NationStates

West Bromwich Holme wrote:I've considered a new niche - caravans, but am not quite sure how to make the storefront better:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=490213&p=37557513

At the moment you really have a big list of features that are pretty dry. Yeah you probably want all of them there in some form but you would want to pick out and highlight say 5-6 keys features/selling points and feature them more noticeably. Possibly putting everything else into some kind of summary table.

Frankly caravans are niche in RL so its perhaps not surprising that your average NS player would even think of them. A possible solution might be come up with a mega flashy cool flag ship model as an initial USP for your company. Try to think of something that's a bit different. A random thought would be the sort of super streamlined twin deck things being produced in the late 30s to 50s but modernised and designed for complete off the grid exploring with solar/wind power, water recycling and a biogas reactor or something.

Does this storefront look good enough? > https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=491516

I'm not very big on making editing fancy or showcasing styles, so I made a storefront that was basically barebones in my opinion. It serves as an outlet for my creative side when making ships, however I've noticed that it's not getting a lot of traffic. Not that it's a big issue, but I figured on NS there'd be more need for ships. I'd like some input, please, from an outside perspective.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=490847

Rhim Flavezztowland wrote:Does this storefront look good enough? > https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=491516

My first snarky response would have been no, just based on a surface judgement of the name of your nation. However, I clicked the link. It's pretty good. You did well with images, BB Code formatting and I like the concept. You did a great job with the story behind the rise of the company and the concept. The major issue i can see is that you haven't really left room for products and departments. Brands should also be what you carry, not just retail variations of your model. What do you carry? What partnerships can you foster to have suppliers contribute to your stock? Open up that partnership avenue, which honestly, is going to be at least half your storefront traffic. Make an application for partners and suppliers, and I think that it will help gain a lot of interest to your thread. A lot of suppliers are going to want to also be franchisees.

Anagonia wrote:I'm not very big on making editing fancy or showcasing styles, so I made a storefront that was basically barebones in my opinion. It serves as an outlet for my creative side when making ships, however I've noticed that it's not getting a lot of traffic. Not that it's a big issue, but I figured on NS there'd be more need for ships. I'd like some input, please, from an outside perspective.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=490847

It's been said many times before. Military storefronts, even naval ones, are very prevalent on GE&T. You have to work to stand out. Being 'barebones' as you have admitted, is not the way to do that. You have to be flashier with your images, you have to not skimp on detail, and you have to put more character and story/background into it in order to rise above. Work on formatting. Work on a background for your products. Your original images are great. Work on highlighting them more instead of hiding them behind spoilers.

Also, most importantly...I would suggest avoiding the use of the word 'Bump' or 'Bumping' to draw attention to your thread. Rather, as a suitable bump post, make an ad for your products, or showcase one of them, or put in one of those aforementioned histories. Instead of repeating the post - copy, delete, paste, and repost until you get a response. Bump posts with no tangible content are desperate and wasteful. Avoid them at all costs as they will drive away more business then they will draw in.

Neu Engollon wrote:

Anagonia wrote:I'm not very big on making editing fancy or showcasing styles, so I made a storefront that was basically barebones in my opinion. It serves as an outlet for my creative side when making ships, however I've noticed that it's not getting a lot of traffic. Not that it's a big issue, but I figured on NS there'd be more need for ships. I'd like some input, please, from an outside perspective.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=490847

It's been said many times before. Military storefronts, even naval ones, are very prevalent on GE&T. You have to work to stand out. Being 'barebones' as you have admitted, is not the way to do that. You have to be flashier with your images, you have to not skimp on detail, and you have to put more character and story/background into it in order to rise above. Work on formatting. Work on a background for your products. Your original images are great. Work on highlighting them more instead of hiding them behind spoilers.

Also, most importantly...I would suggest avoiding the use of the word 'Bump' or 'Bumping' to draw attention to your thread. Rather, as a suitable bump post, make an ad for your products, or showcase one of them, or put in one of those aforementioned histories. Instead of repeating the post - copy, delete, paste, and repost until you get a response. Bump posts with no tangible content are desperate and wasteful. Avoid them at all costs as they will drive away more business then they will draw in.

Thanks!

Hey there! I'd like to submit my storefront for review, Royal Marquesan Exports which is the sum of several years of research and development while playing NationStates.
I really wanted to focus on the aesthetics of the storefront and the designs while still providing a wealth of information. Please let me know what you think!

I know that we generally aren't allowed to make storefronts selling real-life products, based on the assumption that every nation already has the capability to buy/produce those items at-cost. My question is, would this assumption also apply to natural products such as fish, meat, and crops? I'm trying to put together a storefront for my nation's certified export fisheries, but I can't tell if selling prepared fish somehow goes over that line.

Kasrai wrote:I know that we generally aren't allowed to make storefronts selling real-life products, based on the assumption that every nation already has the capability to buy/produce those items at-cost. My question is, would this assumption also apply to natural products such as fish, meat, and crops? I'm trying to put together a storefront for my nation's certified export fisheries, but I can't tell if selling prepared fish somehow goes over that line.

The general notion of selling things literally anyone OOC can sell is one that seriously burdens the OP. To answer your question, yes natural resources would count in that category; fish, lumber, oil, and any other non-specialized product you yourself have not made. The reason behind this is that since anyone can do it/have it, you have a much larger burden to entice people to visit and interact with your storefront. While having a product not found elsewhere is a good start to get people into the door, not having that means your doorway needs to be highly decorated and the actual storefront even more so. Essentially, your presentation and merit need to make up for the high availability of your product. If you want to sell fish for example, you need to have a clean and elegant storefront with the addition of personal touches to entice people to buy. For example, a clean and easy way to make orders, ways to leave a footprint in that customer nation, and it wouldn't hurt to think about ways to expand your product list or enhance the way the outside world sees your storefront.

If you create a storefront that doesn't high demand, your best methods of success are to make yourself merit based. Looks pretty, make demand, and throw some uniqueness into your storefront. But honestly, don't expect success, you have to hunt for it.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=493086
What can I do to draw interest to this thread? Btw, the SFAP is like the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Langenia wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=493086
What can I do to draw interest to this thread? Btw, the SFAP is like the Joint Strike Fighter program.

First, have patience. It hasn't even been a day.

It's an interesting proposition. Most often times players do a lot of behind the scenes dealings to line up a capital consortium to fund such a project. TGs, chat rooms, etc. You're going in with not even a single partner lined up. Bold, but not something you should be ashamed about.

Personally, my nation might be interested, but there are some issues to address...

1. The aircraft you proposed to replace in yours, and your potential partners' inventory, are 3rd generation, with a sprinkling of 4th and 4.5 gen. NS MT is usually starting with at least 5th generation, if not more advanced and what would be likely 6th gen (PMT) in real life. You might need to shoot a little higher.

2. All your weapons systems and munitions are RL, and again, not quite top of the line. You might want to open that door a little more, or just be more vague and talk about the type of munitions and weapons systems expected to be associated with the aircraft, rather than mentioning specific manufacturers.

Now, maybe that's the point as you're looking at making a mid-line ground support aircraft, but that's not a very advanced project that a multi-national consortium would want to sign on to create. Bottom line, aim for a higher bar, or just be patient and wait for those players to roll in this week who don't care about all that.

Tippercommon wrote:Looking for general feedback/criticism of my new storefront: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=443568

looks awesome af!

Neu Engollon wrote:

Langenia wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=493086
What can I do to draw interest to this thread? Btw, the SFAP is like the Joint Strike Fighter program.

First, have patience. It hasn't even been a day.

It's an interesting proposition. Most often times players do a lot of behind the scenes dealings to line up a capital consortium to fund such a project. TGs, chat rooms, etc. You're going in with not even a single partner lined up. Bold, but not something you should be ashamed about.

Personally, my nation might be interested, but there are some issues to address...

1. The aircraft you proposed to replace in yours, and your potential partners' inventory, are 3rd generation, with a sprinkling of 4th and 4.5 gen. NS MT is usually starting with at least 5th generation, if not more advanced and what would be likely 6th gen (PMT) in real life. You might need to shoot a little higher.

2. All your weapons systems and munitions are RL, and again, not quite top of the line. You might want to open that door a little more, or just be more vague and talk about the type of munitions and weapons systems expected to be associated with the aircraft, rather than mentioning specific manufacturers.

Now, maybe that's the point as you're looking at making a mid-line ground support aircraft, but that's not a very advanced project that a multi-national consortium would want to sign on to create. Bottom line, aim for a higher bar, or just be patient and wait for those players to roll in this week who don't care about all that.

Thanks, appreciate it a lot! So, overall, just be more vague about the weapons, aim for a 6th generation plane, find partners, right?

Langenia wrote:

Neu Engollon wrote:
First, have patience. It hasn't even been a day.

It's an interesting proposition. Most often times players do a lot of behind the scenes dealings to line up a capital consortium to fund such a project. TGs, chat rooms, etc. You're going in with not even a single partner lined up. Bold, but not something you should be ashamed about.

Personally, my nation might be interested, but there are some issues to address...

1. The aircraft you proposed to replace in yours, and your potential partners' inventory, are 3rd generation, with a sprinkling of 4th and 4.5 gen. NS MT is usually starting with at least 5th generation, if not more advanced and what would be likely 6th gen (PMT) in real life. You might need to shoot a little higher.

2. All your weapons systems and munitions are RL, and again, not quite top of the line. You might want to open that door a little more, or just be more vague and talk about the type of munitions and weapons systems expected to be associated with the aircraft, rather than mentioning specific manufacturers.

Now, maybe that's the point as you're looking at making a mid-line ground support aircraft, but that's not a very advanced project that a multi-national consortium would want to sign on to create. Bottom line, aim for a higher bar, or just be patient and wait for those players to roll in this week who don't care about all that.

Thanks, appreciate it a lot! So, overall, just be more vague about the weapons, aim for a 6th generation plane, find partners, right?

So, hey, I just launched my storefront and in that, I have a bunch of missiles listed. I took a look at your C-58 and Neu Engollon is right; the weapons you've chosen for it aren't top of the line, and there are a crapload of them. I counted 22 missile systems all from different countries, so what I did is I picked 5 missiles from my catalog and made a post on your thread. I hope you enjoy! If you adopted these missiles, it would make C-58 a little more competitive.

If you want my opinion though, you're asking one airframe to take on a bunch of roles and maybe a few too many. Something that fast has no business carrying unguided rocket pods. Mach 2 on a strike fighter is no place for gravity bombs, either, imho. If you need to hit it with a fighter, you probably wanna hit it with a missile so you don't expose those C-58's to AA fires. Separate aircraft might do you some good rather than trying to have a do-it-all plane; just a thought.

Marquesan wrote:

Langenia wrote:
Thanks, appreciate it a lot! So, overall, just be more vague about the weapons, aim for a 6th generation plane, find partners, right?

So, hey, I just launched my storefront and in that, I have a bunch of missiles listed. I took a look at your C-58 and Neu Engollon is right; the weapons you've chosen for it aren't top of the line, and there are a crapload of them. I counted 22 missile systems all from different countries, so what I did is I picked 5 missiles from my catalog and made a post on your thread. I hope you enjoy! If you adopted these missiles, it would make C-58 a little more competitive.

If you want my opinion though, you're asking one airframe to take on a bunch of roles and maybe a few too many. Something that fast has no business carrying unguided rocket pods. Mach 2 on a strike fighter is no place for gravity bombs, either, imho. If you need to hit it with a fighter, you probably wanna hit it with a missile so you don't expose those C-58's to AA fires. Separate aircraft might do you some good rather than trying to have a do-it-all plane; just a thought.

Appreciate that too!

Langenia wrote:

Marquesan wrote:

So, hey, I just launched my storefront and in that, I have a bunch of missiles listed. I took a look at your C-58 and Neu Engollon is right; the weapons you've chosen for it aren't top of the line, and there are a crapload of them. I counted 22 missile systems all from different countries, so what I did is I picked 5 missiles from my catalog and made a post on your thread. I hope you enjoy! If you adopted these missiles, it would make C-58 a little more competitive.

If you want my opinion though, you're asking one airframe to take on a bunch of roles and maybe a few too many. Something that fast has no business carrying unguided rocket pods. Mach 2 on a strike fighter is no place for gravity bombs, either, imho. If you need to hit it with a fighter, you probably wanna hit it with a missile so you don't expose those C-58's to AA fires. Separate aircraft might do you some good rather than trying to have a do-it-all plane; just a thought.

Appreciate that too!

Sure man. If it were my airframe to equip, I might just stick to Misericorde, Corseque and Morningstar and not the smaller two. Let a helicopter or a subsonic CAS aircraft like A-10 carry pods for missiles and rockets, gravity bombs on racks, etc. I'd wanna keep something like this high in the air, goin' fast and firing from beyond visual range, keep your pilots alive.

Edit: I feel like it's pretty similar to my LMF.20/2R2 "Spitfire" light multirole fighter in role and armament; take a look and let me know what you think. This is the only aircraft I've actually armed with gravity munitions, and it's not subsonic either. This one has gravity bombs, the Misericorde missile and two 28.7mm autocannons; so it's more of a ground attack fighter but still carrying the multirole missiles so it can engage air targets.

Marquesan wrote:

Langenia wrote:
Appreciate that too!

Sure man. If it were my airframe to equip, I might just stick to Misericorde, Corseque and Morningstar and not the smaller two. Let a helicopter or a subsonic CAS aircraft like A-10 carry pods for missiles and rockets, gravity bombs on racks, etc. I'd wanna keep something like this high in the air, goin' fast and firing from beyond visual range, keep your pilots alive.

Edit: I feel like it's pretty similar to my LMF.20/2R2 "Spitfire" light multirole fighter in role and armament; take a look and let me know what you think. This is the only aircraft I've actually armed with gravity munitions, and it's not subsonic either. This one has gravity bombs, the Misericorde missile and two 28.7mm autocannons; so it's more of a ground attack fighter but still carrying the multirole missiles so it can engage air targets.

Wow, that's a beautiful plane. Hmm, I'll admit that I'm trying to make the C-58 like the F-35 and the Su-57. What should I do to make the C-58 more like the aforementioned aircraft?

Langenia wrote:

Marquesan wrote:
Sure man. If it were my airframe to equip, I might just stick to Misericorde, Corseque and Morningstar and not the smaller two. Let a helicopter or a subsonic CAS aircraft like A-10 carry pods for missiles and rockets, gravity bombs on racks, etc. I'd wanna keep something like this high in the air, goin' fast and firing from beyond visual range, keep your pilots alive.

Edit: I feel like it's pretty similar to my LMF.20/2R2 "Spitfire" light multirole fighter in role and armament; take a look and let me know what you think. This is the only aircraft I've actually armed with gravity munitions, and it's not subsonic either. This one has gravity bombs, the Misericorde missile and two 28.7mm autocannons; so it's more of a ground attack fighter but still carrying the multirole missiles so it can engage air targets.

Wow, that's a beautiful plane. Hmm, I'll admit that I'm trying to make the C-58 like the F-35 and the Su-57. What should I do to make the C-58 more like the aforementioned aircraft?

Thanks man! F-35 and Su-57 are in different roles; F-35 is primarily a ground attack fighter (or something...nobody can ever agree on what it should do. perhaps nothing?) and Su-57 is an air superiority fighter. They are very different aircraft in construction; single engine vs two engine, vastly different wing areas, etc. The best thing I could recommend that you do is decide what you want C-58's primary role to be. If you need a second fighter, bro, design a second fighter. The only limit is your imagination. If you scroll down one from Spitfire, you'll see my Divine Wind fighter and that's very much like Su-57; they were really too close for valid comparison, so I went with the F-22 for comparison instead.

Marquesan wrote:

Langenia wrote:
Wow, that's a beautiful plane. Hmm, I'll admit that I'm trying to make the C-58 like the F-35 and the Su-57. What should I do to make the C-58 more like the aforementioned aircraft?

Thanks man! F-35 and Su-57 are in different roles; F-35 is primarily a ground attack fighter (or something...nobody can ever agree on what it should do. perhaps nothing?) and Su-57 is an air superiority fighter. They are very different aircraft in construction; single engine vs two engine, vastly different wing areas, etc. The best thing I could recommend that you do is decide what you want C-58's primary role to be. If you need a second fighter, bro, design a second fighter. The only limit is your imagination. If you scroll down one from Spitfire, you'll see my Divine Wind fighter and that's very much like Su-57; they were really too close for valid comparison, so I went with the F-22 for comparison instead.

Sure! I'll add another fighter to the SFAP for air superiority like the F-22, while the C-58 can be like the F-35.

Langenia wrote:
Thanks, appreciate it a lot! So, overall, just be more vague about the weapons, aim for a 6th generation plane, find partners, right?

I agree pretty much with what Marquesan said. Splitting up the duties between an air superiority and ground attack model is wise. Making sure you're not underarming both aircraft prototypes is also wise.

Using a focused, limited amount of NS armaments instead of RL is going to bring in the partners you're looking for, like Marquesan. Definitely shop around GE&T to see what other components your aircraft will need and maybe consider writing up IC partnership proposal letters to them.

I'll go one further that I might write up a proposal from Schwyz Defense Systems to provide the electronic warfare suite, targeting system, communications suite, and/or weapons control system for the project. If you're interested.

Neu Engollon wrote:

Langenia wrote:
Thanks, appreciate it a lot! So, overall, just be more vague about the weapons, aim for a 6th generation plane, find partners, right?

I agree pretty much with what Marquesan said. Splitting up the duties between an air superiority and ground attack model is wise. Making sure you're not underarming both aircraft prototypes is also wise.

Using a focused, limited amount of NS armaments instead of RL is going to bring in the partners you're looking for, like Marquesan. Definitely shop around GE&T to see what other components your aircraft will need and maybe consider writing up IC partnership proposal letters to them.

I'll go one further that I might write up a proposal from Schwyz Defense Systems to provide the electronic warfare suite, targeting system, communications suite, and/or weapons control system for the project. If you're interested.

Thanks, Neu Engollon. I am interested!

Edit: I'm going to get rid of the list of armaments and just say that the C-58 uses Langenian armaments, and that we would like partners willing to help develop munitions.

Second edit: I have decided I will focus on a dedicated ground-attack fighter like the F-35. Perhaps sometime in the future we will make a program like the SFAP for a dedicated air superiority fighter.

Neu Engollon wrote:

Langenia wrote:
Thanks, appreciate it a lot! So, overall, just be more vague about the weapons, aim for a 6th generation plane, find partners, right?

I agree pretty much with what Marquesan said. Splitting up the duties between an air superiority and ground attack model is wise. Making sure you're not underarming both aircraft prototypes is also wise.

Using a focused, limited amount of NS armaments instead of RL is going to bring in the partners you're looking for, like Marquesan. Definitely shop around GE&T to see what other components your aircraft will need and maybe consider writing up IC partnership proposal letters to them.

I'll go one further that I might write up a proposal from Schwyz Defense Systems to provide the electronic warfare suite, targeting system, communications suite, and/or weapons control system for the project. If you're interested.

Hey, I'd like to talk to you about an electronics contract; I'd say it's one of the weaknesses in my systems is that I'm just not ultra-well versed in all that. Not nearly as well as I am on fluid dynamics, powerplants, ballistics and everybody's fan-favorite, energetic solids. I'd like to have you evaluate my electronic systems, let me know what you think the potential strengths and weaknesses are and discuss the possibility of developing bespoke electronic solutions for aircraft vehicles vessels and weapons, if you're up for it.

Also, you're totally right that the best NS equipment is going to be that which is built from dedicated-NS subsystems that have been evaluated and developed specifically for the game. That's not necessarily to say that anything you'd want to add to any system should or would be "wanked" or fantastical in any sense, but just that you're optimizing for the game, and not for real world geopolitics, which is so often dictated by budgetary considerations, treaties, subject to manufacturer patent litigation and materials availability, the technology of the era in which it was developed, etc. I really appreciate that a sensible but still game-centric approach is being taken in advising storefront owners here.

Oh, and by the way, I'm on GE and T. Gonna look around, propose to some corporations, see how they react.

Marquesan wrote:Hey, I'd like to talk to you about an electronics contract; I'd say it's one of the weaknesses in my systems is that I'm just not ultra-well versed in all that. Not nearly as well as I am on fluid dynamics, powerplants, ballistics and everybody's fan-favorite, energetic solids. I'd like to have you evaluate my electronic systems, let me know what you think the potential strengths and weaknesses are and discuss the possibility of developing bespoke electronic solutions for aircraft vehicles vessels and weapons, if you're up for it.

I really only have a superficial knowledge of systems, but I did do my research when I came up with my systems even if I didn't go into exhaustive detail. As you can see, I have a few modular systems that can be adapted to vehicles and aircraft and are customizable to different platforms.

Marquesan wrote:Also, you're totally right that the best NS equipment is going to be that which is built from dedicated-NS subsystems that have been evaluated and developed specifically for the game. That's not necessarily to say that anything you'd want to add to any system should or would be "wanked" or fantastical in any sense, but just that you're optimizing for the game, and not for real world geopolitics, which is so often dictated by budgetary considerations, treaties, subject to manufacturer patent litigation and materials availability, the technology of the era in which it was developed, etc. I really appreciate that a sensible but still game-centric approach is being taken in advising storefront owners here.

Thank you, we try. Yes, I think both RL and NS weapons systems could easily be adapted for such a project without much trouble, but it's good to involve other NS storefront owners to collaborate, especially when, as you said, they are developing such systems for NS, not for RL budgets, and certain other needs you might not find in RL.

Is there a GE&T discord? I wasnt sure if this was a thing yet or had been.

Machina Haruspex wrote:Is there a GE&T discord? I wasnt sure if this was a thing yet or had been.

There's a Better Business Bureau advice thread.