NATION

PASSWORD

Frontiers/Strongholds [ex Democracy/Autocracy]

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Galiantus III
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1221
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:44 am

@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?
Last edited by Galiantus III on Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
The goal of Socialism is Fascism.
#JKRowling #realfeminism #libertarian #conservative #christian #nomandates

Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6597
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:17 pm

Galiantus III wrote:@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.
Last edited by Unibot III on Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Galiantus III
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1221
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:53 pm

Unibot III wrote:
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.
The goal of Socialism is Fascism.
#JKRowling #realfeminism #libertarian #conservative #christian #nomandates

Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31923
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:02 am

Unibot III wrote: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?

Galiantus III wrote: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.

Thousand Branches wrote: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.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6597
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:58 am

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.

Image
Last edited by Unibot III on Fri Dec 17, 2021 7:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Galiantus III
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1221
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Fri Dec 17, 2021 10:39 am

Unibot III wrote: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.
The goal of Socialism is Fascism.
#JKRowling #realfeminism #libertarian #conservative #christian #nomandates

Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6597
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:01 pm

Galiantus III wrote:
Unibot III wrote: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.
Last edited by Unibot III on Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Archinstinct
Diplomat
 
Posts: 626
Founded: Jan 21, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Archinstinct » Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:37 am

Unibot III wrote:
Galiantus III wrote: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!
Last edited by Archinstinct on Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
My posts are generally "ooc".
Stand with Ukraine. If you see Russian Propaganda on social media, report it. Donate if you can to help Ukraine's refugees and it's defense. Lobby your government to send Ukraine weapons.
RIP 'Fight for Ukraine' Discord - nuked by putin simps 4/18/2022.
Deblar wrote:If even Switzerland is opposing your imperialist invasion, you know you've fucked up

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6597
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:25 pm

Archinstinct wrote: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!! :p
Last edited by Unibot III on Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Debussy
Envoy
 
Posts: 221
Founded: Jun 19, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Debussy » Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:56 am

I'm all for this idea and coming change.
Last edited by Debussy on Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4822
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:04 pm

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.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists
My opinions do not represent any NS governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), any RL governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Opus Dei, the Knights Templar, the Organization for the Advancement of Cultural Marxism, Opus Dei, or any other organization. Unless I say they do, in which case, there is a nonzero chance.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10363
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:24 pm

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!
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Galiantus III
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1221
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:43 pm

@Tinhampton

I believe what is meant is that after switching, a frontier needs to wait a week for its spawn rates to peak.
The goal of Socialism is Fascism.
#JKRowling #realfeminism #libertarian #conservative #christian #nomandates

Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31923
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:15 pm

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.

User avatar
Blattusordia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Aug 04, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Blattusordia » Wed Dec 22, 2021 7:58 pm

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?

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4822
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:18 am

Blattusordia wrote:Hello Sedgistan, I have some questions on this concept.

    Not Sedge but I can answer these.
    Blattusordia wrote:
  1. Can founders be Governors?

  2. Sedgistan wrote:"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.

    Blattusordia wrote:
  3. How would the first governor of a new region be installed?

  4. Sedgistan wrote: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:
    Sedgistan wrote: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.

    Blattusordia wrote:
  5. Is there a projected date for when this will roll out?

  6. Probably when season 3 of cards comes out. Just remember:
    [violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
    Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
    Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists
    My opinions do not represent any NS governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), any RL governments I may happen to be in (yeah right), the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Opus Dei, the Knights Templar, the Organization for the Advancement of Cultural Marxism, Opus Dei, or any other organization. Unless I say they do, in which case, there is a nonzero chance.

    User avatar
    Blattusordia
    Civil Servant
     
    Posts: 9
    Founded: Aug 04, 2021
    Anarchy

    Postby Blattusordia » Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:25 am

    Fauxia wrote:
    Blattusordia wrote:Hello Sedgistan, I have some questions on this concept.

      Not Sedge but I can answer these.
      Blattusordia wrote:
    1. Can founders be Governors?

    2. Sedgistan wrote:"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.

      Blattusordia wrote:
    3. How would the first governor of a new region be installed?

    4. Sedgistan wrote: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:
      Sedgistan wrote: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.

      Blattusordia wrote:
    5. Is there a projected date for when this will roll out?

    6. Probably when season 3 of cards comes out. Just remember:
      [violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.


      Thanks for answering!

      User avatar
      Lenlyvit
      Ambassador
       
      Posts: 1146
      Founded: Feb 13, 2012
      Liberal Democratic Socialists

      Postby Lenlyvit » Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:42 pm

      Sedgistan wrote: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.
      World Assembly Secretary-General

      Founder of The Hole To Hide In (THTHI Discord)
      Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

      I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

      User avatar
      Sedgistan
      Senior Issues Moderator
       
      Posts: 31923
      Founded: Oct 20, 2006
      Anarchy

      Postby Sedgistan » Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:48 pm

      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.

      User avatar
      Brox Reple
      Lobbyist
       
      Posts: 20
      Founded: Oct 10, 2020
      Liberal Democratic Socialists

      Postby Brox Reple » Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:39 am

      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
      You might know me as SkyGreen. Founder of Sky Haven. I also do some stuff in other regions.

      User avatar
      Sedgistan
      Senior Issues Moderator
       
      Posts: 31923
      Founded: Oct 20, 2006
      Anarchy

      Postby Sedgistan » Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:47 am

      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.

      User avatar
      The Hinterplace
      Lobbyist
       
      Posts: 12
      Founded: Sep 16, 2018
      Civil Rights Lovefest

      Postby The Hinterplace » Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:34 pm

      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.
      Her Royal Highness
      Princess Elizabeth, the Princess of Wales
      LG LT GCB GCVO MC GM WC PC ADC(P)
      a.k.a. Ganolfan & Moghedien

      User avatar
      Onionist Randosia
      Spokesperson
       
      Posts: 137
      Founded: Mar 28, 2021
      Left-wing Utopia

      Postby Onionist Randosia » Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:35 pm

      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?
      Last edited by Onionist Randosia on Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
      The People's Onionist Republic of Onionist Randosia
      Call me OR or Randosia - they/them pronouns - posts are OOC unless stated otherwise
      3x and longest-serving WA Delegate of The Union of Great Onionist Nations (check us out!)
      Founder and Administrator of InterLeft (check us out if you want your region to join a leftist alliance!)
      Pro: Socialism (especially ecosocialism), Onionism, civil rights, direct democracy, environmentalism, equality, LGBT+ rights, the Ukrainian people (not the government), internationalism, avian personhood, choice (abortion), AI personhood/planning, etc
      Anti: Capitalism, imperialism, fascism, religious bigotry, bigotry in general, homophobia, the USA, Russian imperialism, corporations, globalism, etc
      Sovetskiy Luk Navsegda!

      User avatar
      MacEnthailand
      Civilian
       
      Posts: 1
      Founded: Oct 07, 2008
      Civil Rights Lovefest

      Postby MacEnthailand » Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:34 am

      Hello! Is there any update on this update?

      User avatar
      The Orwell Society
      Ambassador
       
      Posts: 1283
      Founded: Apr 16, 2022
      Psychotic Dictatorship

      Postby The Orwell Society » Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:17 pm

      MacEnthailand wrote: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.
      WAR IS PEACE
      FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
      IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

      A totalitarian, socialist, fascist society ruled by a ruthless dictator known as Big Brother, the First Triumvir Donovan Xavier. The omnipresent and endlessly oppressive government is made up of four ministries: The Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Peace, and the Ministry of Surplus.

      Takes up present-day Russia, China, Mongolia, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

      Big Brother is watching you…

      NEWS: 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

      I am a 15 year old weirdo living in the United States. I like politics, reading, and goofing off. Aspiring WA author.

      Bendicion wrote:This is America. The only thing that changes is the gas prices. And it's changing for the worse.

      PreviousNext

      Advertisement

      Remove ads

      Return to Technical

      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: No registered users

      Advertisement

      Remove ads