Regional Officers

[Trotterdam]

The power to suppress and unsuppress posts on the Regional Message Board has shifted from Border Control to Communications

The tooltips on the region admin page have not yet been updated to reflect this.

[Themightymanuel]

What if there was a limit to how many officer with border control could be appointed within a set period such as between updates, this would prevent invaders from flooding border control officers while still allowing appointments from the rightful residents. Perhaps the founder could be above any restrictions like that as well, as they can't be an invader.

[[violet]]

The power to suppress and unsuppress posts on the Regional Message Board has shifted from Border Control to Communications

The tooltips on the region admin page have not yet been updated to reflect this.

Ah, thanks, now updated!

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It wasn't asked for. According to my Summit notes, one representative raised the question but no-one responded to it.

I imagine that if you're not playing R/D, it's annoying to have to reappoint your Diplomacy Officer every time they miss being back in the region at update time. But there's no real prior discussion about this.

In my opinion, and this is not only as a defender, someone who has a responsibility in a region has to make some effort and being asked to be in the region at update-times is not that much to ask.

From my defender point of view, this would be a big advantage for tag-raiders to try and hold the tag as long as they can. But this could also be resolved by adding a minimum cost of regional influence to everything an RO does. Let's say one basic point or even less so a nation with 0 regional influence shouldn't be able to do anything in that region.

Another solution could be that a nation with 0 regional influence can't obtain an RO position in that region and loses it when he drops to 0 regional influence, if he leaves the region and doesn't return before he runs out of regional influence. That would solve the reappointing issue you raised.

If they've tagged the region, they've been in it through update, and have more than zero influence.

[United German Regions]

Thanks for the site-wide open of regional officers!

Also, is NationStates biased to defenders, because after the latest news post it surely seems that way.

[Klopstock]

Firmly tying regional officer appointment, removal, and numbers into the influence system is probably the best solution. Influence addressed many of the R/D related concerns and was designed for this stuff anyway. Extending it to the ROs even more would address a lot of concerns while retaining the most flexibility. This would:

1. Promote Resident Governance of Regions - Founders wouldn't burn any influence in their region and longtime residents would have the influence to make more changes and appoint more ROs. I think this matches how most regions govern themselves.

2. Create Opportunities Within Regions - Regions could figure out how to pool individual influence to appoint, remove, or change ROs. I think that would be interesting for regions to work with. And it would also open open room for intrigue, coups, as well as internal security and counter-coup play.

3. Tie RO Numbers to a (Founderless) Region's Growth - Founders would retain a lot of power, but for founderless regions having numbers, appointments, and removals of ROs could be interesting. It might build in some "decay" when a founder CTEs, but it would also give incentives for remaining nations to step in and coordinate their efforts to maintain regional governance.

4. Makes R/D Better - Adding influence costs to appoint and dismiss ROs and appoint additional ROs should solve the liberation issue. For defenders, it would make liberations a bit more challenging but, if done well, not fundamentally harder. For natives, it would avoid the developing "RO online at update" market that we've seen proposed already. Raiders would probably be more drawn towards infiltrations to build influence. And it wouldn't change tag raiding much either while avoiding the havoc of a region's ROs being removed and fully replaced in less than a minute by a raid.

5. We Know How it Works - We're used to the influence system by now. I think it's adopting an established solution to an exciting new part of the game to make it more enjoyable while preventing abuses.

At any rate, I think a "countdown to regional destruction" timer isn't a good solution. Even if it may be the easiest to implement. Why should nations' ability to make changes in a region depend on sticking around for 26 hours when the influence system already exists to address such matters?

[Frisbeeteria]

Also, is NationStates biased to defenders, because after the latest news post it surely seems that way.

The game is biased towards balance. It has been unbalanced in the direction of Raiders for some time now. So until things get back into balance, there's always going to be movement in the direction of Defense.

[Alustrian]

Also, is NationStates biased to defenders, because after the latest news post it surely seems that way.

The game is biased towards balance. It has been unbalanced in the direction of Raiders for some time now. So until things get back into balance, there's always going to be movement in the direction of Defense.

Also worth noting - the movement in this discussion has only been to account/correct for the advantage that the original RO system would have given raiders. We are a long way from making ROs a net gain for defenders.

[Thermodolia]

Hey just wondering but when will the Regional Officers be available site wide? Never mind I just saw the news post, my internet is moving slow

[Kaboomlandia]

Hey just wondering but when will the Regional Officers be available site wide?

They already are. Check the news.

[Test X5]

Hey just wondering but when will the Regional Officers be available site wide?

They are now!

[Thermodolia]

Hey just wondering but when will the Regional Officers be available site wide?

They already are. Check the news.

Ya I just saw that. My internet is moving really slow

[Test X5]

Maybe I'm going blind, but I don't see where to suppress RMB posts.

[Frisbeeteria]

Maybe I'm going blind, but I don't see where to suppress RMB posts.

Hover your mouse over the right side of the post. I don't know how it works if you're using a phone.

[Test X5]

Maybe I'm going blind, but I don't see where to suppress RMB posts.

Hover your mouse over the right side of the post. I don't know how it works if you're using a phone.

It doesn't seem to be working on my Win 8.1 laptop with Chrome.

[[violet]]

Maybe I'm going blind, but I don't see where to suppress RMB posts.

Sorry, it wasn't appearing for all nations. Should be fixed now, appearing as a "Suppress" button alongside things like Quote/Like.

[United German Regions]

Maybe I'm going blind, but I don't see where to suppress RMB posts.

Sorry, it wasn't appearing for all nations. Should be fixed now, appearing as a "Suppress" button alongside things like Quote/Like.

Thanks for quickly responding and helping everybody with our problems!

[Test X5]

Thanks, violet!

[Nonali]

Hi all,
I just finished reading the news update. Some of the proposed ideas sound good to me. I don't really know what would be best but I do have some suggestions for what would not be good:

I think WA delegates should be able to dismiss officers as soon as they become delegates otherwise this will practically destroy the whole raiding idea. All a defender has to do is appoint a border control officer with a lot of influence and when a raider comes in that officer will have 26 hours to banject him before the raiders can do anything.

That's just my suggestion.

Whatever happens, this new change will certainly change raiding and defending a lot.

[Conlatz]

I think the WA Delegate should be able to change normal things (appearance, border control, etc.) just like an officer would be able to. And a fix for the bug where nations kicked from the WA can't make changes even though they are officers would be cool.

[Phydios]

I think the WA Delegate should be able to change normal things (appearance, border control, etc.) just like an officer would be able to. And a fix for the bug where nations kicked from the WA can't make changes even though they are officers would be cool.

A founder can certainly appoint a delegate as a RO and choose what powers to give them. Look at my nation's page for an example. And a fix for that bug is certainly incoming, but [violet] said it may take a while to come in.

[Decacon]

I don't think any of this of particularly controversial beyond the Border Control officers, which clearly need restriction. I see no reason to prevent a delegate from appointing an officer with authority over appearance, communications, or polls right off the bat. None of these pose a real threat to a region's security, so allow free appointment of these officers.

The concern for me and others is with border control, and to a significantly lesser degree embassies. In raiding, we tend to see the ejection/banjection of liberators and uncooperative natives. We also see the removal and opening of embassies, which serve as an advertisement and trophy for the victorious region. These authorities are where restrictions should be applied.

With border control, it's probably in the best interest of gameplay to prohibit the appointment of border control officers for at least the first 3-4 updates (36-48 hours) of a delegacy. It may be worth implementing an influence cost to grant this authority, at least for the first one or two appointments, to make it more difficult for invaders or short-term delegates to have a serious impact on the region's population, while not impeding legitimate, native delegates.

For the officers themselves, something should be done to slow them in their early stages. This could be a 12-24 hour delay before they can excercise their authority, or possibly a greater influence cost at their appointment that decreases with time. Either way, this slows down invaders but at the same time doesn't penalize native delegates.

I don't feel that a cap on the number of border control officers that can be appointed would be helpful if influence cost and time delays as I've described are implemented. The goal in all of this should be to keep the military gameplay fair while giving the native delegates of founderless regions the control they need to secure and administrate their region.

Moving to embassy authority, this is less worrying but still something to consider. In short, I believe that some similar restrictions to those suggested for border control should be implemented, but to a lesser degree.

No influence cost should be needed for this area. What comes to my mind is a 1-2 update (12-24 hour) delay before the delegate can grant embassy authority. It's true that (unlike with border control) an invading delegate could cause full impact on this area without the help of regional officers, but it's still the second most dangerous area of authority for a delegate to be able to assign. I'm not entirely sure on this area and whether restrictions are truly necessary, but it couldn't hurt.

Overall, I believe the delegate should always be able to immediately remove any regional officers for no influence cost. If a founderless region could appoint 12 border control officers that the invaders can't remove for some time or until they gain sufficient influence, the raiding game would be out of business. No bueno.

It may also be worth assigning an increased influence cost to appoint the first officer, but making the rest free. Again, this will have hardly any effect on delegates serving for months and years, but serves as a nice nerd to the system.

tl;dr make it harder to appoint officers at first, but then ease up after it becomes likely the delegate will be remaining for awhile. Border control needs the most restriction.

Disclaimer: These are just my personal thoughts in the middle of the night. I apologize for any errors or inconsistencies thst may lie within this post, and any overlap with what has been said and what has been implemented. These aren't necessarily the views of the Europeian Government

After thought: I'd also consider automatically purging the RO's at the appointment of a new Delegate. This could be good in that it forces the influence costs be be repaid. It could also have a negative effect on regional security, whereas it makes it harder to retain already trusted RO's. I'm not sure.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I think I would most like a 26 hour lockout on appointing or dismissing Regional Officers. It would be consistent with the lockout on welcome telegrams; it would allow Natives, for the first time in a long time, to meaningfully fight back; and it would be simple to implement.

It would also make liberations potentially last beyond the moment of removing an occupation force from the Delegacy, which would be annoying but not, I hope, insurmountable.

Edit: One thing this would not do is reduce the threat posed by an incumbent Delegate in a Feeder or Sinker going rogue. They would be just as able to use Regional Officers with Border Control powers to remove opposition. I'm cautiously optimistic that it remains possible for The North Pacific to secure itself, and hopeful that such coups may face betrayal from the Regional Officers they appoint, but am still concerned that this change swings matters too far in the favor of Delegates at the expense of their regions' population. In the same way, this would not reduce the ability of occupiers to more quickly grief and destroy a region they have invaded so as to refound it. I suggest we also consider specific ideas to limit the power of Border Control officers as an end-run around influence.

[Trotterdam]

We also see the removal and opening of embassies, which serve as an advertisement and trophy for the victorious region. These authorities are where restrictions should be applied.

Defacing the WFE and flag (which falls under Appearance) is a more immediate trophy than closing embassies, which takes time. Both, however, can be reversed if the natives retake control - while only Border Control actually helps prevent the natives from retaking control.

WFE and flag can actually be harder to restore than Embassies if you didn't keep a backup copy offsite. Suppressing RMB posts can also be hard to restore correctly if the raiders are persistent enough to suppress everything going back for years rather than just the last page (it's happened).

After thought: I'd also consider automatically purging the RO's at the appointment of a new Delegate. This could be good in that it forces the influence costs be be repaid. It could also have a negative effect on regional security, whereas it makes it harder to retain already trusted RO's. I'm not sure.

Whatever the balance effects, that would just be really annoying to have to re-enter all the office assignments after a peaceful change in power.

[Nonali]

I think I would most like a 26 hour lockout on appointing or dismissing Regional Officers. It would be consistent with the lockout on welcome telegrams; it would allow Natives, for the first time in a long time, to meaningfully fight back; and it would be simple to implement.

I'm fine with the appointing part but new WA delegates should certainly be able to dismiss officers immediately. Otherwise you'll get a constant and never-ending fight over the appearance and embassies and suppressing posts and everything else.

Also this would basically kill the whole raiding defending part of NS. An officer with border control and high influence could eject any invader who tried to seize the WA delegate. He'd have 26 hours to do so with nothing the raiders could do to respond.

I'm not a fan of raiding but I do think it's an important aspect of the game.