Op-Ed -- Frontier: What do we really gain?

[Darcness]

NOTE: The following article was published by Lloenflys' Gavel, but does not necessarily reflect this paper's views. Posted with permission.

---

Frontier: Is it worth it?
Written by Darcness​

The Frontier/Stronghold (further referred to as F/S) update has been at the forefront of discussion not only in Europeia but across the Nationstates world as the Gameplay Community Manager seeks to make drastic changes to the technical rules of the game. While the intricacies of the F/S update have been covered elsewhere, the debate rages on regarding the correct path for Europeia and the implementation details of the same.

Becoming a Stronghold (which is essentially the 'default' stance of a User-Created Region and thus a continuance of the status quo) has recently come under fire, with opponents pointing to dwindling nation counts and delegate endorsements. While the allure of a steady stream of new nations joining the region and presumably the growing delegate counts and new citizenry that comes with it is difficult to ignore, we are forced to validate the idea in and of itself. Nation counts will undoubtedly increase, but will being a 'mini-Feeder' (Frontier) increase our delegate power and productive member (further referred to as citizen) count?

Assumptions

1. Delegate Endorsements (votes) are a substitute metric for citizens. Every region calculates citizens differently, yet delegate endorsements are a firm statistic with intrinsic value.
2. Nation counts are not a primary statistic for Feeders, due to gameplay elements that require empty shell nations (puppets). Military gameplay and Card Trading puppets inflate these values to drastic amounts without providing value.

The Data
Source - All data is based on an amalgamation of Daily Dumps from the past three years (beginning 1 Sep 2018). The source code used to collate the data can be found here: https://github.com/Darcness/Europeia/tree/users/darcness/eurodata. (Requires node v14.17.4.) The Excel document which contains the merged CSV files and Pivot Tables can be made available on request.
Metrics - All data is scored as an average of daily Delegate votes across each month within the timeframe.

Feeders

Spoiler: The North Pacific

Over time, the number of nations in The North Pacific has stayed mostly the same. We see the Drew Boom come and go (a common arc across the game), but by the end of our cycle, we're at a similar number of nations. The percentage of nations endorsing the delegate follows cyclical trends as well, although there is a bit of a downturn in the past year.

Spoiler: The South Pacific

The South Pacific seems to have a similar cycle to TNP, and while the number of nations may shift as much as 2000 in a year, they cycle back to previous lows (note that the November data is incomplete, and so averages used here aren't valid data).

Spoiler: The East Pacific

The East Pacific enjoys a slight increase of approximately 200 nations per year in this data, when taking the mean per year. The percentage of Delegate votes begins to drop off severely in 2019 and not recover, however, implying that the region has fallen into a worrisome lack of engagement (but maintaining nation count).

Spoiler: The West Pacific

The West Pacific instead sees a downturn of nations in our month-over-month analysis, in greater amplitude than TEP's increase. As the percentage of Delegate votes rises, we essentially see an effort by the region to 'discard' less useful nations.

Spoiler: The Pacific

The Pacific has perhaps the most direct cycle, with peaks and lows over each year ending up within 100 nations of one another.

Overall
We see some commonalities across all of this data. Each year has cycles that tend to run (using lows as a base) from July-June. Summer slump, anyone? But what is most interesting is that the lows are all similarly low, and the highs are all similarly high. There are some differences, of course (TEP has seen a YOY increase, where TWP has seen a YOY decrease), but overall the cycles hold true and the overall mean is quite regular. Conclusion? The Feeders aren't actually gaining nations. Not in any real sense. Every nation they gain they inevitably lose, and the rates of gain and loss are equal.

UCRs

Spoiler: 10000 Islands

Spoiler: The Communist Bloc

Spoiler: Europeia

Overall
It's much more difficult to detect patterns within the data for 10KI, TCB and Europeia, mainly because internal factors can drive numerical shifts just as much as external ones. A dip in recruiting efforts, a slowdown in gameside outreach, all of these can lead us to a dip in incoming regions. UCRs, of course, enjoy a much higher percentage of 'engaged' members (delegate endorsers), as they are less likely to be full of military and card trading puppets. Additionally, nations that move into UCRs moved there on purpose.

Analysis
Perhaps the most surprising note here is that the Feeders don't see an increase in nations year over year. Losing just as many nations as they gain means they're losing just as many potential citizens as they gain during any given month. There's no overall increase in Delegate endorsement, meaning that we're not seeing 'wheat from chaff' shifts, but simply just as many in as out. Common understanding of Feeders (and Frontiers, which are effectively mini-Feeders) is that an increase in incoming nations will mean at least some increase in citizens and delegate endorsements, but the data doesn't bear this logic out. Being a Frontier will not increase our nation count over time (just as it does not increase the current Feeders' nation count over time).

 

[upc]

Thanks for pulling this data together Darc! I think this poses a very serious threat to the premise that the Frontier path is the correct one simply because we will have more nations to possibly retain. If that premise turns out to be false, as your data seems to indicate, what other justification do we have for becoming a Frontier?

Of course, to loop this back the my previous arguments regarding Frontier/Stronghold, I will again point out that if we want to see better retention rates, we may be better served trying to keep the nations we are already recruiting to Europeia around. It feels like we’re trying to reinvent the wheel when the solution is in front of us.

 

[Seva]

Thank you for this analysis!

I think there is something with your argument that doesn't quite add up though. It seems to me like the Feeder nation count does not increase because the NationStates nation count does not increase. It makes a lot of sense that feeders follow the NS nation count because they are the only places all nations are founded.

If we also share this flow of new nations, our nation count will increase and converge to a certain number, but it obviously won't start growing exponentially. Basically what will happen is our nation count will increase at the expense of the current Feeders. They will give away 50% of their foundings, which is the only way they gain nations, and the Frontiers will see their total nation count increase by that number - just like in Maowi's article

 

[Fhaeng]

There are a lot of variables and niche issues relating to different regions' nation count and their endorsement levels, by going out to cover 3 years of data this does a good job of trying to measure some sort of baseline. And that's exactly what this seems to have found, there is a baseline of support feeders have, that while fluctuates, stays within a certain range and does not increase in some runaway effect. There is a balance of nations being founded and nations leaving via recruitment or cte. There is a balance of WA endorsements on delegates that goes along with transitions and coups.

As for UCRs, we have to rely on recruitment to combat ctes and people leaving, some regions do it better than others and that is how success has been measured for the entirety of the game so far. With the f/s update this is theoretically changed, the temptation is that a region can have this baseline support in addition to the usual recruitment strategies. However there will be an increased level of nations leaving the region as it would now be a source for recruiters of other regions. Sure feeders face this and keep a baseline level, but telegrams targeted to "new" nations would hit the newest nations that the frontier region had recruited from other regions as well.

What this means is that becoming a frontier would not provide any magic runaway effect to the nation or endorsement levels, recruitment would become more difficult, and much more political, and integration would need a much higher focus. A lot of effort goes on in the Interior Ministry, and being a frontier would increase the complexity of their tasks. This is of course in addition to the major security and gameplay adjustments that this change mandates.

Overall there would be an initial boost of nations joining, but as more and more regions turn to frontier (which they will if regions have success with it), this baseline would decrease as well. While the feeders have, until this update, enjoyed 20% of new nations each, frontiers would see their share drop over time. As the baseline drops this would see much of any initial gains fade away as the equilibrium readjusts for having this lower share. The question then would be: Was all of this worth it?

 

[Sopo]

Thank you for this analysis!

I think there is something with your argument that doesn't quite add up though. It seems to me like the Feeder nation count does not increase because the NationStates nation count does not increase. It makes a lot of sense that feeders follow the NS nation count because they are the only places all nations are founded.

If we also share this flow of new nations, our nation count will increase and converge to a certain number, but it obviously won't start growing exponentially. Basically what will happen is our nation count will increase at the expense of the current Feeders. They will give away 50% of their foundings, which is the only way they gain nations, and the Frontiers will see their total nation count increase by that number - just like in Maowi's article

I would agree with this. The feeders will see their baseline drop with this change, while the baseline for frontier regions will increase. The problem is, as Fhaeng points out, we have no way of knowing exactly what our new baseline will be, as it depends heavily not only on how the update is implemented and nations are proportioned out, but also on how many regions choose to be frontiers, which is an unknown and can change over time.

I classify myself as "lean frontier," as we are positioned better security-wise than most UCRs to take on frontier risks, and there certainly are potential gains to be had. Nonetheless, there is a very real chance that the gains will fail to materialize or diminish over time. I just haven't seen a compelling argument not to take the risk.

 

[GraVandius]

Of course, to loop this back the my previous arguments regarding Frontier/Stronghold, I will again point out that if we want to see better retention rates, we may be better served trying to keep the nations we are already recruiting to Europeia around. It feels like we’re trying to reinvent the wheel when the solution is in front of us.

I mean that solution may be obvious but how we particularly go about it is the real problem. Notwithstanding that many of those players are more than content just answering issues or whatever and don’t have any inclination of playing the political game of the forums.

I agree with Seva and Sopo in that this overlooks an increase in the baseline of nations. Given an increase in nations would be correlated with some increase in the number of everything from endorsements to active members of the region that is still a positive.

 

[upc]

Notwithstanding that many of those players are more than content just answering issues or whatever and don’t have any inclination of playing the political game of the forums.

Sure. My question then is why an issues only player would join Europeia, then leave 5 minutes later for Conch Kingdom, never to move again? How exactly are other regions better at keeping these sorts of players around, or is my suspicion that they are just anecdotal and not backed by the numbers? We don’t need every gameside player to be interested in our politics, but having their endorsement sure would be nice.

 

[Gaudosia]

Thanks for the data and analysis! Very informative.

 

[Comfed]

Looking at your statistics it looks like most user-created regions have fluctuations in population in a way similar to game-created regions. The primary difference, of course, is that the fluctuations can be much more variable, because UCRs lack a guaranteed source of population and so poor performance in recruiting or retention can cause significant declines, and good performance can cause significant upticks. By contrast, most GCRs rely only on the stream of nations that found in them, and because this is a fairly constant number the population of GCRs depends mostly on their ability to retain nations. Plenty of nations don't even bother to leave.

However, just because GCRs don't see big population shifts, they are bigger, because of the nations founding in them. They mostly don't see big increases in their population, but their population is considerable in the first place so it hardly matters. On the other hand, UCRs often see big changes in population (hopefully increases) because their ability to maintain a population depends on recruitment. I would argue that being a frontier carries the best of both worlds - we would maintain a bigger population (though probably not on the level of the feeders), but we would still actively recruit so we would be able to increase our population. If we are able to increase retention, that is even better - but the fact that our retention is weaker doesn't negate the fact that we would still see a benefit to switching to frontier. Would the benefit be increased if we had better retention? Undoubtedly, but the benefit is still there.

Now, this article mentions that nation count does not correlate to delegate endorsements or citizenship or whatever (I'll be using delegate endorsements here to make things simpler). I agree - it's important to have a strong integration apparatus (which is an area in which we are weak and need to improve, frontier or stronghold), but also think that an increased nation count is much more helpful to the end of more delegate endorsements, because you have a larger pool of people to work with. More nations = more potential delegate endorsements if the integration apparatus is doing its job. Integration is a problem that does not discount the benefits of the F/S update. If a new frontier region that also recruits puts zero effort into retaining the nations that found in it, it will hardly gain anything at all, except for inactive nations or ones that could not care less about recruitment telegrams. But this is also true of regions that remain stronghold and rely on recruitment - if they put zero effort into retention then they will also crash and burn, but they will be worse of than the frontier in my previous example because they won't gain from the new nations that spawn in them.

 

[SkyGreen]

Hi Darc, lovely article. I like the graphs!

Would it be possible to create a graph that showcases, over time, the relative delegate power? Relative as in a ratio of a region's delegate votes and the sum of all delegate votes across NS.
I think that since the absolute number can vary due to the total number of nations (and therefore total number of WA nations), seeing how the relative amount changes could be beneficial.

 

[Darcness]

Basically what will happen is our nation count will increase at the expense of the current Feeders. They will give away 50% of their foundings, which is the only way they gain nations, and the Frontiers will see their total nation count increase by that number - just like in Maowi's article

At the end of the day, this is the assumption that the data precisely refutes. The data shows that for all the nations that we gain due to users founding in our region, we will end up losing just as many. The net benefit of being a mini-Feeder is 0.

 

[Darcness]

Would it be possible to create a graph that showcases, over time, the relative delegate power? Relative as in a ratio of a region's delegate votes and the sum of all delegate votes across NS.

I agree, this would be an interesting statistic, but just to give you an idea of the scale here... the raw region data consumed 250GB of disk space. The script which collates that data and strips it down to just what we're looking for (in my original case, the 5 Feeders and 5 large UCRs), takes over an hour to execute (much less write). It would probably take cloud-level infrastructure to perform the kind of analysis you're talking about here.

 

[Comfed]

Basically what will happen is our nation count will increase at the expense of the current Feeders. They will give away 50% of their foundings, which is the only way they gain nations, and the Frontiers will see their total nation count increase by that number - just like in Maowi's article

At the end of the day, this is the assumption that the data precisely refutes. The data shows that for all the nations that we gain due to users founding in our region, we will end up losing just as many. The net benefit of being a mini-Feeder is 0.

I don’t think it proves that at all - I think it proves that the benefit to being a frontier would eventually plateau in terms of net gain of nations.

 

[Peeps]

This data is certainly interesting. However I don't agree with the conclusion.

Yes feeders don't constantly grow, but that is because they have reached their respective carrying capacity. Making an assumption that feeders should either grow infinitely or have no benefit at all is one that is inherently flawed, if that was the case then Europeia should either have zero nations and feeders all of them, or feeders should have no nations. Instead what we see is feeders will grow until the number of nations moving in equals the number of nations moving out. That capacity happens to be in the 1000s of nations. Frontiers won't get that big, but there will be a benefit in overall size for Europeia.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

This data is certainly interesting. However I don't agree with the conclusion.

Yes feeders don't constantly grow, but that is because they have reached their respective carrying capacity. Making an assumption that feeders should either grow infinitely or have no benefit at all is one that is inherently flawed, if that was the case then Europeia should either have zero nations and feeders all of them, or feeders should have no nations. Instead what we see is feeders will grow until the number of nations moving in equals the number of nations moving out. That capacity happens to be in the 1000s of nations. Frontiers won't get that big, but there will be a benefit in overall size for Europeia.

This is what I wanted to say this morning when I read this piece but I wasn't quite smart enough to articulate it. Thanks, Peeps.

 

[Lethen]

I'm honestly not sure where I stand with the F/S debate, but one thing that can't be quantified by data is citizen buy-in. if we see a larger influx of citizens over time, I worry not only that we'll see a (continuing) rise in players who care more about the social side than political but also a decline in citizens buying into our community and it's history.

 

[Sincluda]

I'm honestly not sure where I stand with the F/S debate, but one thing that can't be quantified by data is citizen buy-in. if we see a larger influx of citizens over time, I worry not only that we'll see a (continuing) rise in players who care more about the social side than political but also a decline in citizens buying into our community and it's history.

I really hate arguing the "culture being lost" argument, but it is one that I'm concerned about.

 

[Sopo]

I'm honestly not sure where I stand with the F/S debate, but one thing that can't be quantified by data is citizen buy-in. if we see a larger influx of citizens over time, I worry not only that we'll see a (continuing) rise in players who care more about the social side than political but also a decline in citizens buying into our community and it's history.

I really hate arguing the "culture being lost" argument, but it is one that I'm concerned about.

I guess I'm not sure I understand this?

Europeia's culture has constantly shifted for better or for worse since its founding. Sure, people pine for 2007 or 2011 or 2015, but each of those time periods had their own problems. I do not think a bump in nations founded in Europeia will greatly change the type of player that chooses to engage on a higher level with our community. At worst, we have a bit more separation between gameside culture and forumside culture, but I don't think that's necessarily bad.

 

[sanjurika]

If we were to see an influx of players and citizens applying, I'd personally be excited to show them what Europeia is about and see what they can add to our region (be it a social or political impact). Maybe it's me being optimistic but I prefer to think of it as "growing" our regional culture than "losing" culture.