[Change #4] Annex

[Capisaria]

so will this change ever take place?

^^

[Sedgistan]

Yes, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. Don't ask stupid questions.

[Capisaria]

Just a bit impatient. Is there an ETA?

[Eluvatar]

Just a bit impatient. Is there an ETA?

No.

[Canton Empire]

Since your rejiggering of the system and the rift theme is both done, can we expect this to be implemented soon?

[Mousebumples]

Since your rejiggering of the system and the rift theme is both done, can we expect this to be implemented soon?

It will be done when it's done, and it will be announced when it's done. This is not news, and this is also not the only project [v] and our other techies are working on.

The status of other projects is irrelevant to the status of this project.

[Evil Wolf]

I think, Mousebumples, that people are just disappointed that there was so much hype around these changes happening and yet it's been so long with absolutely no updates.

It's rather disheartening to see. Even a minor "no seriously, we are working on it" from the ADMIN team would be better than the wall of silence we've been subject to for nearly two years.

[Mousebumples]

I think, Mousebumples, that people are just disappointed that there was so much hype around these changes happening and yet it's been so long with absolutely no updates.

It's rather disheartening to see. Even a minor "no seriously, we are working on it" from the ADMIN team would be better than the wall of silence we've been subject to for nearly two years.

I'm not an admin. I have no idea what the status is on these any more than you guys do. (other than "in progress," which - again - is what you guys know) It is being worked on, but like Fris said here, we don't have an ETA because the techies don't know how long it will take to code up workable solutions to fit what the Summit covered.

[Galiantus II]

I think I have an idea that both raiders/invaders and defenders could agree with:

One of the major problems with the current system of R/D is how completely one side can "win" battles without seeing consequences afterwards. I think a possible solution to this could involve this annexation idea, but with a little bit of a spin.

The main problem here stems from the fact that only one side at a time can have a "foothold" in a particular region. I think a great way to implement the annexation idea for use by both sides would be with a "Viceroy", "Annexation Officer" or "Security Officer" position involved in annexing, coupled with my own "immunization" idea.

Annexation Officers

When the wait time necessary to annex is complete, the annexing regional delegate or founder would then be allowed to appoint any one of the WA nations in the annexed region endorsing the delegate - or the WA delegate himself - as the "Annexation Officer" of the region. The Annexation Officer would have no power unless these conditions are met:

1. The delegate proposing annexation is no longer the delegate.
2. No nation that was endorsing the delegate proposing annexation (during the update he proposed annexation) is the delegate.

This creates a recognition of the two "parties" contending for the region, which is necessary to help prevent the Annexation Officer's powers from stacking on top of the delegate's powers, which would create imbalance, rather than balance. Here is a list of the Annexation Officer's powers:

1. The annexation officer would be immune to ejection from the region as long as the annexation was in place.
2. The annexation officer could spend influence to give other nations ejection immunity. The cost of this would be in reverse, however: the higher the influence of the nation, the lower the cost of immunity, and the lower the influence of the nation, the higher the cost. Only nations which had been through an update could be given immunity.
3. The annexation officer could eject and ban nations which have been in the region for one update or no updates, for the normal influence cost. He would have access to and manage his own ban list, which could not be altered by the regional delegate. The annexation officer could not, however, edit the Delegate's list. The Annex Officer could also eject or ban nations he gave immunity to.
4. Sole RMB suppression rights, sole control of the flag, and access to a few lines added to the bottom of the WFE.

The Annexation Officer would have the following limitations:
1. He could not eject/ban any nation that was already in the region when annexation occurred.
2. He could not add or remove tags.
3. If he leaves the region or leaves the WA, he loses the position of annexation officer, as well as immunity to ejection.

This essentially creates multiple sealed-off groups in the region, with powers designed to antagonize each other. It also makes it difficult for new nations to enter the region and for either side to reinforce if an Annex Officer is online during the update.

I should also mention that multiple annexations could occur at once, from opposing organizations, but only the annexation officer with the most influence could access control of the annexation section of the WFE, suppress the RMB, or establish a flag.

Raiders would use this because it provides them security in an invasion and allows them to exercise annoying control of regions, even when they don’t control them.

Defenders would use this because it allows them to provide defense to natives, without having any meaningful power in the region until a change in the delegacy. (However, there might need to be a different “flavor” of annexation for this to work effectively as a protection pact)

Coups would use this when they could gain outsider support

--

Removing an Annexation

Removing an annexation would simply require coordination on the part of natives, and would be closely tied to their influence. The majority of natives have more regional influence than any occupying force, but the current system does not allow them the opportunity to use it. If natives could use it to free themselves from annexes, I think it would be extremely valuable.

All nations in an annexed region would have the option to set their nation to revolt against an annex at the next update. However, to be successful, this would require that a certain percentage of the WA nations in the region do so, that a certain percentage of the influence in the region is involved, and that this all happens on the same update. Typically, defenders would provide the number of WA nations necessary for success, while natives would provide the influence. Every nation involved would expend influence at the update.

The success of a revolt would result in the annex going through a withdrawal process for the same amount of time it takes an embassy to be withdrawn. Immediately, the annex officer would lose the ability to eject or ban nations with influence. At the end of the annex withdrawal, the Annex Officer and any of his supporting troops would lose all other power and immunity. An occupying force could potentially respond to this by trying to take back the delegate seat and cancel the revolt, but I think in most cases this will fail. Thus, natives could play a significant role in fighting an annexation.

Failure to revolt would result in a smaller amount of spent influence for those attempting revolt, and a few of the less-influential nations who attempted revolt (basically defenders) would become available for the Annex Officer to eject/ban at normal influence cost.

--

Maintaining an Annexation

This system would lead to scenarios in which invaders lose delegate control of a region, but afterwards maintain some control. An annexing region could maintain presence within the region with relatively few soldiers once their presence in the region became established enough. The natives could continue going about their business, but if the annexing region ever decided they want to enforce some of their own ideas and remove potential revolt threats, they could do so through subsequent, short invasions, without losing the annex.

--

Some of you may think this idea will simply lead to a never-ending stalemate in some regions. I do not think this will happen, though in some cases it will delay the outcome. Since an annex officer only has power as long as his team does not hold the delegate seat, power can fluctuate between the defender annex and the raider annex, making it partially a competition between annex officers and delegates. Native governments with good organization and trust for each other will quickly sway the outcome in their favor once defenders take the region back, while natives with poor organization and mutual trust will seal their own demise despite help from defenders.

The only thing which must be added to make this idea complete is a way for delegates to be opposed in situations where invaders don't have to fall back on annexing or might go for a refound. Defenders might have an idea how this might be done, but that would have to be discussed in a different thread.

It may also be worth establishing a setup to make refounding even more impossible and setting the expectation of using annexation to control invaded regions, but again, that might be reserved for a different thread.

[Land filled with People]

This is really complex, and it seems that the problem you're trying to fix (occupations being endgames) could be fixed better by some variation of delegate-elect.

The Annexation Officer would have no power unless these conditions are met:

1. The delegate proposing annexation is no longer the delegate.
2. No nation that was endorsing the delegate proposing annexation (during the update he proposed annexation) is the delegate.

...

This system would lead to scenarios in which invaders lose delegate control of a region, but afterwards maintain some control.

Except here it wouldn't:

Raiders endorse 3 nations. First is the delegate, second is the annexing officer, third is the delegate-to-be.
On the chosen update, the delegate-to-be withdraws its endorsement from the sitting delegate. The delegate appoints the annexing officer.
Next update, the sitting delegate resigns WA/update surfs/whatever to let the delegate-to-be become delegate.
Raiders now have two nations that can ban incoming defender liberators, two pools of influence to spend, an increasing number of unejectable nations, and they never lost control of the delegate seat.

[Galiantus II]

This is really complex, and it seems that the problem you're trying to fix (occupations being endgames) could be fixed better by some variation of delegate-elect.

The Annexation Officer would have no power unless these conditions are met:

1. The delegate proposing annexation is no longer the delegate.
2. No nation that was endorsing the delegate proposing annexation (during the update he proposed annexation) is the delegate.

...

This system would lead to scenarios in which invaders lose delegate control of a region, but afterwards maintain some control.

Except here it wouldn't:

Raiders endorse 3 nations. First is the delegate, second is the annexing officer, third is the delegate-to-be.
On the chosen update, the delegate-to-be withdraws its endorsement from the sitting delegate. The delegate appoints the annexing officer.
Next update, the sitting delegate resigns WA/update surfs/whatever to let the delegate-to-be become delegate.
Raiders now have two nations that can ban incoming defender liberators, two pools of influence to spend, an increasing number of unejectable nations, and they never lost control of the delegate seat.

Thank you for pointing that out, although by my second requirement for the Annexing Officer to have power makes the specific situation not work. However, you are absolutely right: raiders/invaders could still hold back an extra guy to get around the system.

The game needs a simple way of identifying annex groups, and I already identified the nations endorsing the annex-proposing delegate as part of that group. Perhaps we could say that if over 50% of a delegate's endorsements were coming from a specific annex group, that delegate is part of that annex group?

Also, I did not notice until you pointed it out that this is basically taking the delegate elect and regional officers ideas and applying them the annex idea.

[Evil Wolf]

The game needs a simple way of identifying annex groups, and I already identified the nations endorsing the annex-proposing delegate as part of that group. Perhaps we could say that if over 50% of a delegate's endorsements were coming from a specific annex group, that delegate is part of that annex group?

Except it's near impossible for the game to determine that, seeing as we all use puppets. Hell, it would pretty hard for a even Game Mod to determine that.

I have to agree with Land, this seems needlessly complex. Besides, with all the proposed changes to gameplay, this seems to be literally the only one coming from this Summit that seems even remotely pro-raider. All the other proposed changes, if implemented, will be total pro-defender overkill "balance out" the game, so additional rules and restrictions to the Annex Proposal, if it's ever implemented, are unneeded.

[Mousebumples]

Except it's near impossible for the game to determine that, seeing as we all use puppets. Hell, it would pretty hard for a even Game Mod to determine that.

And all of the GMs that were around pre-influence have said time and again that they/we will not go back to having to "judge" raids/invasions.

Any changes need to be automated/judged by the computer system.

[United States of Natan]

I think I have an idea that both raiders/invaders and defenders could agree with:

One of the major problems with the current system of R/D is how completely one side can "win" battles without seeing consequences afterwards. I think a possible solution to this could involve this annexation idea, but with a little bit of a spin.

The main problem here stems from the fact that only one side at a time can have a "foothold" in a particular region. I think a great way to implement the annexation idea for use by both sides would be with a "Viceroy", "Annexation Officer" or "Security Officer" position involved in annexing, coupled with my own "immunization" idea.

Annexation Officers

When the wait time necessary to annex is complete, the annexing regional delegate or founder would then be allowed to appoint any one of the WA nations in the annexed region endorsing the delegate - or the WA delegate himself - as the "Annexation Officer" of the region. The Annexation Officer would have no power unless these conditions are met:

1. The delegate proposing annexation is no longer the delegate.
2. No nation that was endorsing the delegate proposing annexation (during the update he proposed annexation) is the delegate.

This creates a recognition of the two "parties" contending for the region, which is necessary to help prevent the Annexation Officer's powers from stacking on top of the delegate's powers, which would create imbalance, rather than balance. Here is a list of the Annexation Officer's powers:

1. The annexation officer would be immune to ejection from the region as long as the annexation was in place.
2. The annexation officer could spend influence to give other nations ejection immunity. The cost of this would be in reverse, however: the higher the influence of the nation, the lower the cost of immunity, and the lower the influence of the nation, the higher the cost. Only nations which had been through an update could be given immunity.
3. The annexation officer could eject and ban nations which have been in the region for one update or no updates, for the normal influence cost. He would have access to and manage his own ban list, which could not be altered by the regional delegate. The annexation officer could not, however, edit the Delegate's list. The Annex Officer could also eject or ban nations he gave immunity to.
4. Sole RMB suppression rights, sole control of the flag, and access to a few lines added to the bottom of the WFE.

The Annexation Officer would have the following limitations:
1. He could not eject/ban any nation that was already in the region when annexation occurred.
2. He could not add or remove tags.
3. If he leaves the region or leaves the WA, he loses the position of annexation officer, as well as immunity to ejection.

This essentially creates multiple sealed-off groups in the region, with powers designed to antagonize each other. It also makes it difficult for new nations to enter the region and for either side to reinforce if an Annex Officer is online during the update.

I should also mention that multiple annexations could occur at once, from opposing organizations, but only the annexation officer with the most influence could access control of the annexation section of the WFE, suppress the RMB, or establish a flag.

Raiders would use this because it provides them security in an invasion and allows them to exercise annoying control of regions, even when they don’t control them.

Defenders would use this because it allows them to provide defense to natives, without having any meaningful power in the region until a change in the delegacy. (However, there might need to be a different “flavor” of annexation for this to work effectively as a protection pact)

Coups would use this when they could gain outsider support

--

Removing an Annexation

Removing an annexation would simply require coordination on the part of natives, and would be closely tied to their influence. The majority of natives have more regional influence than any occupying force, but the current system does not allow them the opportunity to use it. If natives could use it to free themselves from annexes, I think it would be extremely valuable.

All nations in an annexed region would have the option to set their nation to revolt against an annex at the next update. However, to be successful, this would require that a certain percentage of the WA nations in the region do so, that a certain percentage of the influence in the region is involved, and that this all happens on the same update. Typically, defenders would provide the number of WA nations necessary for success, while natives would provide the influence. Every nation involved would expend influence at the update.

The success of a revolt would result in the annex going through a withdrawal process for the same amount of time it takes an embassy to be withdrawn. Immediately, the annex officer would lose the ability to eject or ban nations with influence. At the end of the annex withdrawal, the Annex Officer and any of his supporting troops would lose all other power and immunity. An occupying force could potentially respond to this by trying to take back the delegate seat and cancel the revolt, but I think in most cases this will fail. Thus, natives could play a significant role in fighting an annexation.

Failure to revolt would result in a smaller amount of spent influence for those attempting revolt, and a few of the less-influential nations who attempted revolt (basically defenders) would become available for the Annex Officer to eject/ban at normal influence cost.

--

Maintaining an Annexation

This system would lead to scenarios in which invaders lose delegate control of a region, but afterwards maintain some control. An annexing region could maintain presence within the region with relatively few soldiers once their presence in the region became established enough. The natives could continue going about their business, but if the annexing region ever decided they want to enforce some of their own ideas and remove potential revolt threats, they could do so through subsequent, short invasions, without losing the annex.

--

Some of you may think this idea will simply lead to a never-ending stalemate in some regions. I do not think this will happen, though in some cases it will delay the outcome. Since an annex officer only has power as long as his team does not hold the delegate seat, power can fluctuate between the defender annex and the raider annex, making it partially a competition between annex officers and delegates. Native governments with good organization and trust for each other will quickly sway the outcome in their favor once defenders take the region back, while natives with poor organization and mutual trust will seal their own demise despite help from defenders.

The only thing which must be added to make this idea complete is a way for delegates to be opposed in situations where invaders don't have to fall back on annexing or might go for a refound. Defenders might have an idea how this might be done, but that would have to be discussed in a different thread.

It may also be worth establishing a setup to make refounding even more impossible and setting the expectation of using annexation to control invaded regions, but again, that might be reserved for a different thread.

The annexation officer should be called the governor

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

EDIT: IGNORE THIS - SUMMARISED IN LATER POST
This is not the proper ideas post.

What about this?

(Yes, I know this hasn't been looked at for a bit, but here goes)

Annexing would be controlled (as in the WA delegate of the annexed region is the only one who can start the annexation process) by the WA delegate (founder can unannex at any time). Region A, the Evil Imperialist Legion, invades Region B, the Cute Fluffy Bunnyland. Region A appoints a puppet as the WA delegate. After gaining control of the region, and kicking out the vocal minority opposing the Annexation, Region A sets their eye on a different region, and requires their WA's for it. They decide to annex the region, and rely on native support to keep control of the region.

Annexing the region (a process that takes just over a week (15 updates) and requires the same amount of influence as a password) allows the Imperialist puppet delegate to resign from the WA, but retain th
e benefits of a WA delegate. The puppet, now non-WA, would be still able to receive endorsements, and would remain the delegate of the region until either another nation with an equal number of endorsements and more influence, or another nation with a larger number of endorsements replace them.

The WA voting power (delegate votes) of the region would be transferred to the delegate of the annexing region, or if there was no delegate in the annexing region, the delegate votes would be unusable.

To unannex, either the Imperialist region decides to free the region, which either the Founder or Delegate of the Imperialist region can start the process (takes 15 updates) or the WA delegate of the annexed region can decide to declare independence (takes 15 updates). The mechanic would work like embassies, where only Region A can cancel the process if Region A initiates, and only Region B can cancel the process if Region B initiates. The Founder of the annexed region can decide to unannex, and this would happen immediately.

If the region has no WA delegate, the region remains annexed. If the annexing region either leaves the region, or CTE's, the 15 update countdown is started, and the annexer has to either return to the region, and regain WA delegate control to stop the countdown (no other WA delegate can do this) or the region is unannexed.

TLDR: Annexing gives a free immovable WA that gains 1/2 speed influence, with normal WA power (except votes, moved onto annexing region) allowing the player to move their own WA to other regions (or endorse themselves in the annexed region). Also place in the region history page, and big letters at the top saying Annexed by Blah in the annexed region, and the annexing region has a list of annexed regions. Hard to annex, hard to unannex. Transfers WA votes to the annexer regions delegate.

Thoughts on this? (Except the terrible explanations, they came together while I was writing it)

[Canton Empire]

I really like this idea

[Valrifell]

How would anyone know when the opposing region had withdrawn? The Game cannot distinguish between natives and invaders, it's really hard especially with infiltration, as was the issue with enforcing raiding as trolling.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

EDIT: IGNORE THIS - SUMMARISED IN LATER POST

How would anyone know when the opposing region had withdrawn? The Game cannot distinguish between natives and invaders, it's really hard especially with infiltration, as was the issue with enforcing raiding as trolling.

The beauty of this that it would be like a normal delegacy, just allow the Imperialist power to not commit a single WA there if they have a friendly native (people who were there before, and hopefully willing to have their WA in the region), yet still have the benefit of WA Delegate Executive controls (I'm not sure what would happen in a Non-Executive WA situation, would the Annexing override that or not)

[Land filled with People]

It's bad enough that a single player can become delegate (and retain their powers) in 40+ regions each update, without keeping their WA there, this would just serve to make multi-ing even more legal.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

EDIT: IGNORE THIS - SUMMARISED IN LATER POST

It's bad enough that a single player can become delegate (and retain their powers) in 40+ regions each update, without keeping their WA there, this would just serve to make multi-ing even more legal.

It wouldn't really be multi-ing. There would be a puppet who has the majority of the privileges of a WA member within the region, that would be holding control of the region. This way, instead of a refound, the region could remain active, and able to remain in play, keeping the region's nations and culture, just under a different banner. This thread is about improving the R/D game rather than removing parts of it, and removing the ability to switch WA's would be severely detrimental to the R/D game. Also tag raiding - although technically possible to have it in far more than 40+ regions each update, in practice, it is usually far less than that, due to teaching, screw ups, starting late and target finding.

[Land filled with People]

Sure, it's not "technically" multi-ing, however you're retaining WA privileges without being in the WA, I don't really see the difference. Once again, there's nothing stopping someone from having executive powers over several regions, without having WA status there - only this wouldn't require switching every update, just kicking anyone new that joined.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

EDIT: IGNORE THIS - SUMMARISED IN LATER POST

Sure, it's not "technically" multi-ing, however you're retaining WA privileges without being in the WA, I don't really see the difference. Once again, there's nothing stopping someone from having executive powers over several regions, without having WA status there - only this wouldn't require switching every update, just kicking anyone new that joined.

0 influence puppets, you do have a point, but that would be like a normal defence against a liberation/raid, where the aim is to kick as many as you can before the update. Realistically, the kicking anyone new that joined could happen WA delegate or not, the annexation proposal is promoting keeping the region, which otherwise would not happen due to the invaders WA being stuck indefinitely.

Kicking everyone new who joined would also require logging in every update to the nation just before update time. The differences between the WA delegate Governor position and a normal WA delegate is that the Governor would have a half rate influence gain (unless they devoted their WA to the nation) - which would protect older native nations from being banjected, which is the purpose of having an annexation (to protect the community) ability.

[Land filled with People]

0 influence puppets, you do have a point, but that would be like a normal defence against a liberation/raid, where the aim is to kick as many as you can before the update. Realistically, the kicking anyone new that joined could happen WA delegate or not, the annexation proposal is promoting keeping the region, which otherwise would not happen due to the invaders WA being stuck indefinitely.

I don't understand the last bit. Freeing up raider WAs generally leads to more raids, not less.

Kicking everyone new who joined would also require logging in every update to the nation just before update time. The differences between the WA delegate Governor position and a normal WA delegate is that the Governor would have a half rate influence gain (unless they devoted their WA to the nation) - which would protect older native nations from being banjected, which is the purpose of having an annexation (to protect the community) ability.

Kicking new people doesn't take any influence, so influence gain is irrelevant.
How does annexing protect a community? It's forcibly taking one over and imposing your own WA-not-required ruler.

[Valrifell]

The annex feature isn't intended to reduce the number of raids, just the severity of them.

His interpretation protects the community because instead of kicking every native to refound, it would be far more appealing to just go for an annex. Would certainly take less valuable influence that way. So, the damage is less severe.

Though I do think more than a half influence rate could be done to balance it a bit more, perhaps by limiting the banlist even more?

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

EDIT: IGNORE THIS - SUMMARISED IN LATER POST

The annex feature isn't intended to reduce the number of raids, just the severity of them.

His interpretation protects the community because instead of kicking every native to refound, it would be far more appealing to just go for an annex. Would certainly take less valuable influence that way. So, the damage is less severe.

Though I do think more than a half influence rate could be done to balance it a bit more, perhaps by limiting the banlist even more?

What about the password is visible to natives, which means that the Governor actually has to please the natives, rather than just conquering. Otherwise, the password would be leaked to the Annexing regions enemies. Of course, it would make have sleepers inside regions more desirable, and increase the whole intel game rather than just TGing the delegate for a password.

Limiting the Ban List - I haven't been a proper delegate (only really tag raiding and support), so I'm not exactly sure what would be a suitable limit, if there is a limit already, and what the impacts of that would be, so I'll cede to someone more knowledgeable on that front.

I'm not really sure if going below half the normal influence rate would make it practical to hold a region, and annexing would mean that the region would be open to attack, unlike a refound.