Jump to content

Trust busting


Raphael
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

I've seen in other games like Ark Survival Evolved that invasion communities tend to join with the intent to dominate with their overwhelming numbers like a Sherman's march type deal. I'm cynical about the purpose GPWC will serve in pnw and so I guess only time will tell. Regardless I do still support the idea of forcing communities with large member bases to expand their government and create potential diversity internally. It would create an increased risk for having so many numbers, and while NPO may feel targetted (and I can see that), I personally prefer having *more* alliances instead of current alliances growing bigger and bigger (member-wise).

Doesn't solve any problem apart from targeting successful communities, thereby reducing buy-in to the game. Whatever potential diversity is up to themselves and should never be imposed by folks for shits and giggles. It literally is persecuting folks for being good at recruiting for no other reason than your own lack of it. I have no idea why anyone would want to kill communities who play this game because they may not have the strength to recruit as well tbh, its a terrible idea and that'll kill player retention faster than most other things. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

Doesn't solve any problem apart from targeting successful communities, thereby reducing buy-in to the game. Whatever potential diversity is up to themselves and should never be imposed by folks for shits and giggles. It literally is persecuting folks for being good at recruiting for no other reason than your own lack of it. I have no idea why anyone would want to kill communities who play this game because they may not have the strength to recruit as well tbh, its a terrible idea and that'll kill player retention faster than most other things. 

I think it's a big problem that a single alliance has more than 400% the members of any other current alliance in existence without any regulation. It'd be the same if a person with a large social media following brought over some 10,000 followers into one alliance (completely hypothetical), but it's a huge problem since the overwhelming majority is located all in one alliance, under one government. It's not even about our "lack of recruitment" (I personally don't think we should have to do Sheepy's advertising for him in order to compete), but that having such a large umbrella of members under one government's disposal is absurd. It's not persecuting anyone for being good at recruitment, it's adding regulations to split up the power and add risks to having such a large member base, much like how corporations in real life are regulated. I also don't see how it'll kill player retention since the split of power is only in-game and I'm sure your community would still exist all on the same Discord platform, not to mention the increased demand for government positions would allow more of your members to get more involved in the game.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

I think it's a big problem that a single alliance has more than 400% the members of any other current alliance in existence without any regulation. It'd be the same if a person with a large social media following brought over some 10,000 followers into one alliance (completely hypothetical), but it's a huge problem since the overwhelming majority is located all in one alliance, under one government. It's not even about our "lack of recruitment" (I personally don't think we should have to do Sheepy's advertising for him in order to compete), but that having such a large umbrella of members under one government's disposal is absurd. It's not persecuting anyone for being good at recruitment, it's adding regulations to split up the power and add risks to having such a large member base, much like how corporations in real life are regulated. I also don't see how it'll kill player retention since the split of power is only in-game and I'm sure your community would still exist all on the same Discord platform, not to mention the increased demand for government positions would allow more of your members to get more involved in the game.

That's not how alliances work, where everyone's jockeying for government and "internal tension." But keep trying to push that pipe dream because you don't want to get out there and recruit. I don't care if folks bring in larger invasion communities or wherever these communities come from, as long as the game can grow and the politics changes accordingly. In fact I'd urge you to try and bring in more players to the game. 

At the end of the day, if your answer to your lack of interest in expanding the game, is to punish others who do so, says a lot about you and what you want from this game. I'd urge you to look at positive ways to improve the game, rather than trying to actively break apart communities. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

That's not how alliances work, where everyone's jockeying for government and "internal tension." But keep trying to push that pipe dream because you don't want to get out there and recruit. I don't care if folks bring in larger invasion communities or wherever these communities come from, as long as the game can grow and the politics changes accordingly. In fact I'd urge you to try and bring in more players to the game. 

At the end of the day, if your answer to your lack of interest in expanding the game, is to punish others who do so, says a lot about you and what you want from this game. I'd urge you to look at positive ways to improve the game, rather than trying to actively break apart communities. 

"I don't care if folks bring in larger invasion communities or wherever these communities come from" Easier to say, but I doubt you hold this stance if the circumstances were unfavorable for you. Now before you accuse me of making a baseless assumption there, go back and read your reply to me in the above quote, thanks. Now then, I think you ought to accept that this *is* a problem instead of playing Guess Who with my motives cause that's not productive and pretty targeted if you ask me.

"if your answer to your lack of interest in expanding the game" Never said it, not against it, I want the game to grow obviously, but I also don't want the game to die from a power-hungry alliance struggling for game dominance, says a lot about you and what you want from this game. I'd urge you to look for solutions to problems in the game to make a positive impact, rather than actively trying to ruin the experience for other communities.

Edited by REAP3R

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
On 10/19/2019 at 7:57 PM, REAP3R said:

That's a bad thing?

how else will NPO buy mass groups to invade and support them resources, silly people you have to think how NPO wants it not how it effects everyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 5:15 PM, Shadowthrone said:

That's not how alliances work, where everyone's jockeying for government and "internal tension." But keep trying to push that pipe dream because you don't want to get out there and recruit. I don't care if folks bring in larger invasion communities or wherever these communities come from, as long as the game can grow and the politics changes accordingly. In fact I'd urge you to try and bring in more players to the game. 

At the end of the day, if your answer to your lack of interest in expanding the game, is to punish others who do so, says a lot about you and what you want from this game. I'd urge you to look at positive ways to improve the game, rather than trying to actively break apart communities. 

No offense but you guys hit the jackpot with GPWC.

Never in the history of nationsims have I seen a thousand-member group join any of these games, especially in such a short time. Coming at it from the perspective that people are lazy and not recruiting is ridiculous.

 

The only comparable event was when CN made the news back in like 2007-08 and thousands joined but even then it wasn't a singular community.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 4:35 PM, REAP3R said:

"I don't care if folks bring in larger invasion communities or wherever these communities come from" Easier to say, but I doubt you hold this stance if the circumstances were unfavorable for you. Now before you accuse me of making a baseless assumption there, go back and read your reply to me in the above quote, thanks. Now then, I think you ought to accept that this *is* a problem instead of playing Guess Who with my motives cause that's not productive and pretty targeted if you ask me.

NPO has far more room to talk about “unfavorable circumstances” and how it would respond to them than almost any other group here, and our answer, historically, has been to cope, persevere and find a solution, however incomplete or imperfect. I have no doubt whatsoever that our response to a rival invasion alliance would fit that description.

We don’t criticize others for expanding the player base because we think it’s an inherently positive thing.

On 10/19/2019 at 4:35 PM, REAP3R said:

"if your answer to your lack of interest in expanding the game" Never said it, not against it, I want the game to grow obviously, but I also don't want the game to die from a power-hungry alliance struggling for game dominance, says a lot about you and what you want from this game. I'd urge you to look for solutions to problems in the game to make a positive impact, rather than actively trying to ruin the experience for other communities.

Other than cheaters and rule-breakers, new players are categorically good. If you can’t understand it in those terms, then the problem is you, not them.

15 minutes ago, Vivec said:

No offense but you guys hit the jackpot with GPWC.

Never in the history of nationsims have I seen a thousand-member group join any of these games, especially in such a short time. Coming at it from the perspective that people are lazy and not recruiting is ridiculous.

 

The only comparable event was when CN made the news back in like 2007-08 and thousands joined but even then it wasn't a singular community.

NPO had 1000+ members in 2006-07, many if not most of whom (especially the leadership) were from NationStates. GOONS had 1000 members at its peak in CN, and its entire identity was as an offshoot of the Something Awful community. It’s possible there are other groups that meet the 1k member criterion I’ve forgotten about, but my point is that it’s definitely happened before.

It’s neither lazy nor ridiculous to worry about rival groups or to start in-character fights over their presence, but it is both lazy and ridiculous to frame them as a threat to the health of the game.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Edward I said:

NPO has far more room to talk about “unfavorable circumstances” and how it would respond to them than almost any other group here, and our answer, historically, has been to cope, persevere and find a solution, however incomplete or imperfect. I have no doubt whatsoever that our response to a rival invasion alliance would fit that description.

We don’t criticize others for expanding the player base because we think it’s an inherently positive thing.

Other than cheaters and rule-breakers, new players are categorically good. If you can’t understand it in those terms, then the problem is you, not them.

There are some solutions that require changes to the mechanics. You guys have done a good job at coping, persevering and finding solutions, and I've no doubt you'd continue to do so if a change like the one proposed was implemented. Again, the idea is not to persecute NPO for bringing in all these players, the purpose is to regulate such power that comes with having so many nations in one place. It might seem like persecution perhaps because the problem has never presented itself in this game (besides the time everyone was a member of Rose lol), until recently. I don't think anyone expected an alliance to beam 1000+ members over here so abruptly, and I'd be advocating for this same change regardless of which alliance did it because this is a genuine problem.

I'm not criticizing you for expanding the player base either, I think it is a positive thing so long as those players interact and integrate into our community as well as, like you mention later, they're not cheating or breaking rules, etc. Not to be redundant, but my opinion is that there needs to be some regulation on the power from having an astronomically large member base. I feel a risk vs reward system would be sufficient, the expanding risk with having more high ranking government members in separate alliances (which could very well branch off and become their own entity) versus the rewards of taxation and more combatants (there's probably more, but these two stand out most).

Again, those are your words not mine. I'm all for bringing more players to the game, I just want two things: regulation of power and expanding the (relevant) alliance base so there's more diversity overall.

Edit: You monsters, got me writing WoT's now, I feel dirty.

Edited by REAP3R

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Edward I said:

NPO has far more room to talk about “unfavorable circumstances” and how it would respond to them than almost any other group here, and our answer, historically, has been to cope, persevere and find a solution, however incomplete or imperfect. I have no doubt whatsoever that our response to a rival invasion alliance would fit that description.

We don’t criticize others for expanding the player base because we think it’s an inherently positive thing.

Other than cheaters and rule-breakers, new players are categorically good. If you can’t understand it in those terms, then the problem is you, not them.

NPO had 1000+ members in 2006-07, many if not most of whom (especially the leadership) were from NationStates. GOONS had 1000 members at its peak in CN, and its entire identity was as an offshoot of the Something Awful community. It’s possible there are other groups that meet the 1k member criterion I’ve forgotten about, but my point is that it’s definitely happened before.

It’s neither lazy nor ridiculous to worry about rival groups or to start in-character fights over their presence, but it is both lazy and ridiculous to frame them as a threat to the health of the game.

You're leaving out an important detail that CN during 07-09 peaked at 40-ish thousand players. So NPO, GOONS, Legion, and others having over 1000 members wasn't a stretch then. 1000 members was only 2% of the total population and NPO/GOONS/Legion saw their population decline with the game's population numbers.

In our game, we have 5000-6000 active players. So 20-25% of that is GPWC. So again, claiming a game population spike of 20-25% is a normal thing that shouldn't be glanced at or discussed is irresponsible. Claiming that other people who are unable to replicate that influx as lazy or ridiculous is either flat out ignorance or flat out trollbait.

Hopefully PnW starts trending on Twitter and we get an influx of 35,000 new players so GPWC can become a non-issue. 

Edited by Vivec
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, REAP3R said:

There are some solutions that require changes to the mechanics. You guys have done a good job at coping, persevering and finding solutions, and I've no doubt you'd continue to do so if a change like the one proposed was implemented. Again, the idea is not to persecute NPO for bringing in all these players, the purpose is to regulate such power that comes with having so many nations in one place. It might seem like persecution perhaps because the problem has never presented itself in this game (besides the time everyone was a member of Rose lol), until recently. I don't think anyone expected an alliance to beam 1000+ members over here so abruptly, and I'd be advocating for this same change regardless of which alliance did it because this is a genuine problem.

It's not an out-of-character problem, and therefore doesn't need to be regulated in an out-of-character fashion. If it's an in-character problem for you or anyone else, that's fine, but don't come to the suggestions forum looking for solutions to it.

19 hours ago, REAP3R said:

I'm not criticizing you for expanding the player base either, I think it is a positive thing so long as those players interact and integrate into our community as well as, like you mention later, they're not cheating or breaking rules, etc. Not to be redundant, but my opinion is that there needs to be some regulation on the power from having an astronomically large member base. I feel a risk vs reward system would be sufficient, the expanding risk with having more high ranking government members in separate alliances (which could very well branch off and become their own entity) versus the rewards of taxation and more combatants (there's probably more, but these two stand out most).

Again, those are your words not mine. I'm all for bringing more players to the game, I just want two things: regulation of power and expanding the (relevant) alliance base so there's more diversity overall.

Regulating player associations is never going to work. Alliance membership and alliance treaties are the two most obvious ways this is semi-frequently suggested, and both have painfully obvious workarounds that are trivial or near-trivial to implement.

We also shouldn't want these regulations, regardless of their efficacy. Unless an alliance is obviously sucking players into inactivity (particularly mismanaged or inactive micros are the only groups I can think of that would fit this description) then alliance size should purely be a matter of player choice. What you and the others are implicitly arguing is that the ideal alliance size is somewhere under 300 members (more specifically, it seems to be 50-100 members). Not only is there not a coherent, non-political reason for this preference (I don't see this suggestion as "persecuting NPO" so much as I see it as undue preferential treatment given to incumbent 50-100 member alliances), but there are good reasons to prefer larger alliance sizes. Larger groups tend to sustain themselves better than smaller ones because they have the resources and knowledge to invest in long-term player and community development.

19 hours ago, REAP3R said:

Edit: You monsters, got me writing WoT's now, I feel dirty.

When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

1 hour ago, Vivec said:

You're leaving out an important detail that CN during 07-09 peaked at 40-ish thousand players. So NPO, GOONS, Legion, and others having over 1000 members wasn't a stretch then. 1000 members was only 2% of the total population and NPO/GOONS/Legion saw their population decline with the game's population numbers.

In our game, we have 5000-6000 active players. So 20-25% of that is GPWC. So again, claiming a game population spike of 20-25% is a normal thing that shouldn't be glanced at or discussed is irresponsible. Claiming that other people who are unable to replicate that influx as lazy or ridiculous is either flat out ignorance or flat out trollbait.

Most of GPWC isn't "active" in a meaningful sense (there aren't anywhere near 1000+ people actively building nations, let alone raiding or fighting wars), so you're leaving out some important details as well. But more to the point, so what? I mentioned above that this isn't an OOC problem and that there are probably more and better OOC reasons to prefer larger alliances to smaller ones.

I didn't say it was lazy or ridiculous for others to fail to replicate GPWC; I said it was lazy and ridiculous for them to frame large alliances as threats to game health, especially if they omit important details in their arguments. Even on its own terms, all that argument amounts to is a failure to adapt to a perceived threat. In other words, if you think it's somehow unfair for a sub-100 member alliance to coexist with alliances several times its size, then the onus to change and innovate is on that alliance's members, not the game's developers.

1 hour ago, Vivec said:

Hopefully PnW starts trending on Twitter and we get an influx of 35,000 new players so GPWC can become a non-issue. 

That would be great. CN hit peak membership after it made international news, and I'd be very excited if PW managed to do the same.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2019 at 3:11 PM, Edward I said:

NPO has far more room to talk about “unfavorable circumstances” and how it would respond to them than almost any other group here

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, no, the only "unfavorable circumstances" are yourselves. If you were willing to and able to cope with the idea that coexisting with other groups is a good thing that keeps both groups healthy, then you literally wouldn't have any problems at all. But you're not; all you want is to be the one group that exists and for all other groups and individuals to serve you, at no benefit to themselves, or be killed.

All your problems, all that you've ever whined about, are of your own making. You are the cancer that destroys your hosts, and with that your foundations for existence. And that's not going to change, so you'll just keep blaming everyone else for your own failings.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.