Regional Officers

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Those have all been shot down before

R/D has just fundametnally changed. This isn't the harmless little activity it was last month now. This is going to gin up a lot of anger when these tactics start being used. Liberations and the Security Council would have never happened until the Belgium raid either. A "Security Council" had been shot down numerous times before, too. The first time you drain 80% of a region in an update will bring a game changer, I have faith in that. I suppose there's the chance you guys won't totally use these powers to the greatest extent, to cause as much frustration as possible, but the odds are pretty slim.

Now, since R/D is not my main focus most of the time.. What on earth is the "World Assembly" power listed in the news update? Other than voting for the region what kind of powers do Delegates/Founders have in the WA that they could even give away? O.o

TO be more specific - ideas such as "no switching during updates" that 100% kill off a type of raiding have been shot down before. Admin has said balance is the goal, not the death of either side. While these changes are grim for the Defenders, the answer to that is not to go back and kill off raiders too.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

R/D has just fundametnally changed. This isn't the harmless little activity it was last month now. This is going to gin up a lot of anger when these tactics start being used. Liberations and the Security Council would have never happened until the Belgium raid either. A "Security Council" had been shot down numerous times before, too. The first time you drain 80% of a region in an update will bring a game changer, I have faith in that. I suppose there's the chance you guys won't totally use these powers to the greatest extent, to cause as much frustration as possible, but the odds are pretty slim.

Now, since R/D is not my main focus most of the time.. What on earth is the "World Assembly" power listed in the news update? Other than voting for the region what kind of powers do Delegates/Founders have in the WA that they could even give away? O.o

TO be more specific - ideas such as "no switching during updates" that 100% kill off a type of raiding have been shot down before. Admin has said balance is the goal, not the death of either side. While these changes are grim for the Defenders, the answer to that is not to go back and kill off raiders too.

No switching during updates would not kill raiding, nor defending. It would kill tag raiding.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

TO be more specific - ideas such as "no switching during updates" that 100% kill off a type of raiding have been shot down before. Admin has said balance is the goal, not the death of either side. While these changes are grim for the Defenders, the answer to that is not to go back and kill off raiders too.

No switching during updates would not kill raiding, nor defending. It would kill tag raiding.

I said "a type of raiding."

I've said myself quite simply, many times before - all you need to do to stop tagging is add a 13 hour delay to WFE editing, which would also not be unreasonable to natives for the return. But stopping tagging is, apparently, not a goal of admin.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Sorry, I missed the words "type of" in there.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Sorry, I missed the words "type of" in there.

o7

[Alustrian]

I didn' ask for this change, nor this level of a benefit from it.

I do not believe that I suggested that you asked for this change, only that it was handed to you, and it is extraordinarily beneficial to you. I am saying that you are claiming that the changes will not be fully used because you are unable to marginally adapt to them. I am also saying that, at the same time that you are unwilling to commit more to NS, you are embracing a change that would force immense investment by defenders, to the point of liberations becoming futile. The effect that this change has on R/D goes against what the R/D Summit was about.

I see that this thread moves quickly, but quadruple posting seems excessive.

[Bounty Bertie]

Yes, It is a big difference, as I just said, when 1-2 nations can make or break a lib. It is still, as I just said, a "significantly greater disadvantage" - or in other words, a "massive shift". It's not, as I just said, quite as apocalyptic as a 13x shift. Unless you wish to argue that finding 6 extra people is as hard as finding 72 extra people?

IT's more effective not to follow a patter of doing the same thing to the same effect and then whining about that effect.

When you have 100% of your pilers deployed, how hard is it to find 5 more pilers? How hard, then, is it to find 10 more pilers? 40? 200? It is the same. You *have* reached the limit, going any distance beyond that is just as tough.


And your proposed solution - being a spy (and why is this basically your solution to everything despite being told numerous times why it's not feasible?) - would only work for 1 op/spy, and then only a handful of times until you started being more strict on who was appointed to the RO position. Defenders lose an updater, raiders gain one, all for perhaps being able to help one lib attempt. Once again, the amount of time and effort input is far beyond any 'gain' made. And definitely beyond what is needed to raid a region in the first place.

[Topid]

R/D has just fundametnally changed. This isn't the harmless little activity it was last month now. This is going to gin up a lot of anger when these tactics start being used. Liberations and the Security Council would have never happened until the Belgium raid either. A "Security Council" had been shot down numerous times before, too. The first time you drain 80% of a region in an update will bring a game changer, I have faith in that. I suppose there's the chance you guys won't totally use these powers to the greatest extent, to cause as much frustration as possible, but the odds are pretty slim.

Now, since R/D is not my main focus most of the time.. What on earth is the "World Assembly" power listed in the news update? Other than voting for the region what kind of powers do Delegates/Founders have in the WA that they could even give away? O.o

TO be more specific - ideas such as "no switching during updates" that 100% kill off a type of raiding have been shot down before. Admin has said balance is the goal, not the death of either side. While these changes are grim for the Defenders, the answer to that is not to go back and kill off raiders too.

Then you have nothing to worry about when you start draining regions, no one's opinion of your activities will ever change. Have fun!

[Improving Wordiness]

A couple of suggestions. Either one will avoid the whole taggers retaining power issue really.

A delay of 12 hours on being able to appoint an RO unless you are the founder of the region

or

Executive Delegate powers are lost at the moment WA is dropped.

The former is on a list of several suggestions to check raider use of RO's, and is quite reasonable. A greater time would also be reasonable. Delays on such things as WFE changes with the intention of *killing* tagging have been shot down before, but as this would effectively retain the status quo of tagging to little effect, I see no reason not to implement such a feature.

The latter has been shot down by admin before.

*nods*
Well to be fair I only included that part in case taggers were against the 12 hour delay and voiced that of the two options that sacrificing a second or two, to appoint an RO was preferable to the 12 hour delay. It was not included in order to kill tagging...rather the opposite in fact.

[Elke and Elba]

No switching during updates would not kill raiding, nor defending. It would kill tag raiding.

I said "a type of raiding."

I've said myself quite simply, many times before - all you need to do to stop tagging is add a 13 hour delay to WFE editing, which would also not be unreasonable to natives for the return. But stopping tagging is, apparently, not a goal of admin.

And when was this feature ever meant for tag raiding?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I didn' ask for this change, nor this level of a benefit from it.

I do not believe that I suggested that you asked for this change, only that it was handed to you, and it is extraordinarily beneficial to you. I am saying that you are claiming that the changes will not be fully used because you are unable to marginally adapt to them. I am also saying that, at the same time that you are unwilling to commit more to NS, you are embracing a change that would force immense investment by defenders, to the point of liberations becoming futile. The effect that this change has on R/D goes against what the R/D Summit was about.

I see that this thread moves quickly, but quadruple posting seems excessive.

Oh, they'll be used. Soon, and effectively, in what time we have before they're inevitably curtailed. But when we already win against the strong majority of libs, the incentive is to find more creative and interesting ways to use RO's and just throw a few more people into the fray at updates, rather than organizing and practicing a specific method to maximize ejections.

I do commit too much to NS - I've spent the past five hours or so on here, when I could have done tomorrow's homework and hit the sack an hour ago

I wasn't around for the summit, but that seems reasonable. I don't imagine it's intend was to further disrupt the balance of things.

Apologies. So far in this thread, when I've replied to different trains of thought individually, other people has post while I typed

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Yes, It is a big difference, as I just said, when 1-2 nations can make or break a lib. It is still, as I just said, a "significantly greater disadvantage" - or in other words, a "massive shift". It's not, as I just said, quite as apocalyptic as a 13x shift. Unless you wish to argue that finding 6 extra people is as hard as finding 72 extra people?

IT's more effective not to follow a patter of doing the same thing to the same effect and then whining about that effect.

When you have 100% of your pilers deployed, how hard is it to find 5 more pilers? How hard, then, is it to find 10 more pilers? 40? 200? It is the same. You *have* reached the limit, going any distance beyond that is just as tough.


And your proposed solution - being a spy (and why is this basically your solution to everything despite being told numerous times why it's not feasible?) - would only work for 1 op/spy, and then only a handful of times until you started being more strict on who was appointed to the RO position. Defenders lose an updater, raiders gain one, all for perhaps being able to help one lib attempt. Once again, the amount of time and effort input is far beyond any 'gain' made. And definitely beyond what is needed to raid a region in the first place.

It is always possible to find a few more pilers. Another mass TG, recruitment, TG'ing or PM'ing allies again, etc. Finding 15 more? hard. Finding five more? No problem.

If our intention is to get more people involved via RO, we have to appoint younger players. If we don't, we limit the number of people who are helping at update to a less extreme number.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

A pretty good thing, but for R/D purposes possibly limit the amount of security officers?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Then you have nothing to worry about when you start draining regions, no one's opinion of your activities will ever change. Have fun!

? Most of NS already despises us. What's that that NSA always loves to say....oh! "Every story needs it's villain."

*nods*
Well to be fair I only included that part in case taggers were against the 12 hour delay and voiced that of the two options that sacrificing a second or two, to appoint an RO was preferable to the 12 hour delay. It was not included in order to kill tagging...rather the opposite in fact.

Isn't it nice when we both concede good points made by each other?

I said "a type of raiding."

I've said myself quite simply, many times before - all you need to do to stop tagging is add a 13 hour delay to WFE editing, which would also not be unreasonable to natives for the return. But stopping tagging is, apparently, not a goal of admin.

And when was this feature ever meant for tag raiding?

Never?

I said earlier - I never said this was meant for tagging. IN fact, I've been adamant in saying that it will not help tagging at all. I never said it should. I've been replying to people that have said it will.

/me hopes this isn't a triple xD

[Alustrian]

I do not believe that I suggested that you asked for this change, only that it was handed to you, and it is extraordinarily beneficial to you. I am saying that you are claiming that the changes will not be fully used because you are unable to marginally adapt to them. I am also saying that, at the same time that you are unwilling to commit more to NS, you are embracing a change that would force immense investment by defenders, to the point of liberations becoming futile. The effect that this change has on R/D goes against what the R/D Summit was about.

I see that this thread moves quickly, but quadruple posting seems excessive.

Oh, they'll be used. Soon, and effectively, in what time we have before they're inevitably curtailed. But when we already win against the strong majority of libs, the incentive is to find more creative and interesting ways to use RO's and just throw a few more people into the fray at updates, rather than organizing and practicing a specific method to maximize ejections.

So if we come closer to winning, you can easily crush us with us. good that we all know that

I do commit too much to NS - I've spent the past five hours or so on here, when I could have done tomorrow's homework and hit the sack an hour ago

Oh, I know, I am right here with you I specifically used the word "more." This change expects way too much from us, when you have expressed a lack of desire (probably across a dozen posts at this point) to invest any more

[Elke and Elba]

Then you have nothing to worry about when you start draining regions, no one's opinion of your activities will ever change. Have fun!

? Most of NS already despises us. What's that that NSA always loves to say....oh! "Every story needs it's villain."

*nods*
Well to be fair I only included that part in case taggers were against the 12 hour delay and voiced that of the two options that sacrificing a second or two, to appoint an RO was preferable to the 12 hour delay. It was not included in order to kill tagging...rather the opposite in fact.

Isn't it nice when we both concede good points made by each other?

And when was this feature ever meant for tag raiding?

Never?

I said earlier - I never said this was meant for tagging. IN fact, I've been adamant in saying that it will not help tagging at all. I never said it should. I've been replying to people that have said it will.

/me hopes this isn't a triple xD

Uh huh, and then why on earth are you complaining that such changes detrimental to the raider POV, will decimate the game of tag raiding when the truth id ot won't affect tag raiding at all?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Oh, they'll be used. Soon, and effectively, in what time we have before they're inevitably curtailed. But when we already win against the strong majority of libs, the incentive is to find more creative and interesting ways to use RO's and just throw a few more people into the fray at updates, rather than organizing and practicing a specific method to maximize ejections.

So if we come closer to winning, you can easily crush us with us. good that we all know that

I do commit too much to NS - I've spent the past five hours or so on here, when I could have done tomorrow's homework and hit the sack an hour ago

Oh, I know, I am right here with you I specifically used the word "more." This change expects way too much from us, when you have expressed a lack of desire (probably across a dozen posts at this point) to invest any more

We can put more effort into it xD But trust me on this - figuring out how to bluff my way into a position that lets me raid a region via an RO role is much more interesting than figuring out a protocol to maximize ejections with multiple RO's ejecting

Point taken.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Uh huh, and then why on earth are you complaining that such changes detrimental to the raider POV, will decimate the game of tag raiding when the truth id ot won't affect tag raiding at all?

I never said that RO's would hurt tagging either? I stated that their minimal benefits were not worth the time it would take taggers to set up, for the majority of taggers, leaving tagging at the current status quo.

I stated that other things brought up, like no switching of WA's during update (and or other variations, such as no joining the WA during update, no moving regions more than once during update), would decimate tagging (as well as disrupt ordinary players).

[Cora II]

Old fake cathegory of 'tag raiding' mezmerize people here. It is very well possible keep dozen large scale invasion and strategic defenses running as long as player base is numerically enough high and active keep mobility up for consecutive updates, and there exist:

1. Player can have multiple nations
2. Possibility to join to and resign from WA anytime
3. Freedom of movement of nations
4. Freedom to endorse other WA nation
5. Free executive delegate elections, where a delegate is elected by majority of endorsements

These are also rudimentary things that make the NS gameplay, including R/D.

RO feature itself doesn't harm 'tag raiding' anyway, as keeping founders alive can kill it anyway in its every scales. ROs are also optional for them. Players can opt-out from ROs with their founder nations.

Storm in water class!

[Sedgistan]

Now, since R/D is not my main focus most of the time.. What on earth is the "World Assembly" power listed in the news update? Other than voting for the region what kind of powers do Delegates/Founders have in the WA that they could even give away? O.o

That'd be the Delegate's ability to approve/vote on WA proposals - like "Executive", it's not something that can be assigned to Officers.

[Improving Wordiness]

Welll....if we are going down that road we could also argue for inherit founders. It is an unrealistic expectation and founderless regions will always exist.

Edit: responding to Cora's post above.

[Topid]

Another question: will ROs have to reside in the region they are made RO of? As in, can I make Topid (nation) an RO of Topid (region, puppet dump) even though the nation is located elsewhere? Just wondering.

[Minoa]

Another question: will ROs have to reside in the region they are made RO of? As in, can I make Topid (nation) an RO of Topid (region, puppet dump) even though the nation is located elsewhere? Just wondering.

The FAQ does not indicate that it is compulsory for Regional Officers to be present in the region to wield their powers. However, a nation has to be present in the region at the time they are made a Regional Officer for that region.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

Can someone ascertain as to what a WA RO and an Executive RO does?

[Excidium Planetis]

Can someone ascertain as to what a WA RO and an Executive RO does?

There is no such thing. WA and Executive are exclusive to Delegate and Founder.