Gameplay Discussion

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
Blackbird has started a discussion regarding Gameplay and its stagnation. Yes, it's taking place on Jolt, but it's fairly interesting, and is the chance for people to get their ideas and suggestions out on the floor in front of the mods.

Two threads:
Original Open Discussion thread
Specifically dedicated to "gamezones"

It'd be lovely if people went and posted, or even just discussed it here. I uh.. brought up the possibility of feeder delegates losing regional controls. :wink:
 
Because I thought it was an interesting idea. :p The thing is... if a feeder delegate couldn't ban, then some of the power in controlling a feeder goes away. It would make the feeders an interesting spot.

Yeah, horrible on the security front. sowwwwy. :noangel:
 
hey dont say sorry! *grabs world domination plans* :evil:

The thing is... if a feeder delegate couldn't ban, then some of the power in controlling a feeder goes away. It would make the feeders an interesting spot.
Click to expand...
IMO this would make feeders less interesting. Wouldnt more people movve away if that happened?
 
When you think about it it is fairly interesting, the no bannings in feeders.

It is poor for security, lots of nations could grab the delegacy if they acted together. However, like in the RR there would be less difficulty in regaining the region. It would insure that no feeder region would ever be griefed, like the Pacific was, and that a popular leader would eventually, and shortly be reinstalled.

It is not compatible with all of the bodies of government that have been formed around the current feeder regional controls. It could be the form of the ultimate democracy for feeders, but gauranteeing democracy takes something away from game conflict.

It has its good, and its bad.
 
One idea I have toyed with is making feeders just that - feeders. In other words, make them founder regions with no delegate, the founders appointed by mods. Give nations a limited time of residence (say a monthor two) after which they CTE- In other words, encourage nations to move out into the user created regions.

It would also be possible to have the "founder" recruit a number of experienced players whose function on the offsite forum was to introduce new players to gameplay. Turn each feeder into something like was envisaged in the Lemurian University. A Nationstates Boot camp, rather than a community of their own.

in many ways the feeders are the shop window of Nationstates. Allowing them free reign to go through the sort of turmoil that, over the years, we have seen in the Pacific, TNP and TWP is, quite frankly, bad salesmanship.
 
It would only guarentee that governments are nigh on impossible in the Pacifics; that all culture, law, work and thought is lost. The delegacy would go to the best endorsement swapper, which in turn would likely be the person with the best scripting technology. Democracy? This would be the death of any semblanse of democracy that may have once been held in the Pacifics. The only word to describe this proposed future is "wasteland".
 
Not true. Endo swapping can only get a nation close to the top. There needs to be a small or large group of supporters who get the nation over the top so to speak. As these are usually the more active nations of the region, most swapped endos are from "sleeper" nations anyway, it would be an effective way of gaging popularity.
It is true however that many of the current feeder govs would need to reform to meet the new gameplay that would occur. It would make abolete certain institutions and laws that some feeders have.

Perhaps feeder dels should not be allowed to vote on UN proposals considering most endos are sleepers and the feeders hold a disproportionate influence through gameplay, being feeders, and not through the formation of regions through common ideaology, player created regions.
 
unlimited:
It would only guarentee that governments are nigh on impossible in the Pacifics; that all culture, law, work and thought is lost. The delegacy would go to the best endorsement swapper, which in turn would likely be the person with the best scripting technology. Democracy? This would be the death of any semblanse of democracy that may have once been held in the Pacifics. The only word to describe this proposed future is "wasteland".
Click to expand...
:iagree:

Without the ability to remove those trying to take over, the Feeder government would collapse in a gibbering heap. That's why the RR and Lazarus have so much trouble all the time - neither of their delegates can ban people. It's a miracle Kandarin has stayed in as long as he has.

The Delegate's seat in every feeder will be lost within a week of the removal of banning powers. With nothing to stand in their way, invaders will swoop in and be able to recruit larger armies than ever before, and take over just about any region without password protection. The art of defending would become impossible. The game would eventually run itself to a halt.

In short, bad move.
 
It is no miracle that Kandarin is still the del of the RR...it is the natural order of ultimate democracy and the way most feeder would look without ejections. The proof is that it is.
Defending would not be a lost art, there is little that can be done that would eliminate defending. No matter what rule changes have been implimented there has always been a strategy to adjust by the defenders. The rules were not and are not the reason that defenders have a consistent track record of victory, it is a superior strategy and a more popular ideaology that translates better to the NS community at large.

It might be true that the Delegates as they currently exist would change in some regions. But the off-site forums could still hold the balance of power in every region. Defence alliuances and internal policy would become more important not less. What would change is the authoritarian governments in some feeders would no longer be able to suppress a more popular leader and ideaology.
 
Joop:
It is no miracle that Kandarin is still the del of the RR...it is the natural order of ultimate democracy and the way most feeder would look without ejections. The proof is that it is.
Click to expand...
Not to mention being propped up by foreign armies to circumvent "natural democracy"!!

I don;t think removing regional controls from Feeders will make the game more interesting, removing Founders from all player created regions as well as removing password protection would create more interest and require regions to be more diligent with regional security!!
 
This was first brought to my attention when Pierconium was Delegate.

At the time (almost a year ago) I was informed that all feeder Delegates were at risk. The person that notified me was also warning me of ADN plans to use these new rules to take all the feeders.

When I became Del, this was something that was considered a serious risk... nations that could not be banned but could get themselves to a level of serious risk....

We are nearly a year on and this has not happened, the few that were aware of this possibility has grown to the masses and the delegates of last year have in the main gone... if it happens, I believe a huge war will start and only the true tarts will be successful in bringing the harmony we have begun to discover in recent months... We can not prepare for this outcome, no more than we can prepare for a glitch...all that we can hope is we have enough good tarts to protect us from the extremes!
 
Yea, I remember hearing rumors about it a few months ago as well. It would create an interesting situation for a little bit, but it would probably end up backfiring. The most realistic way any delegate would be able to stay in power would be to (as Kandarin has done) seek outside assistance. Feeders could very easily cease to become independent regions, and instead become subjects of one of the many groups out there (how many organizations would refuse the chance to control a feeder?).
 
Removing the ban powers would remove the conflict (or the possibility of conflict). Removing the conflict decreases activity.
 
I agree with both unlimited and fedele here

If I remeber rightly, the banning system was introduced to help gameplay. before, we had chaos, with raiders destroying everything. The game lacked fun i would imagine. I can see the game going back that way quite easily
 
The game was a lot of fun back then. After the game was introduced it took about a month before people started realizing you could invade other regions. Some maybe a month and a half.

Back then you couldn't do much to destroy something. You only had control over the world factbook entry to satisfy yourself. But you had to make your own fun, and what the game's limits did was put more emphasis on verbally pissing off your enemy. The Nazi Wars were the classical example of this.

Of course, this was back before there was invader/defender. There were many isolated regions, there were regions attempting to build empires, and the occasional roving hoarde of Frenchmen. Regions who fought aggressive regions had anti-imperialist or interventionist beliefs, or even aggressive/imperialist motives of their own.

Then they put in regional controls, which, just as Beachcomber said, caused a new group of invaders who were even more destructive than before. This caused more moderator rulings and tampering with the game. It also brought Founders and the warning that all non-foundered regions would slowly disappear. If regions with founders are in place, where can people invade? Where is the need for security?

It was felt in May 2003 that the game was dying.
 
I think you misunderstand my statement. I agree that removing banning from feeders would change gameplay and some orientations reduce interest.
It would not however turn feeders into warzones, see the RR.

I am shocked that there were ever rumors that the ADN wanted to take over anything, let alone a feeder. The RR is not "propped up by" the ADN any more than any region is propped up by its allies. There are no standing armies there, other than domestic, and allies are only asked to help out when an actual invasion occurs. :blink:

I see where the lines in this discussion are drawn though.
 
Joop:
I am shocked that there were ever rumors that the ADN wanted to take over anything, let alone a feeder.  The RR is not "propped up by" the ADN any more than any region is propped up by its allies.  There are no standing armies there, other than domestic, and allies are only asked to help out when an actual invasion occurs. :blink:
Click to expand...
I've met more than a few defenders that leave their UN puppets in the RR endorsing Kandarin, I also remember that when Darius/AA were causing ripples there was a huge ADN presence in the region.

If you are shocked by the statement then you must have your head in the sand. Accusations of ADN intereference in Feeders have been flying around for a long, long while.
 
The RR is not "propped up by" the ADN any more than any region is propped up by its allies.
Click to expand...

Grammatically, this statement is very funny to me for some reason.

I've met more than a few defenders that leave their UN puppets in the RR endorsing Kandarin,
Click to expand...

For quite a long time it used to be standing orders.



Did anyone read Katganistan's latest reply to Blackbird? Anyone who starts a post with *sigh* or *um* deserves to be stabbed in the eye.
 
Well then those who purvey those rumors are simply trying to stir stuff up as they are wholely basesless in fact. Anyone who claims to have had direct knowledge of any such thing is lacking veracity and I am shocked that anyone could still believe it. The fact that you are not shocked indicates to me a clear bias.
It was standing orders for ADN military nations to leave their UNs in the RR, when not on other missions, during a period of time when the RR was under attack from several sources at once. There was in fact an invasion, a couple actually, going on at that time. It has never been a practice of the ADN to simply deploy anywhere to prop up anyone.

Your specific reference to DC and any ADN presence in the RR at that time is wholely off base. There was an invasion, by invaders, trying to place DC in the delegacy of the RR. The ADN did not deploy, although TWP did deploy the WPLF to counter that invasion, for one night. I believe WPLF, through TWP, were members of the ADN at the time, but the actual deployment was not done through the ADN, nor was it discussed in military threads there,m to the best of my recollection. Any depictions that the ADN ordered nations into the RR during any of DCs presence there are inaccurate at best.
 
Can I get away with saying "Yeah... Whatever :rolleyes:" in a debate?

I concur with NH, *sigh*/*meh*/*um*-ers should be shot on sight.
 
It would not however turn feeders into warzones, see the RR.
Click to expand...
Right now the RR is the ONLY ban free zone. There are more exiting an easy targets for invaders. tahts why its not a warzone.
The feeders are the 'big' regions of NS. There would be, I think, some pshycological value of having invaded and gained the delegacy of one. After all which raider doesnt want to take over a 6000 nation region?
 
Joop:
Well then those who purvey those rumors are simply trying to stir stuff up as they are wholely basesless in fact.
Click to expand...
While I do not wish this to be hijacked into a thread of "baseless accusations, conspiracy theories and innuendoes" I think your statement is too general to be taken seriously.

Anyone who claims to have had direct knowledge of any such thing is lacking veracity and I am shocked that anyone could still believe it.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised at the amount of defectors, moles, blackmailed individuals, and double agents who have reached high levels within the Alliance Defense Network. Claims that certain individuals within the ADN or closely connected with it have been involved in secret or dishonest deeds regarding or within the feeder regions are not without merit.

The fact that you are not shocked indicates to me a clear bias.
Click to expand...

I have known them for a very long time. I believe that there are certain individuals in the Acronym Gang who commit actions which are less noble than their stated goals. I believe that some of them do so for their own enjoyment or sense of power and others try to shape their own moral/philosophical/motivational beliefs to fit their actions.


GoalVA:
I concur with NH, *sigh*/*meh*/*um*-ers should be shot on sight.
Click to expand...

Hoorah!! :tb4:
 
I do not wish to hijack this thread either, let me just state that my comments regarding the ADN and actions taken through those boards are 100% accurate. You should check your sources and who the information they are giving you as I have the accesss on those board to know.
Your depictions of individuals may, or may not be true, I have noidea who you are talking about...and as with your comment regarding my comment on rumor mongerers, I believe that comment is too generalized to be taken seriously.

While it may be true that a "Big" region means a bigger target, lack of ejection ability would make it impossible for invaders to hold, and it would have little ultimate effect on regional operations and off-site structures. Essentially it would eliminate the threat of having a feeder "held" by unpopular forces for any real period of time.
 
Joopster:
There was an invasion, by invaders, trying to place DC in the delegacy of the RR.
Click to expand...
'

Blue Wolf, I knew this would came back to you! :lol:

Blue Wolf was the only invader to endorse them. The exaggeration is nothing more than ADN propaganda.
 
I thought it was hilarious how the ADN saw a dirty puppet endorsing him and they claimed that he was backed by invader armies...

Never before has "an army of one" been taken so literally.
 
There was an invasion, by invaders
Click to expand...

really? invaders doing invasion! *faints*

While it may be true that a "Big" region means a bigger target, lack of ejection ability would make it impossible for invaders to hold, and it would have little ultimate effect on regional operations and off-site structures. Essentially it would eliminate the threat of having a feeder "held" by unpopular forces for any real period of time.
Click to expand...
Off site communities would be harder! how do you advertise without the WFE? there would just be chaos, with people constantly taking the feeders, and that would stop any form of government being worthwhile, if at all possible!
 
Joop:
I do not wish to hijack this thread either, let me just state that my comments regarding the ADN and actions taken through those boards are 100% accurate.  You should check your sources and who the information they are giving you as I have the accesss on those board to know.
Click to expand...
Is personal experience with some of these individuals, information which I have seen myself, a source which can be checked?

Did you also have access to the other Invisionfree and two proboards forums before s7?


Your depictions of individuals may, or may not be true, I have noidea who you are talking about...and as with your comment regarding my comment on rumor mongerers, I believe that comment is too generalized to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Tete-for-tete. I see how it is.

While it may be true that a "Big" region means a bigger target, lack of ejection ability would make it impossible for invaders to hold, and it would have little ultimate effect on regional operations and off-site structures. Essentially it would eliminate the threat of having a feeder "held" by unpopular forces for any real period of time.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying here and it brings up a thought. It has often been said by the likes of Beachcomber, Jux, nondescript and myself that putting in regional controls (and the period of moderator rulings which followed) was remarkably short-sighted.
Back then "government"s existed in WFEs and regional civil headquarters. A sudden appearance of surly Francophones could seriously disrupt a community. This was a big issue during the The Heartland "migration" in early 2003.

If what you are saying is true then, now that many regions have offsite forums as a given and barely exist even within the framework of nationstates (The Meritocracy and OSN were on the far end of the spectrum about this), we can credit the mods for more needless interference which ultimately may have been detrimental to the game.

Fulhead Land:
what, TAG?
Click to expand...

Another one I've heard is the Alphabet Soup. I like "Acronym Gang" however (despite its inaccuracy); makes it sound like more of a cabal.

Fulhead Land:
Off site communities would be harder! how do you advertise without the WFE? there would just be chaos, with people constantly taking the feeders, and that would stop any form of government being worthwhile, if at all possible!
Click to expand...

It is true that the anti-Francos "underground" forums had very little activity even at the height of the resistance (a situation which only deteriorated as time wore on), and the North Pacific's s2 forum also saw a decline of activity during the ALSO and NPD affairs (I imagine flame wars and scandals made up for some loss in posting but new topics and registrations were in decline). For other example the North Pacific Government and North Pacific Directorate forums no longer recieve many visitors.

I have observed, and often said, that Nationstates is little more than a thousand message boards competing for advertisement space. I like how regional controls add that nice element of violence which is sadly lacking in the rest of the internet.
 
For other example the North Pacific Government and North Pacific Directorate forums no longer recieve many visitors.
Click to expand...
TNPG rules...relaunch soon! /advertising
But your right. The game, and its communities would become a struggle to maintain.
 
@Fedele Regardless of whether there was one or many invaders in the RR supporting DC at the time of WPLF dployment there, DC claims there were invaders, it was still not the ADN who was deployed there, which was my point. This does not mean that I am granting you the point, only that it is moot in terms of the current discussion.

@NH I am not claiming as to what was going on over a year ago in an ADN that was a different place and a completely different structure. I hav my reservation about the influence of individuals over the whole at that time as well, and I did not have the access to verify any claims you might be making about the ADN that may have occurred over a year ago anyway. I am sure we can find someone who could though. I am speaking of the ADN as far as I know it and as far as I have been involved. I refer to the incorrect allegations regarding the ADN that have occured while I have had knowledge, which goes back over a year. Check your sources...
If you tell me what you are refering to I am pretty sure I can tell you what you are missing or why your source chose to mislead you, I am pretty well versed in most of this stuff.


As far as interest is concerned I see regional control as a positive, as are founders. If a region desires to have their RP community without threat of invasion they should be afforded that opportunity.
I do not believe invaders would be able to sustain the occupation of any feeder for any length of time. I still remember a few battles that were decided in a day or two where defenders were capable of deploying in large enough numbers to counter similiar numbers as it would take to take a feeder.
 
:wacko:
Please try telling that to TWP :rofl:
TWP may be members of ADN, but the parts that make up the large org that is the ADN are not in any way immediately identifiable as ADN excepting when they act together under the auspices of ADN leadership.
The ADN has no foreign policy, no ability to declare war or take aggressive action...
The regions that are members of ADN have complete sovereignty and control over their own foreign policies.

TWP, when it was acting in the RR, at the time of DC's "invasion" (call it what you will, it is unimportant for the purposes of this conversation) were not acting as ADN but as a region, defending against an invasion. Go argue with them if you have a problem with what they did there, personally I think they saw the situation correctly and acted appropriately.
 
The regions that are members of ADN have complete sovereignty and control over their own foreign policies.
Click to expand...

:eyebrow:

TWP, when it was acting in the RR, at the time of DC's "invasion" (call it what you will, it is unimportant for the purposes of this conversation) were not acting as ADN but as a region, defending against an invasion. Go argue with them if you have a problem with what they did there, personally I think they saw the situation correctly and acted appropriately.
Click to expand...

Gathering neutral endorsements is not an invasion. To call it that is an insult to invaders.
 
I am opting out of this conversation with you fedele as the point you ar eholding onto is neither here nor there in regards to the event that was in question, and it is even farther off of the topic of this thread.
 
Joop:
TWP may be members of ADN, but the parts that make up the large org that is the ADN are not in any way immediately identifiable as ADN excepting when they act together under the auspices of ADN leadership.
Click to expand...

This has been a point of contention between those in support of the ADN and its many detractors. That is, the ADN may be trying to "clear its name" of certain instances, and others' frustration with the ADN for its apparent inability to police its members or hold itself accountable for the actions of its members. It is often seen as a convenient copout when certain individuals get caught in the act of a nefarious deed and the ADN wishes to wrangle itself out of a mess.

For good or ill, of course.

Joop:
The ADN has no foreign policy, no ability to declare war or take aggressive action...
Click to expand...
One of my personal problems with the ADN is the way I find this statement to be impossible. Being a military alliance or one concerned with interregional affairs, the ADN is a foreign policy onto itself.

Does it have a military command structure? Does it have embassies? Does it have the capacity to hold certain groups or individuals not within itself in contempt or hostility? Does it send and recieve ambassadors, have a State department, coordinate or engage in diplomacy? Yes to all.

The Articles of Alliance may prevent it from engaging in certain aspects of foreign policy, but it is impossible for it to not have one to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top