction's power on the world's scale in other ways I haven't thought of yet.

There are two types of regions that would exist within the Faction: Electors and Territories. Electors are fully fledged members of the faction that cannot be claimed by other factions as their sovereign territory. The amount of Electors that can exist within a faction is determined by the faction's overall Impact on the World Assembly. Basically, the more endorsements your faction has, the more regions within the faction are allowed to be protected with Elector status. Territories are contested regions that have been claimed by the faction and contribute to the World Assembly power of the faction, but without Elector protections can be disputed and claimed by other factions through warfare. I'll get into how later.

There are two ideas I have in mind for how you would go about creating the initial Factions in the game. I'm very open to any combination of ideas here.
    1. Create about 20 initial factions with generic names (Ex. The Dandelion Alliance) and distribute the most powerful regions between all of them, randomly filling in the rest. This would certainly generate some very interesting narratives and eventually balance out into a consistent meta, with the Chairs having renamed their factions, designated their favored Electors, and incorporated the territories they were interested in claiming.
    2. Allow factions to emerge naturally, providing mechanics to form a faction if a group of regions meet certain criteria (a combined 100 endorsements needed between all regional delegates, for instance). Regions are allowed to exist as neutral elements on the Faction level until they are claimed by a faction through Annexation or R/D.

"Warfare" exists as a consequence of Territories not being protected as well as the existence of R/D. How exactly it works I'm willing to argue about, but here's my current idea: Nations have Influence in a Region, and Regions generate what I'll call Impact for their Faction. Impact will be expended by the Chair to appoint Electors and to stake claims on Territories. Territories (and even Electors!) can also choose to switch factions voluntarily, which means one can bypass the Warfare system by raiding a region and changing factions like one would establish Embassies currently.

I'm going to use the region St Abbaddon to illustrate how the system would work here. Let's say St Abbaddon is a Territory claimed by the New Pacific Order faction. The Imperialist faction, having generated a certain amount of Impact, expends that Impact to contest the NPO's claim and forcefully Annex the region into their faction. St A's endorsements will now generate Impact for the Imperialists and push that faction further up the ranks. Alternatively, they could decide to use R/D to save on Impact and raid St A, forcefully applying the region to the Imperialist faction using WAD tools. The downside is that they would be parking useful endorsements in a single region they could be using to raid other regions.

I think it's important to illustrate that since this augments the current system, it still maintains the integrity of the "opt-out" options available to people who want to stay out of R/D. A neutral region claimed by a Faction using Impact is not mechanically or socially affected, which in a way makes it less disruptive than R/D to native regions, while still including R/D as a viable alternative. It also brings UCRs back into the meta (even providing a mechanical incentive to care about backwater regions with low endorsements) without changing the culture of GCRs and UCRs.

Please feel free to mutate this any way you wish, and help create a more interesting GP experience that the admins will never actually implement. I wrote this really quickly so I know I'll have to clarify some things.


I really Like this, I think It would Improve and add a LOT of new and cool features and add-ons to NS. So Cool proposal. All we need is for it to get expected. :clap: :clap: :clap:

User avatar
Tim-Opolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5977
Founded: Feb 17, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Tim-Opolis » Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:40 pm

Galiantus III wrote:snip

Per Request of Koth who is at work:

Koth Today at 2:39 PM
Okay so who's good with this: faction dips below threshold and a timer starts, all Electors are immediately Territories again. The timer is the Impact of the faction dropping to zero, at which point all regions are dumped into Neutral Ground
Author of SC#74, SC #203, SC #222, and SC #238 | Co-Author of SC#191
Founder of Spiritus | Three-Time Delegate of Osiris | Pharaoh of the Islamic Republics of Iran | Hero of Greece
[11:16:10] <@Koth> tim is a loose cannon cop on the edge who doesn't play by the rules

User avatar
Marilyn Manson Freaks
Diplomat
 
Posts: 717
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Marilyn Manson Freaks » Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:36 pm

I'd love this.
Hi, I'm Manson! I'm just your friendly neighborhood rockstar!
NS Join Date: November 6th, 2015

Here are some things I've authored.

Jobs & Positions
4th Generation Fishmonger
Founder of the Church of Zyonn
NRO Stooge

User avatar
Escade
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1003
Founded: Apr 11, 2013
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Escade » Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:53 pm

I haven't parsed through all the possibilities or impacts of this yet but find this proposal very interesting. Love the new additions as well as its evolving.

User avatar
Malphe
Diplomat
 
Posts: 722
Founded: Jun 02, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Malphe » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:13 am

I'm on board with this. Rat's chance in hell of actually being implemented but I'd be good if it was even just implemented in part.
Malphe Vytherov-Skollvaldr
(Osiris, Malphe II, (The North Pacific, Malphe)

Pinky and the Brain's moderately more successful cousin-
- and apparently Rach's adopted son.
[b]Ur a thot malphe - Salvarity
Malphe you could never disappoint - Kyorgia
Malphe is a snitch - Kyrusia
We already knew you were scum Malphe - Badger
Malphe region exists! I'm not the only narcissist with a self titled region! - Vandoosa
That darn Malphe guy is a real menace - Imki
I’m up for watching you get DOS’d, Malphe - Ark
heard this nasty rumor that malphe was a udl plant - Mall
Malphe you disgust me - Jamie

User avatar
Thornid
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Mar 27, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thornid » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:39 am

I absolutely love the idea of this Factions system. I'm no expert with the current gameplay systems in place, but I would love something to help keep the game alive for people. Most people I know either leave after a single day, or just eventually forget to log in. NationStates really needs something with stopping power, something more fun. The Issues are good but at some point it's just reading prompts you've already read before. The role-play is nice, but your mileage can vary depending on who you're with. Having Regions ally with each other sounds like a great addition regardless, and it would be better if there was some kind of mechanical backing for it. I would still prefer some way to opt out, and Sanctuary sounds like a good idea.

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1448
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:41 am

Think I'm leaning against after trying pretty hard to like the idea.

Firstly, to the suggestions that Koth would make it, no offense to Koth who seems alright from the few interactions I've had with him, but are people seriously suggesting that a player who was subject to a WA ban/lost their main nation for using an illegal script should be given access to the game code? Like, wow.

Second, isn't very well fleshed out at all, but seems needlessly complex and a massive feature for only a small subset of the game. The specific points of the proposal are a lot harder to critique, because it doesn't appear to have much more specifics, and just a general idea. Having ideas simple is a major part of NS.

Third, half the problems presented by OP aren't problems that need admin intervention. I agree with is the lack of avenues for conflict, but allowing GP regions god mode founders without allowing the WA to take away those protections, and incentives to refound and destroy regions rather than annex and build them is the issue. Gameplay core concepts being simple is good, as it makes it easier for newer players to grasp. Complexity for complexities sake doesn't exactly sound like something to strive towards.

Bits of the idea I like, bits I think could be fixed, and bits I think are beyond salvage. Overall though, seems like a massively complex and enormous undertaking for something that imho could be fixed, or at least helped significantly by a mixture of adding the ability for the WA to remove founders/annexation (idea I've loved for the last 3 years and written pages on)/upping ejection costs/making regions that are empty turning off their password and needing to remain empty for a day before CTEing. Basically aiming for more founderless regions and making the path of least resistance region building rather than region destruction.

Also does GP really need this feature ahead of every other community in the game? Not sure what other features are pressing, and I would highly like annexation etc. but I'm not seeing that it's life or death that GP gets something right now vs 2 years down the track.
As always, I'm representing myself as a citizen, rather than as part of the Government, if I am at the time.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads