by Unibot III » Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:41 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Flanderlion » Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:54 pm
Flanderlion wrote:I'm liking Unibot's idea a little more than I like the idea of giving UCRs nations for free while keeping their founders (oligarchy option).
20% or 30% go to the mini-Feeders, 20% - 30% split between democracy option (founderless) and all GCRs if they qualify would also be included in the pool, so Sinkers/Warzones/whatever doesn't miss out. Oligarchy would just be the status quo normal option, and the founder succession would be permanently passworded (can be visible, but just causing new nations to have to type in 'open' into the box) and have some other massive recruitment penalties. Feeders would shrink about 40% from losing half their new nations.
I'm guessing we're going to get something to shrink the Feeders (thanks to TNP's ridiculous level), and this seems like it'd be more interesting politics wise etc. I mean, ideally, I'd have status quo, but I don't think that's going to happen long term unless the game suddenly stops growing (this is the general trend rather than focusing on the ups and downs for month/season/holidays).
Edit: This isn't in tech...
by Indo-Malaysia » Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:57 pm
by Unibot III » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:24 pm
Flanderlion wrote:Just going to quote my response from there.Flanderlion wrote:I'm liking Unibot's idea a little more than I like the idea of giving UCRs nations for free while keeping their founders (oligarchy option).
20% or 30% go to the mini-Feeders, 20% - 30% split between democracy option (founderless) and all GCRs if they qualify would also be included in the pool, so Sinkers/Warzones/whatever doesn't miss out. Oligarchy would just be the status quo normal option, and the founder succession would be permanently passworded (can be visible, but just causing new nations to have to type in 'open' into the box) and have some other massive recruitment penalties. Feeders would shrink about 40% from losing half their new nations.
I'm guessing we're going to get something to shrink the Feeders (thanks to TNP's ridiculous level), and this seems like it'd be more interesting politics wise etc. I mean, ideally, I'd have status quo, but I don't think that's going to happen long term unless the game suddenly stops growing (this is the general trend rather than focusing on the ups and downs for month/season/holidays).
Edit: This isn't in tech...
I don't think they should get ejected nations, TRR struggles with activity as it is. They'd probably be fine with just new nations rather than getting refounded nations, but that's alright either way.
Also, I think it should be 5, not 4 seas/venters/whatever. So each starts of with a 2% share rather than decimal, but that's not really important to the main idea.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by The Stalker » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:32 pm
by Canton Empire » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:44 pm
by The Great Devourer of All » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:49 pm
Yymea wrote:We would definitely be scared of what is probably the most scary nation on NS :p
Multiversal Venn-Copard wrote:Actually fairly threatening by our standards. And this time we really mean "threatening". As in, "we'll actually need to escalate significantly to match their fleets."
Valkalan wrote:10/10 Profoundly evil. Some nations conqueror others for wealth and prestige, but the Devourer consumes civilization like a cancer consuming an unfortunate host.
The Speaker wrote:Intemperate in the sea from the roof, and leg All night, and he knows lots of reads from the unseen good old man of the mountain-DESTRUCTION
by Amy Madison » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:12 pm
by Unibot III » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:37 pm
Amy Madison wrote:I have to imagine this wouldn't be easy to code, but I do like the idea.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Flanderlion » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:51 pm
Unibot III wrote:Amy Madison wrote:I have to imagine this wouldn't be easy to code, but I do like the idea.
Eh, I'm trying to think up the elements of what you would need.
- Basic HTML forms and select buttons for the regional controls.
- A warning that would trigger when your distribution didn't add up to 100%.
- 4-5 GCRs (no founder, no passwords perhaps.)
- Changes to the FAQ.
- Changes to the nation creation code, the reactivation and rejection code with new unfixed probabilities of being sent to the venters.
- Automated pie charts.
I'm not sure, but I would hesitate to guess this wouldn't be a major change in terms of code, it'd be a major change in terms of gameplay. But then again, even the smallest changes are very challenging from what I hear due to the complexity (or rather, sensitivity) of the original source code.
(Admins would be able to answer more definitely.)
You begin in one of the Pacific regions (known as feeders) or one of the Sea regions (known as venters): these tend to be large, vibrant, and somewhat spammy. Stay there if you like, or move somewhere else! You can shift regions whenever and as often as you like.
by Klaus Devestatorie » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:03 pm
by Unibot III » Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:01 pm
Flanderlion wrote:I still think splitting the refounded/ejected nations wouldn't be good due to the activity of the Sinkers/Catcher. 10% of active nations makes a big difference, but refounded/ejected nations are generally less active. It'd give them more relevancy, but do they really need it? Also I'm guessing that'd it be more effort to slice part of those regions life blood from them.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Pierconium » Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:58 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:09 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Flanderlion » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:15 am
Christian Democrats wrote:I think this is a terrible idea.
by Mallorea and Riva » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:51 am
by Galiantus VII » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:09 am
The side effects of hearing a view you disagree with can include confusion, nausea, and vomiting. Just try and listen to someone say anything politically incorrect without doing any of those things. Obviously, then, we have to consider the precious feelings of everyone we talk to. Some people don't want to be triggered, guys. It's their right as Americans.
by Unibot III » Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:18 pm
Galiantus VII wrote:Only downside I see to this is the possibility of it being somewhat confusing to new and returning players, but that is nothing compared to all the fun we could have with this feature.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Unibot III » Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:59 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:What are the downsides to this?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Whovian Tardisia » Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:52 pm
by Unibot III » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:31 pm
Whovian Tardisia wrote:It irks me with TRR being able to offload rejected nations to venters. It makes sense somewhat, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I like the idea though, it would certainly make the delegacy of big GCRs more fun.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Escade » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:53 pm
by Galiantus VII » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:59 pm
Unibot III wrote:For returning players it could be a bit confusing, but it'd be worth the shock in my opinion.
Unibot III wrote:Can you be rejected to the same venter you're rejected from?
(Just a loophole that's theoretically possible.)
The side effects of hearing a view you disagree with can include confusion, nausea, and vomiting. Just try and listen to someone say anything politically incorrect without doing any of those things. Obviously, then, we have to consider the precious feelings of everyone we talk to. Some people don't want to be triggered, guys. It's their right as Americans.
by Unibot III » Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:26 am
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:06 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Meraud, Umbratellus
Advertisement