Annex

[Engul]

One thing I'm thinking of adding is a permanent "Regional History" (or perhaps "Political History") that will list significant events in a region's life. This would include Delegate reigns, and the establishment/removal of Annexes or Regional Embassies if/when we get those. I'm thinking that this would be a short line on the region page, showing just the most recent political event, with the region's complete history one click away.

Now originally I thought Annexings should not leave a permanent mark on the Annexed region, because in many cases regions will not be happy about being Annexed; they'd consider any permanent reminder of that to be a defacement. But Annexings would be a political event worthy of recording. So options would be: (1) Don't record Annexings in the Annexed regions. (2) Do record them. (3) Record them but let the Founder/Delegate delete those lines from the history.

Thoughts?

Awesome.

[Topid]

One thing I'm thinking of adding is a permanent "Regional History" (or perhaps "Political History") that will list significant events in a region's life. This would include Delegate reigns, and the establishment/removal of Annexes or Regional Embassies if/when we get those. I'm thinking that this would be a short line on the region page, showing just the most recent political event, with the region's complete history one click away.

Love that idea!

Now originally I thought Annexings should not leave a permanent mark on the Annexed region, because in many cases regions will not be happy about being Annexed; they'd consider any permanent reminder of that to be a defacement.

Not to mention that after a region has been annexed by one raiding region, it couldn't be annexed again (I assume that is the case) so eventually all the founderless regions would have been annexed, and raiders would get bored...

OR, if a region could be annexed by another raiding region, and the annexes are permanent, they would eventually get bulky (no one wants to see a region that is annexed by 12 regions...)

But Annexings would be a political event worthy of recording. So options would be: (1) Don't record Annexings in the Annexed regions. (2) Do record them. (3) Record them but let the Founder/Delegate delete those lines from the history.

I say (2). I don't see why we wouldn't record this. And if we allow delegates to delete it, they will (as in raiders would too...) I think it would be best to put something like:
June 4, 2009: RegionX annexed by RegionY
July 23, 2009: RegionX became independent from RegionY (and to become independent the annexed region's delegate/founder only had to click a button, and the annexer (lol that sounds like the wrong term) can't stop them.)

[Brewdomia]

This is a fantastic idea

[South Malaysia]

Would be totally great to have this feature! I need to visit the NS forum more often. xD.

[Verano de Amor]

It sounds good, very good. It would be great for raiders, but include that people may only annex regions if the founder or delegate of the region you want to annex accepts.

[Dysian]

So options would be: (1) Don't record Annexings in the Annexed regions. (2) Do record them. (3) Record them but let the Founder/Delegate delete those lines from the history.

Thoughts?

Option 2. WA liberation proposals are already doing too much to make raiders' lifes bitter. Option 2 is the least you could do to make up for that.

[Todd McCloud]

So options would be: (1) Don't record Annexings in the Annexed regions. (2) Do record them. (3) Record them but let the Founder/Delegate delete those lines from the history.

Thoughts?

Option 2. WA liberation proposals are already doing too much to make raiders' lifes bitter. Option 2 is the least you could do to make up for that.

I would have to agree with these sentiments. The scales have been tipped heavily in favor of defenders; it is time for a return to unity.

[Anime Daisuki]

@[violet]: The raiders are already too many for defenders to handle. Why create a function that would encourage every region to become imperialist and start invading? I think this will dramatically change the nature of the game.

[Havensky]

Shouldn't it cost more to Annex regions with numerous allies? Particulaly if those regions are high powered?

[Bears Armed]

How about requiring people to hold the region for at least a full day (2 updates... EDIT: or maybe even 3, in case they took over only just before one...) between their application to the game-engine to set the 'Annexed' label and this result actually coming about, so that mere "hit-&-run" raids that only succeed for long enough to make the application don't receive this recognition?

[Krulltopia]

@[violet]: The raiders are already too many for defenders to handle. Why create a function that would encourage every region to become imperialist and start invading? I think this will dramatically change the nature of the game.

How is changing the nature of the game a bad thing? If Alliances are introduced and have an effect on Annexing as Havensky suggested, then this is one potential way to prevent Imperialism. The defender:raider ratio hasn't got much to do with game mechanics, and more to do with the mentality of players.
Introducing Alliances and Empires not only brings in the alliances made between gameplay regions into the game itself (i.e mutual defence pacts could be made into in-game alliances) but may also attract the role players into this side of the game (and vice versa).

Also, Sirocco, you might not want to give me ideas.

[Ballotonia]

How is changing the nature of the game a bad thing? If Alliances are introduced and have an effect on Annexing as Havensky suggested, then this is one potential way to prevent Imperialism. The defender:raider ratio hasn't got much to do with game mechanics, and more to do with the mentality of players.

The mentality of players is indeed key for the prolonged success of a game. I don't see how permanently pissing off natives (poluting their region with a tag they cannot get rid of) all around NS is going to be a good change though. Sure, invaders get more ways to pick on the unsuspecting populace, good for them. I'm just reminded of how this game started, and what invasions used to be like. Ever since those early days invaders have been catered to more and more (Max must be really, really, really gleeful about this user-invented line of play) and I'm just wondering how many other player communities will get the shaft before there will be nothing left to give to invaders to keep them happy.

Ballotonia

[Havensky]

Alliances don't just appear by themselves - they form out of friendships made with other regions. An active region will natuarally have many more allies than a region of low activity. Certainly regions with many allies would have to have more influence within the game - coded or otherwise.

So, it makes sense that it should be harder to annex regions with a lot of international support than regions who just stick to themselves

[Krulltopia]

No, alliances do not just appear by themselves, but I find that attempts at inter-regional alliances are quite common, and introducing such a mechanic will encourage it, and give it some teeth.
As for the claim it will give raiders an excuse to 'shaft communities', wouldn't that give those that oppose them more reason to attempt to stop them? Possibly by using diplomacy and tact in order to build up a series of alliances, not only with active regions, but with the smaller inactive ones in order to prevent annexation.
Also, Annexation doesn't always have to be involuntary, which seems to be the running idea.

[Ganymede Moon]

Also, Annexation doesn't always have to be involuntary, which seems to be the running idea.

QFT. My region, Alpha Site, is really part of Outer Planets, and I wouldn't mind having a game-created record of that. And I'm sure there are other "regions" that really span more than one game-region. Even ignoring raiders.

[Drab duck]

I'm undecided on this idea, some great ideas but I'd like to see an outline of [violet]'s current thinking that we can tweak into a proposal that suits everyone because theres some dangerous ideas that would be detrimental to the game that have been put forward here as well.

[Darkesia]

No, alliances do not just appear by themselves, but I find that attempts at inter-regional alliances are quite common, and introducing such a mechanic will encourage it, and give it some teeth.
As for the claim it will give raiders an excuse to 'shaft communities', wouldn't that give those that oppose them more reason to attempt to stop them? Possibly by using diplomacy and tact in order to build up a series of alliances, not only with active regions, but with the smaller inactive ones in order to prevent annexation.
Also, Annexation doesn't always have to be involuntary, which seems to be the running idea.

I love every word typed here.

[[violet]]

I'm undecided on this idea, some great ideas but I'd like to see an outline of [violet]'s current thinking that we can tweak into a proposal that suits everyone because theres some dangerous ideas that would be detrimental to the game that have been put forward here as well.

Currently I have some code in testing that lets regions establish Embassies with each other, and declare Annexes, both via mutual agreement between Delegates/Founders. (Embassies are intended as an indicator of a peer-like relationship, and Annexes as a dominant-subservient relationship.) Both can be dismissed by either Delegate/Founder at any time. I'm leaning toward permanently recording all Embassies & Annexes, although on a sub-page of the region rather than its front page (e.g. you click a link for "Political History"), alongside a permanent history of Delegate reigns.

[Unibot]

Currently I have some code in testing that lets regions establish Embassies with each other, and declare Annexes, both via mutual agreement between Delegates/Founders. (Embassies are intended as an indicator of a peer-like relationship, and Annexes as a dominant-subservient relationship.) Both can be dismissed by either Delegate/Founder at any time. I'm leaning toward permanently recording all Embassies & Annexes, although on a sub-page of the region rather than its front page (e.g. you click a link for "Political History"), alongside a permanent history of Delegate reigns.

Very interesting, I've stated this before, I think it'd be interesting if there was a voting bloc that could be created with an Embassy.

A Leader of Voting Bloc would have a vote for every WA member of every region in the bloc? Or just a vote for every region in his bloc?

_______

If the WA Queue worked with voting blocs as well, I'd suggest the voting scheme be a vote for every region in the bloc.

[Nord Osterland]

Couple of things.

@Unibot, I'm not too keen on the voting bloc idea, but that can be tackled later, perhaps introduced if Embassies work out, we can discuss it then.

@AnimeDaisuki, Raider/Defender numbers are a contentious issue, I think we can agree that both sides feel as if they are weaker, let's ignore the whole "no,we're weaker" thing for now, it gets us nowhere, and we have no real, solid proof either way.

I would like traces of Annexations to remain, however, I can see why natives would oppose "vandalization" perhaps an amicable solution would be an influence cost for removal. How does that sound?

[[violet]]

I think we can agree that both sides feel as if they are weaker

And that every game change ever was introduced to assist the other side.

[Krulltopia]

I think we can agree that both sides feel as if they are weaker

And that every game change ever was introduced to assist the other side.

I second this. It's actually getting quite annoying, but that's for another discussion, I think.

[violet] would the embassies have an effect on the ability annexe a region, or would they simply serve as a 'this region is allied with this region' note? Either way, this is a step forward, as it would be putting what were previously off-site embassies into the gamecode (sort of).

[Darkesia]

I'm getting excited about this idea. Because it will have both 'good' and 'bad' consequences and the possibilities for unintended consequences are innumerable, it's a step toward bringing the complex off-site political game at least partially into the in-game realm.

Leaving out the possibility of voting blocs for the moment (because that leads to even more exciting geo-political consequences that threaten to make me squeal with a sort of delighted-horror that I'm not ready to deal with yet)...

Leaving out the possibility of voting blocs for the moment; A region that did not wish to participate could continue to ignore the feature, just as many RP regions ignore the off-site inter-regional political game now. Yes, if the region agreed to being annexed or had a hostile annex, the evidence of such a happening should, IMHO, be either permanent or very long standing. This would add a whole new dimension to the invade/defend game. And it might even make the warzone idea viable again. Face it, everyone likes to see their name in lights once in a while.

Implementing the feature does not interfere with those organizations/empires which operate "under the radar" either. They simply don't have to require their members to link in an in-game manner and will continue to organize off-site.

If the voting blocs *squeals* are implemented, I would prefer to see a distinction between alliances and annexations. But I'm still poking around my head, trying to figure out what sort of distinction. I'm wondering things like:

Would alliances allow for voting blocs on the approval of regional delegates and annexations require such a thing? If an annexation required a voting bloc by the "underling region," would it make annexation the tool of only raiders or would raiders ignore such a feature? Should a voting bloc increase the power of a vote by number of WA nations, or should each annexed region have diminishing value to the bloc? Should annexations only add one more vote to the "empire's" voting bloc and alliances add more (assuming voluntary participation)?

See... all these questions before my 4th cup of coffee. I'll be cranky all day now

[Todd McCloud]

This does seem fun. I can hardly wait (along with my mass-TG idea!! PLZZZ!!))

[Neasmyrna]

I think this will be an important addition... But I think the option should be there for a delegate (with enough influence) or the founder to remove all traces of annexation.

But aside from that this seems very exciting to me... although i'm sure it will be used to a large extent in a petty manner... there are some amazing areas for potential.