[NationStates] Region Reset Discussion

[Tomato150]

Just a quick poke from someone looking to join the Nationstates front, but would it be possible to state the various methods that might come from the restart, and that would be listed in the polls

 

[Valonyx]

I am still very much for the roleplay explanation to tie the two worlds together and not have them completely separated for multiple reasons;

-First off, by linking them together, we create much more RP possibilities and lore, due to the entire backstory of the old world, and what happened there, unlike some apparently think.

-Secondly, some people have voiced that they don't necessarily want to completely change their culture/lore/national origins, such as me. Furthermore, creating a backstory will ease that up and allow them to have some unique relations with new countries and old friends when they begin over in this new world.

-Thirdly, this provides a world backstory, which is something I find quite appealing. I understand that some of you don't care about what happened before, or simply discard it as important, but others do give importance to that kind of detail.


TBH, which should most of you care? You're not the ones that are going to write it, and I believe a very reasonable and explained reason can be detailed, even if stereotypical/archetypey.

 

[LightTwig]

First off, by linking them together, we create much more RP possibilities and lore, due to the entire backstory of the old world, and what happened there, unlike some apparently think.

I don't think this would be the case. Say we do go with "Old world is buggered, everyone spaceships to the new world and begins colonisation", that means that the history of the new nations will be the same. Additionally, on the new map I won't be playing Legisa, so what happened to them? I'd rather we started anew as it allows for everyone to use a fresh canvas when detailing their nation's lore, rather than having to wedge in some relation to the past world.

Secondly, some people have voiced that they don't necessarily want to completely change their culture/lore/national origins, such as me. Furthermore, creating a backstory will ease that up and allow them to have some unique relations with new countries and old friends when they begin over in this new world.

No one would have to change their nation's lore in this new world, at most they'd have to alter it slightly. For instance, Legisa's history is vague enough for me to copy and paste it into a new universe. I know that Legisa isn't representative of all nations, but it's just an example. Relating to your second point, I feel like a "new history" for the New World would be better than relying on the history of the old world as like I said before, it allows for players to be far more creative. The Old World had no colonial nations, for example, whereas the new world's blank slate could allow for that sort of history to be developed.

Thirdly, this provides a world backstory, which is something I find quite appealing. I understand that some of you don't care about what happened before, or simply discard it as important, but others do give importance to that kind of detail.

Again, we don't need the Old World to have a world backstory. To me, the whole "oh shit planet's fucked, let's bounce" story seems really uncreative, and has a lot of plot holes. Even with Mechanica's technological prowess, the odds of them finding another planet to colonise are astronomically small, and it really ditches the whole air of realism that I feel we've been leaning towards lately.

A new world would create less of a learning curve for new players as well, and probably grant the world a more varied range of states. Honestly, I don't see the benefits of keeping ties to the old world whatsoever.

 

[Valonyx]

I don't think this would be the case. Say we do go with "Old world is buggered, everyone spaceships to the new world and begins colonisation", that means that the history of the new nations will be the same. Additionally, on the new map I won't be playing Legisa, so what happened to them? I'd rather we started anew as it allows for everyone to use a fresh canvas when detailing their nation's lore, rather than having to wedge in some relation to the past world.

Nobody told you you couldn't start anew, as far as i'm aware. What happened to Legisa? Well, it most likely would have died off, or /something else/, if you won't be playing them. I'm not fond of copying one's lore over to the new nation with no reason, as it could get confusing in international relations. ''Wedge in some relation''? You say that like it's a bad thing. Some, like you, may want to start over, and you're allowed to do so. But others, like me, do want to keep the relations and ties they had with other countries back on the old world.

No one would have to change their nation's lore in this new world, at most they'd have to alter it slightly. For instance, Legisa's history is vague enough for me to copy and paste it into a new universe. I know that Legisa isn't representative of all nations, but it's just an example. Relating to your second point, I feel like a "new history" for the New World would be better than relying on the history of the old world as like I said before, it allows for players to be far more creative. The Old World had no colonial nations, for example, whereas the new world's blank slate could allow for that sort of history to be developed.

Again, you speak like having a backstory removes creativity, or prevents players to be creative. Nobody ever mentionned it would be mandatory to comply with backstory, but I personally feel actually having an opened backstory, and not something cloudy that people keep asking and wondering about (like in the cases of the ''Hollowworld Great War'' issues) adds much more possibilities then having jack nothing.

Again, we don't need the Old World to have a world backstory. To me, the whole "oh shit planet's fucked, let's bounce" story seems really uncreative, and has a lot of plot holes. Even with Mechanica's technological prowess, the odds of them finding another planet to colonise are astronomically small, and it really ditches the whole air of realism that I feel we've been leaning towards lately.

A new world would create less of a learning curve for new players as well, and probably grant the world a more varied range of states. Honestly, I don't see the benefits of keeping ties to the old world whatsoever.

First off, who told you the backstory would be ''oh shit, planet's fucked, lets bounce'' ? If it goes around those lines, you can be sure there's going to be a lot of time put into the lore, and not just a few sentence petty backstory. Furthermore, I do not see your ''plot holes'' very well. Concerning the mention of finding another planet to colonize being very unlikely, might I redirect you to Real life search for habitable planets? http://www.space.com/10751-kepler-reveals-amazing-amount-planets-habitable.html
If we go by the logic that NS is near-future, and seeing the amazing technologies developed by nations like Mechanica, I do not see it too far fetched to be able to realistically explain this whole NS Exodus thing, no.

''Create less of a learning curve?'' You speak like it's especially hard to RP nation states. This isn't complex strategy games, or far from being the dept of minecraft hollowworld Lore. It takes a few dozen minutes, or even less, and you're up to date on almost everything concerning this. I do not see at all where having a decent backstory is detrimental to any player, old or new.

 

[Ray1333]

I have a few somewhat-conflicting opinions on this. Firstly, starting equally does not make complete realistic sense; some nations are, naturally, older and under better conditions than others. If we have a lack of division between world superpowers and smaller nations, everything will be petty politics. While that would still be fun, I feel like it would end up being the same issues recurring continually between nations until one invades the other. Secondly, I vehemently oppose the idea of using Nationstates stats. The stats are based entirely on issues, which are just randomly generated over time. In addition, they can't take RP events into account. And RP war will not make Defense Forces take damages, for example. Thirdly, while incorporating fantasy setting things is obviously controversial, I do like the idea of significantly less advanced natives. Finally, I have serious reservations, as I've stated before, against this becoming a heavily post-modern RP environment. I still think an established tech level, perhaps immediate post-modern, should be established. Also, if we do this, I believe we should make being an organic species should be mandatory. As much as I like the concept of Mechanica, there is just no way it is remotely balanced when compared next to other nations in every respect.

 

[LightTwig]

I've found that a few roleplaying communities in the NS forums handle the balance of power quite well. One region that I play in with an alt nation is Aeneas, which is a "Modern-Tech, human-only role-playing region with three main focuses: realism, fairness and consensus". The region/world has is looked after fairly by one nation who serves as its OOC admin, accepting and declining the applications of nations hoping to join the world. The admin puts an emphasis on the fact that even in earth, there's no such thing as a level playing ground, and I think it could be fun for our community to treat NS roleplay in a similar way. In the region there are militaristic superpowers that threaten the peace of the world, but then there are also small nations such as mine which are more focused on social policy and economy.

I think players should be allowed to play whatever type of nation they want, without being restricted by NS stats, or the fact that their past nation didn't have a population in the billions. Of course, Baron or one of our other de facto NS moderators should make sure that we don't end up with more than a handful of giant powerhouse nations, as some diversity is needed to make roleplay interesting.

I'm sorry if this post is a little hard to read, I'm very hungover but I felt like I should still voice my opinion. If you need clarification on anything I've said let me know.

 

[Kyle1322]

for me I would simply say we are a group of colonists landing on a new world, with the help of our empires from the old world, however communication was lost and we start relatively bare boned modern age compared to the space age empires like the ones from whence we came, setting out to build anew and colozine, alone

 

[MaelstromPuddle]

Hopefully not.

By having each nation start in only one small territory (think EU4), the majority of the map will be unclaimed in the beginning. Even as some land is claimed as time goes on, I believe that we will be able to leave some areas of the map unclaimed for newbies to come right on in.

Danish Personal Union o' Clock

 

[Jstar]

An Exodus for Nation States?

 

[Cap]

I hate the whole colonization thing. For one, half our nations have no way of achieving it, and a lot of us (not me personally) want to make nations similar to our old ones, even if they're not exactly the same. And I really doubt that Sincronia, Mechanica, and Arcturix would take the time and effort into making spaceships for other nations.

If you want history, there's a way to do that - write some. Unless you start right next to someone, there's no reason that you can't write your own history.

 

[Valonyx]

And I really doubt that Sincronia, Mechanica, and Arcturix would take the time and effort into making spaceships for other nations.

Just wait and see.

If you want history, there's a way to do that - write some.

That's /exactly/ what we intend to do.

 

[Lord_Sinclair]

Just a quick poke from someone looking to join the Nationstates front, but would it be possible to state the various methods that might come from the restart, and that would be listed in the polls

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but as for players looking to jump in, there should be no problem after the reset. One of the great benefits of a map reset would be that we could easily fit more nations in without having to worry about a mess of backstory contradictions and territorial infringement.

If you're asking about different methods for placing nations on the map, currently, only the option regarding gradual claiming of a host of small territories over time is on the table. If any other methods for placing nations on a new map are suggested, I will be sure to list them as options in the poll.

Speaking of the poll, I believe the "RP excuse" option is becoming something of a contentious issue. Therefore, that will be one of the options on the poll. One option will have the main plan with an RP excuse; another option will have the main plan without an RP excuse.

Firstly, starting equally does not make complete realistic sense; some nations are, naturally, older and under better conditions than others. If we have a lack of division between world superpowers and smaller nations, everything will be petty politics. While that would still be fun, I feel like it would end up being the same issues recurring continually between nations until one invades the other.

This assumes that all nations, if given the same starting platform, will inevitably grow to become exactly like every other nation. If we look at the current set of nations, however, we can see that this is a false assumption. The majority of the nations currently in the region were created at about the same time, and thus have about the same population numbers, but they all have completely different stats and focuses.

I am confident that, even on an equal starting platform, some nations will become clear superpowers over others. Some nations will prioritize the military, thus allowing them to expand farther. Other nations will prioritize science, thus granting them more tech bonuses. Still other nations will prioritize the economy, thus giving them all sorts of industrial bonuses. Every nation will find their own niche; there will be clear leaders in every field.

Furthermore, the procedure for the proposed reset is designed to stimulate historical development of nations into their niches and "superpower" positions, rather than place a few nations at the forefront from the get-go and make it so history is something of the past instead of something made every day.

Secondly, I vehemently oppose the idea of using Nationstates stats. The stats are based entirely on issues, which are just randomly generated over time. In addition, they can't take RP events into account. And RP war will not make Defense Forces take damages, for example.

RP wars would be dealt with in RP with stats as more of guidelines than actual rules, per say.

The reason I think stats are important is to give a clearer picture of what each nation places emphasis on. A nation should not be allowed to switch immediately from toxic, industrial powerhouse to environmentally-friendly welfare state without some show of progression. The Nations States stats, so far as I'm concerned, are an excellent way to guide RP without delving into OOC squabbles over who has what, and so forth, all the time.

Furthermore, part of my plan is to have the new nations created a couple weeks before the new map comes out to make sure some time is given for stats to develop a little. As you say, time is the key element of making stats worth something, so if all nations are created at the same time and are given the same amount of time to develop, the differences in the stats will actually mean something with regards to the differences between the nations.

Thirdly, while incorporating fantasy setting things is obviously controversial, I do like the idea of significantly less advanced natives.

Even without fantasy elements, I think this is a good idea. This way, nations can RP a bit more about their conquests to make them more exciting than "we claimed a new rock".

I think players should be allowed to play whatever type of nation they want, without being restricted by NS stats, or the fact that their past nation didn't have a population in the billions. Of course, Baron or one of our other de facto NS moderators should make sure that we don't end up with more than a handful of giant powerhouse nations, as some diversity is needed to make roleplay interesting.

I have no intent to micromanage everyone's nations and tell them exactly what they can and cannot do, but at the same time, we shouldn't just let this be a complete free-for-all. There do need to be some basic guidelines as to what era and tech limits are in place, among other things, to ensure that nations aren't breaking immersion every two seconds, and these basic guidelines are all I'm really trying to put in place.

As for making sure past national population numbers don't influence new world nations, I agree with you. The placement order of new nations will be randomized so as to be as fair as possible. I would like to allow the current "legacy" nations to have first pick merely as a token of goodwill, seeing as those nations stand to lose the most in any reset. If said "legacy" nations have no qualms with entering the randomization order with everyone else, then I will gladly randomize everyone in the same pot. I, myself, have no issue with entering the random order.

 

[Cap]

For era, I really feel like 1990s to 2000s is a good time period to start. We start off with recognizable modern tech, and work our way into the slightly sci-fi stuff (less slightly for some) that our current game of NationStates has.

 

[Valonyx]

I have a few somewhat-conflicting opinions on this. Firstly, starting equally does not make complete realistic sense; some nations are, naturally, older and under better conditions than others. If we have a lack of division between world superpowers and smaller nations, everything will be petty politics. While that would still be fun, I feel like it would end up being the same issues recurring continually between nations until one invades the other. Secondly, I vehemently oppose the idea of using Nationstates stats. The stats are based entirely on issues, which are just randomly generated over time.

That's partly why I want to build a proper backstory, to explain why on earth would all of the world's nation home similar populations and such, a feat naturally impossible to achieve, as real life showed it to us.

As for making sure past national population numbers don't influence new world nations, I agree with you. The placement order of new nations will be randomized so as to be as fair as possible. I would like to allow the current "legacy" nations to have first pick merely as a token of goodwill, seeing as those nations stand to lose the most in any reset. If said "legacy" nations have no qualms with entering the randomization order with everyone else, then I will gladly randomize everyone in the same pot. I, myself, have no issue with entering the random order.

I will openly admit that I was the one to suggest granting this slight advantage for the legacy, old world superpowers for the simple reason that yes, we are the ones losing the most with this entire plan.

 

[LightTwig]

While I agree with giving first choice to the largest nations, ie. the billionaires, I don't really see how you're "losing the most" with the new map. I've written a lot of lore for Legisa, and while it's not as old or powerful as Arcturix or the other giants, I'm still putting aside around four months of roleplay to start anew as a slightly different nation. Additionally, no one is asking you to delete your NS, so technically you're not losing anything.

 

[Valonyx]

While I agree with giving first choice to the largest nations, ie. the billionaires, I don't really see how you're "losing the most" with the new map. I've written a lot of lore for Legisa, and while it's not as old or powerful as Arcturix or the other giants, I'm still putting aside around four months of roleplay to start anew as a slightly different nation. Additionally, no one is asking you to delete your NS, so technically you're not losing anything.

Not losing anything?

Well, we're losing our status as Superpowers, and like Ray said, a world without larger nations is pretty impossible. I think I am fully understanding of the fact that nobody is asking me to delete Arcturix, as I am one of those that helped work on this whole plan, mate. I never stated nobody was losing anything apart from us, and I merely stated that we larger nations are the one losing the most, because that's the truth. Sincronia, the world's largest agricultural supplier, with enough food to feed half the world, Arcturix, with an army large enough to invade nearly any nation, Mechanica, an epitome of technology and scientific development and Volopia, which's powerful Industrial capacities are unequalled. We're all putting those ''advantages'' aside for the sake of fairer Roleplay and competition/nation relations for all, with a truly polyvalent and dynamic political scene where anyone can rise as the next Superpower/Eminence Grise. As I just stated, we're losing our statuses as world powers, supposing we get beaten in the next NS round. To that point, everything will be decided by the future Roleplay. Furthermore, as you just might have recently realised, I am not a person really fond of the whole concept of equality or fairness, as I believe those aren't naturally-born, or even present in the world. If we'd want this to be realistic, we'd /need/ bigger powers, and smaller ones, to have a balance of power. Which is, again, why I want to write a backstory to explain the fact that we're all starting on a practically equal position in this new world.

 

[Dr.Patriot]

I personally would like this new map to have absolutely nothing to do with the old one. No first choice to any of the large old nations, no story that it's based on the ld nations, just an entirely different story.

 

[LightTwig]

Not losing anything?

Well, we're losing our status as Superpowers, and like Ray said, a world without larger nations is pretty impossible. I think I am fully understanding of the fact that nobody is asking me to delete Arcturix, as I am one of those that helped work on this whole plan, mate. I never stated nobody was losing anything apart from us, and I merely stated that we larger nations are the one losing the most, because that's the truth. Sincronia, the world's largest agricultural supplier, with enough food to feed half the world, Arcturix, with an army large enough to invade nearly any nation, Mechanica, an epitome of technology and scientific development and Volopia, which's powerful Industrial capacities are unequalled. We're all putting those ''advantages'' aside for the sake of fairer Roleplay and competition/nation relations for all, with a truly polyvalent and dynamic political scene where anyone can rise as the next Superpower/Eminence Grise. As I just stated, we're losing our statuses as world powers, supposing we get beaten in the next NS round. To that point, everything will be decided by the future Roleplay. Furthermore, as you just might have recently realised, I am not a person really fond of the whole concept of equality or fairness, as I believe those aren't naturally-born, or even present in the world. If we'd want this to be realistic, we'd /need/ bigger powers, and smaller ones, to have a balance of power. Which is, again, why I want to write a backstory to explain the fact that we're all starting on a practically equal position in this new world.

I really don't see how your nation's achievements matter in the case of a new world, because regardless of whether we tie the new world to the old world, everyone is going to be significantly closer to one another in terms of "power". In the event that the worlds aren't related whatsoever, the prestige of Mechanica, Arcturix, Sincronia, or anyone else matter even less because it's an entirely new universe. I understand that you're attached to your nation, and rightly so, you've had it for a lot longer than I've had Legisa or any of my alts, but I almost feel like you're entitled to being a superpower in a new world. I don't mean that as a personal attack or anything, but you just come across as not wanting to play a nation anything less than a militaristic superpower.

Sorry if I'm misreading you in that regard.

 

[Valonyx]

I really don't see how your nation's achievements matter in the case of a new world, because regardless of whether we tie the new world to the old world, everyone is going to be significantly closer to one another in terms of "power". In the event that the worlds aren't related whatsoever, the prestige of Mechanica, Arcturix, Sincronia, or anyone else matter even less because it's an entirely new universe. I understand that you're attached to your nation, and rightly so, you've had it for a lot longer than I've had Legisa or any of my alts, but I almost feel like you're entitled to being a superpower in a new world. I don't mean that as a personal attack or anything, but you just come across as not wanting to play a nation anything less than a militaristic superpower.

Sorry if I'm misreading you in that regard.

Yea, I think we're misunderstanding eachother a little here... xD

We're (the old powers) not getting any actual advantage whatsoever apart from the courtesy of choosing our starting spots first. There's really nothing else that differentiates everyone. We're all going to start as 5 million citizen countries on the ''D-Day'' launch. I of course know the prestige doesn't matter, and it was never taken into account in any way, bruh. My entire paragraph was only explaining that we're basically starting over (on Alts) aswell, which means that we no longer are Powers of any kind, unless we become (or not) in the next world, like anyone here. Concerning me playing militaristic nations, yes, that's what I like playing the most, it's only a preference. Superpower? Well, i'm sure we'll see about that in the next world!

But that'll be for RP and the whole game to decide. This entire plan is set up (as you can see Sinclair's massive wall of text on first post) to improve the quality of everything by adding more competition/fairness. I'd also like to talk about people stating that it might just end up like the old World. Firstly, as Sinclair explained, the new territorial system means there's going to be available land for a while for everyone to take, and for late joins to start on. Furthermore, since by now most nations/people interested are here, it means that we've mostly reduced/eliminated the inequality at start, ensuring we can get most people to start all together.

 

[Dr.Patriot]

I don't see why the large nations should pick first.