Possibilities for the Security Council

[United Massachusetts]

Ah, that makes more sense.

My concern was simply it could tear apart quiet RP Regions or nations.

I agree that that may be a bad idea, the way UM explained it.

Yeah. I agree with y'all.

[Kuriko]

Amyways, I do believe there's sound ideas in this thread already. Thoughts on those, and new ideas, would be welcome.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

To make commendations and condemnations mean more than "Here's a nice popularity contest that means very little," change the game code slightly so that commended nations gain Influence at (say) 1.15 or so times the normal rate, and condemned nations gain it at 0.85 times normal.

For regions, maybe this manifests as if your nation was in a condemned region recently, you keep a reduced influence gain rate for a number of updates proportional to your length of time spent there, then reverts to normal some time after you move to a normal or commended region.

[United Massachusetts]

What Sierra said.

[Kuriko]

To make commendations and condemnations mean more than "Here's a nice popularity contest that means very little," change the game code slightly so that commended nations gain Influence at (say) 1.15 or so times the normal rate, and condemned nations gain it at 0.85 times normal.

For regions, maybe this manifests as if your nation was in a condemned region recently, you keep a reduced influence gain rate for a number of updates proportional to your length of time spent there, then reverts to normal some time after you move to a normal or commended region.

Wow, that is actually a great idea! Why is that the one thing we didn't think of?

[Jar Wattinree]

To make commendations and condemnations mean more than "Here's a nice popularity contest that means very little," change the game code slightly so that commended nations gain Influence at (say) 1.15 or so times the normal rate, and condemned nations gain it at 0.85 times normal.

For regions, maybe this manifests as if your nation was in a condemned region recently, you keep a reduced influence gain rate for a number of updates proportional to your length of time spent there, then reverts to normal some time after you move to a normal or commended region.

Wow, that is actually a great idea! Why is that the one thing we didn't think of?

Not a bad idea, to be fair.

[New Min]

To make commendations and condemnations mean more than "Here's a nice popularity contest that means very little," change the game code slightly so that commended nations gain Influence at (say) 1.15 or so times the normal rate, and condemned nations gain it at 0.85 times normal.

For regions, maybe this manifests as if your nation was in a condemned region recently, you keep a reduced influence gain rate for a number of updates proportional to your length of time spent there, then reverts to normal some time after you move to a normal or commended region.

Full support.

[Tupelope]

To make commendations and condemnations mean more than "Here's a nice popularity contest that means very little," change the game code slightly so that commended nations gain Influence at (say) 1.15 or so times the normal rate, and condemned nations gain it at 0.85 times normal.

For regions, maybe this manifests as if your nation was in a condemned region recently, you keep a reduced influence gain rate for a number of updates proportional to your length of time spent there, then reverts to normal some time after you move to a normal or commended region.

even with that shit it still gonna be a popularity contest, also would that retroactively undo all previous c/cs or what

[Listel]

I think a resaloution where you could bar someone from a certian aspect of the WA would be a good idea.

[Linux and the X]

Just abolish the SC.

[Aureumterra]

I was thinking maybe to add an “Usurp” resolution, where a WA delegate loses all endorsements in said region, and cannot be endorsed in that region (this is particularly useful for dealing with trophy regions, where simple liberations may not give power of the region back to the native population)

Another idea is similar to the one suggested by Clean Lands, called “Secure”, which can only apply to founderless regions, where a native nation gains the status if “Guardian” or “Protector” (something along this lines) which basically has the same powers as founder. This can be especially useful for regions that have grown under a founder, and become founderless. This will protect the region from any raiding forces and maintain the well-established community.

[Davorane]

Allow me to post my underwhelming response to this suggestion.

Yes, I think more categories for the SC is a good idea.I need more meaningless things to vote on.

[Galiantus III]

To make commendations and condemnations mean more than "Here's a nice popularity contest that means very little," change the game code slightly so that commended nations gain Influence at (say) 1.15 or so times the normal rate, and condemned nations gain it at 0.85 times normal.

For regions, maybe this manifests as if your nation was in a condemned region recently, you keep a reduced influence gain rate for a number of updates proportional to your length of time spent there, then reverts to normal some time after you move to a normal or commended region.

I have one criticism I made a while back which needs to be reiterated:

Any discussion surrounding adding affects to SC proposals should introduce them as new categories, not modifications to things already in use.

As for the idea itself, it could be interesting. From how I understand the suggestion, you are saying that the SC could speed up or slow down influence gain for individual nations or for entire regions. This would have a direct impact in military gameplay, if it were introduced. From the perspective of trying to make for a good game I'm not yet sure how I feel about putting this up to popular vote, but I can already imagine ways either an increase or a reduction in influence gain could be used offensively or defensively.

I was thinking maybe to add an “Usurp” resolution, where a WA delegate loses all endorsements in said region, and cannot be endorsed in that region (this is particularly useful for dealing with trophy regions, where simple liberations may not give power of the region back to the native population)

But that would destroy military gameplay. And just imagine the amount of destruction that could be caused game-wide if some ruthless monarch came to control the WA!

[Kuriko]

No one person controls the WA Gal, you know that. It'll never happen. As for destroying military gameplay, it wouldn't really do that because the proposal would still need to be voted on by the WA at large.

[Linux and the X]

But that would destroy military gameplay.

Sounds good.

[Galiantus III]

No one person controls the WA Gal, you know that. It'll never happen.

Oh I'm sorry - you're right, it would take more than one person. A coalition of a few powerful delegates could quickly eliminate the competition with a few resolutions, and then proceed to use the SC as a tool for removing delegates of regions they wish to invade. This would translate directly to an extreme centralization of power, and is exactly how it will be used.

As for destroying military gameplay, it wouldn't really do that because the proposal would still need to be voted on by the WA at large.

Raiders control the WA = all raids go in their favor. Defenders control the WA = all raids fail. Yes, it would break the game.

[Leutria]

No one person controls the WA Gal, you know that. It'll never happen.

Oh I'm sorry - you're right, it would take more than one person. A coalition of a few powerful delegates could quickly eliminate the competition with a few resolutions, and then proceed to use the SC as a tool for removing delegates of regions they wish to invade. This would translate directly to an extreme centralization of power, and is exactly how it will be used.

As for destroying military gameplay, it wouldn't really do that because the proposal would still need to be voted on by the WA at large.

Raiders control the WA = all raids go in their favor. Defenders control the WA = all raids fail. Yes, it would break the game.

Naw, usurp fails pretty quick when the raiders just cross endo or have a couple nations they all endorse. It is actually pretty weak assuming the people in charge of the occupation are organized (and even more considering they would see the proposal up for vote and have time to prepare)

[Aureumterra]

Oh I'm sorry - you're right, it would take more than one person. A coalition of a few powerful delegates could quickly eliminate the competition with a few resolutions, and then proceed to use the SC as a tool for removing delegates of regions they wish to invade. This would translate directly to an extreme centralization of power, and is exactly how it will be used.



Raiders control the WA = all raids go in their favor. Defenders control the WA = all raids fail. Yes, it would break the game.

Naw, usurp fails pretty quick when the raiders just cross endo or have a couple nations they all endorse. It is actually pretty weak assuming the people in charge of the occupation are organized (and even more considering they would see the proposal up for vote and have time to prepare)

That’s where my second idea of “secure” comes in, Usurp is mainly for trophy regions that have a few raiders in it to maintain some control over the region.

[Lord Dominator]

Personally speaking, I'm most in favor of the Document resolution type (load of stuff I can think to do with that), and the Preserve one

[Kuriko]

Personally speaking, I'm most in favor of the Document resolution type (load of stuff I can think to do with that), and the Preserve one

Yeah, the document type would actually be really cool and could have RP implications. Inter-regional wars being recognised, peace treaties, etc and too many for my tired brain to think about.

[Storalia]

These are some... interesting ideas. I'd love some change for the SC, but... the sanction idea scares me. While there's definitely some regions I'd love to target with it, I can imagine it being er... risky. The ability to completely shut down a region isn't exactly a power I'd be comfortable with seeing the SC wield. Think a way of improving this would be to make Sanctions last a set period of a time. Lets say, a month?

[Lord Dominator]

These are some... interesting ideas. I'd love some change for the SC, but... the sanction idea scares me. While there's definitely some regions I'd love to target with it, I can imagine it being er... risky. The ability to completely shut down a region isn't exactly a power I'd be comfortable with seeing the SC wield. Think a way of improving this would be to make Sanctions last a set period of a time. Lets say, a month?

That was one of my thoughts on them, that we have some sort of time limit on them

[Azokhistan]

I like these.

[Klaisur]

Spoiler;
Fenure:coo:

[Azadistan-land of the free]

How would that work though? We already have military gameplay where any nation can go anywhere. What are your thoughts?

Interesting idea.


Relocate X: Relocates a given nation or region to another region (by force)

ie. I could author a resolution relocating every nation in the South Pacific to the Communist Bloc.

Or, I could specifically relocate Tsunamy to the Communist Bloc.

good idea.

Also I think that although we have a gameplay that makes it possible a WA peacekeeping resolution would give it legitimacy in a roleplay way.