[Change #2] Delegate Elect

[Mahaj]

Most people log on more often than once every few days. You've got the numbers, between FRA, UDL, TITO and sympathetic others. You have the numbers. No way, no how, can raiders assemble the kind of numbers you can in a given 24 hour period, even with some idea of when we'd want them to assemble ahead of time. It just can't be done.

And you have The Black Riders, The Black Hawks, The Land of Kings and Emperors, Albion, Mazeria, The New Inquisition, The Dominion of Markarth, Europeia, Kantrias, and various other raider groups, as well as any people that have any particular vested interest in raiding that region.

Its interesting how you seem to think that despite all this, *this* cannot be done by raiders, but in the current system defenders are supposed to beat all the counts of the above, get everybody online at the same time, get everybody to move and endorse in five seconds, and hope a lot of us don't get ejected.

Does that show you now how unfair the current system is, and how a change like this is for the better?

[South Pacific Belschaft]

I think this is a question of balancing the effect, not the idea itself being fundamentally right or wrong in of itself. It is already the case that defenders have to rush for a liberation at the next update in major raids before pilers can move in and make the operation nigh impossible, what this would produce is a very small window of opportunity - 12 hours is exactly the right time without an 'extension' if its still close - in a very small number of cases where the battle is deemed 'inconclusive' and both sides now need to to pull in more forces as fast as they can. Making the margin the right size is an important part of this, and I would suggest that a five endorsement gap would need to be the absolute highest - any more than that and it would occur far to often and in situations where one side has clearly one.

Another thing that I think people are forgetting is that it would be quite possible for this to occur on multiple updates if and when one side slips ahead of the other, which was to a certain degree the original intent of the idea. What those who argued for this wanted was to extend gameplay away from a mere one hour twice a day, and produce a situation where back and forth conflict is possible. This may, strictly speaking, make it harder to hold a region either in a liberation or raid but it does so by a mechanic that greatly enhances the dynamic and allows many more people to engage in gameplay, which is a price worth paying.

[Astarial]

Whatever one may personally think about the idea of morality behind R/D, it would be absurd to deny that to many neutral regions and players, the good vs. evil, protecting the weak, saving the world arguments can be very compelling.

You're right.

On most games, people like to be "evil" and "burn the world".

So a statement that "defenders will always win a numbers game" is 100% not true. Defenders will sometimes win. But defenders will not always win. Raiders will win their fair share as well. Each battle will be competitive.

Raiders can know in advance which 12 or 24 hours they need to pile for, and be prepared.

Defenders can't know that, they have to summon the troops in time. Meaning people have to, by chance, log on, see the message, and be willing to move.

Its still a harder game for defenders, but one that is more fair and tolerable.

Defenders will win some defenses, and raiders will win some raids.

Individual battles are not the war, and defenders will always outnumber raiders. And always have.

[Todd McCloud]

Speaking as a feederite, this is a very good idea. Too often delegate changes take quite a long time, and have deterred regions from shortening the delegate term lengths. While this may not hasten the switch, it will probably allow for the region to undergo the change smoother. Plus it's yet another connection between gameplay and offsite (sort of).

Could incoming delegates have access to sending out telegrams to the entirety of the region (like what current delegates have)?

[Frattastan II]

This actually delays delegate transitions which happen under specific circumstances (large regions, very close endorsement gap), and is not about "Delegates-elect" chosen by offsite forums getting regional control access before gaining the necessary endorsements..

[Todd McCloud]

This actually delays delegate transitions which happen under specific circumstances (large regions, very close endorsement gap), and is not about "Delegates-elect" chosen by offsite forums getting regional control access before gaining the necessary endorsements..

I misread the placement of the gap, my mistake. Seeing as the window is only about 12 hours, I don't see this as being much of a delay in that regard.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Most people log on more often than once every few days. You've got the numbers, between FRA, UDL, TITO and sympathetic others. You have the numbers. No way, no how, can raiders assemble the kind of numbers you can in a given 24 hour period, even with some idea of when we'd want them to assemble ahead of time. It just can't be done.

And you have The Black Riders, The Black Hawks, The Land of Kings and Emperors, Albion, Mazeria, The New Inquisition, The Dominion of Markarth, Europeia, Kantrias, and various other raider groups, as well as any people that have any particular vested interest in raiding that region.

Its interesting how you seem to think that despite all this, *this* cannot be done by raiders, but in the current system defenders are supposed to beat all the counts of the above, get everybody online at the same time, get everybody to move and endorse in five seconds, and hope a lot of us don't get ejected.

Does that show you now how unfair the current system is, and how a change like this is for the better?

Don't even pretend that the numbers are balanced. To do so is intellectually dishonest. You know that this would be a disaster for any and all attempts to hold a region. I pointed it out in another thread, but I will do so now again: when TSP was couped the featured region of the day asked people to move in and help out. The waves of noobs pouring in their nations was a mess for the coupers. I would know. This was just a simple, totally unorganized WFE in the featured region. A concerted TG campaign or multiple major WFE announcements would be simple to create, and disastrous for raiders.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You know that this would be a disaster for any and all attempts to hold a region.

That's obviously a feature rather than a bug. The admins don't want you guys to hold regions for extended periods of time, because that doesn't help the overall game.

[Mallorea and Riva]

You know that this would be a disaster for any and all attempts to hold a region.

That's obviously a feature rather than a bug. The admins don't want you guys to hold regions for extended periods of time, because that doesn't help the overall game.

Except that for some of us GR, that is the game. I don't see where admin has said that raiders should not be able to ever gain control of a large region, yet that is what this proposal would allow. Raids such as Capitalist Paradise were defining moments for orgs such as TBH and players such as Jakker.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's obviously a feature rather than a bug. The admins don't want you guys to hold regions for extended periods of time, because that doesn't help the overall game.

Except that for some of us GR, that is the game. I don't see where admin has said that raiders should not be able to ever gain control of a large region, yet that is what this proposal would allow. Raids such as Capitalist Paradise were defining moments for orgs such as TBH and players such as Jakker.

Taking a region isn't made impossible. Holding a region is made more difficult, which is a good change. It may be that you like holding regions as long as possible, but just because you like playing the game that way doesn't mean it's good for the game overall. Locking down regions for weeks at a time doesn't foster dynamism or activity. Furthermore, the entire point of these changes is to fundamentally alter the way both sides play. The summit was held under the premise that the game is broken. So the prospects of you having to change the way you play were pretty much 100% when this all started.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Except that for some of us GR, that is the game. I don't see where admin has said that raiders should not be able to ever gain control of a large region, yet that is what this proposal would allow. Raids such as Capitalist Paradise were defining moments for orgs such as TBH and players such as Jakker.

Taking a region isn't made impossible. Holding a region is made more difficult, which is a good change. It may be that you like holding regions as long as possible, but just because you like playing the game that way doesn't mean it's good for the game overall. Locking down regions for weeks at a time doesn't foster dynamism or activity. Furthermore, the entire point of these changes is to fundamentally alter the way both sides play. The summit was held under the premise that the game is broken. So the prospects of you having to change the way you play were pretty much 100% when this all started.

A region isn't taken if I cannot access the full RC for the region GR. I understand that you have minimal R/D experience, but the numbers advantage that defenders would acquire would prevent any holds of large regions (which this seeks to address), thereby discouraging taking them. I was not under the impression that the summit was seeking to prevent the occupation of larger regions, particularly when it is those events which stir up R/D most.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A region isn't taken if I cannot access the full RC for the region GR.

That's largely semantics, though. As a delegate-elect has still unseated the delegate. If full access to the regional controls are important to the sense of winning for raiders, then we should be discussing the endorsement gap required to trigger the delegate-elect status. It can be large enough to not trigger for many raids.

But you must accept that the goal of this idea is to prevent the non-constructive holding of regions. So there has to be give-and-take. That may mean raiders will have to reimagine what winning means, if the current meaning is having full access to the regional controls. Holding a region for several days up to several weeks may make you feel like a big winner, but it ultimately hurts everyone else. It's especially harmful if raiders have a vice-grip on the region, because that's a largely static situation that by definition does not produce active involvement among players.

I understand that you have minimal R/D experience...

I've been involved in gameplay for upwards of two years now. Not participating in moves does not mean I have "minimal R/D experience." Please address my actual arguments, rather than deflecting onto my expertise or the perceived lack thereof.

... but the numbers advantage that defenders would acquire would prevent any holds of large regions (which this seeks to address), thereby discouraging taking them.

I doubt that raiders will simply stop going after large regions simply because it's more difficult to hold them for a few weeks. I think it's reasonable to assume the culture will change to where taking a region becomes a success, rather than holding one. Gameplay is just a slightly more complicated version of the classic capture-the-flag game. In the classic game, if one side captures the flag, then the flag is immediately reset. The game doesn't pause for a few days so the capturers can relish in glory.

I was not under the impression that the summit was seeking to prevent the occupation of larger regions, particularly when it is those events which stir up R/D most.

They don't stir up R/D. They cause political and personal drama that is played out on IRC channels and the NS and regional off-site forums. This is a part of R/D that an exclusive few participate in with any consequence. If raiders would only hold large regions for two or three updates at most, then I would beleive the argument that holding stimulates activity. But even accounting for the temporary influx of defenders to try and defeat a hold and raiders to maintain one, the vast majority of the "stirring up" has nothing to do with the actual occupation.

[Mallorea and Riva]

A region isn't taken if I cannot access the full RC for the region GR.

That's largely semantics, though. As a delegate-elect has still unseated the delegate. If full access to the regional controls are important to the sense of winning for raiders, then we should be discussing the endorsement gap required to trigger the delegate-elect status. It can be large enough to not trigger for many raids.

It's not semantics. It is an important difference. I wouldn't take a nonexec delegacy and consider that to be a victory unless it was for a very specific purpose (unseating a longstanding Delegate being the only example that comes to mind). If this idea were implemented, I would want the gap to be small, as Fratt said earlier if we take the region by 10 people we've earned it. Limitations on which region it would apply to would need to be suitably matched. 5 is the first number that comes to mind for the gap.

But you must accept that the goal of this idea is to prevent the non-constructive holding of regions.

No it isn't. It's to

• Increase participation in raiding/defending by allowing those not online at update to be involved.
• Prevent a successful invasion or liberation being a "game over" scenario in significant regions.
• Apply only to "significant" invasions or delegate changes, rather than every.
• Limit interference with non-raider/defender instigated delegate changes.
• Not invalidate certain styles of raiding, such as tag-raiding.

Sedge states it right in the OP, GR.

I understand that you have minimal R/D experience...

I've been involved in gameplay for upwards of two years now. Not participating in moves does not mean I have "minimal R/D experience." Please address my actual arguments, rather than deflecting onto my expertise or the perceived lack thereof.

The fact that you do not actively defend or raid is actually crucially important here GR. Your arguments are based in the logic of someone who doesn't actively participate in the game which they are addressing.

... but the numbers advantage that defenders would acquire would prevent any holds of large regions (which this seeks to address), thereby discouraging taking them.

I doubt that raiders will simply stop going after large regions simply because it's more difficult to hold them for a few weeks. I think it's reasonable to assume the culture will change to where taking a region becomes a success, rather than holding one.

Oh joy. We unseated a delegate. Great job guys, lets all go home. Isn't that what everyone hated about tags? That they were individual insignificant?

Gameplay is just a slightly more complicated version of the classic capture-the-flag game. In the classic game, if one side captures the flag, then the flag is immediately reset. The game doesn't pause for a few days so the capturers can relish in glory.

Your analogy assumes that the rules of CTF are in any way similar to NS. They aren't. People don't put in weeks worth of effort just to take the delegacy, alter the WFE, and leave. They do it to cause more of an impact. You're hoping that the entire culture of gameplay will shift to a more benign and boring game? Good lord how tedious this game would become.

I was not under the impression that the summit was seeking to prevent the occupation of larger regions, particularly when it is those events which stir up R/D most.

They don't stir up R/D. They cause political and personal drama that is played out on IRC channels and the NS and regional off-site forums.

What on earth do you think stirring up means? Large raids get people arguing, talking, moving. Thank you for proving my point.

This is a part of R/D that an exclusive few participate in with any consequence. If raiders would only hold large regions for two or three updates at most, then I would beleive the argument that holding stimulates activity. But even accounting for the temporary influx of defenders to try and defeat a hold and raiders to maintain one, the vast majority of the "stirring up" has nothing to do with the actual occupation.

Holding is a display of dominance, along with it being fun. If we didn't enjoy it... we wouldn't do it. That's the thing about raiders GR, we only do what we want to. I don't know any moral raiders. Certainly many defenders are similar, and I acknowledge that, but if the holding aspect weren't fun, then we wouldn't do it.

[Topid]

If the delegate-elect status is triggered only by a delegacy switch, and cannot be extended on any given delegate at all, I think that would provide the desired balance.

If that wasn't clear, my apologies. Delegate-Elect can only be triggered by a delegacy switch. It then lasts "x" number of updates. However, it can [possibly] be extended for another "x" updates if the gap in endorsements remains close.

Please note that whether it can be extended is up for debate.

I personally think it should be able to be. I can see so much interesting strategy developing around that. Extending the time that the delegate cannot eject to pour in more forces.. Sounds interesting.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I wouldn't take a nonexec delegacy and consider that to be a victory unless it was for a very specific purpose (unseating a longstanding Delegate being the only example that comes to mind).

You're not taking a non-exec delegate seat. You're still up against an executive delegate. This is your own problem with having to reprioritize what you think is winning. Being a delegate-elect still means you've kicked out the old delegate and outmatched defenders. The only difference is that defenders will have a short period to catch up, though they face the same delegate-elect status if they can't muster up the numbers by then. Your problem is thinking that halting activity in the region for a month is the only way to win.

No it isn't. ...Sedge states it right in the OP, GR.

Re-read the second bullet point. Getting rid of "game over" scenarios means limiting the ability of raiders to hold on to a region for weeks at a time. It also means preventing defenders from having decisive victories as well, because they'll have the same barriers to holding the delegate seat before handing it off to natives.

The fact that you do not actively defend or raid is actually crucially important here GR. Your arguments are based in the logic of someone who doesn't actively participate in the game which they are addressing.

It's not at all important, and I'm really tired of you constantly dismissing everything I say simply because I don't have luxury of being on at noon and past midnight. I don't have to have been a Congressman to make valid points about how parliamentary process creates a dysfunctional Senate. I don't have to regularly move my nation to be relevant in this debate, either. So stop trying to marginalize my opinions. Furthermore, I can guarantee you people who do conduct missions regularly agree with the points I'm making.

Your analogy assumes that the rules of CTF are in any way similar to NS. They aren't. People don't put in weeks worth of effort just to take the delegacy, alter the WFE, and leave. They do it to cause more of an impact. You're hoping that the entire culture of gameplay will shift to a more benign and boring game? Good lord how tedious this game would become.

If the impact you're causing is harmful to the overall game, then I'm sorry, but the way you play the game needs to change. It seems the admins have determined that something is wrong with the way R/D works. Like I said, when we entered this Gameplay Summit, the prospects of you having to change the way you play the game were basically 100%.

[Sedgistan]

We're not looking to make it impossible to hold regions - that has never been an objective.

The intention of this change is to:

• Prevent a successful invasion or liberation being a "game over" scenario in significant regions.

This refers to the fact that a successful invasion (combined with piling) or a successful liberation (combined with the influence of natives) meant that the other side would find it extremely hard to regain control of the region. Delegate Elect is intended to increase the time that the two sides can be in conflict.

[Glen-Rhodes]

We're not looking to make it impossible to hold regions - that has never been an objective.

Of course not impossible, but more difficult. Decreasing the ease with which either side can have a vice-grip on the delegate seat will introduce opportunities for more dynamism in R/D.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I wouldn't take a nonexec delegacy and consider that to be a victory unless it was for a very specific purpose (unseating a longstanding Delegate being the only example that comes to mind).

You're not taking a non-exec delegate seat. You're still up against an executive delegate. This is your own problem with having to reprioritize what you think is winning. Being a delegate-elect still means you've kicked out the old delegate and outmatched defenders. The only difference is that defenders will have a short period to catch up, though they face the same delegate-elect status if they can't muster up the numbers by then. Your problem is thinking that halting activity in the region for a month is the only way to win.

Your problem is that, having never actively played this game, you think you understand the motivations behind those who do. Trying to make the game more "active" at the expense of having fun is not a legitimate tradeoff to make, which is why this proposal would need to be very limited in scope.

No it isn't. ...Sedge states it right in the OP, GR.

Re-read the second bullet point. Getting rid of "game over" scenarios means limiting the ability of raiders to hold on to a region for weeks at a time. It also means preventing defenders from having decisive victories as well, because they'll have the same barriers to holding the delegate seat before handing it off to natives.

Re-read what you wrote GR, and then in the context of your initial argument see what I said. You moving your goalposts around is making this difficult to discuss.

The fact that you do not actively defend or raid is actually crucially important here GR. Your arguments are based in the logic of someone who doesn't actively participate in the game which they are addressing.

It's not at all important, and I'm really tired of you constantly dismissing everything I say simply because I don't have luxury of being on at noon and past midnight. I don't have to have been a Congressman to make valid points about how parliamentary process creates a dysfunctional Senate. I don't have to regularly move my nation to be relevant in this debate, either. So stop trying to marginalize my opinions. Furthermore, I can guarantee you people who do conduct missions regularly agree with the points I'm making.

If I was dismissing everything you say then I would not currently be responding to you. I'm sure there are people who do agree with what you're saying. Huzzah. I have a problem with you arguing about R/D culture and what raiders define as success and fun, when you are not an active participant.

Your analogy assumes that the rules of CTF are in any way similar to NS. They aren't. People don't put in weeks worth of effort just to take the delegacy, alter the WFE, and leave. They do it to cause more of an impact. You're hoping that the entire culture of gameplay will shift to a more benign and boring game? Good lord how tedious this game would become.

If the impact you're causing is harmful to the overall game, then I'm sorry, but the way you play the game needs to change. It seems the admins have determined that something is wrong with the way R/D works. Like I said, when we entered this Gameplay Summit, the prospects of you having to change the way you play the game were basically 100%.

I get that things are changing GR, really I do. I am simply expressing my concern over the degree and direction that this change could change the game.

Moving right along then,

The Delegate Elect idea's issues as outlined by Sedge.

1. The number of endorsements ("x") that the new delegate would require to trigger Delegate Elect status. This should be high enough to exclude small regions and minor targets.
2. The maximum size of the gap ("y") between the endorsements of the new and old delegate that would be required to trigger Delegate Elect status.
3. The length of time that Delegate Elect status applies for.
4. Whether continued Delegate Elect status can be triggered by the gap between the Delegate Elect and second most endorsed nation remains close.
5. What, if any, access to regional controls a Delegate Elect gets.

Potential Answers

1. Anything over 35 total endos is generally a larger target. I think some analysis could be done here though, I'm thinking of CP and other large regions.
2. 5. Fratt said earlier that if we manage to get 10 above the native, it should be considered decisive. I believe that if we are within 5 (after defender support presumably), it is close enough to warrant a DE. This will keep DE's relatively rare, but certainly not impossible. We don't want this happening every time.
3. Until the next update hits. I expect little resistance to that idea.
4. I don't see why it should. The idea is to give people a chance to come in, not create an indefinite suspension of the controls.
5. RMB suppression, WFE, flag.

[Ravania Prima]

Anything over 35 total endos is generally a larger target. I think some analysis could be done here though, I'm thinking of CP and other large regions.

That would mean that next to the GCR's you would have 4 larger targets amongst the current founderless regions...

5/35 seems a nice number to me... 1/7 so you'd need to take a 7 endo delegate with a margin of 2, a 14 endo delegate witha margin of 3 and so on...

[Mallorea and Riva]

Anything over 35 total endos is generally a larger target. I think some analysis could be done here though, I'm thinking of CP and other large regions.

That would mean that next to the GCR's you would have 4 larger targets amongst the current founderless regions...

5/35 seems a nice number to me... 1/7 so you'd need to take a 7 endo delegate with a margin of 2, a 14 endo delegate witha margin of 3 and so on...

That's... strangely appealing... But I feel like it's way too simple to be workable. Also why are you doing (1/7)+1?

[Ravania Prima]

That's... strangely appealing... But I feel like it's way too simple to be workable. Also why are you doing (1/7)+1?

Cause this would avoid a delegate elect. A 7 endo-delgate can be taken with 9, with 8 you become the delegate-elect...

[Land filled with People]

Apply only to "significant" invasions or delegate changes, rather than every.

The following aspects in particular need further discussion:
The number of endorsements ("x") that the new delegate would require to trigger Delegate Elect status. This should be high enough to exclude small regions and minor targets.

Is it possible for the number of endorsements on a delegate to not be the only factor in determining "significant" regions/invasions. For example; truly founderless regions. I would argue that all truly founderless regions are significant in that there are not many left and it is (currently) impossible to create any more.

[Frattastan II]

I personally think it should be able to be. I can see so much interesting strategy developing around that. Extending the time that the delegate cannot eject to pour in more forces.. Sounds interesting.

No. This is an idea that will work only if carefully balanced and restricted to very specific situations.
Any extension over 12 or 24 hours is too likely upset the balance towards the defender side (I think that, historically, sieges have had close endorsement gaps or invader victories only when resolved in the first 24 hours).

G-R, stop being wrong.

[Mahaj]

What if we said that the delegate-elect period extends for 12 hours, with the possibility of being extended another 12 hours, so maximum 24 hours of the delegate elect period.

[Frattastan II]

What if we said that the delegate-elect period extends for 12 hours, with the possibility of being extended another 12 hours, so maximum 24 hours of the delegate elect period.

I still have a heavy preference for 12 hours / a single update.
I could tolerate your proposal only if *a different nation* was in the lead after 12 hours, to balance things a bit. If the same nation still is ahead after a good 12 hours of fighting, it seems reasonable to give them regional controls.