Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Sedgistan]

I would love it if there were an update on this; unfortunately there isn't. It's a little dispiriting to announce nothing, which is why I haven't commented in several months, since the plan was finalised. Frontiers/Strongholds remains top of my GP Development Manager wish-list.

[Wymondham]

I would love it if there were an update on this; unfortunately there isn't. It's a little dispiriting to announce nothing, which is why I haven't commented in several months, since the plan was finalised. Frontiers/Strongholds remains top of my GP Development Manager wish-list.

Has there been any sort of ETA provided by admin as to when F/S might be implemented, or even when it might be moving into some sort of testing phase on NS3?

[Sedgistan]

Afraid not. It's Violet who would be coding it, and it's a biggish project - I can't really make any promises on how much NS development time she'll have, and I haven't been given any sort of timescales for it either.

[The Orwell Society]

Afraid not. It's Violet who would be coding it, and it's a biggish project - I can't really make any promises on how much NS development time she'll have, and I haven't been given any sort of timescales for it either.

It will certainly be a big change for the game.

[Cappedore]

Is it too late to say how much I absolutely support this development?

Edit: would there be an option for Frontiers to mandate what type of nations can spawn in their regions? Say, like, refounded nations? Ones rejected from other regions?

[Onionist Randosia]

Is it too late to say how much I absolutely support this development?

Edit: would there be an option for Frontiers to mandate what type of nations can spawn in their regions? Say, like, refounded nations? Ones rejected from other regions?

Yeah, that would be good, seeing as the sinkers and TRR will supersede the Pacifics otherwise

[Lord Dominator]

Is it too late to say how much I absolutely support this development?

Edit: would there be an option for Frontiers to mandate what type of nations can spawn in their regions? Say, like, refounded nations? Ones rejected from other regions?

Yeah, that would be good, seeing as the sinkers and TRR will supersede the Pacifics otherwise

Yes, far be it for (some) of the Feeders to be smaller with their inherently active population than the ones that have to respectively deal with definitionally inactive people and the people who are principally there because some other region didn’t want them.

And I say some, because even halved several of the Feeders would still be larger.

[Wymondham]

Afraid not. It's Violet who would be coding it, and it's a biggish project - I can't really make any promises on how much NS development time she'll have, and I haven't been given any sort of timescales for it either.

Would you be able to tell us whether any notice would be given before frontiers/strongholds goes live and if so how much?

[Sedgistan]

I expect so, but no I can't say how much. The likelihood is that it'll need some testing in the NS playground first, and I usually invite some players along for that. I still don't have any news to share on when that might be.

[Christian Democrats]

Sedge, while this is still in the development stage, I'd like to offer two amendments.

First, the game should move from random spawning to directed spawning. Right now, when a new nation is created, it appears in its new region as a matter of chance. Let's call this random spawning. If the game had a system of directed spawning, new nations would not appear in their new regions as a matter of chance. Instead, they would be directed to regions with nations like theirs.

On the nation creation page, the first thing a new player does is choose the kind of nation he wants:

Anarchic	Libertarian	Capitalist
Liberal	Centrist	Conservative
Socialist	Authoritarian	Tyrannical
	Random

Rather than have new nations spawn in random regions, why not have new nations spawn in regions with likeminded nations?

At least two systems for matching new nations and regions are possible. One system would be to have frontiers (and feeders too, I think) choose "super tags" for their regions. Each frontier would be permitted one and only one super tag. Adding the super tag would cost some amount of influence, but it would be well worthwhile. New anarchic nations would be directed to frontiers super-tagged as Anarchic, new authoritarian nations would be directed to frontiers super-tagged as Authoritarian, and so on.

A second system would be to have frontiers automatically super-tagged by the World Census Reports. This system would basically work the same way, except that the game would choose super tags for regions based on the characteristics of the nations in them. New anarchic nations would still be directed to frontiers super-tagged as Anarchic, new authoritarian nations would still be directed to frontiers super-tagged as Authoritarian, and so on. Under this system, the super tags might be public or hidden from players.

The benefits of directed spawning are obvious. New nations that are immediately grouped with nations like theirs are more likely to find a community of players like them. That means greater enjoyment, deeper involvement, and probably a higher likelihood that a player will continue to play the game after creating his first nation. Help new nations find their natural allies rather than search aimlessly for them.

---

Second, the game shouldn't set an arbitrary and static ratio for distributing new nations between the feeders and the frontiers, such as the 50:50 ratio proposed in the opening post. Instead, the distribution scheme should be dynamic. My initial idea is to have some sort of formula based on the number of WA members present in each feeder and frontier region. For example:

A / B = chance of spawning in a particular feeder/frontier
A = number of WA residents in feeder/frontier
B = number of WA residents in all feeders/frontiers

Under this formula, if a frontier had 2% of all WA members, then 2% of all new nations would spawn there. My thinking is that WA membership is a rough approximation of regional quality. If two regions are similarly themed, but one region has 40 WA members and the other has 20 WA members, the first region is probably better (two times better?) than the second region. Just like people in the real world, nations in NationStates vote with their feet. They tend to abandon dull regions and move to vibrant ones.

Of course, we can think up an infinite number of possible formulas. If our goal is to keep regions smaller, then the formula could be:

(A / B) ^ (1/2) = chance of spawning in a particular feeder/frontier

Or maybe we could give bonuses to certain regions. Feeders could get a 2x or 3x bonus if we really think preserving their superior status is valuable. You say that you "like a level of inbuilt inequality within the game." I'm not sure I do, but that's simply a difference of opinion. Your region has been alive for 3 years? You get a 1.5x bonus. Your region has been commended or condemned by the WA? You get a 2x bonus. The possibilities for tweaking the formula, based on what we think is important, are endless. Although, the simple formula (A/B) is my favorite.

The benefits of a dynamic distribution scheme, as opposed to a static distribution scheme, are also obvious. If new nations are pushed toward "better" regions -- i.e., regions that are winning the foot vote -- then they're more likely to enjoy the game, get involved, and keep playing. Furthermore, a dynamic formula would have a positive impact on regional management. It would create a market-like incentive for regional leaders to make their regions good and retain WA members. Frontiers, as well as feeders, wouldn't be able to depend on a passive inflow of new nations simply because of their feeder or frontier status. If a region starts to shed WA members -- maybe, the leadership is inactive, incompetent, or unpleasant -- then it will also start to shed new nations. Fewer will spawn there because it's losing the foot vote.

Together, directed spawning and a dynamic ratio would increase player retention and incentivize good government in regions.

[Sedgistan]

I'm against both ideas. Firstly, both add significant complexity to what is already an ambitious project in scope. The more complexity added, the longer it takes to code. I want to keep this project achievable. Added to that -

Random/directed spawning: I disagree with your fundamental premises here. Nations do not necessarily reflect a player's political leanings. Nor is it necessarily a more enjoyable or better player experience closeting oneself with like-minded players. I know that some players do like to group together based on political or social views, but I don't think that's reflective of anything close to a majority of the site.

I am open to a change in the new nation spawning/recruitment process as a separate, and subsequent matter that lets nations view recruitment ads by regions prior to being placed in a region, but that is part of a wider project to revamp recruitment/new player experience that I don't intend to tackle until after F/S has been implemented and bedded in.

Distribution between Feeders/Frontiers: aside from the complexity point, this is something that I would suggest be considered post-implementation of F/S. The intention remains to preserve a level of the inequality of Feeders and 50% seems a reasonable adjustment to me; note also that the plan already includes some dynamics around the chances of nations spawning in certain Frontiers based on conditions within those regions.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm against both ideas. Firstly, both add significant complexity to what is already an ambitious project in scope. The more complexity added, the longer it takes to code. I want to keep this project achievable.

That's a fair reason to put off such reforms, but it's not a reason to reject them.

Random/directed spawning: I disagree with your fundamental premises here. Nations do not necessarily reflect a player's political leanings. Nor is it necessarily a more enjoyable or better player experience closeting oneself with like-minded players. I know that some players do like to group together based on political or social views, but I don't think that's reflective of anything close to a majority of the site.

Perhaps, I haven't been clear enough. A player who creates a socialist nation is more likely to put it in a socialist region than a non-socialist region. If the same exact player later creates a capitalist nation, he's more likely to put it in a capitalist region than a non-capitalist region. I'm not talking about players' out-of-character views. Above, I suggested that new nations would be "directed to regions with nations like theirs" and that "new nations [would] spawn in regions with likeminded nations" (emphasis added). It's clear that nations don't necessarily reflect players' political leanings, but there is a rough congruence between nation themes and region themes.

Next, I think the UCRs can be roughly grouped into three categories: ideological UCRs, non-ideological UCRs, and semi-ideological UCRs. The regions that would benefit most from directed spawning would be ideological UCRs, such as the Communist Bloc or Capitalist Paradise. On the other hand, non-ideological UCRs, such as NationStates, would see very little benefit. I disagree with your categorization of the "majority of the site" because I believe most UCRs are semi-ideological. An environment-themed region (such as Forest or Refugia), an identity-themed region (such as Gay), or a cause-themed region (such as Right to Life) doesn't have an explicit ideological commitment, but the bulk of the nations there do lean in certain directions. These types of regions would derive some benefit from directed spawning.

I'm not asking for arranged marriages here; I'm suggesting that the game direct new nations to regions where they're somewhat more likely to find themes that align with the ways that players plan to run their new nations. If the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators chose to become a frontier, it wouldn't be a bad thing for the game to direct a disproportionately high number of tyrannical nations there and a disproportionately low number of libertarian nations there. It would be a service to new nations.

I am open to a change in the new nation spawning/recruitment process as a separate, and subsequent matter that lets nations view recruitment ads by regions prior to being placed in a region, but that is part of a wider project to revamp recruitment/new player experience that I don't intend to tackle until after F/S has been implemented and bedded in.

Whether the issue is tackled now or later, my main point is that the nation creation process should function more as a kind of personality test and matchmaking process. If the nation creation pages asked nations about their preferences for monarchism or republicanism, for example, monarchy-themed regions would see a disproportionately high number of monarchist nations spawning there. If a new nation strongly agrees with "Q4. The world needs to rediscover its spirituality" and selects to be founded by "Long-Suffering But Still Optimistic Pilgrims," then it might spawn in a religious region. The religion might not be right, but more nations are being nudged in a favorable direction.

It's good to hear that the admin team is open to change, even if it might take a few years.

Distribution between Feeders/Frontiers: aside from the complexity point, this is something that I would suggest be considered post-implementation of F/S. The intention remains to preserve a level of the inequality of Feeders and 50% seems a reasonable adjustment to me; note also that the plan already includes some dynamics around the chances of nations spawning in certain Frontiers based on conditions within those regions.

My main concern here is this: A new nation is created, and it has an equal chance of spawning in a 3-month-old region with 5 WA members as in a 3-year-old region with 200 WA members. There have been many great small regions over the years, but middle-sized and larger regions more often possess those qualities that players find attractive. Regions that are already larger should receive a larger portion of the new nations that are spawning. Otherwise, the game runs the risk of spawning new nations into undeveloped and underdeveloped regions.

I don't think the simple formula that I suggest above would be terribly difficult to code if the admins are already creating frontiers (a very difficult task). The formula would be a comparatively small addition to an enormously large project. A new nation's chance of spawning in a particular region would be proportional to the region's current share of WA members. If one frontier has 20 WA members and another has 100 WA members, then a new nation would have 20 chances of spawning in the first frontier and 100 chances of spawning in the second.

I don't value political inequality personally, but if the admin team wants to give the feeders a bonus, then give the feeders a multiplier (such as 2x) or a top-off (such as 200 extra chances). Don't give them a static percentage of new nations. It's uncompetitive and partially undermines what I take to be the purpose of this project -- i.e., counteracting growth in the GCRs and shrinkage in the UCRs.*

* Although the number of WA members is about the same, the number of UCRs with WA delegates has fallen by around 40% over the past five years or so. That strongly suggests that power has been dramatically shifting from middle-sized UCRs (with a few dozen players) to mega-regions (GCRs and the largest UCRs).

[Haganham]

Sedge, while this is still in the development stage, I'd like to offer two amendments.

First, the game should move from random spawning to directed spawning. Right now, when a new nation is created, it appears in its new region as a matter of chance. Let's call this random spawning. If the game had a system of directed spawning, new nations would not appear in their new regions as a matter of chance. Instead, they would be directed to regions with nations like theirs.

On the nation creation page, the first thing a new player does is choose the kind of nation he wants:

Anarchic	Libertarian	Capitalist
Liberal	Centrist	Conservative
Socialist	Authoritarian	Tyrannical
	Random

Rather than have new nations spawn in random regions, why not have new nations spawn in regions with likeminded nations?

I posted a bit about this a while back. The biggest hurdle is that the nation creation questionnaire is a really rough way of categorizing nations, it's designed to give nations a start with generating stats and policies, not sort them thematically.

What do you think? At present my thought is "equal probability".

One of the ideas i've been thinking about is if we could alter the questions nations players answer at nation creation to make them more useful for predicting what sort of themes and alignments they would prefer in a region(IE: asking if it's appropriate for stronger nation to conquer their neighbors to determine not just how militaristic they are and how big their defense forces are, but how they would fall in the raider/defender alignment), as a way to help regions tailor their recruitment telegrams to focus on suitable nations and help the suggested find a region page suggest more suitable regions. If something like this were implemented it might be useful for founding's too.

[Sedgistan]

My main concern here is this: A new nation is created, and it has an equal chance of spawning in a 3-month-old region with 5 WA members as in a 3-year-old region with 200 WA members.

I think you've missed an aspect of the plan - the OP does have an up-to-date summary of it - because what you say is not correct:

There are some factors that affect "spawning rates" in Frontiers:

• Length of time region has existed (strongly favouring those that have been around at least a week, with some tapering benefits for older regions)
• Verified Delegate endorsements (favouring those with at least a few endorsements, with some further limited tapering benefits for regions with more)
• Whether a welcome telegram has been set
• Password set - no spawns
• Transitioning to Stronghold - no spawns
• No WA residents - no spawns
• Population over 5,000 nations - no spawns

[Wymondham]

My main concern here is this: A new nation is created, and it has an equal chance of spawning in a 3-month-old region with 5 WA members as in a 3-year-old region with 200 WA members.

I think you've missed an aspect of the plan - the OP does have an up-to-date summary of it - because what you say is not correct:

There are some factors that affect "spawning rates" in Frontiers:

• Length of time region has existed (strongly favouring those that have been around at least a week, with some tapering benefits for older regions)
• Verified Delegate endorsements (favouring those with at least a few endorsements, with some further limited tapering benefits for regions with more)
• Whether a welcome telegram has been set
• Password set - no spawns
• Transitioning to Stronghold - no spawns
• No WA residents - no spawns
• Population over 5,000 nations - no spawns

Will the precise weightings behind each factor and the formula used to calculate in which frontier a nation spawnes be published?

[Sedgistan]

No plans to at present. My ethos for game design is to keep some details of numbers back, though I appreciate that's not the way the world is going.

[Galiantus III]

Distribution between Feeders/Frontiers: aside from the complexity point, this is something that I would suggest be considered post-implementation of F/S. The intention remains to preserve a level of the inequality of Feeders and 50% seems a reasonable adjustment to me; note also that the plan already includes some dynamics around the chances of nations spawning in certain Frontiers based on conditions within those regions.

My main concern here is this: A new nation is created, and it has an equal chance of spawning in a 3-month-old region with 5 WA members as in a 3-year-old region with 200 WA members. There have been many great small regions over the years, but middle-sized and larger regions more often possess those qualities that players find attractive. Regions that are already larger should receive a larger portion of the new nations that are spawning. Otherwise, the game runs the risk of spawning new nations into undeveloped and underdeveloped regions.

I don't think the simple formula that I suggest above would be terribly difficult to code if the admins are already creating frontiers (a very difficult task). The formula would be a comparatively small addition to an enormously large project. A new nation's chance of spawning in a particular region would be proportional to the region's current share of WA members. If one frontier has 20 WA members and another has 100 WA members, then a new nation would have 20 chances of spawning in the first frontier and 100 chances of spawning in the second.

I don't value political inequality personally, but if the admin team wants to give the feeders a bonus, then give the feeders a multiplier (such as 2x) or a top-off (such as 200 extra chances). Don't give them a static percentage of new nations. It's uncompetitive and partially undermines what I take to be the purpose of this project -- i.e., counteracting growth in the GCRs and shrinkage in the UCRs.*

* Although the number of WA members is about the same, the number of UCRs with WA delegates has fallen by around 40% over the past five years or so. That strongly suggests that power has been dramatically shifting from middle-sized UCRs (with a few dozen players) to mega-regions (GCRs and the largest UCRs).

Let me preface this by saying that I am happy with the current proposal. However, I would like to provide a counterargument to the perspective on proportional spawning: When we first discussed spawn distribution, I was (and still am) in favor of giving frontiers an equal chance of nation spawns. The reason is to motivate gameplay in the smaller regions, which could either fall and cease to be frontiers, or could ascend to become a major world power. It encourages the formation of factions that would otherwise just pile into a single region to simplify administration. And this further encourages politics within factions themselves, both positive and negative. While I can understand the desire to allocate nation spawns proportional to region power, too much proportionality would have a stabilizing effect. I'd rather not discourage the more politically interesting situations that could arise from treating frontiers as territory with inherent value, instead of pile-in power generators.

[Comfed]

My main concern here is this: A new nation is created, and it has an equal chance of spawning in a 3-month-old region with 5 WA members as in a 3-year-old region with 200 WA members. There have been many great small regions over the years, but middle-sized and larger regions more often possess those qualities that players find attractive. Regions that are already larger should receive a larger portion of the new nations that are spawning. Otherwise, the game runs the risk of spawning new nations into undeveloped and underdeveloped regions.

I don't think the simple formula that I suggest above would be terribly difficult to code if the admins are already creating frontiers (a very difficult task). The formula would be a comparatively small addition to an enormously large project. A new nation's chance of spawning in a particular region would be proportional to the region's current share of WA members. If one frontier has 20 WA members and another has 100 WA members, then a new nation would have 20 chances of spawning in the first frontier and 100 chances of spawning in the second.

I don't value political inequality personally, but if the admin team wants to give the feeders a bonus, then give the feeders a multiplier (such as 2x) or a top-off (such as 200 extra chances). Don't give them a static percentage of new nations. It's uncompetitive and partially undermines what I take to be the purpose of this project -- i.e., counteracting growth in the GCRs and shrinkage in the UCRs.*

* Although the number of WA members is about the same, the number of UCRs with WA delegates has fallen by around 40% over the past five years or so. That strongly suggests that power has been dramatically shifting from middle-sized UCRs (with a few dozen players) to mega-regions (GCRs and the largest UCRs).

Let me preface this by saying that I am happy with the current proposal. However, I would like to provide a counterargument to the perspective on proportional spawning: When we first discussed spawn distribution, I was (and still am) in favor of giving frontiers an equal chance of nation spawns. The reason is to motivate gameplay in the smaller regions, which could either fall and cease to be frontiers, or could ascend to become a major world power. It encourages the formation of factions that would otherwise just pile into a single region to simplify administration. And this further encourages politics within factions themselves, both positive and negative. While I can understand the desire to allocate nation spawns proportional to region power, too much proportionality would have a stabilizing effect. I'd rather not discourage the more politically interesting situations that could arise from treating frontiers as territory with inherent value, instead of pile-in power generators.

The problem with this is that there would be so few nations spread to each frontier that it would be silly for any big region to opt for a switch to Frontier. Your idea does not favour a broad sense of more interesting political activity - if favours a specific kind of imperialistic gameplay activity.

[Galiantus III]

Let me preface this by saying that I am happy with the current proposal. However, I would like to provide a counterargument to the perspective on proportional spawning: When we first discussed spawn distribution, I was (and still am) in favor of giving frontiers an equal chance of nation spawns. The reason is to motivate gameplay in the smaller regions, which could either fall and cease to be frontiers, or could ascend to become a major world power. It encourages the formation of factions that would otherwise just pile into a single region to simplify administration. And this further encourages politics within factions themselves, both positive and negative. While I can understand the desire to allocate nation spawns proportional to region power, too much proportionality would have a stabilizing effect. I'd rather not discourage the more politically interesting situations that could arise from treating frontiers as territory with inherent value, instead of pile-in power generators.

The problem with this is that there would be so few nations spread to each frontier that it would be silly for any big region to opt for a switch to Frontier.

... and? A big region (with an active founder) has little reason to switch, regardless. Also, there is a practical limit to how spread out a faction can be, due to security, organizational challenges, activity, etc. Basically, any frontier below a certain size would just be impractical to maintain, so what you're imagining with there being tons of tiny frontiers is unrealistic.

Your idea does not favour a broad sense of more interesting political activity - if favours a specific kind of imperialistic gameplay activity.

It favors a certain category of imperialistic activity, by design. And it does so in a way that expands current gameplay options. Currently the kind of gameplay I am describing isn't really possible - or in the cases where it is only sort-of possible, it is hollow. But importantly, the way this proposal is structured doesn't detract from existing modes of play - feeders, sinkers, and regular UCRs can essentially continue as they are. I don't see a problem with opening up another avenue of play that has the potential to be extremely compelling and rich for those interested in it.

[Haganham]

The problem with this is that there would be so few nations spread to each frontier that it would be silly for any big region to opt for a switch to Frontier. Your idea does not favour a broad sense of more interesting political activity - if favours a specific kind of imperialistic gameplay activity.

I don't see a problem with this. Big regions are very difficult to raid, so they pay the lowest cost for frontier status. I don't see why they should get a larger share when they face the smallest risk. And the whole point of this change is to open up more regions to imperialistic gameplay

[Galiantus III]

There are some factors that affect "spawning rates" in Frontiers:

• Length of time region has existed (strongly favouring those that have been around at least a week, with some tapering benefits for older regions)
• Verified Delegate endorsements (favouring those with at least a few endorsements, with some further limited tapering benefits for regions with more)
• Whether a welcome telegram has been set
• Password set - no spawns
• Transitioning to Stronghold - no spawns
• No WA residents - no spawns
• Population over 5,000 nations - no spawns

Those factors aside, spawnings are equally shared between Frontiers.

Alright. So I noticed an exploit within these rules that I don't think is desirable. Basically, every single player is capable of indefinitely maintaining control of a single frontier that is older than a week, regardless of the actions of others. Here's how:

Step 1: Found a bunch of new strongholds with about 30 puppets. Put a password, set a welcome telegram, give yourself an RO role with all the powers, and start the transition to a Frontier.

Step 2: After two weeks, activate one of your Frontiers: Join the WA with the nation in that region, and use your RO powers to remove the password. Your region is now eligible to spawn as many nations as one player could reasonably hope for. It is well beyond the one-week barrier, you have a welcome telegram set, there is no password on the region, it isn't transitioning, you are a WA resident, and the region is in no danger of ever exceeding 5,000 nations any time soon.

Step 3. If your active Frontier is invaded, resign from the WA and activate the next Frontier. Leave your puppet in the invaded region until it is banned. If it is only ejected and you have the opportunity, move back in order to keep the invaders occupied. Replenish your collection password protected frontiers as necessary.

In theory, a player could generally maintain a live Frontier nearly 24/7, excluding a few hiccups during update when transitioning in response to a raid. In practice, this would be incredibly annoying even if the player only cycled their regions once every 24 hours, because dismantling any of these regions in one update would require an updater force 15 strong - at a minimum. (15 because that is the amount of influence required to ban a nation that has been in a region for an update more than two weeks).

Of course, the golden question is "would anyone actually do this?". And I think the answer to that is a resounding "yes", because with the right WFE and welcome telegram it is passive recruitment - just check on things once every 24 hours, make any necessary adjustments, and forget about it until tomorrow. Oh - and you can have a team of people do this to scale.

Also, this is the high-effort, min-maxed version. The low-effort version is to just directly found a new Frontier any time your old one is destroyed: "favoring" and "strongly favoring" imply a non-zero spawning rate; sure, it's definitely nowhere near as effective as following the steps above, but it is still something.

What this means is the largest regions in the game will have giant recruitment farms, possibly dozens of Frontiers strong, in order to try and outcompete each other. And some will go and tag-raid each other's farms as a form of warfare to expand their influence even further. Let's also consider that certain large regions are opposed to the development of this whole concept, and would happily spam frontiers just for the sake of digging a deeper hole. Under these conditions, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect several hundred frontiers to become the norm.

The spawn factor changes based on WA population/endorsements help to ensure there are X number of actual people invested in that region.

I'd like some clarification on what this precisely means, because it is relevant to the viability of this apparent exploit. Are there any combinations of region age and endorsements that can result in a factor of zero? Because nothing in the OP suggests anything other than younger regions get fewer spawns than older regions, and regions with fewer endorsements get fewer spawns than those with more. "Fewer" can be non-zero. The only situations that explicitly result in a factor of zero are a password, transitioning, lack of WA members, and having 5,000 or more nations. This, in combination with "Those factors aside, spawnings are equally shared between Frontiers" implies anything outside these situations produces a non-zero spawn factor.

[Sandaoguo]

That doesn’t sound like an exploit. NS allows people to create multiple regions with multiple accounts. Creating a new Frontier if your current one is invaded and destroyed is an obvious path players would take— it’s what they do right now with Founderless regions.

Also, large regions have been planning to use Frontiers as recruitment farms since the inception of this feature.

[Galiantus III]

I am aware, but the idea that factions would play goalie against each other has been a major stipulation of this whole plan. There is no reason to try and control the competition if the best efforts can be immediately nullified. It's a waste of time. Everyone will personally be better off playing the same game with their own frontier farm, or tagging other frontier farms.

---

Since I'm raising this issue, I'm also going raise a potential solution:

1. Whenever a frontier becomes eligible for new spawns, there is a three day period before spawning actually begins.
2. Delegates may cancel or reinstate spawn eligibility for zero influence cost. Canceling happens instantly, but reinstating eligibility is subject to the three day delay.

This ensures there is always a period for other frontiers to respond to protect their own spawn rates, and the difficulty of doing so is based on the region's size and political connections. It won't be impossible for one-nation frontiers to make it through, but getting one that way will be more like winning at roulette than printing your own money: you would have to know a bit about which portion of the week you are least likely to be targeted, and maybe get lucky and land close behind a large region in the update order. Playing defensively during update would also help.

[Sedgistan]

I am very wary of providing ETAs for technical changes, as anyone who has been around NS for a while knows that these often shift, and then people use the missed dates as a stick to beat staff with. However, I would prefer to be transparent and share estimates when I can, on the proviso that people people understand that no timings are set in stone. Otherwise, you'll just get a stock "soon™" answer instead.

Currently, admin is hopeful that they will be able to complete the bulk of coding and commence testing in the first quarter of next year (2023).

I've had some further feedback from Violet on names of some of the aspects being introduced in F/S (e.g. "Anchor"), so potentially some of those will change.

[Waterfall State]

Not sure if this has been asked before, but how do we join the testing phase of this upcoming change. Is it invite only, or do we make some sort of application somewhere?