Is Nationstates Dying?

[Zandovia]

It has recently come to me recently after a region change, that both regions were greater in the past than they are now (by greater I mean bigger populous)

After a Google Trends search, which is an online website that determines popularity of a website since it’s release, and discovered this chart: https://imgur.com/a/IG7pxyU

Which leaves the question: Is Nationstates Dying?

[Zandovia]

I apologize for the image being a url, it wouldn’t load the dimensions on post.

[Darkesia]

Yes. It's dying. You should stop paying attention.
*plots coup*

[Borovan entered the region as he]

Yes it's dying.

[Bears Armed]

Meh. I can remember a fairly lengthy period when its number of nations had dropped to 90-something thousand.

[LollerLand]

Regions die all the time. As long as there are new regions being made and new players coming in, it's all fine!

[Truth in Advertising]

Yes. Yes it is. One day the big server will blow up and it will be game over.

[The Church of Satan]

That graph only goes up to 2016. So using outdated information (by three years no less) is no indication of the website's activity (or lack thereof) as it stands right now.

[Indo-Malaysia]

(It totally want my region they were referring too )

[Zandovia]

(It totally want my region they were referring too )

Your funny you kgb spy.

[Indo-Malaysia]

(It totally want my region they were referring too )

Your funny you kgb spy.

How did you know.....

*orders strike team to raid basement*

[King HEM]

I think what's interesting is if you follow this graph...it isn't really indicative of the general health of the game at any given time.

The greater problem is continually finding ways to create interest through gameplay disputes when there haven't been any major product innovations in years (i'm not counting trading cards). The aesthetic revamps of 2008/2009 helped the game out a lot after a big of a dip, introducing new sinker regions also helped I think. People have been pushing for new product, we'll see if it happens. Otherwise, we need a big new ideology or debate, and there just isn't a ton of material to work with at this point.

[RiderSyl]

No, but it isn't living either.

[Roavin]

Otherwise, we need a big new ideology or debate, and there just isn't a ton of material to work with at this point.

Hold my beer.

[Aclion]

Otherwise, we need a big new ideology or debate, and there just isn't a ton of material to work with at this point.

something something marsupials.

[Roavin]

Otherwise, we need a big new ideology or debate, and there just isn't a ton of material to work with at this point.

something something marsupials.

How about a defender feeder?

[Onder Kelkia]

something something marsupials.

How about a defender feeder?

No innovation. The South Pacific has been firmly aligned to defender politics since at least 2016 and trending heavily that way since early 2014 (excepting the final months of 2015). The re-labelling is just a formalisation of long-standing reality. The inevitable culmination of years of efforts by Glen-Rhodes.

Perhaps the move is noteworthy for its brazenness, the sheer shamelessness, but that is all. The underlying ideological intent has always been present.

[Flanderlion]

ehhh. Like, we're not at our peak, but we're not a the lowest we've been while I've been playing either. Seems pretty normal, 160kish nations and in the 20's for WA members.

[Armaros]

How about a defender feeder?

No innovation. The South Pacific has been firmly aligned to defender politics since at least 2016 and trending heavily that way since early 2014 (excepting the final months of 2015). The re-labelling is just a formalisation of long-standing reality. The inevitable culmination of years of efforts by Glen-Rhodes.

Perhaps the move is noteworthy for its brazenness, the sheer shamelessness, but that is all. The underlying ideological intent has always been present.

I'd disagree. Nations spawned in TSP will be attempted to be convinced that defending is the way to go, instead of them having to keep up the pretense of not being defender. It might be a small change, but it's something. Osiris, for example, has a larger military then all other sinkers currently around, and is also the only raider aligned GCR. A defender feeder could potentially do more.

I'd agree that TSP has always been defender in practice, I believe it also makes this game a lot more interesting if less big regions are as boring and afraid to take a stance.

[Flanderlion]

Osiris, for example, has a larger military then all other feeders currently around

Really...

[Merconitonitopia]

No, it's not.
Here is a chart showing the number of nations, constructed from 26 data points scrounged up off the Internet Archive.
We've been stagnant since around 2017, but this isn't unusual.

[The Blaatschapen]

No innovation. The South Pacific has been firmly aligned to defender politics since at least 2016 and trending heavily that way since early 2014 (excepting the final months of 2015). The re-labelling is just a formalisation of long-standing reality. The inevitable culmination of years of efforts by Glen-Rhodes.

Perhaps the move is noteworthy for its brazenness, the sheer shamelessness, but that is all. The underlying ideological intent has always been present.

I'd disagree. Nations spawned in TSP will be attempted to be convinced that defending is the way to go, instead of them having to keep up the pretense of not being defender. It might be a small change, but it's something. Osiris, for example, has a larger military then all other sinkers currently around, and is also the only raider aligned GCR. A defender feeder could potentially do more.

I'd agree that TSP has always been defender in practice, I believe it also makes this game a lot more interesting if less big regions are as boring and afraid to take a stance.

TSP, always defender in practice? I remember times, long, long ago...

Oh, wait, you're a 2018 nation.

*shakes cane* Get off my lawn! It's my dinner!

[Daytime to Night]

TSP, always defender in practice? I remember times, long, long ago...

Oh, wait, you're a 2018 nation.

*shakes cane* Get off my lawn! It's my dinner!

Are you my inner voice?

I was just reading a thing from an old DEN website back when there were 45k nations, some of my funnest memories come from those times.

[Armaros]

I'd disagree. Nations spawned in TSP will be attempted to be convinced that defending is the way to go, instead of them having to keep up the pretense of not being defender. It might be a small change, but it's something. Osiris, for example, has a larger military then all other sinkers currently around, and is also the only raider aligned GCR. A defender feeder could potentially do more.

I'd agree that TSP has always been defender in practice, I believe it also makes this game a lot more interesting if less big regions are as boring and afraid to take a stance.

TSP, always defender in practice? I remember times, long, long ago...

Oh, wait, you're a 2018 nation.

*shakes cane* Get off my lawn! It's my dinner!

Okay, maybe not always, but in recent times at least. And with “recent” I mean 2017 and after, for clarification

[The Noble Thatcherites]

No, people tend to aggrandize the past generally as to build up personal reputations.