Switching WA/ Delegate Powers on non WA

[Improving Wordiness]

I have sent in a Help Request but I would appreciate some discussion on Nations Switching WA nations during update.
How clear cut is the rule and what crosses the line?
As it currently stands
Nation A and Nation B are both in the WA.
Nation A becomes Delegate to Region 1 after being endorsed by Nation B.
It is early update and both drop WA immediatly after. However Nation A has control of Region 1 until next update.
player in Nation A now moves to Nation C and joins WA.
Same thing again with Nation B moving to Nation D and applying WA.
They move in to region2 and Nation C endorsed by Nation D becomes Delegate of the region.
They both drop WA but retain control of Region 2 until the next update.
Same thing happens a 3rd or possibly a 4th time if they are can be bothered.

So 2 players can control multiple regions.

To me this is clear WA abuse but a mod might say different. It is a grey area I would love to have cleared up.
Hope this post is not too confusing.

Edited the subject as wanted to clarify what the thread is about.

[Crazy girl]

There was a discussion a few years ago on whether a non-WA nation should have WA delegate powers. Not sure if we ever actually got anywhere with it
Though I believe the general consensus was that a non-WA nation shouldn't have WA delegate powers.

[Improving Wordiness]

Well that would certainly make a difference.
I would like to pusue that further.
Currently once you drop WA you still have Delegate rights.
OK Mods....can we get some love on this issue?
I recieved a reply to my GH and thanks for that. Wont post the reply here as that would be rude
I was told that as long as only one Nation is in the WA at any one point then it is legal.
However why should we retain delegate rights if no longer in the WA

[New Spartzerina]

*bumps*

It is quite annoying... if you can, please, please change it so delegate's powers are removed when they resign (or if all their endorsers resign).

[Improving Wordiness]

*nods*
I know switchers are allowed but it would solve a few problems if Delegate powers are dropped with WA.

[Usual People In Life]

unfortunately, I think that if the delegate update set up was made realtime, it could crash the server, so I guess its best left to update times

[Improving Wordiness]

*nods*
Yeah I realize it cannot constantly be counting votes.
The game does notice when a Delegate is no longer WA in real time as it drops them from the Delegate spot. What if when it does this is also removes powers?

Edit : typo police pulled me over

[Improving Wordiness]

As there has been no reply and I suspect this is a technical problem should I make a thread that might be added to NS suggested improvements thread?
I would very much like to hear if anything at all can be done regarding Delegate powers not dropped with Wa.
At the moment I am not sure if this is an oversight or if there is a very good reason for WAD powers being left on a nation that is no longer in the WA.

[Sedgistan]

When I first read the thread, I thought you were asking to ban switching WA nations at update (which would've been bad), but your point about nations retaining delegate powers until the update after they resign from the WA is a good one - it doesn't see right. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it, but [violet] will hopefully comment when she has time to look at it.

There's no need to make a new thread, though.

[Cerod]

I have sent in a Help Request but I would appreciate some discussion on Nations Switching WA nations during update.
How clear cut is the rule and what crosses the line?
As it currently stands
Nation A and Nation B are both in the WA.
Nation A becomes Delegate to Region 1 after being endorsed by Nation B.
It is early update and both drop WA immediatly after. However Nation A has control of Region 1 until next update.
player in Nation A now moves to Nation C and joins WA.
Same thing again with Nation B moving to Nation D and applying WA.
They move in to region2 and Nation C endorsed by Nation D becomes Delegate of the region.
They both drop WA but retain control of Region 2 until the next update.
Same thing happens a 3rd or possibly a 4th time if they are can be bothered.

So 2 players can control multiple regions.

To me this is clear WA abuse but a mod might say different. It is a grey area I would love to have cleared up.
Hope this post is not too confusing.

Edited the subject as wanted to clarify what the thread is about.

You don't expect NS to update every hour? If it did, i'd feel so sorry for the Server

[Improving Wordiness]

Oh no that would crash everything.
Nope just when a nation resigns from the WA and no longer shows as Delegate the Delegate powers should also be removed.
Not knowing how the game works I dont know if this is a realistic request.

[[violet]]

Happy to fix, but I'd like to hear from a couple of gameplayers that this isn't going to eviscerate some essential invasion/defense strategy I'm not aware of.

[Pythria]

I just don't see what's so wrong about it. Why fix something that doesn't need fixing? Has it actually caused problems?

[Improving Wordiness]

Actualy it does impact the invasion / defence.
Currently two nations can hold 3 or more regions.....depending on how much they can be bothered.
Move into a region that updates early, take WAD then resign WA.
Join WA on two fresh puppets, rinse and repeat.....they hold power in all the regions until the next update. Then start the cycle again.
Currently we are seeing quite a bit of this used to invade regions.
Defenders that I know of dont use this tactic as its borderline on the rules. I cant speak for all of them though.
I can name 3 or 4 regions that have been consistantly hit in this manner this week.

It certainly wont stop invasions / defence but it will make it a level playing field.

[Pythria]

Defenders that I know of dont use this tactic as its borderline on the rules. I cant speak for all of them though.

This sounds like less of abuse and more of defenders not taking advantage of a legal tactic.

[Improving Wordiness]

I dont see how removing Delegate powers from a non-WA nation is a bad thing.
Of course if all defenders and all invaders start to use this tactic I imagine the servers would have a melt down.
Instead of two nations switching WA 3 or more times you would see a huge swing upwards......
I know switching is legal and I am not asking for that to be changed. I do believe it to be a grey area that is impossible to police if nations choose to "vote" for a delegate multiple times by switching out. I would have thought one nation , one vote per update *shrugs*

Anywhoo back to delegate powers on Non-Wa nations, your comment earlier about if it aint broke dont fix it.......I believe it is broke.

[Pythria]

I dont see how removing Delegate powers from a non-WA nation is a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

Of course if all defenders and all invaders start to use this tactic I imagine the servers would have a melt down.

Why? It doesn't have to update any more than usual, or keep track of anything extra (the region's going to update anyway, it's not going to make a difference to have a delegate change in that update). Although, I'm not an admin, so I'd appreciate it if [violet] could verify that.

I know switching is legal and I am not asking for that to be changed. I do believe it to be a grey area that is impossible to police if nations choose to "vote" for a delegate multiple times by switching out.

I see where you're coming from there, but as both sides can legally use this, it seems like a non-issue.

[Improving Wordiness]

hmm the server would have to keep track of a lot more nations switching WA.

Imagine two invaders switch during update 4 times to invade 4 regions. You might have 6 defenders online that switch to match them.
Now some days there are a lot more invaders / defenders online. If all of them start to use this tactic it could possibly blow out to hundreds of switchers all in one update.
We need more invaders/ defenders in this thread to contribute. A heck of a lot do not use this tactic at all.
It makes no sense to me that a non-WA should have delegate powers anyway.

[Pythria]

We need more invaders/ defenders in this thread to contribute. A heck of a lot do not use this tactic at all.

I agree, and I am neither. Again, I would like clarification from an admin on whether or not switching causes server load.

[Topid]

I'd like to see it changed also. Although, I admit it was rare to run into a situation where it was abused.

As far as I know, it is even the case that when a nation is ejected from the WA for using multies to raid a region it holds administrator power... (Although I don't recall ever entering one of those regions to test it out... )

[Blue Wolf II]

Happy to fix, but I'd like to hear from a couple of gameplayers that this isn't going to eviscerate some essential invasion/defense strategy I'm not aware of.

Well, I wouldn't call it an essential strategy so much as sneaky and fun to do.

However, I do know of at least one Invader group, known collectively as "The Union" or "The Shamrock Union", that loves to "double dip" and hit multiple targets using the switcher tactic Wordiness mentioned. In fact I highly suspect that this group's recent use of this tactic is what motivated Word to come forward about it.

The capability to do it has been in place for years, its just up until recently, no one has really done it, instead focusing most of their efforts on just one or two raids with the intent to hold the targets for more than just one update.

I personally don't see it as a problem. They worked hard to acquire the target, they are using legal Switcher tactics that Crashers have been using for years, and they are limited in what they can do by influence.

I think its an ingenious tactic, really, allowing even the smallest of Raider regions to go toe to toe with a defender force many times its size.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Happy to fix, but I'd like to hear from a couple of gameplayers that this isn't going to eviscerate some essential invasion/defense strategy I'm not aware of.

i'm sure the raiders would be delighted if the powers were immediately relinquished. Because a region with no founder could immediately go to no delegate and a raider group steps in. Which is why defender groups would like to keep it as it.

[Dyr Nasad]

Happy to fix, but I'd like to hear from a couple of gameplayers that this isn't going to eviscerate some essential invasion/defense strategy I'm not aware of.

i'm sure the raiders would be delighted if the powers were immediately relinquished. Because a region with no founder could immediately go to no delegate and a raider group steps in. Which is why defender groups would like to keep it as it.

Its actually the exact opposite Wordy, a defender, brought this up, and EW, a raider, believes that it is a legitimate tactic that should remain legal

[Improving Wordiness]

hahaha I would panick if EW and I were on the same side of the argument.
Invaders will still have just as much sneaky fun without delegate powers on non-Wa as they do now I imagine.
Defenders will keep chasing them.....this change wont affect Wa nations.

[Evil Wolf]

i'm sure the raiders would be delighted if the powers were immediately relinquished. Because a region with no founder could immediately go to no delegate and a raider group steps in. Which is why defender groups would like to keep it as it.

Eh, not really that useful, to be honest with you. Defenders still exist, they'd have ample time to stop us. It would just be like any normal raid, to be honest. Wouldn't really give us any advantage at all.