[Suggestion] All Regions are GCRs, UCRs are Groups

[Galiantus III]

When I initially posted this it was long and hard to digest. I've edited it to be simple as possible.

I propose the following: The only "regions" that exist will be about 100 GCRs, including feeders, sinkers, warzones, and The Rejected Realms. UCRs will be re-branded as groups. There will be different types of groups (communities, alliances, armies, etc.) Nations could join as many group as they like. However, the current rules requiring nations to be in exactly one region will remain.

Pros:
- Recruitment spam will essentially be a thing of the past. New players won't get their inboxes flooded. Instead, they will get a welcome telegram.
- Gameplay can act mostly independent of activities not related to regional government.
- There is no need to take into consideration existing UCRs when trying to name these regions, since every region will be a GCR.

Cons:
- The logistics of WA delegates. The populations of regions with the largest delegates could be accommodated by moving the whole UCR/Group to its own region. Smaller UCR delegates would lose out.
- Tag raiding, quorum raiding, and some other R/D activities would no longer be possible. However, regional invasions would still absolutely be possible.

This is an idea that was sparked by discussion in Sedge's proposal to delay feeder telegrams.

GCRs and UCRs not only have different mechanics, but serve different functions. GCRs are giant hubs of activity, while UCRs provide an outlet for creativity. GCRs are inherently geographical, while UCRs are ideological. GCRs concentrate power, while UCRs disperse it. Given their inherent differences, why should there be any competition between the two at all? Enter Alliances:

I propose that UCRs no longer be called regions, but alliances. Nations will have residence in one region, and membership in up to one alliance. This effectively means current GCRs and UCRs would compete on totally different playing fields, with regions (GCRs) representing the geography of the world, and alliances (UCRs) representing the organizational/aspirational/social side of the world. Naturally, this would require the creation of more regions (GCRs) to accommodate all the nations currently residing in UCRs.

Update would treat regions and alliances equally. Nations in an alliance would update with the alliance, and nations without an alliance would update with their region. This is an improvement from a gameplay standpoint because it breaks up the time where a GCR would update into smaller chunks. I could see this being a technical/performance improvement as well, but that's just speculation and I really don't know.

This idea is very much a long-term discussion. I realize this would be a technically demanding change to make, and would require some careful planning to implement. That said, I believe this would be overwhelmingly positive for the game: we'd no longer have UCRS and GCRs competing at the expense of new players, and it opens up more ways to play.

The main benefit to all this is new players could experience the best of both worlds: they would get all the activity of a region, yet alliances would offer a tailored social experience. All players would have two communities to engage directly with, instead of just one. Additionally, this would provide a versatile canvas for regional activities and organizations. Alliances would be a solid platform for clubs, separate RPs within the same region, interregional festivals, or a district structure (like in the Pacific). And of course, they would be a natural home for political parties and military organizations.

The main drawback to this idea would be figuring out how to allocate WA delegates. There are related problems with influence, but it is my understanding that nations already maintain influence between multiple regions they've visited; so this should be minor relative to WA delegate changes.

I see two possible ways to go about allocating WA delegates:

1. Delegates are region-based, most endorsements in an alliance gets executive (if applicable)
2. Delegates are alliance-based, most endorsements in a region gets executive

Under either system, nations could endorse within both their region and their alliance - so military gameplay would continue to work as normal. Under (2), nations that lack alliance membership could give their regional executive extra votes by endorsing them, even if the executive isn't a WA delegate; otherwise they wouldn't get full WA representation.

I am partial to (2) because it would leave existing power structures virtually untouched. Regional executives would most often also be the delegate of a large alliance within their region. So not only would regional control be perfectly maintained, but there would also be a strong correlation with regional control and WA power.

I am not proposing any kind of hybrid delegate system because that would just be too complicated to implement or understand. But if someone does have an idea how to make something like that work, go ahead and suggest it.

[Roavin]

GCRs are giant hubs of activity, while UCRs provide an outlet for creativity.

Lazarus is not a giant hub of activity. Europeia is.

GCRs are inherently geographical, while UCRs are ideological.

The South Pacific is ideological. Lily is not.

--

With your base assumptions already wrong, I don't think I need to comment on the rest.

[Drew Durrnil]

You should at least make some of the larger UCR's such as Europe, 10KI, and TLC regions.

[Galiantus III]

GCRs are giant hubs of activity, while UCRs provide an outlet for creativity.

Lazarus is not a giant hub of activity. Europeia is.

GCRs are inherently geographical, while UCRs are ideological.

The South Pacific is ideological. Lily is not.

--

With your base assumptions already wrong, I don't think I need to comment on the rest.

Those aren't assumptions, they're generalizations. I recognize any region can be a hub of activity, or ideologically motivated, or anything else I listed. But 99% of UCRs are dead and cater to a specific kind of player, and all GCRs maintain a base level of activity, and tend to have more general appeal. Those aren't minor differences that can be ignored based on a couple outliers.

[New Excalibus]

This is... certainly an interesting idea. But it's a little much to suggest an update (which NS doesn't do much of) that massively changes the regional dynamic within NS.
This would be a pretty frickin' big change to make, and one that would honestly just make things even more complicated for newbs just joining the game.
So yeah, this is an iffy idea. Good try though, and I do love seeing some discourse about the core features of NS.

[Galiantus III]

This is... certainly an interesting idea. But it's a little much to suggest an update (which NS doesn't do much of) that massively changes the regional dynamic within NS.
This would be a pretty frickin' big change to make, and one that would honestly just make things even more complicated for newbs just joining the game.
So yeah, this is an iffy idea. Good try though, and I do love seeing some discourse about the core features of NS.

Thats a fair take. I don't think it would be nearly as confusing to newbies as you might assume - I expect it would also give them more places to go for help. But it would indeed be a huge change. That by itself is a significant point against it.

[LollerLand]

Alliances would be a solid platform for clubs, separate RPs within the same region, interregional festivals, or a district structure (like in the Pacific). And of course, they would be a natural home for political parties and military organizations.

So effectively destroy the many rich and vibrant communities built around UCRs? No, thank you.

[Reploid Productions]

This seems like a ridiculously over-complicated solution looking for a problem.

[Galiantus III]

Alliances would be a solid platform for clubs, separate RPs within the same region, interregional festivals, or a district structure (like in the Pacific). And of course, they would be a natural home for political parties and military organizations.

So effectively destroy the many rich and vibrant communities built around UCRs? No, thank you.

How would that destroy existing UCR communities? Those are just other options for the use of alliances. If anything what you'd get is a bunch of UCR-equivalent communities existing in parallel in the same regions.

[Galiantus III]

This seems like a ridiculously over-complicated solution looking for a problem.

Perhaps. Not all proposals need to be motivated by solving an existing problem. Some can be based on making general improvements, like cards, or extra stats.

[LollerLand]

So effectively destroy the many rich and vibrant communities built around UCRs? No, thank you.

How would that destroy existing UCR communities? Those are just other options for the use of alliances. If anything what you'd get is a bunch of UCR-equivalent communities existing in parallel in the same regions.

Yeah but if what I am reading is right, they would no longer be regions but just a group that nations in GCR joins, not the same thing right? Making people forced to be part of GCRs sounds like NS2 level of iffy.

[Galiantus III]

How would that destroy existing UCR communities? Those are just other options for the use of alliances. If anything what you'd get is a bunch of UCR-equivalent communities existing in parallel in the same regions.

Yeah but if what I am reading is right, they would no longer be regions but just a group that nations in GCR joins, not the same thing right? Making people forced to be part of GCRs sounds like NS2 level of iffy.

Oh, I see what you're worried about. Alliances/UCRs wouldn't be limited to Region/GCR boundaries. An alliance could be composed of 12 nations from Lazarus, 7 nations from TNP, 8 nations from TRR, 2 nations from Warzone Airspace, etc. Any requirement to be a part of a particular region would have to be enforced by the founder or delegate of the alliance.

Edit: Further explanation might help. A UCR like The Black Hawks could continue to exist as it is, because although their membership would be spread among many regions, their community would be totally independent of them. They would still have their own leadership, conduct raids on other alliances/UCRs, and fight The Gray Wardens and other defender alliances. The benefit of allowing membership in both a close-knit community and a more general "town square" style region is that players have immediate access to two different communities: one that is more social and active, and one that is more focused and tight-knit. Additionally, the founder of a UCR can more easily focus on the "niche" of their region, since they don't necessarily have to provide activity other than what is necessary to meet their goals.

[LollerLand]

Yeah but if what I am reading is right, they would no longer be regions but just a group that nations in GCR joins, not the same thing right? Making people forced to be part of GCRs sounds like NS2 level of iffy.

Oh, I see what you're worried about. Alliances/UCRs wouldn't be limited to Region/GCR boundaries. An alliance could be composed of 12 nations from Lazarus, 7 nations from TNP, 8 nations from TRR, 2 nations from Warzone Airspace, etc. Any requirement to be a part of a particular region would have to be enforced by the founder or delegate of the alliance.

Yeah, doesn't sound so good to me. Not everyone is a cosmo, not everyone likes being in two communities at once. This would rid of UCRs of such valuable and loyal members. It would remove the feeling of a close knitted community from many UCRs. This would also have negative implications for r/d. Too much cost to increase the nation count of GCRs.

[Eluvatar]

I won't be implementing this and would argue against it.

[Galiantus III]

Oh, I see what you're worried about. Alliances/UCRs wouldn't be limited to Region/GCR boundaries. An alliance could be composed of 12 nations from Lazarus, 7 nations from TNP, 8 nations from TRR, 2 nations from Warzone Airspace, etc. Any requirement to be a part of a particular region would have to be enforced by the founder or delegate of the alliance.

Yeah, doesn't sound so good to me. Not everyone is a cosmo, not everyone likes being in two communities at once.

This is a fair point.

This would rid of UCRs of such valuable and loyal members. It would remove the feeling of a close knitted community from many UCRs.

I disagree. This is like arguing that the forums would take away from the community of regions. If anything, having a forum has improved regional communities, and made them stronger and more diverse.

This would also have negative implications for r/d. Too much cost to increase the nation count of GCRs.

Not really. R/D would still take place in alliances, and GCRs could still get couped.

I won't be implementing this and would argue against it.

Well I guess rip this thread then?

I'd love to hear your arguments.

[Eluvatar]

I'd love to hear your arguments.

They mostly come down to too much work and too much disruption of existing communities and play for something that I think probably won't have much benefit.

[Jar Wattinree]

You should at least make some of the larger UCR's such as Europe, 10KI, and TLC regions.

Chicken overlords, too.

[Mel Trotter]

I'd love to hear your arguments.

They mostly come down to too much work and too much disruption of existing communities and play for something that I think probably won't have much benefit.

I concur. I don't see how the cost-benefit would worthwhile.

[Drew Durrnil]

You should at least make some of the larger UCR's such as Europe, 10KI, and TLC regions.

Chicken overlords, too.

No, since they're a puppet dump and have a delegate with only 12 endorsements. In fact, make every UCR with 100+ delegate endorsements a region if this is true.

[Galiantus III]

Chicken overlords, too.

No, since they're a puppet dump and have a delegate with only 12 endorsements. In fact, make every UCR with 100+ delegate endorsements a region if this is true.

Practically speaking, all UCRs would have to be communities for this to work. Having a founder is a significant security advantage, and being a feeder is a significant recruitment advantage. It would be game-breaking if, in a region's lifetime, it was able to leverage both advantages, even at different times. So this proposal absolutely would require the creation of several feeders to house the existing UCR population.

I'd love to hear your arguments.

They mostly come down to too much work and too much disruption of existing communities and play for something that I think probably won't have much benefit.

I was initially just going to let this die. However, since others seem intent on keeping this topic around, I'll respond.

What I'm suggesting is functionally similar N-Day factions. The difference here is existing UCRs would be the factions. Others have suggested this would be technically complicated, but I think this perception is more a consequence of me preemtively addressing the implications of such a change. I know this would not be simple, but I am aware similar things have been done in the past.

Let me give my rational for this, beyond just having two communities to be a part of:

A simpler way to implement this would be exactly like N-Day factions, where users can just create a new multiplayer group how they want. However, I'm not proposing that because (1) I know it's been proposed in the past and was talked to death, and (2) that would exacerbate the recruitment spam problem with a whole new type of organization to recruit for.

There are a few reasons this is superior to just adding a separate feature:

• It plays within existing power structures instead of adding new ones.
• It simplifies the game geography for new players.
• It could alleviate recruitment problems.

First, if alliances or factions were implemented separately, communities that do not exist now could more easily rise to power and displace existing communities. On the other hand, this proposal gives the status quo the benefit of the doubt. Regions which are large now will maintain the same relevance. As for smaller communities, being put in closer proximity should be a good thing, as it will be more natural for them to merge an consolidate into more cohesive social structures, with more power.

Second, if there's only something like 30 regions (feeders, sinkers, warzones, TRR), that is a lot less overwhelming to new players. It's the difference between having a map of the continents, and a list of coordinates for every human settlement. It makes the game look more clean and polished, and helps contextualize multiplayer interaction that is otherwise pretty abstract.

Last, recruitment spam is a product of UCRs. GCRs are not likely to recruit from each other. By creating a few extra GCRs for the current top UCR communities to initially control, the total amount of recruitment needed by them will decrease. Obviously recruitment won't stop, but it should move things in a better direction.

[Galiantus III]

I'm bringing this topic up again in response to this comment about recruitment.

I'd rather see an improved recruitment system, one that doesn't depend on having to hope that your region's TGs get through before the other nations get fed up with receiving so many such messages and just block all of them... and that helps regions based around particular concepts, rather than just trying to accumulate as many WA members as possible for R/D, to target appropriate nations.

There's a simple way to eliminate problems with recruitment: fewer regions. If you condense the whole player base into 100 or more regions, all with feeder or sinker mechanics, who will recruit? Who will need to recruit? I'm sure a few regions will, but it won't be like it is now. New players would get a welcome telegram from their starting region, and maybe two or three telegrams from some other region. All the existing recruitment efforts would go to general publicity for various organizations: parties, alliances, communities, etc. Basically, wherever you happened to show up, the RMB would be alive with government-sanctioned activity, and that is how new players would discover groups (currently UCRs) and join them.

[Comfed]

I'm bringing this topic up again in response to this comment about recruitment.

I'd rather see an improved recruitment system, one that doesn't depend on having to hope that your region's TGs get through before the other nations get fed up with receiving so many such messages and just block all of them... and that helps regions based around particular concepts, rather than just trying to accumulate as many WA members as possible for R/D, to target appropriate nations.

There's a simple way to eliminate problems with recruitment: fewer regions. If you condense the whole player base into 100 or more regions, all with feeder or sinker mechanics, who will recruit? Who will need to recruit? I'm sure a few regions will, but it won't be like it is now. New players would get a welcome telegram from their starting region, and maybe two or three telegrams from some other region. All the existing recruitment efforts would go to general publicity for various organizations: parties, alliances, communities, etc. Basically, wherever you happened to show up, the RMB would be alive with government-sanctioned activity, and that is how new players would discover groups (currently UCRs) and join them.

No.There are plenty of small UCRs that don't particularly want anything to do with everyone else and have good regions.

[Galiantus III]

Nothing's preventing those players from creating their own private group and ignoring the region.

[Comfed]

Nothing's preventing those players from creating their own private group and ignoring the region.

Okay, fair.

My other criticism is that this seems to be aimed at making existing GCRs into mere sources of political activity. Personally, I am not interested in my region becoming a mere political football for power-seeking players.

[Grenartia]

When I initially posted this it was long and hard to digest. I've edited it to be simple as possible.

I propose the following: The only "regions" that exist will be about 100 GCRs, including feeders, sinkers, warzones, and The Rejected Realms. UCRs will be re-branded as groups. There will be different types of groups (communities, alliances, armies, etc.) Nations could join as many group as they like. However, the current rules requiring nations to be in exactly one region will remain.

Pros:
- Recruitment spam will essentially be a thing of the past. New players won't get their inboxes flooded. Instead, they will get a welcome telegram.
- Gameplay can act mostly independent of activities not related to regional government.
- There is no need to take into consideration existing UCRs when trying to name these regions, since every region will be a GCR.

Cons:
- The logistics of WA delegates. The populations of regions with the largest delegates could be accommodated by moving the whole UCR/Group to its own region. Smaller UCR delegates would lose out.
- Tag raiding, quorum raiding, and some other R/D activities would no longer be possible. However, regional invasions would still absolutely be possible.

This is an idea that was sparked by discussion in Sedge's proposal to delay feeder telegrams.

GCRs and UCRs not only have different mechanics, but serve different functions. GCRs are giant hubs of activity, while UCRs provide an outlet for creativity. GCRs are inherently geographical, while UCRs are ideological. GCRs concentrate power, while UCRs disperse it. Given their inherent differences, why should there be any competition between the two at all? Enter Alliances:

I propose that UCRs no longer be called regions, but alliances. Nations will have residence in one region, and membership in up to one alliance. This effectively means current GCRs and UCRs would compete on totally different playing fields, with regions (GCRs) representing the geography of the world, and alliances (UCRs) representing the organizational/aspirational/social side of the world. Naturally, this would require the creation of more regions (GCRs) to accommodate all the nations currently residing in UCRs.

Update would treat regions and alliances equally. Nations in an alliance would update with the alliance, and nations without an alliance would update with their region. This is an improvement from a gameplay standpoint because it breaks up the time where a GCR would update into smaller chunks. I could see this being a technical/performance improvement as well, but that's just speculation and I really don't know.

This idea is very much a long-term discussion. I realize this would be a technically demanding change to make, and would require some careful planning to implement. That said, I believe this would be overwhelmingly positive for the game: we'd no longer have UCRS and GCRs competing at the expense of new players, and it opens up more ways to play.

The main benefit to all this is new players could experience the best of both worlds: they would get all the activity of a region, yet alliances would offer a tailored social experience. All players would have two communities to engage directly with, instead of just one. Additionally, this would provide a versatile canvas for regional activities and organizations. Alliances would be a solid platform for clubs, separate RPs within the same region, interregional festivals, or a district structure (like in the Pacific). And of course, they would be a natural home for political parties and military organizations.

The main drawback to this idea would be figuring out how to allocate WA delegates. There are related problems with influence, but it is my understanding that nations already maintain influence between multiple regions they've visited; so this should be minor relative to WA delegate changes.

I see two possible ways to go about allocating WA delegates:

1. Delegates are region-based, most endorsements in an alliance gets executive (if applicable)
2. Delegates are alliance-based, most endorsements in a region gets executive

Under either system, nations could endorse within both their region and their alliance - so military gameplay would continue to work as normal. Under (2), nations that lack alliance membership could give their regional executive extra votes by endorsing them, even if the executive isn't a WA delegate; otherwise they wouldn't get full WA representation.

I am partial to (2) because it would leave existing power structures virtually untouched. Regional executives would most often also be the delegate of a large alliance within their region. So not only would regional control be perfectly maintained, but there would also be a strong correlation with regional control and WA power.

I am not proposing any kind of hybrid delegate system because that would just be too complicated to implement or understand. But if someone does have an idea how to make something like that work, go ahead and suggest it.

This just reminds me of the Associations idea Violet pointed out a while ago and that a lot of people (myself included) really liked. I think this goes a long way towards resolving a lot of the reasons why admin is hesitant to implement Associations.