CCP wrote:But someone tell me if this has been suggested before: one solution to this might be to close off some of the empty countries to force active/veteran players to clump up in fewer countries instead of using so many 1-player countries as personal fiefs. Active/veteran players tend to be the most committed to the cultural game, so they'd probably be more likely to compete with each other to culture-convert or culture-protect countries if they were playing with other actives/veterans. Right now, if culture-generics resist culture-defining, the culture-definers can just leave to create paradise elsewhere. I think the game would just benefit from more forced interaction/competitiveness in general.
Tawa wrote:Hmm I would say people not consulting the wiki (messed up as it is) is one the problems. You can often find accurate cultural information on the Wiki.
The fact is to achieve the kind of co-ordination we want for economics, diplomacy etc , we would need a dozen full time Moderators otherwise whatever system is set up will just fall apart due to lack of enforcement.CCP wrote:But someone tell me if this has been suggested before: one solution to this might be to close off some of the empty countries to force active/veteran players to clump up in fewer countries instead of using so many 1-player countries as personal fiefs. Active/veteran players tend to be the most committed to the cultural game, so they'd probably be more likely to compete with each other to culture-convert or culture-protect countries if they were playing with other actives/veterans. Right now, if culture-generics resist culture-defining, the culture-definers can just leave to create paradise elsewhere. I think the game would just benefit from more forced interaction/competitiveness in general.
This would be a very bad idea. It's very difficult to have any kind of meaningful RP in countries with several parties. The amount of energy it takes trying to convince 6 or 7 players to come on board to an RP idea e.g. war is enormous. It would lead to good-modding and conflict. It sounds like you believe having one or two active players in a multi-party country would spread the activeness, from experience I know it does not work like that at all. If you look carefully right now, it's really only the 'fiefs' which bother with international RP (with the honorable exception of Lodamun and one or two others)
In general, I'm against attempts to cultural protocol-harrass new players (or even casual players) or force them into a story-telling/foreign policy game. Particracy is at base a survey and debate game. Those who play long enough get bored of that because there're only so many times you can outlaw the death penalty or raise electricity subsidies. Such players soon look to construct a richer game. It's specifically a problem for veteran/active players. New and casual players rarely have any such concern because they're still engrossed in the survey game, and I think space should be carved out to allow them to explore and enjoy that base game without being harassed about 'you can't do that because we made up game rules that we sustain and enforce by mob rule.' Once they've clicked the survey enough times, they'll leave or start looking for more depth in the game. And when that happens, my suggestion is that they should be directed to relocate to a cultural protocalled nation.
Also, I haven't looked. But it's difficult for me to imagine that a country with pale rider, Aquinas, and Eel in it would shrink from foreign policy. So players like us and them who like the cultural protocals should play them. Players who don't should be left to their own devices. There's enough game real estate for both.
I second that. Most nations have their cultural protocols at the top of their debate section. If people ignore those, they can't really blame anybody but themselves.Tawa wrote:Well it's not harassing. A person who wants to play a game has a duty to learn and follow the rules. Cultural protocols were created for a reason and personally I believe they are a very legitimate part of the game. Too many new players just want to enter a country and ignore all the rules or not even bother learning them. Ignorance is not a sufficient excuse for violating cultural protocols or other game rules in my opinion.
For a start, we could begin with explicitly banning use of terms like "President", "Prime Minister", "Congress" or English names in general for all but the few anglophone nations that exist. Players who want to play in such countries should be directed there.Tawa wrote:As for all the enforcement idea (introducing a zone for new players etc) you would need a very different moderation system from the one we have. Perhaps one like you have on VUSA where you basically have a gigantic bureaucracy of Moderators, each assigned to a specific task whether election fundraising, basic housekeeping or poll predictions. Anything less you get overburdened Moderators who would be barely able to keep up with what they already have.
Also, I haven't looked. But it's difficult for me to imagine that a country with pale rider, Aquinas, and Eel in it would shrink from foreign policy. So players like us and them who like the cultural protocals should play them. Players who don't should be left to their own devices. There's enough game real estate for both.
Tawa wrote:Well it's not harassing. A person who wants to play a game has a duty to learn and follow the rules. Cultural protocols were created for a reason and personally I believe they are a very legitimate part of the game. Too many new players just want to enter a country and ignore all the rules or not even bother learning them. Ignorance is not a sufficient excuse for violating cultural protocols or other game rules in my opinion.
Tawa wrote:As for all the enforcement idea (introducing a zone for new players etc) you would need a very different moderation system from the one we have. Perhaps one like you have on VUSA where you basically have a gigantic bureaucracy of Moderators, each assigned to a specific task whether election fundraising, basic housekeeping or poll predictions. Anything less you get overburdened Moderators who would be barely able to keep up with what they already have.
Tawa wrote:Well do look at Dranland, my old country. You had this disease where only 3 or 4 out of 11 players would bother with RP and most attempts at international RP were shot down by a minority of players. Aquinas and EEL were both there by the way That's the whole point, you have 11 players, you need 8 of them to approve of international RP (previously it had to be unanimous for internal RP). So if 4 disagree, you get 7 players denied the opportunity to enjoy themselves. Or in the older days for internal RP, 1 refuses, 10 are disappointed.
Afrocentric wrote:Here is a simple three point plan:
1. Cultural solidarity
2. Mentorship
2. Ambassadorship
For cultural solidarity, it's important that each nation has a culture, meaning we must reconcile issues with nations that are out of place and create cultures for those that are culturally void. We must also set a limit on how many country's can be anglophone in nature; 25 sounds like a fair number. Most importantly, there needs to be some way to ensure that each nation's cultural protocols are displayed in their debate section so as to avoid any confusion and OOC bitching.
We need a mentorship style program for noobs. For instance, a nation like Kirlawa, which I spent a good deal of time in would be a perfect training ground for new players. It's stable, a generic liberal democracy, pretty isolationist and has a veteran presence in the form of Lucca (nice guy btw) so it's a perfect place to get your feet wet. I think the game could stand to benefit from having initially 5 nations that meet this requirement. They obviously wouldn't be locked, but in general they need to be staffed by a veteran player who doesn't mind being a mentor, keeping his/her ego in check and is eager and patient enough to work with noobs. These nations should be generic USA clones, but can also be monarchies; culturally, they could be anglophone but maybe 1 or 2 nations should be some other culture. Most importantly, these nations should foster a sense of community, create a culture of debate and participate in internal RP. Simply logging in and voting YES/NO/ABSTAIN hinders growth and neither challenges or stimulates the creativity of a player; I have been very successful with this in Rutania.
Finally, we need veteran players to be our ambassadors and get the word out. I know we can't spam on NationStates, but those of you there, you can obviously hype up the game by putting it in your signature on the forum. Those of you in college or in high school, tell your professors and teachers about this game because it has ALOT of educational potential. Those of you who know coders, maybe consider talking to them about what it would cost to give the game a face lift (not technical, but visual). BTW, are we on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or whatever the kids are using these days? If not, set one up and promote, promote, promote!!!!
There are so many things we can do to make this game successful and it just requires us to be proactive and able to think outside of the box from time to time. I think the problem is that we all see Cybernations, NationStates and get jealous of the activity they have and we want to emulate that; sorry, but we will never be NationStates, it's just not going to happen. However, we can be special in our own way; we are the only game to allow players to play as actual political parties in a nation, there are several people here who are some of the best and fairest RPers I've come across and players like CanadianEh, CCP, M13, Tawa and others have been welcomed additions to the game. So while it may seem like this is a lost cause and a stupid conversation to have, it's not. We should be happy about what we've accomplished so far and strive to do better.
CCP wrote:Ultimately, the only rules that can otherwise be enforced are those which are implemented within the game's code. This is of course the reason for the 'the game always comes first' rule. It is an acknowledgement by the moderators that the cultural protocols and story-telling games are ancillary to the actual particracy game.
CCP wrote:Attempting to force them on new or casual players has played a significant role in driving some of those players away. Since the actual game (the survey game) permits and encourages disengagement from the cultural protocols,
CCP wrote:I'm not following why that would be the case. Right now, cultural protocols are ultimately enforced through reports to the moderator. Walling off 2, 3, or 5 nations for new and casual players would just be another form of cultural protocol and could be enforced in the same way. If someone violates the set-aside, report it. I'm not following why that would need more moderators.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests