NATION

PASSWORD

[Proposal] More Feeders

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Ever-Wandering Souls
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6027
Founded: Jan 01, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[Proposal] More Feeders

Postby Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:14 pm

I'm bringing this up again, yeah.

I think there should be more feeders. Specifically, at least five more.

I'll go into some reasons why. There'll be less hard data than I'd prefer due to the issues with NSArchive, but I'll try to include a little. Some parts may also be over-simplified. I welcome feedback, preferably constructive.



Size
The Feeders may not be game-breakingly big at the moment, but they are pretty huge. They range in number of nations 6925 to 8550, which means they're all bigger than all the sinkers, but not necessarily by that much. I'd like to look more at size by nature of WA count. Consider:

RegionEndos on DelWAs in Region
TNP1,1001400
TEP8001000
TSP600800
TP500700
TWP500700
---------
Balder300400
TRR200400
Laz200300
Osi200300


As you can see, the feeders are measurable larger in WA nations, which carries with it two mind three immediate resultant metrics -

1) User-verifiable unique players (that, bonus, are engaged enough to join the WA)
2) Delegate power in the WA (as much griped about - we'll come back to this later)
3) General Stability of the Administration (i.e., before additional user measures in regional gov't structure, base resistance to total regime change)

I think the Sinkers are in a good place, in terms of many metrics. I think making all GCR's closer in size to the current Sinkers would be desirable. Generally, feeders are at least twice as big as sinkers, if you consider the largest feeders as (hard-earned) outliers. As such, I'd propose five new feeders which, over a few years, should eventually end up approximately sinker-sized, while the existing feeders will very gradually shrink under decreased founding rate (but benefit from existing communities, retention, etc and likely remain generally somewhat larger) to the same area.

There's still plenty of room for better regions to be bigger/more powerful regions!



Reasons, Effects, Etc
So, what are some effects that we might expect with such a scenario? Why should we want it?

For why, I think the very generalized answer is that too much power is consolidated in too few regions, across several metrics. By nature of their size, this very small handful of regions largely controls diplomacy among NSGP, many of them are part of a WA voting bloc whose monolithic size often determines votes singlehandedly, and governance over a large portion of the game's players lies in the hands of just a few administrations - ones that, by nature of trying to hold on to their power, are largely very insular and very long-lived. In some cases, the same close-knit group of people have been running these regions since before some current players were born. Returning to the power difference, the raw size of these regions, baseline, leads to some pretty strong results - TNP alone is approximately twice as powerful in terms of WA voting/unique WA players as the average of the other feeders, which in turn are about 2-3 times more powerful than the average sinker. In other words, while half of the other feeders match TNP, all the sinkers combined fall short. Softer forms of power are harder to measure, but there are somewhat similar political parallels.

Now, TNP's prominence is well earned, and they should not be singled out for shrinking because of it - but I believe the margins in question can be balanced to bring these various forms gameplay to a *more* balanced standard. In a scenario where the non-outlying feeder is approximately the same size as the average sinker in such terms, TNP is only 2-3 times more powerful than any other GCR. Or, in other words, where right now the top two GCR's are as powerful as the bottom six by these measurable metrics, a more desirable scenario would make that disparity far lesser.

What does this allow? Looking in the longer term, once things have begun to settle, this means that there is more ability/incentive for a more dynamic WA game, with 2+ blocs of equal power. Same goes for other forms of diplomacy and politics - more bodies of more equal size stands to create at the least more varied factions with more methods of interaction, and ideally more factions altogether. This allows for more "gameplay" meta in the widest sense, and a more interesting game.

As a player from a largely Gameplay background, the first one that came to mind for me of course is that a fire will be lit under gameplay's ass in the short to medium turn. Quite a few factions will attempt to seize control of one of the new regions, and a lot of interesting R/D/other is sure to occur. The fallout could very well be an entire new generation of people brought into said game due to these events. Medium terms, some of these governments will fail and be replaced during the stabilization process. For likely at least a year or two, at least occasional major movements should occur. In the longer terms, these regions should still be generally stable, but "generally" will be, on average, somewhat lower than it is today. The more organized and adept regions should still be perfectly stable and fine, but the ones less so will no longer be as safe on top of an inherited pile of endorsements as they once were. This better rewards good caretaking, and increases the ability for the region to actually, as the FAQ states, "get the delegate unelected" if they don't like them, by gameplay means. The wider faction bed, larger number of feeders, and smaller endocounts could theoretically allow actual inter-GCR military gameplay, which would bring an interesting increased meaningfulness to politics. These feeder regions would also tower slightly less on high above even the largest class of UCR's, making the gameplay between those two groups more interesting.

I'm sure there's plenty I've not considered in here, or only touched on really briefly. I welcome more commentary.



Names
Names always come up, and what would a "more GCRs!" post be without name proposals?

My two cents is thus: Keep the sea-based naming theme. But don't go try and take "The Atlantic" or anything else that's got a decently established history. Instead, look to the Red Planet. I propose five seas of Mars - Mare Boreum, Mare Erythraeum, Mare Australe, Mare Acidalium, and Mare Sirenum. I own them all and you're welcome to them! :P



In Closing
I like this as a single solution to several problems, that is uniquely simple on the backend. No new spawning mechanics, no new region types, no new math to weight WA votes, nothing - just five new feeders. I like it because it brings all the GCR's closer into balance in terms of actual activity and unique WA players, as compared to the deceptively similar raw nation counts at present. I like because it still allows extraordinary regions to remain a league ahead - just not 6 leagues ahead. I like it because it has short and long term effects. I like it because it doesn't instantly hurt any existing regions too strongly. I think it would positively impact much of the meta game, notably the WA, and provide more opportunities for new players to enter those metas.

Thanks for reading!
Last edited by Ever-Wandering Souls on Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proud Raider: General of The Black Hawks
TG me anytime; I'm always happy to talk about anything!

Festavo wrote:Maybe another day. I have to wat.

The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258

Misley wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:Don't think I understand the question.
The color or what?..

Jesus, Hobbes, it's 2015. You can't just call someone "the color".

Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative

How Do I Telegram API?

User avatar
Marilyn Manson Freaks
Diplomat
 
Posts: 590
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Marilyn Manson Freaks » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:16 pm

Full support.
Hi, I'm Manson! I'm just your friendly neighborhood rockstar!
NS Join Date: November 6th, 2015

Here are some things I've authored.

Jobs & Positions
NationStates Moderators wrote:Can't we be terrible human beings too? I like enforcing the rules AND being a terrible human. Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and kittens. Who doesn't like kittens?

The Church of Satan wrote:And so Marilyn "The Mod Hunter" Manson was born.
- In response to my growing card collection of current and former moderators.

User avatar
Tupelope
Envoy
 
Posts: 272
Founded: Jul 14, 2007
Corporate Police State

Postby Tupelope » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:18 pm

Yes I concur that the feeders at the moment are too large and I do like this proposal. The World Assembly power of them allows them to pretty much dictate what passes and what does not. I support this motion, but the names could use some work in my opinion.

User avatar
Kyorgia
Envoy
 
Posts: 218
Founded: Jun 07, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kyorgia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:19 pm

Nah
Kyorgia Vasentius
My region was condemned once

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 651
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Pergamon » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:17 pm

AGAINST.

Not interested that GP UCRs, especially from the R/D corner of the game, have an easy time to obtain their very own nation spawn platform.
Last edited by Pergamon on Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Consul of The Pacific - Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Ever-Wandering Souls
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6027
Founded: Jan 01, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:23 pm

Pergamon wrote:AGAINST.

Not interested that GP UCRs, especially from the R/D corner of the game, have an easy time to obtain their very own nation spawn platform.


But Perg, the mighty Pacific should surely be able to protect most to all of these against the evil userites! Just thin - you could control almost half of the GCR's!

:lol:

Do you have constructive criticism to the mechanics beyond partisanism?
Proud Raider: General of The Black Hawks
TG me anytime; I'm always happy to talk about anything!

Festavo wrote:Maybe another day. I have to wat.

The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258

Misley wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:Don't think I understand the question.
The color or what?..

Jesus, Hobbes, it's 2015. You can't just call someone "the color".

Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative

How Do I Telegram API?

User avatar
Queen Yuno
Diplomat
 
Posts: 502
Founded: Dec 30, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Queen Yuno » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:30 pm

You’re complaining about how feeders have so many WAs, but a year ago TEP had like 300 endos on their 8 month delegate. And excluding TNP at 1k because of their superior technology, other feeders had heir endos on the 200-400 range and the sinkers had their endos in the 100s. These were consistent statistics for years. They’re not that great, the recent boom in endorsements is recent due to a deal by all GCR delegates to make “gaining endorsements” something like a competition.

Meanwhile there have been UCRs like 10000 Islands with 1000 endorsements in the past, and in modern times there are many UCRs with above 300-350 endorsements on their delegate

I’m saying endorsements just don’t pop out of the blue. You need players to work for them. I even wrote a guide for UCRs.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=450459
Supreme Loligarchy
Dedicated to The East Pacific

"Vote early, vote often." -Pallaith

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 651
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Pergamon » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:30 pm

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
Pergamon wrote:AGAINST.

Not interested that GP UCRs, especially from the R/D corner of the game, have an easy time to obtain their very own nation spawn platform.


But Perg, the mighty Pacific should surely be able to protect most to all of these against the evil userites! Just thin - you could control almost half of the GCR's!

:lol:

Do you have constructive criticism to the mechanics beyond partisanism?


Other than it is entirely not necessary to bloat the GCR landscape even further? If the NS community feels that the WA power of the current GCRs need to be broken, there are countless other proposals for this out there already. While I consider this idea being better than uplifting foundered UCRs like Europeia to Feeder status, it is not a good idea at all.

One of the reasons is one I already named, looks to me just like a way for GP UCRs to bypass regular accumulation of nations and the restrictions they usually face while doing so. You can't possibly tell me that this game is actually up to allow GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments.

I am not interested in a GP faction divide of those "new GCRs" whereas potentially raiders take 1-3 of them, defenders 1-3 and GCR natives/Puritists or as you would call: NPO, 1-3. It makes no sense to me at all. The only GP factions with a net gain from this are Defenders or Raiders in my opinion, we GCR natives, don't have anything from this, even worse: It would nerf our current standing in the game and potentially be buffing R/D organizations. That's what I expect. And that's what I do not wish for. Totally opposed.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Consul of The Pacific - Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Kurnugia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 714
Founded: Feb 21, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kurnugia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:33 pm

I dunno, if my estimation is correct, the feeders make about a quarter of all WA votes. So I don't think it's really that clear cut as you paint it is.
o/////////o

User avatar
Jokesters
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Oct 10, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Jokesters » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:46 pm

AGAINST
Last edited by Jokesters on Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Feux
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1577
Founded: Mar 20, 2012
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Feux » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:47 pm

Against. Why would I want to make worse the one environment on this game where I find gameplay interesting? More Feeders would just destroy what there is now in favor of something that is going to turn out looking like the warzones but with more authoritarianism. This path doesn't head to new and exciting things, just more of the same but with less quality. The communities will be less, inactivity would be worse, and this game may get boring one day to the world but we will still be stuck with 10 Feeders.
Always Changing Shapes
Retired Regent for the Pacific
Old Lazarene King
Europe Delegate Seven Times
Author of SC # 84, 167, 117, 106, 109, 111
Co-Authored SC # 161

User avatar
Ever-Wandering Souls
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6027
Founded: Jan 01, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:49 pm

Queen Yuno wrote:You’re complaining about how feeders have so many WAs, but a year ago TEP had like 300 endos on their 8 month delegate. And excluding TNP at 1k because of their superior technology, other feeders had heir endos on the 200-400 range and the sinkers had their endos in the 100s. These were consistent statistics for years. They’re not that great, the recent boom in endorsements is recent due to a deal by all GCR delegates to make “gaining endorsements” something like a competition.

Meanwhile there have been UCRs like 10000 Islands with 1000 endorsements in the past, and in modern times there are many UCRs with above 300-350 endorsements on their delegate

I’m saying endorsements just don’t pop out of the blue. You need players to work for them. I even wrote a guide for UCRs.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=450459


Hi,

Unfortunately, I was not able to better look at true long term data, again due to NSArchive being wiped (and even NSHistory is not currently functional). If you have better historical info on all GCR endorsement counts going back a few years, I'd appreciate looking at that. Anecdotal claims are ... anecdotal.

Regions with superior setups would still be more than able to maintain an edge - just an edge that is only double or triple the smaller end of GCR's, rather than 5-6 times as large. Because again - there is an absolutely clear disparity between *all* feeders and *all* sinkers, not just in conversion of WA members into delegate endorsements, but in WA membership in general. Of course, membership can be attributed to drives as well - see, TNP having a much higher level - but again, there's a clear disparity between *all* feeders vs *all* sinkers. Unless you're claiming that all feeders participate in this "competition" while not one of the sinkers do, there's clearly a mechanical difference there.

Yes, there are UCR's in the sinker size range. I'm not sure the relevance, beyond the fact that less disparity there makes for more interesting gameplay. That noted, it costs those UCR's a lot more recruitment time and money to get those endo counts, for what it's worth :P

Of course they do not. I'm not saying they do at all. I'm saying that even the bare minimum in feeders is disproportionately large.

Pergamon wrote:
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
But Perg, the mighty Pacific should surely be able to protect most to all of these against the evil userites! Just thin - you could control almost half of the GCR's!

:lol:

Do you have constructive criticism to the mechanics beyond partisanism?


Other than it is entirely not necessary to bloat the GCR landscape even further? If the NS community feels that the WA power of the current GCRs need to be broken, there are countless other proposals for this out there already. While I consider this idea being better than uplifting foundered UCRs like Europeia to Feeder status, it is not a good idea at all.

One of the reasons is one I already named, looks to me just like a way for GP UCRs to bypass regular accumulation of nations and the restrictions they usually face while doing so. You can't possibly tell me that this game is actually up to allow GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments.

I am not interested in a GP faction divide of those "new GCRs" whereas potentially raiders take 1-3 of them, defenders 1-3 and GCR natives/Puritists or as you would call: NPO, 1-3. It makes no sense to me at all. The only GP factions with a net gain from this are Defenders or Raiders in my opinion, we GCR natives, don't have anything from this, even worse: It would nerf our current standing in the game and potentially be buffing R/D organizations. That's what I expect. And that's what I do not wish for. Totally opposed.


I'd call "bloat" the feeders as they currently exist.

All other proposals for effective WA status are both far more complex, and generally focus on artificially fixing disproportion, which is something I actually think is unfair to people who work hard for that difference. I think both that it's better to address the root, as well as to still allow full reward for exceptional regional management. Simply spreading the endorsements better, among a larger number of feeders, will still allow there to be a game of strong WA alliances, but a wider, more interesting one that should actually allow more factions and better "lobbying."

It would be possible that some players currently in UCRs could attempt to gain power in some of these - anyone in the game could. NSLeft, NSRight, Raiding, Defending, Imperialists, existing GCR's, more. At the same time, any one of these would be required to invest fully to have any chance at maintaining control, and would by nature of control, develop a large population of spawned nations - as you stated, that would, in fact, be a major attractor. This artificial and meaningless divide you summon, of wanting "GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments," is more of said partisanship - there's no mechanical difference between people who took control of a newly created GCR a decade ago, and those who might now. That's not a legitimate criticism of this as a technical proposal for game balance.
Proud Raider: General of The Black Hawks
TG me anytime; I'm always happy to talk about anything!

Festavo wrote:Maybe another day. I have to wat.

The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258

Misley wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:Don't think I understand the question.
The color or what?..

Jesus, Hobbes, it's 2015. You can't just call someone "the color".

Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative

How Do I Telegram API?

User avatar
Ever-Wandering Souls
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6027
Founded: Jan 01, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ever-Wandering Souls » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:52 pm

Feux wrote:Against. Why would I want to make worse the one environment on this game where I find gameplay interesting? More Feeders would just destroy what there is now in favor of something that is going to turn out looking like the warzones but with more authoritarianism. This path doesn't head to new and exciting things, just more of the same but with less quality. The communities will be less, inactivity would be worse, and this game may get boring one day to the world but we will still be stuck with 10 Feeders.


Are Sinkers warzones? Because this would, long term, create Sinker-sized feeders in terms of endorsements. Are sinkers inactive? Are hundreds of UCR's with far fewer nations as a whole and WA members as well inactive?

These are non-issues, and non-constructive. More of the people in power, almost entirely concerned just with keeping it and not letting anyone else have a shred of the same.

A wider variety would be created, and allow for a less monolithic GCR existence, which would improve all faces of the Meta.
Proud Raider: General of The Black Hawks
TG me anytime; I'm always happy to talk about anything!

Festavo wrote:Maybe another day. I have to wat.

The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258

Misley wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:Don't think I understand the question.
The color or what?..

Jesus, Hobbes, it's 2015. You can't just call someone "the color".

Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative

How Do I Telegram API?

User avatar
The Tri State Area and Maine
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 49
Founded: Feb 02, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Tri State Area and Maine » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:06 pm

I don't understand why TP got a bunch of people to pile against this. No point in doing well in a game that is boring and stale. Full support from me.

Pergamon wrote:
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
But Perg, the mighty Pacific should surely be able to protect most to all of these against the evil userites! Just thin - you could control almost half of the GCR's!

:lol:

Do you have constructive criticism to the mechanics beyond partisanism?


Other than it is entirely not necessary to bloat the GCR landscape even further? If the NS community feels that the WA power of the current GCRs need to be broken, there are countless other proposals for this out there already. While I consider this idea being better than uplifting foundered UCRs like Europeia to Feeder status, it is not a good idea at all.

One of the reasons is one I already named, looks to me just like a way for GP UCRs to bypass regular accumulation of nations and the restrictions they usually face while doing so. You can't possibly tell me that this game is actually up to allow GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments.

I am not interested in a GP faction divide of those "new GCRs" whereas potentially raiders take 1-3 of them, defenders 1-3 and GCR natives/Puritists or as you would call: NPO, 1-3. It makes no sense to me at all. The only GP factions with a net gain from this are Defenders or Raiders in my opinion, we GCR natives, don't have anything from this, even worse: It would nerf our current standing in the game and potentially be buffing R/D organizations. That's what I expect. And that's what I do not wish for. Totally opposed.


Well, that's exactly the point. Make it so that is isn't just 5-9 regions are important with literally everybody else being a non-factor. Nerfing the current Feeders is good for the game (and possibly Sinkers, too, but we'll get there if needed.)

Queen Yuno wrote:You’re complaining about how feeders have so many WAs, but a year ago TEP had like 300 endos on their 8 month delegate. And excluding TNP at 1k because of their superior technology, other feeders had heir endos on the 200-400 range and the sinkers had their endos in the 100s. These were consistent statistics for years. They’re not that great, the recent boom in endorsements is recent due to a deal by all GCR delegates to make “gaining endorsements” something like a competition.

Meanwhile there have been UCRs like 10000 Islands with 1000 endorsements in the past, and in modern times there are many UCRs with above 300-350 endorsements on their delegate

I’m saying endorsements just don’t pop out of the blue. You need players to work for them. I even wrote a guide for UCRs.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=450459


Feeders don't need to be the strongest regions in the game, that's just how it's been in the recent past. There shouldn't be a clear set of top regions, either, as that just centralizes the game around those regions.
Last edited by The Tri State Area and Maine on Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flemingisa
Attaché
 
Posts: 94
Founded: Nov 22, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Flemingisa » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:07 pm

I support this or a variation of the idea. The state of the game feels stagnant and will continue to be as long as the Meta stays as it is.

User avatar
Nau States
Attaché
 
Posts: 80
Founded: Feb 17, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Nau States » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:13 pm

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote: "GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments,"

I may be a spring chicken with only a rudimentary understanding of NS history, but I do know about the August Revolution fiasco and Francoism. *Insert witty topical comment involving emphasis on the word 'peaceful' in the quoted statement* No offence meant to TP.
Seriously, though, I'm kinda torn between my logic and my hobby as a Regional Anthropologist with this proposal. I mean, is it really a problem that needs to be urgently fixed so much that more GCRs have to be created? But then again, the ol' Trip and Quit spirit of mine wants to see moar GCR cultures, no matter how impractical the way.
I have known adventures, seen places you people will never see, I've been Offworld and back...frontiers! I've stood on the back deck of a blinker bound for the Plutition Camps with sweat in my eyes watching the stars fight on the shoulder of Orion. I've felt wind in my hair, riding test boats off the black galaxies and seen an attack fleet burn like a match and disappear. I've seen it...felt it!

User avatar
Kurnugia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 714
Founded: Feb 21, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kurnugia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:14 pm

The Tri State Area and Maine wrote:I don't understand why TP got a bunch of people to pile against this. No point in doing well in a game that is boring and stale. Full support from me.




that's your opinion lol. I don't think it's stale at all.
o/////////o

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 651
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Pergamon » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:15 pm

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
Pergamon wrote:
Other than it is entirely not necessary to bloat the GCR landscape even further? If the NS community feels that the WA power of the current GCRs need to be broken, there are countless other proposals for this out there already. While I consider this idea being better than uplifting foundered UCRs like Europeia to Feeder status, it is not a good idea at all.

One of the reasons is one I already named, looks to me just like a way for GP UCRs to bypass regular accumulation of nations and the restrictions they usually face while doing so. You can't possibly tell me that this game is actually up to allow GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments.

I am not interested in a GP faction divide of those "new GCRs" whereas potentially raiders take 1-3 of them, defenders 1-3 and GCR natives/Puritists or as you would call: NPO, 1-3. It makes no sense to me at all. The only GP factions with a net gain from this are Defenders or Raiders in my opinion, we GCR natives, don't have anything from this, even worse: It would nerf our current standing in the game and potentially be buffing R/D organizations. That's what I expect. And that's what I do not wish for. Totally opposed.


I'd call "bloat" the feeders as they currently exist.

All other proposals for effective WA status are both far more complex, and generally focus on artificially fixing disproportion, which is something I actually think is unfair to people who work hard for that difference. I think both that it's better to address the root, as well as to still allow full reward for exceptional regional management. Simply spreading the endorsements better, among a larger number of feeders, will still allow there to be a game of strong WA alliances, but a wider, more interesting one that should actually allow more factions and better "lobbying."

It would be possible that some players currently in UCRs could attempt to gain power in some of these - anyone in the game could. NSLeft, NSRight, Raiding, Defending, Imperialists, existing GCR's, more. At the same time, any one of these would be required to invest fully to have any chance at maintaining control, and would by nature of control, develop a large population of spawned nations - as you stated, that would, in fact, be a major attractor. This artificial and meaningless divide you summon, of wanting "GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments," is more of said partisanship - there's no mechanical difference between people who took control of a newly created GCR a decade ago, and those who might now. That's not a legitimate criticism of this as a technical proposal for game balance.


What I have addressed are legitimate concerns and not some sort of "partisanism". The framework of the game consists of mechanics, the game itself does not. It is an endless sandbox, that by its nature gave birth to all those countless factions. You cannot just dismiss this concern and tell me it is not relevant to this discussion, because it is the core of it. What you call means to balance the game is nothing else but a total net gain for specific factions, particularly those not native or in control of a GCR yet. This by no means calls for a balancing of the game, this only calls for opportunity for those that seek to improve their power and standing within the game by obtaining a GCR for their UCR faction. Yet again I claim, that factions native to the current GCRs have nothing at all from this.

I go even further to claim, this proposal is nothing else but a proposed pro-UCR dynamic, especially for those UCRs with the manpower, know-how and capacity to strike out and secure a Feeder.

And there is a difference, a huge difference to the core if nations native to a GCR with no other affiliation but that GCR govern said GCR, or an UCR org obtains an GCR and uses it as platform to bolster their number and their political sway in-game.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Consul of The Pacific - Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Luziyca
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33670
Founded: Nov 13, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Luziyca » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:17 pm

Why not turn the warzones into feeders, but keep the special mechanics for the warzones? That way, it'll bring the warzones to life, and it'll ease the bloating of the existing GCRs. This will kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.
|||The Christian Republic of of Luziyca|||
[22:00] <Lanos> nobody here in ESQ should be proud to be somehow remotely related to Luziyca
IIwikiNewsFacebookEsquarium: the best region for eight years runningAbout meYouTubePolitical compass

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 651
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Pergamon » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:21 pm

Luziyca wrote:Why not turn the warzones into feeders, but keep the special mechanics for the warzones? That way, it'll bring the warzones to life, and it'll ease the bloating of the existing GCRs. This will kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.


Great idea. Why not propose to give TRR spawning powers instead, would have the same outcome.

Edit: Just in case, that was irony.
Last edited by Pergamon on Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Consul of The Pacific - Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Nau States
Attaché
 
Posts: 80
Founded: Feb 17, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Nau States » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:25 pm

Pergamon wrote:
Luziyca";p="<a href="tel:34722664">34722664</a> wrote:Why not turn the warzones into feeders, but keep the special mechanics for the warzones? That way, it'll bring the warzones to life, and it'll ease the bloating of the existing GCRs. This will kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.


Great idea. Why not propose to give TRR spawning powers instead, would have the same outcome.

Edit: Just in case, that was irony.


Hey, anything that brings life to the Warzones that ain't invasion is cool in my book.
I have known adventures, seen places you people will never see, I've been Offworld and back...frontiers! I've stood on the back deck of a blinker bound for the Plutition Camps with sweat in my eyes watching the stars fight on the shoulder of Orion. I've felt wind in my hair, riding test boats off the black galaxies and seen an attack fleet burn like a match and disappear. I've seen it...felt it!

User avatar
The Tri State Area and Maine
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 49
Founded: Feb 02, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Tri State Area and Maine » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:27 pm

Pergamon wrote:
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
I'd call "bloat" the feeders as they currently exist.

All other proposals for effective WA status are both far more complex, and generally focus on artificially fixing disproportion, which is something I actually think is unfair to people who work hard for that difference. I think both that it's better to address the root, as well as to still allow full reward for exceptional regional management. Simply spreading the endorsements better, among a larger number of feeders, will still allow there to be a game of strong WA alliances, but a wider, more interesting one that should actually allow more factions and better "lobbying."

It would be possible that some players currently in UCRs could attempt to gain power in some of these - anyone in the game could. NSLeft, NSRight, Raiding, Defending, Imperialists, existing GCR's, more. At the same time, any one of these would be required to invest fully to have any chance at maintaining control, and would by nature of control, develop a large population of spawned nations - as you stated, that would, in fact, be a major attractor. This artificial and meaningless divide you summon, of wanting "GCR natives to spawn in there peacefully and form their own governments," is more of said partisanship - there's no mechanical difference between people who took control of a newly created GCR a decade ago, and those who might now. That's not a legitimate criticism of this as a technical proposal for game balance.


What I have addressed are legitimate concerns and not some sort of "partisanism". The framework of the game consists of mechanics, the game itself does not. It is an endless sandbox, that by its nature gave birth to all those countless factions. You cannot just dismiss this concern and tell me it is not relevant to this discussion, because it is the core of it. What you call means to balance the game is nothing else but a total net gain for specific factions, particularly those not native or in control of a GCR yet. This by no means calls for a balancing of the game, this only calls for opportunity for those that seek to improve their power and standing within the game by obtaining a GCR for their UCR faction. Yet again I claim, that factions native to the current GCRs have nothing at all from this.

I go even further to claim, this proposal is nothing else but a proposed pro-UCR dynamic, especially for those UCRs with the manpower, know-how and capacity to strike out and secure a Feeder.

And there is a difference, a huge difference to the core if nations native to a GCR with no other affiliation but that GCR govern said GCR, or an UCR org obtains an GCR and uses it as platform to bolster their number and their political sway in-game.


Any balancing mechanic that is proposed has to benefit the UCRs. The GCRs are too strong currently, so the only solutions are to either nerf the GCRs or buff the UCRs.

You don't seem to be understanding that nerfing GCRs and lessening their influence is, in fact, the point of this proposal. There is no hidden agenda, that is exactly what the goal of this proposal is.

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 651
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Pergamon » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:28 pm

Nau States wrote:
Pergamon wrote:
Great idea. Why not propose to give TRR spawning powers instead, would have the same outcome.

Edit: Just in case, that was irony.


Hey, anything that brings life to the Warzones that ain't invasion is cool in my book.


Maybe rename them to Peacezone then.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Consul of The Pacific - Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

User avatar
Kurnugia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 714
Founded: Feb 21, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kurnugia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:35 pm

The Tri State Area and Maine wrote:
Pergamon wrote:
What I have addressed are legitimate concerns and not some sort of "partisanism". The framework of the game consists of mechanics, the game itself does not. It is an endless sandbox, that by its nature gave birth to all those countless factions. You cannot just dismiss this concern and tell me it is not relevant to this discussion, because it is the core of it. What you call means to balance the game is nothing else but a total net gain for specific factions, particularly those not native or in control of a GCR yet. This by no means calls for a balancing of the game, this only calls for opportunity for those that seek to improve their power and standing within the game by obtaining a GCR for their UCR faction. Yet again I claim, that factions native to the current GCRs have nothing at all from this.

I go even further to claim, this proposal is nothing else but a proposed pro-UCR dynamic, especially for those UCRs with the manpower, know-how and capacity to strike out and secure a Feeder.

And there is a difference, a huge difference to the core if nations native to a GCR with no other affiliation but that GCR govern said GCR, or an UCR org obtains an GCR and uses it as platform to bolster their number and their political sway in-game.


Any balancing mechanic that is proposed has to benefit the UCRs. The GCRs are too strong currently, so the only solutions are to either nerf the GCRs or buff the UCRs.

You don't seem to be understanding that nerfing GCRs and lessening their influence is, in fact, the point of this proposal. There is no hidden agenda, that is exactly what the goal of this proposal is.

UCR's are already buffed by being solely owned by a person. This isn't the case in the GCR. The power in it could change in a matter of seconds. That's more than enough of an advantage over GCR. Not much balancing to be done.
o/////////o

User avatar
Pergamon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 651
Founded: Oct 18, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Pergamon » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:37 pm

The Tri State Area and Maine wrote:
Pergamon wrote:
What I have addressed are legitimate concerns and not some sort of "partisanism". The framework of the game consists of mechanics, the game itself does not. It is an endless sandbox, that by its nature gave birth to all those countless factions. You cannot just dismiss this concern and tell me it is not relevant to this discussion, because it is the core of it. What you call means to balance the game is nothing else but a total net gain for specific factions, particularly those not native or in control of a GCR yet. This by no means calls for a balancing of the game, this only calls for opportunity for those that seek to improve their power and standing within the game by obtaining a GCR for their UCR faction. Yet again I claim, that factions native to the current GCRs have nothing at all from this.

I go even further to claim, this proposal is nothing else but a proposed pro-UCR dynamic, especially for those UCRs with the manpower, know-how and capacity to strike out and secure a Feeder.

And there is a difference, a huge difference to the core if nations native to a GCR with no other affiliation but that GCR govern said GCR, or an UCR org obtains an GCR and uses it as platform to bolster their number and their political sway in-game.


Any balancing mechanic that is proposed has to benefit the UCRs. The GCRs are too strong currently, so the only solutions are to either nerf the GCRs or buff the UCRs.

You don't seem to be understanding that nerfing GCRs and lessening their influence is, in fact, the point of this proposal. There is no hidden agenda, that is exactly what the goal of this proposal is.


I am not initially against nerfing the GCRs, I stated it before in other threads, but in order to make it fair, FOUNDERS and INFLUENCE should be removed from the game entirely and each and any region in the game (minus TRR, Sinkers and Spawn Regions) should be vulnerable and potentially be able to be destroyed. If UCRs no longer be able to seize control over GCRs from completely save havens locked down by founders and nations with influence that are not subject to influence decay, and if they would live in the constant fear that a greater faction simply thrashes them if they dare to touch turf they would (by normal means) not be able to swallow, I'll be totally fine with it.

Many fail to realize that this game already, by mechanics has given UCRs so much advantage over GCRs: FOUNDERS, PASSWORDS, NO INFLUENCE DECAY.
Yet okay, propose to shift the dynamic more and give UCRs even more. It makes no sense to me. If the WA voting is what you object and the power the GCRs have in there, then Kurn already said it correctly, the GCRs make only up for one quarter of the total votes. A large UCR voting coalition can actually surpass the GCRs. Also note that the GCRs are not in one block voting together on all and any proposal, they are factionalized and they all have their own opinions.
Last edited by Pergamon on Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PACIFICA STAND STRONG

Consul of The Pacific - Regent of the New Pacific Order

"The only war that matters is the war of the Feederite Class against the Userite. UCR Organizations and Cabals that befoul GCR with their presence, disguised as ruling elite within them, must be removed and their power must be broken. This is the ultimate imperative of the Revolutionaries true to the GCR and the Pacifics, which have nothing to lose but the chains from Userite oppression."

Next

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tessen

Remove ads