NationStates

@North Pacific Spy

Stamps: I see what you mean now. Trading annexes would essentially work out to trading stamps. Maybe the admin would be fine with it if we just didn't use the annex inheritance part of it: e.g. If region A annexes region B annexes region C, region C is no longer annexed. That way, defenders or someone else could swoop in and take the region, or natives could react and fight back - basically, trade wouldn't be trade as much as it would be like several dogs fighting over the same piece of meat.

Maybe the way to approach the refounding problem is simply to change the way empty regions are destroyed so that as long as there is competition for control of said region it will never CTE.

Yeah, maybe the native government idea is a bad one.

Annex/Unannex: Ummm, as far as I know, there are only two schools of thought (unless I am missing something):

1. Delegate of region to be annexed region applies to second be annexed by them. Annexation happens immediately after a founder/delegate/RO approves it.

2. Delegate of region to be annexed region applies to second be annexed by them. Annexation happens a certain number of updates after a founder/delegate/RO approves it.

--

Yep. The world of R/D is a difficult one. I think the main challenge with native defense is the issue with passwords. The only way for a founderless region to opt-out is to set up a password, but passwords generally kill (or at least severely limit) regions, so lots of natives are against that idea. Actually, based on my comments thus far, I should be against password creation, in favor of a better gameplay environment. For that matter, founders should also be on the chopping block.

I am going to work on formalizing some ideas surrounding passwords, region creation, region destruction, and founder powers, but those ideas would not fit into the Annex topic, so I will post them elsewhere (Where would be appropriate? ) and direct you to them later.

Galiantus VII wrote:@North Pacific Spy

Stamps: I see what you mean now. Trading annexes would essentially work out to trading stamps. Maybe the admin would be fine with it if we just didn't use the annex inheritance part of it: e.g. If region A annexes region B annexes region C, region C is no longer annexed. That way, defenders or someone else could swoop in and take the region, or natives could react and fight back - basically, trade wouldn't be trade as much as it would be like several dogs fighting over the same piece of meat.

Maybe the way to approach the refounding problem is simply to change the way empty regions are destroyed so that as long as there is competition for control of said region it will never CTE.

Yeah, maybe the native government idea is a bad one.

Annex/Unannex: Ummm, as far as I know, there are only two schools of thought (unless I am missing something):

1. Delegate of region to be annexed region applies to second be annexed by them. Annexation happens immediately after a founder/delegate/RO approves it.

2. Delegate of region to be annexed region applies to second be annexed by them. Annexation happens a certain number of updates after a founder/delegate/RO approves it.

--

Yep. The world of R/D is a difficult one. I think the main challenge with native defense is the issue with passwords. The only way for a founderless region to opt-out is to set up a password, but passwords generally kill (or at least severely limit) regions, so lots of natives are against that idea. Actually, based on my comments thus far, I should be against password creation, in favor of a better gameplay environment. For that matter, founders should also be on the chopping block.

I am going to work on formalizing some ideas surrounding passwords, region creation, region destruction, and founder powers, but those ideas would not fit into the Annex topic, so I will post them elsewhere (Where would be appropriate? ) and direct you to them later.

If I gave it to someone, versus they actually took it, that'd still be using the same mechanic, so the game wouldn't be able to distinguish it.

I like that idea with refounds - when zero nations are in a region, it is stripped of all passwords/ROs etc. and Founder doesn't have powers unless inside the region. It then takes an entire day to CTE from the next update, so it could be up to 36 hours after every nation has left to CTE, and gets a regional tag so it is easily findable. So only if no one wants the region, it can CTE. As soon as a nation moves into the region, the count is reset, even if the nation isn't present in the region by the next update. That'd screw with those who are trying to get regions as trophies, so that might make it fairly unpopular, although they can kick all and password it anyway.

I remember Wordy's one which allowed a region to be taken without a single troop deployed in it, both from raiders and defenders, and I remember the general embassy like idea, with those two variants.

I don't think annexation should be mainly decided through influence, as if you had the influence, you'd save it for a refound, rather than spending it on an annexation. I think it should be more a control it for a week without fail, and generally whatever opposition would have melted away, and it's generally then an invasion of a region rather than a defense of it.

Passwords should always be possible as an opt out, but I think hidden passwords should be a lot harder to implement than they are, so it's less about passwording as an end game. Founders and passwords could be killed for R/D, but I have a feeling there would be a riot, and there should always be an opt out.

North Pacific Spy wrote:If I gave it to someone, versus they actually took it, that'd still be using the same mechanic, so the game wouldn't be able to distinguish it.

I like that idea with refounds - when zero nations are in a region, it is stripped of all passwords/ROs etc. and Founder doesn't have powers unless inside the region. It then takes an entire day to CTE from the next update, so it could be up to 36 hours after every nation has left to CTE, and gets a regional tag so it is easily findable. So only if no one wants the region, it can CTE. As soon as a nation moves into the region, the count is reset, even if the nation isn't present in the region by the next update. That'd screw with those who are trying to get regions as trophies, so that might make it fairly unpopular, although they can kick all and password it anyway.

I remember Wordy's one which allowed a region to be taken without a single troop deployed in it, both from raiders and defenders, and I remember the general embassy like idea, with those two variants.

I don't think annexation should be mainly decided through influence, as if you had the influence, you'd save it for a refound, rather than spending it on an annexation. I think it should be more a control it for a week without fail, and generally whatever opposition would have melted away, and it's generally then an invasion of a region rather than a defense of it.

Passwords should always be possible as an opt out, but I think hidden passwords should be a lot harder to implement than they are, so it's less about passwording as an end game. Founders and passwords could be killed for R/D, but I have a feeling there would be a riot, and there should always be an opt out.

I am completely with you on annexation. A delegate with no influence should still be able to initiate an annex. I have been talking about using regional influence to determine how many regions one region can annex, among other things, but in my ideas influence at the national level has never been a limiting factor for annex.

I understand that passwords are actually used as an opt-out; but I think it might be worth questioning exactly when a region has made the decision to "opt out", as well as how passwords actually relate to that. There is really only one point in a region's existence when you could say a region has opted out of the R/D game - that is the first moment when the delegate of a new founderless region has enough influence to place a password on the region, and he does.

Regional participation in the R/D game as a raider or a defender pretty much constitutes that region opting in to military gameplay. Yet it is entirely possible, under current configurations, for an R/D organization to hide under an invisible password. Conversely, it is possible for regions who have "opted out" to "opt back in" by removing the password. If this is really about opting in and out, regions should at least be required to be consistent. I find it quite ironic that when raiders password a region, they are basically opting it out of the R/D game (or at least, opting it out of the Defender side of the game).

Natives only password their region because either (a) they are isolationists and want to stay that way for ever, or (2) they are founderless and want to stay safe from invasion. At some point, the decision ought to be considered final, and any given region should either be eternally passworded, or eternally open for all to interact with.

In terms of annexation, I don't think passworded regions should be allowed to do it. Opting out, by placing a password, contradicts the opting in, of invading and annexing.

I know removing founders and passwords outright will cause a riot, but what if treated founders more like temporary protectors of regions in embryo than immortal gods with unlimited power? I don't mean to suggest that we have some abrupt forced transition to founderlessness by stripping the founder of all unique powers within the region once the region is three months old, but... maybe we should simmer down founder powers to something a little more open to the possibility that outside threats could overcome the region, active founder notwithstanding.

But perhaps there is yet another way to opt out. What if at region creation the founder could opt out of the WA, and by extension, the R/D game? Such a region would be unable to annex other regions, and there would either be no WA delegate or the WA delegate would be perminantly non-executive. Endorsements would not give nations influence - instead, nations within the region would gain influence at several times the normal rate, and RO's would gain influence even faster. In the absence of a founder, some form of custodian would be chosen. There are a few ways this could happen:

1. Monarchy - The founder may select an heir. If he does, the heir becomes the custodian in the absence of the founder, and reverts to being the heir in the presence of the founder.
2. Democracy - If no heir was selected, or if the chosen heir is absent, all nations within the region which have spent 28 days or more within the region participate in an election, probably between a week and two weeks long. During this time, the three nations with the most influence within the region would have equal access to administrative controls not delegated to RO's. The winner of the election would become the regional custodian, with as much power as the founder - but again, only in the founders' absence.
3. Anarchy (automatic selection) - if no one participated in elections, or if elections could not be resolved, whichever three nations have the most influence in the region would continue to have equal access to administrative powers not controlled by RO's until either elections are resolved or only one nation remains in the region.

Galiantus VII wrote:@North Pacific Spy

Stamps: I see what you mean now. Trading annexes would essentially work out to trading stamps. Maybe the admin would be fine with it if we just didn't use the annex inheritance part of it: e.g. If region A annexes region B annexes region C, region C is no longer annexed. That way, defenders or someone else could swoop in and take the region, or natives could react and fight back - basically, trade wouldn't be trade as much as it would be like several dogs fighting over the same piece of meat.

Maybe the way to approach the refounding problem is simply to change the way empty regions are destroyed so that as long as there is competition for control of said region it will never CTE.

Yeah, maybe the native government idea is a bad one.

Annex/Unannex: Ummm, as far as I know, there are only two schools of thought (unless I am missing something):

1. Delegate of region to be annexed region applies to second be annexed by them. Annexation happens immediately after a founder/delegate/RO approves it.

2. Delegate of region to be annexed region applies to second be annexed by them. Annexation happens a certain number of updates after a founder/delegate/RO approves it.

--

Yep. The world of R/D is a difficult one. I think the main challenge with native defense is the issue with passwords. The only way for a founderless region to opt-out is to set up a password, but passwords generally kill (or at least severely limit) regions, so lots of natives are against that idea. Actually, based on my comments thus far, I should be against password creation, in favor of a better gameplay environment. For that matter, founders should also be on the chopping block.

I am going to work on formalizing some ideas surrounding passwords, region creation, region destruction, and founder powers, but those ideas would not fit into the Annex topic, so I will post them elsewhere (Where would be appropriate? ) and direct you to them later.

Instead of unannex, the correct terms would be to secede (if you're the annexed region), cede (if you're giving the annexed region to another region), or to grant independence.

Galiantus VII wrote:I am completely with you on annexation. A delegate with no influence should still be able to initiate an annex. I have been talking about using regional influence to determine how many regions one region can annex, among other things, but in my ideas influence at the national level has never been a limiting factor for annex.

I understand that passwords are actually used as an opt-out; but I think it might be worth questioning exactly when a region has made the decision to "opt out", as well as how passwords actually relate to that. There is really only one point in a region's existence when you could say a region has opted out of the R/D game - that is the first moment when the delegate of a new founderless region has enough influence to place a password on the region, and he does.

Regional participation in the R/D game as a raider or a defender pretty much constitutes that region opting in to military gameplay. Yet it is entirely possible, under current configurations, for an R/D organization to hide under an invisible password. Conversely, it is possible for regions who have "opted out" to "opt back in" by removing the password. If this is really about opting in and out, regions should at least be required to be consistent. I find it quite ironic that when raiders password a region, they are basically opting it out of the R/D game (or at least, opting it out of the Defender side of the game).

Natives only password their region because either (a) they are isolationists and want to stay that way for ever, or (2) they are founderless and want to stay safe from invasion. At some point, the decision ought to be considered final, and any given region should either be eternally passworded, or eternally open for all to interact with.

In terms of annexation, I don't think passworded regions should be allowed to do it. Opting out, by placing a password, contradicts the opting in, of invading and annexing.

I know removing founders and passwords outright will cause a riot, but what if treated founders more like temporary protectors of regions in embryo than immortal gods with unlimited power? I don't mean to suggest that we have some abrupt forced transition to founderlessness by stripping the founder of all unique powers within the region once the region is three months old, but... maybe we should simmer down founder powers to something a little more open to the possibility that outside threats could overcome the region, active founder notwithstanding.

But perhaps there is yet another way to opt out. What if at region creation the founder could opt out of the WA, and by extension, the R/D game? Such a region would be unable to annex other regions, and there would either be no WA delegate or the WA delegate would be perminantly non-executive. Endorsements would not give nations influence - instead, nations within the region would gain influence at several times the normal rate, and RO's would gain influence even faster. In the absence of a founder, some form of custodian would be chosen. There are a few ways this could happen:

1. Monarchy - The founder may select an heir. If he does, the heir becomes the custodian in the absence of the founder, and reverts to being the heir in the presence of the founder.
2. Democracy - If no heir was selected, or if the chosen heir is absent, all nations within the region which have spent 28 days or more within the region participate in an election, probably between a week and two weeks long. During this time, the three nations with the most influence within the region would have equal access to administrative controls not delegated to RO's. The winner of the election would become the regional custodian, with as much power as the founder - but again, only in the founders' absence.
3. Anarchy (automatic selection) - if no one participated in elections, or if elections could not be resolved, whichever three nations have the most influence in the region would continue to have equal access to administrative powers not controlled by RO's until either elections are resolved or only one nation remains in the region.

I'm not convinced on the artificial limitation regarding regional influence etc, it should be more 'if I can hold it, I can hold it' rather than having smaller regions being unable to go for big prizes. If a 10 person region can trick and wheel and deal their way into the delegacy of a region like Canada (largest founderless region that isn't a GCR or off limits, haven't got anything for or against it as a region, bar the flag thread continually popping up), they shouldn't be stopped by the fact their influence is only small.

Passwords, I don't think they should be as cheap as they are for hidden passwords. But I think a big talk about passwords is best for another thread, mainly because I'm too thirsty to think properly about them atm.

I'm not with you in regards to changing the delegacy mechanics, in fact that seems like something that'd be more like a SC exception (or resolution), otherwise every region would pick that, as they could have founder succession, which has been vetoed again and again due to it reducing the supply of founderless regions. By page 14, you've got to the ten nation regions, and by page 2, you've got regions with below 100 population, so anything reducing the supply of founderless regions I'm against atm. - also the more founderless regions, the less likely each individual region would be invaded.

If admins were intent on killing R/D for newer players/groups, or severely curtailing it, that'd make all but the longest sleeper op plausible. But it would really limit it to one or two sleepers who logged on for months, or years planning for the founder to CTE, and either infiltrating enough to be proclaimed heir, or getting to the third highest influence in the region so you can eject both other natives, and get more of your high influence pups into power. The lack of requirement for WA would also mean that newer players wouldn't be necessary as you could do it all yourself, so recruitment/retention wouldn't be as necessary, and the thousands of dollars spent on stamps from GPers (not just raiders, and some orgs only use manual or scripts) would likely dry up, meaning we wouldn't get new servers for awesome features like the improved censuses and instant issues.

North Pacific Spy wrote:I'm not convinced on the artificial limitation regarding regional influence etc, it should be more 'if I can hold it, I can hold it' rather than having smaller regions being unable to go for big prizes. If a 10 person region can trick and wheel and deal their way into the delegacy of a region like Canada (largest founderless region that isn't a GCR or off limits, haven't got anything for or against it as a region, bar the flag thread continually popping up), they shouldn't be stopped by the fact their influence is only small.

Makes sense. The challenge, then, is how to make regional influence gained from annexation a meaningful reward.

Passwords, I don't think they should be as cheap as they are for hidden passwords. But I think a big talk about passwords is best for another thread, mainly because I'm too thirsty to think properly about them atm.

I am in the process of making another thread for that.

I'm not with you in regards to changing the delegacy mechanics, in fact that seems like something that'd be more like a SC exception (or resolution), otherwise every region would pick that, as they could have founder succession, which has been vetoed again and again due to it reducing the supply of founderless regions. By page 14, you've got to the ten nation regions, and by page 2, you've got regions with below 100 population, so anything reducing the supply of founderless regions I'm against atm. - also the more founderless regions, the less likely each individual region would be invaded.

If admins were intent on killing R/D for newer players/groups, or severely curtailing it, that'd make all but the longest sleeper op plausible. But it would really limit it to one or two sleepers who logged on for months, or years planning for the founder to CTE, and either infiltrating enough to be proclaimed heir, or getting to the third highest influence in the region so you can eject both other natives, and get more of your high influence pups into power. The lack of requirement for WA would also mean that newer players wouldn't be necessary as you could do it all yourself, so recruitment/retention wouldn't be as necessary, and the thousands of dollars spent on stamps from GPers (not just raiders, and some orgs only use manual or scripts) would likely dry up, meaning we wouldn't get new servers for awesome features like the improved censuses and instant issues.

I think it is more likely for these types of regions to die the way Gatesville died than by raider attack. I am also sure there is a way to edit the way these regions would work so that not everyone would want them: NS is all about drawbacks, so just add some drawbacks to going raid-proof. The bigger problem I overlooked is how to fix non-WA multying, since someone could just fill the region with puppets to sway voting in their favor for the next election. Granted, this would have to go under the nose of three very powerful natives, and possibly some RO's, but the fact this issue exists is perhaps the most concerning part of the idea.

What do you think of having new founderless regions password status locked except for SC proposals? To clarify, I mean that new founderless regions with passwords would eternally be passworded, and new founderless regions without passwords would be eternally open. The only exception I can see would be for the SC to pass liberations, except that they could also be used to add passwords to otherwise locked open regions.

Anyways, I am going to try and move our discussion to a different thread because of the whole topic thing.

Cool! I like this idea! I could finally have my imperial ambitions recognized!

Here is the topic I posted for the founders/passwords discussion.


@North Pacific Spy

I just had the craziest idea:

What if the reward for annexing a region was not only that your annexing delegate got a protective buffer, but what if annexation could potentially add a buffer larger than the number of troops deployed to that region to protect your home delegate?

This will make more sense if you look at the topic I posted: Basically, founder powers would become limited after the region had existed for a certain length of time, so every region including raiding regions would have to worry about security at some point, and therefore rewarding the annexing region with added security would make sense.

This mechanic would enable a form of alliances to be used to add slightly to the number of soldiers it would take to invade both regions. No doubt, this mechanic would be used by defenders and others, so there would have to be a cost to the region being annexed. Perhaps the delegate of the annexed region would effectively grant executive powers to the delegate of the annexing region so the delegate of the annexing region could rearrange or remove powers held by the ROs and the delegate within the annexed region at no influence cost. The only power the delegate of the annexed region would always maintain is the ability to cancel the annexation at no cost. During the annex, the annexing region could even cancel the buffer on the delegate of the annexed region.

This effectively creates a system whereby conflicts can easily arise between regions that are part of a protective alliance, and even allows for imperialist regions to run false-flag attacks by convincing weaker regions to join their "alliance" for safety. The whole setup benefits raiders because it means their home delegate is a huge influence during the occupation, and there is little chance raider forces are going ever going to have a conflict with their home region. If defenders succeed in surpassing the buffer, raiders can remove the buffer and all delegate and RO powers, forcing defenders to pile even more forces into the region until they succeed in breaking the annex.

This also creates a situation where alliances can be federalized into one governing region and make it somewhat difficult for territory regions to cede from the larger organization, if they desire to. Ergo:

Say "The Awesome Alliance" is composed of regions A, B, C, D, and E, with region X at the head, "annexing" the other regions, and granting them stability and extra protection from raids via the buffer. If region A wants to leave the alliance, it may turn out to be quite difficult, because the alliance militia could respond by removing the buffer, nullifying border control and executive powers, and storming into the region.

To prevent regions from just creating a bunch more regions and deploying soldiers to annex those regions in order to increase home defense, the maximum buffer possible to gain by annexing a region would have to be less than the total number of WA nations within the region - So any region attempting to invest WA nations in regions controlled solely by them would actually decrease the defense they would have had if their soldiers had stayed home.

Edit: This would also result in less incentive to invade and annex regions with few or no WA nations, since they would be easier for defenders to liberate, and it is possible they could be forced to remove too many opposing WA nations from the region for the endeavor to actually provide more defense back home.

Galiantus VII wrote:Here is the topic I posted for the founders/passwords discussion.


@North Pacific Spy

I just had the craziest idea:

What if the reward for annexing a region was not only that your annexing delegate got a protective buffer, but what if annexation could potentially add a buffer larger than the number of troops deployed to that region to protect your home delegate?

This will make more sense if you look at the topic I posted: Basically, founder powers would become limited after the region had existed for a certain length of time, so every region including raiding regions would have to worry about security at some point, and therefore rewarding the annexing region with added security would make sense.

This mechanic would enable a form of alliances to be used to add slightly to the number of soldiers it would take to invade both regions. No doubt, this mechanic would be used by defenders and others, so there would have to be a cost to the region being annexed. Perhaps the delegate of the annexed region would effectively grant executive powers to the delegate of the annexing region so the delegate of the annexing region could rearrange or remove powers held by the ROs and the delegate within the annexed region at no influence cost. The only power the delegate of the annexed region would always maintain is the ability to cancel the annexation at no cost. During the annex, the annexing region could even cancel the buffer on the delegate of the annexed region.

This effectively creates a system whereby conflicts can easily arise between regions that are part of a protective alliance, and even allows for imperialist regions to run false-flag attacks by convincing weaker regions to join their "alliance" for safety. The whole setup benefits raiders because it means their home delegate is a huge influence during the occupation, and there is little chance raider forces are going ever going to have a conflict with their home region. If defenders succeed in surpassing the buffer, raiders can remove the buffer and all delegate and RO powers, forcing defenders to pile even more forces into the region until they succeed in breaking the annex.

This also creates a situation where alliances can be federalized into one governing region and make it somewhat difficult for territory regions to cede from the larger organization, if they desire to. Ergo:

Say "The Awesome Alliance" is composed of regions A, B, C, D, and E, with region X at the head, "annexing" the other regions, and granting them stability and extra protection from raids via the buffer. If region A wants to leave the alliance, it may turn out to be quite difficult, because the alliance militia could respond by removing the buffer, nullifying border control and executive powers, and storming into the region.

To prevent regions from just creating a bunch more regions and deploying soldiers to annex those regions in order to increase home defense, the maximum buffer possible to gain by annexing a region would have to be less than the total number of WA nations within the region - So any region attempting to invest WA nations in regions controlled solely by them would actually decrease the defense they would have had if their soldiers had stayed home.

Edit: This would also result in less incentive to invade and annex regions with few or no WA nations, since they would be easier for defenders to liberate, and it is possible they could be forced to remove too many opposing WA nations from the region for the endeavor to actually provide more defense back home.

To be honest, I'm not convinced.

Passwords wise, I think they should be harder to use to prevent end game scenarios, but not removed entirely, as otherwise there isn't an end game at all.

In regards to WA endorsements, I thought that allowing you to have a non-WA delegate/Governor was fairly extreme in my idea, and got feedback to that regard, but having an extra endos without endorsements makes it versing numbers versus players. Also it seems like pretty much every founderless region would voluntarily allow the FRA etc. to annex them, resulting in newer/smaller regions being unable to compete, and only the big raiding regions being able to contest them, bar the odd 2 man region or two.

The Founder losing powers, in might work if that happened, but I'm doubting that will ever happen tbh. - Founders were put in for a reason, and nothing major has changed since then that'd remove the need. They would have no opt out at all then...

I'm feeling like I should be writing more to match your text length....

@Big Brain City: Glad you like the idea. If you've got any thoughts/ideals of what you want it to be, jot it down in the thread.

North Pacific Spy wrote:To be honest, I'm not convinced.

Passwords wise, I think they should be harder to use to prevent end game scenarios, but not removed entirely, as otherwise there isn't an end game at all.

Who said to remove them? Essentially, give a region its whole time with its founder to decide if it wants to be open or not, and at the end enforce their choice. During that time they can switch back and fourth as much as they want, but if they are going to exist past that they have to have it one way or the other.

In regards to WA endorsements, I thought that allowing you to have a non-WA delegate/Governor was fairly extreme in my idea, and got feedback to that regard, but having an extra endos without endorsements makes it versing numbers versus players. Also it seems like pretty much every founderless region would voluntarily allow the FRA etc. to annex them, resulting in newer/smaller regions being unable to compete, and only the big raiding regions being able to contest them, bar the odd 2 man region or two.

I doubt even 1% of founderless regions would end up volunteering to be annexed by defenders and actually stick with it, especially with the right cost involved. I think what would actually happen is you would see lots of founderless regions find foundered regions with similar goals and views and ask them for protection. For example, nazi regions would want to be protected by other nazi regions, not defenders; roleplaying regions will probably also trust other roleplaying regions more than defenders; all founderless regions are not going to flood defenders for help if they have better options. If a raiding region were to go founderless, they might go to TBH or another raider for safety, but chances are they will still seek out the best deal available from someone they trust.

Regional security should be a political thing. If you entrust the safety of your region to the wrong people, there is a chance they will turn on you. On the other hand, if you are in real danger you should not sit around not seeking help. That is how you become a victim. And yet, safety is not guarenteed even if you make the right choice; the right choice only decreases the chance of loss.

The Founder losing powers, in might work if that happened, but I'm doubting that will ever happen tbh. - Founders were put in for a reason, and nothing major has changed since then that'd remove the need. They would have no opt out at all then...

Definitely keep founders and give them permanent access to regional controls. Give them a heck of a lot of free influence. I am not saying take them out, just tone them down to something that isn't immune. Raiders might target foundered regions more often then they do now, but any region with an active founder would still basically be safe because founders would still be so powerful.

I'm feeling like I should be writing more to match your text length....

I will admit, I can get long-winded with my keyboard.

Hey, I don't mean to potentially gravedig, but is this ever going to be added? The summit was 4 years ago...

United States of Natan wrote:Hey, I don't mean to potentially gravedig, but is this ever going to be added? The summit was 4 years ago...

Sedge says that all of the other proposed changes from the summit are "off the agenda". If you're trying to wait for this to be added, good luck doing so.

Tinhampton wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:Hey, I don't mean to potentially gravedig, but is this ever going to be added? The summit was 4 years ago...

Sedge says that all of the other proposed changes from the summit are "off the agenda". If you're trying to wait for this to be added, good luck doing so.

Annex and Update Times were the two good ones left, the other ones weren't so much. Any tech feature - imagine it as not happening in the short/mid term and then be pleasantly surprised if it does.

Tinhampton wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:Hey, I don't mean to potentially gravedig, but is this ever going to be added? The summit was 4 years ago...

Sedge says that all of the other proposed changes from the summit are "off the agenda". If you're trying to wait for this to be added, good luck doing so.

Damn. I hope they take another look at annexation, I really liked it.

That would be fun...

Please do not gravedig old threads.

I just saw this post and put my opinion, thats all ill get out