Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Dexterra]

I think this change should only be an option, because there are some single-user hermitic regions that aren't interested in regional gameplay or being feeders if eligible

[Refuge Isle]

Existing regions who don't want the risks of being "Democracies" (and yes that name will be changed when a better one is suggested) gain the ability for their Founder to appoint a Successor, and lose nothing. Your regional security improves; you're not involved in the conflict over "Democracy" regions unless you choose to be. You retain the ability the recruit new nations, the same as before, the only difference being that they're spawned in a few different places.

Except that's not really the effect. UCRs classified as "autocratic" gain very little — they can already have a functional "successor" by giving the founder nation to the player of their choosing. There's also no real reason why successors should not be a standalone feature. However, you're also effectively asking that regions who elect to remain "autocracies" carry out substantially more work and effort to keep themselves as viable regions, while their counterparts get site-sponsored automatic recruitment.

When it comes to the "democratic" model, you're asking regions to give themselves risk in order to receive that automatic recruitment.

Without dealing with regions like Hell, this situation sees two dynamics:

1) Nations with endorsements under 10, 20, 30 who could most use the nation influx to grow (and who would be most vulnerable to raids)
2) Massive UCR superdelegates, where their size and age have made them unassailable even in the event of no founder.

Now, your OP literally anticipates (or maybe desires) the situation in point 1, as you say "The expectation is that these regions would become significant sources of conflict." New founders and new communities are not going to have any idea what in the world r/d is or how it works mechanically. Raids' strongest assets have always been the ability to pop up somewhere without notice, targetting people who were not even aware that they could be targets. Given this and given the fact that becoming a democracy is a one way ticket, NS as a premise would be functionally baiting regions with the most to lose by dangling something in front of them that looks like a good option for regional growth, until it goes very wrong.

Long-term, this will mean that fewer new UCRs get off the ground while power begins to accumulate in UCR superdelegates with nothing to lose, instead of feeders like it does now. Ultimately, this suggestion is bad for both sides of the "democracy/autocracy" spectrum, and long-term damages region diversity.

[Galiantus III]

Except that's not really the effect. UCRs classified as "autocratic" gain very little — they can already have a functional "successor" by giving the founder nation to the player of their choosing. There's also no real reason why successors should not be a standalone feature. However, you're also effectively asking that regions who elect to remain "autocracies" carry out substantially more work and effort to keep themselves as viable regions, while their counterparts get site-sponsored automatic recruitment.

When it comes to the "democratic" model, you're asking regions to give themselves risk in order to receive that automatic recruitment.

If I'm understanding correctly, your concern is that the existence of "democracies" undermines the ability of existing UCRs/"autocracies" to recruit. I think the reverse is in fact true. If anything, this will slightly help the recruitment of regions like yours:

• The nations that choose to stay where they spawn will (mostly) be the same nations that would have stayed in a GCR anyways.
• Communities that would otherwise be sending recruitment telegrams in competition with your recruitment focus on retention rather than recruitment.
• A lot of new nation spawns in smaller "democracies" will be more susceptible to recruitment.

Basically, the free recruitment GCRs would otherwise get simply goes elsewhere, and existing UCRs lose nothing.

Without dealing with regions like Hell, this situation sees two dynamics:

1) Nations with endorsements under 10, 20, 30 who could most use the nation influx to grow (and who would be most vulnerable to raids)
2) Massive UCR superdelegates, where their size and age have made them unassailable even in the event of no founder.

Now, your OP literally anticipates (or maybe desires) the situation in point 1, as you say "The expectation is that these regions would become significant sources of conflict." New founders and new communities are not going to have any idea what in the world r/d is or how it works mechanically. Raids' strongest assets have always been the ability to pop up somewhere without notice, targetting people who were not even aware that they could be targets. Given this and given the fact that becoming a democracy is a one way ticket, NS as a premise would be functionally baiting regions with the most to lose by dangling something in front of them that looks like a good option for regional growth, until it goes very wrong.

Long-term, this will mean that fewer new UCRs get off the ground while power begins to accumulate in UCR superdelegates with nothing to lose, instead of feeders like it does now. Ultimately, this suggestion is bad for both sides of the "democracy/autocracy" spectrum, and long-term damages region diversity.

I don't think situation 2 will play out quite as much as you think. The more successful "democracies" appear, the more communities will judge it worth switching over, and the less successful they appear, fewer will be made. Since the concentration of new spawns is inversely proportional to the number of regions, getting too large will be somewhat difficult.

As for the existence of unwilling targets, I would agree we need to be very transparent about the risks of being a "democracy". Some other name would be a good first step, but it would also be good if founders get some kind of warning and confirmation when they try to switch over. At the very least, they should know that they are giving up administrative control of their region, and from that point onwards their region is going to be a target of very real invasions and coups.

[Lord Dominator]

I still say the given democracies shouldn’t get standard recruitment, to avoid the mega-UCR problem so highlighted.

[Refuge Isle]

If I'm understanding correctly, your concern is that the existence of "democracies" undermines the ability of existing UCRs/"autocracies" to recruit.
...
Basically, the free recruitment GCRs would otherwise get simply goes elsewhere, and existing UCRs lose nothing.

Not at all what I'm saying. I'm highlighting that there will be two different models here, where one model has recruitment automatically done by the game and the other painstakingly done by players trying to make up for mechanics not automatically supporting them. This entices players who don't understand raid risks as a viable strategy growing their region, as well as otherwise neutral regions who need to decide how much they want to throw down work in order to not be left behind by regions who have that work done for them.

I don't think situation 2 will play out quite as much as you think. The more successful "democracies" appear, the more communities will judge it worth switching over, and the less successful they appear, fewer will be made. Since the concentration of new spawns is inversely proportional to the number of regions, getting too large will be somewhat difficult.

This basically ignores the current problem with feeders. They're already there, they're already big, active, legitimate. Some players may remain in a feeder out of indifference, which is what you seem to imply, but far more will remain there if the region looks like a thriving place to be.

If you have a fledgeling region, there's tremendous weight on your shoulders to impress new recruits into believing your region is worth something. But if a nation spawns in Europeia or XKI, the vast bulk of that leg work was done years and years ago. The retention will automatically be higher because of the pre-established infrastructure.

[Bears Armed]

As for the existence of unwilling targets, I would agree we need to be very transparent about the risks of being a "democracy". Some other name would be a good first step,

"free-fire zones" ?

[Galiantus III]

I'm highlighting that there will be two different models here, where one model has recruitment automatically done by the game and the other painstakingly done by players trying to make up for mechanics not automatically supporting them. This entices players who don't understand raid risks as a viable strategy growing their region, as well as otherwise neutral regions who need to decide how much they want to throw down work in order to not be left behind by regions who have that work done for them.

This is easily addressed by having a WA population requirement and giving a clear warning prompt before switching.

This basically ignores the current problem with feeders. They're already there, they're already big, active, legitimate. Some players may remain in a feeder out of indifference, which is what you seem to imply, but far more will remain there if the region looks like a thriving place to be.

If you have a fledgeling region, there's tremendous weight on your shoulders to impress new recruits into believing your region is worth something. But if a nation spawns in Europeia or XKI, the vast bulk of that leg work was done years and years ago. The retention will automatically be higher because of the pre-established infrastructure.

I see no problem with this. If a fledgling region doesn't bring anything to the table for new recruits, it doesn't deserve new recruits.

[Refuge Isle]

I see no problem with this. If a fledgling region doesn't bring anything to the table for new recruits, it doesn't deserve new recruits.

This is utterly ridiculous, no region is going to look triple A the second it's founded. Or even after weeks and sometimes months. It takes time and dedication from invested parties.

At the moment, everyone is on equal footing to make a pitch by telegram, or advert in the GP board, which professes their region's structure, beliefs, and vision. There's some kick-ass regions out there that were started by teenagers working off a school library computer who had an idea. Those types of projects are what best bring a sense of creativity and originality to NationStates. You cannot expect people like that to be able to compete, based on random probability, with five year old regions that have 125 endorsements on the delegate and still call it a fair shake. All active regions that are interested in community and region-building "deserve" new recruits, preferably in a system that provides an equal opportunity.

We're setting ourselves up for failure, and we already have GCR models with considerable data to demonstrate how that's going to look.

[Galiantus III]

@Refuge Isle:
So is your concern that existing large regions (like Europeia and XKI) could switch over at extremely low risk to themselves?

[Flanderlion]

I still say the given democracies shouldn’t get standard recruitment, to avoid the mega-UCR problem so highlighted.

The good thing is that this system is self balancing. If the advantages are too great, more regions will choose it, reducing the benefits each region will receive. This is buffing UCRs and increasing the number of regions opting into R/D. So there is no need (in fact it's counterproductive) to remove normal recruitment for these regions. Could even call it 'safer mode' and 'riskier mode' regions.

Some of the 'flaws' people (not referring to LD here) are finding in this suggestion are actually the goals of it - so please read the OP first.

[Weed]

I still say the given democracies shouldn’t get standard recruitment, to avoid the mega-UCR problem so highlighted.

I doubt it will be viable for them to not have standard recruitment as the current proposal stands. Sedge is IMO underestimating the number of these that will spring into existence for the simple reason that I can spring them into existence. There is nothing in the current proposal to stop anyone from creating 100 democracy regions in the first day of this being released. And once we create them, they exist unless raiders jump on the ball and start trying to grief them as fast as they can be founded. At the last point I was active there were roughly 1,000 nations founded per day. No idea how that has changed but even if it is double that, getting upwards of a hundred or two hundred democracy regions means it is not viable to do without recruitment in them and keep them active. (Nor is it viable for them to be fought over as Sedge suggested, because there will be too many for any one to be more valuable than just founding the 201st democracy region and not having to be damned about the op.)

I really hope before anyone implements this they look back at the history of implementing things on NationStates and the tendency for the community to just mash the new button a few dozen times to see what happens, and asks what happens if the most annoying among us creates 100 of these regions on day 1? And then decides it better to require significant influence cost or something to 'turn the spout on' so that only real communities become Democracy regions.

[Lord Dominator]

Topid, one of the things being discussed in this very thread is a minimum WA count to start the region (and/or maintain it). We’re aware of issues related to number of them.

[The Stalker]

Possibly a cap on max nation spawning gain?

Such as if it was a tier system, 10 WA is the minimum to spawn nations, maybe it got up by 10, a few tiers till maxing out at 50 (or so), so a region with 50 WA and a region with a 100 WA would gain the same amount of spawned nations. This would prevent "super UCR", and give medium regions a better footing.

[Sedgistan]

What's being missed with concerns over "super UCRs" dominating things is the risk of infiltration / internal coups. Sure, Europeia could switch over to a "Democracy" and their delegate would look unassailable. But this is the region that elected Falconias as President. 10KI are massive, yet Grub once banjected one of their Delegates he fell out with. What if that Delegate could have turned around and booted Grub instead? Democracy UCRs are as vulnerable internally as externally.

[Lord Dominator]

What's being missed with concerns over "super UCRs" dominating things is the risk of infiltration / internal coups. Sure, Europeia could switch over to a "Democracy" and their delegate would look unassailable. But this is the region that elected Falconias as President. 10KI are massive, yet Grub once banjected one of their Delegates he fell out with. What if that Delegate could have turned around and booted Grub instead? Democracy UCRs are as vulnerable internally as externally.

Sure, that’s certainly possible - just as it’s possible right now for someone to arrange a Feeder coup and make it last at present.

[Comfed]

What's being missed with concerns over "super UCRs" dominating things is the risk of infiltration / internal coups. Sure, Europeia could switch over to a "Democracy" and their delegate would look unassailable. But this is the region that elected Falconias as President. 10KI are massive, yet Grub once banjected one of their Delegates he fell out with. What if that Delegate could have turned around and booted Grub instead? Democracy UCRs are as vulnerable internally as externally.

I'm not complaining about super-UCRs, I think they're a good thing! I'm just pointing out that not very many regions will go for this change.

[Galiantus III]

There's a really good argument to be made that XKI, Europeia, and other such large regions won't switch, if given the option. These are not small regions. They are the pinnacle of what a UCR can be. So how much do they really gain from having new nations spawn in their borders? I'd say very little. But if they do switch, they lose a lot; everything, in fact. They lose their founder, which is the ultimate source of security. They become subject to influence decay (goodbye, 5+ years of non-trivial influence gain). At least if their founder were to CTE now, they have such an insane influence fortress it would be virtually impossible to take them out. In short, they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

[Refuge Isle]

There's a really good argument to be made that XKI, Europeia, and other such large regions won't switch, if given the option. These are not small regions. They are the pinnacle of what a UCR can be. So how much do they really gain from having new nations spawn in their borders? I'd say very little.

They gain automatic recruitment in addition to the recruitment they already successfully carry out. Why in the world would they not do both?

[Lord Dominator]

There's a really good argument to be made that XKI, Europeia, and other such large regions won't switch, if given the option. These are not small regions. They are the pinnacle of what a UCR can be. So how much do they really gain from having new nations spawn in their borders? I'd say very little.

They gain automatic recruitment in addition to the recruitment they already successfully carry out. Why in the world would they not do both?

That, and they have massive influence piles (6 month decay still leaves a ton) and could easily shift into the TSP or Balder/Lazarus security model.

[Sedgistan]

This is my reading of what existing long-established UCRs are likely to do:

There's a really good argument to be made that XKI, Europeia, and other such large regions won't switch, if given the option. These are not small regions. They are the pinnacle of what a UCR can be. So how much do they really gain from having new nations spawn in their borders? I'd say very little. But if they do switch, they lose a lot; everything, in fact. They lose their founder, which is the ultimate source of security. They become subject to influence decay (goodbye, 5+ years of non-trivial influence gain). At least if their founder were to CTE now, they have such an insane influence fortress it would be virtually impossible to take them out. In short, they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

If they have a successful model, they can keep going with it.

But no part of this change is particularly affected by what 10KI, Europeia et al. choose to do. My expectation is that most "Democracies" would be new regions.

[Kylia Quilor]

I still say the given democracies shouldn’t get standard recruitment, to avoid the mega-UCR problem so highlighted.

Agreed, in principle. BUT, that does lead to a serious problem if we do get a lot of democracies and every one of them gets a tiny trickle. Which remains the question at hand - we will have a lot, or so very few?

What's being missed with concerns over "super UCRs" dominating things is the risk of infiltration / internal coups. Sure, Europeia could switch over to a "Democracy" and their delegate would look unassailable. But this is the region that elected Falconias as President. 10KI are massive, yet Grub once banjected one of their Delegates he fell out with. What if that Delegate could have turned around and booted Grub instead? Democracy UCRs are as vulnerable internally as externally.

In theory, yes, but Europeia hasn't had a Falconias-like situation in years, and the big UCRs aren't exactly likely to go with high Endocaps to make just anybody be able to coup. And given how infrequent coups in GCRs have been of late, this is a bad argument. While GCR size is a factor in their low-coupability, it's not the only one, and while 'Democracies' might be smaller than GCRs, they'll have all the other institutional advantages that existing GCRs have used to secure some pretty longstanding stability at the top (Hell, Balder hasn't even been managed to be couped once, as I understand it, and that's not something any other Feeder or Sinker can say)

---

As to succession - my comment about succession chains wasn't saying Successors couldn't never appoint their own successors (though I'm still not super into the idea), but the idea that was raised in the early parts of this thread, about a founder appointing a whole 'in line' succession - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, so that if each one wasn't available upon founder CTE, down the line it goes. That was what I was saying was a serious threat to R/D

[Flanderlion]

I still say the given democracies shouldn’t get standard recruitment, to avoid the mega-UCR problem so highlighted.

Agreed, in principle. BUT, that does lead to a serious problem if we do get a lot of democracies and every one of them gets a tiny trickle. Which remains the question at hand - we will have a lot, or so very few?

First I think there will be 0 when the feature goes live, as it takes a few days to opt in (so guessing spawning would be 100% in Feeders as the backup when no democracies meet the spawning criteria - I only expect that at the start though). I'm expecting very few initially (Entropy at least - and endoes should be min 20 not 10), then over time (not sure if it'll be fast or slow) there will be more added and the benefits decrease. Then, like recruitment eventually there will be slightly too many regions for the feature to sustain. Hence why recruitment should be not penalised as in the long run they'll become almost normal with recruitment.

--

My primary concern with this is new players. We're essentially moving them from super active RMBs (by NS standards) to semi active ones. And although I've suggested global chat, there doesn't seem to be a plan on how to mitigate the effects on new players. Like, redistribution of the resource is fine, just we have to make sure that the resource (new players) isn't going to try to ask new questions, not be replied to fast enough, then quit.

[The Hinterplace]

What's being missed with concerns over "super UCRs" dominating things is the risk of infiltration / internal coups. Sure, Europeia could switch over to a "Democracy" and their delegate would look unassailable. But this is the region that elected Falconias as President. 10KI are massive, yet Grub once banjected one of their Delegates he fell out with. What if that Delegate could have turned around and booted Grub instead? Democracy UCRs are as vulnerable internally as externally.

I think this would be an interesting development. I wonder how it will change how the game, as a whole, is played. Indeed, I could see a disgruntled citizen, who wants power, enlist the help of foreign powers to assert themselves to the Delegacy through force. On the other hand, I could see democratic regions using the autocratic Founder Succession tool in a democratic manner. Say off-site a new President/Head of Government/Head of State is elected, then the former can abdicate the Foundership to the elected official. Of course, this has its own risks. In a place that has so much distrust and treachery, along with Founder supremacy, how much will these new tools be used? Personally, I'd like to see them used because they're new and fresh and can bring new facets to the game. I am glad to see new developments coming. I know I am certainly happy to see Succession as someone who plays in monarchical regions.

[Sedgistan]

I've updated the proposal in the OP to remove the restriction of Democracies setting passwords; instead setting one just makes them ineligible for spawnings.

There's several aspects of this that need further discussion; listed below with my current thoughts:

1. Name alternative for "Democracies". I haven't yet seen a compelling suggestion for them.
2. # of WA Delegate endorsements required for Democracies to be eligible for spawnings. I don't want this to be set too high, as I want newish players be able to have a chance of achieving this - I don't want all Democracies to be those founded by experienced gameplayers. I view suggestions for this to be 50 or higher to be unrealistic. I'm not yet persuaded for it to be higher than 10.
3. Influence decay duration - needs to balance avoiding stagnation with making it possible to build a community. I'm relatively open to figures around the 3 - 6 months range.
4. Successor mechanics; it's intended that a Successor who takes over as Founder can then pick a Successor of their own, and so on. But should a Founder be able to pick a hierarchy of potential Successors? I'm leaning towards what I think is probably the simplest situation, which is the Founder being able to appoint a single nation as Successor, and that Successor can decline the position at any point after being chosen; potentially the Regional Officers code can be repurposed to cover much of this. The Successor should take over the Founder position immediately on the Founder CTEing; it's the simplest solution.
5. Founder abdication - I haven't raised this before, but if Founders get to choose Successors, why not allow them to abdicate rather than forcing them to wait for CTE?
6. Current regions: my preference is for none of them to be automatically ported over to "Democracies"; so they stay as they currently are, but if they have a Founder that Founder can nominate a Successor.
7. Switching status: I support a "one-way ticket" change to becoming a Democracy, which can be enacted by whoever has Executive powers in the region, and potentially takes x period of time to take effect (2 weeks?). I am not convinced yet that there is a case for allowing Democracies to transition away to regular-region status.
8. No changes to how TG recruitment works for either type of region.

Please feel free to disagree/agree with any of these points, and remind me if I've forgotten any details.

[Galiantus III]

@Sedge

1. How about "Territory"? The implication being it's some land you would want to maintain control over, and is subject to being captured via conquest.

2 and 7. I wouldn't have a problem with a low numerical requirement (like 10), provided it takes a substantial amount of time to complete the switch to "Territory" status. I think 2 weeks is too short. I support a period of 2 months, so anyone trying to create such a region has to display enough activity and longevity not to CTE.

3. I see no reason not to just go with 6 months just like GCRs.

4. Things like lines of succession can be added later anyways. So definitely keep things simple now for the sake of implementation, then after we've seen it in operation we can modify it as needed.

5. Founder abdication makes perfect sense.