The Laxus Union wrote:Is 45 star systems to you all considered godmodding? I say no if its taken much time to colonize,[...]
Did you roleplay the sum of that colonization on NationStates? If the answer is "Yes", then the next question is, "Does the community-at-large feel it was justified and well-executed?". If the answer is further "Yes", then no, it is not godmodding. Did you just "colonize" all of those star systems in "backstory", "history", or "fluff"? If the answer is "Yes", then yes, it would very much be considered godmodding, poor form, and likely would receive a blanket ignore by a significant portion of the community. That, like galactic, intergalactic, and transgalactic empires tends to result in the player being rather communally declared persona non grata - especially if the player absolutely insists on that size against advice of more veteran and experienced players or, otherwise, is exceptionally stubborn and unable (or unwilling) to see and accept the possible validity of the opinions of others.
Also: Did you roleplay the sum of that colonization elsewhere? If the answer is "Yes", then it would still likely be considered godmodding and poor form. Science-fiction roleplaying, canon, and continuity created or executed outside of NationStates is, in general, irrelevant to the community itself. A player may have eighty-seven galaxies and may have, rightfully, roleplayed their capture and conquering - and may have done so very well and in an excellent way with great stories... But at the end of the day, that's not NS FT; that's the novel that they wrote or the canon of the community where they roleplayed the conquest at.
This, further, isn't really an issue about "how many worlds you have" or "how big your space territory is" or, even, "how large your population is"; it's a matter of practicality and creative efficiency. Given the scale the general NS FT community works at, the time scales, the broad mean level of technological development, and simply the limit of actual time one can spend creating (without diminishing time spent with friends and family, your respective employer or academic institution, social responsibilities, etc.). Fewer worlds, in general, means it is far easier for someone to tackle both the scope of their given civilization/entity/polity, etc. and means greater detail can be put into what they do have.
Since FT is not a numbers- or territory-game, but a storytelling exercise and a worldbuilding/roleplaying game, the more detail, the greater interest. The more detail, the more lush and rich environments, settings, and stories the player can create. For players - especially new players still "learning the ropes", as it were - it is far easier to work-with something of modest size (in comparison, though even a sole star system is massive; see below) and far easier to create a level of detail that would attract others than it is to, say, do so in the instance of a pan-galactic hegemony. Again, it's not an issue of "turf size" or "population": it's an issue of the practical considerations that must be taken if one is to have a fulfilling history of interaction and activity on NationStates.
The Laxus Union wrote:you have great management skills, and a beneficial political system for your planets as a whole.
Define "great management skills"; define "beneficial political system". Ultimately, to a degree, these two definitions will always receive different interpretations based on whom you ask. The rule of thumb is, "Is it executed creative manner and not as a rip of pre-existing franchises? Does the player compromise to allow for plot? Did they collaborate and work well with others?", not some arbitrary definition of "great" or "beneficial" based on two ideas which are inherently subjective and beyond the scope of relevance insofar as story-telling is concerned. Again, presuming the "political systems" isn't simply an absurd impossibility or so unfeasibly un-workable as to be, well, absurd. Sure, "working well with others", "creatively", etc. are equally subjective, but they are subjective qualities that can, do a degree of certainty, be analyzed in situ and, thus, are relevant to the community-at-large.
The Laxus Union wrote:I'm told off and on that I'm a crazy godmodder and should stick with one system.
You should stick, as a new player, to between one to three star systems. See this post; it contains a more detailed explanation of mine as to why.
The Laxus Union wrote:See, the thing is, my canon shows that my nation is heavily involved and interested in colonization for many purposes. Is rather not stick with one star system do to this. What are some opinions of yours and please no putting me down. There is no reason for it. Especially since its just a thread on a forum of an internet political simulation game.
Then it is advisable you re-work your canon to be more acceptable based on the community, as if the canon of your civilization/entity/polity is not broadly accepted or is so [x] that it makes it difficult to interact with, you likely will not find... well, many people willing to interact with you. It's as simple as that. If that's not your style, and you are absolutely set on such-and-such characteristics, you might consider making something new for the broader community of FT that meets the conventions and standards of the community you desire to be a part of and participate with on a regular basis and with great ease.
Hope that was helpful.
