Suggestion: Multi-region Delegates

[Joe Bobs]

I have an idea: It could be possible to become a Delegate of multiple regions. Clearly this would only be possible with one nation, as one can't have WA multis. Any nation could receive endorsements from another, regardless of the region. It would be possible for one person to command a huge empire, and this wouldn't be like imperialism is now, this would be cults of personality, or truly allied regions all supporting one individual as their joint-elected leader.

It would also change raider-defending, as your endorsements wouldn't move when you move regions. It would slow the pace dramatically, and also require larger numbers. Coups would be transformed, as someone could build support in regions other than the one they are couping.

You could always build in some limitations, for example, instead of only having the most endorsements to remove the current delegate, if your nation wasn't in the region endorsing you, first you need not only the most endorsements, but also must have a certain percentage of all WA nations in the region endorsing you, say over 50%.

It would be a dramatic change and I probably haven't considered all the implications. What do people think?

[The Blaatschapen]

I wonder what good is having regions then?

I have problems analyzing this. It's a bit murky in its concept.

[Joe Bobs]

It is murky, I'll give you that. I'd thought it through as far as I could on my own and need to bounce the idea off people.

To me, a region is a community, so being Delegate of multiple regions would mean you are effectively a leader of multiple communities. And with the limitation of having to reach a quorum of endos in a region, regions are also needed.

The inspiration for the idea came from an idea I'd had for the April Fools, in which all regions in the game would become aligned to a GCR in some sort of competition (I didn't finish the idea before I moved onto this!). This led me to imaging an NS where the GCRs and large regions could take other regions under their wing (this idea came from the GRA's old Township Program), but under the banner of one leader. And then I got to thinking, medium and smaller regions could also form alliances to challenge these power blocs, but not via off-site forums and a note in the WFE as they do now, but in a way supported by the game mechanics. Democratic regions would elect one of their number, perhaps cycling through other regions, maybe having permanent and non-permanent members of their own Security Councils which the leaders are selected from. Some regions would be dictatorial, and form empires like imperialists do now, but again, in a more direct way than the current method of WFE, flag and embassies.

I can imagine the GCRs seeing the kind of direct competition they haven't seen since 2003, as they try to coup one another, and greater GCR-UCR cooperation, as the GCRs seek UCR help in overthrowing one another.

When it comes to invading-defending, I'll admit I haven't thought through all the implications. Update surfing would no longer exist, surprise attacks would be more difficult and intel would be more important. But imagine this, wars would be fought by two armies across multiple regions, with the same players at once. You could have world wars, or cold wars fought between armies waiting to spring their victories when they reach quorum.

Or perhaps, instead of or alongside a quorum, you could use the regional influence in some way?

[Ballotonia]

This idea would totally destroy WA voting. One nation could have delegacy in enough regions to push a proposal to quorum, all it would take is one buddy to endorse in lots of (passworded) regions.

Invasions would be horrible, as lots of regions would be invaded and stacked, then the army would leave but the stacked vote count (and invader delegate) would remain until someone else could create a bigger stacked vote.

Ballotonia

[Joe Bobs]

This idea would totally destroy WA voting. One nation could have delegacy in enough regions to push a proposal to quorum, all it would take is one buddy to endorse in lots of (passworded) regions.

Invasions would be horrible, as lots of regions would be invaded and stacked, then the army would leave but the stacked vote count (and invader delegate) would remain until someone else could create a bigger stacked vote.

Ballotonia

True, I hadn't thought about WA voting. But would it make such a difference? A delegate's vote would still only be worth the total of his/her endos, and one multi-delegate voting against would still be countered by on voting for. It would essentially be the same but on a bigger scale. Perhaps the you'd have to raise the level required for a proposal to go to the floor.

And as for invasions, a raider army is still limited by the number of its members, in this system of course they can use all their forces at once, rather than spreading them out, but so too would defenders/liberators. I think there would have to be more cooperation between armies, maybe you'd find a TITO-FRA-TEP coalition facing off against a TBR-TNP-LWU force in a battle being staged across 20 different regions. That would be cool, no? And we'd need more inter-regional cooperation to match this scale, there would be more peace conferences, more embassies, more diplomacy in general.

Passworded regions would be an issue, but no more than they are today. You'd still need liberation proposals in exactly the same way you do today. The scale would just be increased.

[Improving Wordiness]

It already is possible to be the delegate of multiple regions. The window is 12 hours long.

[Wind in the Willows]

I think regions should be able to enable an option of having multiple delegates or not.

[Unibot III]

An idea that would be interesting however would be for regions to share the same delegate due to some sort of annex or colonization.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I believe it is a terrible idea. One WA should only be able to access administration of one region. Not WA...no admin.

[Ballotonia]

It already is possible to be the delegate of multiple regions. The window is 12 hours long.

One nation can be delegate in two regions, for about one hour (if the delegate of a very late-updating region becomes delegate of an early updating region, at which point its delegacy in the late-updating region is doomed).

I think you're referring to players switching their WA to other nations and becoming delegate with those other nations as well. That's fundamentally different from what is being proposed here.

Ballotonia

[Sichuan Pepper]

It is however as they have administration over those regions for 12 hours I believe it should not be dismissed. Technically they are delegate to multiple regions for 12 hours.
Not sure why that window was left open but if you are considering making changes I recommend that one be closed first. We will see a very large ripple effect if not.

[Joe Bobs]

@ Wordy: understood, but this would mean you could permanently be Delegate of multiple regions.

@ Wind in the Willows: that's an interesting idea, a tick box or something to allow it? It could almost end up workig like password protecting a region, as raiders would untick it once they'd taken over, and you'd need a Liberation Resolution to get the password removed and the box ticked to take over. I'm not sure if that would work, but it's an idea.

@ Unibot: Yes I agree, that's one of the ways I think this would work. I imagine it enriching raiding/defending, couping, imperialism, and also inter-regional cooperation.

@ Sichuan Pepper: Sorry I think you've misunderstood,this would be one nation, one WA nation,being delegate of a region, not a nation with several puppets.

[Coraxion]

Current Record of Most Delegate Controls under one Player is 53 Regions, made by The Black Riders. General Halcones triggered a tag raid where WraithFIN was pointman and was elected to WAD of those 53 different regions, with different puppet nations. Some total 60 pups were used during that Update. Theoretical Maximum seems being somewhere 60-65 regions. Currently.

Nowadays, it rather easy achieve 40+ regions Hit counts during single Update. If same player is pointman for all of those Target regions during such Raid, he/she will be then delegate of them all Until next update.

What ever might be done with game mechanics related to how and when and who is elected to delegate, it has direct effect to R/D Game Play.

[Joe Bobs]

@ Coraxian - Understood, but this proposal is for someone to able to permanently be Delegate of multiple regions.
-
I've also just thought, the ability to opt out is already there in most ways, as you can set your region to a non-administrative delegate. What if added to this were an option that you could choose whether or not your Delegate could use the region's stacked endo vote in the WA or not? So if you want to opt out of the system, you tick that box, and no longer can a multi-regional delegate use your regions for WA votes.

[Joe Bobs]

This has been discussed in the FRA, and I thought I'd share the ideas given:

I think it's a really interesting idea, to take into account international opinions and influences. Maybe each region could have a delegate and then there could be a delegate for a group of regions who share embassies perhaps.

This could reflect the activities and relations on forums such as the FRA, as these forums are the main way we interact between regions. This would be positive for those involved in forums but may overcomplicate it for those on NS who aren't.

It doesn't need to wreck the WA at all. The WA should still give one approval to each Delegate - not each delegacy. So if a Delegate has 10 regions, he still gets one approval.

I just can't get behind the idea of someone not in the region taking away a person in the regions rightful delegate position.

Some problems:

1. I think that would hurt noobs in the long run. As it would take delegate positions away from them. Some regions would no longer look from within and instead vote for someone they know as a good delegate in another region.

2. Why do you even want a situation where one person has control of a ton of regions at once for a prolonged period of time? If a person gets too many delegate positions then it would be hard to keep track of every region. A delegate should know what is going on in their region.

3. Where is the loyalty to one's region in this? When one commits one's WA to be delegate to a region it shows a willingness to sacrifice having your WA anywhere else, unless you want to lose power.

4. Less positions open to people period. Just imagine being in a region where you worked so hard to become delegate and then this happens and you realize your regionmates decide that some person in a different region would be awesome to have as delegate. Their only reason is that that person is cool and does an ok job at a different region. That doesn't sound cool.

5. The D/R game would be hell. Just imagine that one invader could hold many regions with one WA. Before they had to give up power in one region to be in another (being lead or helping). As long as the regions don't update too close in time to each other they wouldn't have a problem fending off liberation attempts.

6. The power of the WA in the hands of a few is possible in this. Now if they were into repealing every GA proposal that would be great, but more than likely they would block repeals and such. Plus it's better to eliminate the chance of this sort of thing from happening.

7. What about WA delegates using votes against the wishes of the region? Some regions that a person could be delegate could have delegates decision and at the same time others may have regions choice. Combine that with too many regions to keep track of and you have a lot of people unhappy. Also the idea that you could check a box and make it so a delegate can't vote for a region would never go through. It would be silly to let a delegates power in the WA to be taken away. That is the whole point of them.

8. Being able to coup a region from the outside isn't fair. What if natives get tricked into endorsing the couper? A region shouldn't be forced to eject natives to prevent a coup.

9. I don't want to be a part of a game where one person could become delegate in every region I may join and never be in the same region. I don't care how awesome they are or if they were me. They don't deserve it. They'd have too many votes in the WA, too much power (being able to eject too many people in different places, password it, etc...), and have a higher profile in too many regions (they would have a say in governments greater then what they would have had).

9. I wouldn't regard muti-regional delegates to be real delegates. That's just me though.

10. I think this would be a train wreck due to how much chaos this would cause. Some people wouldn't be paying attention and be blindsided with this. This could make people leave and never return.

11. Regions should have different delegates. If they want a delegate of a different region they should either ask them to move to their region or merge into that region. Regions could lose their identities because of this. Region thinks person in a different region would make a good delegate. Region is founderless. Region is also small. Region watches it's region get changed as they watch the delegate's friends join the region for their delegate to keep the natives from making him not delegate anymore. Delegate destroys region and password protects it. This wouldn't have happened so easily if he couldn't be delegate of more then one region. In this they don't want to move.

12. I think some people would just go around trying to convince a bunch of people to make them delegate. Just so they could be delegate of the most regions.

Ok I am done for now. I think I could come up with more. I really think people would abuse this and not use it as intended as well.

Frankly, I'd almost prefer some way of combining a region by absorption than this.

Then, if the natives screamed "our region was raided and consumed" - well, go refound it. Can't do that to a region with a founder.

As far as taking this idea on the surface - the only way I can see this working at all would be to have a HUGE discount on endorsements not in the actual region. Or possibly a sizable discount in general, but a huge one on regions without the actual delegate in it.
Example:
Delegate Ralph is delegate over 5 regions.
Big GCR - 143 endos.
UCR - 33 endos, and Ralph in it.
Small raided UCR - 5 endos.
Tiny UCR - 2 endos.
Tiny UCR - 2 endos.

Under the "85% discount for endos not in the region" - Ralph would have effective endo counts of, say: 149, 55, 32, 29, 29.

Under a plan where the endos are discounted heavily where the delegate is not in the region, the math gets uglier, but the goal of the system would be to make the delegate park himself in the region he most wanted to hold. Delegates IN a region with the delegate OUT of the region would have their votes discounted by, oh, 33-50%. Endos from outregion for a delegate who is also outregion would be discounted further, probably 90% or so.

Note that raiders and defenders could play on both of these systems, but the political clout of the GCRs would be huge, simply due to the number of WAs they have available, even at discounts.

None of this deals, by the way, with how the WA functions.

I think the suggestions is POSSIBLY workable - but it would definitely change how NS works.

All very good points. It might be best if it was only possible if two regions 'link' to one another - and that it requires a hell of a lot of influence for a delegate to agree to 'link' to another region. The regions will literally count as one region as far as the WA is concerned.

That way regional alliances and regions with 'spin-off' regions could share a delegate, without getting more than one approval in the WA or couping random regions without being there.

Just to address something Ryno said, I actually think this would help the defender cause and address the imbalance we currently have. Raiders are using scripts and hitting the updates well, whereas we simply don't have enough updaters. This system would weaken the power of the update, and it would be about total numbers, not timing any more.

I think a change is needed, R/D has become stale, perhaps because it is understood so well by those who take part. A change would give us something new to learn.

Same with the WA, you can predict if a proposal will be passed the second you read it. It's become completely uninteresting.