Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Galiantus III]

@Unibot

Here's my take on compelling targets:

1. Valuable targets put effort into security. That's just how it works. Frontiers will probably function a lot like feeders and sinkers do now, and yes, this will make them harder to invade. However, I personally think the existence of targets of value is worth it, even if it comes with a defense network. There's not really a way to create valuable targets that people won't put effort into defending.

2. I suppose for defenders you are correct. That is the angle you think of things from, and playing like that would match defender goals. However, I don't think this is how raiders will play. They are the ones taking the initiative for conflict, and defenders react. And unlike defenders, raiders may not have a stake in a frontier at all. So they wouldn't care about defending an ally anyways. Their goal is to attack a target - any target - because that's what they find fun. The moment they start stationing troops in "allied" territory, they are no longer raiders, but some kind of independent or imperialist entity.

3. Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I am critical of correlating spawn share with endorsement count. It heavily disincentivizes participation in any military operation - and that's not the kind of thing we want. In fact, the goal should be to reward frontiers for invading each other: For example, what if frontiers could direct a portion of their spawns to another frontier? Do you think something like that would be enough to keep gameplay going?

[Unibot III]

@Unibot

Here's my take on compelling targets:

1. Valuable targets put effort into security. That's just how it works. Frontiers will probably function a lot like feeders and sinkers do now, and yes, this will make them harder to invade. However, I personally think the existence of targets of value is worth it, even if it comes with a defense network. There's not really a way to create valuable targets that people won't put effort into defending.

But nobody tries to coup feeders or sinkers now?

Why are we thinking these frontiers will be substantially less secure? Invaders don’t target feeders and sinkers because they’re extremely difficult to coup, and they’re tied to important alliances and partnerships. Frontiers have an advantage in that they’ll be double-dipping & recruiting on top of their spawning stipend. They’ll be big, influential, and secure.

I think it’s important to note most new Frontiers will figure out they need to pursue a “controlled launch” where they build a lot of endorsements on their WA delegate as a Stronghold region, far more endorsements than required, before starting the transition to Frontier.

2. I suppose for defenders you are correct. That is the angle you think of things from, and playing like that would match defender goals. However, I don't think this is how raiders will play. They are the ones taking the initiative for conflict, and defenders react. And unlike defenders, raiders may not have a stake in a frontier at all. So they wouldn't care about defending an ally anyways. Their goal is to attack a target - any target - because that's what they find fun. The moment they start stationing troops in "allied" territory, they are no longer raiders, but some kind of independent or imperialist entity.

I think today’s invading world is smaller and less politically autonomous from the independentist sphere than yesterday’s invaders, and I think that is important context for the F/S proposal to consider.

3. Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I am critical of correlating spawn share with endorsement count. It heavily disincentivizes participation in any military operation - and that's not the kind of thing we want. In fact, the goal should be to reward frontiers for invading each other: For example, what if frontiers could direct a portion of their spawns to another frontier? Do you think something like that would be enough to keep gameplay going?

I like that idea, it’s hilarious; although I think it should include GCRs as possible spawn regions to, because that way GCRs may try to invade frontiers too to defer nations back to themselves too.

Deferment may also be used as a kickback to ensure political support for an invasion. Especially if you split the deferment between multiple spawning regions.

[Galiantus III]

Why are we thinking these frontiers will be substantially less secure? Invaders don’t target feeders and sinkers because they’re extremely difficult to coup, and they’re tied to important alliances and partnerships. Frontiers have an advantage in that they’ll be double-dipping & recruiting on top of their spawning stipend. They’ll be big, influential, and secure.

I think it’s important to note most new Frontiers will figure out they need to pursue a “controlled launch” where they build a lot of endorsements on their WA delegate as a Stronghold region, far more endorsements than required, before starting the transition to Frontier.

I'm thinking frontiers will be less secure because they aren't likely to be ridiculously large, like feeders and sinkers. Even if you are correct, and frontiers generally try to meet a minimum threshold before transitioning (such as 40 endorsements), that isn't going to translate to the rest of the region's life. In practice there is going to be a fluctuating carrying capacity for frontiers. That carrying capacity is essentially going to be the number of frontiers that can be sustained by new spawns and remain secure. And this equilibrium number is going to rise and fall, with the changing rate of total spawns, and the upper capabilities of large militaries. Critically, whenever the carrying capacity falls, the smaller frontiers will become open to invasion. So I'm confident there will frequently be frontiers that can be raided.

3. Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I am critical of correlating spawn share with endorsement count. It heavily disincentivizes participation in any military operation - and that's not the kind of thing we want. In fact, the goal should be to reward frontiers for invading each other: For example, what if frontiers could direct a portion of their spawns to another frontier? Do you think something like that would be enough to keep gameplay going?

I like that idea, it’s hilarious; although I think it should include GCRs as possible spawn regions to, because that way GCRs may try to invade frontiers too to defer nations back to themselves too.

Deferment may also be used as a kickback to ensure political support for an invasion. Especially if you split the deferment between multiple spawning regions.

Glad you like the idea. But I do have mixed feelings about involving GCRs that way. Given what they are losing with the addition of frontiers, a path to exploit the system might be just compensation. At the same time, there are benefits to having defined boundaries for order (GCRs) and chaos (frontiers). I personally like the idea of GCRs maintaining their role as these stable behemoths with an air of nobility, and contrasting that with frontiers filled with political intrigue, ambitious experiments, and fierce competition. In the long run this is going to be great for regional diversity and identity.

[Sedgistan]

1. Would it take less, more, or equal influence to password a frontier than it would be to transition it? I don’t get why you’ve set up an obvious shortcut to a forced transition. (I recognize that eventually the WA could get around to passing a WA resolution.) Passwording the frontier would be a faster way of cutting off growth than forcing a transition.

2. If WA endorsements increases allocation size, you’re making regions bigger for being big. It’s circular.

3. What do you imagine military gameplayers will be doing in this new F/S reality on a day to day basis? Like are they just spending most of their time protecting small frontiers from big frontiers? Will defenders really be interested in spending their time protecting UCRs that may be consciously trying to disrupt big UCRs? It’s a complete realignment of R/D around a mercenary-esque game.

4. The proposal has never really addressed leeches where Frontiers flop back to Strongholds once they’re satisfied with their growth. The whole idea is that regions take on risks, they get rewards, but if they take on risks, grow, then limit that risk… they’ve scooped up free nations and don’t contribute anything long term back to NS.

1. Transitioning will cost at least as much, and likely more than a secret password.
2. -ish, but the benefits are tapering and limited for larger regions. The main size benefit is for having a few WA nations (verified Delegate endos) to ensure there are some people there. The reason there are some limited further benefits are for a gentle encouragement of an organisation not "farming" multiple regions.
3. I don't intend to make a prediction on this.
4. You're effectively saying every UCR these days doesn't contribute anything long-term back to NS?

1. Why stop spawns if a region has more than 5,000 nations?

2. I'm concerned any meaningful relationship between WA count and spawn rate (beyond meeting a relatively low minimum) will have a stabilizing effect, by (a) solidifying the strongest frontiers, and (b) discouraging frontiers from engaging in military gameplay. Is there a sufficient reason to have this connection? And if so, what is the general relationship we can expect?

3. I've always thought of the welcome TG requirement as the on/off switch for region spawns: If an otherwise qualified region wants spawns, they put up the welcome telegram. If they want to stop spawns (as may be the goal of an invading force), they remove it. Treating it as a debuff sort of changes that. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I am curious if an easy shut-off was deemed undesirable behavior behind the scenes, and this is the fix, or if this just a natural result of conforming to [violet]'s feedback.

4. How much potential variability in spawn rates are we looking at from region to region, relative to the default? Are we talking no more than 50% up or down from the default? Or are we looking at some frontiers getting multiples of the default weight?

1. Large regions can cause problems. I think it's unlikely this ceiling will be hit, but it's also there as a future-proofing "just in case" step.
2. See my answer to Unibot.
3. Violet's preference wasn't to dictate too much how regions run themselves, the Welcome TG requirement was part of that, hence the drawbacks of not having one were reduced.
4. For the time being I'd prefer to keep the numbers backstage only, but I will say they're somewhere in between the two levels you've given as examples and closer to the former than the latter.

Question, is the OP up to date on recent changes? I was looking for exact info on stuff but I’m not sure if the information up there is still fully accurate (I only ask cuz it hasn’t been updated in about two months).

It is now, though I've probably forgotten something or made a mistake somewhere.

I think I've answered the main technical / "why?" questions about the last aspects of this I announced. The speculation on behaviour, I am deliberately not participating in. If I've missed any questions, or you have new ones, ask away.

There is no ETA on this change, but it is top of admin's GP/SC to-code list.

[Unibot III]

1. Transitioning will cost at least as much, and likely more than a secret password.

So if they’re equal in influence cost, why not just disable passwords for Frontiers (like other GCRs), since players will just pursue a WA Liberation to remove a hostile password anyways? It seems like the additional password criterion complicates your plan without adding a lot.

2. -ish, but the benefits are tapering and limited for larger regions. The main size benefit is for having a few WA nations (verified Delegate endos) to ensure there are some people there. The reason there are some limited further benefits are for a gentle encouragement of an organisation not "farming" multiple regions.

So it is like a “soft” bonus to the allocation rather than a hard bonus? Where your allocation gets a boost but it’s not a big boost?

3. I don't intend to make a prediction on this.

I can understand not wanting to speculate but it’s kind of a big deal, the F/S proposal really impacts Military Gameplay, completely spins it on its head, and I’m not sure there’s been a lot of discussion on, well, where is Military Gameplay headed under F/S?

4. You're effectively saying every UCR these days doesn't contribute anything long-term back to NS?

No you’re reading an anti-UCR perspective into my post, I’m saying your proposal is built on risk and reward: you yourself have said this in your OP, but a UCR can take risks early on, get bigger than they could otherwise, then cut that risk out entirely. But the risk that these regions are taking on, their founderlessness and weakened security, is an important contribution to the geopolitical activity in NationStates that we’re losing when they transition to Stronghold. It feels like Apple accepting a grant from the U.S, growing big, then not paying taxes in the U.S, and continuing to capitalize on their success.

The success of the F/S plan depends entirely on landing like an ideal situation where you’ve got the right number of frontiers, the right number of nations spawning, the right number of vulnerable frontiers, and the right number of invasions in a year in frontiers, and the right number of strongholds that CTE without successors to ensure all parts of NSGP are generally thriving and working in tandem against other. Which is why I’ve been so cold on the idea. That’s a lot of moving parts. I worry not just as an old timer, but as a friend, whether you’re pursuing something that (if all those stars don’t align) may result in an overstabilization of things unintentionally, starving NSGP for interest/conflict more than it already is, and the outcome won’t be clear for a few years, when the damage is done, and it may not be easy to put the jack back in the box once the jack is out.

You don’t need to speculate publicly on the impact of F/S, but if I were you I’d talk to Eluvatar and Ballotonia about how you could run test simulations for F/S. You build a mathematic model that has the important inputs — constants: nations spawning, nations joining the WA, nations leaving, non-spawns immigrating (Starrie did research on this for TRT in 2014-15); variables - number of frontiers created, the size disparity between frontiers, and how much is WA endorsements being factored into the overall allocation share. You run like 10 million simulations and group them along an x/y axis into test groups and ask questions like “how many frontiers are vulnerable to invasion (IE: have less than 80-100 endos on the delegate)?” And “is the allocation enough to justify the risks assumed?” and analyze these test groups along the same question. You’ll have a better sense of how many frontiers is too many, how much disparity is too much, and how much or how little to factor WA Endo size into the allocation mix.

[Galiantus III]

No you’re reading an anti-UCR perspective into my post, I’m saying your proposal is built on risk and reward: you yourself have said this in your OP, but a UCR can take risks early on, get bigger than they could otherwise, then cut that risk out entirely. But the risk that these regions are taking on, their founderlessness and weakened security, is an important contribution to the geopolitical activity in NationStates that we’re losing when they transition to Stronghold. It feels like Apple accepting a grant from the U.S, growing big, then not paying taxes in the U.S, and continuing to capitalize on their success.

But if regions leave the spawn pool after significant growth, they make space for smaller regions to transition. If anything, we actually want regions to play this maximizing game and try working the system as much as possible, because that circulates new regions in, and old regions out.

[Unibot III]

No you’re reading an anti-UCR perspective into my post, I’m saying your proposal is built on risk and reward: you yourself have said this in your OP, but a UCR can take risks early on, get bigger than they could otherwise, then cut that risk out entirely. But the risk that these regions are taking on, their founderlessness and weakened security, is an important contribution to the geopolitical activity in NationStates that we’re losing when they transition to Stronghold. It feels like Apple accepting a grant from the U.S, growing big, then not paying taxes in the U.S, and continuing to capitalize on their success.

But if regions leave the spawn pool after significant growth, they make space for smaller regions to transition. If anything, we actually want regions to play this maximizing game and try working the system as much as possible, because that circulates new regions in, and old regions out.

Let me put it this way. If the goal of the F/S plan is to reduce the size of feeder regions and increase the size of some UCRs, I can guarantee you that F/S will accomplish that goal regardless of whether any sort of magic balance is achieved. That part of the equation is not rocket science: we’re spreading nations around. Some UCRs are going to get bigger, perhaps much bigger. If that is pretty much your sole goal, I think F/S will do the job just fine but not necessarily with any tangible higher-level benefits in terms of geopolitical activity.

My personal belief is that it’s not really all that important whether GCRs lose 200 endorsements, or UCRs gain 200 endorsements, or whether relatively large but secure regions are founderless or foundered. What matters is crisis, vulnerability, dependencies, conquest, motivation, intrigue, conflict. It’s the glue that ties disparate communities together into an international political theatre, something that engages players on a higher level and keeps them interested. A kind of narrative that people can follow and involves the NS as a whole. That glue has been wearing thin lately in NS, I think. But I worry F/S will dry it up even faster, rather than replenishing it.

Like I get why Bluetopia would care about Greentopia receiving nations that otherwise might spawn in Bluetopia, but I don’t get why the vast majority of the rest of NS residing in feeders, sinkers, and strongholds would care about this competition. What’s the compelling thing that’s going to make people want to root for Bluetopia or Greentopia? It feels like we’re moving nations around but with no clear idea as to how it is going spark international attention and interest.

[Archinstinct]

But if regions leave the spawn pool after significant growth, they make space for smaller regions to transition. If anything, we actually want regions to play this maximizing game and try working the system as much as possible, because that circulates new regions in, and old regions out.

Let me put it this way. If the goal of the F/S plan is to reduce the size of feeder regions and increase the size of some UCRs, I can guarantee you that F/S will accomplish that goal regardless of whether any sort of magic balance is achieved. That part of the equation is not rocket science: we’re spreading nations around. Some UCRs are going to get bigger, perhaps much bigger. If that is pretty much your sole goal, I think F/S will do the job just fine but not necessarily with any tangible higher-level benefits in terms of geopolitical activity.

My personal belief is that it’s not really all that important whether GCRs lose 200 endorsements, or UCRs gain 200 endorsements, or whether relatively large but secure regions are founderless or foundered. What matters is crisis, vulnerability, dependencies, conquest, motivation, intrigue, conflict. It’s the glue that ties disparate communities together into an international political theatre, something that engages players on a higher level and keeps them interested. A kind of narrative that people can follow and involves the NS as a whole. That glue has been wearing thin lately in NS, I think. But I worry F/S will dry it up even faster, rather than replenishing it.

Like I get why Bluetopia would care about Greentopia receiving nations that otherwise might spawn in Bluetopia, but I don’t get why the vast majority of the rest of NS residing in feeders, sinkers, and strongholds would care about this competition. What’s the compelling thing that’s going to make people want to root for Bluetopia or Greentopia? It feels like we’re moving nations around but with no clear idea as to how it is going spark international attention and interest.

I know you've been retired Unibot, how fortunate for your sanity, but you may not realize how anal some of the leadership residing in feeders, sinkers, and soon-to-be strongholds have become in their quest to dominate all the bases. Trust me, there will be 'international attention and interest'. IDK if people will like it or not though.

Frankly though I'm all for this update. Potential source of new peeps please!

[Unibot III]

I know you've been retired Unibot, how fortunate for your sanity, but you may not realize how anal some of the leadership residing in feeders, sinkers, and soon-to-be strongholds have become in their quest to dominate all the bases. Trust me, there will be 'international attention and interest'. IDK if people will like it or not though.

Frankly though I'm all for this update. Potential source of new peeps please!

I really appreciate that you think I have some sanity left!!

[Debussy]

I'm all for this idea and coming change.

[Fauxia]

I just came across this after another NS absence, expecting to see a bad plan, just because I have really disliked most of the spawning in UCRs plans that have come up over the years (I'm a grump what can I say?) I'm impressed with this and look forward to its being implemented within the next decade, if possible.

I agree with what others have said that 5,000 is probably a high limit. I might say 2,500. Maybe it's a personal thing, but I still think there should be something of a noticeable difference between GCRs and UCRs.

[Tinhampton]

The Frontier section of the OP claims that the formula determining what percentage of spawns each Frontier gets will "strongly favour[] those that have been around at least a week." Yet the Switching Status section asserts that it takes two weeks for the transition from Stronghold to Frontier to take effect!

[Galiantus III]

@Tinhampton

I believe what is meant is that after switching, a frontier needs to wait a week for its spawn rates to peak.

[Sedgistan]

Not quite. You can found a region as a Frontier. All existing regions become Strongholds to start with, but I'd like to have founders of new regions to have the choice of either.

A region that completes a switch from Stronghold to Frontier will be past the week's requirement already, as that's judged off regional founding date, not date the region becomes a Frontier.

[Blattusordia]

Hello Sedgistan, I have some questions on this concept.

1. Can founders be Governors?
2. How would the first governor of a new region be installed?
3. Is there a projected date for when this will roll out?

[Fauxia]

Hello Sedgistan, I have some questions on this concept.

Not Sedge but I can answer these.

Can founders be Governors?

"Governor" is introduced as a new term to recognise a nation that has permanent Executive powers that can be used without influence cost. These get recognised on the region pages of Strongholds. "Governor Emeritus" is introduced to recognise the last Governor of a region that has now transitioned to Frontier status, and are recognised on the region page of Frontiers, but have no powers. All current Executive Founders become Governors.

Yes, the founder if they choose to make a region a stronghold becomes Governor until they CTE or abdicate.

How would the first governor of a new region be installed?

Strongholds

Like regions currently are, but the Governor can appoint a Successor, who takes over Executive status should the Governor CTE.

It would just be founded as such. In the case of a frontier switching, Sedge explains this too:

If the Governor Emeritus nation does not, then the Delegate holding the region at the time of the transition enacting becomes Executive Governor.

So if the region made the switch at one point, the last governor, if the nation is alive, becomes the governor, while if the Delegate makes the switch, the Delegate becomes Governor.

Is there a projected date for when this will roll out?

Probably when season 3 of cards comes out. Just remember:

Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.

[Blattusordia]

Hello Sedgistan, I have some questions on this concept.

Not Sedge but I can answer these.

Can founders be Governors?

"Governor" is introduced as a new term to recognise a nation that has permanent Executive powers that can be used without influence cost. These get recognised on the region pages of Strongholds. "Governor Emeritus" is introduced to recognise the last Governor of a region that has now transitioned to Frontier status, and are recognised on the region page of Frontiers, but have no powers. All current Executive Founders become Governors.

Yes, the founder if they choose to make a region a stronghold becomes Governor until they CTE or abdicate.

How would the first governor of a new region be installed?

Strongholds

Like regions currently are, but the Governor can appoint a Successor, who takes over Executive status should the Governor CTE.

It would just be founded as such. In the case of a frontier switching, Sedge explains this too:

If the Governor Emeritus nation does not, then the Delegate holding the region at the time of the transition enacting becomes Executive Governor.

So if the region made the switch at one point, the last governor, if the nation is alive, becomes the governor, while if the Delegate makes the switch, the Delegate becomes Governor.

Is there a projected date for when this will roll out?

Probably when season 3 of cards comes out. Just remember:

Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.

Thanks for answering!

[Lenlyvit]

Not quite. You can found a region as a Frontier. All existing regions become Strongholds to start with, but I'd like to have founders of new regions to have the choice of either.

I'm sorry if this was discussed before, and I missed it, but what will happen to the original founderless regions if all existing regions become strongholds at the start? I'm talking about regions like Space, Stargate, Canada, etc etc.

[Sedgistan]

They become Strongholds still, but without any Founder/Governor. So they'd effectively be the same while Strongholds. But they have the option of a risky switch to Frontier and back, which would get the Delegate the Executive Governor position at the end of it, providing them lasting security.

[Brox Reple]

Hello!

Once the update is (near) done, will we receive information about an exact date when it will go live? Something like a week or two in advance

[Sedgistan]

Probably, although such things can be at the whims of admins. The rough next steps are:

1) Admin starts coding this.
2) Admin comes back to me with a ton of questions about details, and further tweaks may be changed.
3) Admin completes initial coding of this.
4) Extensive testing is carried out on our test version of NS. In the past, we've got players onto that test version to help with it, and it's likely I'll do the same again. Please don't ask about being one of the testers yet, if/when they're needed, I'll make clear.
5) Admin makes some coding changes based on feedback from the testing. Steps 4/5 might then repeat a few times.
6) We confirm everything is ready to go, at which point I would expect to be able to announce we're ready to go, and when we're expecting this to be introduced.

All of the above is subject to change, but is how I'd hope things will go. I'll update as and when there is news, but at present, 1 has not started and I don't know when it will.

[The Hinterplace]

Will it be possible for Founders being able to change the name of the Founder position? I know that many regions have different Government types and it might be good for people to be able to change that name at will.

[Onionist Randosia]

This is very interesting, although there are simpler ways to solve GCR oversizing (more GCR feeders) and lack of military gameplay (founder loses powers when kicked from region by Delegate, you get influence quicker so that is more feasible). Is it possible for the founder to be the governor?
EDIT: I just read it more carefully and the answer is yes. If a Stronghold gets raided, is it possible for the raiders to kick the governor?

[MacEnthailand]

Hello! Is there any update on this update?

[The Orwell Society]

Hello! Is there any update on this update?

We wish...

But anyways, /notamod, but if there was an update, the mods/admins would let us know. No need to wake up a dusty thread that hasn't been posted in for months to ask a question you already know the answer to.