Regional Officers

[The Silver Sentinel]

but ROs with tons of influence that will shut your raid up in minutes.

Is it not their region? Last time I checked, they are not welcoming you in to sully up their WFE and take control of their region. We have regions for that, they are called warzones. You are complaining that you had to put in all this work to raid the region. What about nations that reside there? Is their work not just, if not more important? By all means please quote my comment out of context to defend your position.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

but ROs with tons of influence that will shut your raid up in minutes.

Is it not their region? Last time I checked, they are not welcoming you in to sully up their WFE and take control of their region. We have regions for that, they are called warzones. You are complaining that you had to put in all this work to raid the region. What about nations that reside there? Is their work not just, if not more important? By all means please quote my comment out of context to defend your position.

Last I recall, the warzones were bitching about an RO in Airspace continuing to hold the region as well

I agreed with much of Onder's post on the last page. Delays in appointments to maintain the status quo are more than fair. Delays in dismissal, I believe, will not have effects nearly as agreeable.

[Belschaft]

Which is why I have been arguing for a delay in dismissal and appointment of RO's from day one. At present BC/RO's are of use only to raiders and coupers, and reduce regional security making natives lives harder.

It sounds like we are specifically talking about border control. I am fine with delaying appointment, but please tell me how delaying dismissal won't kill most raids?

Delaying dismissal will make raiders and coupers lives considerably harder; that was meant to be the bloody point. Somewhere between the conference and implementation admin seem to have forgotten that.

[Belschaft]

Is it not their region? Last time I checked, they are not welcoming you in to sully up their WFE and take control of their region. We have regions for that, they are called warzones. You are complaining that you had to put in all this work to raid the region. What about nations that reside there? Is their work not just, if not more important? By all means please quote my comment out of context to defend your position.

Last I recall, the warzones were bitching about an RO in Airspace continuing to hold the region as well

I agreed with much of Onder's post on the last page. Delays in appointments to maintain the status quo are more than fair. Delays in dismissal, I believe, will not have effects nearly as agreeable.

By which you mean it will make your life harder by empowering natives, which was meant to be the entire point.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Indeed, I'm pretty sure it's understood that the game needs rebalancing. This means non-neutral changes.

[New Perotasoa]

Last I recall, the warzones were bitching about an RO in Airspace continuing to hold the region as well

I agreed with much of Onder's post on the last page. Delays in appointments to maintain the status quo are more than fair. Delays in dismissal, I believe, will not have effects nearly as agreeable.

Unfortunately, this is true. He joined an invasion and became Vice Delegate, then banjected the WA Delegate (who did nothing??) and holds power. There are only two nations left in Airspace.

To be fair, the RO's are more useful for Warzones to help prevent invasions. The Delegate can be removed, but if you are online before the invaders after the update you can always banject them all as an emergency measure to slow the invasion. It nearly saved my region

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I've been over several times here, how, if delayed dismissal in implemented, yes, raids will be far harder - but the ones that do succeed will be near irreversible. Any response to that?

Unfortunately, this is true. He joined an invasion and became Vice Delegate, then banjected the WA Delegate (who did nothing??) and holds power. There are only two nations left in Airspace.

To be fair, the RO's are more useful for Warzones to help prevent invasions. The Delegate can be removed, but if you are online before the invaders after the update you can always banject them all as an emergency measure to slow the invasion. It nearly saved my region

You see, Chester, even the regions made to be raided have Natives who don't like them to be.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I've been over several times here, how, if delayed dismissal in implemented, yes, raids will be far harder - but the ones that do succeed will be near irreversible. Any response to that?

I did. I disagree with your assessment. I think delayed regional officer changes helps natives more than it helps occupiers. (I am not sure that it helps either as much as Regional Officers with Border Control help coupers, of course...)

[New Perotasoa]

You see, Chester, even the regions made to be raided have Natives who don't like them to be.

I thought the same when I first settled in the Warzones a few months ago. It is indeed true

[Belschaft]

I've been over several times here, how, if delayed dismissal in implemented, yes, raids will be far harder - but the ones that do succeed will be near irreversible. Any response to that?

I did. I disagree with your assessment. I think delayed regional officer changes helps natives more than it helps occupiers. (I am not sure that it helps either as much as Regional Officers with Border Control help coupers, of course...)

I see BC/RO's being neutral in regards to coups if there is delayed changes implemented, and assuming that at least some of the BC/RO's are anti-coup. For example, in the 2013 Milograd coup of TSP BC/RO's would have led to a swift native victory as either Fudgie or Brutland would have had the influence to eject him, and he had none of the people who would have been BC/RO's on his side. The NLO coup of Lazarus however would have probably ended as an NLO victory as they had the majority of the people who would have been BC/RO's on their side.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

A rouge delegate would have been in office long enough to have the power to remove and appoint RO's (assuming they had people they could trust). What would be needed to prevent that would be an embassy-style ever-present delay on appointments/dismissals, as compared to a regionwide TG style from-appointment clock.

[Belschaft]

A rouge delegate would have been in office long enough to have the power to remove and appoint RO's (assuming they had people they could trust). What would be needed to prevent that would be an embassy-style ever-present delay on appointments/dismissals, as compared to a regionwide TG style from-appointment clock.

Which is why such a system is my first preference. An appointment clock is better than what we have currently, but only of use for invasions.

[[violet]]

First, I'd like to note that it's disappointing not to have a serious response from Admin for the last week, but then again, we haven't seen a serious response for three years now.

Ask me a question, I'll answer it. This is my 86th forum post on Regional Officers and there's a News announcement describing the precise changes under consideration, so I'm genuinely unsure what you're waiting for. When we call for player feedback, that's genuine: we want to hear from the community, not direct it.

[Belschaft]

First, I'd like to note that it's disappointing not to have a serious response from Admin for the last week, but then again, we haven't seen a serious response for three years now.

Ask me a question, I'll answer it. This is my 86th forum post on Regional Officers and there's a News announcement describing the precise changes under consideration, so I'm genuinely unsure what you're waiting for. When we call for player feedback, that's genuine: we want to hear from the community, not direct it.

Here's a question; are admin currently considering implementing either of the proposed forms of RO appointment/removal delay?

[[violet]]

So personally it looks like these changes are shaping up as the most promising:

• New Delegates should be unable to appoint new Regional Officers for the first 72 hours (but can immediately dismiss any existing Officers).
• Regions should be unable to eject more than one nation per second. (This would reduce the effectiveness of a team of Border Control Officers working together to hold a newly-captured region against liberators).

The first one could perhaps be trialed as a shorter window than 72 hours with a view to adjusting as necessary.

The other proposals from the News page seem to have less support at this stage, or would more fundamentally change the nature of gameplay, as opposed to merely rebalancing what we just implemented, which takes it somewhat outside the scope of this particular discussion.

[[violet]]

Here's a question; are admin currently considering implementing either of the proposed forms of RO appointment/removal delay?

Yes, of course. It says so on the News page.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Ask me a question, I'll answer it.

Who is [Violet]?
What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?
What is the question to life, the universe, and everything?
Why oh why did she swallow that fly?
If Pinocchio says "this statement is a lie," what does his nose do?

....sorry, couldn't resist

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

The other proposals from the News page seem to have less support at this stage, or would more fundamentally change the nature of gameplay, as opposed to merely rebalancing what we just implemented, which takes it somewhat outside the scope of this particular discussion.

Regional Officers fundamentally change much about gameplay.

It was my understanding that the Summit was intended to rebalance gameplay, not merely add more bells and whistles without fixing the imbalance.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

So personally it looks like these changes are shaping up as the most promising:

• New Delegates should be unable to appoint new Regional Officers for the first 72 hours (but can immediately dismiss any existing Officers).
• Regions should be unable to eject more than one nation per second. (This would reduce the effectiveness of a team of Border Control Officers working together to hold a newly-captured region against liberators).

The first one could perhaps be trialed as a shorter window than 72 hours with a view to adjusting as necessary.

The other proposals from the News page seem to have less support at this stage, or would more fundamentally change the nature of gameplay, as opposed to merely rebalancing what we just implemented, which takes it somewhat outside the scope of this particular discussion.

Agreed absolutely with the first and trial.
On the second - One per second seems like an arbitrary number that has been thrown out. Could we perhaps do some example runs of ejections for you, so you could get an accurate gauge of what one person's ejection speeds in a few scenarios (ejecting incoming nations, ejection nations previously in the region [i.e. in refounding cases], doing the latter via the NS++ banhammer tool, doing it vanilla via nation pages, and doing it with some minor user-end page appearance changes) is?

EDIT: and by "one person" I mean a single person at a time, with trials done by several players.

[Knot II]

• New Delegates should be unable to appoint new Regional Officers for the first 72 hours (but can immediately dismiss any existing Officers).

The first one could perhaps be trialed as a shorter window than 72 hours with a view to adjusting as necessary.

A very reasonable change to the RO system.

• Regions should be unable to eject more than one nation per second. (This would reduce the effectiveness of a team of Border Control Officers working together to hold a newly-captured region against liberators).

I'm going to have to disagree with this one. Even without regional officers, ejecting faster than a rate of one nation per second is absolutely essential to suppressing liberations, not to mention refounding.

[Jakker]

The other proposals from the News page seem to have less support at this stage, or would more fundamentally change the nature of gameplay, as opposed to merely rebalancing what we just implemented, which takes it somewhat outside the scope of this particular discussion.

Regional Officers fundamentally change much about gameplay.

It was my understanding that the Summit was intended to rebalance gameplay, not merely add more bells and whistles without fixing the imbalance.

You have to remember that these affect more than just R/D. This allows many regions the ability to share region duties and not have to rely on a single founder or delegate to do everything.

[[violet]]

One per second seems like an arbitrary number that has been thrown out.

It is completely arbitrary! Implementation requires details, which I have to invent if there's been no player discussion. So yes, please do give informed feedback on what that number should be.

It may also be helpful to consider the difference between a limit like "one per X seconds" and "X per Y seconds." A one-per-second limit is stricter than five per five seconds, for example, because the latter is more forgiving of burst activity.

[Belschaft]

Here's a question; are admin currently considering implementing either of the proposed forms of RO appointment/removal delay?

Yes, of course. It says so on the News page.

Are admin considering the broader embassy style delay system? It faces fiercer opposition than the 26 hour delay, but is actually useful in fighting coups as well as raids.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

One per second seems like an arbitrary number that has been thrown out.

It is completely arbitrary! Implementation requires details, which I have to invent if there's been no player discussion. So yes, please do give informed feedback on what that number should be.

It may also be helpful to consider the difference between a limit like "one per X seconds" and "X per Y seconds." A one-per-second limit is stricter than five per five seconds, for example, because the latter is more forgiving of burst activity.

I'm sure that I could get a few people together one update in a puppet dump to run tests like those mentioned above, if that would be something you'd desire. Your back end tools would probably be best at determining averages over time. It wouldn't even need to be done at an update, and all but the tests for ejecting an incoming force could be done one person at a time. If you have parameters (like "how many can you eject in 10 seconds") we can test those via a couple methods, relay which method was used when, and you could draw data from that.

I can definitely agree that the burst allowance could be useful when we're speaking of stopping an incoming force, but if we're talking trying to eject your last 15 supports right before trying to refound a liberated region, if the overall cap exceeds that, it makes less difference. I'd overall prefer to focus on a more realistic, less arbitrary number.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I'd also think it's worth noting that a realistic limit would be more effective in refounding under the above situation, as I've broached before. We could test to confirm, but it's my strong belief that half a dozen people trying to eject an incoming force will not be all that much more effective than two people trying to eject an incoming force. Whereas in ejecting a body of nations already in the region can be pre-divided among RO's, ejecting people "first come first serve" as they come in is likely to result in a number of clashes between ejecting officers.