An idea
Moderator: Staff
An idea
In order to do something about the slowly expanding green, I have the following proposal.
It is a fact that claiming landlocked nations is unpopular. One should only look at Keltia or Apollonia to see that. The inlands are almost entirely green, which is not a good thing in my view.
I have the following sollution for this:
Allow everyone who wishes it to claim a landlocked claim, with a maximum of 400 pixels, to claim with a reduced waiting period of one month. After a nation can prove one month active existence, they are allowed to claim the nation, if it meets the requirements.
It is a fact that claiming landlocked nations is unpopular. One should only look at Keltia or Apollonia to see that. The inlands are almost entirely green, which is not a good thing in my view.
I have the following sollution for this:
Allow everyone who wishes it to claim a landlocked claim, with a maximum of 400 pixels, to claim with a reduced waiting period of one month. After a nation can prove one month active existence, they are allowed to claim the nation, if it meets the requirements.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: An idea
That's not a bad idea actually.
Add to it that inactivity rules are also slimmed down. Say, if the nation goes inactive for a month it gets slated for removal.
I would also add that once the nation becomes tenured then normal rules apply.
Add to it that inactivity rules are also slimmed down. Say, if the nation goes inactive for a month it gets slated for removal.
I would also add that once the nation becomes tenured then normal rules apply.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An idea
It's a nice idea, but not one that personally takes my fancy. Obviously, coastal land is in bigger demand, but with the amount of green on the map, there's still a tonne of unclaimed coastline going spare (Eura and Corum immediately spring to mind). As such, I don't think this would be a fix for anything other than potentially seeing more here-one-minute-and-gone-the-next nations claim a few inland pixels every now and again
Re: An idea
Still better than green.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An idea
I never argued that green was good, but it'll always be there...
Re: An idea
I think you're emphasizing too much negativity around the "quickie" nations. The Apollo Sector began as such, and eventually spawned Shireroth, Alexandria, and other nations that developed into more tenured communities. This would be a good way to allow such experimentation to exist again within the framework of regulation.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An idea
Of course, all nations have to begin somewhere, but there has to be parity. If we're going to amend the MCS's policy and allow nations to claim from as young as one month-old, then there shouldn't be an awkward-to-enforce rule such as only being able to have a landlocked claim. It's not like every inch of coastline is claimed, with the only free land being inland, either (a situation which might make this idea plausible). In fact, this is the largest amount of unclaimed coast that we've had in a good long while, and there's hardly a rush on it by nations of any age, let alone brand new ones. If there's a problem that needs fixing, it's not the land, but finding the people to fill it...
Re: An idea
There's no shortage of coastal areas or island, and it's not like Micras gets even a nation claiming per day. It seems a bit petty in my opinion.
Besides, you can still do lot with landlocked territories. I have no desire for Senya to ever gain a coastline at all (Lake Lamantia's enough for me)
Besides, you can still do lot with landlocked territories. I have no desire for Senya to ever gain a coastline at all (Lake Lamantia's enough for me)
Re: An idea
Okay, I included the part about the landlocked nations because I thought that would perhaps be more acceptable to the MCS, but I have absolutely no problem with dropping it from my proposal. It is just that I see that there are large parts of the inland unclaimed, which makes the map look a bit weird.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: An idea
I think of continents like Benacia, non-central Apollonia, Cibola and Tapfer as being equivalent to Europe, America and populous Asia, while the others are colonial targets. Eura is an exception, rather than having an inhospitable and uncivilised interior, it was once the home of great civilisation but no longer.Jack wrote:Okay, I included the part about the landlocked nations because I thought that would perhaps be more acceptable to the MCS, but I have absolutely no problem with dropping it from my proposal. It is just that I see that there are large parts of the inland unclaimed, which makes the map look a bit weird.
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Re: An idea
Keltia a colonial target? I never... Funnily I always thought of things the other way around as we have our overseas members on Apollonia and Cibola...
As for solving the 'green problem' I'll try and explain it in a way that shows Craitman to be right regarding claims.
State numbers - We keep saying that there are no states these days. There are actually quite a few which are 'pooled' and quite culturally rich (like Passas or the Shireithian lands, Amokolia etc.). So the number is deceptively small. At the same time, the standards (which I'll come on to) have changed a bit. States in the old days were bigger and less active. You could have some territories which were bigger than a microwiki state without any real development and only one or two cities. People have moved on from old states and activity has changed as methods of communication have changed, so it feels to the old guard that we have a reduced community. Basically it comes down to the fact that communities always want to grow as it shows them thriving and we always judge it against the best times we've had. The problem, I think, isn't with allowing younger states in but how we've changed our practices over time.
Changed standards - States in the old days were a lot bigger and underdeveloped. Nowadays if you are inactive the MCS has a procedure for reducing your land or taking you off the map. If you look to Col, it was dead for ages before taken off the map. Simply put, the MCS is a lot stricter with inactivity than it used to be (for better or for worse). I think the MCS expects a lot more of its members when claiming too. Claims now have to have some sort of plan or justification, while in the old days there would be states with vast territories that had no real cultural or political value. Over time some of these regions have developed and some of those states died, so justifying expansion is a lot harder. That means that we may have a lot of states that will never essentially get as big as they used to because standards are higher. This obviously has its advantages, but its disadvantages too. There is no formula as to how big states should be and nor should there be! State borders reflect the wishes of their members and there is a beauty to the anarchy of the MCS.
Older countries being bigger - You can see the above trend a bit by virtue of the fact that older countries like Alexandria are pretty massive in comparison to newer ones. Think to yourself, 'would my country ever get the size of Alexandria?' I don't think that would really happen. Nowadays countries are justified on having had those lands for a long time, so age is essentially a justification for land. There is the problem with these states that they will never really expand too much more as there are a lot of cultural and geographical disincentives (like updating all your maps and writing new territory into your history). So older states can't expand much more as they are already too big by today's standards and are unlikely to do so either.
More development - I mentioned this a bit earlier too, but countries are quite developed now and have to justify their territories more than they maybe used to. With the smaller states you also find that there can be a great amount of culture packed into a small area. As well as this, there is a difference between how we value the size of land. A great example is Gerenia's map that had lots of cities in what, to a bigger state, would seem like a small territory. While to them the big states have vast empty territories. So there is a disconnect between how much land should be developed and how that relates to area.
Most of this is due to the subjectivity of all our processes. There are no community-agreed standards in any strict sense. It's really up to the state to justify their claim enough to the council. If you make it a question of standards then you could argue that maybe we should be a little more relaxed with allowing expansions or maybe states should negotiate their expansions better (i.e. ask before claiming if it is realistic). I think things are more strict than they used to be and some aspects of that are really good, for example having ancient dead states lingering for eternity. But the green land problem is a bit of a problem.
I really only see established states claiming inland. To be honest, it's easier to justify claiming land which is not on the coast as we all know it's unlikely a landlocked state will claim it so maybe if there is a norm that unpopular land is easier to claim then that could change things a bit. As always, I've gone into too much detail when I only wanted to make a joke about Cibola.
**edit - boldened the main bits for a tl;dr**
As for solving the 'green problem' I'll try and explain it in a way that shows Craitman to be right regarding claims.
State numbers - We keep saying that there are no states these days. There are actually quite a few which are 'pooled' and quite culturally rich (like Passas or the Shireithian lands, Amokolia etc.). So the number is deceptively small. At the same time, the standards (which I'll come on to) have changed a bit. States in the old days were bigger and less active. You could have some territories which were bigger than a microwiki state without any real development and only one or two cities. People have moved on from old states and activity has changed as methods of communication have changed, so it feels to the old guard that we have a reduced community. Basically it comes down to the fact that communities always want to grow as it shows them thriving and we always judge it against the best times we've had. The problem, I think, isn't with allowing younger states in but how we've changed our practices over time.
Changed standards - States in the old days were a lot bigger and underdeveloped. Nowadays if you are inactive the MCS has a procedure for reducing your land or taking you off the map. If you look to Col, it was dead for ages before taken off the map. Simply put, the MCS is a lot stricter with inactivity than it used to be (for better or for worse). I think the MCS expects a lot more of its members when claiming too. Claims now have to have some sort of plan or justification, while in the old days there would be states with vast territories that had no real cultural or political value. Over time some of these regions have developed and some of those states died, so justifying expansion is a lot harder. That means that we may have a lot of states that will never essentially get as big as they used to because standards are higher. This obviously has its advantages, but its disadvantages too. There is no formula as to how big states should be and nor should there be! State borders reflect the wishes of their members and there is a beauty to the anarchy of the MCS.
Older countries being bigger - You can see the above trend a bit by virtue of the fact that older countries like Alexandria are pretty massive in comparison to newer ones. Think to yourself, 'would my country ever get the size of Alexandria?' I don't think that would really happen. Nowadays countries are justified on having had those lands for a long time, so age is essentially a justification for land. There is the problem with these states that they will never really expand too much more as there are a lot of cultural and geographical disincentives (like updating all your maps and writing new territory into your history). So older states can't expand much more as they are already too big by today's standards and are unlikely to do so either.
More development - I mentioned this a bit earlier too, but countries are quite developed now and have to justify their territories more than they maybe used to. With the smaller states you also find that there can be a great amount of culture packed into a small area. As well as this, there is a difference between how we value the size of land. A great example is Gerenia's map that had lots of cities in what, to a bigger state, would seem like a small territory. While to them the big states have vast empty territories. So there is a disconnect between how much land should be developed and how that relates to area.
Most of this is due to the subjectivity of all our processes. There are no community-agreed standards in any strict sense. It's really up to the state to justify their claim enough to the council. If you make it a question of standards then you could argue that maybe we should be a little more relaxed with allowing expansions or maybe states should negotiate their expansions better (i.e. ask before claiming if it is realistic). I think things are more strict than they used to be and some aspects of that are really good, for example having ancient dead states lingering for eternity. But the green land problem is a bit of a problem.
I really only see established states claiming inland. To be honest, it's easier to justify claiming land which is not on the coast as we all know it's unlikely a landlocked state will claim it so maybe if there is a norm that unpopular land is easier to claim then that could change things a bit. As always, I've gone into too much detail when I only wanted to make a joke about Cibola.
**edit - boldened the main bits for a tl;dr**