Regional Officers

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

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.

Right, so they are just there for show?

[Errinundera]

I'm posting as the active founder of Forest, a long-running region. The practice in our region is that I'm the non-political Head of State whereas the WA Delegate is the Head of Government. I run elections, protect the region as best I can from raiders (anyone becoming WA Delegate other than by formal election is ejected) and enforce a no-eject edict upon the WA Delegate. ("You eject someone; I eject you.") All other executive functions are handled by the WA Delegate.

From what I can gather from these exciting new developments is that I will be able to dictate what executive roles the WA Delegate can perform and who they appoint. For anyone who lives under a Westminster system of government, that could be a very workable model. The WA Delegate (Prime Minister) will advise me who to appoint and I (the Governor General/Queen/King) will appoint them without demur if they (the WA Delegate) were legitimately elected. Security functions could remain with me. That could mean that a successful raider would be unable to fill Regional Officers at their whim before I ejected them.

I need to see what limitations can be put on the WA Delegate to see how this could work. I'm hanging out for Forest's Regional Controls to reflect the changes. It's all very interesting.

[Aksun]

Question for [violet] what if for instance the delegate is a non-executive, but is given all officer powers? I can see this as changing the way raiders and defenders react. Tag raids cannot take place anymore (with founder) and pretty much it kills the raiding game.

[Elke and Elba]

Question for [violet] what if for instance the delegate is a non-executive, but is given all officer powers? I can see this as changing the way raiders and defenders react. Tag raids cannot take place anymore (with founder) and pretty much it kills the raiding game.

For the last time, when will ANYONE stop this stupid propaganda that 'this kills raiding'?

Please, educate yourself and read the countless examples how this function severely overpowers raiding in the previous pages before.

[Belschaft]

I'd just like to echo what the others have said about the border control RO being problematic without either an influence cost to appoint/fire them or a waiting time to do so. Looking at this from a regional security perspective, rather than an R/D one, this seems to now be a coupers tool rather than one that is of any use to a native government. It allows coupers to spread out the influence cost of holding down a region vastly, making the standard attritional tactic for reclaiming a GCR ineffective, whilst being of no use to the native government as any RO's they appoint for security reasons (ie; to fight against a couper/rouge Delegate) can be removed immediately and for free.

The ideal, for me at least, would be a combination of a time delay similar to that used by embassies and a notable influence cost to limit the RO changes that can be made immediately, and to provide a period of time where both factions would have access to regional controls to some degree. That way coups would require multiple plotters, rather than a single rogue Delegate, to have a chance of success and provide a fixed period of time where the region is in active contention between the two groups before one gains a decisive advantage.

[Aksun]

Question for [violet] what if for instance the delegate is a non-executive, but is given all officer powers? I can see this as changing the way raiders and defenders react. Tag raids cannot take place anymore (with founder) and pretty much it kills the raiding game.

For the last time, when will ANYONE stop this stupid propaganda that 'this kills raiding'?

Please, educate yourself and read the countless examples how this function severely overpowers raiding in the previous pages before.

Instead of directly going at someone why not provide a link saying "hey this has already been discussed here!"

Thank you.

[Bounty Bertie]

The ideal, for me at least, would be a combination of a time delay similar to that used by embassies and a notable influence cost to limit the RO changes that can be made immediately, and to provide a period of time where both factions would have access to regional controls to some degree. That way coups would require multiple plotters, rather than a single rogue Delegate, to have a chance of success and provide a fixed period of time where the region is in active contention between the two groups before one gains a decisive advantage.

A few other ideas to add:

Have the cost of making someone a RO depend on what role you are giving them, and how much influence they have (for roles that would enable influence use). So giving someone with 500SPDR BC access would take, say, 300SPDR from the delegate appointing them. But if they only had 5SPDR it would cost say 2SPDR. Giving BC would cost more than giving recruiter/suppression rights.

Have the cost (time, influence, both) to give/remove RO access dependent on how long a nation has been in the region/role. If they've been there longer - and are thus probably more trusted by the community - it will take longer and cost more influence to remove them. ROs of course could not prevent this from going through, except to try use their powers to remove the sitting delegate.

For those in influence spending roles, have the influence cost for the RO to use their abilities scale down with time. So after one day, it would cost 10x the delegate; 1 year, 4x the delegate; 5 years, 1x the delegate.

[Sedgistan]

General comments on the R/D impact:

Yes, we're aware that this is going to have a big impact on raiding/defending, especially on the feasibility of Liberations. We've been struggling with implementing changes like this and Delegate Elect for literally years because of a) uncertainty over exactly how it'll impact behaviour, and b) uncertainty over what modifications would be best to restore balance (which is made even trickier by a). There's only so far that talking will get you, and at some point you have to take the plunge and accept you won't get it 100% right straight off. That's what we're doing here.

To some, it's obvious that a small change (such as ditching Border Control from potential Officer powers) could have averted the likely problem with Liberations. It's not that simple. For a start, it denies a really beneficial feature to the vast majority of regions that have nothing to do with R/D. But more so, there are other potentially viable suggestions that could work - ones mentioned here already include delaying the amount of time before an RO can be appointed (either based on time the Executive nation has been in the region/office or the time the new Officer has been in the region), adding an influence cost to changing ROs, limiting the number of ROs that can have Border Control powers, and limiting the rate at which nations can be ejected from a region. There could be other solutions that haven't been thought of yet because no-one has seen ROs in action.

At the moment, we don't know which of those (or other) changes will be the best fix. A period of actually experimenting with ROs live in-game will inform the discussion and allow us to pick the right one.

I can understand the lack of confidence re. follow-up changes given the delay to implementing Summit features, but the circumstances are different. What held this up was both the lengthy (and somewhat futile) discussions we had trying to resolve every possible issue in advance, and the immense complexity of the code that needed to be written. Smaller fixes to this do not require the same amount of discussion or code, meaning they can - and will - be implemented much quicker.

As for what to do in the meantime, give things a go. There's some solid potential for using Border Control ROs to build a defence network - it doesn't cost anything to kick nations with no influence, so a single defender nation could be a BC RO across a series of vulnerable regions, shared between a group of trusted defenders, one of whom takes charge of it each update. It won't always work, but it gives you a much better chance of cutting off an invasion before it succeeds. As for Liberations, if things are impossible because there are five invaders with BC powers actively booting at every update, or they've scraped together a full 13 different people to trust with that power, then let us know.

On a related but slightly different note:

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

Admin has seriously considered this recently (just a few months ago) - it's a change we are willing to make. It belongs in a separate thread to this, though I acknowledge it's strongly related to the impact ROs will have on tagging. I'd suggest either posting a new thread, or reviving the old thread on this (it's buried somewhere in Technical). It's likely that we'd want to take a look at how tagging changes under ROs first, but I would really recommend not giving up on this suggestion.

[Kazmr]

I'd just like to echo what the others have said about the border control RO being problematic without either an influence cost to appoint/fire them or a waiting time to do so. Looking at this from a regional security perspective, rather than an R/D one, this seems to now be a coupers tool rather than one that is of any use to a native government. It allows coupers to spread out the influence cost of holding down a region vastly, making the standard attritional tactic for reclaiming a GCR ineffective, whilst being of no use to the native government as any RO's they appoint for security reasons (ie; to fight against a couper/rouge Delegate) can be removed immediately and for free.

The ideal, for me at least, would be a combination of a time delay similar to that used by embassies and a notable influence cost to limit the RO changes that can be made immediately, and to provide a period of time where both factions would have access to regional controls to some degree. That way coups would require multiple plotters, rather than a single rogue Delegate, to have a chance of success and provide a fixed period of time where the region is in active contention between the two groups before one gains a decisive advantage.

Since defenders have already said all I would say on the topic of this re: libs, I want to say that Bel has a very good point here.

A region like Lazarus would frankly find this tool much, MUCH more useful for coupers than a native government. Not only would it make it substantially easier to hold regions, but it may even make things like slingshotting, to some extent, obsolete. Despite the higher cost, I can easily see a couping delegate prefer to stay in place rather than trust someone else for update with full exec. Hell, I can easily see the Lazarus NlO coup not have ending if this change had been implemented the way it is.

Embassies take three days. Passwords require sizable influence. To become delegate in the first place requires many endorsements for large reasons. Yet someone can be given the ability to eject and ban with zero cost whatsoever. At least consider, if nothing else for that one change, some high influence cost in the vein of a password or a long waiting period (a la embassy delay) when giving someone BC power...

[Elke and Elba]

I'd just like to echo what the others have said about the border control RO being problematic without either an influence cost to appoint/fire them or a waiting time to do so. Looking at this from a regional security perspective, rather than an R/D one, this seems to now be a coupers tool rather than one that is of any use to a native government. It allows coupers to spread out the influence cost of holding down a region vastly, making the standard attritional tactic for reclaiming a GCR ineffective, whilst being of no use to the native government as any RO's they appoint for security reasons (ie; to fight against a couper/rouge Delegate) can be removed immediately and for free.

The ideal, for me at least, would be a combination of a time delay similar to that used by embassies and a notable influence cost to limit the RO changes that can be made immediately, and to provide a period of time where both factions would have access to regional controls to some degree. That way coups would require multiple plotters, rather than a single rogue Delegate, to have a chance of success and provide a fixed period of time where the region is in active contention between the two groups before one gains a decisive advantage.

Belschaft puts my entire set of concerns eloquently here.

For the last time, when will ANYONE stop this stupid propaganda that 'this kills raiding'?

Please, educate yourself and read the countless examples how this function severely overpowers raiding in the previous pages before.

Instead of directly going at someone why not provide a link saying "hey this has already been discussed here!"

Thank you.

Just so you know, the evidence is in the last two page, if you need something specific. I am also using a mobile device, which makes doing any cross link copying a major PITA.

My tone probably was a bit harsh - but seriously EWS has used up all my patience today - especially with the proud and mighty self-entitled diatribe about that 'defender should try harder' when raiders really had everything handed on a plate regarding ROs.

I would like to remind everyone here that RO is meant to make R/D more exciting and less imbalanced - and yes, that might mean a shift slightly to defenders, but raiders shouldn't be bitching about it given the rather marked advantage they have had for quite some time.

And to Sedge, Ballo and [v] - despite the massive advantage you all claim this gives non-RD people who can use this - the massive disadvantage that this gives them via the unfettered powers this gives the raiders makes this unusable. As of now I see this tool as the NationStates equivalent of a Tupolev 144 - a extremely fast supersonic plane yes, but riddled with so many mechanical problems unsolved we're better without it.

[Valrifell]

Guys! We should put things in our sigs about how "ROs should be reversed" and start petition threads. Who knows? Maybe we can accomplish something on the scale of getting Mall to resign again!

[Darkesia]

If Medio appoints all the high influence nations in TWP to RO, at 1500 nations each, even with the 2X cost, I wonder if we could empty TWP? I bet TP could get it done fast with their current influence structure.

Just thinking out loud.

[The Blaatschapen]

If Medio appoints all the high influence nations in TWP to RO, at 1500 nations each, even with the 2X cost, I wonder if we could empty TWP? I bet TP could get it done fast with their current influence structure.

Just thinking out loud.

Where is Durk when you need him

[United Fascist States of North America]

This is sort of unrelated, but [violet] is making it harder and harder for me to believe he/she (probably he if i'm right) isn't Max Barry.

[Pierconium]

If Medio appoints all the high influence nations in TWP to RO, at 1500 nations each, even with the 2X cost, I wonder if we could empty TWP? I bet TP could get it done fast with their current influence structure.

Just thinking out loud.

Yes, The Pacific could likely purge the entire region. At one point in the distant past the Delegate nation purged 60% of the region alone before exhausting its influence.

I don't think that will happen now though.

[Sedgistan]

Re. Belschaft/Kazmr's points on GCRs - it's conceivable that ROs could work different in GCRs if that's desirable - we already have influence working different in them. It's something to consider when thinking about tweaks.

Guys! We should put things in our sigs about how "ROs should be reversed" and start petition threads. Who knows? Maybe we can accomplish something on the scale of getting Mall to resign again!

This post is not helpful.

This is sort of unrelated, but [violet] is making it harder and harder for me to believe he/she (probably he if i'm right) isn't Max Barry.

It's really not related at all.

[United Fascist States of North America]

Re. Belschaft/Kazmr's points on GCRs - it's conceivable that ROs could work different in GCRs if that's desirable - we already have influence working different in them. It's something to consider when thinking about tweaks.

Guys! We should put things in our sigs about how "ROs should be reversed" and start petition threads. Who knows? Maybe we can accomplish something on the scale of getting Mall to resign again!

This post is not helpful.

This is sort of unrelated, but [violet] is making it harder and harder for me to believe he/she (probably he if i'm right) isn't Max Barry.

It's really not related at all.

Sorry.

[Kanatistan]

Does this take effect immediately or is it not finished?

[Syrixia]

This is great. TNP already has a bunch of Ministries; now we can use them in game!

[Kanaia]

It has been 3 years since the gameplay summit, a summit aimed to re-balance R/D due to the game becoming heavily oriented towards the raider side.

In those 3 years things have gotten more unbalanced towards raiders with hardly any, check that make that zero effort from admin to re-balance it.

For years every time defenders complain about the balance of the game we are shot down by both admin telling us that the changes we request would be too sweeping and harmful to raiders, and raiders telling us to "just try harder."

And now admin is putting in a change that is sweeping and harmful to defenders and we are being told once more to suck it up and "just try harder" (by admin now) and that they expect us to fail, and maybe, just maybe if we fail hard enough and fail enough(unspecified) times they well dial down the changes and take us back to the broken system that has been running the last half decade.

I'm sorry, but this is utter bullshit.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

I am very sorry to break it to you, but Gameplay is not the be all and end all of NationStates. There are 17,600 regions (as [Violet] said) and I would be surprised if even an eighth of said number were actively involved in ether side of gameplay.

The Gameplayers will innovate. They always do. I am excited at the potential this will have for regions with off-site governments.

[Kanaia]

I am very sorry to break it to you, but Gameplay is not the be all and end all of NationStates. There are 17,600 regions (as [Violet] said) and I would be surprised if even an eighth of said number were actively involved in ether side of gameplay.

I am very sorry to break it to you, but this is a change that came out of the Gameplay "R/D" Summit. So you'll have to excuse me if I am concerned with it's implications on Gameplay.

The Gameplayers will innovate. They always do. I am excited at the potential this will have for regions with off-site governments.

Yup, just try harder, I'm sure it will all work out. /s

[Elke and Elba]

I am very sorry to break it to you, but Gameplay is not the be all and end all of NationStates. There are 17,600 regions (as [Violet] said) and I would be surprised if even an eighth of said number were actively involved in ether side of gameplay.

The Gameplayers will innovate. They always do. I am excited at the potential this will have for regions with off-site governments.

And you are failing to see the potential problem of this emptying regions?

While this works all fine in foundered regions, I can see this running havoc in non-foundered regions - even in bigger ones like Belgium and causing trouble on a scale that "Mall should resign" pickets all come out.

[Cora II]

It's sad folks must dismiss clear improvements to the game before they are even implemented to it in practice. Admins have already stated their approach, and that fine tuning measures will follow if serious problems with balance occur. Let's chill and see.

Also. Maybe not right topic for this, but what I personally see most in-balancing thing currently, particularly in R/D gameplay, is relative inaccessibility of update R/D (with ROs or without them). Reason for this is mostly related to NS update times, and 'blindness' related to general consciousness how and when updates are running. Thus I throw few hypotetic ideas for R/D balance:

1.) Drifting times of NS updates. Update times would 'roll' 1 hour ahead after each day, to allow more people attend updates
2.) Basic list of the order of regions would be available and visible in-site real time during updates adjusted accordingly with variance uncertainty (for saving reasonable room for skill, insight by achieved R/D practical experience), in similar manner activity pages works now (but displaying only regions)

Biggest in-balancing thing is however defender demoralization, blocking an internal development of defenderum.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

I don't see why I should be concerned with it possibly emptying regions. If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't. For all I care, it could bake a cake with cream and sprinkles and start throwing it at passing clowns.

It has already been stated that the influence costs where they apply would be twice the normal levels. Therefore that ability would very much be a double edged sword, and it will require a lot of preparatory time gathering influence to be effective. Thus innovation will be needed. I'm not going to sit and whine (like a fair portion of this thread appears to be) simply because we're yet to see it in action.

That and I hear competition on the battlefield is healthy. I am more concerned about the potential for misuse in established regions.