[Discussion] Delegate-Elect

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

A few points in reply -

I wouldn’t say the front end of occupations favors raiders. It favors defenders/natives generally, in that many operations are lost in their initial days to a quick turnaround liberation before pilers are fully mobilized (Becuase pilers never get forenotice either), or to a founder returning (see TBH’s most recent op). I would, however, agree that an unbalanced area, and perhaps the only majorly unbalanced area, is the back end of occupations - if the pilers pile well, and the founder does not return, liberation becomes near impossible. At least personally, I’d be willing to look into changes that add some spice to that...as long as they did not upset the other, fairly balanced, areas too much.

You said it’s proposed raiders win a pile off generally. I don’t know what defender tactics teach, but everything I’ve been taught, experienced, and taught others is that in a true pile-off (both sides can pile at will), defenders almost *always* win. The one way to beat it is to beat them in a short time frame (to update) and end the pile off situation. The longer it is, the more likely defenders win. The simplest proof? Try holding TRR, see how long it takes for TITO to pile en masse.

Your problem statement does ignore looking at negative effects on GCR’s + reduction of effective RO powers. Overall, analysis ignores the quite possible possibility that this could also unbalance R/D in favor of early-game liberations being able to occur whenever, and on repeat. Raiders are out numbered but win on a tight trigger? Defenders switch (do they even have to switch unless banned??) and jump again, and again, and again...until boom, they could be del elect that night and begin a pile off immediately. Same goes for other early stage liberations. In the first 1-5 updates, it’s not uncommon for the numbers to be quite close, and things to come down to trigger, move, and ejection speed/ability to avoid the damned rate cap. This turns those few slots into infinite chances, with the “drawback” being starting a pile-off rather than an outright liberation. That said...a pile off raiders probably lose. Hell, you could even have a regular liberation or chase, where 2-3 people necessarily to “win” are a second slow, and *immediately* get del elect from the get-go! Pure numbers game.

[Nau States]

Just a thought, but this would make coups impossible to overthrow in-game.

[Galiantus III]

In concept I like where this idea is headed. I like the concept of making it harder to remove groups opposing the delegate from the region, thus allowing for more interesting engagements and nerfing piling.

As it stands, however, I am against the idea. All this version of Delegate-Elect does is cement the victory of an invading force that is already ahead of the delegate. As others have said, it opens up times outside update for everyone to pile in without opposition, and makes the game a continuous battle rather than a momentary one at update. In short, it all-but kills the value and need for updaters, which is where the actual skill of military gameplay is.

My biggest criticism of this idea is that it would nullify the need to participate in update. Update is currently integral to military gameplay! In fact, I would prefer a system that rewards and gives an incentive for participating in update, as opposed to piling. Institute the rotating update if that's the only way to provide accessibility for people, but major military activities need to be relegated to update. Participants in military gameplay shouldn't have to be online 24/7 to play effectively.

My other criticism of the proposal is it protects the wrong people from ejection. An invading force with more endorsements on the point than there are endorsements on the incumbent delegate is already in an advantageous position. By definition, they have already put in the effort needed to technically win, and the only thing keeping them from winning is whatever the delegate and his supporters can do in the time before update. What is needed is a way for groups with fewer endorsements than the incumbent delegate to stick around for awhile and exist as a meaningful threat to the incumbent delegate. And influence hasn't solved the problem, because it is still easy to achieve a "game-over" scenario once the delegate seat is taken.

[Unibot III]

I do think that this is neutral to both sides in Gameplay in terms of fairness but I wonder if it might just.. exhaust us both too. I mean, I think the end result of this proposal would be pile-offs like.. non-stop, no? I, eerrr. It's interesting but I think it would fundamentally change military gameplay in a way that doesn't stay true to the spirit of it.

The late nights. That sense of anxiety before a big mission. That tiny, imperceptible window of time for which you're expected to squeeze your butt through.

I dunno, I just wonder if the game might lose some magic because of this particular proposal's restructuring of the rules. It's hard for me to describe.

I'm more interested in Delegate-Elect's application to the GCRs, tbh. Which is funny because that seems to be the controversial part in this thread...