Mousebumples wrote:If you want something added to the game that's not included in these summit topics (like Guy's No WA Admissions during update), make a Technical thread. Adding more and more ideas that were not a part of the Summit is not going to magically make the Summit more helpful or useful or ... whatever word you want to use.
It has been a while since I last visited NationStates for any reason, but that does not mean I have not been thinking about NS and the Raider-Defender game which has given me plenty of entertainment. Last night I was thinking about the R/D Summit and the ideas it produced, some of which we have seen implemented in the past few years, others of which we are still waiting on the admin to figure out and fully implement. While I was thinking, a new idea hit me. So in the spirit of Mousebumples' words (above), I have returned to contribute what I can to the R/D game.
There is a lot of information here, so although I really want questions, I would really appreciate it if you read the whole thing through before assuming what you were going to ask isn't covered here. There's a lot of shiny moving parts with lots of details.
Regional Quarantine
Here are the three necessary systems which will be implemented to carry out Regional Quarantine effectively:
- Time-stamp Trigger at Update
- Quarantine
- Region "Contested" State
Time-Stamp Trigger
Mechanically this is simple to implement: when a region updates, the update checks to see if two or more nations have entered the region within the past ten seconds (exact numbers to be tweaked for balance). If true, the region enters the Contested state.
I will explain what the Contested region state does in a moment, but for now we just need to understand that it changes some of the mechanics of how the region works. The reason there are such strict rules on how to cause a region to become contested is that we do not want nations unintentionally triggering the Contested state because of normal movement between regions. In fact, we may want to reduce the sensitivity of larger regions becoming contested, otherwise people will be trolling the feeders all the time. Perhaps we could limit the use of this mechanic to WA nations only, or make the number of nations required to contest the region a function of the WA delegate's endorsement count.
For the R/D game, there are several consequences. For raiders, the main consequence is that they will have to use sleeper operations if they want to avoid triggering the Contested state (although they could jump early, defenders might trigger the Contested state when they follow). Tag-raiding will be unaffected, though it could be slightly more risky if Quarantine is implemented in a certain way. For defenders, there is a similar consequence to contesting a region, though mostly in terms of liberations. Generally speaking, if a region is experiencing an invasion of some kind, if one side wants the region to be contested it will be. This will become much clearer as we continue with the other systems.
Quarantine
Forget about the R/D game for a moment, and look at the current system of regional operations from the eyes of a regular player in a fruitful region. Currently we have quite a barbaric system in place for dealing with mischief and the like. The only way to punish bad behavior in a region is with an ejection or a ban. However, just being ejected costs influence, is not a true punishment, and can erode the size of your region. There are very few instances in which ejection is actually beneficial to regions using it, so they usually just go all the way and issue a ban. But why can't mischief be punished in a more "civilized" way?
Okay now, back to R/D:
As prison is to capital punishment, so is Quarantine to banning. The R/D game and the population of NS at large need some form of intermediate option when it comes to punishment and battle in N/S at large, and Quarantine is uniquely suited to the task. Under normal circumstances, quarantine is simply a place within the region where the delegate and R/O's can place problem nations, for significantly less cost than direct banning. Nations in quarantine are considered to be inside the regions in which they reside, they gain influence like normal, can post to the RMB (up for change), and they can endorse and be endorsed. However, nations in quarantine cannot exercise other powers, and their endorsement of other nations is not considered when the update determines who the delegate is. Delegates may remove quarantined nations from quarantine for no influence cost.
Here I would like to float a potentially controversial idea:
But what about the inevitable trolls who will use this mechanic as a way to annoy other players? Quarantine needs to "leak", as it were. After a number of updates determined by admin (I suggest 2-5 days of quarantine), quarantined nations will be given the opportunity to leave quarantine. The reason for not automatically removing nations from quarantine is so that a quarantined nation can't be permanently trapped by the delegate or founder. I also think there should be some mechanic which allows groups of quarantined nations to attempt a jailbreak, to even out the power, though I am unsure of the implementation.
For the R/D game, being able to temporarily trap enemy WA nations (remember, I am suggesting WA nations in quarantine are frozen in the WA) has all sorts of diverse applications which could be used by both sides, and can be easily viewed as a form of casualties or POW's during an engagement. However, it also preserves native communities because natives don't want to leave their region in the first place.
(I imagine the Quarantine mechanic could also be used in the context of the annual zombie infestation. Just a thought.)
Contested Regions
[spoiler]Now that we have covered the underlying context in which conflict can take place, we can get to the real meat of the idea:
When a region becomes contested, that is when the battle between two competing forces starts. It is when the actions of individual nations in concert with each other become extremely important. Simply having a large force will not guarantee victory at the next update, because uncoordinated decisions, undisciplined soldiers, and tactical blunders become just as important. Here's why:
First, the delegate loses the ability to ban, set passwords, or deal with quarantined nations. All other administrative powers remain in effect. This effectively means that a small updater force has the option to stun a native delegate they would like to target, rather than having to brute-force it on the first try.
Second, ALL nations (not in quarantine), regardless of WA status, gain the ability to attempt to quarantine ONE other nation at the next update. At the update, if the combined endorsements on the nations attempting to quarantine a nation equals or exceeds the endorsement count of that nation, that nation will be moved to quarantine. Attempts to quarantine are hidden from view until the moment they happen.
Third, if a nation does not posses endorsements or influence, ANY nation in the region with influence or endorsements (except quarantined nations) may INSTANTLY either quarantine or ban that nation, at no influence cost. Also, endorsements from nations with no influence do not act as a shield to this, so two pilers can't just endorse each other beforehand and move to the region at the same time and expect to be safe. This is intended to combat piling, create a small challenge to ensure the safe arrival of reinforcements, and reward well organized armies.
Upon update in contested regions, attempts by groups of nations to quarantine each other are evaluated and either succeed or fail. A sample happenings feed might read "Seconds ago, Testlandia was successfully quarantined by Maxtopia and Bigtopia". If even one nation enters the region within the last 10 seconds before update, and manages to update in the region, the region remains contested. Otherwise, the region returns to a normal state of affairs.
Expected Outcomes
[spoiler]I expect that under this system both raiders and defenders will adapt to place an emphasis on having a systematic approach to carrying out invasions with reliance on good communication and superior tactics. Raiders will have an edge because they both determine the time and location of raids, and they also know what their resources will look like ahead of time. Defenders will have to rely on quick mobilization of natives to act according to strategy, or else chances are all the defenders will end up in quarantine and be unable to help for a little while. Espionage will play a critical role, since knowledge of enemy plans will allow soldiers to evade quarantine more often, and spies could act to turn battles with a combination of leading tacticians to overextend their forces and using enemy endorsements as ammunition to quarantine them.
If natives are well-prepared to defend themselves, it is quite possible they could not just defend their region, but with just a little defender intervention they could also put the raiders involved with the raid out of commission for a few days. On the other hand, successful raiders could also immobilize defenders, giving themselves the chance to carry out more bold raids over the next few updates. In cases where lots of operations happen in a short amount of time and both sides end up with POW's there might even be a case of prisoner exchanges. Then there is always the potential surprise and shock when someone forgets quarantine is about to expire, and a well-timed follow-up attack leaves the enemy completely shocked and surprised.
The point is, there are so many possible outcomes with this system, and I hope to see it or something like it happen in the future of R/D.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
After a little discussion, here's where we are now:
Delegate Challenge
If implemented, Delegate Challenge would allow WA nations with X or more endorsements to issue a formal challenge to the delegate of the region, where X is a function of the sitting delegate's current endorsement count. On the update after the challenge is made, the sitting delegate would lose access to border and executive authority, and the delegate challenge would go into effect across the region. All WA nations would be given the opportunity to target another nation (excluding the delegate or challenger) to be banned or quarantined on the next update. At the update, nations would either be banned or quarantined based on their influence and endorsement count, and if the delegate or the challenger decisively won, the region would return to a normal state. Otherwise, the region would remain contested. Regions continuing into multiple updates of a Delegate Challenge would effectively become passworded, barring entry to the region during the contest.
Delegate Challenge is intended to make military gameplay more accessible and personal for the average player, eliminate the binary nature of outcomes from the current numbers game, and add a layer of conflict to regional politics without sending everyone to the Rejected Realms.
Issuing a Challenge
Nations possessing enough endorsements relative to the WA delegate of their region would be allowed to issue a challenge to their delegate. For example, it may be that a nation with half as many endorsements as the delegate may issue a challenge. Note that it is entirely possible and allowable for two different nations to issue a challenge the same update. Indeed, it must be allowable, or else it is possible for a faction to cause a "game-over" scenario by repeatedly challenging their own delegate, thereby excluding all other potential challengers. A challenger may withdraw his challenge of the delegate any time before the next update.
At update, the region would double-check all challengers to the delegate. Any challenger not meeting the required endorsement count to issue the challenge would cease being a challenger to the delegate. If no challengers remain after this check, the update will proceed as normal. Else, a challenge will be issued and all qualified challengers will be given the chance to try and seize the delegate position.
It should be noted that even while a region is being contested nations are still allowed to issue a challenge if they have the required endorsement count. Their challenge will be evaluated at the update, and if their challenge is still valid they will become a challenger. This is necessary because otherwise factions could cause the same sort of "game-over" scenario as mentioned above. Challengers cannot "renew" their challenge at any time.
In terms of the R/D game, if you are leading on endorsements, current game mechanics benefit you. However, if you are behind on endorsements, you want to challenge the delegate. Raiders capable of taking a region at the update would much rather gain access to regional controls right away than give defenders 12 hours to move in their forces safely. And as for defenders, they would much rather immediately liberate a region with a large liberation force than have to give the raiders battle for several updates. But being able to challenge the delegate means there is still a reason for a smaller force to enter a region dominated by a larger force. This will allow raiders to attempt raids they would not otherwise attempt, and it will allow defenders to attempt to liberate regions they would otherwise have no chance to save.
At update, the region would double-check all challengers to the delegate. Any challenger not meeting the required endorsement count to issue the challenge would cease being a challenger to the delegate. If no challengers remain after this check, the update will proceed as normal. Else, a challenge will be issued and all qualified challengers will be given the chance to try and seize the delegate position.
It should be noted that even while a region is being contested nations are still allowed to issue a challenge if they have the required endorsement count. Their challenge will be evaluated at the update, and if their challenge is still valid they will become a challenger. This is necessary because otherwise factions could cause the same sort of "game-over" scenario as mentioned above. Challengers cannot "renew" their challenge at any time.
In terms of the R/D game, if you are leading on endorsements, current game mechanics benefit you. However, if you are behind on endorsements, you want to challenge the delegate. Raiders capable of taking a region at the update would much rather gain access to regional controls right away than give defenders 12 hours to move in their forces safely. And as for defenders, they would much rather immediately liberate a region with a large liberation force than have to give the raiders battle for several updates. But being able to challenge the delegate means there is still a reason for a smaller force to enter a region dominated by a larger force. This will allow raiders to attempt raids they would not otherwise attempt, and it will allow defenders to attempt to liberate regions they would otherwise have no chance to save.
Gathering Forces
The first contested update is the most important because it sets the stage for the rest of the conflict. During all updates of a delegate contest, neither the delegate nor the challenger(s) have access to border controls or executive powers, regardless of endorsement count. The delegate or challenger who had the most endorsements on the last update gains access to all other controls. All regional officers are barred from using their powers, but they maintain their positions.
If the conflict isn't won after the first update, all movement into the region is blocked until there is a winner. This means all players who wish to affect the outcome of the delegate challenge have only 12 hours to move their WA nation into the region before it will be too late. Since this would encourage people to try and move loads of puppets into contested regions, all nations in the region may eject and ban any non-WA nation according to its influence cost. So native puppets and raider and defender sleepers may come into play later in extended conflicts, but preemptive cramming would be about as feasible as it is now. In order to reward activity and good organization, WA nations with no influence or endorsements could be ejected and banned by other WA nations. Moving forces into a region would therefore require that someone on your team be online and ready to endorse you within seconds of you moving into the region, and this would give bored soldiers on either side something to do while waiting for the update.
If the conflict isn't won after the first update, all movement into the region is blocked until there is a winner. This means all players who wish to affect the outcome of the delegate challenge have only 12 hours to move their WA nation into the region before it will be too late. Since this would encourage people to try and move loads of puppets into contested regions, all nations in the region may eject and ban any non-WA nation according to its influence cost. So native puppets and raider and defender sleepers may come into play later in extended conflicts, but preemptive cramming would be about as feasible as it is now. In order to reward activity and good organization, WA nations with no influence or endorsements could be ejected and banned by other WA nations. Moving forces into a region would therefore require that someone on your team be online and ready to endorse you within seconds of you moving into the region, and this would give bored soldiers on either side something to do while waiting for the update.
Winning
At the beginning of a contested update, whichever challenger or delegate has the most endorsements is the "Delegate Elect". If a delegate elect has more endorsements than any challenger at the end of an update, they win and become the delegate. Usually the sitting delegate will be the delegate elect during the first update, but there are rare cases where a challenger may start the first update with more endorsements than the delegate. Some examples are when a coup surpasses the delegate in endorsements shortly before update, or when an updater force of raiders decides to preemptively challenge the delegate because defenders are on their tail. In the case of a tie, the delegate elect does not become the delegate. The delegate elect instead remains the delegate elect until victory is decisive.
Victory can come even sooner in some cases: if at update a delegate or challenger is below the number of endorsements necessary to challenge the nation with the most endorsements, they cease to be a valid challenger. Challengers or delegates may also concede defeat any time they please by resigning from the WA, leaving the region, or clicking a button provided for that purpose. If only one delegate or challenger remains after any of these actions, that nation will instantly become the WA delegate with access to all associated powers, and the region will return to a normal state. Sitting RO's will not regain their powers until the next update.
While a region is contested, all individual WA nations may target one other nation to be banned or quarantined at the next update. The exception here is that the delegate and all challengers to the delegate could not be targeted. This would encourage raiders and defenders to have as many soldiers as possible issue challenges to the delegate in order to become immune to targeting, but I have a work-around: in order to target other nations, WA nations must endorse no more than one challenger or the delegate. Targeting is anonymous. No one gets a message saying who is targeting who, until after the region updates and the results of all targeting attempts are final.
When a contested region updates, targeting may translate to banning or quarantine: (1) the total firepower taken by each nation is the sum of the endorsements of all nations targeting it, (2) if the total firepower on a nation exceeds a nation's total endorsement count, it is either banned from the region or quarantined, (3) banning and quarantining happens all at the same time, so that the order nations update in does not affect the outcome of targeting. Note that nations with an equal number of endorsements are unable to harm each other without aid from someone else.
Nations that would be banned through targeting are quarantined if they have above a minimum amount of influence, otherwise they are ejected and banned. Endorsements from quarantined nations do not contribute to electing a delegate, and quarantined nations cannot target other nations to be banned or quarantined. Nations may leave quarantine at the click of a button when the region returns to the usual mechanics. This effectively means that factions with deep roots in a region cannot be removed without first having their influence overcome by whichever faction wins. It also gives an incentive for participants in a conflict to target foreign forces before more established ones.
Victory can come even sooner in some cases: if at update a delegate or challenger is below the number of endorsements necessary to challenge the nation with the most endorsements, they cease to be a valid challenger. Challengers or delegates may also concede defeat any time they please by resigning from the WA, leaving the region, or clicking a button provided for that purpose. If only one delegate or challenger remains after any of these actions, that nation will instantly become the WA delegate with access to all associated powers, and the region will return to a normal state. Sitting RO's will not regain their powers until the next update.
While a region is contested, all individual WA nations may target one other nation to be banned or quarantined at the next update. The exception here is that the delegate and all challengers to the delegate could not be targeted. This would encourage raiders and defenders to have as many soldiers as possible issue challenges to the delegate in order to become immune to targeting, but I have a work-around: in order to target other nations, WA nations must endorse no more than one challenger or the delegate. Targeting is anonymous. No one gets a message saying who is targeting who, until after the region updates and the results of all targeting attempts are final.
When a contested region updates, targeting may translate to banning or quarantine: (1) the total firepower taken by each nation is the sum of the endorsements of all nations targeting it, (2) if the total firepower on a nation exceeds a nation's total endorsement count, it is either banned from the region or quarantined, (3) banning and quarantining happens all at the same time, so that the order nations update in does not affect the outcome of targeting. Note that nations with an equal number of endorsements are unable to harm each other without aid from someone else.
Nations that would be banned through targeting are quarantined if they have above a minimum amount of influence, otherwise they are ejected and banned. Endorsements from quarantined nations do not contribute to electing a delegate, and quarantined nations cannot target other nations to be banned or quarantined. Nations may leave quarantine at the click of a button when the region returns to the usual mechanics. This effectively means that factions with deep roots in a region cannot be removed without first having their influence overcome by whichever faction wins. It also gives an incentive for participants in a conflict to target foreign forces before more established ones.
Exceptions: GCR's, Liberated Regions, Founders, Weak Delegates, No delegates
Here are conditions requiring some discussion given the rules above:
GCR's are the most obvious exception because they can't be pass-worded. Under a Delegate Challenge, GCR's would operate like normal, except that the region would never be locked down, quarantined nations could leave quarantine any time, and non-WA nations could not be banned or quarantined except as a result of being targeted. By nature of its rules, targeted nations in TRR would always be quarantined.
Liberated Regions: We have a choice: they could operate as described for GCRs, or delegate challenge would simply not work in liberated regions.
Founders: Delegate Challenge in foundered regions would work, but the founder maintains control of all administrative controls, so he could just kick/ban any rebellious nations, effectively returning power to the delegate immediately. He could also remove the artificial password from the region every update. Because of quarantine, it is possible that delegate challenges could be used in conjunction with roleplay or regional government, so some founders may even participate in this mini-game of sorts. In regions with non-executive WADs, targeted nations would be quarantined instead of ejected.
Weak Delegates refers to the majority of delegates, who usually have 1-3 endorsements. It can't be too easy for someone to go into a semi-active region with two nations, challenge the delegate and win the next update. This probably needs more discussion, but for such weak delegates it seem easy enough for a small updater force to enter the region and take the region outright, so I suggest that delegate challenges simply do not go into effect on this scale unless there is another challenger, or the challenger and the delegate have the same number of endorsements.
No Delegate: Nations with 0 endorsements are not allowed to issue a challenge, because then people could become the WA delegate of a region without receiving any endorsements. The practical application of issuing a challenge in a region with no delegate would be to prevent someone else from becoming the delegate. If the region updates and the only region with endorsements in the region is the issuer of a challenge, the challenger becomes the delegate. This could be used by defenders trying to prevent raiders from being able to capture delegateless regions, without needing nearly as large of an updater force. Naturally, the raiders could still tag the region, but as soon as their delegate elect left the WA, they would lose their foothold to the region.
GCR's are the most obvious exception because they can't be pass-worded. Under a Delegate Challenge, GCR's would operate like normal, except that the region would never be locked down, quarantined nations could leave quarantine any time, and non-WA nations could not be banned or quarantined except as a result of being targeted. By nature of its rules, targeted nations in TRR would always be quarantined.
Liberated Regions: We have a choice: they could operate as described for GCRs, or delegate challenge would simply not work in liberated regions.
Founders: Delegate Challenge in foundered regions would work, but the founder maintains control of all administrative controls, so he could just kick/ban any rebellious nations, effectively returning power to the delegate immediately. He could also remove the artificial password from the region every update. Because of quarantine, it is possible that delegate challenges could be used in conjunction with roleplay or regional government, so some founders may even participate in this mini-game of sorts. In regions with non-executive WADs, targeted nations would be quarantined instead of ejected.
Weak Delegates refers to the majority of delegates, who usually have 1-3 endorsements. It can't be too easy for someone to go into a semi-active region with two nations, challenge the delegate and win the next update. This probably needs more discussion, but for such weak delegates it seem easy enough for a small updater force to enter the region and take the region outright, so I suggest that delegate challenges simply do not go into effect on this scale unless there is another challenger, or the challenger and the delegate have the same number of endorsements.
No Delegate: Nations with 0 endorsements are not allowed to issue a challenge, because then people could become the WA delegate of a region without receiving any endorsements. The practical application of issuing a challenge in a region with no delegate would be to prevent someone else from becoming the delegate. If the region updates and the only region with endorsements in the region is the issuer of a challenge, the challenger becomes the delegate. This could be used by defenders trying to prevent raiders from being able to capture delegateless regions, without needing nearly as large of an updater force. Naturally, the raiders could still tag the region, but as soon as their delegate elect left the WA, they would lose their foothold to the region.
- Galiantus
I didn't see it as a ban because the effect would have only lasted a couple updates, there was no direct "kicking" going on, and usually banned nations are just never allowed to join again. The whole idea was to temporarily trap existing WA's so R/D players couldn't switch and immediately return to the conflict they had just been involved in. If non-WA nations in quarantine could still join the WA, the spirit of the system would be there.
