[IDEA] Change default setting when founding a region

[Ravania Ultra]

In light of the current tag-spree by Raiders, it might be a good thing to set default-setting when founding a region to switching off regional controls for the WA-delegate.

New players that found a region of their own might be discouraged and leave the game if they find their region tagged a few days after they created it. Most of them don't understand what's happening and get disappointed quite easily.

[Luna Amore]

How often do raiders tag new regions with founders?

[Improving Wordiness]

Perhaps Admin could take a look and see how often the regional controls are turned off after a region is founded. I would imagine 90% of the time it is turned off by the founder soon after founding. It would make more sense if it was default to have regional controls off. It also gives new players a chance to learn about controls if they wish to grant power to a Delegate.

[Ravania Ultra]

How often do raiders tag new regions with founders?

From last minor:

Alagaesia 12 days old
Simolia 2 days old
The Band of Gays 7 days old (3rd tag)
The Tekoma Islands 30 days old

Like you can see, not difficult to find examples.

[Luna Amore]

Those are also very dead. 3 don't even have RMB posts. Founder doesn't care enough to initiate activity and protect the region, why should the game protect them by default?

[Land filled with People]

Those are also very dead. 3 don't even have RMB posts. Founder doesn't care enough to initiate activity and protect the region, why should the game protect them by default?

Because not every founder does not care.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Those are also very dead. 3 don't even have RMB posts. Founder doesn't care enough to initiate activity and protect the region, why should the game protect them by default?

Why should the game protect them by default? Call me crazy but the game should protect all players by default. Then when and if the controls are changed it is at the players choice and not the game leaving them vulnerable.

[A Dark Shadow]

Why should the game protect them by default? Call me crazy but the game should protect all players by default. Then when and if the controls are changed it is at the players choice and not the game leaving them vulnerable.

And you expect the game to do their job for them? If they weren't sheep, the wouldn't be be shorn.

[Luna Amore]

Because not every founder does not care.

If they care, then they can correct the problem. Game doesn't need to hold their hand.

Why should the game protect them by default? Call me crazy but the game should protect all players by default. Then when and if the controls are changed it is at the players choice and not the game leaving them vulnerable.

I fail to see the benefit. If it is a raid on a region with an active founder, the point is moot. It's a fairly innocuous way to introduce them to raiding.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I disagree. The game should always be on the side of the player by default and not set them up to be the victims of a raid in order to learn. The very least expectation is to by default provide a safe environment.

[Land filled with People]

There shouldn't be a "problem" that needs rectifying in the first place. My understanding was founders were introduced - in part - to provide an opt-out from raiding. Given founders themselves are no longer deterrents to raiders, the least the game could do is to keep up with the times and provide a (slightly more effective) deterrent - non-executive delegates on founding.

[Enfaru]

How often do raiders tag new regions with founders?

You would be extremely surprised at what the TBR stoop to (and it appears to be just TBR)

--

I know that there has been a push by His Holiness to encourage game-play, but the act of raiding when it does happen (frequently...) against a newbie who has worked hard on their region, suddenly finds themselves not online for a few hours and then find that their WFE has been destroyed, all tags wiped or changed to something else. A whole stream of stupidity on their regional message boards... Let me pose a different question. If you had a car delivered to your property, you would expect it to be locked by default. Why? Because even if it can't be stolen, people can still get in, destroy the interior and then scram (-_- it happened to me after sending it off for some customizing, it was entirely an accident on their behalf but). You would do as I do and have the car returned for restoration at the earliest opportunity.

If someone wants to take part in raiding and defending, there are plenty of ways for them to voluntarily go about it. There's no reason to drag them kicking and screaming into something that's most likely to make them close nationstates altogether and go elsewhere. It's a common theme on MMORPG's, you don't have a PvP area at the starting location unless you've got a very positive and helpful (usually very small) community.

[Tatarica]

It would make more sense if it was default to have regional controls off..

The game should always be on the side of the player by default and not set them up to be the victims of a raid in order to learn.

I agree with having the default regional controls off.

In a far-set alternate NationStates game, a new nation founding a new region might not be aware of the R/D specter of the game, and should not be introduced to it via this way, logging in 3 days to see that he's now in the Rejected Realms and his region is now some password-protected bastion of a joke.

[Rifty]

They should be keeping an eye on the delegate controls when setting up. I myself run a raiding region that is part of raider unity - we very rarely tag regions with founders. We only do it to prove a point...

For tag runs it's always founderless

[Enfaru]

They should be keeping an eye on the delegate controls when setting up. I myself run a raiding region that is part of raider unity - we very rarely tag regions with founders. We only do it to prove a point...

For tag runs it's always founderless

Doin' raidin' the right way. .

I agree, they 'should' be keeping on eye on the delegate controls, but they are very easy to miss and for new players very easy to misunderstand what they do. I would have advocated making the WA Regional Controls setting a little more obvious with a more overt description (instead of it being hidden) and including a link to information about raiding and defending, but I don't think that it's an adequate solution to the problem.

[Rifty]

They should be keeping an eye on the delegate controls when setting up. I myself run a raiding region that is part of raider unity - we very rarely tag regions with founders. We only do it to prove a point...

For tag runs it's always founderless

Doin' raidin' the right way. .

I agree, they 'should' be keeping on eye on the delegate controls, but they are very easy to miss and for new players very easy to misunderstand what they do. I would have advocated making the WA Regional Controls setting a little more obvious with a more overt description (instead of it being hidden) and including a link to information about raiding and defending, but I don't think that it's an adequate solution to the problem.

Well - what I would like seen is for there to be a link to the region building guide. However to a section explaining the controls. Now mine isn't ever getting stickies because I break too many rules - but if someone pulled their finger out and wanted to make a guide...citizens would give them all the info and such.

Path at way people can educate themselves while setting up the region ^,^

---

Off topic but I've been thinking of having all raiding/defender regions being forced to have a non-executive delegate.

[Luna Amore]

There shouldn't be a "problem" that needs rectifying in the first place. My understanding was founders were introduced - in part - to provide an opt-out from raiding. Given founders themselves are no longer deterrents to raiders, the least the game could do is to keep up with the times and provide a (slightly more effective) deterrent - non-executive delegates on founding.

I disagree. The game should always be on the side of the player by default and not set them up to be the victims of a raid in order to learn. The very least expectation is to by default provide a safe environment.

The page explicitly tells you what the option does:

The region's World Assembly Delegate can access Regional Control. (?)

Delegates normally have access to Regional Control, allowing them to eject and ban nations from their region, suppress posts on the Regional Message Board, modify the World Factbook Entry, and institute a password. These actions cost a certain amount of Influence (which is accumulated by remaining resident in a region over time), meaning that new Delegates are relatively powerless compared to Founders.

Commonly, a Founder and Delegate will share access to Regional Control. If you wish, however, you can strip the Delegate position of this power, leaving Regional Control in your hands alone. The region will depend completely upon your attention and benevolence.

The main reason you might do this is to preserve your region just the way you want it. The main reason you might not is to allow residents a voice in regional matters, which stimulates activity.

This setting can be changed later. You, the Founder, can revoke the Delegate's access to Regional Control, but the Delegate can never revoke yours.

Delegates automatically gain access to Regional Control if the Founder ceases to exist, departs the region, or has surrendered power via the checkbox above.

All a new founder needs to do is read the options set before him. Do we really need to babysit them?

[Sichuan Pepper]

It is a default setting, not a baby sitting service. It changes little other than giving a positive learning experience over a negative one.

[DWAsnia]

It is a default setting, not a baby sitting service. It changes little other than giving a positive learning experience over a negative one.

If a player can't read instruction explicitly stated by the site to turn off delegate controls, than why should we protect them? If they can't effectively run a region, does that region deserve to be saved?

[Ravania Ultra]

The main reason you might do this is to preserve your region just the way you want it. The main reason you might not is to allow residents a voice in regional matters, which stimulates activity.

Bold mine, this is misguiding, and even untrue for starting regions in the current context.
Maybe a little line like "because raiders might mess with your region." could be added after the first sentence...

[Luna Amore]

The main reason you might do this is to preserve your region just the way you want it. The main reason you might not is to allow residents a voice in regional matters, which stimulates activity.

Bold mine, this is misguiding, and even untrue for starting regions in the current context.
Maybe a little line like "because raiders might mess with your region." could be added after the first sentence...

Why is it untrue?

[Zaolat]

I agree with Luna Amore. Nearly all things in this game do not explain this this game outside the FAQs and Guides in the various forums/rules/etc. None of them are handheld, a new player has to figure it out as they go. I like this concept in general as it provides a way for you to explore the game and find your own niche.

As such I feel this applies to the topic at hand, and I would agree with my own statement here even if I was still a defender.

Now from my current raider perspective, all this is is an attempt to remove viable targets for raiding. I very much disagree with that on principle.

[Land filled with People]

*snip*
All a new founder needs to do is read the options set before him. Do we really need to babysit them?

Try reading that as a newbie with no knowledge and/or interest in N/R/D. There's no mention at all of taggers (or raiders in general) potentially coming along and using executive WAD powers to deface the region.

None of them are handheld, a new player has to figure it out as they go. I like this concept in general as it provides a way for you to explore the game and find your own niche.

Except in this case the niche finds you, whether you like it or not.

[Tatarica]

If a player can't read instruction explicitly stated by the site to turn off delegate controls, than why should we protect them? If they can't effectively run a region, does that region deserve to be saved?

Why can't the instruction explicitly state to turn on delegate controls if they want to give more voice to other regional members etc. rather than the other way around, how it is now?


I see most of the "No" posts here as a little misguided with the conception that all new nations know about R/D and have the vast experience we have when knowing what to click and where to reach that information.

I consider that yes, new nations should be given the benefit of a doubt for at least the first moments from their inception that they really do not know what they are doing, including when creating a new region. There's a few examples of nations going to the forum complaining about the region they just founded getting invaded (there's a few examples of it in this thread as well) and there's the general consensus given by the other forum members : de-activate your Delegate controls.

What exactly does this mean? It means that those new nations DIDN'T KNOW about this feature, even if there might have been a "?" button next to the checkmark regarding the setting.

How we are going about it? By saying that those new nations are too n00b for the game, and haven't read the entire FAQ (or just exactly that section of the FAQ) prior to setting that checkmark a certain way, in order to be secure from a certain aspect of the game they have no prior knowledge of.

Really, the option should be un-checked by default and have the FAQ explain why it might be better to have it checked. Or at least, explain better the outcome from the R/D point of view. Because as it is now, the new nation can't possibly comprehend what we, the general population of NS, already know and find it to be a natural part of the game.

[Coraxion]

Personally I do not support proposed idea change defaults for new regions, but I agree that there might be serious confusions what to do and what to expect with different settings and that more clear instructions: "Non-Executive Delegate", "Ban and Eject", etc - What these actually means in practice and for everyone, but particularly newcomers.

Sometimes I've seen in practice that on the regional message board of a recently tagged (raided without intentions start anything longer term occupations or operations) region suddenly happens tremendous outburst of despair how to counter the invader Menace even founder has already barred delegate access, probably accidentally or not knowing what that actually does. Several times has happened situation where founder detag raider tag and eject still sitting, but already resigned non-WA member raider WAD out of region, without realizing that such raider puppet has still access to a regional controls of region if Delegate Access remains set to 'Executive'. In such cases if noticed, in practice this means raider WAD makes new tag to same region already detagged. In extreme cases regional Founder has been banned several times out from his/hers own region by raider executive non-WA member puppet. It is clear Player behind founder doesn't know what to do when all his other actions clearly show he try 'defend' his/hers own region.

More clear and easily accessible information about meaning and practical influences of different options in regional controls founders have in their arsenal would be good and if possible attached somehow to immediate vicinity of such regional controls and/or to 'Executive' and 'Non-executive' etc. related features of regional management.

It is all gameplayers benefit if people know their options. We all would save hundreds of pages these same discussion only if people would read FAQs and Rules and be familiar with their possibilities. Why indeed that information could not be integrated somehow directly or near to regional controls buttons and options. Or... then there could be default setting when creating new region for initiating tutorial phase for teaching very basics of the Game.

(Everyone must have a Nation, but Anyone doesn't have to have a region.)