Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Quebecshire]

That sort of customization (or something quite similar to it) was actually a feature under NS++ for both Founders and WA Delegates before everything... uh... broke.

I'd love to see it added as a feature. Giving region-builders more customization options, even if largely cosmetic, is much appreciated.

[Sedgistan]

Violet likes the idea, so she'll look into feasibility. If it's too much complexity for now, it won't happen pre-launch, as I don't want to see Frontiers delayed.

I know historically "it'll come later" might mean "in a decade" or "never" in NS terms, but we do have more tech staff now, so things are different.

[The Ambis]

To confirm something, only the governor can elect a successor, correct?

[Wish For Love And Peace]

If a founder/governor of a non-frontier region were to cease to exist without appointing a successor, their nation would still be governor upon their return, correct?

I read the first and last five pages but did not find an answer. Should the release of this patch include an FAQ, perhaps you might add this alongside "If a founder appoints a successor and ceases to exist, will their nation still be the governor upon their return?", which was answered a few pages back.

[Sedgistan]

Yes and yes to both those questions.

Two other things have come up since we've ditched the "Governor Emeritus" concept that need some quick thought. Originally the plan was that a Frontier switching back to "Stronghold" would by default have the Governor Emeritus become Governor again on completing the change. If that nation didn't exist, the Delegate would. If the Delegate changed during the switch, the switching process extended.

Now: it's intended that whoever is the Delegate will automatically become Governor on completion of the switch. However, the Delegate can change during the transition, and the new Delegate may end up becoming Governor if they hold the position to the end of the switching phase.

What happens if there is no Delegate on the switching phase completing? It's possible if the nation CTEs or resigns. Does the region transition to "Stronghold" and just doesn't have a Governor? Or is the process aborted? Or extended?

An alternative would be that the Delegate nominates themselves to become Governor, initiating the process, and everyone knows from the start that this nation will become Governor (rather than some other nation that steals the Delegacy partway through). Obviously it can still fail if someone else does pinch the Delegacy and cancels the process.

I'm inclined to go for the latter option as it's neater and simpler to comprehend.

[Onionist Randosia]

Out of curiosity, a) is there a certain amount of time that a Delegate must hold power for in order for them to nominate a new Governor for the transition to Stronghold, and b) will Governors still retain the Founder privilege of being able to eject and ban nations without an influence cost? I imagine both of these would be subjects of interest to members of the R/D community

[Sedgistan]

Out of curiosity, a) is there a certain amount of time that a Delegate must hold power for in order for them to nominate a new Governor for the transition to Stronghold, and b) will Governors still retain the Founder privilege of being able to eject and ban nations without an influence cost? I imagine both of these would be subjects of interest to members of the R/D community

a) No, but there is an influence cost to doing so.
b) Yes. Governors effectively take on all the powers that Founders previously held.

[Waterfall State]

What happens if there is no Delegate on the switching phase completing? It's possible if the nation CTEs or resigns. Does the region transition to "Stronghold" and just doesn't have a Governor? Or is the process aborted? Or extended?

If this option is going forward, the Delegate should still be the new governor in the event that they CTE at the region update that the transition finishes and then the region just turns into a governor-less region. If they resign/get deated mid-way the transition to stronghold process should be halted. If that gets stopped immediately, at region update or just resumes as normal if another nation gets the delegacy at update, I'll let others answer that.

An alternative would be that the Delegate nominates themselves to become Governor, initiating the process, and everyone knows from the start that this nation will become Governor (rather than some other nation that steals the Delegacy partway through). Obviously it can still fail if someone else does pinch the Delegacy and cancels the process.

I am leaning more with this option. But I think there should be an option for the nation that steals the delegacy during the transition to nominate themselves and have the timer to transition increase if they proceed with it, unless the intention is to have the mentioned nation simply just start the transition to stronghold all over again.

I know I have personally not participated much in the discussions but that's just my two cents.

On another note, if a new founder/governor elects to select frontier as a region in the create region and they do not match the criteria to start having nation spawns, is it intended for said region to be turned similarly into the current non-passworded regions with non-executive founders

[Tinhampton]

If a Governor resigns with no successor, who is the new Governor? (And if it's the WA Delegate but the Governor resigns with no Delegate present either, then who?)

[Sedgistan]

If a Governor resigns with no successor, who is the new Governor? (And if it's the WA Delegate but the Governor resigns with no Delegate present either, then who?)

No-one.

[Gorundu]

I don't know if you guys are still taking suggestions on names...but if you are, can I suggest changing the name "Governor" to "Guardian"? I feel like Governor makes the position sound a step less important than the Founder - the IRL usage of the term "Governor" is usually for the heads of sub-national administrative divisions, which I think naturally makes it feel like a role of lower significance. The name "Guardian" suggests someone is entrusted to guard the region and would be reasonably expected to have substantial powers to do so.

[Sedgistan]

Violet has already changed "Founder" to "Governor" in several hundred places in the codebase. I might get DOSed if I suggest changing terminology again.

[Quebecshire]

The term "Guardian" is also already common vocabulary in several regions (TWP, Osiris) in an official sense, and casual language for security officers to many people anyway.

[Improper Classifications]

Violet has already changed "Founder" to "Governor" in several hundred places in the codebase. I might get DOSed if I suggest changing terminology again.

“You don’t have to change it everywhere, just where it visually matters-“
Disgraced: This name was soiled by a former nation.

In all seriousness, this would work with Refuge’s plan.

[The Ambis]

Violet has already changed "Founder" to "Governor" in several hundred places in the codebase. I might get DOSed if I suggest changing terminology again.

LOL. Does ctrl+f not work?

[Panagouge]

Violet has already changed "Founder" to "Governor" in several hundred places in the codebase. I might get DOSed if I suggest changing terminology again.

LOL. Does ctrl+f not work?

And thennnnnnnn?

It doesn't find and replace for you. NS code isn't a Google Doc.

[The Ambis]

LOL. Does ctrl+f not work?

And thennnnnnnn?

It doesn't find and replace for you. NS code isn't a Google Doc.

Fair

[Sedgistan]

Okay, things are moving quickly.

An alternative would be that the Delegate nominates themselves to become Governor, initiating the process, and everyone knows from the start that this nation will become Governor (rather than some other nation that steals the Delegacy partway through). Obviously it can still fail if someone else does pinch the Delegacy and cancels the process.

That is now going to be how it works. It avoids the tricky questions like "what if there is no Delegate when the process completes". It does take away a little of the excitement that someone could ride in fairly late on and hijack the process that someone else has paid the influence cost for, but I think the simplicity is preferable. And there are still 2 ways to avoid an unwanted to-be Governor: 1) SC resolution, 2) take the delegacy and cancel the process.

"Governor" is staying as "Governor". "Guardian" wasn't felt to be preferable.

The horrible "Anchor" name for the SC proposal that prevents this switching of region type has been binned. Instead we're looking at Injunction / Injunct (Interdiction / Interdict was a second choice) as a name. However, we need an icon designed for it, the same way that Liberations/Condemns/Commends have one.

If someone wants to design an appropriate shiny badge, then I can offer some (consensual) mod abuse of your nation's custom fields, or a custom forum title, as a reward for the winning choice.

A shield may be a good starting point for what to put on the badge, but other ideas are welcome.

[Sedgistan]

The question was asked offsite if we would consider replacing the existing Condemn/Commend/Liberate icons if someone designed a whole modern set. The answer is yes.

[Tinhampton]

will happily take any feedback

I have none. Those are inordinately beautiful.

In principle: Will holders of current Commendations, Condemnations and Liberations have the new badges retrofitted onto their nation and region pages, or will they keep the 2009-era badges?

[Sedgistan]

In principle: Will holders of current Commendations, Condemnations and Liberations have the new badges retrofitted onto their nation and region pages, or will they keep the 2009-era badges?

New badges, if that's the way we go.

I’m scared of saying this, and I get why the answer is most likely “no” but has a resolution type for forcibly switching a region been considered? (Obviously, If previously locked it wouldn’t work)

Not considered, and unlikely to be. Frontiers are meant to be opt-in.

I really like Courelli's images so far, but don't want to discourage others from having a shot. The Ambis - I wouldn't recommend the padlock symbol for Liberations, it doesn't feel "IC" enough; it's too much of a reference to the basic game mechanics.

[The Ambis]

The Ambis - I wouldn't recommend the padlock symbol for Liberations, it doesn't feel "IC" enough; it's too much of a reference to the basic game mechanics.

*salute*

[Tinhampton]

Please, please - PLEASE - ignore this post. It wasn't moved over to Chingis' WA icons thread. Behold what I've done here instead.

[Comfed]

Here are my attempts at icons:

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

I like the layout of the badges in these ones a lot.

[Galiantus III]

As it seems we are on the final stretch approaching the release of Frontiers, I must reiterate one criticism of mine. This is not to rain on anyone's parade: I have been an advocate of this change through the whole process, and regardless, I believe the overall effect of this will certainly be a positive one. However, I would also like to insulate the whole project from any overwhelmingly negative reception, should my criticism prove to be valid.

What makes Frontiers such a transformative gameplay idea is the assumed tension between their creation and their destruction. (And by that I don't literally mean "creation" and "destruction", but entering or leaving the pool of spawning regions). In the initial stages of all this, discussion assumed the motivation to create Frontiers would be intense. After all, lots of region builders would love to sacrifice some security for free recruitment. So we spent a lot of time devising hurdles for their creation, to achieve an appropriate balance.

In my opinion, the current iteration of Frontiers does not strike the ideal balance for gameplay. Their creation is too easy, and their destruction is too difficult. I predict the number of Frontiers will quickly balloon out of control, lending very little motivation for their conquest, and landing many new players in small, relatively inactive regions that are less likely to retain them in the game.

That said, I think many goals of the project will still come to fruition, regardless of balance issues. This is sure to result in more vibrant UCRs, shake up the balance of power in the WA, and reduce recruitment spam. And to be fair, I think I lend a bit more importance to the competitive aspect of gameplay than Admin does. So I am hopeful this will work out very well, and eager to concede that the balance of all things was properly considered.

Therefore, I preempt any overwhelming negative perception to this, post-release. The core idea is good, and totally achievable. What remains to be seen is if the balance is right. If there are balance issues, they can be quickly addressed with tweaks that were hashed out specifically to address balance issues. There is no reason to call it a flop and stir the pot if something is just out of tune.