Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Haganham]

However, I am very concerned about the possibility of the proposed change being implemented despite widespread oppositions from nearly all major regions and many individual nations.

It's not surprising that the regions and nations with the most to lose might object to the change.

I keep seeing this claim, yet the strongest opposition is coming from large UCRs...

[Queen Yuno]

It's not surprising that the regions and nations with the most to lose might object to the change.

I keep seeing this claim, yet the strongest opposition is coming from large UCRs...

I should clarify that what I'm supporting is mostly I want nations to start spawning in UCRs.
I don't see why UCRs would oppose that.

[Galiantus III]

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition. Frontiers offer the same creative potential as UCRs, with the same publicity and relevance as GCRs. Whether or not they switch, they fear losing something: if they switch they sacrifice the security of having a founder; if they don't switch they could shrink as their residents migrate to the new novel regions.

I think GCRs are probably less vocal here because the positives and negatives somewhat balance out. In terms of recruitment this is obviously a loss for feeders, but there are some benefits:

Security and Stability - Because of the compelling gameplay and competition in frontiers, a lot of coup attempts and attacks that would otherwise be directed at GCRs will instead manifest in frontiers. GCRs should remain stable, and attract people who want stability. Meanwhile, frontiers should experience more of the gameplay chaos, and attract players with ambitions to make radical changes.

Relative Power - Large UCRs are actually above GCRs in terms of an ability to project power. This is because GCRs are founderless, and therefore susceptible to mechanical threats. This isn't a concern for most large UCRs, which can pretty much do whatever they like without a care what GCRs think. But frontiers introduces the possibility of other powerful regions that GCRs can heavily influence. Because of this, I believe some of the earliest frontiers will be colonies chartered by GCRs, as a means of establishing control of this new space.

[Bears Armed]

*: It's worth noting that five of the 118 eligible spawning Frontiers (10000 Islands, The Communist Bloc, Europeia, Thaecia, and The League) have all issued statements against Frontier/Stronghold; I suspect they will declare themselves to be Strongholds given the opportunity. One of the remaining 113 regions - Sophia - has said it will declare itself to be a Frontier.

I'm fairly sure that both International Democratic Union and Texas will choose Stronghold status, too.

[Sincluda]

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition.

Yeah sure for some people.
But have you even read the statements?

[Haganham]

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition. Frontiers offer the same creative potential as UCRs, with the same publicity and relevance as GCRs. Whether or not they switch, they fear losing something: if they switch they sacrifice the security of having a founder; if they don't switch they could shrink as their residents migrate to the new novel regions.

Or maybe UCRs are opposed because the reasons they've repeatedly stated in this thread...
I know for the ones I'm involved in this update means less competition, not more. As we primarily recruit through telegram, and this update means less regions doing that.

[Porflox]

I don't see why UCRs would oppose that.

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition.

A few major qualms of major UCRs are:
1. It forces regions who want improved recruitment to lose their founder security
2. There is a general feeling that admins have not been addressing concerns
3. It forces the use of raiding to reduce the number of frontier regions (many of which would probably be colonies by major regions used to direct newly spawned players towards the main region).
4. It actually helps super-UCRs the most, not small UCRs as superdelegates have way more endorsements than a raid could reasonably pile into. Unlike small regions which will probably be destroyed by raiders and removed from the frontier pool in short notice.

[Porflox]

However, I am very concerned about the possibility of the proposed change being implemented despite widespread oppositions from nearly all major regions and many individual nations.

It's not surprising that the regions and nations with the most to lose might object to the change. That doesn't mean that Staff isn't listening or is detached from the playerbase of the game. We have to balance things between all players, vocal or not. We're happy for input, but balance is more important than popularity.

Wouldn't super-UCRs have the most to gain, though? They're the only ones with a realistically impenetrable delegate endos, and the resources to defend potential "colony" regions (which would be set up with frontier status and attempt to get all the nations that spawn their to move to the main region) from being removed from the frontier pool.

[Sincluda]

I don't see why UCRs would oppose that.

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition.

4. It actually helps super-UCRs the most, not small UCRs as superdelegates have way more endorsements than a raid could reasonably pile into. Unlike small regions which will probably be destroyed by raiders and removed from the frontier pool in short notice.

And it's not like this is unlikely - Frontiers create an incentive for imperialism - spawning nations. The fewer the delegate votes, the easier.

[A Bloodred Moon]

I don't see why UCRs would oppose that.

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition.

A few major qualms of major UCRs are:
1. It forces regions who want improved recruitment to lose their founder security

No one forces you to opt-in. It is a silly argument, if you're too scared to take any risk at all you don't have to. And the major UCRs don't have to take many risks at all in the first place.

2. There is a general feeling that admins have not been addressing concerns

What concerns, out of curiosity, are there left to be addressed beyond people finding it unfair that they have to take risks to get what they want or opposition to the prospect of gameplay? Aspects of the proposal have been changed after feedback, to my knowledge. Opposition to the idea does not improve it.

3. It forces the use of raiding to reduce the number of frontier regions (many of which would probably be colonies by major regions used to direct newly spawned players towards the main region).

There is two parts to this argument. The first is that it "forces the use of raiding to reduce the number of frontier regions". This is incorrect; it forces nothing. It allows for the possibility to do so, yes, and it encourages conflict, yes, but it does not force people to raid. It allows people to take the risk and participate in gameplay. The second is the use of colonies. I fail to see how this is a problem. Major regions, participating in gameplay, previously forced to settle their differences in third-party regions can now engage each other over something of actual value? "War" has always been a loose concept on NS, but now there is a possibility to actually make it mean something. Is that a bad thing by definition?

4. It actually helps super-UCRs the most, not small UCRs as superdelegates have way more endorsements than a raid could reasonably pile into. Unlike small regions which will probably be destroyed by raiders and removed from the frontier pool in short notice.

I am certainly hoping they will be! But that is not a given. If you're small, you are forced to adapt. Seek out allies, find protectors, mind your security, etc. Having to put in the work to get recruits is not a new thing, this is just more work, more risk for greater benefits. They are not forced into this; if they choose to step into a higher-risk area, they should know the risks. The possibility of smaller regions pooling resources to share a Frontier is not out of the question at all.

[Galiantus III]

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition. Frontiers offer the same creative potential as UCRs, with the same publicity and relevance as GCRs. Whether or not they switch, they fear losing something: if they switch they sacrifice the security of having a founder; if they don't switch they could shrink as their residents migrate to the new novel regions.

Or maybe UCRs are opposed because the reasons they've repeatedly stated in this thread...
I know for the ones I'm involved in this update means less competition, not more. As we primarily recruit through telegram, and this update means less regions doing that.

Having read what they have said, I think what I'm saying is getting at what the real root cause is. They say it will force them to change, but there's nothing about this update that would directly force it. So they must be talking about the nature of the choice they have to make. And to me it sounds like what they're saying is "we can't be competitive if we don't switch" which might be true. That's how I'm reading what they're saying, in the most charitable, understanding way I can. But I ultimately agree with your position - that in terms of recruitment it will slightly improve things, and they really don't have much to worry about.

I don't see why UCRs would oppose that.

I'm guessing what concerns large UCRs is the prospect of competition.

A few major qualms of major UCRs are:
1. It forces regions who want improved recruitment to lose their founder security
2. There is a general feeling that admins have not been addressing concerns
3. It forces the use of raiding to reduce the number of frontier regions (many of which would probably be colonies by major regions used to direct newly spawned players towards the main region).
4. It actually helps super-UCRs the most, not small UCRs as superdelegates have way more endorsements than a raid could reasonably pile into. Unlike small regions which will probably be destroyed by raiders and removed from the frontier pool in short notice.

1. The intent of this update has always been to present regions with the decision between security and recruitment, thereby defining boundaries for gameplay.
2. That feeling is just plain wrong. It is the product of people showing up at the end rather than participating in the process.
3. I'm not seeing the problem here. Are you saying "raiding is bad and should be removed" or something else?
4. What could super-UCRs possibly gain by switching? They are already very large, powerful, and secure. If they switch they're just giving up security for nothing.

Wouldn't super-UCRs have the most to gain, though? They're the only ones with a realistically impenetrable delegate endos, and the resources to defend potential "colony" regions (which would be set up with frontier status and attempt to get all the nations that spawn their to move to the main region) from being removed from the frontier pool.

If they thought they had the most to gain, I doubt they would be complaining. But I don't think it either helps or harms them. I think they are incorrectly evaluating what will happen.

The danger with establishing a colony is you have to be vigilant to maintain a cultural connection to the main region, or you may lose it. While the largest UCRs are absolutely capable of defending a colony from outside threats, that sort of relationship to another region is inherently unstable. They can't make people move to the main region, and a lot of them will stay in the colony and call it home. Over time, one of two things will happen: either (a) the home region will pour so much time and resources into the colony that they will effectively migrate there, or (b) the colony will gradually become its own autonomous entity. I suppose some regions may successfully maintain the right balance, but I don't think this will be typical.

The possibility of smaller regions pooling resources to share a Frontier is not out of the question at all.

A lot of frontiers should be created this way. This proposal just naturally creates a reward system for getting a solid group of players with aligning goals together, and that is most easily done by gathering smaller groups instead of starting from scratch.

[Porflox]

A few major qualms of major UCRs are:
1. It forces regions who want improved recruitment to lose their founder security
2. There is a general feeling that admins have not been addressing concerns
3. It forces the use of raiding to reduce the number of frontier regions (many of which would probably be colonies by major regions used to direct newly spawned players towards the main region).
4. It actually helps super-UCRs the most, not small UCRs as superdelegates have way more endorsements than a raid could reasonably pile into. Unlike small regions which will probably be destroyed by raiders and removed from the frontier pool in short notice.

1. The intent of this update has always been to present regions with the decision between security and recruitment, thereby defining boundaries for gameplay.
2. That feeling is just plain wrong. It is the product of people showing up at the end rather than participating in the process.
3. I'm not seeing the problem here. Are you saying "raiding is bad and should be removed" or something else?
4. What could super-UCRs possibly gain by switching? They are already very large, powerful, and secure. If they switch they're just giving up security for nothing.

Wouldn't super-UCRs have the most to gain, though? They're the only ones with a realistically impenetrable delegate endos, and the resources to defend potential "colony" regions (which would be set up with frontier status and attempt to get all the nations that spawn their to move to the main region) from being removed from the frontier pool.

If they thought they had the most to gain, I doubt they would be complaining. But I don't think it either helps or harms them. I think they are incorrectly evaluating what will happen.

The danger with establishing a colony is you have to be vigilant to maintain a cultural connection to the main region, or you may lose it. While the largest UCRs are absolutely capable of defending a colony from outside threats, that sort of relationship to another region is inherently unstable. They can't make people move to the main region, and a lot of them will stay in the colony and call it home. Over time, one of two things will happen: either (a) the home region will pour so much time and resources into the colony that they will effectively migrate there, or (b) the colony will gradually become its own autonomous entity. I suppose some regions may successfully maintain the right balance, but I don't think this will be typical.

1. I personally agree that presenting a choice is a net positive for NS. After all, even if regions don't switch to frontiers, their founder gets to choose a successor.
2. I also haven't participated enough in this thread to comment too much on this, but it would seem that a majority of major regions feel this way.
3. I'm saying that it forces the use of raiding in order to reduce the frontier spawning pool. Before the update, there wasn't too much preference towards whether to raid or defend from the game. Now, what's the point of defending other regions that are in competition with you for recruitment? If the update is pushed out, it'd put much more emphasis on raiding, as it's the only option that benefits your region (in addition to some light defense work in regards with your region's colonies if you have them).
4. Super-UCRs aren't going to get raided effectively, so they have little to lose by switching to a frontier. Small frontier UCRs are the ones that'll have to constantly contend with the threat of raiding, as they don't have enough WA endorsements to make raiding them impractical.
5. In regards to a colony, the way I see it is a large region creating many frontier colonies, which'd prod nations into moving to the main region (they wouldn't really have their own community, and would only exist to increase recruitment). Then even if they are raided and removed from the pool, these large regions could just make more of them and use their resources to increase their number of colonies beyond those of smaller regions.

There is two parts to this argument. The first is that it "forces the use of raiding to reduce the number of frontier regions". This is incorrect; it forces nothing. It allows for the possibility to do so, yes, and it encourages conflict, yes, but it does not force people to raid. It allows people to take the risk and participate in gameplay. The second is the use of colonies. I fail to see how this is a problem. Major regions, participating in gameplay, previously forced to settle their differences in third-party regions can now engage each other over something of actual value? "War" has always been a loose concept on NS, but now there is a possibility to actually make it mean something. Is that a bad thing by definition?

The issue is that regions have little to gain from defending others from attack. In fact, they'd be losing out on valuable recruitment. The proposed update heavily encourages regions to raid others in order to remove them from the frontier pool and increase the number of nations spawning in them. Especially in respect to colonies, there is no incentive to defend them, as simply creating more colonies is far more profitable (possibly with the same people forming the WA requirement) than spending your peoples' time defending them. Whether spending to time to raid these colonies is even worth it might be up for debate. While this new meta of grinding colony regions could be a direction NS wants to take, I don't think that this direction would be more enjoyable than how it is right now.

EDIT: Inaccuracy in regards to my misunderstanding on how many people were required to change to frontier

[Galiantus III]

3. I'm saying that it forces the use of raiding in order to reduce the frontier spawning pool. Before the update, there wasn't too much preference towards whether to raid or defend from the game. Now, what's the point of defending other regions that are in competition with you for recruitment? If the update is pushed out, it'd put much more emphasis on raiding, as it's the only option that benefits your region (in addition to some light defense work in regards with your region's colonies if you have them).

Relative to frontiers, absolutely. But there's no reason it would change for other regions.

4. Super-UCRs aren't going to get raided effectively, so they have little to lose by switching to a frontier. Small frontier UCRs are the ones that'll have to constantly contend with the threat of raiding, as they don't have enough WA endorsements to make raiding them impractical.

By comparison to smaller regions they obviously have less to lose, but I'm struggling to see what they have to gain. If it's size and power, well, they're already large and powerful, so any gains would be marginal. As for smaller regions, it was pointed out that they can group together to get above general raiding size.

5. In regards to a colony, the way I see it is a large region creating many frontier colonies, which'd prod nations into moving to the main region (they wouldn't really have their own community, and would only exist to increase recruitment). Then even if they are raided and removed from the pool, these large regions could just make more of them and use their resources to increase their number of colonies beyond those of smaller regions.

I don't think non-frontier militaries will necessarily have an interest in disrupting the frontier pool. I imagine they will normally view control of a frontier as an advertising opportunity and fly their flag so new players spawning in the region see who they are. If they do bump nation spawns, it would probably be on whatever update they intentionally withdraw.

As for colonies themselves, you are right this is a possibility. However, I don't think things will always work out that way. If frontiers are just being abandoned, there is a chance its natives will declare allegiance to a different region in exchange for protection. Remember, new players will be spawning in these. So although many of these colonies will just die off, they are also perfectly capable of taking on a life of their own. I should also point out that there is a week between the creation of a frontier and it receiving spawns, during which external militaries can respond. A large region can't just send out teams of 20 people to maintain frontiers, they have to also maintain control of those regions for at least a week. Such projects would require a lot of people to maintain. We're probably looking at 40+ people dedicated to just one region for a minimum of a week. At that point you are better off trying to defend and hold it instead of constantly switching.

[Haganham]

A large region can't just send out teams of 20 people to maintain frontiers, they have to also maintain control of those regions for at least a week. Such projects would require a lot of people to maintain. We're probably looking at 40+ people dedicated to just one region for a minimum of a week. At that point you are better off trying to defend and hold it instead of constantly switching..

Pretty much any large military can do that, just by having members park in the region when they can't make update.

[Sedgistan]

I am open to both this:

if the delegate seat changes it cancels the transition.

and this:

I should add that "extending the timer" on a Delegacy change is definitely an option we can consider.

...but want more feedback on these ideas.

Neither of these really got much feedback. This is only really relevant for a Frontier -> Stronghold transition where the Delegate is set to become Founder (i.e. the original Founder nation no longer exists). At present, someone could rush in late in the process and hijack the transition, the new Delegate becoming Founder when the transition finalises. Potentially quite fun, but not so good if there's no chance to fight back.

I am considering extending the transition period when a Delegate change occurs, by something in the region of 3-7 days. I do not think the process needs to be cancelled on a Delegate change - Preservation resolutions exist as the means to achieve that. Since passwords are still an option, for most regions wanting to transition (e.g. Hell) this should not cause any significant problems.

---

I am also thinking of upsetting another applecart in my crusade to rename everything, and ditching the term "Founder" since it becomes wholly incorrect with the introduction of this whole change (many "Founders" will be Successors, and some will be Delegates who took their region from Frontier -> Stronghold). Potentially "Governor" instead. Though "Governorless region" sounds crappy. "Administrator" would be good, except for the confusion with site staff roles.

[Old Hope]

I am open to both this:

and this:

...but want more feedback on these ideas.

Neither of these really got much feedback. This is only really relevant for a Frontier -> Stronghold transition where the Delegate is set to become Founder (i.e. the original Founder nation no longer exists). At present, someone could rush in late in the process and hijack the transition, the new Delegate becoming Founder when the transition finalises. Potentially quite fun, but not so good if there's no chance to fight back.

I am considering extending the transition period when a Delegate change occurs, by something in the region of 3-7 days. I do not think the process needs to be cancelled on a Delegate change - Preservation resolutions exist as the means to achieve that. Since passwords are still an option, for most regions wanting to transition (e.g. Hell) this should not cause any significant problems.

---

I am also thinking of upsetting another applecart in my crusade to rename everything, and ditching the term "Founder" since it becomes wholly incorrect with the introduction of this whole change (many "Founders" will be Successors, and some will be Delegates who took their region from Frontier -> Stronghold). Potentially "Governor" instead. Though "Governorless region" sounds crappy. "Administrator" would be good, except for the confusion with site staff roles.

Dictator, of course.
None of the previous names show the near-absolute power of the founder and their successors.

[Bears Armed]

I am also thinking of upsetting another applecart in my crusade to rename everything, and ditching the term "Founder" since it becomes wholly incorrect with the introduction of this whole change (many "Founders" will be Successors, and some will be Delegates who took their region from Frontier -> Stronghold). Potentially "Governor" instead. Though "Governorless region" sounds crappy. "Administrator" would be good, except for the confusion with site staff roles.

Would it be possible to keep the term 'Founder' for those of them that actually are their regions' founders (or that were appointed to the job back when that function was originally introduced), and use whatever alternative title you come up with only for Successors & for Delegates who assume the role through this new mechanism?

Dictator, of course.
None of the previous names show the near-absolute power of the founder and their successors.

That ignores, and insults the founders who do not act dictatorially.

[Haganham]

I agree with Bears. And add that founder currently get a nice shiny badge, so how would this affect that? Do successors get one? or a different badge? IF a founder gets replaced would the lose it?

Dictator, of course.
None of the previous names show the near-absolute power of the founder and their successors.

That ignores, and insults the founders who do not act dictatorially.

And the fact that, unlike a dictator, founders cannot compel people to contribute in their region.

[Sedgistan]

I agree with Bears. And add that founder currently get a nice shiny badge, so how would this affect that? Do successors get one? or a different badge? IF a founder gets replaced would the lose it?

You're asking (good) questions that you should also be suggesting answers to as well.

[Haganham]

I agree with Bears. And add that founder currently get a nice shiny badge, so how would this affect that? Do successors get one? or a different badge? IF a founder gets replaced would the lose it?

You're asking (good) questions that you should also be suggesting answers to as well.

from now on instead of badges we get beer.(I don't know enough to answer my questions, that is why I am asking them)

[SherpDaWerp]

I agree with Bears. And add that founder currently get a nice shiny badge, so how would this affect that? Do successors get one? or a different badge? IF a founder gets replaced would the lose it?

You're asking (good) questions that you should also be suggesting answers to as well.

I think keeping the old "system" should do fine - founder badge gets renamed to Governor or Leader or what have you (I'd suggest Protector, which keeps in line with Founders being the main anti-raider protection - "Protectorless" sounds pretty good to me); nominated successors get an equivalent (identical) badge that says "Successor". Protector and Successor badges appear alongside WA Delegate, or any of the Staff roles, same as the current system.

[Bassiliya]

I agree with Bears. And add that founder currently get a nice shiny badge, so how would this affect that? Do successors get one? or a different badge? IF a founder gets replaced would the lose it?

You're asking (good) questions that you should also be suggesting answers to as well.

A suggestion of answer: Successors get founder badges and a new badge, "ex-Founder" is created for a retired founder. Why not have those for former Delegates too? "Ex-Delegate"?

[Sedgistan]

Updated the OP with the following under Frontier -> Stronghold: "If the Delegate position changes hands during this process, then an additional 3 days are added to the transition time period." This is there to prevent last-minute snipes that cannot be countered.

Badges: whoever currently holds the position should have the badge. The Regional History position will continue to record whichever nation originally founded the region.

Names: I'm ambivalent on changing Founder to Governor or whatever, so assume it stays as Founder for now.

I've moved this forward to the next stage internally, which is a review of the final plan. I'll probably be asked for a detail or two I haven't considered; that may require bringing a question or two back here. I will update people again when this is officially added to the Gameplay/SC admin to-do list.

[Slowest Moon Around 51]

Badges: whoever currently holds the position should have the badge. The Regional History position will continue to record whichever nation originally founded the region.

Would it be feasible to add a record of when the foundership was passed to the Successor in the Regional History page? Something like;

12 hours ago: The People's Republic of Andusre succeeded The Andusrean Xernonian Nation of Thaecia Founder as the new Regional Founder of Thaecia.

[Sedgistan]

Definitely. All the big stuff here, like foundership being passed on, or a region changing status, will go in the Regional History records.