NATION

PASSWORD

Possibilities for the Security Council

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2574
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby United Massachusetts » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:12 pm

Kuriko wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote: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.

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:23 pm

Amyways, I do believe there's sound ideas in this thread already. Thoughts on those, and new ideas, would be welcome.
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3837
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

IDEA

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:42 pm

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.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2574
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby United Massachusetts » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:42 pm

What Sierra said.

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:46 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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?
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Jar Wattinree
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1203
Founded: Dec 14, 2016
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Jar Wattinree » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:02 pm

Kuriko wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
Tribune of the New Pacific Order
November 28, 2018
Senator of Admissions and Personnel
February 28, 2021

  • Governor of Province Ardere
  • Praetorian of the New Pacific Order
  • Council Elder of St Abbaddon
  • Game Warden of Forest
A 14.4 - 3.7 civilization, according to this index.


User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 159
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby New Min » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:28 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
MINISTER OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS
of The People's Republic of The Communist Bloc

Central Committee member
Justice on The People's Tribunal

User avatar
Tupelope
Envoy
 
Posts: 275
Founded: Jul 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Tupelope » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:31 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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
Last edited by Tupelope on Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Listel
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Aug 12, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Listel » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:16 pm

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

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5476
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Linux and the X » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:17 pm

Just abolish the SC.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Aureumterra
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8521
Founded: Oct 25, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Aureumterra » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm

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.
Last edited by Aureumterra on Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NS Parliament: Aditya Sriraam - Unity and Consolidation Party
Latin American Political RP
RightValues
Icelandic Civic Nationalist and proud
I’m your average Íslandic NS player
I DO NOT USE NS STATS!
A 12 civilization, according to this index.
Scary Right Wing Capitalist who thinks the current state of the world (before the pandemic) is the best it had been

User avatar
Davorane
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Aug 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Davorane » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:40 pm

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.

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 731
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:40 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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:

Galiantus III wrote: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.

Aureumterra wrote: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!
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.
Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:51 pm

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.
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5476
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Linux and the X » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:07 pm

Galiantus III wrote:But that would destroy military gameplay.

Sounds good.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 731
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:08 pm

Kuriko wrote: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.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.
Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Leutria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1685
Founded: Oct 29, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Leutria » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:21 pm

Galiantus III wrote:
Kuriko wrote: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)

User avatar
Aureumterra
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8521
Founded: Oct 25, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Aureumterra » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:26 pm

Leutria wrote:
Galiantus III wrote: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.
NS Parliament: Aditya Sriraam - Unity and Consolidation Party
Latin American Political RP
RightValues
Icelandic Civic Nationalist and proud
I’m your average Íslandic NS player
I DO NOT USE NS STATS!
A 12 civilization, according to this index.
Scary Right Wing Capitalist who thinks the current state of the world (before the pandemic) is the best it had been

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6564
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:50 pm

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

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:03 pm

Lord Dominator wrote: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.
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Storalia
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Dec 15, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Storalia » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:12 pm

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?
Lib-center. Pro-capitalism, pro-gun, pro-free market, pro-safety net. Free speech must be absolute and total.

Yes, I use NS stats. Yes, my nation is insane. Yes, it's glorious.
Danton wrote:Oh, dear... I feel like things aren't going to go over so well in this thread between the various participants...

The Church of Satan wrote:
Pretty Much God wrote:Well they do, just inside of Potato Alliance

Don't give a non-existent faction credit for our achievements. Since 4AM (EST) The Potato Alliance has worked around the clock to exact its revenge on The Horsemen. UPPERCUT has played no part in this. It is just the raging fury of countless potatoes.

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6564
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:00 pm

Storalia wrote: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

User avatar
Azokhistan
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Dec 04, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Azokhistan » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:23 am

I like these.

User avatar
Klaisur
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jul 31, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Klaisur » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:25 am

Spoiler;
Fenure:coo:

User avatar
Azadistan-land of the free
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1552
Founded: May 01, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Azadistan-land of the free » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:39 am

United Massachusetts wrote:
Kuriko wrote: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.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Maldina

Advertisement

Remove ads