New SC Categories (+ survey!)

[9003]

I like embargo but it shouldn't have a delay, it should be a badge of shame and inconvenience for any region that gets one.

"And what if it gets used on a GCR" well good if it manages to garner that much support to pull every WA from a GCR it probs should be cleaned out. With a delay it's just fender help as outlined above and doesn't make sense IC either.

[CoraSpia]

I like mediation. Not so much for the situation you mentioned because a griefer could just use it as a warning to get the job done quicker but for regions in which the founder has clearly gone awol and the rest of the members in that region can't do anything about it.

[Merni]

I like mediation. Not so much for the situation you mentioned because a griefer could just use it as a warning to get the job done quicker but for regions in which the founder has clearly gone awol and the rest of the members in that region can't do anything about it.

If a founder has gone awol they are likely to CTE soon enough (unless they happen to be on vacation mode), and when they do the delegate becomes executive automatically anyway.

[CoraSpia]

I like mediation. Not so much for the situation you mentioned because a griefer could just use it as a warning to get the job done quicker but for regions in which the founder has clearly gone awol and the rest of the members in that region can't do anything about it.

If a founder has gone awol they are likely to CTE soon enough (unless they happen to be on vacation mode), and when they do the delegate becomes executive automatically anyway.

I'm talking more about the situation in Forest up until recently.

[Unibot III]

To Blooded Moon:

- The significant risk (and the reason why defenders would not want to use Embargo immediately) is that the liberated region would be extremely vulnerable to reprisal. Several defenders in the original thread said they would be very reluctant to pursue the resolution category at all because of the difficulties of reprisal. Defenders would be faced with a tough choice (because they’d be making the post-liberation situation significantly more difficult) and would likely only pursue an Embargo if they saw piling ramping up and felt they had no other options.

I think you’re right about update bending, but that doesn’t bother me — if one tactic (piling) is disincentivized, invaders will adapt by leaning in on new strategies (like bending) or old strategies (larger invasion forces) to compensate. The thing is I think these adaptive strategies are healthier and encourage a more competitive military gameplay than relying on piling all of the time. Although I’ve never been an invader, I suspect if I were an invader I would publicly complain about the use of embargoes (as an overuse of power), but privately enjoy embargoed invasions and even try to instigate embargoed invasions because they’d be fun - hyper-competitive, a change of pace, they’d force unconventional strategies, and there would be a big opportunity for reprisals. You’d even get to test how good defenders are at banjecting!

- The restriction category would block the delegate from assigning border controls to any nation. Just to clarify, the delegate would retain border controls. If a lead delegate, in a coup or griefing or other mission, was running out of influence, they would have to swap the delegacy with the teammate. This is traditionally how coups/invasions worked & it was a source of trouble if you couldn’t trust the teammate.

I think we could see Embargo, Restriction, & Mediation measures used in a hostile way against regions that the NS Community feels appropriate to target.

- RE: Documents. They would not have a Game Mechanics impact. The category would form the basis for interregional laws, conventions, or agreements, that would be observable by member-nations. There would be no compliance mechanism. Of course, there will be people who will say “what’s the point?” but I think we would see players get really “into it” because they’d have a stake in the legitimization of international law & conventions.

Ultimately, I kind of expect this discussion to proceed in the way it has, with players liking some categories & not others. It shouldn’t be forgotten that WA Liberations were, at one time, fairly controversial! But the consultation is important. I think it’s important for us, especially, to assess whether these new categories would (a) be used, (b) be fair, (c) promote a better Gameplay experience, and (d) not unnecessarily disrupt how a subcommunity is playing the game.

I’ve really appreciated reading all of your comments. Keep ‘em coming.

[Atheris]

"Embargo Iraq"

Hahahahahahahaha. That's pretty funny.

Anyways, I do like the idea of Embargo and Mediation. Not so sure on Restriction. I'll think about it.

[Xoriet]

True. Some deeper thought and you'll realize that the SC will never overthrow a raider region.

Still, why take a founder's region away from them? A region should be owned by its founder while it still exists, to allow the WA to take away their authority is wrong.

Because fash bad.
And, as Eshialand said, sometimes it's needed if raiders refounded a region.

It could also be a tool for raiders. Right now the WA order favors defending and defender purposes, but that can change in a hurry. You really don't want to give them a tool. Every tool works both ways. If there is no rule determining when it may be used, it will quickly become a weapon used by both sides.

[The Python]

Because fash bad.
And, as Eshialand said, sometimes it's needed if raiders refounded a region.

It could also be a tool for raiders. Right now the WA order favors defending and defender purposes, but that can change in a hurry. You really don't want to give them a tool. Every tool works both ways. If there is no rule determining when it may be used, it will quickly become a weapon used by both sides.

What would happen if, to make refounding harder, there could be a "defend" resolution, which works like an SC liberation but it completely prevents the region from refounding (so it won't CTE even if it has no nations).

[Westinor]

It could also be a tool for raiders. Right now the WA order favors defending and defender purposes, but that can change in a hurry. You really don't want to give them a tool. Every tool works both ways. If there is no rule determining when it may be used, it will quickly become a weapon used by both sides.

What would happen if, to make refounding harder, there could be a "defend" resolution, which works like an SC liberation but it completely prevents the region from refounding (so it won't CTE even if it has no nations).

I think a more apt name for a mechanic like that would be “Preserve”.

[Comfed]

It could also be a tool for raiders. Right now the WA order favors defending and defender purposes, but that can change in a hurry. You really don't want to give them a tool. Every tool works both ways. If there is no rule determining when it may be used, it will quickly become a weapon used by both sides.

What would happen if, to make refounding harder, there could be a "defend" resolution, which works like an SC liberation but it completely prevents the region from refounding (so it won't CTE even if it has no nations).

Liberations exist to make refounding regions hard, this would make it impossible and give defenders an unfair advantage.
So no.

[Lord Dominator]

Don’t really like Mediation, what with the anti-founder stuff (also, the number of regions we’d want to use it on is far in excess of reasonable time).

Restriction is basically a tool for denying raiders the ability to stop liberations, and I’m not seeing anything hypothetical use we could have for it.

The other two look good, though I’ve commented before I believe that the Embargo would probably serve mainly to defeat liberations for raiders.

[The Python]

What would happen if, to make refounding harder, there could be a "defend" resolution, which works like an SC liberation but it completely prevents the region from refounding (so it won't CTE even if it has no nations).

I think a more apt name for a mechanic like that would be “Preserve”.

Yes that could also work.

After thinking about it I think overthrows shouldn't affect founders, only delegates and RO's.

[Eshialand]

I think a more apt name for a mechanic like that would be “Preserve”.

Yes that could also work.

After thinking about it I think overthrows shouldn't affect founders, only delegates and RO's.

I still think overthrows should affect founders. The SC would almost never pass them, since the only time I could see people agreeing to that is if a notable region somehow got refounded, but it should be a possibility.

[A Bloodred Moon]

To Blooded Moon:

- The significant risk (and the reason why defenders would not want to use Embargo immediately) is that the liberated region would be extremely vulnerable to reprisal. Several defenders in the original thread said they would be very reluctant to pursue the resolution category at all because of the difficulties of reprisal. Defenders would be faced with a tough choice (because they’d be making the post-liberation situation significantly more difficult) and would likely only pursue an Embargo if they saw piling ramping up and felt they had no other options.

Two scenarios:
a) you're right and defenders (for whatever reason) don't use this on every occasion and wait to see the pile grow. By the time they realise how significant the pile is and they submit a liberation, raiders will have 50 or 60 endorsements in the region, combined with the fact that defenders have less than 10 seconds to get in and update, meaning that their noobs are going to miss.
b) You're wrong, and defenders submit such a thing during the initial update, leaving raiders with 30 endos at most. Defenders have an easy time draining raider influence away, because only a small number needs to make it in to drain influence away.

How would this help either side?

I think you’re right about update bending, but that doesn’t bother me — if one tactic (piling) is disincentivized, invaders will adapt by leaning in on new strategies (like bending) or old strategies (larger invasion forces) to compensate. The thing is I think these adaptive strategies are healthier and encourage a more competitive military gameplay than relying on piling all of the time. Although I’ve never been an invader, I suspect if I were an invader I would publicly complain about the use of embargoes (as an overuse of power), but privately enjoy embargoed invasions and even try to instigate embargoed invasions because they’d be fun - hyper-competitive, a change of pace, they’d force unconventional strategies, and there would be a big opportunity for reprisals. You’d even get to test how good defenders are at banjecting!

I am entirely unsure why you think it a good thing to discourage raider regions from drawing in on-site folks who can't update or people who can't use discord. "Fairness" sure as hell isn't it, because defenders have not been having much trouble sieging out piles - Smol Fur Empire was a few months ago, where defenders easily outnumbered raiders and got close to liberating at several points. The only reason we lasted through that was by banjecting quickly.

And the last time we used a new strategy defenders (and you) called for it to be banned immediately. You don't need a "kill piling" resolution to get people to adapt their strategies.

- The restriction category would block the delegate from assigning border controls to any nation. Just to clarify, the delegate would retain border controls. If a lead delegate, in a coup or griefing or other mission, was running out of influence, they would have to swap the delegacy with the teammate. This is traditionally how coups/invasions worked & it was a source of trouble if you couldn’t trust the teammate.

With a defender faction stronger than ever, raider numbers lessened, occupations staged only rarely, coups made virtually impossible due to influence and the Feeders already more stable than ever before, why would we need/want to make it even easier for defenders?

And for your information, lead switching is still utilised against sieges (or high-influence natives).

Documents - I think that's fair, and it might be worth a try.

[Wormfodder Delivery]

I am not really familiar with this gameplay thingie, but this kinda looks to be massively giving defenders an advantage.
Not sure if it is a good idea.

[Goobergunchia]

From another thread:

At some point there will probably be a Master Account (presumably your main nation) and then all your other nations under it, so you could switch between puppets without logging out and in constantly. That said, it will effectively require a complete rebuild of the core game engine to add that ... so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

Obviously this thread is about categories we should add now ... but way down the road, I'd be way more supportive of a resolution that can target Founder powers if it were aimed specifically at puppet Founders, since in my mind really the only legitimate use of such a resolution would be to free up regions that somebody is just sitting on.

[Unibot III]

Blooded Moon -

I think adaption is key and I think you’re overlooking how invaders might adapt piling to the Embargo resolution. Rather than totally disincentivizing piling, it may encourage more sophisticated piling — for instance, strategic time delays (slowly release pilers), multiple invasions (to disperse pilers), and coordinating pilers into groups so that pilers get equal opportunity to participate.

It’s also important to note that the Embargo’s effect only kicks into effect when the resolution passes. That might be a solid week from the beginning of the invasion. At which point invaders are faced with a choice — defend their invasion in spite of the Embargo or declare victory & leave prematurely. I suspect different invaders will respond differently depending on the circumstances.

Finally, I don’t think I entirely convinced you that defenders would be discouraged from pursuing Embargoes — but there is a few good reasons why they would:

1) It would make the chances of reprisal far greater in a post-Liberation situation.
2) “Overuse” of the Embargo category would generate a negative opinion towards Embargoes and make it more difficult to pass future resolutions.
3) The use of “templates” for resolutions would be used against the passage of the resolution.
4) Invaders may “troll” by instigating embargoes to frustrate the WASC.

[Lord Dominator]

An embargo would actually be closer to a game over in favor of raiding - the vast majority of modern piling is over within the first 36-48 hours. A week afterwards we’re not pulling pilers in all that much anymore unless we’re really in need them.

[Unibot III]

An embargo would actually be closer to a game over in favor of raiding - the vast majority of modern piling is over within the first 36-48 hours. A week afterwards we’re not pulling pilers in all that much anymore unless we’re really in need them.

Sorry do you mean the response rate is quicker or the level of piling sought is lower?

48 hours was a similar turnaround for what I remember. My memory was you could expect about 3-5 pilers an hour on average, and they would max out within 30-40 hours.

Always depended on how aggressive the mission organizers were.

[Lord Dominator]

An embargo would actually be closer to a game over in favor of raiding - the vast majority of modern piling is over within the first 36-48 hours. A week afterwards we’re not pulling pilers in all that much anymore unless we’re really in need them.

Sorry do you mean the response rate is quicker or the level of piling sought is lower?

48 hours was a similar turnaround for what I remember. My memory was you could expect about 3-5 pilers an hour on average, and they would max out within 30-40 hours.

Always depended on how aggressive the mission organizers were.

Response is quicker - there remains a trickle after the period i indicated, but we don’t usually try to moderate our numbers in any manner these days. 4 days of piling is going to cover the a pretty good majority of all possibly pilers, and the inability of defenders to effectively siege a region would doom them if they can’t manage the single-update numbers.

[Unibot III]

I’m not sure there was ever an attempt to moderate numbers. We’d have been very lucky to get a crack at liberating the region at the first available update.

I imagine what’s going on is the response rate has improved because the communication tools have become sophisticated— easier to reach people quicker and more effectively. Just guessing though.

But, I’m going to stop you there... I think you may have missed something in the proposal.

The proposal is that when the resolution takes effect, the embargo is grandfathered to the time of the resolution’s submission, not its passage. This is key, because the length of time it takes to pass the resolution would be too long of a timeline to prevent piling.

This is why Blooded Moon has raised concerns with defenders using templates to expedite the drafting process and has raised concerns too that it will be abused / introduced prematurely. I don’t think this is the case for a few reasons...

- Defenders will be worried about overusing the category or facing accusations that they’re abusing it. These accusations can derail legitimate uses of the category. We faced similar problems with the WA Liberations over preemptive cases and had to adjust our legislative strategy accordingly.
- Submitting a resolution prematurely (without giving an opportunity to invaders to actually justify the resolution) is a good way to get your resolution shot down & embarrass yourself.
- An embargo is an inconvenience for liberators (due to the chance of reprisal), so they’re only going to want to pursue embargoes if they’re necessary and the case is justified.
- The embargo isn’t a ban on piling, but if the resolution passes, it sets a timeline on it. For instance, invaders might want to pile hard for the initial stage of the occupation to involve their pilers in the invasion, build influence, and stabilize things. In a week or so when (or if) the resolution passes, the endorsement levels would revert to the time of submission and mission leaders would either shift strategies & strategic goals or declare victory and leave to troll defenders.
- Invaders are adaptive. What I could foresee happening is invaders would adapt to the Embargo category in a way that encouraged an overall more competitive and more dynamic gameplay environment: for instance, invaders might (a) increase the size of their initial invasions, (b) time-delay the release of pilers so you’re cooking the defenders like a frog in hot water, (c) use a “reverse siege” method to provide additional support to an invader lead at update — shift your pilers to the accounts of the grandfathered nations and use your updaters to “reverse siege.”

On the latter point I think what I foresee happening is defenders (to effectively make use of embargoes) would have to develop ejection skills on par with invaders, and invaders would want to encourage more of its rank and file to participate as updaters (like defenders) and steal strategies that defenders have pioneered to use against them.

[Unibot III]

Go take this short survey about new SC categories!

Nothing scientific, but I think it might be a good discussion point here to assess the general popularity of the proposals that have been contemplated in this thread so far.

I'll release the results here after a while whenever the results plateau. Feel free to share the survey with online Discord groups.

[North Prarie]

Overthrows would be catastrophic for defending and UCRs in general - with a simple majority in the SC, raiders could make any region they wanted targetable. Hard against that.

I like the ideas in the OP, but I'd like to see more elaboration on the "risks and challenges" posed for defenders if they use the Embargo feature, and how that would be used in the R/D game overall.

[Unibot III]

Overthrows would be catastrophic for defending and UCRs in general - with a simple majority in the SC, raiders could make any region they wanted targetable. Hard against that.

I like the ideas in the OP, but I'd like to see more elaboration on the "risks and challenges" posed for defenders if they use the Embargo feature, and how that would be used in the R/D game overall.

I also think the “overthrow” proposal is a complete non starter — it’s unfair to invaders IMO too.

Here is some of my thoughts on the “risks & challenges” and the possibility of invader adaption with regards to Embargoes:

This is why Blooded Moon has raised concerns with defenders using templates to expedite the drafting process and has raised concerns too that it will be abused / introduced prematurely. I don’t think this is the case for a few reasons...

- Defenders will be worried about overusing the category or facing accusations that they’re abusing it. These accusations can derail legitimate uses of the category. We faced similar problems with the WA Liberations over preemptive cases and had to adjust our legislative strategy accordingly.
- Submitting a resolution prematurely (without giving an opportunity to invaders to actually justify the resolution) is a good way to get your resolution shot down & embarrass yourself.
- An embargo is an inconvenience for liberators (due to the chance of reprisal), so they’re only going to want to pursue embargoes if they’re necessary and the case is justified.
- The embargo isn’t a ban on piling, but if the resolution passes, it sets a timeline on it. For instance, invaders might want to pile hard for the initial stage of the occupation to involve their pilers in the invasion, build influence, and stabilize things. In a week or so when (or if) the resolution passes, the endorsement levels would revert to the time of submission and mission leaders would either shift strategies & strategic goals or declare victory and leave to troll defenders.
- Invaders are adaptive. What I could foresee happening is invaders would adapt to the Embargo category in a way that encouraged an overall more competitive and more dynamic gameplay environment: for instance, invaders might (a) increase the size of their initial invasions, (b) time-delay the release of pilers so you’re cooking the defenders like a frog in hot water, (c) use a “reverse siege” method to provide additional support to an invader lead at update — shift your pilers to the accounts of the grandfathered nations and use your updaters to “reverse siege.”

On the latter point I think what I foresee happening is defenders (to effectively make use of embargoes) would have to develop ejection skills on par with invaders, and invaders would want to encourage more of its rank and file to participate as updaters (like defenders) and steal strategies that defenders have pioneered to use against them.

[Unibot III]

Cracked twenty responses today, I'll probably leave the survey open till Friday. If you haven't the survey yet, take it today!