Switching WA/ Delegate Powers on non WA

[[violet]]

From the above it appears that the existing behavior is actively used in gameplay, so I'm inclined to leave it alone.

[Ballotonia]

From the above it appears that the existing behavior is actively used in gameplay, so I'm inclined to leave it alone.

Please keep in mind this problem: people voting multiple times in the WA by controlling multiple delegacies with various non-WA nations.

May I suggest an alternative to your solution #1.

You suggested: When a Delegate leaves the WA, she immediately loses Delegate powers. Her votes are withdrawn from any at-vote Resolutions. Her region has no Delegate until the next update. If it is Founderless, this means there is no-one able to kick, ban, password-protect, etc.

My suggestion: When a Delegate leaves the WA, she keeps Delegate powers. Her votes are withdrawn from any at-vote Resolutions, and no further voting in the WA may take place using that nation.

Possible way to implement:
1. Upon leaving the WA remove all WA votes by that nation.
2. Check for all WA voting being done that the nation trying to vote is currently a member of the WA.

Ballotonia

[UNION raiding]

I do say we are honored to have a rule change made because we have won frequently.

We have pledged to play fair and within the rules. We shall deal with the changes.

What does it take to restore a long dead and forgotten FOUNDER, I seen this happen a few times lately. (I'm just saying.)

[Improving Wordiness]

When someone leaves the WA they are no longer entitled to Delegate powers. How does it make sense to leave it that way? It they want to retain controls they should not leave the WA.
Might as well say ok all you NON-Wa nations might as well have a go at being delegate as well.
My main point was one person having control of multiple regions.

[Kalibarr]

When someone leaves the WA they are no longer entitled to Delegate powers. How does it make sense to leave it that way? It they want to retain controls they should not leave the WA.
Might as well say ok all you NON-Wa nations might as well have a go at being delegate as well.
My main point was one person having control of multiple regions.

Yes, and people are using that as a military strategy, which boosts the activity level of gameplay which should be good for all of us.

[Improving Wordiness]

Exept of course the regions they invade using this tactic. Fact is they can still use that switching trick....removing WAD powers from non-WA is not going to stop or hinder them much.

[UNION raiding]

Most likely not. We really have little interest in WA or WASC votes, they seemed skewed anyway. But I see the Potential abuse it is not fair to exploit that. I am sure less honorable people do exploit this.

It is highly unlikely we will PW a region, request a founder be restored, yet I see it happen.

Like those posting stated we believe in the Raider/Defender sub-Game. It is a great activity when played straight up at equal advantage.

[Jedi-Gangsters]

I'm against any change whatsoever. I'm a defender and have been working against the Union's tactics (they seem to be the ones doing the switching and holding multiple regions at one update) and it has been great fun defending and adding a new dynamic and renewed activity.

I see absolutely no problem with how things are run now. The only issue i'd have is if the WA resigned from the delegate but can still vote on WA issues. If the same player has controlled several regions at one update but resigned and did it legally each time, but can still vote and influence voting from all the nations/delegates then their is a problem. (I saw someone post this but cannot remember if it was addressed)

Apart from that I have no problem with how the raiders are able to access the delegate controls if they aren't in the WA. Defenders only have to liberate it, or wait until after update to move in. So yeah no need to change any rules.

I fully agree with Wopruthien for the reasons he has stated. It is nice to see renewed activity on the raider side of the game, and in effect this has created more activity for defenders.

When someone leaves the WA they are no longer entitled to Delegate powers. How does it make sense to leave it that way? It they want to retain controls they should not leave the WA.
Might as well say ok all you NON-Wa nations might as well have a go at being delegate as well.
My main point was one person having control of multiple regions.

I am shocked you are advocating so hard for this. Raiding has already suffered enough blows from past game changes, we need to not change this and leave it alone. Raiding has been stagnant for a long time and this is the first sign of real life in some time. Without raiding then as defenders we have no real role in this game.

It is nice to see The Union being so active. I haven't activelty defended this much in ages.

Exept of course the regions they invade using this tactic. Fact is they can still use that switching trick....removing WAD powers from non-WA is not going to stop or hinder them much.

You can see the same mechanics against them. Have you realized that? As I stated in my previous post. I cleared a regio the union had raided, but had to switch my WA status. But, I was still able to watch that region and ban any invaders until the next update.

[Crazy girl]

Hello. Nice to see staff listening to us these days

There is another option to help the invasion game. Turn back the "only one update per nation per cycle" thing. That ruined a lot for us.

Non-WA members still having WA delegate access...that's simply illogical. Plus I'll add this: when the regional happenings are bumped off, and there is no delegate listed...and yet there is a non WA WA delegate nation...just not listed...seems a tad silly. You can't see it's there, but it's there. It's WA and yet it's not. Weirdness. Yes, I had too much sugar.

[Wopruthien]

I think the way the gameplay is right now is fine.

The switching of WA's is annoying but not a big issue, and something that adds a dynamic to the game. Plus you will get abuse of people moving around updating multiple times to increase people's population which will inflict on the RP side of the game.

Allowing non WA's to keep their WAD controls means defenders have to work to control a region against these new tactics. It is widely perceived (although there is no figures to back this up) that defenders have more numbers than raiders. Especially with the Union who only raids with 2 nations. They hit multiple targets by legally switching their nations and hitting a new target.

As such next update we have to liberate the region. Each update we have more numbers than them alone, if we take away non WA WAD powers until the next update, the defence would be a forgone conclusion as we defenders would rush in and vastly out number the 2 raiders. By allowing them to control the WAD with their non WA we have to work and pinpoint the exact time when we can move and liberate the region from an active delegate. It is far more exciting and rewarding this way.

I defend for lots of reasons ideological as do many others, but what keeps me defending is the fun and excitement that I get from defending and engaging in a war with the raiders. That is what keeps me coming back to the game and taking away the Non WA WAD controls you take away a bit more of the fun and excitement that I and I know a few more gain from the new raider tactics.

[Unibot]

From the above it appears that the existing behavior is actively used in gameplay, so I'm inclined to leave it alone.

Please keep in mind this problem: people voting multiple times in the WA by controlling multiple delegacies with various non-WA nations.

Would that work? Resolutions finish at the beginning of update.

[Ballotonia]

Would that work? Resolutions finish at the beginning of update.

No, cause then people would still have multiple votes from the prior update.

Ballotonia

[[violet]]

There is another option to help the invasion game. Turn back the "only one update per nation per cycle" thing. That ruined a lot for us.

Start a new thread and argue your case!

[Crazy girl]

Hmm...should I make it a nice long story like my "missed me" thread?

[UNION raiding]

*chuckle * another advantage to the Fendas, how typical. The Fendas could just practice train and get better IS the true Raider/Fenda SubGame.

I did notice today a fenda arrived and "magically" had a large influence.

[Crazy girl]

Actually, it could benefit both sides. Simply does away with the hassle of switching all the time and taking up a gazillion names

I remember both sides screaming when it was changed in the first place too

edit: or did you mean the original proposal? That was suggested before..a long time before The Union even existed.

[CommiesUnited]

Actually, it could benefit both sides. Simply does away with the hassle of switching all the time and taking up a gazillion names

I remember both sides screaming when it was changed in the first place too

edit: or did you mean the original proposal? That was suggested before..a long time before The Union even existed.

I assume his statement refers to Wordy's proposal. Which I am still against.

[Bounty Bertie]

Bumping per Sedge. Here's the other thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=167351

Nearly 5 years on, same issue, same proposed solution. The summit has got nothing on this

On a related but slightly different note:

<snip>
Executive Delegate powers are lost at the moment WA is dropped.

Admin has seriously considered this recently (just a few months ago) - it's a change we are willing to make. It belongs in a separate thread to this, though I acknowledge it's strongly related to the impact ROs will have on tagging. I'd suggest either posting a new thread, or reviving the old thread on this (it's buried somewhere in Technical). It's likely that we'd want to take a look at how tagging changes under ROs first, but I would really recommend not giving up on this suggestion.

As I see it, there is no difference between doing this, and having multies over an update (that don't vote on WA proposals). Set your WA nations up in the target regions in advance and just wait for update to roll through to elect you OR switch WAs and move in to end up with the same net result. Eist mentioned somewhere (maybe one of these threads) about 'multying through time' - because really, that's what this is.

As an example, have nations A and B in the WA, owned by player C.

Nation A is defending region A, which updates at 12:30 [but it's only 12:00]. They are endorsing some native delegate.
Player C, now logs-out of nation A, and logs into nation B.
Player C does a lib in region B, which updates at 12:15, with nation B.
Update passes, player C has updated in two regions, and contributed an endorsement and influence gain to both.


Which is no different to:

Player C logs into nation B, makes it join the WA.
Nation B participates in a liberation in region B, which updates at 12:15.
Player C resigns nation B from the WA, and joins the WA on nation A.
Nation A participates in a defence of region A, which updates at 12:30.
Update passes, player C has updated in two regions, and contributed an endorsement and influence gain to both.

[Cora II]

Why gravedig?!

Important question here is that would elected executive delegate lose only executive powers over a region, or also delegate position when resigning from WA?

[The Blaatschapen]

Why gravedig?!

It was directly suggested by Sedge to maybe gravedig this.

Thus it was done

[Bounty Bertie]

Important question here is that would elected executive delegate lose only executive powers over a region, or also delegate position when resigning from WA?

The idea is that the delegate will lose access to the regional admin page once they have resigned from the WA (in a similar way to how multies can no longer access the admin page after being ejected). This would prevent those nations from performing all admin tasks. I imagine however that the nation will still appear to be delegate on the region page (as currently happens).

[Cora II]

Why gravedig?!

It was directly suggested by Sedge to maybe gravedig this.

Thus it was done

Ok. Then...

Scenarios and implications to raiding:

A) A nation elected to executive delegate loses only executive powers in a region when resigning from WA.

1. Forces do "tags" immediately after election if its intention to do multiple raids, limiting amount of raids possible in a single update by pointmen
2. or Requiring rejoining to WA with delegate puppets after update

B) A nation elected to executive delegate loses both executive powers and delegate position in a region when resigning from WA.

1. Forces do "tags" immediately after election if its intention to do multiple raids, limiting amount of raids possible in a single update by pointmen
2. Kills best prospects of future evolution of R/D

[Topid]

It is nonsensical that the same player can hold the delegacy of 20 regions at once. I know [V] said toward the end of the last thread that holding a position after you've announced your resignation is pretty standard, and I agree with it in normal circumstances but it is not normal to hold a position in dozens of different companies and governments all at the same time (whether you've quit or not). That is how this quirk is usually used by taggers, the same two players hold the delegacy of many regions at the end of an update.

In the case of a long-serving regional delegate that is leaving the WA I agree that it makes sense the way it currently works, but I think since taggers do this hundreds of times each week (or they did last time I was active) I'd say most of the times when this happens it falls in the 'makes no sense' category. I'd like to see WA delegates lose powers on resigning the WA. If a native delegate wants to keep his/her powers right up until update they have the option of 1) waiting to resign until update starts (if they aren't going to be online losing powers wouldn't hurt them anyway, can't use executive powers while offline) or losing the seat by temporarily moving regions instead of by resignation. It seems the only reason to keep this oddity around is because it lets people have WA control over many regions at one time.

@Cora: You should not be able to rejoin the WA later to get your powers back. That defeats the whole point of the chagne and adds extra work to taggers, if taggers can do that just leave the system alone.

[Bounty Bertie]

@Cora

As you allude to, situation A would lead to what we currently have - just more work for you re-joining the WA on pups (if you chose to go down that route). Situation B would have the desired effect of preventing the 'multying through time' that happens when a single player can be - and retain - executive delegate powers over several regions.

[Cora II]

@Cora: You should not be able to rejoin the WA later to get your powers back. That defeats the whole point of the chagne and adds extra work to taggers, if taggers can do that just leave the system alone.

Don't forget that situation would be symmetrical for defender detaggers too.