[IDEA] Feeder Warzone

[The Stalker]

This sounds like a pretty fun idea, i'd like to see it paired up with some of the other feeder related ideas that have been floating around. The GCRs are way to big and OP in my opinion.

Also it obviously should be named after the Goddess of chaos Eris.

[Yokiria]

Also it obviously should be named after the Goddess of chaos Eris.

I actually like the name.

[Comfed]

So, just to be clear, as well as being the last updating region, this would also be a feeder (as in, new nations spawn there) as well?

[Jakker]

So, just to be clear, as well as being the last updating region, this would also be a feeder (as in, new nations spawn there) as well?

The main part of this idea is that it would be a feeder, so yes nations would be founded there, as well as acting as a warzone. While the initial idea was for it be the last updating region, there seems to be some desire for it to be the first. I think either or could be good. The only main downside of it being first vs. last is that it will not make update feel shorter.

[Comfed]

I think that this region should also be run like, say, any GCR Warzone, as in, influence is frozen, no influence cost, etc, etc.

I also prefer it to be the first updating region.

[Fauxia]

I think that this region should also be run like, say, any GCR Warzone, as in, influence is frozen, no influence cost, etc, etc.

That’s what a warzone is.

I also prefer it to be the first updating region.

If instability is the point of a warzone, it doesn’t make much sense to me to have it update last and counteract it.

My problem with this idea is that I’m not a huge fan of throwing new players into political turmoil. On the other hand, if you counteract the political turmoil, you just get one more feeder, so nothing new is added.

[Mathuvan Union]

no

it was bound to fail
what's really the point of it updating last? More turmoil?

[Comfed]

no

it was bound to fail
what's really the point of it updating last? More turmoil?

Pretty much.

[Mathuvan Union]

it was bound to fail
what's really the point of it updating last? More turmoil?

Pretty much.

that ruins a warzone... I get it being a bit shaky, but updating it last for the point of it walking on crumbling stilts I find very annoying and stupid.

[Jakker]

Pretty much.

that ruins a warzone... I get it being a bit shaky, but updating it last for the point of it walking on crumbling stilts I find very annoying and stupid.

I would encourage you to actually read the OP and see the reasons I laid out for the benefits of updating last. One could argue that it updating last would potentially bring more activity, especially at the beginning, but it is not for the sake of "turmoil."

[Mathuvan Union]

that ruins a warzone... I get it being a bit shaky, but updating it last for the point of it walking on crumbling stilts I find very annoying and stupid.

I would encourage you to actually read the OP and see the reasons I laid out for the benefits of updating last. One could argue that it updating last would potentially bring more activity, especially at the beginning, but it is not for the sake of "turmoil."

I did Jakker, But if it’s for the sake of more activity why does this specific region get that priority of other regions? There are plenty of regions in need of some activity.

[Jakker]

I would encourage you to actually read the OP and see the reasons I laid out for the benefits of updating last. One could argue that it updating last would potentially bring more activity, especially at the beginning, but it is not for the sake of "turmoil."

I did Jakker, But if it’s for the sake of more activity why does this specific region get that priority of other regions? There are plenty of regions in need of some activity.

I am offering an idea proactively before a potential region is created. If you want to make a suggestion to retroactively change a current region's update time to being last, you are welcomed to do so.

[Mathuvan Union]

I did Jakker, But if it’s for the sake of more activity why does this specific region get that priority of other regions? There are plenty of regions in need of some activity.

I am offering an idea proactively before a potential region is created. If you want to make a suggestion to retroactively change a current region's update time to being last, you are welcomed to do so.

I’m not going to do that. ITs basically taking the light from someone else’s good idea for one that isn’t really worth putting a effort into. I don’t even know why I said that in the first place.

[The republic ofTexas and northern Mexico]

I once again speak in favor of this amazing idea

[Fauxia]

I don’t see how this actually avoids the “stagnation” in the feeders. As long as a ruling party makes an endocap, they’ll be fine, especially since updating last makes it harder for a foreign vote stack. I think the size of a feeder mitigates the instability of a warzone. You can even see it in Warzone Sandbox. It’s much easier to ban when you don’t have to pay with influence than when you do.

Unless - how long do bans last in warzones? If it’s short enough and someone can make both updates for a certain amount of time, I suppose theoretically they could surf all the way back.

[Jakker]

I don’t see how this actually avoids the “stagnation” in the feeders. As long as a ruling party makes an endocap, they’ll be fine, especially since updating last makes it harder for a foreign vote stack. I think the size of a feeder mitigates the instability of a warzone. You can even see it in Warzone Sandbox. It’s much easier to ban when you don’t have to pay with influence than when you do.

Unless - how long do bans last in warzones? If it’s short enough and someone can make both updates for a certain amount of time, I suppose theoretically they could surf all the way back.

I'm seeing different things about the role influence still plays in warzones. Quoted in the FAQ pinned in this subforum,

These regions are specifically setup to allow for invasion-style gameplay. The normal influence costs for ejecting and banning nations apply for the WA delegate. However, bans expire with each update, so nations can keep coming back and trying to win the delegacy again. Passwords are also not allowed. These regions are often used as a "practice ground" for invaders and defenders.

But then I see this older post by Codger that says, "There is no influence in Warzones. An unique holdover from the pre-influence days."

[Fauxia]

I don’t see how this actually avoids the “stagnation” in the feeders. As long as a ruling party makes an endocap, they’ll be fine, especially since updating last makes it harder for a foreign vote stack. I think the size of a feeder mitigates the instability of a warzone. You can even see it in Warzone Sandbox. It’s much easier to ban when you don’t have to pay with influence than when you do.

Unless - how long do bans last in warzones? If it’s short enough and someone can make both updates for a certain amount of time, I suppose theoretically they could surf all the way back.

I'm seeing different things about the role influence still plays in warzones. Quoted in the FAQ pinned in this subforum,

These regions are specifically setup to allow for invasion-style gameplay. The normal influence costs for ejecting and banning nations apply for the WA delegate. However, bans expire with each update, so nations can keep coming back and trying to win the delegacy again. Passwords are also not allowed. These regions are often used as a "practice ground" for invaders and defenders.

But then I see this older post by Codger that says, "There is no influence in Warzones. An unique holdover from the pre-influence days."

The Warzones themselves have a banner that says “Delegates may eject nations as they please”, so I believe there isn’t influence.

Since bans only last an update, update surfing would be relatively easy. Thus, “Warzone Pacific” would be rather unstable. Consider that, to prevent a “surfer nation” from surfing into the Delegacy, a Delegate might eject newbie nations just endorsing someone who asked. I’m not sure such instability would be a good environment for a new nation to be founded in. But perhaps a newbie who’s paying enough attention to endorse in a feeder is likely to be active in TRR. I should probably support TRR getting new nations, anyway

Okay, so I changed my mind. I can see how a faster-paced warfeeder would be a cool dynamic for the game.

[Sail Nation]

I'm still worried about what we're telling new nations about the game - some might think that all regions are like this, only to find out how few warzones exist, some might be displeased to be ejected if they are seen as a threat (by not endorsing the delegate while endorsing someone else), some may just want to play a peaceful game about nation-building. Some may be confused as they think that military gameplay is between nations, rather than regions. We don't want to alienate new nations.

This is a problem that I believe raider-focused regions are having right now, I saw in the recent nation statistics that TBH had a peak in number of nations during the Drewpocalypse, yet lost them really quickly. I presume that this is because they saw the recruitment TG, thought that it would be about nation-to-nation combat, or what other, lesser known nationstates-style games use as a war mechanic, but then found out that raiding appeared like organized external coups, then looked no further and left. A feeder warzone would really confuse these new nations even more than before.

To me, this seems like a standard suggestion that has thought behind it, is pretty radical and uses existing mechanics, but seems likely to be turned down by the game admin or site admin (whichever one decides this sort of thing).

[The Stalker]

Maybe remove/limit the ability to eject nations?

It does stand to reason, that with it updating last not allowing for the usual jump before update raid system, and no influence cost being a Warzone. That eventually the ruling party would set up an endorsement cap and be able to eject anyone who goes over it. And even if the delegate can't be on for every update, with enough effective ROs it be impossible to dethrone them. Unless of course, they couldn't eject people, then it becomes a true game of King of the Hill.

[Alnorud]

Unless - how long do bans last in warzones? If it’s short enough and someone can make both updates for a certain amount of time, I suppose theoretically they could surf all the way back.

From experience, a banjection last an update and it is still doable to maintain the nation's ban for another update after this even if they didn't moved back.

The Warzones themselves have a banner that says “Delegates may eject nations as they please”, so I believe there isn’t influence.

Technically speaking, there is influence but it's nothing more than a shiny badge, similarly to The Rejected Realms but with banjections.

This is a problem that I believe raider-focused regions are having right now, I saw in the recent nation statistics that TBH had a peak in number of nations during the Drewpocalypse, yet lost them really quickly. I presume that this is because they saw the recruitment TG, thought that it would be about nation-to-nation combat, or what other, lesser known nationstates-style games use as a war mechanic, but then found out that raiding appeared like organized external coups, then looked no further and left. A feeder warzone would really confuse these new nations even more than before.

As I already mentioned previously, it isn't actually that confusing. Most people don't know how regions work in their early days on Nationstates and it doesn't prevent them from getting involved.

A major part of the population of Warzone Asia joined during the Drewpocalypse, yet I don't believe most of them had a much different experience than usual nations. Especially since most of our Warzone's citizenery have been focusing on Roleplay and community events rather than R/D mechanics which have been mostly taken care of by our leadership aside from the volunteers who showed interested in R/D operations such as Warzone liberations.

Maybe remove/limit the ability to eject nations?
It does stand to reason, that with it updating last not allowing for the usual jump before update raid system, and no influence cost being a Warzone. That eventually the ruling party would set up an endorsement cap and be able to eject anyone who goes over it. And even if the delegate can't be on for every update, with enough effective ROs it be impossible to dethrone them. Unless of course, they couldn't eject people, then it becomes a true game of King of the Hill.

In a way, if you limit the capacity of a Warzone to eject nations, then the Warzone becomes similar to how TRR works as it would merely result in a piling confrontation with the region being unable to defend itself as soon as it would have ran out of ejections. The lack of need for influence means that regardless of whether you were banned or not, you can always switch to another puppet and, aside from endorsements, have the same benefits as if you weren't banned with your first nation. Concerning the idea of completely preventing them from ejecting nations, I feel like it would most likely turn these Warzones into TRR, which kind of defeats the purpose of a Warzone since you wouldn't risk any ejection.

As for Security Officers, yes, the more you appoint, the safer your Government is supposed to be, but I did seen Warzones getting purged by a rogue BC officer. The fact that the Delegate can't be around at each update makes it very hard to actually make it "impossible" to get their Delegacy, if you appoint a few but trustworthy BC officers, you are unlikely to get enough personal to update-defend at each update and if you appoint several BC officers, it is very possible that one of them could go rogue and decide to be the next Delegate or simply purge the region to weaken its Government and allies as an infiltrator.

[Catalyse]

This idea is ok, but I'm still holding out for venters.

[Aumeltopia]

I really don't get what's "cool" or "fun" about this idea.

The claim that a feeder warzone would be permanently unstable because of its game-imposed limits on banning and influence, and therefore more interesting, is utter fantasy. TRR can't ban anyone at all, and it's as stable as stable can be. We'll have chaos for a few weeks, then some group will take firm control, and then a year later we'll be wondering what was so special about this Warzone Pacific anyway.

[Fauxia]

I really don't get what's "cool" or "fun" about this idea.

The claim that a feeder warzone would be permanently unstable because of its game-imposed limits on banning and influence, and therefore more interesting, is utter fantasy. TRR can't ban anyone at all, and it's as stable as stable can be. We'll have chaos for a few weeks, then some group will take firm control, and then a year later we'll be wondering what was so special about this Warzone Pacific anyway.

Since ban lists are cleared every update, there’s ample opportunity for update surfing to get around bans. TRR is stable because any pile is easily counterpiled, since you can’t ban anyone.

Like Jakker said in the OP, it’d be a similar situation to faster-paced GCRs of old. Perhaps we’ve learned better techniques on how not to get couped, but it would still be far less stable than a normal GCR. Additionally, at this point, any additional feeder would be helpful. Feeders are so stable in part because they are enormous.

I do agree with Catalyse that I prefer venters to this. This only combines elements of the game. That creates something new.

[Refuge Isle]

I really don't get what's "cool" or "fun" about this idea.

The claim that a feeder warzone would be permanently unstable because of its game-imposed limits on banning and influence, and therefore more interesting, is utter fantasy. TRR can't ban anyone at all, and it's as stable as stable can be. We'll have chaos for a few weeks, then some group will take firm control, and then a year later we'll be wondering what was so special about this Warzone Pacific anyway.

The obvious answer being, then, to create it and destroy it after a few weeks

[Zeritae]

I really don't get what's "cool" or "fun" about this idea.

The claim that a feeder warzone would be permanently unstable because of its game-imposed limits on banning and influence, and therefore more interesting, is utter fantasy. TRR can't ban anyone at all, and it's as stable as stable can be. We'll have chaos for a few weeks, then some group will take firm control, and then a year later we'll be wondering what was so special about this Warzone Pacific anyway.

The obvious answer being, then, to create it and destroy it after a few weeks

Passwording it would also work. Perhaps bring it back on a specific day every year?