Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Azalfia]

Would successors in a autocracy have to be within the region or could they be without?

[The Hinterplace]

I am very excited to see some of these changes put into place!

A question: Will new regions be able to found as an autocracy and later turn into a democracy and vice versa?

[Zeritae]

Will there be a temporary successor option?
(Basically, a backup founder that loses power if the founder comes back)

[Hulldom]

I’ve noticed, or noticed, with Boston Castle (which was in The North Pacific) that the precise influence formula ended up being 2x+1 a day where x=no. of endorsements. Don’t know if that was a bug, but presuming it isn’t, would there be that same formula used to determine influence in Democracies?

[Lord Dominator]

I’ve noticed, or noticed, with Boston Castle (which was in The North Pacific) that the precise influence formula ended up being 2x+1 a day where x=no. of endorsements. Don’t know if that was a bug, but presuming it isn’t, would there be that same formula used to determine influence in Democracies?

That’s the simplified version of the global influence formula.

[Bears Armed]

The 'Founder Succession' thread in which I posted my idea is viewtopic.php?f=15&t=276112

The post there in which I introduced my suggested system in its original form is viewtopic.php?p=20885026#p20885026

Another thread on the general subject, in which that post of mine also received comments, was viewtopic.php?f=15&t=428882&hilit=Tanist .

[Warzone Codger]

There should be a couple of days grace for democracy before the founder goes non-executive. I know I'll inevitably make a typo on the WFE, or mess up NScode or choose a wrong banner or flag if I only had one go on initial setup.

[Kylia Quilor]

I think this remains a flawed idea from the word go, but obviously it's got a lot of support, and I've said why I think it's bad before.

So if we operate under the premise that this is going into effect in some form:

I would like to see a "game over" scenario for these regions - i.e. the ability to conquer or destroy them permanently. At present, I'm thinking the influence limits and lack of Executive founder meant that this may be the conventional method of emptying a region, but I am open to alternative ideas.

As others have pointed out, this really won't allow game-over as is. If new nations are regularly spawning, emptying it, while possible, would be very hard, as well as keeping it empty until update. I think Cormac's idea of if it gets small enough it automatically 'undemocracies' is possibly the best approach. I very much don't agree that sinkers and warzones should be made into 'Democracies' - Sinkers may not be as large or as well-endoed as the Feeders, but they don't really need the extra size, and letting them be destroyed is just... not a good idea.

---

As for founder succession - I don't think we should allow chains of succession. There should be one successor at a time. If the successor CTEs, the founder needs to appoint a new one. If they don't, and they CTE anyway, it's the same as if the founder never thought to hand their nation off to someone else. (or if a successor becomes founder, they can then name their own one successor)( There shouldn't be a fullproof way to prevent a region from becoming founderless and thus vulnerable, unless we're trying to eventually move all R/D activity into the 'Democracies'.

--

While agree that unintended consequences are a big part of the game, in the case of what these are called, I don't think we should retain democracy and autocracy, because it's not just misleading, but downright confusing to do that to people who aren't reading Technical.

I don't think players should choose where they go - it should basically be as random as which Feeder someone ends up in.

---

And of course, Democracies are going to have to be allowed to be hit with recruitment and recruitment spam, even if they don't have the recruitment tag. Obviously, democracies may not want to be recruited, but people just tag:new or using the foundings are going to hit them anyway, so they should be as wide open to recruitment in all the same way feeders and sinkers are.

---

I think ten WAD Endos is too small, but obviously 100 is a bit much. I think somewhere in the 30-40 range is a good number - enough that people could artificially make one reasonably well if absolutely need be, but obviously requiring some work to rally the requisite numbers together. Even large regions would have to do some wrangling to get that many WAs to be mobile all at once on good time.

[Flanderlion]

I’ve noticed, or noticed, with Boston Castle (which was in The North Pacific) that the precise influence formula ended up being 2x+1 a day where x=no. of endorsements. Don’t know if that was a bug, but presuming it isn’t, would there be that same formula used to determine influence in Democracies?

That’s the simplified version of the global influence formula.

GCR influence is gained like normal, just there is a soft cap of influence equivalent to what you would gain in 6 months - with non WAs being treated as if they had 10 endoes. So unless you were losing endoes rapidly after a strong start it'd only really be visible after 6 months in TNP.

The 'Founder Succession' thread in which I posted my idea is viewtopic.php?f=15&t=276112

The post there in which I introduced my suggested system in its original form is viewtopic.php?p=20885026#p20885026

Another thread on the general subject, in which that post of mine also received comments, was viewtopic.php?f=15&t=428882&hilit=Tanist .

Good links. The latter seems most similar, just instead of an instant transition it should take a few days.

There should be a couple of days grace for democracy before the founder goes non-executive. I know I'll inevitably make a typo on the WFE, or mess up NScode or choose a wrong banner or flag if I only had one go on initial setup.

100% agree. Similar time to an embassy?

--

On the endo count - I do think that it should be 20 rather than 10 endoes. 40 or 100 seems a bit steep, as like, barriers should be low. The main disadvantages to spreading nations out is that they won't be in super active environments, but if they have access to a super active chat then low WA barriers is ideal.

[Galiantus III]

As others have pointed out, this really won't allow game-over as is. If new nations are regularly spawning, emptying it, while possible, would be very hard, as well as keeping it empty until update.

As Sedge proposed in the OP, the region must have set a welcome telegram. So if the occupying force abolishes that, they can empty it without dealing with nation spawns.

And of course, Democracies are going to have to be allowed to be hit with recruitment and recruitment spam, even if they don't have the recruitment tag. Obviously, democracies may not want to be recruited, but people just tag:new or using the foundings are going to hit them anyway, so they should be as wide open to recruitment in all the same way feeders and sinkers are.

Indeed. So long as our current recruitment system remains unchanged, this will necessarily be a part of life in any region where new nations spawn in.

[Kylia Quilor]

As others have pointed out, this really won't allow game-over as is. If new nations are regularly spawning, emptying it, while possible, would be very hard, as well as keeping it empty until update.

As Sedge proposed in the OP, the region must have set a welcome telegram. So if the occupying force abolishes that, they can empty it without dealing with nation spawns.

Point. Missed the implications of that part.

That said, though, That almost seems too easy, though I suppose I could be accused of being focused on trying to hit some impossible perfect middle ground that doesn't and couldn't exist. It's certainly effective at allowing destruction.

[JURISDICTIONS]

The 'Founder Succession' thread in which I posted my idea is viewtopic.php?f=15&t=276112

The post there in which I introduced my suggested system in its original form is viewtopic.php?p=20885026#p20885026

Another thread on the general subject, in which that post of mine also received comments, was viewtopic.php?f=15&t=428882&hilit=Tanist .

Bears Armed!!! It is so good to see you again! Thank you for linking my topic thread! — It’s been since 2014, and I am glad to see forward movement into this discussion and implementation!

I wrote out a whole post, but I guess it didn’t post.

First, I’m sad to see that the Annex & Allies suggestions did not make the cut. It would have been cool to see “Democracies” annex other Democracies, and when that happens, the “auto spawn” would divert to the highest ranked region. If Democracies were Allies, they would essentially count as one region for the auto spawn, and split those newcomers equally among themselves. “Autocracies” couldn’t be Allies or Annexed by Democracies, because they are not eligible for the Auto Spawn. — Being Allies would gain an influence boost among all Ally WA Delegates. Democratic Regions defeated by Annexation would lose their ally status. Any regions that have Annexed, cannot become Allies in the formal sense to remove the nonsense of regions that are annexed by a region of an alliance... it would get too confusing.

Second, On Founder Succession I still say that Succession should only be achievable, if the founder has existed for more than 60 days. (That’s a change from my 3.0 Succession plan linked above. I still think that there should be some pause between founder switching, and so newly elevated founders cannot name a successor until day 61 of their reign. — When Founders select their Successor, the appointee has to agree, upon appointment. You have to be in the region to become a Successor, if you leave or CTE, you lose your successor status, and have to be reappointed. Definitely, the waiting period of Sede Vecante (time of the empty throne) of Seven days.

Third, On Autocracy Name I think we should call them “Voluntary Autocracies”. Such an option should have a short explanation, in the usual NS way, that many VAR’s (Voluntary Autocratic Regions) are usually run under a Democratic style government, but at the end of the day, it’s supported by the final power and authority of the Founder. Be benevolent or rule with an iron fist, it’s all in your hands, Founder!

Fourth, On Vote to Become Democracy if the Founder CTE’s without a Successor, then the WA Delegate should have the right to place a “ballot” to the regional residents to vote to transition to becoming a Democratic State. With majority approval, the region would become a Democracy, and the CTE founder would be unable to reclaim their region. It’s a one-way ticket.

Fifth, On Embargo folks forget often, that from The Game’s Point-of-View that WA Delegates are elected by Democratic means. Raiding and Defending, to The Game’s POV is just more authorized voters entering the region to elect a new delegate. — I like that Embargo would prevent something like that from happening. It would be more useful to help regions during their decision to transfer to a Democracy, if enacted before the region is flooded. Embargo, is essentially the opposite to Liberate, and we could institute such an SC legislation even if other game features are not added.

Sixth, I also propose, The Pacifics & Feeders & Sinkers should be considered democracies. If we did so, then all Democracies would be battling for the same source of Auto Spawned nations as everyone else with no need to play this game of half them, half these. I don’t quite understand the need to keep them, as permanent regions, if it’s become too taxing to be permanent regions.

Thank you for your time! I will be watching this thread as it progresses!

[Great Algerstonia]

Don't like the embargo security council resolution, but other than that it looks fine to me.

[South Asians]

"Democracy" should be renamed to Anarchy. Sounds more like it. A region (that's not as big as a GCR) hanging in balance from a loose thread of endorsements and influence are bound to be chaotic. After the formation of this whole system. Anti-Democratic Raiding Forces will be all over the place targetting such region. You might think 50% of new nations getting founded in such regions would work but I don't think it would. It will be easy to put sleepers in place in such regions. Along with that external threat the leaders will have to worry about the internal threat of a rebellion as well. Those 50% of new nations getting founded in such regions will get thinner with the formation of new democratic regions to the point that it won't even matter much to the endorsement count of the region.

[Sedgistan]

Posting briefly on naming only: I don't think we need to have a name for "Autocracy" regions; they're just regions as they are, but benefiting from a new feature allowing founder succession.

So it's just "Democracies" that need a name, the way we have Warzone regions, or Feeders/Sinkers. Ideally it'd be something better than Feeder/Sinker, which although widely used are somewhat weird terms that have no RL meaning/equivalent outside of NS. Something that is an RL term used to apply to geographical areas would be good, and which captures the unique mechanics - preferably the spawning aspect but potentially the instability too.

[Narvatus]

I, for one, don't really like this idea all that well, aside from founder succession. However, I think a good name for "democracy" regions could be "free communities" or "free associations".

[Bears Armed]

'pools' : because they have an inflow, are exposed & can be disturbed.. and share in the "pool" of new nations.

EDIT; or perhaps, as there's really only the one 'pool' of nations, "ponds" (complete with "a big fish in a small pond" & vice versa) instead?

[The Hazar Amisnery]

My founder is going to cte so this would've been helpful a few weeks ago but I support this so other regions don't have to go through the same stress as mine

[Kylia Quilor]

Posting briefly on naming only: I don't think we need to have a name for "Autocracy" regions; they're just regions as they are, but benefiting from a new feature allowing founder succession.

So it's just "Democracies" that need a name, the way we have Warzone regions, or Feeders/Sinkers. Ideally it'd be something better than Feeder/Sinker, which although widely used are somewhat weird terms that have no RL meaning/equivalent outside of NS. Something that is an RL term used to apply to geographical areas would be good, and which captures the unique mechanics - preferably the spawning aspect but potentially the instability too.

Spawn Sites? Spawning Pools? Spawning Grounds? Birthing Pods? Spawning Regions? Spawners?

[The Nation of the People of the Nation]

IMO this is a very bad idea.

It seems to me that it's trying to rebalance UCRs/GCRs. If that is the case, it will do a horrible job at that. We'll get something quite similar to the system we have now, too many bad regions mopping people up using cheap mechanics. This is to me quite similar to API/Stamp recruitment in terms of balance.

This change won't usher in a new age of UCR power, this change will make it so that even more low-tier UCRs get free nations. If we want to rebalance UCRs/GCRs, fix recruitment! Bring us back to the system that brought us an 1000 endo UCR and an era full of amazingly powerful UCRs. Make manual recruitment more powerful again. Incentivize activity not existence.

Changes need to be made to NS, but not this change.

[Wymondham]

How would the nations spawning into Democracies work with the tag:new recruitment TG filter, would they be able to be targeted with that filter? One one hand, allowing those nations to be targeted would allow more informed choice for newer players, on the other hand it would allow larger or well funded autocracies to poach new players from Democracies

[Elegarth]

I am assuming these details are not yet final, of course? 10 endos seems low... Would new players be "caught" by such small regions? I like this idea. Just wondering about the details.

[Sedgistan]

How would the nations spawning into Democracies work with the tag:new recruitment TG filter, would they be able to be targeted with that filter? One one hand, allowing those nations to be targeted would allow more informed choice for newer players, on the other hand it would allow larger or well funded autocracies to poach new players from Democracies

Same as at present, tag:new would send to new nations regardless of where they are.

I am assuming these details are not yet final, of course? 10 endos seems low... Would new players be "caught" by such small regions? I like this idea. Just wondering about the details.

10 endorsements is very up for discussion.

[The Blaatschapen]

For name idea: cradle. Coming from "cradle of civilization".

[Kylia Quilor]

@Peeps

Ultimately, There's not much that can be done to make manual recruitment more powerful as long as stamps exist, and stamps aren't going anywhere. Because even if Manual Recruitment gets favored better, nations are still going to get spammed by 20 TGs in relatively short order.