by Sedgistan » Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:21 pm
by Old Hope » Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:52 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Old Hope » Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:58 pm
Eluvatar wrote:5 minutes is certainly a more moderate delay than I've seen suggested before, and may yet have a significant effect.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Sedgistan » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:00 pm
Old Hope wrote:I have a better idea: Nations moving into a Feeder/sinker by being founded/re-founded/ejected do not get a welcome TG. They get a good introductory TG instead(e.g. welcome, ejection, re-found TG).
by Old Hope » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:14 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Old Hope wrote:I have a better idea: Nations moving into a Feeder/sinker by being founded/re-founded/ejected do not get a welcome TG. They get a good introductory TG instead(e.g. welcome, ejection, re-found TG).
I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting here. What's the difference between the existing welcome TG and an "introductory TG"?
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Baedan » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:18 pm
by The Notorious Mad Jack » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:19 pm
by Old Hope » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:27 pm
Baedan wrote:Not entirely sure what Old Hope's talking about but I do think it would make sense not to apply the delay to nations that move into feeders normally, instead of being founded there.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Pluvie » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:35 pm
by Sedgistan » Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:17 pm
Old Hope wrote:Baedan wrote:Not entirely sure what Old Hope's talking about but I do think it would make sense not to apply the delay to nations that move into feeders normally, instead of being founded there.
Remove welcome TG's(by the region) for founded, ejected or re-founded nations. Have informative TG's by admin instead.
The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:I don't see why this change is needed. "Stifling gameplay" isn't necessarily a bad thing and UCRs already have the advantage of being able to post recruitment ads on GCR RMBs. Further changes would unbalance the game in their favour.
by Flanderlion » Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:34 pm
Flanderlion wrote:I'm struggling to see how doing this would benefit the game as a whole. Obviously I'm from a GCR, so I naturally think harming GCR community to help some dead in 6 months UCR isn't exactly ideal, especially as dead regions often lead to the players who were in there CTEing.
I like having the TGs as having a record of where my nation is founded (and so I can delete the rest), I don't exactly want to have to read all the junk mail my nation gets to save the right one. The ideas like removing welcome TGs entirely are kind of ridiculous, and harms everyone who moves region (or is even founded) just to appease a few userite recruiters, which, even if they feel entitled due to the stamps they pay, aren't worth more than all of us other players.
The welcome TGs are exactly what it says on the cover, a welcome to the game/region TG explaining things. The default TG doesn't do an adequate job of explaining properly the region you are in, how to stop the recruitment TG spam etc. but thankfully welcome TGs step into the void, and take up the slack. Somehow I think that a TG saying 'join X' wouldn't be the same level of help to a player. That said, the default TG is good, and although it can't be comprehensive (shortness is important if you want someone to read it) overall changing it idk about.
There is a slight delay on the welcome TG appearing, which should be removed. When a nation is founded, there should be two TGs that greet it, the default one and the region one, rather than the default one then a bit later comes the welcome one just before the horde of spam regions.
Instead of rallying against welcome TGs, why not ask for a change that would benefit everyone, an ability for a nation to request recruitment TGs for nations that are looking for new regions but aren't new?
by Comfed » Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:46 pm
by Roavin » Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:00 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Without fail, these welcome TGs all strongly suggest the recipient to go straight to their telegram filters and block all recruitment telegrams. The West Pacific's one even does this right at the start of the message.
by Galiantus III » Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:06 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Sedgistan » Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:17 am
Flanderlion wrote:I disagree with the premise that Feeders are too large, for new players it's better to have a lot of activity concentrated in the regions they start. A large proportion of nations in Feeders are nations that logged in once, approx 2/3rds are nations who have a residency under 28 days, so they're just numbers rather than actual activity.
Also I disagree about the real creativity coming only from UCRs, Feeders have pioneered card programs, working WA endorsement schemes/WA programs blocs, host cultural events, issue things, poll competitions, and in the case of TSP, a better form of democracy (allowing gamesiders to vote) than most large UCRs.
Flanderlion wrote:Also Admin said that if the size of Feeders become an issue they'll deal with it. As this isn't admin endorsed, it stands to reason that they don't view it as an issue atm. Also, Feeders are far shy of their 14k+ nations in the past. Sinkers in fact 4th, 5th and 6th in nations, with TRR coming in at #8. A UCR (puppet storage) is #1 and another is a few hundred nations from removing a Feeder from the top 10 by nation count.
With the OP links, the first one, admin essentially says 'it's fine, it's part of the assymetrical balance between Feeders and UCRs'.
Flanderlion wrote:The second one has a brilliant post by a great player, so I'll just quote it below:Flanderlion wrote:I'm struggling to see how doing this would benefit the game as a whole. Obviously I'm from a GCR, so I naturally think harming GCR community to help some dead in 6 months UCR isn't exactly ideal, especially as dead regions often lead to the players who were in there CTEing.
I like having the TGs as having a record of where my nation is founded (and so I can delete the rest), I don't exactly want to have to read all the junk mail my nation gets to save the right one. The ideas like removing welcome TGs entirely are kind of ridiculous, and harms everyone who moves region (or is even founded) just to appease a few userite recruiters, which, even if they feel entitled due to the stamps they pay, aren't worth more than all of us other players.
The welcome TGs are exactly what it says on the cover, a welcome to the game/region TG explaining things. The default TG doesn't do an adequate job of explaining properly the region you are in, how to stop the recruitment TG spam etc. but thankfully welcome TGs step into the void, and take up the slack. Somehow I think that a TG saying 'join X' wouldn't be the same level of help to a player. That said, the default TG is good, and although it can't be comprehensive (shortness is important if you want someone to read it) overall changing it idk about.
There is a slight delay on the welcome TG appearing, which should be removed. When a nation is founded, there should be two TGs that greet it, the default one and the region one, rather than the default one then a bit later comes the welcome one just before the horde of spam regions.
Instead of rallying against welcome TGs, why not ask for a change that would benefit everyone, an ability for a nation to request recruitment TGs for nations that are looking for new regions but aren't new?
by Sedgistan » Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:27 am
Roavin wrote:But apart from that, I generally have an issue with how recruitment currently works anyway. New players are overwhelmed by, basically, spam. Half of those regions won't exist in 6 months. And then there are regions like The Invaders that continue to recruit like mad and have new nations join them with an appealing telegram, only to not offer those players any possibilities for engagement and leave them to cease to exist in droves. Just imagine the number of nations that join that region and then leave the game as "boring", which could otherwise have been the next Eluvatar or Evil Wolf or Todd McCloud or Kandarin or Benevolent Thomas or Xoriet or August or HEM etc.; I lose sleep at night over this thought.
Roavin wrote:The reason feeders advise this is in part retention, yes, but also because it simply makes the game better for new nations. I remember being massively annoyed at the recruitment spam on April 7, 2016 when I was founded; it has not gotten better. And yet, recruitment is important for UCRs, and the good ones put a lot of effort into returns of <1%, of which another single-digit percentage actually stick around for any meaningful length of time. I don't have a solution to this but there has got to be a better way for new nations, UCRs, and GCRs alike.
by Sedgistan » Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:32 am
Galiantus III wrote:Perhaps a better solution, that fits better within what Sedge is suggesting, is to instead restrict telegram recruitment done by UCRs. This would be based on some metric of size and activity. It would both cut down on spam and funnel nations to the more engaging communities. A lot of UCRs will hate this, but with the current tragedy of the commons scenario playing out, it is necessary.
Many UCRs want to be big and grow, but in doing so they starve each other for activity and make recruitment a bad experience for new players. Players seeking to create large regions should thus be compelled to collaborate, rather than compete. It is better both for the resulting regions and for new players if what would have been five recruitment TG's show up as one.
by Honeydewistania » Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:45 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by LollerLand » Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:25 am
by Roavin » Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:10 am
Sedgistan wrote:Roavin wrote:But apart from that, I generally have an issue with how recruitment currently works anyway. New players are overwhelmed by, basically, spam. Half of those regions won't exist in 6 months. And then there are regions like The Invaders that continue to recruit like mad and have new nations join them with an appealing telegram, only to not offer those players any possibilities for engagement and leave them to cease to exist in droves. Just imagine the number of nations that join that region and then leave the game as "boring", which could otherwise have been the next Eluvatar or Evil Wolf or Todd McCloud or Kandarin or Benevolent Thomas or Xoriet or August or HEM etc.; I lose sleep at night over this thought.
I don't feel like "benefit feeders because you don't know if UCRs will be around in 6 months" is a good reason to maintain this significant benefit to feeders. Yes, some UCRs don't last long. Many of those don't recruit anyway. Of those that do - well this change would make it easier for them to recruit; also by the time a nation has moved once into a new community it's that much more willing to move again should it find it doesn't like the one it is in.
As for the point of there being regions like The Invaders continually recruiting yet not offering anything to engage their players. Without knowing the details of their situation, I agree that what you describe sounds like a bad outcome for players and the game. I don't think that's a reason to benefit feeders though. It's a reason to consider something like a Security Council "Embargo" proposal category which blocks a specified region from recruiting. If anyone thinks that's an idea to explore, please start a new thread for it.
by Galiantus III » Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:12 am
Sedgistan wrote:Galiantus III wrote:Perhaps a better solution, that fits better within what Sedge is suggesting, is to instead restrict telegram recruitment done by UCRs. This would be based on some metric of size and activity. It would both cut down on spam and funnel nations to the more engaging communities. A lot of UCRs will hate this, but with the current tragedy of the commons scenario playing out, it is necessary.
Many UCRs want to be big and grow, but in doing so they starve each other for activity and make recruitment a bad experience for new players. Players seeking to create large regions should thus be compelled to collaborate, rather than compete. It is better both for the resulting regions and for new players if what would have been five recruitment TG's show up as one.
This is a really bad idea that does nothing to combat the problem this thread is trying to address (imbalance between feeders and UCRs) and instead makes it almost impossible to create new regions.
The problem isn't 100 new players being wasted between 50 UCRs that are too small to function; it's that a significant portion of those 100 players never leave the feeder they were created in.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Sedgistan » Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:39 am
Roavin wrote:Excuse me, where did I say, either explicitly or implicitly, that feeders should benefit? Your portrayal unduly and dismissively dumbs down my overall point, particularly since I go on to mention the difficulty of recruitment efforts by UCRs. If anything, my point was that the status quo sucks particularly for new nations and UCRs. I reject your characterization of my stance.
by Topid » Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:56 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bagong Timog Mindanao, Berlin-Moscow Union, Caral-Supe, Geopolity, Karnea, Moslvenia, NeilCo, Saillske Saire, The French National Workers State, The Republic of Western Sol
Advertisement