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

[Feuer Ritter]

Irrelevant targets, most of those would be small and inactive regions that hold no value for an occupation.

So you basically do not want any regions to be able to do the one thing that you raiders say we should be doing to protect ourselves, which is maintain an active founder.

Opinion noted, however I find it ludicrous to say "You should defend yourselves by doing X", and then turning around and saying "Oh by the way, you shouldn't actually be allowed to do X because it ruins our fun".

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

You have many ways to defend a region without a founder at this time, but you either don't know how to do it or you'r not interested in how to do it. There are many founderless regions that haven't been invaded because they knew how to protect it.

[Esternial]

This is proposal will completely take away the raiders ability to invade and occupy active founderless regions.

No it won't, as said repeatedly.

it supposed to include warfare

No it wasn't.

but because the game wasn't built with this feature, players found ways to do that.

I'm pretty sure that's not how warfare works. A bunch of Asian nations don't decide every twelve-ish hours that they're going to run into Africa, kick out five or six of the nations there, and start graffiting the meeting places of the African Union.

What if we invade active regional communities and have a little fun with the natives for a week or two, there's no harm in that.

Yes there is, as you might notice if you ever look at the frustration vented on RMBs when people get raided.

Also, warfare?

R/D isn't warfare. I'd be convinced if there was an actual "struggle" between the invaders and the natives of a region, but in this case either you win or you don't. Instant victory or defeat at the drop of the update.

[Maltropia]

Also, warfare?

R/D isn't warfare. I'd be convinced if there was an actual "struggle" between the invaders and the natives of a region, but in this case either you win or you don't. Instant victory or defeat at the drop of the update.

Yet another reason we need NS Universalis.

[Stuwik]

An idea that will allow invaders to keep colonies forever - think Greece or Concosia. It would forever be under Persian rule with "Founder Succession". A "game-over" situation. That would be unfortunate and thus I'm against this idea.

Well, it is better than allowing them to take over founderless regions. Besides, with this, they won't be able to refound any other regions.

[Esternial]

Also, warfare?

R/D isn't warfare. I'd be convinced if there was an actual "struggle" between the invaders and the natives of a region, but in this case either you win or you don't. Instant victory or defeat at the drop of the update.

Yet another reason we need NS Universalis.

Why didn't I come up with this sooner?

[Anemos Major]

You have many ways to defend a region without a founder at this time, but you either don't know how to do it or you'r not interested in how to do it. There are many founderless regions that haven't been invaded because they knew how to protect it.

Taking my home region Greater Dienstad for example, we never had a password because we were meant to be an open region that anyone could join. It was our reputation that we were a open and welcoming region for new RPers.

Having a delegate is useful for day-to-day admin such as updating the Factbook entry and ejecting troublemakers should the need arise, this is mainly because our Founder is largely inactive (such is life sometimes) but can be reached if needed.

I'm not suggesting that all raiders are monsters, and I'm not trying to suggest that R/D needs to be abolished. But as pointed out over the past pages by other posters, there are legitimate reasons why RPing regions can't remove delegate powers outright (because a lot of these regions are long established entities with fairly inactive founders), and reasons why introducing a password inhibits the role played by key regions like Greater Dienstad (which is now password-protected following the raid the other day) in welcoming newer players to the RPing game and helping them develop within that context. If raiding was simply about entering a region, taking over it with a short spiel on the factbook entry and then leaving as part of the R/D 'game', that'd be absolutely fine - but they don't seem to be able to do it without wiping the entire factbook entry with a gloating declaration of success and then proceeding to suppress and harass the players of that region on the RMB. The conduct displayed by raiders in every instance I've seen of them entering an RPing region (which is where my limited experience lies) is, frankly, atrocious, and looking at what happened to Dienstad, it's a fairly standard example of the disruption that RPers want to get away from.

Raiders want to enjoy their game as well, and that's not what we want to infringe upon, but there comes a point where it becomes readily apparent that they know their particular mode of enjoyment is unnecessarily infringing upon our ability to do the same - at that point, it's not really unreasonable to want an opt-out of some sort.

[Communist Eraser]

I recommend revising item 3. Even with a Successor in place, it would be rather annoying for a Founder to lose their powers just because of an oversight or unforseen situation causing them to CTE.

Notwithstanding that, I back the proposal.

Disagree. The 'risk' that the founder might have picked the wrong successor should be part of the politics of it. It should be part of the equation - choosing a successor would keep my region safe, but would screw the region if I get it wrong...so maybe I shouldn't choose one after all. Let regional politics decide if they want to take the choice and the possible consequences.

Personally if someone is so vindicative that they are willing to spend month/years befriending the region and convincing the founder to trust him with succession ...just to destroy the regio. They kind of deserve the victory.

[Lun Noir]

You have many ways to defend a region without a founder at this time, but you either don't know how to do it or you'r not interested in how to do it. There are many founderless regions that haven't been invaded because they knew how to protect it.

If you are a smaller niche region, and you do not have an active founder, you don't really have options. It has even been boasted by raiders that password-locking the region is not sufficient.

Besides which, even maintaining a founder position alone is not enough to prevent occupation and damage incurred from a raid, if a region is not careful. The founder may not even log in but once every couple of weeks, which would allow a lengthy invasion to occur. Unless I am mistaken, your group TBR has done this a few times.

In any case, as has been said over and over in this thread, this proposal would not eliminate the creation of founderless regions, either with active communities or not. So, at this point, I honestly believe you are just objecting for the sake of keeping everyone disarmed and completely vulnerable, even in cases where they should not be.

[Lun Noir]

I recommend revising item 3. Even with a Successor in place, it would be rather annoying for a Founder to lose their powers just because of an oversight or unforseen situation causing them to CTE.

Notwithstanding that, I back the proposal.

Disagree. The 'risk' that the founder might have picked the wrong successor should be part of the politics of it. It should be part of the equation - choosing a successor would keep my region safe, but would screw the region if I get it wrong...so maybe I shouldn't choose one after all. Let regional politics decide if they want to take the choice and the possible consequences.

Personally if someone is so vindicative that they are willing to spend month/years befriending the region and convincing the founder to trust him with succession ...just to destroy the regio. They kind of deserve the victory.

I agree with you on this. In addition, if the original founder was absent for the better part of a year or two, and suddenly came back and usurped the founder position, it could be seen as a sleight to those who have been actively working to keep the region going in their absence.

[Arumdaum]

This is proposal will completely take away the raiders ability to invade and occupy active founderless regions.

Yeah, no, it won't, sadly. But why the hell do you think it should be allowed to invade them?

This is a government simulation game, right? Well it supposed to include warfare, but because the game wasn't built with this feature, players found ways to do that.

Yeah, no, I'm pretty sure Max has explained a million times that NS isn't going to have gameplay warfare. Why don't you RP then? That's what most people do.

And this is a government simulation game, right? Why don't we have leadership successions then? They happen all the fricken time.

What if we invade active regional communities and have a little fun with the natives for a week or two, there's no harm in that.

Holy shit are you fucking serious

Tag raiding is fun to a limit, it's our way to attract new people to be active during the update,

Why do people need to be active during updates? I'd rather not be on NS while I'm in school or during the middle of the night.

but large invasion are those that matter most for us, the ones we are planning and preparing for weeks or months. Personally, I find tagging boring even if I do it myself, because that's our regional policy. Taking away our ability to invade large regions makes the R/D game boring and without purpose.

Do they even want you to raid them? Or do you just think messing with people is fun?

[Morrdh]

This is a government simulation game, right? Well it supposed to include warfare....

As listed in the FAQ under Gameplay;

At its core, NationStates is a political game, not a wargame.

If anything with the Founder Succession thing, just view it as a challenge...besides the existence of a Founder has been proven not to stop you before.

[Feuer Ritter]

This is a government simulation game, right? Well it supposed to include warfare....

As listed in the FAQ under Gameplay;

At its core, NationStates is a political game, not a wargame.

If anything with the Founder Succession thing, just view it as a challenge...besides the existence of a Founder has been proven not to stop you before.

What challange? it won't sop us for what? A few hours....

[SquareDisc City]

Disagree. The 'risk' that the founder might have picked the wrong successor should be part of the politics of it. It should be part of the equation - choosing a successor would keep my region safe, but would screw the region if I get it wrong...so maybe I shouldn't choose one after all. Let regional politics decide if they want to take the choice and the possible consequences.

Personally if someone is so vindicative that they are willing to spend month/years befriending the region and convincing the founder to trust him with succession ...just to destroy the regio. They kind of deserve the victory.

I agree with you on this. In addition, if the original founder was absent for the better part of a year or two, and suddenly came back and usurped the founder position, it could be seen as a sleight to those who have been actively working to keep the region going in their absence.

On thought, key is whether a Successor can easily return control to the prior Founder or Successive Founder after they've CTE'd and revived, with cases where the CTEing was unintentional in mind. To be in a situation where you're the Successive Founder, you want to return control to your predecessor, and the game refuses to let you do that for whatever reason (e.g. you've not been active six months), that would be really fricking annoying.

But that said, personally I see "Return of the King" scenarios as having interest themselves.

[Evil Wolf]

.... If truly R/D is that much a menace, then the community as a whole should choose to stamp it out totally. If it's not so bad, we will know.

Any proposal aimed at "stamping out" Gameplay I shall always be 100% against.

[Esternial]

.... If truly R/D is that much a menace, then the community as a whole should choose to stamp it out totally. If it's not so bad, we will know.

Any proposal aimed at "stamping out" Gameplay I shall always be 100% against.

How about to make it more complex?

I'd like a game where raiders can't instantly win/lose at the drop of the update. They have to lay siege on a region that allow the natives to fight back, a proper struggle that's more of a challenge.

[Anemos Major]

.... If truly R/D is that much a menace, then the community as a whole should choose to stamp it out totally. If it's not so bad, we will know.

Any proposal aimed at "stamping out" Gameplay I shall always be 100% against.

In context, that's hardly what this statement or proposal is stating.

[Evil Wolf]

How about to make it more complex?

I'd like a game where raiders can't instantly win/lose at the drop of the update. They have to lay siege on a region that allow the natives to fight back, a proper struggle that's more of a challenge.

That proposed change is being called "Delegate Elect" and it's being debated right now.

[SquareDisc City]

Any proposal aimed at "stamping out" Gameplay I shall always be 100% against.

Well yes, obviously you would, just as graffiti artists would be against any proposal aimed at stamping out their activities.

[Evil Wolf]

Any proposal aimed at "stamping out" Gameplay I shall always be 100% against.

Well yes, obviously you would, just as graffiti artists would be against any proposal aimed at stamping out their activities.

Or cigarette smokers be opposed to having their cigarettes taken away, since Gameplay, like cigarette smoking, is legal.

[Lun Noir]

Well yes, obviously you would, just as graffiti artists would be against any proposal aimed at stamping out their activities.

Or cigarette smokers be opposed to having their cigarettes taken away, since Gameplay, like cigarette smoking, is legal.

As has been stated over and over again, this would not stamp out Gameplay at all, but that would require reading the thread before spouting off.

[Evil Wolf]

As has been stated over and over again, this would not stamp out Gameplay at all, but that would require reading the thread before spouting off.

4. If used by the founder, it removes most possibility of non-founder regions to exist.
.... If truly R/D is that much a menace, then the community as a whole should choose to stamp it out totally. If it's not so bad, we will know.

That's from the original post in this thread.

[Lun Noir]

That's from the original post in this thread.

Obviously, even among foundered regions, the NS community has not 'stamped out' R/D, so your objection is just kind of silly.

If you take the time to comprehend this proposal and the effects it may have (and more importantly, the effects it would not have), you would understand that it would not stamp out raiding by any stretch of the imagination.

[Evil Wolf]

That's from the original post in this thread.

Obviously, even among foundered regions, the NS community has not 'stamped out' R/D, so your objection is just kind of silly.

Yes, if you only enjoy tag raiding. I don't. I need founderless regions in order for my brand of raiding to work.

[Lun Noir]

Obviously, even among foundered regions, the NS community has not 'stamped out' R/D, so your objection is just kind of silly.

Yes, if you only enjoy tag raiding. I don't. I need founderless regions in order for my brand of raiding to work.

And it has been pointed out by several people that founderless regions would continue to form. This would not completely stop them from forming, nor offer a founder to any existing regions today, nor offer a solution to any region in the future which lost its founder without a successor.

[Esternial]

Yes, if you only enjoy tag raiding. I don't. I need founderless regions in order for my brand of raiding to work.

And it has been pointed out by several people that founderless regions would continue to form. This would not completely stop them from forming, nor offer a founder to any existing regions today, nor offer a solution to any region in the future which lost its founder.

Indeed. Once your founder CTE's and no successor has been set, that space will be left void for "eternity".

Leaving the options to migrate to a new region or rely on the upcoming "Custodians" and "Regional Officers".