[Change #3] Regional Officers

[Bodobol]

There's no reason why the RO should have to be a WA nation.

Non-WA nations play a big part in regions too.

Non WA nations are slow to gain influence, and would therefore be limited. Not that they couldn't be useful in tasks that don't require influence, but it is somewhat limiting.

As a thought, should being an RO be added to the influence calculation? At present, only time and endorsements add to influence. They'd obviously be influential in the traditional sense, so would it make sense to offer them actual Influence as part of their remit? I have no idea if this is practical, but I thought I'd toss it out.

I could see that working, but it couldn't be a monumental bonus. As long as the Delegate is still gaining more influence than the RO, I'd be okay with it.

[All Good People]

Just my two cents, but it seems to me that if it costs me Influence in order to appoint a Regional Officer.....I'm not going to appoint any regional officers. I'm not going to waste precious Influence to do that.

I can see the arguement to have it cost more Influence for Regional Officers to use Regional Controls.....but it also makes sense that the cost of an action should be the same regardless of who is taking that action. Or could there be an option where the Delegate could have some control over that cost ? An option to have the Regional Officer charged 'standard' rates or 'double' rates. Different regions might want to have different policies on this if it could be implimented.

[Ravania Prima]

Just my two cents, but it seems to me that if it costs me Influence in order to appoint a Regional Officer.....I'm not going to appoint any regional officers. I'm not going to waste precious Influence to do that.

Why not you lose that influence anyways after six months...

I like this change the most. This gives natives a fighting-chance in the R/D battle

[All Good People]

I already have things to spend Influence on. I don't have a Founder to back me up in a GCR, only my Influence. I'll keep trusted high Influence/high endorsement nations that are active available to slingshot into the Delegacy to give them regional control if needed, rather than waste my Influence.

[Kanaia]

I think ROs should have to have WA, especially if they get a influence bonus.
If there is no WA requirement, we will have a very small amount of people controlling and holding all the positions of power in the largest regions, NS will become even more cosmopolitan than it is right now.

[Cerian Quilor]

I think the existing distribution of power dynamics across regions will prevent that just fine.

[People United Together]

Would ROs appointed by the delegate be able to eject the delegate? Also, I imagine a clever RO would be able to maneuver for the delegacy by ejecting the delegate's endorsers, but keeping their own. Food for thought.

[Cerian Quilor]

I would assume that's a matter of trust then.

[Topid]

As far as griefing is concerned, I see this being a problem.. If a small userite is raided and ROs can be given the power to eject, two or three sleepers now have 3 times the punch they used to have. And if you can make your own puppets to be ROs, or several puppets of someone else, then that seems to me to be as bad as multying. For these reasons it seems to me they should have an influence cost, at least if they are given the power to eject/ban or password.

If the only power an RO was given was WFE/Flag/RMB, things that don't already cost influence, appointing them shouldn't cost influence.

[Punk Reloaded]

I already have things to spend Influence on. I don't have a Founder to back me up in a GCR, only my Influence. I'll keep trusted high Influence/high endorsement nations that are active available to slingshot into the Delegacy to give them regional control if needed, rather than waste my Influence.

I really think in the early days of this, creating a 'goon squad' of ROs will be worth the temporary loss of some influence. It allows the goon squad to expend influence while the delegate can continue to amass influence and use it sparingly while his goons do much of the influence draining activities.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I really think in the early days of this, creating a 'goon squad' of ROs will be worth the temporary loss of some influence. It allows the goon squad to expend influence while the delegate can continue to amass influence and use it sparingly while his goons do much of the influence draining activities.

However, the system would need to be implemented in such a way that the WAD can't create so many ROs that, between him and his ROs, he has a virtually unlimited pool of influence to draw from.

Even though non WA puppets can't garner much influence, a horde of them, over time (short term loss, long term gain), would be an unstoppable force against an invasion, as between them all they'd have enough influence to eject virtually all invaders.

I think that the RO's definitely should not be able to access regional controls once the delegate that appoints them is ejected, to remedy this (this seems like a popular idea anyway though, from what I've been reading). That and a limit on the number of RO's would be a nice short term loss with a long term gain, but not so much of a gain that it breaks the system.

[Leutria]

Perhaps the number of ROs that can be appointed could be tied to the number of endos the Delegate has?

[The Black Hat Guy]

Perhaps the number of ROs that can be appointed could be tied to the number of endos the Delegate has?

That's interesting. On one hand, it seems reasonable that the more endorsements (or influence, I suppose) a delegate has, the more ROs he/she would be able to support. On the other hand, it seems like making powerful delegates even more powerful may not be a great idea.

Still, if such a thing were to be implemented, it would have to have a reasonable minimum and maximum. Smaller delegates should still be able to appoint a couple ROs, and the huge feeder delegates shouldn't be able to have dozens.

[Mousebumples]

I would suggest a cap on the number of RO's that could be appointed - perhaps a limit of 5 or 1% of the regional population, whichever is greater. This allows ginormous regions to have a larger staff of regional officers - for example, a 1500 member region could have up to 15 regional officers. Seems like overkill to me - but my region is generally 30 or less people.

I would probably also encourage a tighter still limit on the banning powers - perhaps only another one or two individuals outside of the WAD/Founder. While endless amounts of popcorn-worthy entertainment will likely be generated from giving half the region ban powers, it seems unnecessary (and unwise) to trust such a wide array of nations with such abilities.

Without limiting the regional officers count, I'm sure we'll see regions where every resident nation is listed - much how certain regions like to collect embassies, someone will want to have the most regional officers. I can see a puppet dump turning into "Puppetopia!" where each of the puppets (Mousey1, Mousey2, Mousey3, etc.) each have a RO position because I can. Heck, I could see it being a recruiting thing - "Join Officerlandia! We'll make you a Regional Officer within 24 hours of when you join us!"

One other thing to consider: If a nation leaves the region, will their removal from the RO list be similar to when the WAD leaves the region? Unless I update outside of my region, I maintain my Delegacy. This allows me to make quick trips to our allies to post on their RMBs and the like, and I think it would probably be best to maintain the ROs in a similar fashion.

[The Roman Imperial Republic]

Is this still going to happen? We are in the process of forming a Triumvirate in Europe

[Bodobol]

Is this still going to happen? We are in the process of forming a Triumvirate in Europe

Yes, of course it's still going to be implemented. I believe Sedge said that these changes may take up to a year to implement, though.

[McMasterdonia]

I already have things to spend Influence on. I don't have a Founder to back me up in a GCR, only my Influence. I'll keep trusted high Influence/high endorsement nations that are active available to slingshot into the Delegacy to give them regional control if needed, rather than waste my Influence.

I agree with this.... I don't think it should cost influence. It wouldn't affect a founder because there is no influence cost for them. In a large founderless region like a GCR influence is important and other methods would be preferable to losing a sizeable chunk of your influence and being unable to use it for other things.

[The Blaatschapen]

I would suggest a cap on the number of RO's that could be appointed - perhaps a limit of 5 or 1% of the regional population, whichever is greater. This allows ginormous regions to have a larger staff of regional officers - for example, a 1500 member region could have up to 15 regional officers. Seems like overkill to me - but my region is generally 30 or less people.

I would probably also encourage a tighter still limit on the banning powers - perhaps only another one or two individuals outside of the WAD/Founder. While endless amounts of popcorn-worthy entertainment will likely be generated from giving half the region ban powers, it seems unnecessary (and unwise) to trust such a wide array of nations with such abilities.

Without limiting the regional officers count, I'm sure we'll see regions where every resident nation is listed - much how certain regions like to collect embassies, someone will want to have the most regional officers. I can see a puppet dump turning into "Puppetopia!" where each of the puppets (Mousey1, Mousey2, Mousey3, etc.) each have a RO position because I can. Heck, I could see it being a recruiting thing - "Join Officerlandia! We'll make you a Regional Officer within 24 hours of when you join us!"

One other thing to consider: If a nation leaves the region, will their removal from the RO list be similar to when the WAD leaves the region? Unless I update outside of my region, I maintain my Delegacy. This allows me to make quick trips to our allies to post on their RMBs and the like, and I think it would probably be best to maintain the ROs in a similar fashion.

Would the RO be limited to WA nations?

I mean, I can just imagine myself moving in enough puppets into a region just to give one of them RO power. Then when the influence is spent, I change the RO to another of my puppets, etc. ad infinitum.

[Astarial]

Would the RO be limited to WA nations?

I mean, I can just imagine myself moving in enough puppets into a region just to give one of them RO power. Then when the influence is spent, I change the RO to another of my puppets, etc. ad infinitum.

Looking at legitimate uses only (because excessive use of puppets won't be the majority of the cases), having non-WAs as ROs won't make influence sense in UCRs if the influence cap is going to be implemented in all regions, and won't make influence sense in GCRs either way.

But at the same time, it would interfere with the governments of any regions - of which I think there are many - who don't require WA membership to serve in government, and would like to have their existing government able to be integrated with the RO.

I don't really see a huge reason not to allow non-WAs though, depending on how high their influence costs for acting are. If a region wants to give that power to someone without the influence to really make frequent use of it... that's their choice.

[Sedgistan]

These points all need more discussion:

• What powers Regional Officers can be given.
• The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.
• Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different.
• Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).
• Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied.

Think also about what happens when a region with Regional Officers is invaded. Can the invader delegate remove the old Officers immediately? Is there a cost for doing so? Also, how quickly (and at what cost) can he appoint new Officers. How will these new Officers being able to eject/ban nations affect attempts to liberate the region?

[Mahaj]

I think the new delegate shouldn't be able to remove officers immediately: This way they can serve as a defense mechanism for the region if they so choose.

There should be a cost for removing officers, and appoint new officers at the standard cost for all delegates.


In order to keep things balanced so you don't have the possibility of lots and lots of nations able to eject or ban nations to thwart liberations (which is unfair to the game and hurts gameplay), perhaps it should be made so that officers cannot eject or ban during update?

Another possibility to consider is that to limit the usage of officers ejecting and banning, the ejection cost drains from both the officer and the regional delegate.

[Kalibarr]

I think the new delegate shouldn't be able to remove officers immediately: This way they can serve as a defense mechanism for the region if they so choose.

This seems like it would make invasions very difficult.

But there should probably be an option for the new delegate to renew regional officers appointed by the previous delegate at little to no cost for conveniences sake.

For example I could see like the Viziers in TEP serving as regional officers, and they serve until they resign or are removed.

[Bodobol]

I think the new delegate shouldn't be able to remove officers immediately: This way they can serve as a defense mechanism for the region if they so choose.

There should be a cost for removing officers, and appoint new officers at the standard cost for all delegates.


In order to keep things balanced so you don't have the possibility of lots and lots of nations able to eject or ban nations to thwart liberations (which is unfair to the game and hurts gameplay), perhaps it should be made so that officers cannot eject or ban during update?

Another possibility to consider is that to limit the usage of officers ejecting and banning, the ejection cost drains from both the officer and the regional delegate.

Seems like it would make invasions too hard. I'm a member of the UDL, but I still think the R/D game should be balanced.

[All Good People]

Another possibility to consider is that to limit the usage of officers ejecting and banning, the ejection cost drains from both the officer and the regional delegate.

Could this be done with a ban list limitation for RO's ? 200 nation banlist limit for Delegates and Founders, a limit of 5 or 10 for Regional Officers? Limits their ability to coup the region, while allowing them the ability to remove most immediate threats.

I think the new delegate shouldn't be able to remove officers immediately: This way they can serve as a defense mechanism for the region if they so choose.

Hmmm.... A newly elected Delegate could have the support of the region, but have the oppostion of the existing RO's. They could interfere with the new Delegate's policies at the outset if they cannot be immediately removed. I would prefer that RO's are automatically removed when a new Delegate takes the seat, with the execption of a Delegate Elect situation.

Delegates, Founders, and perhaps Regional Officers have the tools they need to handle threats to the region before they succeed if they are active and engaged in the game. The game should not have to compensate for their inattentiveness via mechanics. Administrative control requires responsibility. There are consequences to failure of that responsibility.

What powers Regional Officers can be given.

As has been suggested, making it selectable by the Delegate/Founder would be preferable over a static assignment of powers. But of course I don't know the feasibility of doing that.

The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.

I oppose an Influence cost to appoint and remove officers. In that event, I may not use this feature. Will it be worth the cost ? Unlikely when there are alternatives. As for the length of time, I would suggest 24 hours, same as the time before a new Delegate can send a mass tg to the region. And allows two updates for r/d conflicts before it a raider delegate can establish their own RO's.

•Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different.

I have been on the side of the cost being the same as for the Delegate. However, on further thought, a a higher cost does make sense. A doubling cost seems to have been tossed out quite a bit, but I'd suggest more along the lines of a 50% increase in cost. The cost should be higher, but not to a level that cripples their effectiveness and ability to use the authority granted.

Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).

Hard for me to define a kind of limit on the number of officers. Different regions are managed differently and may have different desires and needs (I saw limitations on officers as a problem in NS2). And the distribution of Influence among nations, and the total population all effect how this might be used. I might have a region with a population of 100 nations with 3 RO's, and I might have a region with a population of 3000 governed with a Governor RO from each letter of the alphabet (26). Unlikely, but possible. *shrugs*

[ErasmoGnome]

These points all need more discussion:

What powers Regional Officers can be given - Here's my thoughts:

• Banning and ejecting
• Accepting/rejecting/applying for embassies
• Factbook editing
• Welcome Telegram editing
• Region-wide telegram sending
• Supression of RMB posts
• Or, as Mahaj said, nothing.

Essentially, everything but tags and flags.

The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence - I would say one day, and it should cost influence proportional to the amount of influence the Regional Officer has before becoming an RO. Not necessary 1:1, but it makes sense that the more powerful a regional officer would be the more it should cost to put them in power.

Whether the influence cost for officers using regional controls is the same as for delegates or different - I would say the same, with the possible exception of banning (not ejecting). Make that harder - it seems unbalancing to the raiding game if the region in power has a bunch of people able to ban - at least one will be on at each update, making only very precise update raiding feasible.

Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban) - I feel a much simpler solution than limiting the powers of ROs is limiting their number to begin with - 5 seems reasonable. All the powerful positions in a region can be covered, although some may have to make tough choices, but it doesn't become overpowered and filled with ROs and ejecting ability.

Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied - This should probably be decided separately. Just add another checkbox under "Access" that says "Regional Officers can access their specified regional controls". That way the founder can pick and choose what powers if he wishes to do so.

Think also about what happens when a region with Regional Officers is invaded. Can the invader delegate remove the old Officers immediately? Is there a cost for doing so? Also, how quickly (and at what cost) can he appoint new Officers. How will these new Officers being able to eject/ban nations affect attempts to liberate the region? - This is the trickiest for me. I won't pretend to be an expert in raiding (I've participated in 3-4, but mostly defending), so I can't say what would be balanced. It seems to me that the new delegate should be able to do away with the old ROs immediately, when the delegate is gone, with no cost. It balances the power that ROs add to the defending game. Speed and cost were kind of already covered above.