by Topid » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:49 am
by Sedgistan » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:55 am
by Pythagosaurus » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:05 pm
by Topid » Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:19 pm
Sedgistan wrote:I imagine that some defenders may get a little resentful that regions are not doing what they can to make themselves secure, by choosing not to have a founder - and this may create problems if a region which chose not to have a founder is being griefed (would people be willing to pass a Liberation resolution?). That aside I do like this idea, and wouldn't mind it being implemented.
Pythagosaurus wrote:I'm going to leave the debate here up to the raiders, defenders, government builders, and [violet], but a possible extension of this is to allow founders to appoint someone else (or nobody) as the founder. Another point for debate is whether this should be allowed for all regions or just when you're creating one. Of course, such a decision could never be reversed, except by mods, so we'd take reasonable precautions for that.
by Unibot » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:47 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Sedgistan » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:44 pm
by Unibot » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:24 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Delegates don't just run out of influence if they're being endorsed by large numbers of nations. I wouldn't like that last idea - for those who don't want to be involved in invading/defending, founders should have the ultimate power, and I wouldn't approve of a system that undermined that.
I quite like the idea of fouders being able to appoint replacements, though that depends on mechanics. I don't think that many founders give up their position lightly (most who go just disappear without any warning), so I don't think it would significantly lead to a reduction in founderless regions (negating any possible raider complaint about lack of targets). It would also allow those regions which do want to opt out of the invader/defender game to do so, even if their original founder goes, and without having to go through the hassle of re-founding.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Topid » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:32 pm
Unibot wrote:Well, I've been thinking about this.
What if I applied that "Decaying Password" idea which seemed popular to this area of game mechanics, but in reverse.
The function could be a "Founder Suspension" or something like that, where a delegate can "depower" a founder (which would knock his name off the WFE, and strip him/her of the regional controls) by the click of a button. However the longer the founder suspension continues, the more it drains of the delegate's influence. At some point the suspension would have to end, when the delegate runs out of regional influence.
by Neasmyrna » Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:51 pm
by Pythagosaurus » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:18 pm
by Topid » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:24 pm
Neasmyrna wrote:Although this would cause enormous problems for us defenders deciding whether we should defend a region that basically asked to be invaded... I don't see why the option to not have a founder should not be available...
by Neasmyrna » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:45 pm
by Tanara » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:48 pm
by Topid » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Tanara wrote:While being raided is the last thing I want - I don't want even the threat of being raided, thats NOT why I play NS, and I hope that no one ever tries to force me to play that part of NS. I get very tired of seeing what seems to be the blinders on the raiders and defenders of NS, and what appears to be their intent of pushing their game on everyone else.
I really resent the apparent attempts to make everyone have to play the raiding/ defending game.
by The Cosmic Balance » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:21 pm
by Pythagosaurus » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:52 pm
by Naivetry » Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:12 pm
by Topid » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:08 am
Pythagosaurus wrote:Well, there don't seem to be any reasonable complaints about this, so I guess I'll queue it. After all, regions can effectively already do this by handing off control of the founder nation or scrambling its password. And honestly, handing off nations makes things harder for the mods to sort out, so I guess it's better if we have an official way to do it. I'll just clear it with Max first.
Naivetry wrote:Are we talking about making Founders optional at regional creation, or about passing on the Founder role when the original nation CTE's?
by Bears Armed » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:43 am
Naivetry wrote:There are hundreds of Founderless regions out there already. If you want drama, why not just adopt one and try to build it up?
by Topid » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:33 pm
Naivetry wrote:I really don't understand the point to the first option. There are hundreds of Founderless regions out there already. If you want drama, why not just adopt one and try to build it up? And if you really want to opt-in, why not just start defending?
Naivetry wrote:And I haven't been here to watch the topic for the last month or so, but if Annexation goes in and isn't something that the Founder can block the Delegate from doing, even Founded regions, if they care at all about politics, will have a reason to make alliances.
Naivetry wrote:EDIT: And how are we supposed to explain to new players just creating their own region that they really need to have a Founder if they don't want to be raided? I'm just thinking about how many people might 'opt in' entirely by mistake.
by Berzerkirs » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:40 pm
by North Wiedna » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:41 pm
Unibot wrote:Well, I've been thinking about this.
What if I applied that "Decaying Password" idea which seemed popular to this area of game mechanics, but in reverse.
The function could be a "Founder Suspension" or something like that, where a delegate can "depower" a founder (which would knock his name off the WFE, and strip him/her of the regional controls) by the click of a button. However the longer the founder suspension continues, the more it drains of the delegate's influence. At some point the suspension would have to end, when the delegate runs out of regional influence.
by Flibbleites » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:24 pm
North Wiedna wrote:Unibot wrote:Well, I've been thinking about this.
What if I applied that "Decaying Password" idea which seemed popular to this area of game mechanics, but in reverse.
The function could be a "Founder Suspension" or something like that, where a delegate can "depower" a founder (which would knock his name off the WFE, and strip him/her of the regional controls) by the click of a button. However the longer the founder suspension continues, the more it drains of the delegate's influence. At some point the suspension would have to end, when the delegate runs out of regional influence.
Well, I'm a founder, and my region is a Constitutional Monarchy where the people govern themselves but the Soverign has absolute power. What if a rouge delegate decided to suspend me? What would happen to the government? If they ejected me, would I be disallowed to come in before the password was up?
Also, raiders could use this to an advantage. They could become Delegate of a region, suspend the founder, and occupy it for some time.
Think about that.
by Pythagosaurus » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:46 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Northrop-Grumman, Skiva
Advertisement