Founder Succession: A Better Solution [GP/RP Proposal]

[Whiskum]

…make regions vulnerable if they raid…regions which exist for the purpose of raiding…motivation for a political region in any raiding…raiding potentially means losing control of their region…regions…see raiding…in terms of what they can get out of it…raiding makes other regions want to ally with them…It makes precisely zero sense for a region concerned with its political standing or domestic safety to raid…regions which don't care about their home…incentive to raid for any region…regions of any kind without concern for their existing home region…

Huh? Regions don’t raid. People raid regions.

Regions, as political and/or social entities, do raid other regions.

People act on their region's behalf - as their region's military.

In some regions, the entire region is dedicated to the purpose of raiding and is effectively a military (e.g. TBR); in others, raiding (or rather, military action in general) is a peripheral activity and an arm of foreign policy implemented by members of the military (such as in my own the region, the LKE).

From the perspective of the latter kind of region, regions are political states and when they raid they apply military action against other regions.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I have been racking my brain, trying to come up with ideas that might be considered an effective opt out without disrupting current game play. This is simply because I know anything that stops or interferes with R/D will not be considered by administration as they want that to continue.
Founders seem to be the only opt out offered and I am not sure even now if admin will allow a founder succession to take place. What if nothing changed however regional influence played a part?
Regions bank influence in order to safeguard natives from being purged by invaders. Perhaps once a region meets a certain amount of influence it could be spent on founder succession?

I am just throwing this out there as I sincerely do want to find a way for nations to opt out but realize the least amount of impact on the game as a whole is needed. Much as I would like to end raiding as it is wholly dependant on unwilling victims and not healthy PvP.
Invaders will find a way to invade no matter what so as a defender I will always have something to do. Some power could be placed into Native hands though and a solution is needed that works for everyone.

[Commerce Heights]

Huh? Regions don’t raid. People raid regions.

Regions, as political and/or social entities, do raid other regions.

People act on their region's behalf - as their region's military.

In some regions, the entire region is dedicated to the purpose of raiding and is effectively a military (e.g. TBR); in others, raiding (or rather, military action in general) is a peripheral activity and an arm of foreign policy implemented by members of the military (such as in my own the region, the LKE).

From the perspective of the latter kind of region, regions are political states and when they raid they apply military action against other regions.

“Political and/or social entities” aren’t a game mechanic. There’s no reason that “political and/or social entities” need to vest themselves in a region that could be the target of retribution. A group of nations can take over a region and plant the Black Riders flag and so on without actually having come from a region named The Black Riders. (In fact, it’s better for them not to be so obvious.) The only reason raiding groups are vested in regions now is that the current founder mechanic makes it convenient for them to do so without the possibility of retribution.

[Whiskum]

Regions, as political and/or social entities, do raid other regions.

People act on their region's behalf - as their region's military.

In some regions, the entire region is dedicated to the purpose of raiding and is effectively a military (e.g. TBR); in others, raiding (or rather, military action in general) is a peripheral activity and an arm of foreign policy implemented by members of the military (such as in my own the region, the LKE).

From the perspective of the latter kind of region, regions are political states and when they raid they apply military action against other regions.

“Political and/or social entities” aren’t a game mechanic. There’s no reason that “political and/or social entities” need to vest themselves in a region that could be the target of retribution. A group of nations can take over a region and plant the Black Riders flag and so on without actually having come from a region named The Black Riders. (In fact, it’s better for them not to be so obvious.) The only reason raiding groups are vested in regions now is that the current founder mechanic makes it convenient for them to do so without the possibility of retribution.

A region serves a role as a unit of political gameplay representing a state, with a government, laws and citizens. That's what gameplayers do.

In many ways, it's a form of roleplay itself, albeit one rooted around in-game control over your own region - and through military action other regions.

That is not a direct product of game mechanics; it is built on a bedrock of regional government, with the extension of more complex systems of government onto the forum. It is still based around a region on the NS-site as an entity. Military activity itself is of course a purer form of gameplay.

No one ever said that these entities need to conduct raids; merely that under the present system it is advantageous for them to do so.

Naturally, in terms of the interests of these regions, it becomes actively disadvantageous to raid, if raiding creates an existential threat to the security of their region, because they care about that more - which would be the effect of making founders vulnerable. If you make founders vulnerable, you will likely the eliminate the involvement of self-interested political regions in military gameplay - from the perspective of a political gameplayer, that's not positive.

The reason why people in political regions like LKE and TNI raid is because it advances the political power of their region relative to other regions.

Now, if their interests change because raiding creates an existential threat to their existence, the players involved in raiding in those regions will stop.

As you say, that does not mean the end of raiding; it would continue with confederations of different individuals, potentially without a proper home region.

However, that effectively means the end of military action as an instrument of the region as a political unit of gameplay - given that warfare is currently a significant driver of political gameplay, the result is a highly perverse development for political gameplay, without raiding itself actually ending - rather it merely becomes depoliticised, entering solely into the possession of individuals raiding for fun, with self-interested political gameplay regions excluded.

Making founders vulnerable is a proposal that will harm an important part of political gameplay without protecting founderless regions from raider groups.

[Bears Armed]

[The motivation for a political region in any raiding that the moment is that the balance of interests involves benefits them if they raid.

If raiding potentially means losing control of their region, the balance changes entirely and so dramatically that doing so becomes a disadvantage.

If regions (like the UIAF regions) see raiding in purely functional terms, as in terms of what they can get out of it, then making foundered regions vulnerable changes the dynamic entirely, because raiding goes from expanding their military power in the present scenario to potentially risking their existence in the new scenario. In the first scenario, raiding makes other regions want to ally with them; in the second scenario, raiding gives them the need to tie themselves to other regions. It makes precisely zero sense for a region concerned with its political standing or domestic safety to raid.

Some raiders like to claim that raiding is effectively NS's simulation of the warfare that can occur amongst RL nations, right?
Well, this change aoul;d actually make it a closer simulation of reality, where warmongers do have to worry about the potential consequences of their action...

[Whiskum]

[The motivation for a political region in any raiding that the moment is that the balance of interests involves benefits them if they raid.

If raiding potentially means losing control of their region, the balance changes entirely and so dramatically that doing so becomes a disadvantage.

If regions (like the UIAF regions) see raiding in purely functional terms, as in terms of what they can get out of it, then making foundered regions vulnerable changes the dynamic entirely, because raiding goes from expanding their military power in the present scenario to potentially risking their existence in the new scenario. In the first scenario, raiding makes other regions want to ally with them; in the second scenario, raiding gives them the need to tie themselves to other regions. It makes precisely zero sense for a region concerned with its political standing or domestic safety to raid.

Some raiders like to claim that raiding is effectively NS's simulation of the warfare that can occur amongst RL nations, right?
Well, this change aoul;d actually make it a closer simulation of reality, where warmongers do have to worry about the potential consequences of their action...

I don't believe the pure raider groups see in terms of warfare occurring amongst RL nations.

Political gameplay regions which raid do see it closer to the terms, but if you make founders vulnerable, those regions are likely to stop raiding.

Whereas at the moment, political regions that want to raid can do so relatively freely, this system would give them a heavy dis-incentive against doing so - these regions in question care about their domestic political stability far more than they do raiding and they would not wish to act to compromise that.

It must be appreciated that different regions raid with different motivations; raiding regions are not one homogeneous bloc more than any group.

The effect of this change would be to remove an important element in political gameplay, by disincentivising military action as a form of self-interested foreign policy. Instead, under this system it is far more self-interested to ensure your own regional security, through self-defence and staying popular.

---

On the other hand, it would not stop raiding by others - of which there are potentially many, and new ones unconnected to a home region would arise.

What is more, the other groups which are raiding would now potentially have a greater range of targets.

Founded regions, to some degree, provide an opt-out from military gameplay as it stands.

The effect of removing or undermining that protection would be to destroy an important element in political gameplay, while making more regions vulnerable to raiding from people who do not have or do not care about their home region. It is a completely perverse step in pretty much every respect.

[Bears Armed]

Sounds like punishing those that do not want to be forced into R/D as a default. Voting on WA matters is an important part of the game and I see no reason to exclude WAs from a region.
Isolation (as in a school region) would be more fitting. At least players can still play the game.

I suggested exactly that in that "Open Letter From the Mentor Team" thread and the response I got to it was downright hostile. Perhaps it's simply because I'm a raider, so in their eyes every word I say to a Role Player is automatically dripping with deadly venom, but let's assume they're not so petty and RPers just honestly hate the idea.

If those regions that didn't opt for that isolated status could still retain their existing protections and weren't forced into becoming battle-grounds then it might work... but if all of the regions that didn't opt for the isolated status were then stripped of Founders and thus absolutely forced to participate in R/D, which is a response that I'm sure I've seen at least one raider post in reply to one or another of the 'Opt Out' ideas suggested during the last few weeks -- then it would "kill" the GA. Nations & regions heavily involved in GA matters couldn't function effectively in that sort of isolation, but often have nor more wish (or, quite possibly, time) to play the R/D side of things too than is the case for the 'forum RPers'... We might not be as vociferous a faction in this debate as either of the others, but please remember that we exist...