NATION

PASSWORD

[Proposal] Faction Gameplay

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Cormactopia Prime
Minister
 
Posts: 2254
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cormactopia Prime » Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:30 pm

I'm really very much in favor of this idea in principle, once the details are worked out. I'm not really a detail-oriented person, but I'm sure others will hash out exactly which details might need some tweaking. I mostly wanted to chime in here to encourage admins to give this serious consideration.

It's no secret among gameplayers that gameplay has become extremely stale, and that the lack of meaningful gameplay is reducing healthy political conflict and contributing to a rise in unhealthy interpersonal conflict. I've heard that same concern from gameplayers of various alignments. I don't know how much of that the admins are actually hearing though, because of course you're not involved in our Discord conversations, etc., though Eluvatar may get a chance to see some of it. So basically, I just wanted to make admins aware that the stagnation in gameplay is a real problem. I think this idea, while unprecedented in its scope, would really go a long way toward breathing some new life into gameplay, and not just for existing gameplayers. It would give more players a path to gameplay participation in a way that doesn't rely totally on R/D and the targeting of founderless user-created regions, and I think this new kind of gameplay would be more fun for the people participating. I really think this could make gameplay much more mainstream for more players.

I'll note that I suspect the biggest obstacle to implementation of this would be the time and energy it would take admins to implement it. I can only imagine how much change to the game's mechanical structure that would take. So I also wanted to note that Koth has technical expertise -- it's literally what he does -- and as a Techling like Eluvatar used to be, he could probably actually help implement this, without placing a massive new burden on the existing admins. So that's something that may be worth considering as well, so the time/energy factor won't prevent this from happening.
Last edited by Cormactopia Prime on Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Cormactopia Prime
President of the Pacifica Democratic Union

Justin Amash for President | "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." - Edmund Burke

| LAND OF THE FREE ||AMERICAN||POLITICAL|| RP || IS || UP! | - JOIN NOW!

User avatar
Kawaii Schoolgirl
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Oct 29, 2016
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Kawaii Schoolgirl » Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:40 pm

I am so in favor of this!
Guardian of The West Pacific
Commander of The West Pacific Armed Forces
Matriarch of the Wintony Family

User avatar
Chingis
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Apr 04, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Chingis » Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:52 pm

Scrolled through the stuff being discussed in the Discord and honestly the idea seems pretty sound

User avatar
Escade
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1003
Founded: Apr 11, 2013
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Escade » Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:56 pm

Considering the calcfication of gameplay and the various merits of this proposal, I hope admin will consider it.

I'm also glad to see how much discussion it has generated on Discord and that speaks to the kind of energy we could use more of.

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1448
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:05 pm

Haven't made up my mind on this either for or against. Interesting idea though.

Just out of curiosity, if impact is used to turn the St Abby from ours to the imps, how would St Abby itself be able to change back (or to a third faction)? Like, could the delegate just change it as soon as they're pinged?

So is the impact instead of, or in addition to WA delegate votes? I'd personally prefer it in addition but both scaled down to give individuals more of a say.
As always, I'm representing myself as a citizen, rather than as part of the Government, if I am at the time.

User avatar
The Great Imperator Jeffrey
Envoy
 
Posts: 309
Founded: Jun 23, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Great Imperator Jeffrey » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:08 pm

This seems like a great proposal. I hope the admins consider it.
The Empire is ruled by God-Imperator Jeffrey the Conqueror of Universes, Rightful Ruler of All, and Supreme Leader for All Eternity. The God-Imperator has control over a significant portion of the multiverse. Everyone is oppressed.
A Class 0.143 Civilization according to this index.
(Tier: 14 Type: 14)

Technology Level: FFT
Alignment: Lawful Evil

✠ (Put this in your Signature if you are a Fascist Nation!)
_[' ]_
(-_Q)
If you support capitalism, put this in your signature.
♂Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know men and women aren't the same.♀

Many aspects of this nation reflect my political beliefs, but highly exaggerated.

NS stats are a conspiracy against me.

HAIL THE IMPERATOR!
Imperial News Network: 15372583893 galaxies have been conquered today.

User avatar
Imperium of Josh
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 113
Founded: Nov 25, 2015
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Imperium of Josh » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:11 pm

Escade wrote:I'm also glad to see how much discussion it has generated on Discord and that speaks to the kind of energy we could use more of.

It really has generated quite the interest... I'm glad to see a fair number of people behind something like this.

User avatar
Chingis
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Apr 04, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Chingis » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:14 pm

Flanderlion wrote:Haven't made up my mind on this either for or against. Interesting idea though.

Just out of curiosity, if impact is used to turn the St Abby from ours to the imps, how would St Abby itself be able to change back (or to a third faction)? Like, could the delegate just change it as soon as they're pinged?

So is the impact instead of, or in addition to WA delegate votes? I'd personally prefer it in addition but both scaled down to give individuals more of a say.


From the OP and Discord stuff, the way I think it works is if the St Abby guy wanted to stop the annex from happening he would either have to ask his faction to yeet some impact or spend some of his own to outbid the imps.

Once he's moved, he can move back with ease but in doing so, loses all of his impacts and as such if the imps can keep outbidding the NPO then they can keep getting St Abby until the NPO runs out of impact eventually.

Koth can correct me if I screwed something over here but that was the general theme that I got.

User avatar
McChimp
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 196
Founded: Jul 25, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby McChimp » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:18 pm

Perhaps there could be a slider in each region's admin page allowing the delegate/founder to decide how much of the region's total influence goes towards the faction's impact. If regions actually have to expend influence in order to produce impact for their faction, you introduce a balance between regional security and factional power which would have to be carefully managed.

I'd like to suggest that even Electors should be unable to freely move between factions. Perhaps they could create a large discount for another faction to incorporate them by declaring their desire to move to it, but aside from opting out of gameplay altogether they should be unable to move without the faction they move to having to pay for it.
'YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.' - Hogfather, Terry Pratchett.

User avatar
Jar Wattinree
Diplomat
 
Posts: 956
Founded: Dec 14, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Jar Wattinree » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:19 pm

Hmmm, sounds interesting, implementing alliances as a gameplay feature. Needs ironing, but I like what I see so far.
  • Governor of Province Ardere
  • Praetorian of the New Pacific Order
  • Council Elder of St Abbaddon
Tribune of the New Pacific Order
Forester of Forest


User avatar
Chingis
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Apr 04, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Chingis » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:21 pm

If anything the slider should be in the Chair's menu, so that he's able to flick between taking more and doing the work himself/ spreading the load or taking less and giving a bit of autonomy. Electors have no dangers so there shouldn't be much reason to leave them with anything at all, so they should probably have their own "tax rate".
Last edited by Chingis on Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eternal Lotharia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9873
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Eternal Lotharia » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:22 pm

Augustus Rex wrote:Good proposal. I look forward to it being relentlessly criticized by the admins and then nothing being done about it.

Basically.
On Hiatus from September 6th 2019 to September 13th 2019.
Left-Wing Christian Pro-Life Pragmatic Populist. Oregonian.
Candidate for City Council of a large city.
A little too obsessed with food.
Farnhamia wrote:
Geneviev wrote:You scare me sometimes, Loth.

"Local Candidate Admits To Enjoying Human Flesh; Police Seeking Missing Family Members"

User avatar
Eternal Lotharia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9873
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Eternal Lotharia » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:24 pm

Regardless of my lighthearted snark, I very much agree with this. I think NS could also have a war system far in the future that is achieved via crowdfunding. Anyway, I'm glad to see this be a popular idea. It is similar to ideas I proposed a while back that were admittedly poorly thought out.

I would support it, though a opt-in/opt-out option is ideal.
On Hiatus from September 6th 2019 to September 13th 2019.
Left-Wing Christian Pro-Life Pragmatic Populist. Oregonian.
Candidate for City Council of a large city.
A little too obsessed with food.
Farnhamia wrote:
Geneviev wrote:You scare me sometimes, Loth.

"Local Candidate Admits To Enjoying Human Flesh; Police Seeking Missing Family Members"

User avatar
Chingis
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Apr 04, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Chingis » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:35 pm

Actually while we're at it, thoughts on making faction movement a function of non-exec dels as well as exec ones?

There's no harm done in faction movement and if the region in question wanted an opt-out they would be in Sanctuary anyway. Also as it's the only additional change made to nonexec powers it won't affect anything else in any way.

User avatar
McChimp
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 196
Founded: Jul 25, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby McChimp » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:08 pm

OK, I've had a little more time to think about my suggestions.

Tax: a percentage of the influence earned by each member of a region is deducted and converted into impact for their faction. For territories, this value is set by the faction chair within a bracket of 10% to 40%, say, preventing the faction from utterly crushing the region's influence. Elector delegates, on the other hand, could choose how much of their influence to donate of their own accord, setting it to any level between 0% and 100%.

Movement: electors are protected, they should not be snatchable by another faction unless their delegate makes that possible. Making a region into an elector should cost a flat percentage of your entire factional influence (one third, perhaps.) and also on then on top of that an amount proportional to their total size. Should an elector want to move to another faction (due to political change or a raid) then they should be able to do so by giving another faction a claim, at which point the faction they wish to move into should have to pay an impact cost proportional to the region's size to incorporate them as a territory.

In terms of R/D and keeping that relevant, raiders could run high turnover factions incorporating lots and lots of small regions with only a few endos as territories via tag raids or could conduct ops in big, founderless regions and use the delegacy to move them into their faction where they could turn it into an elector, turn the tax up to 100% and try and milk as much impact out of them as possible. Alternatively, Imperialists might try to then rebuild the large region they've roped in, making it a longer term investment rather than asset-stripping.
Last edited by McChimp on Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.
'YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.' - Hogfather, Terry Pratchett.

User avatar
Imperium of Josh
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 113
Founded: Nov 25, 2015
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Imperium of Josh » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:13 pm

The issue of the impact "tax" (read: how a faction makes use of the impact of its regions) is best approached from a more simplistic perspective, I think. As discussed in the discord, a 3 alignment system along the ideals of "Autocratic; Flat; Progressive" would be a relatively simple yet engaging way to handle the calculations. A faction chair could select the system according to their faction's specific culture.

Here's a breakdown of how they'd each roughly work, quoting Koth:

"Autocratic: The Chair literally pulls the Impact from whichever regions it wants, potentially targeting and bankrupting certain regions in the faction. Autocratic factions would require a lot of faith in the Chair to treat the faction fairly, but can easily be the most efficient.

Flat: Flat tax, all regions get their Impact used equally.

Progressive: Proportional taxes, higher Impact regions get more taken when the Chair expends it."

User avatar
The Pan Pacific
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Dec 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Pan Pacific » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:31 pm

This is a really interesting proposal, that's for sure.

To summarize, your arguments are that raiding/defending gameplay is fairly simple and has become boring due to lack of initiative, as the gameplay has become solely focused around number of WA nations, rather than intrigue. Meanwhile, game-created regions have such a massive number advantage that they're highly difficult to counter by user-created regions.

In solution, you want to create a third "tier" of gameplay beyond national and regional - that of factional gameplay. A faction is a collection of regions, similar to how a region is a collection of nations. You propose that WA delegates and/or founders are "representatives" of their region to their faction, and that the WA delegate/founder with the most WA endorsements will become the leader of the faction.

Factions are able to incorporate regions into electors, which can't be claimed by other factions, and territories, which can. Territories can be claimed by other factions using the system you call "impact," which is created by having regions in a faction and determined by the number of WA endorsements in said region. This "claiming" then incorporates said territory into your own faction, meaning that those WA endorsements now generate impact for your own faction. Alternatively, raiding said region can allow you to forcefully incorporate it with WA officer/WAD tools.

I'm interested to see how this really changes anything. Current nationstates gameplay ultimately revolves around the number of WA nations a region has; more WA nations means more WA votes on propositions and, more importantly, more troops. More WA endorsements grant greater ability for WA delegates to eject/ban people and set passwords. Of course, coordination and/or espionage sometimes can triumph over sheer weight of WA nation numbers in raids or defenses, but still fairly rarely. Coordination definitely works in N-Day over numbers, but not, from my experience, so much in raiding/defending if you're trying to get a permanent annexation, and not just griefing.

This new factional system, OTOH, still revolves around gross number of WA nations. Regions with larger amounts of WA endorsements get more impact, can have more electors, and therefore can claim more often. Meanwhile, if things turn ugly, they can martial a much greater number of troops to forcibly take this over. It does give more power over to intrigue and/or politics due to how regional WADs/founders can move from faction to faction, but this isn't much - after all, WA nations can freely move from region to region, and regions can move from non-mechanical alliances freely as well.

This would add some complexity, to be sure; but not that much as it would be totally game-changing. The base gameplay of raiding, defending, and invading founderless regions is still there - if your "claim" fails, you can still simply invade the opposing region, so long as it's founderless.

GCR's would still dominate, given that they're still the top nine in population and all have over 500 endorsements for WAD. Since everything still revolves around population, the largest regions will still have the most influence.

User avatar
Chingis
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Apr 04, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Chingis » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:31 pm

Secondary Update from the Discord Thinkbank:

The founding requirement was tossed up back and forward and the general consensus was that about 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the current WA member count should be the bar for how many WA nations you need in a faction you seek to found.

How it would be done (as a proposal): There'll be a page where the member regions would contribute to their target faction, bumping up its total WA member count until it reached that quorum and slid off the rails into the big wide NS world. Regions such as TNP, for example, could reach quorum alone while tiny regions seeking to join a newer faction would have to jump into one of the currently filling queues/ make their own little queue.

User avatar
McChimp
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 196
Founded: Jul 25, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby McChimp » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:33 pm

Imperium of Josh wrote:The issue of the impact "tax" (read: how a faction makes use of the impact of its regions) is best approached from a more simplistic perspective, I think. As discussed in the discord, a 3 alignment system along the ideals of "Autocratic; Flat; Progressive" would be a relatively simple yet engaging way to handle the calculations. A faction chair could select the system according to their faction's specific culture.

Here's a breakdown of how they'd each roughly work, quoting Koth:

"Autocratic: The Chair literally pulls the Impact from whichever regions it wants, potentially targeting and bankrupting certain regions in the faction. Autocratic factions would require a lot of faith in the Chair to treat the faction fairly, but can easily be the most efficient.

Flat: Flat tax, all regions get their Impact used equally.

Progressive: Proportional taxes, higher Impact regions get more taken when the Chair expends it."


I don't really understand why impact is being stockpiled at a regional level. Electors and territories cannot spend impact so they shouldn't have individual impact values. The faction should have a central impact stockpile which regions contribute to according (somehow) to their total influence production.

The autocratic model is only really useful for raiders. It wouldn't appeal to potential voluntary electors and it would therefore cripple anything that was supposed to be a mutual alliance.

There may not actually be a difference between the "flat" and the "progressive" tax. Either the flat tax is a flat absolute (each of the regions pay the same absolute amount of influence towards impact spending) which is utterly impractical, hobbling the faction by preventing it from spending more than the poorest region can pay an equal share of or-if it's a flat percentage-it's identical to the "progressive" model. That is unless the progressive model scales the percentage tax according to region influence production in which case it would be very difficult to maintain a large region and you start to diverge from any semblance of simplicity anyway.

Besides, I think there would be far more opportunities for gameplay if the tax for each region could be managed individually.
Last edited by McChimp on Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.
'YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.' - Hogfather, Terry Pratchett.

User avatar
Ambrella
Envoy
 
Posts: 262
Founded: Mar 17, 2007
Capitalizt

Postby Ambrella » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:05 pm

This is a very cool idea, and I'm looking forward to the continued debate over particulars.
Sopo, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Europeia, Councillor of Londinium.

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27882
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
19th Century Iron Steamship

Postby USS Monitor » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:09 pm

Eternal Lotharia wrote:I think NS could also have a war system far in the future that is achieved via crowdfunding.


We have no intention of doing that and it isn't a matter of money.

Carry on with the discussion about the faction idea.
Last edited by USS Monitor on Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
NationStates issues editors may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
King HEM
Envoy
 
Posts: 267
Founded: Mar 07, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby King HEM » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:13 pm

This is a good idea. I'll leave the details up to others, but I'd support some iteration of this.
HEM

Founder of Europeia
Former Vice Delegate of The South Pacific
Raider sympathizer, NS media guru, not relevant since 2009

User avatar
Imperium of Josh
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 113
Founded: Nov 25, 2015
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Imperium of Josh » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:26 pm

King HEM wrote:This is a good idea. I'll leave the details up to others, but I'd support some iteration of this.

Gotta gather all those famous endorsements :P

There's still certainly things to be hashed out in detail though. I think I'll leave a non-comprehensive list so people can remember where we were and what questions were asked on the discord when they wake up.

-The issue of impact pooling and whether individual regions can use impact is still around.
-"Economic models" idea needs revision as per chimp's points.
-How are electors selected, exactly? All electors having a say? Elector vetos? Simple appointments by the chairs? Impact costs? Hard cap on electors/faction or a dynamic one? How to make sure electors remain a special case?
-How are chairs selected/elected? Elector vote count per update? Periodic elections?
-Where and how would faction updates fit into update?
-Could there be an RO power dedicated to being a region's faction rep?
-How does neutral ground function as a special case faction, exactly? Can one return to it after leaving? Does its chair have the same powers as elsewhere?

I'm sure there's more I've forgotten but I'll thank myself later.

User avatar
Flemingisa
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Nov 22, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Flemingisa » Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:04 am

The Pan Pacific wrote:This is a really interesting proposal, that's for sure.

To summarize, your arguments are that raiding/defending gameplay is fairly simple and has become boring due to lack of initiative, as the gameplay has become solely focused around number of WA nations, rather than intrigue. Meanwhile, game-created regions have such a massive number advantage that they're highly difficult to counter by user-created regions.

In solution, you want to create a third "tier" of gameplay beyond national and regional - that of factional gameplay. A faction is a collection of regions, similar to how a region is a collection of nations. You propose that WA delegates and/or founders are "representatives" of their region to their faction, and that the WA delegate/founder with the most WA endorsements will become the leader of the faction.

Factions are able to incorporate regions into electors, which can't be claimed by other factions, and territories, which can. Territories can be claimed by other factions using the system you call "impact," which is created by having regions in a faction and determined by the number of WA endorsements in said region. This "claiming" then incorporates said territory into your own faction, meaning that those WA endorsements now generate impact for your own faction. Alternatively, raiding said region can allow you to forcefully incorporate it with WA officer/WAD tools.

I'm interested to see how this really changes anything. Current nationstates gameplay ultimately revolves around the number of WA nations a region has; more WA nations means more WA votes on propositions and, more importantly, more troops. More WA endorsements grant greater ability for WA delegates to eject/ban people and set passwords. Of course, coordination and/or espionage sometimes can triumph over sheer weight of WA nation numbers in raids or defenses, but still fairly rarely. Coordination definitely works in N-Day over numbers, but not, from my experience, so much in raiding/defending if you're trying to get a permanent annexation, and not just griefing.

This new factional system, OTOH, still revolves around gross number of WA nations. Regions with larger amounts of WA endorsements get more impact, can have more electors, and therefore can claim more often. Meanwhile, if things turn ugly, they can martial a much greater number of troops to forcibly take this over. It does give more power over to intrigue and/or politics due to how regional WADs/founders can move from faction to faction, but this isn't much - after all, WA nations can freely move from region to region, and regions can move from non-mechanical alliances freely as well.

This would add some complexity, to be sure; but not that much as it would be totally game-changing. The base gameplay of raiding, defending, and invading founderless regions is still there - if your "claim" fails, you can still simply invade the opposing region, so long as it's founderless.

GCR's would still dominate, given that they're still the top nine in population and all have over 500 endorsements for WAD. Since everything still revolves around population, the largest regions will still have the most influence.




We did think about this over on the discord thinktank. One of the proposed ideas was to use a ratio of WA nations in the total region divided by non-wa nation’s. One example would be a region with 100 WA’s and 200 Non-WA nation’s would have a impact of 50 maybe. That could potentially make it so that GCR’s will need UCR’s in order to maintain a good amount of impact generation.

Of course this is only one idea but it’s one that I remember

User avatar
Klaus Devestatorie
Minister
 
Posts: 2526
Founded: Aug 28, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Klaus Devestatorie » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:01 am

I like it too. It's the first thing I've seen in years and years that might contribute towards breaking up the old school Raider/Defender purist lines.
The Avengrynkhal Ascendant of Klaus Devestatorie

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads