Regional Officers

[Sedgistan]

And Knot, I'm afraid I don't respond to posts that try to belittle my experience, sorry.

Mall once said that literacy's a tool for fendas. I'm disappointed to find that the tables have turned. If you find yourself incapable of responding to facts, then clearly this isn't the right place for you to post.

This kind of snark is in no way appropriate for the Technical forum. Cut it out, or we'll cut your posts from the thread.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

@tim-

Foundered regions have gained the ability to give nations power without an executive delegacy, eliminating the chance to tag them. While it may not affect longer, more destructive raids (or for that matter, attempts to break massive delegacy streaks as seen in Forest and Texas), it's an easy way to eliminate the potential for tagging without removing all elected powers, that, while currently not as widely utilized as it could be, has been run into and noted in our operation.

Also, no comment on my last post?

[[violet]]

1. Ejection Rate Limit

Regions shall be unable to eject more than one nation per second. Nations that attempt an ejection in excess of this will see an error message.

Rationale: Rebalances liberations, which become extremely difficult against prepared invaders running multiple BCs. Has a notable drawback of making it harder to protect any region against an invading force (raiders or liberators), raising the spectre of invasions that defenders can't repel no matter how well-prepared they are, with all raiders arriving within the rate limit. If current practice continued, though, only liberations would be affected, since this is commonly the only time the resident force knows an invasion is imminent.

2. New Delegate Appointment Timer

Delegates shall be unable to appoint more than one Regional Officer for every 26 hours they have held office. (That is, they cannot appoint anyone at first, then after 26 hours, they can appoint one; after 52 hours, they can appoint a second...) They can dismiss ROs without limit. Adding authority to an existing RO counts as an appointment; renaming an office doesn't. Dismissing an RO doesn't increase a new Delegate's ability to appoint; i.e. the limit is based on number of appointments, not number of Officers. Founders aren't affected. Once appointed, ROs operate as normal.

Rationale: Reduce the ability of an invading force or coup to immediately secure an iron grip on the region by deploying ROs (especially BCs). Provide an incentive for faster defender/native response. Drawback is ambiguous: Presumably there is some annoyance factor when new Delegates have to wait to do what they want, but this is expected to be minimal outside of R/D.

Variation A: New Delegates cannot appoint any ROs for the first 72 hours, then can appoint as many as they like.

Variation B: Only applies to Border Control; other offices can be appointed/modified without limit.

Variation C: Replace 26 hours with 12 hours. (New Delegates can appoint ROs faster.)

Variation D: Replace 26 hours with 48 hours. (New Delegates appoint ROs slower.)

These two proposals (with Variation B of the second one) will be implemented between Christmas and the New Year. Thanks to everyone for your patience and feedback thus far.

Further changes are also possible; we'll take another look at the state of the landscape after implementation, and would appreciate your continuing feedback.

[Misley]

1. Ejection Rate Limit

Regions shall be unable to eject more than one nation per second. Nations that attempt an ejection in excess of this will see an error message.

Rationale: Rebalances liberations, which become extremely difficult against prepared invaders running multiple BCs. Has a notable drawback of making it harder to protect any region against an invading force (raiders or liberators), raising the spectre of invasions that defenders can't repel no matter how well-prepared they are, with all raiders arriving within the rate limit. If current practice continued, though, only liberations would be affected, since this is commonly the only time the resident force knows an invasion is imminent.

2. New Delegate Appointment Timer

Delegates shall be unable to appoint more than one Regional Officer for every 26 hours they have held office. (That is, they cannot appoint anyone at first, then after 26 hours, they can appoint one; after 52 hours, they can appoint a second...) They can dismiss ROs without limit. Adding authority to an existing RO counts as an appointment; renaming an office doesn't. Dismissing an RO doesn't increase a new Delegate's ability to appoint; i.e. the limit is based on number of appointments, not number of Officers. Founders aren't affected. Once appointed, ROs operate as normal.

Rationale: Reduce the ability of an invading force or coup to immediately secure an iron grip on the region by deploying ROs (especially BCs). Provide an incentive for faster defender/native response. Drawback is ambiguous: Presumably there is some annoyance factor when new Delegates have to wait to do what they want, but this is expected to be minimal outside of R/D.

Variation A: New Delegates cannot appoint any ROs for the first 72 hours, then can appoint as many as they like.

Variation B: Only applies to Border Control; other offices can be appointed/modified without limit.

Variation C: Replace 26 hours with 12 hours. (New Delegates can appoint ROs faster.)

Variation D: Replace 26 hours with 48 hours. (New Delegates appoint ROs slower.)

These two proposals (with Variation B of the second one) will be implemented between Christmas and the New Year. Thanks to everyone for your patience and feedback thus far.

Further changes are also possible; we'll take another look at the state of the landscape after implementation, and would appreciate your continuing feedback.

Is the ejection rate limit only for Delegates and ROs, or is it also applied to Founders?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

1. Ejection Rate Limit

Regions shall be unable to eject more than one nation per second. Nations that attempt an ejection in excess of this will see an error message.

Rationale: Rebalances liberations, which become extremely difficult against prepared invaders running multiple BCs. Has a notable drawback of making it harder to protect any region against an invading force (raiders or liberators), raising the spectre of invasions that defenders can't repel no matter how well-prepared they are, with all raiders arriving within the rate limit. If current practice continued, though, only liberations would be affected, since this is commonly the only time the resident force knows an invasion is imminent.

2. New Delegate Appointment Timer

Delegates shall be unable to appoint more than one Regional Officer for every 26 hours they have held office. (That is, they cannot appoint anyone at first, then after 26 hours, they can appoint one; after 52 hours, they can appoint a second...) They can dismiss ROs without limit. Adding authority to an existing RO counts as an appointment; renaming an office doesn't. Dismissing an RO doesn't increase a new Delegate's ability to appoint; i.e. the limit is based on number of appointments, not number of Officers. Founders aren't affected. Once appointed, ROs operate as normal.

Rationale: Reduce the ability of an invading force or coup to immediately secure an iron grip on the region by deploying ROs (especially BCs). Provide an incentive for faster defender/native response. Drawback is ambiguous: Presumably there is some annoyance factor when new Delegates have to wait to do what they want, but this is expected to be minimal outside of R/D.

Variation A: New Delegates cannot appoint any ROs for the first 72 hours, then can appoint as many as they like.

Variation B: Only applies to Border Control; other offices can be appointed/modified without limit.

Variation C: Replace 26 hours with 12 hours. (New Delegates can appoint ROs faster.)

Variation D: Replace 26 hours with 48 hours. (New Delegates appoint ROs slower.)

These two proposals (with Variation B of the second one) will be implemented between Christmas and the New Year. Thanks to everyone for your patience and feedback thus far.

Further changes are also possible; we'll take another look at the state of the landscape after implementation, and would appreciate your continuing feedback.

Can we get some details on how that one per second rate limit will be measured?

Looking at data, some of our faster ejectors can exceed that rate in burst, but averaging the time from defender jump to update with the total number of ejections, the closest I've counted yet was Asia at .95/second. By that measure, they'd appear to be under a rate limit, of 1/second, but it actually appears to exceed that rate for part of the time measures and be under it for others. Are we talking like, say, zombie missiles, with a one second cooldown after each ejection? 10 ejections for 10 seconds/5for5/anything like how the API rate limit is run? How obtrusive will the notice be if it fails (i.e., there's a difference between it just not working, it returning an error like trying to eject a nation that is no longer in the region, and something like a popup, each of which has a varying effect on making the rest of the potential ejections)? Has it been considered that this limits an element of genuine skill, along with encouraging the practice of massive (think 30+ endo gap) piles on one or two operations, rather than a finer spread focusing on involvement like we've seen recently under RO's, and which tonight even allowed a liberation to occur?

Can we also get some details on the appointment system - including, is it sort of like a token system, where you build up one "token" for modification ever 26 hours? Does the timer only restart after you take an action? If there is a sort of token system, is there a counter of some sort we'll be able to see so we know how many appointments we have available? Is it modulated long term like mentioned in the description, or like mass regional TG's where it's a total lockout then total freedom after the waiting period?

Thanks.


EDIT: It should also be noted that that's ~about~ the right rate for ejecting a liberation crew, yes, but insanely slow in terms of clearing out known nations left in a region for a flash refounding. With such a rate limit, say, ejecting 35 people to try and flash refound an occupation under a liberation would necessitate giving defenders a good 40+ second heads up, as compared to something more like a 20-second one, which could easily be the difference needed to open the "new region" page, enter the right name in time, and greatly increase the already high chances of a hawk occurring.

[Knot III]

Greetings.

If the feed for the region Live Fire Testing Range were to be checked, the legal ejection of seven nations by one player in less than three seconds can be observed to have happened just under ten minutes ago.

What is the administration's outlook on employing an ejection rate restriction of, for example, ten nations every ten seconds, as opposed to the hard limit of one nation per second?

Added: Under the about-to-be-implemented system, was the possibility of refounding a region that has been liberated by the Security Council even considered? Any old geezer will be able to move a nation in to stop the refound as 30 endorsements are ejected one by one for half a minute.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Greetings.

If the feed for the region Live Fire Testing Range were to be checked, the legal ejection of seven nations by one player in less than three seconds can be observed to have happened just under ten minutes ago.

What is the administration's outlook on employing an ejection rate restriction of, for example, ten nations every ten seconds, as opposed to the hard limit of one nation per second?

...which, while giving less of a leg up to liberation teams, would give at least a little more leeway in terms of allowing for variations in skill, situation, and speed. Of course, then it's suck to hit the 10 4-5 seconds in and then sit there helpless for another 5

[Alustrian]

These two proposals (with Variation B of the second one) will be implemented between Christmas and the New Year. Thanks to everyone for your patience and feedback thus far.

Further changes are also possible; we'll take another look at the state of the landscape after implementation, and would appreciate your continuing feedback.

Thank you

Added: Under the about-to-be-implemented system, was the possibility of refounding a region that has been liberated by the Security Council even considered? Any old geezer will be able to move a nation in to stop the refound as 30 endorsements are ejected one by one for half a minute.

There is a rather simple way you can solve this issue. It would require some more effort (or innovation/creativity, whatever term you always think defenders need to do more of) on your part, but that is the point.

[Knot III]

Added: Under the about-to-be-implemented system, was the possibility of refounding a region that has been liberated by the Security Council even considered? Any old geezer will be able to move a nation in to stop the refound as 30 endorsements are ejected one by one for half a minute.

There is a rather simple way you can solve this issue. It would require some more effort (or innovation/creativity, whatever term you always think defenders need to do more of) on your part, but that is the point.

Sure, but is it the equivalent of pre-RO days? The "effort", "innovation", or "creativity" which defenders apparently lack that is needed for your solution still tips the scales overwhelmingly in your faction's favor and exponentially increases the possibility of a mistake in an already-precarious situation.

[Cormac Stark]

Is the ejection rate limit only for Delegates and ROs, or is it also applied to Founders?

Actually I'm curious if it will even apply to Delegates or just to ROs, as there have been suggestions that Delegates should be exempted. This makes sense particularly in founderless regions in which the Delegate is always Executive, and not simply another RO.

[Equites Nigri]

As I read it, the ejection rate limit applies to regions as a whole, not to individual nations (or subtypes of nations, like ROs or delegates). That interpretation is based on [violet]'s precise wording in the original proposal:

Regions shall be unable to eject more than one nation per second.

If this interpretation is correct, the proposal's second part (which refers to "nations" trying to exceed the rate limit) would apply to all nations with Border Control powers in a given region, and any nation that attempts to eject within one second of the most recent ejection will get an error message. Whether this message will look like the "superweapon cooldown" error from Z-Day or the "failed security check" error when trying to endorse outside your own region remains unclear.

EDIT: Really, forums? I log back into my main, and you still post from my puppet?!

[Klopstock]

These two proposals (with Variation B of the second one) will be implemented between Christmas and the New Year. Thanks to everyone for your patience and feedback thus far.

Further changes are also possible; we'll take another look at the state of the landscape after implementation, and would appreciate your continuing feedback.

Thanks [violet]!

[[violet]]

Is the ejection rate limit only for Delegates and ROs, or is it also applied to Founders?

Delegates & ROs only. As usual, Founders float above the regular laws of nature.

Can we get some details on how that one per second rate limit will be measured?

It will be a simple, hard 1-second region-based limit. That is, if a nation has been ejected from the region within the last second, an attempt to eject a second nation will fail, with a notification.

Has it been considered that this limits an element of genuine skill, along with encouraging the practice of massive (think 30+ endo gap) piles on one or two operations, rather than a finer spread focusing on involvement like we've seen recently under RO's, and which tonight even allowed a liberation to occur?

Yes, there's a bit of discussion in this thread. It's a good argument, because we do want to reward skill (of all types). But we feel the need to rebalance is more persuasive at this point.

What is the administration's outlook on employing an ejection rate restriction of, for example, ten nations every ten seconds, as opposed to the hard limit of one nation per second?

I actually suggested 5-in-5 earlier in this thread, which allows for more peaky behavior. But there wasn't enough enthusiasm to support it (at this stage, at least), hence the simple timer.

Please do keep feeding back your thoughts & comments on the changes after they're in; I really appreciate the constructive discussions we've had here.

[Knot III]

What is the administration's outlook on employing an ejection rate restriction of, for example, ten nations every ten seconds, as opposed to the hard limit of one nation per second?

I actually suggested 5-in-5 earlier in this thread, which allows for more peaky behavior. But there wasn't enough enthusiasm to support it (at this stage, at least), hence the simple timer.

My strategy of liberation suppression uses a first-come, first-serve basis for defenders, where the first ones to jump are the first ones to be kicked. In other words, no ejections occur within the first five to ten seconds of the initial jump since I'm opening up tabs of defenders I want to send a Christmas card to. For the next five to ten seconds however, I'm able to deliver such presents to them in a very quick and efficient manner.

The hard limit of one nation per second will result in invader points opening up defender updaters prior to the jump and having tools such as an auto-refresher to manage regular rates by kicking people the moment they jump. Dunno about what the rest of y'all think, but I prefer to keep the game as "manual" as possible, without the need to utilize external tools. Illegal scripts can surely work an exact banjection rate limitation far better than humans can or ever should.

[[violet]]

Dunno about what the rest of y'all think, but I prefer to keep the game as "manual" as possible, without the need to utilize external tools. Illegal scripts can surely work an exact banjection rate limitation far better than humans can or ever should.

Yes, very much agree with this.

[Berochi]

My strategy of liberation suppression uses a first-come, first-serve basis for defenders, where the first ones to jump are the first ones to be kicked. In other words, no ejections occur within the first five to ten seconds of the initial jump since I'm opening up tabs of defenders I want to send a Christmas card to. For the next five to ten seconds however, I'm able to deliver such presents to them in a very quick and efficient manner.

The hard limit of one nation per second will result in invader points opening up defender updaters prior to the jump and having tools such as an auto-refresher to manage regular rates by kicking people the moment they jump. Dunno about what the rest of y'all think, but I prefer to keep the game as "manual" as possible, without the need to utilize external tools. Illegal scripts can surely work an exact banjection rate limitation far better than humans can or ever should.

Then, quite simply, don't use a script. You're the point, you can decide to use a tool or not. Don't make it sound like you have been forced to use a script by this change. If you want to win a tiny part of this game - as everyone is so quick to point out - so badly that you'll use an illegal script then you'll get everything you deserve.

A simple adjustment to your procedure above should solve your problem, without a script.

[Knot III]

Then, quite simply, don't use a script. You're the point, you can decide to use a tool or not. Don't make it sound like you have been forced to use a script by this change. If you want to win a tiny part of this game - as everyone is so quick to point out - so badly that you'll use an illegal script then you'll get everything you deserve.

A simple adjustment to your procedure above should solve your problem, without a script.

I can only assume that the puppet-wanking is occurring due to the undesirable consequence of having a lack of reading comprehension associated with your main identity if you were not.

My above post clearly has no indication anywhere that states that an auto-ejection script must be utilized in order to "win". Judging by prior usages of scripts to circumvent even non-military processes, someone's going to have a brain lapse and actually do it. Again, a computer can create a hard ejection rate of one nation per one second far better than a human can; it's all too easy. We, on the other hand, have variations in clicking, as well as personal and environmental factors to deal with that can affect the outcome of a liberation attempt. This basically forms the bulk of the argument for a "10-10" or "5-5" limit rather than a hard one-for-one.

But what if one gifted person named Jim has mastered the skill of banjecting one nation in exactly one second? Aren't we supposed to be talking about Regional Officers here?

Let's create a situation where Jim and his not-quite-as-gifted Border Control Officer buddy must suppress a liberation attempt:
"Hey Carl, I'm going to kick a nation every odd second and you're going to kick a nation every even second."
"Sure Jim, but I just screwed up by kicking my designated defender pal two milliseconds too late."
"Dammit Carl, I tried to eject another nation at the 3 second mark but it gave me an error."
"Oh shit."
"Oh shit."
Now what if there were two Border Control Officers who were not as skilled as Jim is at liberation suppression? What if even more BCO's were added into the equation?

Admin would do well by axing both Border Control Officers and an ejection rate; defenders didn't complain about pre-RO conditions, did they?

[Cormac Stark]

Is the ejection rate limit only for Delegates and ROs, or is it also applied to Founders?

Delegates & ROs only. As usual, Founders float above the regular laws of nature.

Shouldn't Executive Delegates, at least in founderless regions, also float above this particular "law of nature"? This seems to me like a limitation that should only apply to ROs, similar to the doubled influence cost. In founderless regions, the Delegate plays the Executive role of the Founder and should be treated as such.

[Berochi]

I can only assume that the puppet-wanking is occurring due to the undesirable consequence of having a lack of reading comprehension associated with your main identity if you were not.

My above post clearly has no indication anywhere that states that an auto-ejection script must be utilized in order to "win". Judging by prior usages of scripts to circumvent even non-military processes, someone's going to have a brain lapse and actually do it. Again, a computer can create a hard ejection rate of one nation per one second far better than a human can; it's all too easy. We, on the other hand, have variations in clicking, as well as personal and environmental factors to deal with that can affect the outcome of a liberation attempt. This basically forms the bulk of the argument for a "10-10" or "5-5" limit rather than a hard one-for-one.

Yes, yes, everyone hates a puppet. Let's skip this next time, it's incredibly tiresome.

You didn't outright say someone would use an illegal script (like you have here), but the implication was there. Just as you implied auto-refreshers or other tools would become a necessity. I'm saying that the choice to use tools is up to you - the point. Admin aren't forcing you to do anything. If you want to keep doing things manually, then do that. I indicated above that a solution exists to your 'burst' problem.

But what if one gifted person named Jim has mastered the skill of banjecting one nation in exactly one second? Aren't we supposed to be talking about Regional Officers here?

Let's create a situation where Jim and his not-quite-as-gifted Border Control Officer buddy must suppress a liberation attempt:
"Hey Carl, I'm going to kick a nation every odd second and you're going to kick a nation every even second."
"Sure Jim, but I just screwed up by kicking my designated defender pal two milliseconds too late."
"Dammit Carl, I tried to eject another nation at the 3 second mark but it gave me an error."
"Oh shit."
"Oh shit."
Now what if there were two Border Control Officers who were not as skilled as Jim is at liberation suppression? What if even more BCO's were added into the equation?

I believe the point of this change was to mitigate the improvement in banning speed raiders gained by having BCOs? It makes sense then - to me at least - that attempting to continue to use BCOs would not prove worthwhile. Although, again, a possible alternative that uses a single BCO presents itself that could be utilised.

Admin would do well by axing both Border Control Officers and an ejection rate; defenders didn't complain about pre-RO conditions, did they?

I agree with the first part, but lol at the second, as I imagine you did when you wrote it. However, violet has indicated that BCOs are here to stay, so solutions must be found within that.

@Cormac: That still leaves us with an increased ejection rate - what violet's proposals aim to remove.

[Sedgistan]

I can only assume that the puppet-wanking is occurring due to the undesirable consequence of having a lack of reading comprehension associated with your main identity if you were not.

*** Warned for flamebaiting *** Your tone might have been tolerable elsewhere, but it is not appropriate in Technical, as you've been reminded earlier this this thread. Stick to making your point, rather than making jibes at the people you're arguing with.

[Canton Empire]

Allow Founders to change the names of the Founder and Delegate position

[Sedgistan]

The place where it says who the regional officers are could be less clunky
Also: could it be possible to change the name of the WA delegate position?

Can we be able to change the name of the WA delegate and founder like NS++?

Ability to change founder/delegate titles, please

Ability to change founder/delegate titles, please

Allow Founders to change the names of the Founder and Delegate position

*** Warned for spamming. *** You're not adding anything new there, and you've never attempted to argue your point.

[Canton Empire]

The place where it says who the regional officers are could be less clunky
Also: could it be possible to change the name of the WA delegate position?

Can we be able to change the name of the WA delegate and founder like NS++?

Ability to change founder/delegate titles, please

Allow Founders to change the names of the Founder and Delegate position

*** Warned for spamming. *** You're not adding anything new there, and you've never attempted to argue your point.

Ive I've never seen anyone anwser this. If you have, please link to that post, and I will gladly stop

[Stormaen]

Allow Founders to change the names of the Founder and Delegate position

I agree.

[Safraen]

Consider filing an appeal in Moderation or even filing a GHR.