Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Honeydewistania]

Idea: Make injuncted frontiers have a lower rate of spawns.

This would provide the following benefits:

1) It would provide an actual negative tradeoff to frontiers who decide to pursue injuncting themselves for regional safety, which at the moment don't come with any.

2) By injuncting a frontier in the middle of a massive raid, it reduces the likelihood of potential new players directly spawning into a warzone and getting immediately booted.

3) For offensive injunctions, it can have greater effect on the affected frontiers and kneecap their ability to grow in size. Of course, at the moment it's unlikely any frontier would receive an offensive injunction as opposed to just getting raided, but in the future if frontiers grow to 'unraidable' sizes it may be impactful.

[Sedgistan]

I like 1, but not 2 or 3. I think nations spawning in the middle of a military gameplay situation is great fun and can (and has) inspired some people to get involved. The West Pacific, for example, is surprisingly good at engaging new players in the game, primarily by booting them straight out the region. 3 sounds similar to the "Embargo" type resolution idea (or whatever it was called), which prevented a Frontier receiving spawns, that the community was quite strongly against. It feels like it would stifle innovation and diversity - Frontiers aren't just meant for the most popular player groupings.

[Honeydewistania]

I like 1, but not 2 or 3. I think nations spawning in the middle of a military gameplay situation is great fun and can (and has) inspired some people to get involved. The West Pacific, for example, is surprisingly good at engaging new players in the game, primarily by booting them straight out the region. 3 sounds similar to the "Embargo" type resolution idea (or whatever it was called), which prevented a Frontier receiving spawns, that the community was quite strongly against. It feels like it would stifle innovation and diversity - Frontiers aren't just meant for the most popular player groupings.

Did I just come up with arguments against my own idea?

2 can go either way I suppose. It depends how well new nations can be integrated into the game. Of course, TWP is a feeder region with lots of internal recruitment structure, whilst an occupied region whose intentions are to clear everyone out does not. The great fun can be subjective as well, as some people can get upset at being banned from regions.

And for 3, as I said, it's not a reality at the moment so it's definitely the least impactful 'benefit' I proposed, so the current drawbacks of it will also not be as apparent if the change was implemented now.

[Ytupuera]

I don't see any reason for changing the current system.

[Sporaltryus]

I'm intrigued by #1 and #2, the most, although we'd probably need to bring out some numbers to play with for the former.

[The Hinterplace]

I would be interested in seeing Condemned regions not getting spawns.

[Omnicontrol]

I would be interested in seeing Condemned regions not getting spawns.

Alternatively, I would be more interested in seeing commended regions not get any spawns. Most SC resolutions nowadays are Obama giving himself a medal, so...

[Unibot III]

One way to invert the proposal and reduce the negative trade offs is to have injunctions *increase* spawn rates rather than decrease them.

1. It would have a chilling effect on preemptive injunctions because regions will have to try to justify why they deserve to have higher spawn rates that takes away from other frontiers.

2. Offensive injunctions would be counterproductive.

3. Rather chaotic because you’re hurling more new players disproportionately into crisis zones.

[Free Social Conservatives]

One way to invert the proposal and reduce the negative trade offs is to have injunctions *increase* spawn rates rather than decrease them.

1. It would have a chilling effect on preemptive injunctions because regions will have to try to justify why they deserve to have higher spawn rates that takes away from other frontiers.

2. Offensive injunctions would be counterproductive.

3. Rather chaotic because you’re hurling more new players disproportionately into crisis zones.

ooh, #1 gave me chills. It would be very exciting to see how many frontiers try to pass off why they need preemptive injunctions.

[Sedgistan]

It's an interesting idea, but I'm wary of adding complications to what are relatively simple game mechanics. Ideally a decision to Injunct should be solely on whether you want that region to switch status or not, rather than whether you want it to receive extra spawns too.

The Frontiers mechanic itself exists for the trade-off between security and spawns.

[Timiskrane]

I would be interested in seeing Condemned regions not getting spawns.

There's already a resolution for that. It's called Injunction a region before they transition to frontier. You don't need to change the way an existing resolution behaves for that. Also this is just the unpopular "Embargo" class resolution Sedge was referring to above by a different name.

[Socialist Platypus]

One way to invert the proposal and reduce the negative trade offs is to have injunctions *increase* spawn rates rather than decrease them.

1. It would have a chilling effect on preemptive injunctions because regions will have to try to justify why they deserve to have higher spawn rates that takes away from other frontiers.

2. Offensive injunctions would be counterproductive.

3. Rather chaotic because you’re hurling more new players disproportionately into crisis zones.

I feel like that's more or less ruining the whole point of frontier being on paper high risk high reward region, if doing something that takes away half the risk also increases the reward. The proposal to reduce it sounded more in tune with the concept to me, with the lowering of risk going along side lowering the reward.

[Eluvatar]

Through the magic of [violet] we now have magnetism, displayed in region control/region admin for frontiers. Enjoy

(Thank you Sedgistan, too).

[Sporaltryus]

Through the magic of [violet] we now have magnetism, displayed in region control/region admin for frontiers. Enjoy

(Thank you Sedgistan, too).

Out of curiosity, why 0-4 for magnetism, and how does one hit the 4.0 mark (if even possible), since both Europeia and Concord are at 3.9?

[Eluvatar]

It's not a scale from 0 to 4 per se, it's the arbitrary result of the math we have applying the factors we've told you about. Indeed, as far as I know 3.9 is the highest that can currently be achieved.

[The Ambis]

*drags thread out of grave*
I could have missed this, but is the influence cost supposed to occur at the beginning or end of the transition to or from frontier? And if before, then, is influence refunded if the transition is not complete (e.g. cancelling or injuncted)

[Improper Classifications]

*drags thread out of grave*
I could have missed this, but is the influence cost supposed to occur at the beginning or end of the transition to or from frontier? And if before, then, is influence refunded if the transition is not complete (e.g. cancelling or injuncted)

^ Bumping this on behalf of Ambis.
If the intention is to refund the influence to the Delegate who started the transition, then it's definitely not working as intended. When South Pacific's S-->F transfer was cancelled in July, Densaner had expended over 4,000 influence to transition the region, but was not refunded at all.

[Sedgistan]

I don't recall talking about refunding influence for cancelled transitions before?

[The Ambis]

I don't recall talking about refunding influence for cancelled transitions before?

Huh. I could have just had a Mandela effect then

[Omnicontrol]

Let's set up a scenario here:
Exampleregionia's governor, Bananastan, has two successors. We'll call the successors Pikachu and Charmander.

Pikachu is first on the succession order, and Charmander second.
Bananastan gets puppetswept, and it turns out Pikachu was their puppet.

Would the governor spot go to Pikachu, who's now been DEATed, or to Charmander, despite them being second?

[United Calanworie]

Okay think of succession as a state-based action from Magic: the Gathering. If a condition is met, the action is executed. In this case, the flow would go something along the lines of this:

Bananastan is swept. State based action occurs (succession is triggered). The successor list is then checked. There are two options here:
#1, Pikachu has not yet been deleted in the sweep, so succession automatically falls to them or
#2, Pikachu has been deleted and is now a CTE nation. CTE nations in the succession order are automatically skipped, as you cannot succeed the governorship if you yourself do not exist.

In case 2, Charmander immediately becomes the governor. However, in case 1, Pikachu becomes the governor. Whenever Pikachu is then deleted, the state-based action must occur, and Charmander is appointed as the new governor.

[Omnicontrol]

Okay think of succession as a state-based action from Magic: the Gathering. If a condition is met, the action is executed. In this case, the flow would go something along the lines of this:

Bananastan is swept. State based action occurs (succession is triggered). The successor list is then checked. There are two options here:
#1, Pikachu has not yet been deleted in the sweep, so succession automatically falls to them or
#2, Pikachu has been deleted and is now a CTE nation. CTE nations in the succession order are automatically skipped, as you cannot succeed the governorship if you yourself do not exist.

In case 2, Charmander immediately becomes the governor. However, in case 1, Pikachu becomes the governor. Whenever Pikachu is then deleted, the state-based action must occur, and Charmander is appointed as the new governor.

That makes way more sense than I thought it would, thanks!

[Puppet 4 Sweden]

Quick question, I hope this is the right place, but if a Frontier converts to a Stronghold, does the founder get the Governor role?

[Improper Classifications]

Quick question, I hope this is the right place, but if a Frontier converts to a Stronghold, does the founder get the Governor role?

Whoever the WA delegate that initiated the transition was becomes the Governor. You can transfer the Governor seat if you like after you finish the transfer

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Might have already been pointed out, but I've noticed that the process of converting a frontier to a stronghold (and potentially vice versa) does not appear in the filtered activity feed in any way- I'm not sure it's been assigned a category. Noticed in Amaranthine Islands today (https://www.nationstates.net/page=activ ... hine_isles)