Want more Feeders? Run the Gauntlet

[Galiantus III]

Ideas to change feeder/sinker mechanics have been tossed around several times in the past, but those discussions always miss the mark. Typically they either change the way existing ones work, or simply propose creating new ones because the existing ones are "too large". These are not good reasons to introduce new feeders or sinkers.

However, I believe there do exist good reasons to allow for more - provided they meet certain requirements.

First, feeders and sinkers exist to introduce or reinstate new or returning players to the game. That is their core purpose. To do this they should have an active and engaging community that will show players different parts of the game they might find interesting. If any allowance is made for new feeders or sinkers, they must perform this role well.

Second, feeders and sinkers also serve a purpose as places of political intrigue. They have unique mechanics and stand out center-stage in interregional politics. For this reason, any new feeders or sinkers must be contestable in the same way existing ones are.

Finally, there is no compelling reason for Admin to determine a hard number of feeders or sinkers - just that there are relatively few. If the details can be left up to the player-base (collectively, not individually) they should. The proper response to anyone who complains about GCRs being "overpowered" or "too large" should be "I dare you to make one". And doing so should be a very, very difficult task.

How to Make a new Feeder or Sinker
In line with the above principles, I propose that regions meeting the following requirements be given feeder or sinker status:

1. They must have either never had a founder, or the founder must be non-executive from the beginning. This forces anyone founding a region to really weigh their options. They can either create a secure community, or they can risk it all and play to win.
2. The region must have never had a password, or any password must have been removed more than 6 months ago. This ensures any new feeder or sinker has had sufficient exposure to the dangers of gameplay and proved its preparedness for the role.
3. It must have a WA delegate, and the delegate must maintain 250 endorsements for 28 days.
4. If the delegate ever falls below 250 endorsements for 28 days, the region reverts back to normal. A new feeder or sinker should demonstrate its ability to attract and retain players. Its primary role is to introduce players to the game, so this is absolutely essential.
5. Naturally, TRR is exempt from these rules.

Please note that #3 and #4 are placeholder rules, totally up for debate. The point is to make it really difficult and impose a high standard for active players in the region. As stated above, these regions must be thriving hubs of activity. Some other requirement might be better, and I invite discussion on this.

Any region meeting these requirements would become a feeder or sinker (see below), and be subject to the same rules as feeders and sinkers. The region could no longer be passworded, and nations inside it would experience influence decay.

Why this way?
To invite a challenge. Can a group of players attract enough of a following, in a totally vulnerable region, to make this happen? Well, I don't know. No regions outside existing GCRs come close to meeting these requirements (the closest region is NationStates). Creating a new feeder or sinker would have to be a coordinated effort by a large group of players, and external powers would have plenty of opportunity to topple the attempt to the ground. It would be interesting to see if anyone can succeed at this if presented with the possibility.

This creates a compelling reason to build regions that are full participants in gameplay. Many players will aspire to build a new feeder, but the vast majority will fail. This will lead to more large regions who have overtly opted in to all the threats of gameplay, as juicy targets for raids, coups, and general subterfuge. Such regions sacrifice the security of a founder for a harder, but potentially more rewarding path.

Importantly, this places the number of feeders and sinkers in the hands of the player community. If there is a perceived need for a new feeder, it can happen. If there are ever too many, the least useful ones will be removed automatically. It removes all complaints that GCRs are too powerful, yet guarantees there will only ever be a few such regions. And at the outset, existing feeders and sinkers will be untouchable (explained below).

Feeder or Sinker?

1. If this is the region's first time, calculate average WA populations for existing feeders and sinkers.
2. If existing feeders have the higher WA population, the region becomes a feeder.
3. If existing sinkers have the higher WA population, the region becomes a sinker.
4. Subsequent transformations of the same region match the first assignment.
5. A minimum of 5 feeders and 3 sinkers must always exist.

#5 is critical. Of the existing sinkers, only Lazarus could continue to exist without it - and then, just barely. But it is very important that existing feeders and sinkers can expect to continue existing safely. Under this set of rules, existing sinkers could continue as they are indefinitely: The only threat is if sinkers make significant growth compared to feeders, or the game falls apart.

This is a more developed version of an idea discussed in this topic a while back. I am bringing it up in its own topic because people generally seemed to like it, and I don't want other proposals to distract from this one.

[Virgolia]

I think the current amount of feeders and sinkers is ok and that no changes are needed

[Galiantus III]

I think the current amount of feeders and sinkers is ok and that no changes are needed

Good! If you are correct, no one should succeed at making new ones.

[Auphelia]

I think this is, to put it bluntly, a terrible idea. The current Feeder system works, as do the Sinkers. We specialise in creating a welcoming, open community that helps orient new players into the game and serve an important purpose in that way. Creating this shifting net of what is or isn’t a Feeder will only engender confusion.

Also, the idea of a UCR, whether the Founder has executive control or not, being given control over the lifeblood of NS is ridiculous. GCR governments only exist by the strength of our institutions alone and the faith people must place in us. We cannot set passwords, nor do we have a Founder to prevent invasions. If the people do not like the government, they change it. Even a non-executive Founder would have too much power as a Feeder or Sinker. We retain massive populations because we are good at what we do and newcomers like it. Other regions are small because they are more niche communities who appeal to some and not to others. By virtue of what we are, GCRs (Feeders in particular) must be a big tent where everyone can feel welcome and thus retain a larger number of nations.

Also also, I cannot imagine how difficult that would be to implement for the poor technical team.

[Galiantus III]

I think this is, to put it bluntly, a terrible idea. The current Feeder system works, as do the Sinkers. We specialise in creating a welcoming, open community that helps orient new players into the game and serve an important purpose in that way. Creating this shifting net of what is or isn’t a Feeder will only engender confusion.

Indeed. This is why if a region proves they are great at creating a welcoming, open community that helps orient new players into the game, this is a great idea.

Also, the idea of a UCR, whether the Founder has executive control or not, being given control over the lifeblood of NS is ridiculous. GCR governments only exist by the strength of our institutions alone and the faith people must place in us. We cannot set passwords, nor do we have a Founder to prevent invasions. If the people do not like the government, they change it. Even a non-executive Founder would have too much power as a Feeder or Sinker. We retain massive populations because we are good at what we do and newcomers like it. Other regions are small because they are more niche communities who appeal to some and not to others. By virtue of what we are, GCRs (Feeders in particular) must be a big tent where everyone can feel welcome and thus retain a larger number of nations.

If you are good at it, competition will make you better. Only regions that are anywhere near your level could compete.

Also also, I cannot imagine how difficult that would be to implement for the poor technical team.

That is a legitimate concern. I guess we'll have to see. But if Admin did anything similar to this they'd get a kick out of it: They're telling everyone "bet you can't jump over that 20 foot wall", and watching how they respond.