Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Sedgistan]

That's kind of a "Cards DM question" because they make the call on those kinds of things when new seasons come out.

I'd expect it to probably be Governor, since as discussed above, the Founder position is going to end up being essentially a historical footnote.

[Quebecshire]

I'd expect it to probably be Governor, since as discussed above, the Founder position is going to end up being essentially a historical footnote.

Somewhat adjacent to this, rarity aside, it would be cool if we could keep the Founder badge, and maybe a new one be created for Governors?

[Improper Classifications]

I'd expect it to probably be Governor, since as discussed above, the Founder position is going to end up being essentially a historical footnote.

Somewhat adjacent to this, rarity aside, it would be cool if we could keep the Founder badge, and maybe a new one be created for Governors?

I'd appreciate this too - it separates the idea of founding a region from leading a region.

[Tinhampton]

I said 18 months ago that "tagging [Frontier] and Stronghold regions as such, like Feeders and Sinkers are, might be useful for these purposes and others not specified here."

While I reaffirm that suggestion, I also think that adding Warzone-style header notices about whether a region is a Frontier or a Stronghold - and how the chosen region type works - would make the distinction between the two region types more obvious, especially for new players.

Examples of how I see this being implemented are below. Obviously these are oversimplifications - the section on spawning doesn't apply to passworded, WA-less, or large Frontiers, for instance - but it should help players get a good introductory handle on the mechanics.

[Sedgistan]

I think question one is whether Frontiers will have an associated regional tag. The answer is yes.

Will there be something on a Frontier page to explain what it is / how it is different to a normal region - yes, the intention is to have that.

You'll note I've mentioned this for Frontiers only. It's a possibility that the term "Stronghold" (and the various alternatives we've considered) won't be used at all. Instead those will just be regular regions without a particular label/name. Frontiers, will (like Feeder, Catcher, Restorer, Warzone, School) be one of the region types that is different from a standard region.

[Improper Classifications]

I am curious about one thing - will current GCRs (sinkers, feeders, TRR, etc.) be permanently anchored as a Frontier or founderless Stronghold?

[Sedgistan]

Neither. They remain what they are at present. The only difference any existing GCRs will experience is that Feeders will have a 50% reduction in the number of nations founding within them.

[Cappedore]

I think question one is whether Frontiers will have an associated regional tag. The answer is yes.

Will there be something on a Frontier page to explain what it is / how it is different to a normal region - yes, the intention is to have that.

You'll note I've mentioned this for Frontiers only. It's a possibility that the term "Stronghold" (and the various alternatives we've considered) won't be used at all. Instead those will just be regular regions without a particular label/name. Frontiers, will (like Feeder, Catcher, Restorer, Warzone, School) be one of the region types that is different from a standard region.

Maybe a certain colour for the region name? A border around the flag? Or something in the WFE that comes as default to all Frontier regions?

I know you haven't figured them out yet. I'm just pooling ideas for you guys.

[Quebecshire]

Maybe a certain colour for the region name? A border around the flag?

More customization for the region page should be open to all regions, but that's a discussion for elsewhere.

I imagine the tags (and maybe what Tinhampton posted) would suffice for what is unique to frontiers.

[One Small Island]

Will there be something on a Frontier page to explain what it is / how it is different to a normal region - yes, the intention is to have that.

Maybe a certain colour for the region name? A border around the flag? Or something in the WFE that comes as default to all Frontier regions?

I don't think that Frontiers should have a fancy color for their region name, or something in the WFE that comes special to being a frontier.

I assume that the "something" that will be on the frontier page to explain what it is, will be similar to the "something" on a Warzone that explains what it is. Which is (for those who don't know) a note just below the regional banner that reads "[Region] is a Warzone! The WA Delegate may eject nations as it pleases but bans are temporary. There is no founder and the region cannot be password protected!"

So I assume that the "something" that will be on the frontier pages will read similarly "[Region] is a Frontier! [explanation of what that means]"

Which really, is all I think they need.

[Juansonia]

Can a Successor resign their position as such like a Governor can?

"Successor" will be just another RO power. ROs can resign their position.

"A Successor is appointed as a Regional Officer position." Will it count towards the limit of twelve or will the RO limit be bumped up to 12+1 for Strongholds to account for this?

Hasn't been considered.

Perhaps separate successorhood from ROs, so it doesn't matter whether the successor happens to be an RO or not.

[Flanderlion]

"Successor" will be just another RO power. ROs can resign their position.
Hasn't been considered.

Perhaps separate successorhood from ROs, so it doesn't matter whether the successor happens to be an RO or not.

RO slots should be unlimited, just the other powers should be more limited. So max 1 successor appointed, max 1 governor appointed, max 12 BC powers appointed etc. But if a region wants to give every member a RO position 'citizen' with polls powers, they should be able to.

Edit: Or give every region member a RO position 'pleb' with no powers.

[Improper Classifications]

Perhaps separate successorhood from ROs, so it doesn't matter whether the successor happens to be an RO or not.

RO slots should be unlimited, just the other powers should be more limited. So max 1 successor appointed, max 1 governor appointed, max 12 BC powers appointed etc. But if a region wants to give every member a RO position 'citizen' with polls powers, they should be able to.

Edit: Or give every region member a RO position 'pleb' with no powers.

Or give nations multiple RO positions, like in Hanseatic League where multiple nations hold a single RO position that encompasses multiple offices. The purpose of this would be to be able to resign one position, and lose the powers of that region, but keep the other.

[New Dominioan]

Apologies if a question like this has been asked before.


Asking about my region Bluecrown Keep. Founder account is dead, so would I be able to pass the governor position down to another nation even though there is no founder to appoint a successor?

Never mind. Looked back and found some answers.

[The Ambis]

Apologies if a question like this has been asked before.


Asking about my region Bluecrown Keep. Founder account is dead, so would I be able to pass the governor position down to another nation even though there is no founder to appoint a successor?

Never mind. Looked back and found some answers.

From what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) you would have to make the transition to a frontier, then back, upon which point your delegate should automatically become a governor, holding executive power, which is equivalent to todays founders

[Sedgistan]

Frontiers won't quite be ready by the end of the month, but they shouldn't be far off. Violet is confident she'll have completed both coding and a period of staff testing by the end of the month. However, I'd like a couple of weeks with players beta testing it on the "Playground" (NS3) before we launch, so at present we're looking likely to be mid-April for this to go live on NS proper.

As ever, nothing is 100%.

[The Ambis]

Lovely stuff! Highly looking forward to this.
Quick question: Is [v] or any of the other admin anticipating downtime to add it in, or will they just appear?

[Quebecshire]

Frontiers won't quite be ready by the end of the month, but they shouldn't be far off. Violet is confident she'll have completed both coding and a period of staff testing by the end of the month. However, I'd like a couple of weeks with players beta testing it on the "Playground" (NS3) before we launch, so at present we're looking likely to be mid-April for this to go live on NS proper.

As ever, nothing is 100%.

Thanks for the update, Sedge. Two brief questions,

• Can we expect a post here to inform us when it's gone to testing?
• Will we be given a concrete announcement/advance notice, even if just a few days, before the update goes live?

[The Blaatschapen]

Lovely stuff! Highly looking forward to this.
Quick question: Is [v] or any of the other admin anticipating downtime to add it in, or will they just appear?

Quick answer to a quick question : We don't know yet.

[Sedgistan]

My uninformed prediction is there would need to be a short period of downtime, but probably not anything significant.

Thanks for the update, Sedge. Two brief questions,

• Can we expect a post here to inform us when it's gone to testing?
• Will we be given a concrete announcement/advance notice, even if just a few days, before the update goes live?

Testing - yes, I'm trying to keep people as updated as possible when there is something to share. I'd expect to inform people of both stages of testing - i.e. staff testing, and then when the beta testing involving players happens. I don't want people clogging up the thread to volunteer to be beta testers yet, so I'm not doing any organising of that at present, but when we're at that stage, I anticipate having quite a lot of players involved as it's a massive change and needs some quite thorough testing. I would probably look to involve many of those who have been involved in discussions here, as well as major relevant gameplay groups (including R/D ones).

Going live - yes, I'd like to give notice on that. However, there's a limit to how much control I have over a volunteer admin's time, so I can't promise down to the second timing.

[The Ambis]

Thank you both for your response!

[Sedgistan]

Updates on probable small changes:

• As mentioned earlier, the name "Strongholds" is likely to be dropped. Instead a region will just be a regular region, or it can change to a "Frontier". That will be one of the various special region types like the various GCRs, and class regions.
• We're likely looking at allowing multiple Successors, which will effectively be another RO authority, and there will be a hierarchy that determines priority as to who "succeeds".
• "Governor Emeritus" concept is dropped as unnecessary complexity (both conceptually and for coding).
• When a Frontier moves back to "regular region" it will therefore automatically be the Delegate that gains "Governor" status. As originally planned, if the Delegacy changes during the transition phase, that phase is extended, so you can't last-minute snipe a Governor position.
• Governor abdication is likely to be enabled regardless of whether Successors are appointed. It was considered pointless to prevent this, since there were ways around achieving the same (odd) goal.
• Some tweaks to spawning rates in Frontiers. Some of that is to factors that won't be revealed, however one is that "No WA residents - no spawns" is likely to move to a check on whether there's a WA Delegate, as that's a much simpler check to make.

I will fully confirm changes as things progress, definitely by the time we're at beta testing stage, since we'll have players running amok on the NS3 "playground" then anyway.

[Reventus Koth]

"Governor Emeritus" concept is dropped as unnecessary complexity (both conceptually and for coding).

May I clarify exactly what you mean by this? There are two interpretations I can think of: one being that separating "Governor Emeritus" from "Founder" as a concept is being dropped, and the other being that everything you described previously as being "Governor Emeritus" is being dropped, including Founder. The latter interpretation would affect all of the previously established functions of the Governor Emeritus:

"Governor" is introduced as a new term to recognise a nation that has permanent Executive powers that can be used without influence cost. These get recognised on the region pages of Strongholds. "Governor Emeritus" is introduced to recognise the last Governor of a region that has now transitioned to Frontier status, and are recognised on the region page of Frontiers, but have no powers. All current Executive Founders become Governors.

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 Frontier status! If the Governor Emeritus still exists, then they will regain Executive status on the transition completing. If the Governor Emeritus nation does not, then the Delegate holding the region at the time of the transition enacting becomes Executive Governor. A password can be set while this switch is ongoing, as "Anchor" (below) is a tool in place to allow these transitions to be blocked. If the Delegate position changes hands during this process, then an additional 3 days are added to the transition time period.

This allows regions to reverse course if they find they no longer want to be Frontiers. It also allows for an element of permanent conquest of Frontiers if the Governor Emeritus nation is no longer present; an invasion can be made "permanent" when the WA Delegate becomes Executive Governor. This also provides a means for governorless Stronghold regions to appoint a new Governor, but they have to go via a convoluted change to Frontier and back.

Basically, what I'm asking is: Do you mean to replace everything you attributed to the GE with "Founder", or are we just dropping those mechanics entirely? That would mean a region could be stolen away from an alive Founder, in theory.

[Sedgistan]

"Governor" still exists, which is effectively the replacement for (current) Founder-level powers/status.

"Governor Emeritus" was only going to exist for regions that had switched over to Frontier status, to recognise who the Governor was when they were a non-Frontier. That nation would have (if not CTEd) become Governor again if the region switched away from Frontier.

[Onionist Randosia]

Is customisation for Governor titles as Refuge Isle suggested

I get the appeal of allowing customisation, but a single term used across the site is much more readily understood by users across the site.

Not sure why one would discount the possibility of the other tbqh. Not saying you're not allowed to use the term "Governor". I'm recommending you allow regional customisation on top of that.



Additionally, if the concept of "Founder" becomes irrelevant, you can remove or relocate "Founder" to below the WFE or /page=region_history if you think it makes the front page "too cluttered".

under consideration?