Delegate suggestion

[Alusi]

CAPTAIN BUZZKILL IS HERE TO RUIN THE DAY!

Thank god.

[Drasnia]

It's not 2.5% of NationStates that's "most heavily affected". It's a third. And for the benefit of 0.008% of the game.

I keep having to go back to this because no one has seemed to notice, but what if this change only affected larger regions? You know, the ones with enough players that not everyone has to go out and learn about regional security to protect the region. I absolutely agree small regions shouldn't have to deal with this I'm curious how things would look if you took out regions smaller than 20 nations and compared the number of affected nations then, with the consideration that it might be a good thing that regions with 100 or more nations are affected.

Also, you should leave puppet storage regions out of your data (if you aren't already doing so) because they aren't a good indicator of numbers of players affected, which is the really important number here.

So you're saying the game should punish people who have been successful at building a large and stable region?

[Alusi]

I keep having to go back to this because no one has seemed to notice, but what if this change only affected larger regions? You know, the ones with enough players that not everyone has to go out and learn about regional security to protect the region. I absolutely agree small regions shouldn't have to deal with this I'm curious how things would look if you took out regions smaller than 20 nations and compared the number of affected nations then, with the consideration that it might be a good thing that regions with 100 or more nations are affected.

Also, you should leave puppet storage regions out of your data (if you aren't already doing so) because they aren't a good indicator of numbers of players affected, which is the really important number here.

So you're saying the game should punish people who have been successful at building a large and stable region?

Yep!
Oh wait...

[Razil States]

There will be 100s and 1000s of raids of regions that wouldn't have been raided before for every 1 instance of R/Der's regions being successfully targeted.

The only thing I can do at this point is repeat myself:

These regions are already out there. They are not being regularly targeted. This proposal, if implemented, would only make more of them.

If this change would result in raiders lining up around the block to destroy regions with founders and exec delegates, why are they not doing it already?

What you propose is a change to a game feature that prohibits - and Reppy put it far better than I can. Ninja'd by the Moddess.

August, your stats do not reflect region type and purpose, only region setup. The resulting unfair changes would only benefit raiders.

Let's please not. When I created my region so I could be left alone, I didn't remove exec from the delegate. Shortly thereafter, I was tagged by Lily, so I had to take exec off of the delegate. I don't see why we should be catering to you military folks when it will just make me have to regularly clean up graffiti. It's a selfish proposal and not one that will at all benefit the game.

I agree - it's a selfish proposal. You keep that non-exec status, Bubblegum, and don't feel as though you have to cater to us.

[Kylia Quilor]

CAPTAIN BUZZKILL IS HERE TO RUIN THE DAY!

Thank god.

Thank you.

This is the most cringe-worthy proposal I've seen in Technical ever. Even Cormac's 'delete founders for R/D regions' is less cringe-worthy.

[Galiantus VII]

I keep having to go back to this because no one has seemed to notice, but what if this change only affected larger regions? You know, the ones with enough players that not everyone has to go out and learn about regional security to protect the region. I absolutely agree small regions shouldn't have to deal with this I'm curious how things would look if you took out regions smaller than 20 nations and compared the number of affected nations then, with the consideration that it might be a good thing that regions with 100 or more nations are affected.

Also, you should leave puppet storage regions out of your data (if you aren't already doing so) because they aren't a good indicator of numbers of players affected, which is the really important number here.

So you're saying the game should punish people who have been successful at building a large and stable region?

I think you're making a mountain of a mole-hill. Founders are invincible gods even with a forced executive delegate. It's more like reaching a harder level than a massive punishment like you're making it out to be. Challenging games are fun. If you're too large and powerful, where's the challenge?

Edit: also, if you can make a large stable region with slightly more difficult game settings, that is of itself a reward.

[Alusi]

So you're saying the game should punish people who have been successful at building a large and stable region?

I think you're making a mountain of a mole-hill. Founders are invincible gods even with a forced executive delegate. It's more like reaching a harder level than a massive punishment like you're making it out to be. Challenging games are fun. If you're too large and powerful, where's the challenge?

Edit: also, if you can make a large stable region with slightly more difficult game settings, that is of itself a reward.

So are you saying that there should be different difficulty levels for NS?

[Galiantus VII]

I think you're making a mountain of a mole-hill. Founders are invincible gods even with a forced executive delegate. It's more like reaching a harder level than a massive punishment like you're making it out to be. Challenging games are fun. If you're too large and powerful, where's the challenge?

Edit: also, if you can make a large stable region with slightly more difficult game settings, that is of itself a reward.

So are you saying that there should be different difficulty levels for NS?

I'm using gaming difficulty as a comparison. In a way that is what I am saying. It's more a matter of if you're big and powerful you should have to handle more. Kudos to anyone for becoming big and powerful, but I will be more impressed if someone can maintain their status in the face of a little more challenge.

[Zaolat]

Potential solution: If a region has a founder, Executive powers do not kick in until a delegate has been in power for an hour.

That still puts an undue burden on founders to log in during a limited time frame, and log in every day. Founders should not be obligated to log in every day to protect their region from raiding.

Not a fan, simply because it several damages the ability for regions with no interest in R/D to opt out. I see the point you're making, and they certainly are interesting ones in terms of R/D regions being able to actually combat other R/D regions, as well as in terms of increased potential for in-region conflict, but I do not think that outweighs the need for a fairly simple opt out for the vast majority of regions.

It is a *good* thing that R/D'ers can tell those who do not want to be involved to simply a) have a founder and b) remove permissions from the delegate role and perhaps attach them to the nation serving as delegate instead.

It would narrow the options to avoid being tagged to a) have a solid chunk of WA's on delegate (not necessarily an easy thing for many regions) or b) have a password, which stifles growth. Those are fairly shitty options. It is good to have good options for keeping regions stable and secure.

TFW even raiders are opposed to an idea that would make raiding easier.

But I completely agree.

This. I saw Reppy's post and I'm also not a raider anymore, but I am very Pro-Raider, and still can't support this. While I'd say I'm completely okay with region destruction via Raiding, I can't say making it easier is in anyway an good idea. Particularly, with smaller regions. Sure, it's difficult to turn those into large ones, but would put too many players off in non-deadwood small regions.

[August]

[Regions with founders and exec delegates] are already out there. They are not being regularly targeted. This proposal, if implemented, would only make more of them.

Too bad there was never a solid response to the quoted point. That was probably the strongest counter to the most popular argument in this thread.

The techies are not going to...

Figured. I had hoped to see a little more debate, though. Thank you to everyone who posted constructively on either side.

[Galiantus VII]

[Regions with founders and exec delegates] are already out there. They are not being regularly targeted. This proposal, if implemented, would only make more of them.

Too bad there was never a solid response to the quoted point. That was probably the strongest counter to the most popular argument in this thread.

The techies are not going to...

Figured. I had hoped to see a little more debate, though. Thank you to everyone who posted constructively on either side.

August, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this idea. Anything you could add would be appreciated.

[Phydios]

[Regions with founders and exec delegates] are already out there. They are not being regularly targeted. This proposal, if implemented, would only make more of them.

Too bad there was never a solid response to the quoted point. That was probably the strongest counter to the most popular argument in this thread.

This argument is exactly like saying "Houses without proper locks are already there. They are not being regularly targeted. This proposal to remove door locks from all houses would only make more of them." If you live in a high-crime neighborhood and leave your house unlocked every night, can you really claim that your house is secure just because you aren't being targeted by criminals?

Anyway, the only argument that matters here is "the admins don't want it". It overrides all others and has no counter. You think that greater regional instability would improve the game; the admins don't, and they specifically coded against it. Your argument in the OP relies on founders to always defend against or reverse raids; the admins don't want an active founder to be a requirement for a secure region. It doesn't matter who else agrees/disagrees with them, or what effects the change would have on non-GP regions. I could put together an more complete argument refuting your "largely unaffected" conclusion, since I believe that NationStates is not R/D's personal playground and that removing security measures always decreases security (no matter how safe the area is), but it matters not, since this proposal now lies dead on the ground with a bullet in its head.

I appreciate you staying civil and being willing to accept defeat, though. That's refreshing. Even when your vision of the site differs fundamentally from the admins' vision, you still remain polite to everyone and accept defeat graciously, rather than insulting the admins for disagreeing with you or just refusing to come back.