I was prompted by reading the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=276112 On that note, I'd like to thank JURISDICTIONS for creating that thread and for creating such an excellent idea.
It is not a bad framework over all and I agree with the general premise and direction it approached the problem from. But there are a number of things in there I found issue with, so I am proposing my own idea. The changes I have made have been for the following reasons:
1. I felt the original idea was unreasonably focused on maintaining an element of vulnerability for the region.
2. I felt the original idea was unnecessarily complicated.
My proposal is as follows:
1. Founders can designate a nation as a Successor.
I believe mechanically this would be possible to implement through the regional officers system -- Much like any of the other powers, such as Border Control or Communications, a Founder can assign a nation the Successor authority.
Only the Founder can assign this authority, a Delegate can not. At present Founders with Executive authority can modify the authority of the Delegate, but Delegates cannot modify Founders -- so there is already precedent and the mechanical capability for Founders to have a power Delegates do not.
A Founder can assign this authority to only one nation at any given time.
The authority in its dormant state does nothing at all, though the Successor would be listed as a regional officer like any others assigned authorities.
Only the Founder can assign this authority, a Delegate can not. At present Founders with Executive authority can modify the authority of the Delegate, but Delegates cannot modify Founders -- so there is already precedent and the mechanical capability for Founders to have a power Delegates do not.
A Founder can assign this authority to only one nation at any given time.
The authority in its dormant state does nothing at all, though the Successor would be listed as a regional officer like any others assigned authorities.
2. Founders may choose to cede their position to their Successor.
Founders will have an additional button in the region control panel to "Resign as Founder".
When selected, it should require a clearly worded confirmation. Accepting that confirmation would trigger a countdown -- not unlike an embassy construction, which would be shown on the region's main page. During this countdown period nothing changes, the Founder retains their powers and the Successor remains powerless.
At the end of the countdown, the Successor becomes the Founder, with all associated powers. The name at the top of the region page is changed to reflect this. The former Founder is now powerless.
When selected, it should require a clearly worded confirmation. Accepting that confirmation would trigger a countdown -- not unlike an embassy construction, which would be shown on the region's main page. During this countdown period nothing changes, the Founder retains their powers and the Successor remains powerless.
At the end of the countdown, the Successor becomes the Founder, with all associated powers. The name at the top of the region page is changed to reflect this. The former Founder is now powerless.
3. Should there be an automatic transfer on Founder CTE? This choice is contentious, and I'll explain why.
Option One: If a Founder CTEs after having appointed a Successor, that Successor would take over as Founder of the region automatically.
Positives: If a Founder CTEs unexpectedly the region does not unnecessarily suffer for that. Power would not default to its Delegate, which can be dangerous, and the region is rewarded for being prepared and appointing a Successor by still being able to enjoy the benefits of a Founder. Encourages Founder to be very careful with giving the Successor role out, because if they CTE that nation gets everything, and encourages Founders to remain active.
Negatives: The Founder may accidentally CTE, forfeiting their region to their Successor when not intending to pass over the reins just yet. Unless the new Founder agrees to transfer it back there is nothing they can do.
Contentious: The mechanic greatly enhances regional security, though at the risk of accidental coups. Number of founderless regions would maybe decrease.
Option Two: If a Founder CTEs, the Successor authority does nothing (though it is not removed). The region becomes Founderless. A Founder transfer must be proactively initiated by the Founder resigning.
Positives: The Founder cannot accidentally lose control of their region, they must actively cede it, which provides greater certainty and less potential for major dramas resulting from accidents. Active regions who clearly communicate are rewarded with the ability to transfer their Founder should they need or wish to.
Negatives: If something unexpectedly prevents the Founder from being active in NS, they may CTE and the region will be in danger. The Successor mechanic will be useless in these situations.
Contentious: The mechanic is primarily a quality of life change and does little really to enhance immediate regional security -- though it does enhance long term regional stability.
Positives: If a Founder CTEs unexpectedly the region does not unnecessarily suffer for that. Power would not default to its Delegate, which can be dangerous, and the region is rewarded for being prepared and appointing a Successor by still being able to enjoy the benefits of a Founder. Encourages Founder to be very careful with giving the Successor role out, because if they CTE that nation gets everything, and encourages Founders to remain active.
Negatives: The Founder may accidentally CTE, forfeiting their region to their Successor when not intending to pass over the reins just yet. Unless the new Founder agrees to transfer it back there is nothing they can do.
Contentious: The mechanic greatly enhances regional security, though at the risk of accidental coups. Number of founderless regions would maybe decrease.
Option Two: If a Founder CTEs, the Successor authority does nothing (though it is not removed). The region becomes Founderless. A Founder transfer must be proactively initiated by the Founder resigning.
Positives: The Founder cannot accidentally lose control of their region, they must actively cede it, which provides greater certainty and less potential for major dramas resulting from accidents. Active regions who clearly communicate are rewarded with the ability to transfer their Founder should they need or wish to.
Negatives: If something unexpectedly prevents the Founder from being active in NS, they may CTE and the region will be in danger. The Successor mechanic will be useless in these situations.
Contentious: The mechanic is primarily a quality of life change and does little really to enhance immediate regional security -- though it does enhance long term regional stability.
General Effects and Commentary:
- This mechanic would add a way for regions to change their Founder nation without needing to risk a refound. Refounds are greatly risky because of invaders, generally destabilising for the community, and also necessitate the destruction and loss of the RMB history. The reality is having a Founder is really important -- especially to RP regions who would like to be left out of gameplay shenanigans. It is unreasonable to expect a Founder to last forever, and this way the region won't be punished for that Founder having things to do besides NS. Players have been told by many sides of the spectrum that the best way to effectively "opt out" of gameplay is to have an active Founder, and this mechanic hugely improves upon their ability to "opt out".
- I do not feel this severely impacts invading as an activity. It only benefits regions which already have Founders, giving them more quality of life to restructure their affairs without putting themselves at risk --the immediate change is that regions with Founders will continue to have Founders, and have more options for long term governance. It is my opinion that the regions who benefit most from this mechanic would never have presented themselves as targets to invaders anyway -- they gain and nobody really loses.
- Besides, the mechanic opens up possibilities to all sides -- an invader could always try to get themselves maneuvered into position as a Successor. Though that would be disturbingly devious.
- This is not retroactive, you need a Founder to appoint a Successor, so current founderless regions remain so and targets are still aplenty. And I rather suspect there will still be plenty of founderless regions in the future because people are very lax and things always go wrong. Anyway, let's be real -- the large founderless targets that invaders like to crash, these are not new regions, they are very old things. The point here being that, if it is argued this will prevent new juicy targets, I would argue new juicy targets don't happen now anyway.
- This would decrease the necessity and prevalence of nation sharing -- the Founder account would not need to be passed on to another player because the Founder authority can be safely transferred to another nation entirely. Players could of course still share access to a Founder nation if they prefer to have multiple people control the account and this won't change those examples.
- Many players found regions with their personal main nation instead of a sort of thematic founder nation they can pass on, and so this gives them the opportunity to pass on the reins for the region while keeping their personal main nation by detaching it from the Founder position.
- This could spur regional politics a bit? -- elections for the Founder position or what have you. Elections or grovelling for the Successor position too. In turn this could increase the interest of UCRs in their gameside positions and affairs, much like I feel the regional officers change did.
- I feel this is a great quality of life improvement for all sides of all spectrums really -- it just improves regional management regardless of which side you're on or whether you even do gameplay at all.
To consider:
- Should the Successor need to be present in the region it would inherit? If not, upon becoming Founder would it automatically move there, like if it had created the region?
- If a Founder transfer is in effect, where should the countdown be shown? At the top of the region's main page?
- What should the length of the Founder transfer countdown be?
- Should there be a time down when a Founder appoints a Successor before they can change it? -- i.e. they can remove the authority but cannot assign it again for X days.
- Should there be a time down after a Founder transfer before the new Founder can appoint a Successor?
- Should a new Founder, who has just created their region, have an initial time down before they can appoint a Successor?
Answers to potential questions:
- I did consider for a moment the idea that Founders cannot actively choose to cede power to their Successor. A Founder transfer would occur only upon Founder CTE. This is silly because the Founder could just let themselves CTE to put it into effect so we might as well give them a button to do it.
- The original idea had a sort of interim between the two Founders -- when the Founder resigned the Delegate would become executive for the duration of the transfer. I removed this because it is needlessly complicated, when we can just have a countdown and then an immediate total transfer. It adds very little beyond engineering a mechanically complicated situation just to add an element of vulnerability for the region during the transfer, which I thought was misplaced. Its purpose is unclear to me -- Given the Delegate seemingly has no way to stop the transfer, this really would just mean the region could be tagged and harassed by outsiders for a brief period for no reason. And if enabling that is its purpose, I disagree with it.
- While I do beleive this idea is balanced and doesn't negatively impact any particular gameplay alignment or experience, it is true that I am far less concerned with compromise than the original author seemed to be. The original idea was drafted in the shadow of pending and hugely controversial gameplay changes and I think that informed a need for compromise which misguided it.
- I know there was a criticism in the last thread that this opens up game over situations -- to which my answer would be game over situations already exist. This doesn't make the game even more over. I don't think we should deprive people of useful tools and protection just because it could go bad, especially when this is a massive tool to prevent the chain of events that makes things go bad in the first place.
Comments and opinions are welcome of course but let's try to be civil.
Edit1: I am obsessive about formatting and made a slight spacing change.
