Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Merni]

At the outset I'll note that I am opposed to this change, since I personally believe the game would be better off with less R/D activity than more (so that I don't really want to increase R/D conflict artificially by incentivising creating more founderless regions), and that improving recruitment rates in some other way (or increasing the number of feeders) would be better than this idea. However, since Sedge and the admin team seem to be decided on this issue already, I'll focus on giving my feedback to the proposal as it stands. (I'd like to clarify that although I have been aware of its existence, I haven't been closely reading this thread, so I sincerely apologise if some of my points have been already raised/answered.)

This project is close to being finalised, so input on the outstanding questions would be appreciated.

Might I ask if there is any plan to seek feedback from the wider NS community, apart from the small subset that read the Technical forum or are active in R/D gameplay? I know "Technical is not a democracy", but something like a News post summarising the proposal and linking this thread to comment in might be very useful.

Frontiers

• 6 month influence decay as in feeders.

Would this apply instantly (any influence gained more than 6 months ago -- while the region was a stronghold -- gets instantly erased when a region transitions to Frontier), or after 6 months (6 months after becoming a Frontier, all influence from before the transition is erased)?
Edit: Also, would it apply while a transition is ongoing? If it did not, this would provide an easy (and fair imo since foundered regions can appoint a successor) path for founderless regions to appoint a founder -- switch to Frontier, and immediately once that switch takes effect (and before the region updates), initiate a switch back to Stronghold.

• To be eligible to have nations spawned in them, the WA Delegate must have at least 10 verified endorsements, a Welcome TG must be set and a password cannot be set. This requirements must be met for a week for the spawnings to start. That 1 week counter resets if the region fails to meet any of the requirements at any point.

Why is a welcome telegram a requirement? If it isn't set, presumably nations would be more likely to move out of that particular Frontier, by seeing a number of recruitment TGs but no welcome TG encouraging them to stay in the region.

Existing Regions and Switching Status
Frontier to Stronghold - the Delegate (the only nation that can have Executive powers) can start the process in the same way - same influence cost, and same 2 week period. Spawnings cease if they initiate this switch - you don't get the benefits if you're quitting Democracy status! If the Founder still exists, then they will regain Executive status on the transition completing. If the Founder nation does not, then the Delegate holding the region at the time of the transition enacting becomes Executive Delegate.

What does "Executive Delegate" here mean? An ordinary UCR delegate with Executive power as today but holding the position permanently, or a quasi-Founder as a permanent position with no influence costs, authority even outside the region, etc.? If the former, why would a founderless region ever want to be a stronghold, apart from the influence decay?

Security Council Category: "Preserve" - which prevents the transition (either way) from taking effect if an Executive Founder is not present in the region -- i.e. this is the same situation as Liberations taking effect with regards to Founders; the intent here being that the SC cannot prevent an Executive Founder transitioning their region to Democracy status.

"If an Executive Founder is not present in the region" -- does this include formerly-Executive founders in Frontiers? Or "Executive Delegates" in founderless Strongholds above? If not, it would be impossible entirely for a Frontier to become a Stronghold if a Preserve resolution is present (as a Frontier by definition doesn't have an executive delegate), which seems excessive.

Possible further additional Security Council Category: "Custodian" - this is a later addition to the discussion, and would appoint a chosen nation as Custodian to a chosen region. While the resolution is in effect, the nation would have Executive status within the chosen region while it is a Stronghold type, but must spend influence to use Regional Controls, same as a Delegate. A Custodian wouldn't take effect for a region which either 1) has an Executive Founder present, or 2) is a Frontier. Is this necessary if a founderless region has the option to switch to Stronghold (or if Stronghold already, then switch to Frontier and back) to gain a new Founder?

Yeah, this seems unnecessary to draft and campaign for an SC resolution instead of just switching to Frontier and immediately back to Stronghold (possibly while maintaining a password all the time, since such regions may not necessarily want new nations spawning.) The only issue which may render this necessary would be if people in the region had a high amount of influence which would be instantly cut down on transition to Frontier.

Why not make Feeders into Frontier regions?

I would love to see this happen, so that feeders get the same fraction (1/number of eligible Frontiers) of spawns as all Frontiers, instead of a guaranteed 1/10 each -- I don't like inbuilt inequality -- but in reality I don't think there'll be a huge disparity between the number of spawns feeders get under that system and under your proposal.

[Sedgistan]

At the outset I'll note that I am opposed to this change, since I personally believe the game would be better off with less R/D activity than more (so that I don't really want to increase R/D conflict artificially by incentivising creating more founderless regions), and that improving recruitment rates in some other way (or increasing the number of feeders) would be better than this idea. However, since Sedge and the admin team seem to be decided on this issue already, I'll focus on giving my feedback to the proposal as it stands. (I'd like to clarify that although I have been aware of its existence, I haven't been closely reading this thread, so I sincerely apologise if some of my points have been already raised/answered.)

Well I appreciate the feedback regardless. Two points on that though - first, the intention is that the R/D activity is increased in regions that choose to take that risk - regions that don't want that involvement gain a further way of staying out of it. Second, improving recruitment rates is not an either/or thing, and there are other changes being debated in Technical that look to address this.

Might I ask if there is any plan to seek feedback from the wider NS community, apart from the small subset that read the Technical forum or are active in R/D gameplay? I know "Technical is not a democracy", but something like a News post summarising the proposal and linking this thread to comment in might be very useful.

Nothing beyond the Development Managers news post that announced the roles a little while back. There's lots of Tech changes under discussion all the time, and I don't think we can regularly promote those on the News page. If people are interested in giving feedback on changes, they find their way to Technical.

Would this apply instantly (any influence gained more than 6 months ago -- while the region was a stronghold -- gets instantly erased when a region transitions to Frontier), or after 6 months (6 months after becoming a Frontier, all influence from before the transition is erased)?
Edit: Also, would it apply while a transition is ongoing? If it did not, this would provide an easy (and fair imo since foundered regions can appoint a successor) path for founderless regions to appoint a founder -- switch to Frontier, and immediately once that switch takes effect (and before the region updates), initiate a switch back to Stronghold.

First question - I'm not sure of the exact mechanics that Ballo used when he implemented influence decay with feeders, but it would probably work the same way. Second question - while the region is a Frontier, the influence decay would be happening regardless of whether it's in the process of transitioning back to Stronghold or not.

Why is a welcome telegram a requirement? If it isn't set, presumably nations would be more likely to move out of that particular Frontier, by seeing a number of recruitment TGs but no welcome TG encouraging them to stay in the region.

To promote retention of new nations within the game. We do also definitely envisage some of the spawns will stick around and get involved in the Frontier they're spawned in. It's a requirement of some minimal effort from the region. If they can't be bothered to set a welcome telegram, they don't deserve nations spawning there.

What does "Executive Delegate" here mean? An ordinary UCR delegate with Executive power as today but holding the position permanently, or a quasi-Founder as a permanent position with no influence costs, authority even outside the region, etc.? If the former, why would a founderless region ever want to be a stronghold, apart from the influence decay?

Typo - I've corrected that to "Executive Founder".

"If an Executive Founder is not present in the region" -- does this include formerly-Executive founders in Frontiers? Or "Executive Delegates" in founderless Strongholds above? If not, it would be impossible entirely for a Frontier to become a Stronghold if a Preserve resolution is present (as a Frontier by definition doesn't have an executive delegate), which seems excessive.

An Executive Founder is only possible in a Stronghold. You cannot be an Executive Founder in a Frontier. A Frontier by definition does have an Executive Delegate (but that confusion on terms is probably the result of my typo above).

Why not make Feeders into Frontier regions?

I would love to see this happen, so that feeders get the same fraction (1/number of eligible Frontiers) of spawns as all Frontiers, instead of a guaranteed 1/10 each -- I don't like inbuilt inequality -- but in reality I don't think there'll be a huge disparity between the number of spawns feeders get under that system and under your proposal.

I expect Feeders would definitely get less spawns if they became Frontiers. But as I put in the OP, I do like an element of inbuilt inequality, and also inbuilt diversity in region types. This changes looks to cut down the size of Feeders, thus reducing their in-game influence, but doesn't have further changes planned for them.

[Merni]

Might I ask if there is any plan to seek feedback from the wider NS community, apart from the small subset that read the Technical forum or are active in R/D gameplay? I know "Technical is not a democracy", but something like a News post summarising the proposal and linking this thread to comment in might be very useful.

Nothing beyond the Development Managers news post that announced the roles a little while back. There's lots of Tech changes under discussion all the time, and I don't think we can regularly promote those on the News page. If people are interested in giving feedback on changes, they find their way to Technical.

I can remember no proposed technical change in the last five years (my time on NS) that was both so far-reaching and radical in changing regional mechanics as well as endorsed by mods (and implicitly by admin in this case). If we can have News posts for such minuscule matters as changing the order of magnitude of a single stat then we can surely have one alerting people of (and asking for constructive feedback on) an upcoming change that is one of the most far-reaching in years. This is greatly different from the average technical change that gets discussed in this subforum.

Edit: Also, would it apply while a transition is ongoing? If it did not, this would provide an easy (and fair imo since foundered regions can appoint a successor) path for founderless regions to appoint a founder -- switch to Frontier, and immediately once that switch takes effect (and before the region updates), initiate a switch back to Stronghold.

Second question - while the region is a Frontier, the influence decay would be happening regardless of whether it's in the process of transitioning back to Stronghold or not.

I would like to ask that this be changed. It adds an unfair penalty to founderless regions switching to Frontier and back in order to gain a founder (they don't want nation spawns anyway), especially considering that foundered ones can add a successor free of cost.

What does "Executive Delegate" here mean? An ordinary UCR delegate with Executive power as today but holding the position permanently, or a quasi-Founder as a permanent position with no influence costs, authority even outside the region, etc.? If the former, why would a founderless region ever want to be a stronghold, apart from the influence decay?

Typo - I've corrected that to "Executive Founder".

Thanks, that makes more sense.

"If an Executive Founder is not present in the region" -- does this include formerly-Executive founders in Frontiers? Or "Executive Delegates" in founderless Strongholds above? If not, it would be impossible entirely for a Frontier to become a Stronghold if a Preserve resolution is present (as a Frontier by definition doesn't have an executive delegate), which seems excessive.

An Executive Founder is only possible in a Stronghold. You cannot be an Executive Founder in a Frontier. A Frontier by definition does have an Executive Delegate (but that confusion on terms is probably the result of my typo above).

Yeah, I was confused by the typo.

[Flanderlion]

Nothing beyond the Development Managers news post that announced the roles a little while back. There's lots of Tech changes under discussion all the time, and I don't think we can regularly promote those on the News page. If people are interested in giving feedback on changes, they find their way to Technical.

I can remember no proposed technical change in the last five years (my time on NS) that was both so far-reaching and radical in changing regional mechanics as well as endorsed by mods (and implicitly by admin in this case). If we can have News posts for such minuscule matters as changing the order of magnitude of a single stat then we can surely have one alerting people of (and asking for constructive feedback on) an upcoming change that is one of the most far-reaching in years. This is greatly different from the average technical change that gets discussed in this subforum.

I personally view stat changes as a change to core game mechanics. Regions aren't. Also that's for implementation, not for discussion. There will be one when this is implemented. ROs are a good example of a bigger change than this which was possibly just outside of 5 years now. Also this isn't a new idea, it's adapted significantly from when [v] first thought of it, and from when it was first posted in Cormac's thread complaining about Sinkers. Not to mention that it has been at times #1 on the dispatch list.

[Merni]

I can remember no proposed technical change in the last five years (my time on NS) that was both so far-reaching and radical in changing regional mechanics as well as endorsed by mods (and implicitly by admin in this case). If we can have News posts for such minuscule matters as changing the order of magnitude of a single stat then we can surely have one alerting people of (and asking for constructive feedback on) an upcoming change that is one of the most far-reaching in years. This is greatly different from the average technical change that gets discussed in this subforum.

I personally view stat changes as a change to core game mechanics. Regions aren't. Also that's for implementation, not for discussion. There will be one when this is implemented. ROs are a good example of a bigger change than this which was possibly just outside of 5 years now. Also this isn't a new idea, it's adapted significantly from when [v] first thought of it, and from when it was first posted in Cormac's thread complaining about Sinkers. Not to mention that it has been at times #1 on the dispatch list.

ROs were in 2015 (6 years ago), and I will point out that this news post then explicitly invited suggestions for ways to limit raiders' abuse of the feature, even though discussion on the technical forum was (as the post says) already happening.

[Galiantus III]

That post indicates from the beginning that the change was already implemented, and it was inviting feedback to make tweaks to the system. If the news page is used consistently for this change, we would see a news post along with the change, inviting bug reporting and other feedback.

[Sailiopia]

Nothing beyond the Development Managers news post that announced the roles a little while back. There's lots of Tech changes under discussion all the time, and I don't think we can regularly promote those on the News page. If people are interested in giving feedback on changes, they find their way to Technical.

I can remember no proposed technical change in the last five years (my time on NS) that was both so far-reaching and radical in changing regional mechanics as well as endorsed by mods (and implicitly by admin in this case). If we can have News posts for such minuscule matters as changing the order of magnitude of a single stat then we can surely have one alerting people of (and asking for constructive feedback on) an upcoming change that is one of the most far-reaching in years. This is greatly different from the average technical change that gets discussed in this subforum.

This is by no means the biggest technical change (although I'm too new to comment on the details of previous ones such as ROs, founders etc.). And pre-announcing the change wouldn't do much good, more confusion among people who may see it, not read it fully and think that it is already implemented.

Also, we must ask how many people will read the announcement (immediately excluding players who generally only answer issues and haven't noticed the 'news' button), understand the announcement (excluding those who aren't involved in regions), feel a need to respond to the announcement, and feel like writing a forum post on it, who haven't already been following the forum thread or been told otherwise by those who have? We've got down to a very small portion of the community already. We've already been tweaking this idea for weeks.

I think that no feature will instantly be perfect upon implementation. There's no reason to keep complaining about it due to it not being perfect. We also need to remember the importance of this change - we sorely need this, the current imbalance between GCRs and UCRs is way too big (I've said this so many times before, as most of you probably know by now) and needs fixing, R/D activity is stale and the game needs something to spice it up. You can still opt out of it if you want to, by remaining a stronghold instead of becoming a frontier. Once this is implemented, the admins can take feedback from the community who will have a greater knowledge of it's impacts than it does have now, and will then be able to make informed changes.

[Marxist Germany]

I would like to ask that this be changed. It adds an unfair penalty to founderless regions switching to Frontier and back in order to gain a founder (they don't want nation spawns anyway), especially considering that foundered ones can add a successor free of cost.

This is why it would be better if a region returning from Frontier to Stronghold always returns executive powers to the original founder, and the only way to get a new founder is by passing the Custodian SC proposal. This way, regions can have a safer path to gaining a founder, and raiders cannot easily invade and destroy a region.

On a related note, would repealing the Custodian resolution return the original founder?

[Merni]

This is why it would be better if a region returning from Frontier to Stronghold always returns executive powers to the original founder, and the only way to get a new founder is by passing the Custodian SC proposal. This way, regions can have a safer path to gaining a founder,

No, this way regions wouldn't have any path to gaining a founder (if their founder CTEd or never existed in the first place, which is pretty much the only reason a currently existing region would want to "gain a founder".)

[Flanderlion]

This is why it would be better if a region returning from Frontier to Stronghold always returns executive powers to the original founder, and the only way to get a new founder is by passing the Custodian SC proposal. This way, regions can have a safer path to gaining a founder,

No, this way regions wouldn't have any path to gaining a founder (if their founder CTEd or never existed in the first place, which is pretty much the only reason a currently existing region would want to "gain a founder".)

That is the point of Custodian, so the regions would have a path of gaining founder?

[Merni]

No, this way regions wouldn't have any path to gaining a founder (if their founder CTEd or never existed in the first place, which is pretty much the only reason a currently existing region would want to "gain a founder".)

That is the point of Custodian, so the regions would have a path of gaining founder?

Getting a WA resolution passed is a higher bar than simply switching to and from Frontier. I don't see why that should be made necessary.

[Haganham]

Yeah I don't see any reason why regions should have to appeal to the SC to move out of being a frontier. It's a regional decision, and they shouldn't be reliant on the international intervention to make it.

[The Stalker]

Second question - while the region is a Frontier, the influence decay would be happening regardless of whether it's in the process of transitioning back to Stronghold or not.

I would like to ask that this be changed. It adds an unfair penalty to founderless regions switching to Frontier and back in order to gain a founder (they don't want nation spawns anyway), especially considering that foundered ones can add a successor free of cost.

Yea I gotta agree, if the path to foundership for founderless is gonna be change to frontier, then change back to stronghold. I would want clarification on how the 6 month influence decay would work, if only the last 6 months would be retained, Hell lost a decade of influence in an instant? That be the craziest influence cost that ever existed lol. Not to mention it effect everyone in the region. Would make more sense to start decaying at the 6 month mark, or create some buffer like doesn't start till being a frontier for a month, or is tried to whether the region is spawning nations or something.

[Flanderlion]

Yeah I don't see any reason why regions should have to appeal to the SC to move out of being a frontier. It's a regional decision, and they shouldn't be reliant on the international intervention to make it.

Agreed that it should be a regional decision to reinstate old founder. Disagree about appointing a new one.

Because if it's a purely 'regional' decision to appoint a new founder, you're relying on the SC noticing, drafting, submitting, reaching quorum, reaching vote and passing a resolution to prevent a hostile founder from grabbing control.

Every single step of those can be made difficult. Sleepers (who often have some of the highest influence in the region, and appear non threatening) make it difficult to realise whether it's a long term sleeper taking action or a native protecting their region.

If a region is unpopular, like the Embassy (which despite the protests that it was attempted to be defended, they let the embassies burn) or more controversial things, the SC might not even pass the resolution.

Meanwhile, if you can either reinstate your old founder, reinstate your old founder and have them appoint your desired nation as successor or have a Custodian resolution passed, there is far less odds of a hostile founder being added against a regions wishes.

--

Re GCR influence, it starts decaying day 1, but finishes decaying at the 6 month mark. So in Hell's case Custodian would be a better option than losing all that influence

[Haganham]

Yeah I don't see any reason why regions should have to appeal to the SC to move out of being a frontier. It's a regional decision, and they shouldn't be reliant on the international intervention to make it.

Agreed that it should be a regional decision to reinstate old founder. Disagree about appointing a new one.

Because if it's a purely 'regional' decision to appoint a new founder, you're relying on the SC noticing, drafting, submitting, reaching quorum, reaching vote and passing a resolution to prevent a hostile founder from grabbing control.

Every single step of those can be made difficult. Sleepers (who often have some of the highest influence in the region, and appear non threatening) make it difficult to realise whether it's a long term sleeper taking action or a native protecting their region.

If a region is unpopular, like the Embassy (which despite the protests that it was attempted to be defended, they let the embassies burn) or more controversial things, the SC might not even pass the resolution.

Meanwhile, if you can either reinstate your old founder, reinstate your old founder and have them appoint your desired nation as successor or have a Custodian resolution passed, there is far less odds of a hostile founder being added against a regions wishes.

--

Re GCR influence, it starts decaying day 1, but finishes decaying at the 6 month mark. So in Hell's case Custodian would be a better option than losing all that influence

all those arguments also apply to requiring SC intervention.

[Sedgistan]

I will get clarification on the influence decay question, but my recollection is that Flanderlion is correct - the way it happened in feeders was the decay happens over the 6 months. Ballo coded this, and isn't around much these days, so getting a definite answer on that isn't simple. However, that's the way I would like to see it done for regions switching to Frontier, so you can assume that will be the case.

I have removed the final red bits from the OP:

• Passwords are allowed when switching status (either way); Preserve is in place to protect against this.
• Custodian, like Embargo, is not to be part of the initial implementation plan. It doesn't seem as necessary with the ability to appoint a new founder via a switch to and back from Frontier.
• "Preserve" category name remains the placeholder for the SC category that will come as part of this change. I would still like an improvement on it, but no clear alternative has yet to come up.

This means that the project is effectively finalised in terms of how it will work. What happens next is:

• I'll leave this for a few days for further comments.
• I'll then write up the change for admin. There will likely be some questions that come up internally about it, so there will be some back and forth on that.
• If some aspects need changing/reconsidering, I'll bring them back here for comments.
• When that is all complete, it will officially go on admin's to-do list to code. This is not a simple project to do, so don't expect it to come quickly. However, it will be top of my priority list for GP/SC changes.
• I'll keep people updated on progress, but there will be no promises on timescales, and any estimates may change.

[Flanderlion]

I'm not convinced that there will be a "good number of invadable" regions as it stands.

Allowing executive delegates to appoint themselves as founders will result in every region that becomes founderless and has a delegate choosing to make themselves founder, as why wouldn't they? It also entirely changes the end game for R/D. Founders being reinstated won't make a major difference. However, allowing every region to appoint a delegate as founder without any real restriction, nor any way to reverse it, means the logical thing for every region bar Frontiers/GCRs is to give themselves a founder. Every raid would be irreversible if they held it for 2 weeks unless the SC intervened, which isn't a guaranteed outcome.

--

Apart from the glaring flaw, looks good. Fine with the rest of the compromises made.

[Sedgistan]

I'm not convinced that there will be a "good number of invadable" regions as it stands.

Allowing executive delegates to appoint themselves as founders will result in every region that becomes founderless and has a delegate choosing to make themselves founder, as why wouldn't they? It also entirely changes the end game for R/D. Founders being reinstated won't make a major difference. However, allowing every region to appoint a delegate as founder without any real restriction, nor any way to reverse it, means the logical thing for every region bar Frontiers/GCRs is to give themselves a founder. Every raid would be irreversible if they held it for 2 weeks unless the SC intervened, which isn't a guaranteed outcome.

I'm aware you hold that view. It's not one that seems to have a strong support from others though.

I envisage the bulk of "invadable" regions to be Frontiers in the long term, and that's a good thing as those regions will have opted in to the risks. Strongholds that are/become founderless yet want to keep the security - I think it's fair to allow them a way to regain the safety provided by a founder.

I'm happy to look at the timescales for Frontier -> Stronghold transitions, if 2 weeks is felt to be too short, but that argument hasn't been made much.

[Tinhampton]

Will currently-Preserved regions get a shiny badge like currently-Commended, -Condemned and -Liberated regions do?

[Haganham]

Will currently-Preserved regions get a shiny badge like currently-Commended, -Condemned and -Liberated regions do?

A pickle jar?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I am open to both this:

if the delegate seat changes it cancels the transition.

and this:

I should add that "extending the timer" on a Delegacy change is definitely an option we can consider.

...but want more feedback on these ideas.

Was a final decision made on the above?

What about the precise influence cost required for the Delegate to initiate the transition?

fwiw I don't think the influence decay over the one month it takes to go from Stronghold to Frontier and back is significant. The decay starts slow and speeds up towards the end of the six months, plus influence isn't important for regional security anyway if you now have a Founder.

- - - - -

imo regarding time periods, two weeks is probably fine but not ideal. If changes are made to this, I think the Stronghold -> Frontier transition period should be shortened to match the one week requirement for spawns, so that regions are immediately eligible once they become a Frontier.

The Frontier -> Stronghold transition should last longer in case the SC queue is full when a Preserve motion needs to be passed, as this would theoretically require defenders begging people to remove and resubmit proposals in queue, or to quorum raid them themselves. Four weeks would be better imo.

[Riemstagrad]

I didn't read the entire 19 pages of text but the OP seems like a good explanation of the concept. Still, i have some specific questions regarding my own region before i can form an opinion on this:

The way i read the OP is that an ancient founderless region like Belgium, will become a Stronghold, like all other regions. Everything will more or less stay the same as before. The only difference being that a delegate can initiate a transition to Frontier

To be sure:
Is it correct that a delegate can in no way appoint a Successor (and thus a new founder) in a founderless region?

About the Preserve-resolution: Will an existing liberation-resolution function as a "preserve"? or will such a preserve be case-by-case?

[Flanderlion]

I didn't read the entire 19 pages of text but the OP seems like a good explanation of the concept. Still, i have some specific questions regarding my own region before i can form an opinion on this:

The way i read the OP is that an ancient founderless region like Belgium, will become a Stronghold, like all other regions. Everything will more or less stay the same as before. The only difference being that a delegate can initiate a transition to Frontier

To be sure:
Is it correct that a delegate can in no way appoint a Successor (and thus a new founder) in a founderless region?

About the Preserve-resolution: Will an existing liberation-resolution function as a "preserve"? or will such a preserve be case-by-case?

A delegate with the required influence, whether native or a raider, can appoint themselves founder. After a time-period, if not stopped, it is irreversible.

Preserve resolutions are separate resolutions from liberations (one removes password, other stops regions switching types), so a new one would be needed if you wished to prevent Belgium switching.

[Sedgistan]

Will currently-Preserved regions get a shiny badge like currently-Commended, -Condemned and -Liberated regions do?

Every SC proposal category with a region/nation nominee should result in a shiny badge being applied to the nominee.

I am open to both this:

and this:

...but want more feedback on these ideas.

Was a final decision made on the above?

No - haven't seen enough demand for either to include them in the plan. That could change.

What about the precise influence cost required for the Delegate to initiate the transition?

Influence mechanics have since inception always been kept private. That was somewhat ruined by admin implementing the rankings changes years ago that had SPDR in them, allowing players to work much of it out. I'm unlikely to make the numbers public however, but at present I'm thinking it's likely to be a cost based on a significant % of overall regional influence (potentially or a fixed number based on regional population, whichever is the higher of the two).

The way i read the OP is that an ancient founderless region like Belgium, will become a Stronghold, like all other regions. Everything will more or less stay the same as before. The only difference being that a delegate can initiate a transition to Frontier

To be sure:
Is it correct that a delegate can in no way appoint a Successor (and thus a new founder) in a founderless region?

On your question: yes. However, there is a significant aspect for Belgium to be aware of. It will start as a Stronghold that will work the same as it always has. However, the region could be switched to a "Frontier", which would initiate influence decay and allow you the option for spawnings in the region. The Delegate can then switch the region back to Stronghold. Since Belgium has never had a Founder, that would result in the Delegate at the time of the switch-back being appointed as Founder (with the ability to set a Successor etc.).

What this means for Belgium is any/all of the following:

1) There is a risk that someone invades the region, switches it to Frontier and then it's much more vulnerable as the influence slowly decays over a 6 month period. Worse, they could then switch back to Stronghold and be appointed as Founder, permanently controlling the region. The flip-side to this is that there would be a hefty influence cost for switches both ways, and in a region with Belgium's influence, an invader Delegate will struggle to ever manage this.

2) There is an opportunity for Belgium to acquire a Founder of its own, via the method above appointing a trusted member. This provides it with permanent security, via the Successor mechanism.

3) Pass a pre-emptive "Preserve" resolution and no switching of region type can take place, and thus you can continue on as at present with no change.

About the Preserve-resolution: Will an existing liberation-resolution function as a "preserve"? or will such a preserve be case-by-case?

No - the mechanics of a Liberation resolution will remain distinct from a Preservation resolution. As per the above, Belgium might want to have both passed.

[Pajonia]

At the outset I'll note that I am opposed to this change, since I personally believe the game would be better off with less R/D activity than more (so that I don't really want to increase R/D conflict artificially by incentivising creating more founderless regions), and that improving recruitment rates in some other way (or increasing the number of feeders) would be better than this idea. However, since Sedge and the admin team seem to be decided on this issue already, I'll focus on giving my feedback to the proposal as it stands. (I'd like to clarify that although I have been aware of its existence, I haven't been closely reading this thread, so I sincerely apologise if some of my points have been already raised/answered.)

Well I appreciate the feedback regardless. Two points on that though - first, the intention is that the R/D activity is increased in regions that choose to take that risk - regions that don't want that involvement gain a further way of staying out of it. Second, improving recruitment rates is not an either/or thing, and there are other changes being debated in Technical that look to address this.

Might I ask if there is any plan to seek feedback from the wider NS community, apart from the small subset that read the Technical forum or are active in R/D gameplay? I know "Technical is not a democracy", but something like a News post summarising the proposal and linking this thread to comment in might be very useful.

Nothing beyond the Development Managers news post that announced the roles a little while back. There's lots of Tech changes under discussion all the time, and I don't think we can regularly promote those on the News page. If people are interested in giving feedback on changes, they find their way to Technical.

Would this apply instantly (any influence gained more than 6 months ago -- while the region was a stronghold -- gets instantly erased when a region transitions to Frontier), or after 6 months (6 months after becoming a Frontier, all influence from before the transition is erased)?
Edit: Also, would it apply while a transition is ongoing? If it did not, this would provide an easy (and fair imo since foundered regions can appoint a successor) path for founderless regions to appoint a founder -- switch to Frontier, and immediately once that switch takes effect (and before the region updates), initiate a switch back to Stronghold.

First question - I'm not sure of the exact mechanics that Ballo used when he implemented influence decay with feeders, but it would probably work the same way. Second question - while the region is a Frontier, the influence decay would be happening regardless of whether it's in the process of transitioning back to Stronghold or not.

Why is a welcome telegram a requirement? If it isn't set, presumably nations would be more likely to move out of that particular Frontier, by seeing a number of recruitment TGs but no welcome TG encouraging them to stay in the region.

To promote retention of new nations within the game. We do also definitely envisage some of the spawns will stick around and get involved in the Frontier they're spawned in. It's a requirement of some minimal effort from the region. If they can't be bothered to set a welcome telegram, they don't deserve nations spawning there.

What does "Executive Delegate" here mean? An ordinary UCR delegate with Executive power as today but holding the position permanently, or a quasi-Founder as a permanent position with no influence costs, authority even outside the region, etc.? If the former, why would a founderless region ever want to be a stronghold, apart from the influence decay?

Typo - I've corrected that to "Executive Founder".

"If an Executive Founder is not present in the region" -- does this include formerly-Executive founders in Frontiers? Or "Executive Delegates" in founderless Strongholds above? If not, it would be impossible entirely for a Frontier to become a Stronghold if a Preserve resolution is present (as a Frontier by definition doesn't have an executive delegate), which seems excessive.

An Executive Founder is only possible in a Stronghold. You cannot be an Executive Founder in a Frontier. A Frontier by definition does have an Executive Delegate (but that confusion on terms is probably the result of my typo above).

I would love to see this happen, so that feeders get the same fraction (1/number of eligible Frontiers) of spawns as all Frontiers, instead of a guaranteed 1/10 each -- I don't like inbuilt inequality -- but in reality I don't think there'll be a huge disparity between the number of spawns feeders get under that system and under your proposal.

I expect Feeders would definitely get less spawns if they became Frontiers. But as I put in the OP, I do like an element of inbuilt inequality, and also inbuilt diversity in region types. This changes looks to cut down the size of Feeders, thus reducing their in-game influence, but doesn't have further changes planned for them.

Lol pathetic. It's almost like you're trying to break the game and are purposely not listening to feedback. Where's season 3 of cards? What about fixing recruitment or anything else that would actually improve the game instead of this awful update?