Deck Capacity Abuses

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Card collectors at or above deck capacity should not be allowed to add cards to their decks via auction.

Several nations have exceeded their limit by thousands and some by tens of thousands of cards. A close look reveals this includes five of the nations in the Deck Value (DV) top ten. This is an absurd practice and should be stopped.

The best price on 1000 card deck capacity is 285.00 B. Beyond 1000 cards adding capacity is increasingly expensive, eventually reaching the point of prohibitive. The original idea of the game's creators was to prevent decks of this size, as they are "unwieldy" and threaten the stability of the site. That explanation seems straight forward enough.

Let's look at the prohibitive cost of extremely large decks. Owning a 5,000 card deck costs 40,093.00 Bank. Some of these top players could pay that amount, but they'd have to sell some cards. At 10,000 cards it's 334,818.00 Bank and few could handle the cost. At 15,000 cards, the cost is a whopping 1,132.675.00 Bank. Only KK could pay that, though he'd have to liquidate most all his cards. It's a ridiculous situation. Yet these five players still sit there in the top ten of DV and honestly, they shouldn't be listed there. They owe debts in deck capacity.

Going forward, this could be prevented if nations at deck capacity were blocked from buying cards at auction until in compliance. Selling their cards at auction should still continue. Think of all the great cards which might hit the market for sale in this scenario? It might also reign in some of the inflation problems. It could be a great restorative moment for the game.

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

What do you think NS?

[Fauzjhia]

this has been know.

at deck capacity, you can no longer open pack. although farmers use a 2nd main nation, that serve in for receive transfer from other puppet,, as well as transferring the bank to the main in 1 60 seconds high transfer

deck capacity no accomplish its goal. it do not stop the big farmers.
it only stop those who do not have puppets.

there is no point in expending deck capacity, (even if I did it for many puppets) And I am trying to gather some back for future deck capacity deck upgrade.

Although I won't say I oppose rarity based collections.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

this has been know.

at deck capacity, you can no longer open pack. although farmers use a 2nd main nation, that serve in for receive transfer from other puppet,, as well as transferring the bank to the main in 1 60 seconds high transfer

deck capacity no accomplish its goal. it do not stop the big farmers.
it only stop those who do not have puppets.

You're off on other trading issues. Deck capacity needs to be purchased with bank.

No capacity mean no cards are added to a players deck from any source. If they are over, they should pay for extra Bank or sell cards. I don't care if they gift or sell those excess cards to puppets as long as deck capacity is in compliance.

[Fauzjhia]

this has been know.

at deck capacity, you can no longer open pack. although farmers use a 2nd main nation, that serve in for receive transfer from other puppet,, as well as transferring the bank to the main in 1 60 seconds high transfer

deck capacity no accomplish its goal. it do not stop the big farmers.
it only stop those who do not have puppets.

You're off on other trading issues. Deck capacity needs to be purchased with bank.

No capacity mean no cards are added to a players deck from any source. If they are over, they should pay for extra Bank or sell cards. I don't care if they gift or sell those excess cards to puppets as long as deck capacity is in compliance.

nations who are over deck capacity can buy cards.
they often traded with their puppets to gain bank, and use those as a way to bypass the deck capacity limit.

deck capacity only stop a player from receiving pack, not from buying card.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

You're off on other trading issues. Deck capacity needs to be purchased with bank.

No capacity mean no cards are added to a players deck from any source. If they are over, they should pay for extra Bank or sell cards. I don't care if they gift or sell those excess cards to puppets as long as deck capacity is in compliance.

nations who are over deck capacity can buy cards.
they often traded with their puppets to gain bank, and use those as a way to bypass the deck capacity limit.

deck capacity only stop a player from receiving pack, not from buying card.

I am aware of that but that's not the issue raised in the OP. Maybe it's your personal issue with cards overall but it's not the subject of the OP. Please don't thread jack. Read the OP again and respond to the OP:

Card collectors at or above deck capacity should not be allowed to add cards to their decks via auction.

Several nations have exceeded their limit by thousands and some by tens of thousands of cards. A close look reveals this includes five of the nations in the Deck Value (DV) top ten. This is an absurd practice and should be stopped.

The best price on 1000 card deck capacity is 285.00 B. Beyond 1000 cards adding capacity is increasingly expensive, eventually reaching the point of prohibitive. The original idea of the game's creators was to prevent decks of this size, as they are "unwieldy" and threaten the stability of the site. That explanation seems straight forward enough.

Let's look at the prohibitive cost of extremely large decks. Owning a 5,000 card deck costs 40,093.00 Bank. Some of these top players could pay that amount, but they'd have to sell some cards. At 10,000 cards it's 334,818.00 Bank and few could handle the cost. At 15,000 cards, the cost is a whopping 1,132.675.00 Bank. Only KK could pay that, though he'd have to liquidate most all his cards. It's a ridiculous situation. Yet these five players still sit there in the top ten of DV and honestly, they shouldn't be listed there. They owe debts in deck capacity.

Going forward, this could be prevented if nations at deck capacity were blocked from buying cards at auction until in compliance. Selling their cards at auction should still continue. Think of all the great cards which might hit the market for sale in this scenario? It might also reign in some of the inflation problems. It could be a great restorative moment for the game.

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

What do you think NS?

[Fauzjhia]

I was simply supporting the problem you are pointing.
I don't support the solution. Forbidding nation to buy cards when they reach capacity will only lead to more Storage nations. Which is ironic, because I think everyone recognize cards puppets as the (evil nations slowing down the servers and game )

We know its a problem, that deck capacity does limit the capacity if the big farmers to gain more and more cards, but I think outright forbidding it, will only lead to the creation of even more card storage. which we don't want, as these puppets not only do not answer any issues, but they serve no purpose at all.

as I said, I do not nation that are created as regional or rarity collectors, as there are often too many cards in a single region, or of a single rarity, it cannot fit in a normal deck. And we can argue, the east pacific s2 or all ultra-rares s2 can be defined as acceptable. collection.


fact you forgot...
1 you don't need to repeat yourself on the 5th post, people often read the first post.
2 the price for deck capacity 1000 (or 2000) is 361 and it keep going up ... 1 for 100, 4 for 150, 9 for 200, 16 for 250, 25 for 300, 36 for 350, 49 for 400, 64 for 450, 81 for 500, 100 for 550, 121 for 600, 144 for 650, 169 for 700, 196 for 750 (this is where I am), 225 for 800, 256 for 850, 289 for 900, 324 for 950, 361 for 1000, 400 for 1050, 441 for 1100, 484 for 1150, 529 for 1200, 576 for 1250, 625 for 1300, 676 for 1350, 729 for 1400, 784 for 1450, 841 for 1500, 900 for 1550 and etc.
3 it will not create an inflation, but deflation, when people dump all their cards in the market, the prices of those cards goes down. Basic economics, if only the offer of a products goes up, its price goes down.
4 This will benefit inflation, since in cards, inflation is creation of false trade to artificially boost the value of trading cards, limiting deck capacity will only encourage inflates.

as Much as I hate nation that goes beyond deck capacity, I think we should be more permissive that your proposition. its too strict, and it would only to the multiplication of card storages, as well, as the multiplication of inflated cards, I believe we already have a topic about it.


I believe we would make deck capacity upgrade cheaper overall or give some form of rewarded deck capacity to enforce a capacity that would penalize the (big farma) will not punishing normal players.

my answer is / no support.
too strict for no reason, and will create even more problems.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

I was simply supporting the problem you are pointing.
I don't support the solution. Forbidding nation to buy cards when they reach capacity will only lead to more Storage nations. Which is ironic, because I think everyone recognize cards puppets as the (evil nations slowing down the servers and game )

We know its a problem, that deck capacity does limit the capacity if the big farmers to gain more and more cards, but I think outright forbidding it, will only lead to the creation of even more card storage. which we don't want, as these puppets not only do not answer any issues, but they serve no purpose at all.

as I said, I do not nation that are created as regional or rarity collectors, as there are often too many cards in a single region, or of a single rarity, it cannot fit in a normal deck. And we can argue, the east pacific s2 or all ultra-rares s2 can be defined as acceptable. collection.


fact you forgot...
1 you don't need to repeat yourself on the 5th post, people often read the first post.
2 the price for deck capacity 1000 (or 2000) is 361 and it keep going up ... 1 for 100, 4 for 150, 9 for 200, 16 for 250, 25 for 300, 36 for 350, 49 for 400, 64 for 450, 81 for 500, 100 for 550, 121 for 600, 144 for 650, 169 for 700, 196 for 750 (this is where I am), 225 for 800, 256 for 850, 289 for 900, 324 for 950, 361 for 1000, 400 for 1050, 441 for 1100, 484 for 1150, 529 for 1200, 576 for 1250, 625 for 1300, 676 for 1350, 729 for 1400, 784 for 1450, 841 for 1500, 900 for 1550 and etc.
3 it will not create an inflation, but deflation, when people dump all their cards in the market, the prices of those cards goes down. Basic economics, if only the offer of a products goes up, its price goes down.
4 This will benefit inflation, since in cards, inflation is creation of false trade to artificially boost the value of trading cards, limiting deck capacity will only encourage inflates.

as Much as I hate nation that goes beyond deck capacity, I think we should be more permissive that your proposition. its too strict, and it would only to the multiplication of card storages, as well, as the multiplication of inflated cards, I believe we already have a topic about it.


I believe we would make deck capacity upgrade cheaper overall or give some form of rewarded deck capacity to enforce a capacity that would penalize the (big farma) will not punishing normal players.

my answer is / no support.
too strict for no reason, and will create even more problems.

You still don't get it.

I am talking about specific nations that are way over their card limit. NOT CARD FARMS. There are plenty of other threads for you to bitch about card farms.

1. *chuckles*
2. Pretty much as i stated and i did all the math. Did you figure in the boost for site supporter?
3. Exactly, that's what is needed.
4. But faking value is never good for attracting any new buyers/players. The game is stagnant like a continually shrinking puddle. Uck! Clean it up, man.

You opines are conflicted.
Let's reboot this thing minus all the foolish fakery, BS deck capacity, etc. Get this game straight, otherwise this game will get flushed down and be gone. But truly that might be the desired and intended final result.

Like what?

[Coffin-Breathe]

You opines are conflicted.
Let's reboot this thing minus all the foolish fakery, BS deck capacity, etc. Get this game straight, otherwise this game will get flushed down and be gone. But truly that might be the desired and intended final result.

Like what?

I´d say, you´re bloody right; in fact, my personal opinion is, that there won´t be a season 3 of cards until the problems (the mess some, if not meanwhile many players have created) with the card-game are solved, one way or another.
Therefore I propose my solution (it´s a radical one, indeed) :
Strictly reducement of "farms" by limiting the receivement of cardpacks to one registered "main nation" and a small number of (named and registered "puppets/farm nations") for each account; I´d say, ten or maybe twenty puppets might be okay.
No more "art value button" and no "value rankings".
No more "overexpansion of storage space"; used storage space should have to be paid for; therefore I strongly support OPs proposition.
I´d say, then the market prices would become "real" and related again, server problems would be gone, and though those "bad players" would still have an advantage about "fair players" (because they supposedly keep their most valuable assets) it would level the playfield greatly and make this game interesting and funny again imo.

[Fauzjhia]

limiting deck capacity like you are suggesting will not work. One must take in account that thing don,t often goes the way we expect them to go. and its truth in nationstates

you need to understand that the nations who are ridiculously over capacity are the result of Card Farming. Everything you see a nation that's over deck capacity, it might be tied to a card farm. exemple include, Koem Kab, Giovanniland, Mikeswill, 9003, Frisbeeteria, Refuge Isle (puppets, Karen Matheson and An Actual Hurricane), Seanat, Bucarru and Philville puppets. All these nations are over deck capacity and can directly tied to a card farm. So yeah Card farm is an important part of the subject.
but if you say I'm wrong, then FIND me a nation that's way over deck capacity without being part of a card farm. please.


I already noted the problem of your suggestion.
1. creation of more card storages, which will put more problem on the server that previously noted. might be even worst then big farma, because their stats are calculated over and over, everyday, even if they do not change. SO far, the big farma did not cause more server problems. meaning, playwer who are overcapacity will inflate their hard to ridiculous values, and store the extra number of card in puppet storage
2. Unfair to new people. who will have to compose with an hard limit, while the old player never did
3 encourageing inflated cards, especially creating a demand for inflated, given the limited value of other card, which is done by the BIG farma BTW
4 deflation of the legendary market

You opines are conflicted.
Let's reboot this thing minus all the foolish fakery, BS deck capacity, etc. Get this game straight, otherwise this game will get flushed down and be gone. But truly that might be the desired and intended final result.

Like what?

I´d say, you´re bloody right; in fact, my personal opinion is, that there won´t be a season 3 of cards until the problems (the mess some, if not meanwhile many players have created) with the card-game are solved, one way or another.
Therefore I propose my solution (it´s a radical one, indeed) :
Strictly reducement of "farms" by limiting the receivement of cardpacks to one registered "main nation" and a small number of (named and registered "puppets/farm nations") for each account; I´d say, ten or maybe twenty puppets might be okay.
No more "art value button" and no "value rankings".
No more "overexpansion of storage space"; used storage space should have to be paid for; therefore I strongly support OPs proposition.
I´d say, then the market prices would become "real" and related again, server problems would be gone, and though those "bad players" would still have an advantage about "fair players" (because they supposedly keep their most valuable assets) it would level the playfield greatly and make this game interesting and funny again imo.

propose your own topic to discuss your idea, I do not support the idea to limit the number of nations like that, I think 250 would be better for an hard limit.

but I SUPPORT this : No more "art value button" and no "value rankings".

[Farrakhan]

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

What do you think NS?

I think this is a fair proposal. To the extent players have the capacity to go over their procured Deck Capacity, it makes sense to have a deduction from the amount of Deck Value calculated. I don't have an interest in stopping players from having any particular style, but it's valid for the actual scoring of the metric to be uniform across the board. This is a very reasonable suggestion.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

You opines are conflicted.
Let's reboot this thing minus all the foolish fakery, BS deck capacity, etc. Get this game straight, otherwise this game will get flushed down and be gone. But truly that might be the desired and intended final result.

Like what?

I´d say, you´re bloody right; in fact, my personal opinion is, that there won´t be a season 3 of cards until the problems (the mess some, if not meanwhile many players have created) with the card-game are solved, one way or another.
Therefore I propose my solution (it´s a radical one, indeed) :
Strictly reducement of "farms" by limiting the receivement of cardpacks to one registered "main nation" and a small number of (named and registered "puppets/farm nations") for each account; I´d say, ten or maybe twenty puppets might be okay.
No more "art value button" and no "value rankings".
No more "overexpansion of storage space"; used storage space should have to be paid for; therefore I strongly support OPs proposition.
I´d say, then the market prices would become "real" and related again, server problems would be gone, and though those "bad players" would still have an advantage about "fair players" (because they supposedly keep their most valuable assets) it would level the playfield greatly and make this game interesting and funny again imo.

I can go along with most of those ideas. It surely won't level the playing field completely but it would most probably make the game much better for most players. I can only hope its the game's creators' goal.

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

What do you think NS?

I think this is a fair proposal. To the extent players have the capacity to go over their procured Deck Capacity, it makes sense to have a deduction from the amount of Deck Value calculated. I don't have an interest in stopping players from having any particular style, but it's valid for the actual scoring of the metric to be uniform across the board. This is a very reasonable suggestion.

Thank you. It would be a fair and reasoned correction. I think letting these players disperse their assets as they see fit is reasonable. On the other hand, deducting a good chunk of their current banks to pay for this used storage space is crucial. It forces them to replace bank by unloading cards. Whether its a % of the over capacity players banks or it's all bank exceeding a specified amount of bank is a question for debate. Right now i'm leaning towards the latter. I agree that a players style isn't the issue here, rather its correcting the metrics of actual scoring. Basic standards should be observed. Deck capacity is a basic standard.

[L Kuan Yew]

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

What do you think NS?

I think this is a fair proposal. To the extent players have the capacity to go over their procured Deck Capacity, it makes sense to have a deduction from the amount of Deck Value calculated. I don't have an interest in stopping players from having any particular style, but it's valid for the actual scoring of the metric to be uniform across the board. This is a very reasonable suggestion.

Thank you. It would be a fair and reasoned correction. I think letting these players disperse their assets as they see fit is reasonable. On the other hand, deducting a good chunk of their current banks to pay for this used storage space is crucial. It forces them to replace bank by unloading cards. Whether its a % of the over capacity players banks or it's all bank exceeding a specified amount of bank is a question for debate. Right now i'm leaning towards the latter. I agree that a players style isn't the issue here, rather its correcting the metrics of actual scoring. Basic standards should be observed. Deck capacity is a basic standard.

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

In addition, I would also address collection abuse by BANNING public card solicitations on this forum and BANNING private card solicitations done by telegram. Violaters would have their cards deleted. Full stop! I would also end the culture of toxic ostentation by setting all collections to PRIVATE viewing only. This would end public poppycocking forever. Furthermore, a ceiling should be placed on the total MAXIMUM number of cards any one player can have on a nation. In combination, these actions would help to drastically cut back on bandwidth issues and equalize opportunity for casual players (the VAST majority of the NS community) who are hurt by the actions of those who trade and collect excessively. Longterm, players would adjust to these shared sacrifices as the card mini-game infrastructure would become more modest but also more sustainable.

[Fauzjhia]

I think this is a fair proposal. To the extent players have the capacity to go over their procured Deck Capacity, it makes sense to have a deduction from the amount of Deck Value calculated. I don't have an interest in stopping players from having any particular style, but it's valid for the actual scoring of the metric to be uniform across the board. This is a very reasonable suggestion.

Thank you. It would be a fair and reasoned correction. I think letting these players disperse their assets as they see fit is reasonable. On the other hand, deducting a good chunk of their current banks to pay for this used storage space is crucial. It forces them to replace bank by unloading cards. Whether its a % of the over capacity players banks or it's all bank exceeding a specified amount of bank is a question for debate. Right now i'm leaning towards the latter. I agree that a players style isn't the issue here, rather its correcting the metrics of actual scoring. Basic standards should be observed. Deck capacity is a basic standard.

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

In addition, I would also address collection abuse by BANNING public card solicitations on this forum and BANNING private card solicitations done by telegram. Violaters would have their cards deleted. Full stop! I would also end the culture of toxic ostentation by setting all collections to PRIVATE viewing only. This would end public poppycocking forever. Furthermore, a ceiling should be placed on the total MAXIMUM number of cards any one player can have on a nation. In combination, these actions would help to drastically cut back on bandwidth issues and equalize opportunity for casual players (the VAST majority of the NS community) who are hurt by the actions of those who trade and collect excessively. Longterm, players would adjust to these shared sacrifices as the card mini-game infrastructure would become more modest but also more sustainable.

Worst idea ever. forget it.

this forget there are some valid collection that could expend any deck capacity, rarity collection : all UR, all rares, all epics... and regional collection : the east pacific, the west pacific, the north pacific, the rejected realms.

not to mention our idea is too extreme, if you dislike card based-telegram, delete them, that's all.
an hard limit to deck capacity would create more card storage puppets.


Edit :
Electronic Warfare Inc. I got intel that your true identity is Benevolent 1, (and I can see the trades your nations made. )

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

In addition, I would also address collection abuse by BANNING public card solicitations on this forum and BANNING private card solicitations done by telegram. Violaters would have their cards deleted. Full stop! I would also end the culture of toxic ostentation by setting all collections to PRIVATE viewing only. This would end public poppycocking forever. Furthermore, a ceiling should be placed on the total MAXIMUM number of cards any one player can have on a nation. In combination, these actions would help to drastically cut back on bandwidth issues and equalize opportunity for casual players (the VAST majority of the NS community) who are hurt by the actions of those who trade and collect excessively. Longterm, players would adjust to these shared sacrifices as the card mini-game infrastructure would become more modest but also more sustainable.

Is this a serious proposal?!
I am 100% against every part of this suggestion. It would permanently destroy the entire cards mini-game, effective immediately. For a huge part of the cards player-base, card-collecting is fun because it's social — there's teamwork, there're group initiatives, and there are shared successes. This idea would eliminate all of that. It's the equivalent of immediately making all nation stats private, and also all dispatches and factbooks, and also removing regions, forums, and telegrams!
… anyway, yeah. That idea is crazy, sorry.

Card collectors at or above deck capacity should not be allowed to add cards to their decks via auction.

Several nations have exceeded their limit by thousands and some by tens of thousands of cards. A close look reveals this includes five of the nations in the Deck Value (DV) top ten. This is an absurd practice and should be stopped.

The best price on 1000 card deck capacity is 285.00 B. Beyond 1000 cards adding capacity is increasingly expensive, eventually reaching the point of prohibitive. The original idea of the game's creators was to prevent decks of this size, as they are "unwieldy" and threaten the stability of the site. That explanation seems straight forward enough.

Let's look at the prohibitive cost of extremely large decks. Owning a 5,000 card deck costs 40,093.00 Bank. Some of these top players could pay that amount, but they'd have to sell some cards. At 10,000 cards it's 334,818.00 Bank and few could handle the cost. At 15,000 cards, the cost is a whopping 1,132.675.00 Bank. Only KK could pay that, though he'd have to liquidate most all his cards. It's a ridiculous situation. Yet these five players still sit there in the top ten of DV and honestly, they shouldn't be listed there. They owe debts in deck capacity.

Going forward, this could be prevented if nations at deck capacity were blocked from buying cards at auction until in compliance. Selling their cards at auction should still continue. Think of all the great cards which might hit the market for sale in this scenario? It might also reign in some of the inflation problems. It could be a great restorative moment for the game.

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

What do you think NS?

I strongly disagree. The ability of players to go over their deck capacity just makes the game more interesting by implementing a tradeoff — players have to decide if they'd rather 1) pay the bank to have more capacity or 2) be unable to recieve gifts or open packs. As the cost of expansions increases, players have to decide at what point they stop being worth the money. That's an interesting dynamic that lightly incentivises being neat with deck-space without being prohibitive for anyone — it's a great mechanic, I think. I feel that it's working fine and that no changes are needed.

[Durm]

Deck capacity needs to be purchased with bank.

It costs way too much.

1.00 is ok. 4.00 is ok. 100.00 is not. The price shouldn't increase. You have to pay more every time while you still get the same amount of deck capacity.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

In addition, I would also address collection abuse by BANNING public card solicitations on this forum and BANNING private card solicitations done by telegram. Violaters would have their cards deleted. Full stop! I would also end the culture of toxic ostentation by setting all collections to PRIVATE viewing only. This would end public poppycocking forever. Furthermore, a ceiling should be placed on the total MAXIMUM number of cards any one player can have on a nation. In combination, these actions would help to drastically cut back on bandwidth issues and equalize opportunity for casual players (the VAST majority of the NS community) who are hurt by the actions of those who trade and collect excessively. Longterm, players would adjust to these shared sacrifices as the card mini-game infrastructure would become more modest but also more sustainable.

Is this a serious proposal?!
I am 100% against every part of this suggestion. It would permanently destroy the entire cards mini-game, effective immediately. For a huge part of the cards player-base, card-collecting is fun because it's social — there's teamwork, there're group initiatives, and there are shared successes. This idea would eliminate all of that. It's the equivalent of immediately making all nation stats private, and also all dispatches and factbooks, and also removing regions, forums, and telegrams!
… anyway, yeah. That idea is crazy, sorry.

Card collectors at or above deck capacity should not be allowed to add cards to their decks via auction.

Several nations have exceeded their limit by thousands and some by tens of thousands of cards. A close look reveals this includes five of the nations in the Deck Value (DV) top ten. This is an absurd practice and should be stopped.

The best price on 1000 card deck capacity is 285.00 B. Beyond 1000 cards adding capacity is increasingly expensive, eventually reaching the point of prohibitive. The original idea of the game's creators was to prevent decks of this size, as they are "unwieldy" and threaten the stability of the site. That explanation seems straight forward enough.

Let's look at the prohibitive cost of extremely large decks. Owning a 5,000 card deck costs 40,093.00 Bank. Some of these top players could pay that amount, but they'd have to sell some cards. At 10,000 cards it's 334,818.00 Bank and few could handle the cost. At 15,000 cards, the cost is a whopping 1,132.675.00 Bank. Only KK could pay that, though he'd have to liquidate most all his cards. It's a ridiculous situation. Yet these five players still sit there in the top ten of DV and honestly, they shouldn't be listed there. They owe debts in deck capacity.

Going forward, this could be prevented if nations at deck capacity were blocked from buying cards at auction until in compliance. Selling their cards at auction should still continue. Think of all the great cards which might hit the market for sale in this scenario? It might also reign in some of the inflation problems. It could be a great restorative moment for the game.

In the meantime, these owed back deck capacity costs could be deducted from their current DV as a form of motivation. Let the DV standings reflect this. This is a fairly simple plan and It would give us a better assessment of real DV standings in the future.

What do you think NS?

I strongly disagree. The ability of players to go over their deck capacity just makes the game more interesting by implementing a tradeoff — players have to decide if they'd rather 1) pay the bank to have more capacity or 2) be unable to recieve gifts or open packs. As the cost of expansions increases, players have to decide at what point they stop being worth the money. That's an interesting dynamic that lightly incentivises being neat with deck-space without being prohibitive for anyone — it's a great mechanic, I think. I feel that it's working fine and that no changes are needed.

Deck capacity needs to be purchased with bank.

It costs way too much.

1.00 is ok. 4.00 is ok. 100.00 is not. The price shouldn't increase. You have to pay more every time while you still get the same amount of deck capacity.

Here's some old news for you.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2018/index.html
You guys should really read these these things.

The number of cards that can be held at once is now limited by Deck Capacity, which can be upgraded by spending bank. This limitation stems from the technical challenges of managing nations who hold extremely high numbers of cards. Nations with Site Supporter status from the Store have double normal Deck Capacity. - by Max Barry Fri, 21 Dec 2018

These over capacity decks are a problem. That is, if you take Max at his word, which i do. Hence my proposal.

I am confident the technical people did not choose the exponential rises in price of increased deck capacities arbitrarily. These costs are meant to STOP players from creating decks with extremely high numbers of cards. When the cost becomes unbearably high, it's time to stop acquiring cards in that nation.

This is mostly an effect of publishing DV standings. Prehaps DV should cease to be tabulated. The other driver of this is excessively large collections. The extremely large ones could be spread out over a series of related nations within a region which is dedicated to the overall collection.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Here's some old news for you.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2018/index.html
You guys should really read these these things.

The number of cards that can be held at once is now limited by Deck Capacity, which can be upgraded by spending bank. This limitation stems from the technical challenges of managing nations who hold extremely high numbers of cards. Nations with Site Supporter status from the Store have double normal Deck Capacity. - by Max Barry Fri, 21 Dec 2018

These over capacity decks are a problem. That is, if you take Max at his word, which i do. Hence my proposal.

I am confident the technical people did not choose the exponential rises in price of increased deck capacities arbitrarily. These costs are meant to STOP players from creating decks with extremely high numbers of cards. When the cost becomes unbearably high, it's time to stop acquiring cards in that nation.

This is mostly an effect of publishing DV standings. Prehaps DV should cease to be tabulated. The other driver of this is excessively large collections. The extremely large ones could be spread out over a series of related nations within a region which is dedicated to the overall collection.

It's entirely possible for the purpose of a game mechanic to change and evolve with the playerbase it's interacting with. If large card collections were completely breaking the site, I'm sure Mr. Barry or the admins would have intervened by now. If the admins view over-capacity decks as cheating, they would have done something, seeing as that's been happening for ages.

You guys should really read these these things.

I'm butting out now, having stated my opinion. I get the sense that you're not looking for an open discussion.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

Here's some old news for you.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2018/index.html
You guys should really read these these things.

The number of cards that can be held at once is now limited by Deck Capacity, which can be upgraded by spending bank. This limitation stems from the technical challenges of managing nations who hold extremely high numbers of cards. Nations with Site Supporter status from the Store have double normal Deck Capacity. - by Max Barry Fri, 21 Dec 2018

These over capacity decks are a problem. That is, if you take Max at his word, which i do. Hence my proposal.

I am confident the technical people did not choose the exponential rises in price of increased deck capacities arbitrarily. These costs are meant to STOP players from creating decks with extremely high numbers of cards. When the cost becomes unbearably high, it's time to stop acquiring cards in that nation.

This is mostly an effect of publishing DV standings. Prehaps DV should cease to be tabulated. The other driver of this is excessively large collections. The extremely large ones could be spread out over a series of related nations within a region which is dedicated to the overall collection.

It's entirely possible for the purpose of a game mechanic to change and evolve with the playerbase it's interacting with. If large card collections were completely breaking the site, I'm sure Mr. Barry or the admins would have intervened by now. If the admins view over-capacity decks as cheating, they would have done something, seeing as that's been happening for ages.

You guys should really read these these things.

I'm butting out now, having stated my opinion. I get the sense that you're not looking for an open discussion.

Sure you're sure. Just like those Jolt folks were with NationStates 2. But Max didn't like what was going on and pulled the plug. I'm pretty sure Max has some standards and is gonna stick by them.

Sounds like you're projecting.

I think this is a fair proposal. To the extent players have the capacity to go over their procured Deck Capacity, it makes sense to have a deduction from the amount of Deck Value calculated. I don't have an interest in stopping players from having any particular style, but it's valid for the actual scoring of the metric to be uniform across the board. This is a very reasonable suggestion.

Thank you. It would be a fair and reasoned correction. I think letting these players disperse their assets as they see fit is reasonable. On the other hand, deducting a good chunk of their current banks to pay for this used storage space is crucial. It forces them to replace bank by unloading cards. Whether its a % of the over capacity players banks or it's all bank exceeding a specified amount of bank is a question for debate. Right now i'm leaning towards the latter. I agree that a players style isn't the issue here, rather its correcting the metrics of actual scoring. Basic standards should be observed. Deck capacity is a basic standard.

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

In addition, I would also address collection abuse by BANNING public card solicitations on this forum and BANNING private card solicitations done by telegram. Violaters would have their cards deleted. Full stop! I would also end the culture of toxic ostentation by setting all collections to PRIVATE viewing only. This would end public poppycocking forever. Furthermore, a ceiling should be placed on the total MAXIMUM number of cards any one player can have on a nation. In combination, these actions would help to drastically cut back on bandwidth issues and equalize opportunity for casual players (the VAST majority of the NS community) who are hurt by the actions of those who trade and collect excessively. Longterm, players would adjust to these shared sacrifices as the card mini-game infrastructure would become more modest but also more sustainable.

Setting their DV at zero is very doable and easy solution.

I think the collections aren't so much an issue as long as they've kept within their deck space. The idea of creating a card ceiling is agreeable and further addresses the site stability problem. Plus it helps the many new and/or casual players get some competitive help which should be high on the agenda.

Longterm, players would adjust to these shared sacrifices as the card mini-game infrastructure would become more modest but also more sustainable.

^That's the ticket.

[Fauzjhia]

I don't wanna to see card puppets like Gio west pacific collection 1-100 followed by gio west pacific collection 101-200 and etc. arising because the nations can't exceed deck capacity at all.

[Bears Armed]

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

So if the player of a nation very close to capacity has to reduce frequency of log-ins for some reason, any other players who realise (or guess at) that fact could try to wipe out that first player's existing collection simply by "gifting" that collection with a bunch of low-value cards that they'd otherwise just junk?

OPPOSED.

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

The simplest way to enforce this is to set Deck Value at ZERO for ALL accounts that are over capacity. Period, end of story. If/when Deck Value is fully paid for with either a reduction of cards or purchase of more space, a score would reappear. If the player chooses to remain over the space they paid for, they would simply be off the grid. This would eliminate any guesswork and give players not in compliance a clear choice with known consequences.

So if the player of a nation very close to capacity has to reduce frequency of log-ins for some reason, any other players who realise (or guess at) that fact could try to wipe out that first player's existing collection simply by "gifting" that collection with a bunch of low-value cards that they'd otherwise just junk?

OPPOSED.

Ha! That is truly an outlandish scenario and an improbable one. But now that you mention it, there is an existing "No Cards" button in settings. It doesn't prevent unwelcome cards gifted from nefarious players but it should be enabled to do so. An improved no cards button could stop all incoming cards. Doesn't seem like that's a difficult fix.

BTW, are you for or against players skipping out on their deck capacity debts?

[Fauzjhia]

if it is your way or the highway, I'll take the highway

[Electronic Warfare Inc]

No worries then. The highwaymen like you.

[Islands Of Ventro]

This is a further rendition of this thread.

What I’m putting on the table would be something along the lines of negative deck value or the lowering of deck value when one exeeds the amount of cards there deck capacity can hold. Also a lowering of the deck capacity price to something a little more doable for the masses.

Deck Value lowering:
[nation]’s deck value should be lowered by whatever amount in MV exceeds there deck capacity. If the [nation] go’s below 0 MV they will enter negative DV.

Example: a nation has 50 cards with a deck value of 50 and a deck capacity of 50, they then proceeded to purchase a 20 MV of the market. The nation gains the card but there DV gets lowered to 30 DV. The nations the stats are 51 cards, 30 DV, and a deck capacity of 50 cards.

Deck capacity prices:
I don’t have anything specific in mind just a lowering of the prices to accommodate (if the above system is put in place) larger decks and a preventative for the problems that might arise with lowering deck value. Also to accommodate both a large DV and deck size at the same time.


New Badges (I threw this one in last minute as I was writing this):

Most in debt badge ( ranking goes from nation with the least DV to nation with the most)
Largest Volume of Artwork (ranking goes from most amount of cards to least amount)


Wow I hope you understood all that! Thanks for hearing me out!

[Frisbeeteria]

This is a further rendition of this thread.

I've removed the second copy of this post from the development thread. If you have a genuinely new idea (not a refinement of the OP), start your own discussion thread. Don't post it in multiple places hoping for a hit.