[IDEA] Feeder Warzone

[Jakker]

This idea was never intended to totally change the game or solve all the issues. I am seeing various comments that this idea may not be enough, but I think there are a few important points to articulate:

1) There have been a variety of big, solid ideas over the years. Having a Feeder Warzone does not take away from any of them. It is totally possible to have this in the game and for other ideas to happen.
2) At the same time, I think it is easy to get overzealous and try to come up with more complex ideas that do not end up happening. Yes, this idea simply combines existing features of GCRs, but I would say that this is actually a strength. I think it makes it more likely that it is doable from an admin perspective.
3) While it has simplicity, it also still creates some significant changes to the game. It adds a new layer to what it means to be a feeder. It creates dynamics that will make it unlike any other region. Those are the things it will definitely do. There are also plenty of things that could happen which I highlighted in the OP.

[Imperium of Josh]

Having read through all that, I find myself tentatively interested, yet not convinced. I'll certainly agree with Jakker's point that there's strength to the simplicity of this idea, it neither claims to address all issues nor will it. People desiring that kind of thing can whack up the agitation for Koth's factions if they want

[Lalisa]

just my 2 cents that no one asked for or cares about. it would be laughably easy for any group with a modicum of knowledge of how update and warzones work to maintain control of the feeder indefinitely once they come to power, barrin internal coups that any gcr is susceptible to. this might just spur activity or some shit for the first mayb week, but after that itll just be like business as usual with just another feeder. this just sounds like tbh just wants a feeder as stated like other ppl said for that ez recruitment, not like those scum need it.

[El Fiji Grande]

I think such a region would be more stable than you'd think. Nevertheless, I think this is a pretty neat idea.

[Comfed]

I think this feeder should have a lower nation creation rate.

[Tim-Opolis]

I like this idea, it shakes up the meta.

I also think it's reliant on the region to be a feeder/sinker of some sort, with nations spawning to there, for it to have value. If it's just a standard Warzone that just updates last, there's no investment value into it for anyone.

[Smith jones]

This is a really good idea sadly It would probably end up with the lily tag on the WFE instead of the black hawks tag, at least for a little while

[Mauritania Romana]

Yes

[The Python]

(Bumping)

This is in theory a good idea, the only issue is that new nations that join might not necessarily want to get couped like this. For example, the delegate (for example, if elected) decides to coup the region, influence can't limit them.

New member: *founds in Warzone Pacific*
Delegate: "Welcome to Warzone Pacific"
Delegate: *coups it*

[Galiantus III]

As was brought up on Discord, the political intrigue (why we'd have a region like this in the first place) would effectively only last for 12 hours. After that, the delegate would just maintain an iron fist on the region, and it would be just as politically stagnant as the existing feeders. But if there was a way to keep things interesting in the long run, this could be well worth it.

[The Python]

As was brought up on Discord, the political intrigue (why we'd have a region like this in the first place) would effectively only last for 12 hours. After that, the delegate would just maintain an iron fist on the region, and it would be just as politically stagnant as the existing feeders. But if there was a way to keep things interesting in the long run, this could be well worth it.

Yes, but it would just make it a lot easier for someone like Fedele in TEP or Funk in Laz to coup it.

[Durm]

I don't think this region should always be the last updating one.

If it has to be that, it should be called The Glorious Region of Jakker.

[The Python]

I do agree that having a new feeder would be a good idea, given how high WA weight of the feeders is now compared to, say, the sinkers.

[Comfed]

As was brought up on Discord, the political intrigue (why we'd have a region like this in the first place) would effectively only last for 12 hours. After that, the delegate would just maintain an iron fist on the region, and it would be just as politically stagnant as the existing feeders. But if there was a way to keep things interesting in the long run, this could be well worth it.

Yes, but it would just make it a lot easier for someone like Fedele in TEP or Funk in Laz to coup it.

Yes. That’s the point.

[Unibot III]

I just don't think this proposal would sustainably produce the activity that the OP thinks it would. It's a myth that GCRs were more stable after Regional Influence.

There are two things that make GCRs more stable in NationStates' first decade than its last decade : (1) regular endorsement tracking and (2) regional officers.

The only variable source of instability in GCRs is endorsement sizes. If there's not enough endorsements to clear the size of an invasion, then the region is open to invasions. This is why young GCRs face significant instability, and then in a few months they mature, and build up enough endorsements that they can enforce functional endorsement caps.

If you want instability, you want a proposal where the expected population growth in the new GCR(s) is substantially lower than traditional feeders - so you're not building more than 40-80 endorsements on the delegate. This is why I proposed venters in the "Mini GCRs" thread - a cluster of smaller new GCRs. Size is extremely important to the region's overall stability.

[Kiritibati]

What if there was a way to limit influence in this feeder region, so that even if someone manages to take control of it, their influence in it can only go up to a max, either the same max for everyone or based on endorsements? That would make it less likely for one group to permanently take control of the region.

[The Python]

I just don't think this proposal would sustainably produce the activity that the OP thinks it would. It's a myth that GCRs were more stable after Regional Influence.

There are two things that make GCRs more stable in NationStates' first decade than its last decade : (1) regular endorsement tracking and (2) regional officers.

The only variable source of instability in GCRs is endorsement sizes. If there's not enough endorsements to clear the size of an invasion, then the region is open to invasions. This is why young GCRs face significant instability, and then in a few months they mature, and build up enough endorsements that they can enforce functional endorsement caps.

If you want instability, you want a proposal where the expected population growth in the new GCR(s) is substantially lower than traditional feeders - so you're not building more than 40-80 endorsements on the delegate. This is why I proposed venters in the "Mini GCRs" thread - a cluster of smaller new GCRs. Size is extremely important to the region's overall stability.

it would be like a new GCR, but just much easier to coup. So basically, a coup is just as likely on a feeder warzone as a normal feeder, but are more likely to succeed.I do like the idea of a new GCR though, regardless of the warzone aspect - WA weights of feeders have grown too high compared to like the sinkers.

What if there was a way to limit influence in this feeder region, so that even if someone manages to take control of it, their influence in it can only go up to a max, either the same max for everyone or based on endorsements? That would make it less likely for one group to permanently take control of the region.

In a warzone, influence doesn't matter.

[Comfed]

What if there was a way to limit influence in this feeder region, so that even if someone manages to take control of it, their influence in it can only go up to a max, either the same max for everyone or based on endorsements? That would make it less likely for one group to permanently take control of the region.

Well it would be a warzone and influence costs do not exist in warzones.

[Galiantus III]

It is important to note the goal of this proposal was not to create an unstable region, but expand the possible game mechanics available for play. It's basically an idea to bring back old GCRs, just as new regions separate from current ones, so as not to harm existing communities. The OP initially tried to sell the idea on the premise that it would be a fast paced environment, and that ended up taking the discussion. I think the basic reasoning of having more combinations of existing region mechanics is sound. Instability doesn't enter into it.

If you want to introduce regions that are naturally unstable, this is not the way to do it. It takes a mechanism for instability in small regions (warzones) and pairs it with a mechanism for being large and stable (feeders). It's interesting, but feeder mechanics just win out.

That said, what could potentially make this work is if the feeder mechanics were transient in some way. Something like: the more endorsements the delegate has, the fewer nations spawn there. So the government has to carefully balance between the competing interests of security and growth.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Something like: the more endorsements the delegate has, the fewer nations spawn there.

Enitrely unrelated to the Feeder Warzone topic, but imho this is a great idea and a system similar to this should be implemented for current feeders.

[Comfed]

What if endorsements just expire after some time in this feeder warzone?

[Unibot III]

it would be like a new GCR, but just much easier to coup. So basically, a coup is just as likely on a feeder warzone as a normal feeder, but are more likely to succeed.I do like the idea of a new GCR though, regardless of the warzone aspect - WA weights of feeders have grown too high compared to like the sinkers.

I'm not sure a coup would be more likely to succeed in a feeder warzone. To coup pre-influence GCRs, you either needed (a) a delegate to be asleep at the wheel, (b) a server crash, (c) a crazy pre-endorsement scheme a la Puppetmaster, or (d) someone trusts the delegacy with the wrong person.

The reason why the GCRs have stabilized is endorsement tracking is scripted and computerized, the server no longer crashes, pre-endorsements were removed from the game, and the trust level for players is historically very low today.

This is why I keep going back to size and politics. If you want a GCR that will be more fluid, you need a smaller endorsement base so that it's open to external invasion or liberation. Endorsements, not influence, are the key metric for security. And you always want to consider its dependencies to other GCRs. The less opportunity for isolationism, the more likely the new GCR(s) can be a source of sustainable activity. If a GCR can just grow to maturation while essentially ignoring other regions and remaining neutral, the GCR itself will become an internal snorefest because isolationism is the path of least resistance.

[Galiantus III]

Something like: the more endorsements the delegate has, the fewer nations spawn there.

Enitrely unrelated to the Feeder Warzone topic, but imho this is a great idea and a system similar to this should be implemented for current feeders.

I don't think it's off-topic because this should only work as a feeder warzone.

This should also not be implemented for existing feeders. All new nations have to go somewhere, so the average feeder size would not decrease to anything that would create the desired instability. The only real effect it would have is equalizing the size of all the feeders, overall hurting TNP, TEP, and TSP, while helping TWP and the Pacific. For this to work it would have to either be the transformation of existing warzones or the addition of totally new feeders.

[The Python]

it would be like a new GCR, but just much easier to coup. So basically, a coup is just as likely on a feeder warzone as a normal feeder, but are more likely to succeed.I do like the idea of a new GCR though, regardless of the warzone aspect - WA weights of feeders have grown too high compared to like the sinkers.

I'm not sure a coup would be more likely to succeed in a feeder warzone. To coup pre-influence GCRs, you either needed (a) a delegate to be asleep at the wheel, (b) a server crash, (c) a crazy pre-endorsement scheme a la Puppetmaster, or (d) someone trusts the delegacy with the wrong person.

The reason why the GCRs have stabilized is endorsement tracking is scripted and computerized, the server no longer crashes, pre-endorsements were removed from the game, and the trust level for players is historically very low today.

This is why I keep going back to size and politics. If you want a GCR that will be more fluid, you need a smaller endorsement base so that it's open to external invasion or liberation. Endorsements, not influence, are the key metric for security. And you always want to consider its dependencies to other GCRs. The less opportunity for isolationism, the more likely the new GCR(s) can be a source of sustainable activity. If a GCR can just grow to maturation while essentially ignoring other regions and remaining neutral, the GCR itself will become an internal snorefest because isolationism is the path of least resistance.

What if the couper is already delegate?

When Fedele couped the East Pacific, he ran out of influence pretty fast, which is why they could only eject Aelitia instead of banject.

If you're thinking of a raid (as in, nations that have never been in the region suddenly move in and endorse each other), then yes the more endorsements the safer the region. But for a normal coup where the couper already holds the delegacy, then influence is the biggest limiting factor.

Something like: the more endorsements the delegate has, the fewer nations spawn there.

Enitrely unrelated to the Feeder Warzone topic, but imho this is a great idea and a system similar to this should be implemented for current feeders.

No. Personally I'm a big supporter of "the less it gets couped the better". If it's implemented in the feeder warzone, I'm probably neutral, but if it's implemented in all of them it would just cause more coups.

[Galiantus III]

If you're thinking of a raid (as in, nations that have never been in the region suddenly move in and endorse each other), then yes the more endorsements the safer the region. But for a normal coup where the couper already holds the delegacy, then influence is the biggest limiting factor.

Instability due to both internal and external threats are of valid interest here. Influence is what prevents internal threats from getting too far, and endorsements are what keep external threats from making a forcible entry. If the goal is to make a region that is difficult to stabilize, we should be trying to nerf the effect of each. This is precisely why I've suggested adding a cost to putting endorsements on the delegate.

To make this more clear, let's look at how these features would compliment each other:

• Feeder Mechanics - This sets the region apart as a place of interest and value. It is what attracts the players who are most likely to make interesting power plays. However, this also puts an expiration date on the potential for interesting gameplay.
• Warzone Mechanics - This addresses the stabilizing issue with influence. If a coup or invasion succeeds, it makes victory complete and irreversible.
• Feeder/Endorsement Dilemma (my suggestion) - This addresses the stabilizing issue with WA endorsements. More endorsements make it harder to either invade or coup the region. If it requires more effort to get additional endorsements on the delegate, the natural consequence will be the delegate has fewer endorsements, and thus the region is less stable.

If it's implemented in the feeder warzone, I'm probably neutral, but if it's implemented in all of them it would just cause more coups.

My intent is it would be implemented in a feeder warzone. This obviously would not work with existing feeders.