Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

[Havensky]

I have to second the idea of moving the update time earlier. It's easy to mobilize people in the late evening, but it's impossible to get people up and moving just a few hours before people wake up!

I also second the idea of giving founders the option of designating a successor

(Oh, and my main nation is...Havensky)

[Ballotonia]

1. Remove passwords: Or have some type of password decay. [...]

The problem with this is then, what about small regions that want to be all by themselves and do their own thing? That ability to do your own thing has been a positive part of NS for a long time.

Just allow Founders to set a password, but not WA Delegates. (and do the same thing for the ban button, the same reasoning applies )

Ballotonia

[Todd McCloud]

1. Remove passwords: Or have some type of password decay. [...]

The problem with this is then, what about small regions that want to be all by themselves and do their own thing? That ability to do your own thing has been a positive part of NS for a long time.

Just allow Founders to set a password, but not WA Delegates. (and do the same thing for the ban button, the same reasoning applies )

Ballotonia

That works for me

[Juken]

Just to come back to the idea about the delegates only having control of the WFE, and making that the target for raiders etc. I support this idea, it would be a good way to have a military political side of the game (as it would become a prestige thing, having your WFE changed by another region) without destroying regions. For those who worry about what this will do for founder less regions, why not just keep the delegates powers the same for them, and implement the new rules in founder regions. Giving the WA delegate the power to send mass T/Gs to people in the region at a clik of a button would also be a good idea, as it would both make it easier to spread info and recruit people and allow the conquerors to show that they have won.

You could also, I don't know if this is technically possible, let founder less regions apply for founder ship and take up the new division of power between founders and WA delegates. Another suggestion is having three update times, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one in the evening, as that would give more to play for, as even if you failed the first update you would still have the chance, and make it easier to retake a region from invaders, as their delegates would have to be on for each update time to ensure that they held the region.

Sound good?

[Crazy girl]

Ah, sorry Havensky, when you said you were a long time defender I figured it had to be a puppet you were posting with since it's relatively new. Just thought maybe you were an old friend/ally of mine, but I guess I was mistaken.


Also, I'm all for Ballo's suggestion. I know he suggested it before influence came, and hope this time it will be used.

[Romanar]

One problem I see with Founder-only passwords is if the Founder sets one and then CTEs. The legitimate Delegate can't remove it.

Also, my knee-jerk thought is against removing the power for legitimate Delegates to banject annoyances, though I suppose I could live with that to reduce the harm rogue raiders can cause.

[Crazy girl]

If the founder CTE's, the password would be dropped. (I also think bans should be reversed then)
And if someone is a real nuisance, like spammers, you could always report them.

[Lucretia Borgia]

Spammers you almost have to report. Banning won't stop a spammer if they want to spam a region. They can just make a puppet.

[Havensky]

Ah, sorry Havensky, when you said you were a long time defender I figured it had to be a puppet you were posting with since it's relatively new. Just thought maybe you were an old friend/ally of mine, but I guess I was mistaken.


Also, I'm all for Ballo's suggestion. I know he suggested it before influence came, and hope this time it will be used.

I was Fourhearts way back in the day

[Naivetry]

For those who worry about what this will do for founder less regions, why not just keep the delegates powers the same for them, and implement the new rules in founder regions.

Founderless regions are the ones that need this protection the most. Founded regions can restrict Delegate access to Regional Controls, so they are in no danger.

You could also, I don't know if this is technically possible, let founder less regions apply for founder ship and take up the new division of power between founders and WA delegates.

The problem with this is that every founded region is 28 or 60 days away from being a founderless region. When Founders were first introduced, regions were given some time to choose a Founder. Some, like Belgium, never did. Every other Founderless region in the game has gotten that way because the player controlling their Founder nation stopped logging in (or got DEATed, etc.). Allowing founderless regions to apply for Founders again would cause a great deal of disruption (especially in cases where raiders are currently in control), but would be only a temporary fix.

Another suggestion is having three update times, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one in the evening, as that would give more to play for, as even if you failed the first update you would still have the chance, and make it easier to retake a region from invaders, as their delegates would have to be on for each update time to ensure that they held the region.

Mm, that's a new one. I don't know if they would add a third update (that's a big increase on the server load for no reason other than this), but I suppose it would technically be possible to calculate the WA Delegate at the minor update as well as the major... The problem with this is that defenders and raiders use the exact same tactics, just with different purposes. Anything that makes raiding harder makes liberating a region harder; anything that makes liberating a region easier makes raiding easier. So raiders would have to be on for each update time to ensure they held the region; and defenders would have to be on for each update time to ensure that regions were protected.

[Juken]

Well, maybe the founder less regions, save the feeders. which are nigh on invulnerable anyway, could have the same function, and could call if the mods if the invaders where spamming etc, as that would definitely stop the empire of Macedon in its tracks. As to the multiple update times, I think it would make the process more challenging, and thus more fun, as even if you failed in the morning update time you would have a second chance in the afternoon, which I think would increase the excitement for both invaders and defenders. Another benefit would be the fact it would let the big groups mobilize a bit more effectively, as people who can't make one update time would be able to make the next, so battles would be bigger, longer, and hopefully more enjoyable, with the added benefit, if you roll out the delegate/WFE idea across founder less regions, that no one gets hurt.

[[violet]]

Influence, after all, replaces the old Native measurement.

Does anyone have a better criteria for determining nativity than Influence? Because I would implement that. I just haven't seen a viable alternative. We can't just say, "You're a native if we know you are." That way lies madness.

I also do not support the idea of a liberation resolution. We already have a mechanic to liberate regions, and that is through military action. What I do want, very badly, is the ability to do things we cannot do now - like remove password protection from a region where a raider delegate has locked everyone out.

And I want to give you that mechanism. The single biggest problem with the invasion game today, I think, is that passwords are Game Over. If passwords were not Game Over, the situation in Belgium (et al) would be temporary, not terminal.

I'm not sure though why you don't support that mechanism if it comes in the forum of a WA Liberation resolution... can you explain please?

[[violet]]

I have to second the idea of moving the update time earlier. It's easy to mobilize people in the late evening, but it's impossible to get people up and moving just a few hours before people wake up!

This is technically feasible now, but maybe start a new thread to discuss it.

[[violet]]

So, please allow me to put forth this idea: what if delegates would once again only be allowed to change the World Factbook Entry? Passwording and ejections would be left to founders only

No doubt that would be effective, but it's a solution that takes a large part of the invaders' game away from them. Even leaving invaders aside, large numbers of regions are effectively run by the Delegate, not the Founder, and this would significantly curtail what they can do. I agree that we need to eliminate some of more horrific aspects of invasions that are currently possible, but this proposal has real drawbacks for many people.

[Naivetry]

I'm not sure though why you don't support that mechanism if it comes in the forum of a WA Liberation resolution... can you explain please?

I definitely support it in the form of a WA resolution; I was referring to Unibot's proposed category of resolution that would simply unseat the current delegate. I'll edit the post to make that clear; that's the second time someone's questioned it.

[[violet]]

OK, good! I'll start a thread in the new Security Council forum about it.

[Naivetry]

[Juken]

No doubt that would be effective, but it's a solution that takes a large part of the invaders' game away from them.

Firslty I do not think this would destroy the invaders' game. Indeed, it may even revive it as they would be able to hit regions created by founders as well, but only in a non damaging way. I myself could see a new invader/defender game created with these changes, with invaders in the founderless regions competing to control the WFE of as many regions at once and create their 'empire' while defenders attempt to stop them.

In the founded regions meanwhile, enemies in the interregional politics scenario would take the opposing regions delegacy and change their WFE as a prestige victory, to show their superiority which, in fairness, is the essence of most interregional conflicts. To lose your WFE would be a big blow to regional prestige, and you would try to avoid it at all costs. The more organised types of raiders could also gain enjoyment here, competing to 'crack' founded regions, take the delegacy, and post a message like 'you just got conquered by the .....' and some defenders would try to stop them.

Even leaving invaders aside, large numbers of regions are effectively run by the Delegate, not the Founder, and this would significantly curtail what they can do.

Would it? They would be able to edit the WFE, the only powers they would lose would be the ability to banject people, which is only useful against spammers and attackers. As the attackers wouldn't be able to do any long term harm to the region they are safe there, whilst spammers were impossible to stop with banjections, as they could just use a new puppet, so they could just call in the mods to help them get rid of the unwanted guest.

Oh, and what do you say about the two update times? Is it possible?

[Ballotonia]

Influence, after all, replaces the old Native measurement.

Does anyone have a better criteria for determining nativity than Influence? Because I would implement that. I just haven't seen a viable alternative. We can't just say, "You're a native if we know you are." That way lies madness.

Influence doesn't measure nativity at all. The prior system, as badly flawed as it was, was IMHO better at estimating nativity, but I do understand there's no way to return to those days. But please please please stop pretending Influence in any way or form measures the concept of 'nativity. It doesn't. At all. It never did, and I seriously doubt it ever will. So how about we stop trying to measure a level of nativity and focus on how we can fix the existing problems?

Actually, one thing we DO know: by definition a Founder is to be considered a native. (and, BTW, it is possible and (since Influence) legal to kick a Founder out of its own region and quickly refound said region... So much for protecting 'natives'.) So, IMHO, just put the regional controls in the hands of Founders and leave it at that.

No doubt that would be effective, but it's a solution that takes a large part of the invaders' game away from them.

While they would no longer be able to password and kick nations out of regions, their GAME would actually be enhanced. For one, they would actually have opponents again to play against. They'd have to ponder political reasons to invade instead of just blindly going for maximum damage and obtaining joy from ruining the game for others. I hope you understand I will not feel sorry for invaders if this proposed change were to be implemented.

Even leaving invaders aside, large numbers of regions are effectively run by the Delegate, not the Founder, and this would significantly curtail what they can do.

Yep. And still they'd be more secure than WITH the password/ejectbutton combo available. After all, if they don't have that ability, neither will any group of invaders dropping by. There may be a highly occasional exception (like Haven) who already have an immense barrier against anyone joining (as far as I can tell) while they hope no invader would bother with it, but in those few cases that can be solved by appointing a Founder. And let's face it... maybe right now there's an invader involved in a longterm undercover mission with the intent of overthrowing Haven. Would be quite a feat. Haven's natives wouldn't know about it until it's too late.

As comparison, I can tell you I personally spent 4+ years in a region (first as non-UN government member, later for literally 2+ years as delegate) with the purpose of keeping it safe against invaders. In the end I became the Founder and its community and regional atmosphere continues today as is, and I fully intend to keep it that way. If a defender can be that committed, so can invaders. Would be ironic though, to see a thread titled "Haven" 6 months from now, with contents quite similar to that of the current Belgium thread. I can only hope the admins realize that such a thing would be very bad for the game at large, even though the current type of destructive invaders would surely love to add such a prize to their 'trophy room'.

Ballotonia

[Naivetry]

Ballotonia - viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2556

[West-Flanders]

Although it may help our case in Belgium, you'ld have to forgive me for not being uppity-enthousiastic about it. It looks to me like an overcomplicating solution (that might even create new problems). Why not attacking the cause of the problem: the fact that a password can be put so easily by invader delegates so any chance of outside help is lost. Could it not be possible that a delegate needs to be delegate for at least a month before he can set a password. Or delegates can only set a password all inhabitans can see (see elimnating the invisible password). In my humble opinion that would be a lot more. Or if delegates could only change the WFB, that would totally exclude the griefing.

[Unibot]

Does anyone have a better criteria for determining nativity than Influence? Because I would implement that. I just haven't seen a viable alternative. We can't just say, "You're a native if we know you are." That way lies madness.

No I don't have a replacement for influence, but, influence needs to be weighted more towards seniority in a region, then endorsements.

Here's an example formula.

Imagine there was a 'Regional Founded Date', and when some joined a new region, it counted how many days he was in the region he was currently residing in.

With that data, a factor called 'Residency' would be determined - like so...



With that created, all of the Residency ratings would be calculated for everyone in the region, added together and divided by the number of nations in the region to come up with a average Residency Rating. Also used in the Influence Formula is the number of endorsements someone has (Endo) and how many endorsements there are in the region (TotalEndoCount).



Using this formula for calculating an influence rating, the seniority in a region is weighted as 2/3 while the endorsements one might have is weighted as being only 1/3 to the overall result.

[West-Flanders]

The idea of giving more influence to older inhabitants it isn't bad, neither is the intention.. But wouldn't this make invaders fill a region with puppets, leave them there for a while, gaining "seniority". Invaders doing a trojan-horse-infiltration now need to have their WA there to gain influence, but with the suggested system they'ld only need a flock of puppets and apply for WA when the puppets have gained sufficient seniority. Or am I misinterpreting your formulae?

[Unibot]

The idea of giving more influence to older inhabitants it isn't bad, neither is the intention.. But wouldn't this make invaders fill a region with puppets, leave them there for a while, gaining "seniority". Invaders doing a trojan-horse-infiltration now need to have their WA there to gain influence, but with the suggested system they'ld only need a flock of puppets and apply for WA when the puppets have gained sufficient seniority. Or am I misinterpreting your formulae?

No, you read it correctly.

But the natives should be able to fight back an invasion better now - considering they would be more native to the region then the raiders.

[[violet]]

Although it may help our case in Belgium, you'ld have to forgive me for not being uppity-enthousiastic about it. It looks to me like an overcomplicating solution (that might even create new problems). Why not attacking the cause of the problem: the fact that a password can be put so easily by invader delegates so any chance of outside help is lost.

Unfortunately, making it harder to activate a region password will not alter the fact that in Belgium, the invaders have already done it. Nor will it likely stop them from doing it again.

Or delegates can only set a password all inhabitans can see (see elimnating the invisible password). In my humble opinion that would be a lot more.

This is something I'm interested in, but as discussed, it means removing a feature that 975 regions currently use. It seems that far more regions use that feature to opt-out of the invasion game than to play it, and they really, really don't want to lose it. Which probably means that if we do remove it, we need to replace it with something different, something that lets RP regions opt-out but not invaders, and I doubt we can figure all that out in time to help Belgium.

Or if delegates could only change the WFB, that would totally exclude the griefing.

It would certainly scale it back, but it would represent a major nerfing for all regions run partially or completely by the Delegate, which is most of them.