As of 17th December, the below is an up-to-date summary of the plan, which is now on admin's to-do list.
Regions can choose to be either Frontier (formerly "Democracy", also occasionally referred to as "Gateway") or Stronghold (formerly "Autocracy") regions; new region tags would be created for both which would be automatically applied.
"Founder" now becomes a term that purely applies to a nation that founded a region, and has no relation to Executive powers at all. All Founders remain recorded on the front page of regions as they always have.
"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.
Frontiers- Governor(if any) is non-executive; executive power lies solely with the WA Delegate.
- 6 month influence decay as in feeders.
- 50% of newly spawned nations are spawned in Frontier regions rather than feeders.
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.
The intention of these regions is to be high-risk, high-reward. They are extremely vulnerable - you're protected only by WA endorsements and influence (and even then have to watch out for internal coups from Regional Officers). The payoff is that you get "free" nations via spawnings in your region.
The expectation is that these regions would become significant sources of conflict. If you control the one and only Frontier region, you're ruler of NationStates' first gigaregion (up to 5,000 nations). If a competitor crops up, it could steal half your influx of nations - so your incentive is to crush it. I would expect to see regular warring between "Frontier" regions as they look to eliminate rivals.
I was interested in having a "game over" scenario for these regions - i.e. the ability to conquer or destroy them permanently, but I think it overcomplicates this change adding new mechanisms for this. The influence limits and lack of Executive Governor means that the "game over" is the conventional method of emptying a region and passwording it. Further aspects of this are touched on in sections below on switching status. I dislike the idea of them being re-founded for permanent conquest, as part of this overall change is to reduce history-erasing refoundings.
The spawn factor changes based on WA population/endorsements help to ensure there are X number of actual people invested in that region. I do not want people to be able to found dozens of Frontier regions that are eligible to receive new nations, or there's an incentive to have The Moon 1, The Moon 2, The Moon 3, etc., funneling nations towards one central region.
Strongholds- Like regions currently are, but the Governor can appoint a Successor, who takes over Executive status should the Governor CTE.
- Governors with a live Successor appointed can abdicate their position without needing to wait until they CTE.
That's really it for how they're different. The intention is for these to provide an additional layer of security for regions uninterested in R/D, and to reduce the need for messy refoundings, which erase regional history. There is a slight double-edged sword element to it, as yes, someone could infiltrate a region long-term in order to be appointed Successor.
A Successor is appointed as a Regional Officer position, and only one can be named. As it's an RO position, the chosen Successor can therefore resign the position. A Successor takes over
immediately on the Governor ceasing to exist. If the Successor has CTEd before the Governor does, then the Successor does not take over the position.
Abdication is a subsequent addition to this plan, and is necessary because otherwise a Governor wishing to hand over the reins would have to CTE first - we don't want to incentivise that behaviour. At present this is only intended to be possible when a live (non-CTEd) Successor is appointed; if the Governor wants to turn the region into a Governorless (non-executive Governor) one they should consider Frontier status.
Existing Regions and Switching StatusAll existing regions will automatically become Stronghold regions by default.
Switching status is possible both ways, so that regions can decide both now, and in the future, how they want to be governed.
Stronghold to Frontier - someone with Executive power can make the transition (i.e. Governor if present, Delegate if no Governor present / Governor has enabled Executive powers for the Delegate). There is a hefty influence cost if done by a Delegate; at least the amount for setting a secret password. This then has a 2 week time period to take effect. Anyone with Executive powers can cancel it during this period with no cost. I know there are concerns regarding Delegates initiating this switch, with suggestions it should take longer if they do it. I'm not convinced by this - if the Governor doesn't want to worry about this they should remove Executive powers from the Delegate.
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.
Security Council Category: "Anchor" - which prevents the transition (either way) from taking effect if an Executive Governor is not present in the region -- i.e. this is the same situation as Liberations taking effect with regards to current Founders; the intent here being that the SC cannot prevent an Executive Governor transitioning their region to Frontier status.
Why?The main advantages of this change are:
- Reduces the over-sized feeders
- Dilutes GCR influence
- Gives a more lasting/reliable opt-out from being invaded for those that want it
- Reduces messy re-foundings, which wipe regional history
- Includes a significant incentive for there to be a good number of "invadable" regions
- Incentivises invading these regions
- Creates a more "consensual" R/D game
- Gives the SC new tools with teeth
Are there any recruitment changes included in this?No. It's been discussed, but I don't want to tie reforms to recruitment into this change, although obviously it will affect where nations spawn. TG-related recruitment falls under Kat's Communications (Gameside) portfolio, but some other aspects (e.g. a new "find a region" page) are mine. These are handled in other threads.
Can we get a Global Chat with this, as I'm concerned Frontier RMBs won't be active enough for new players?I ran this past admin; a global chat isn't possible separate from the planned forum/RMB overhaul, so it won't be coming with this change.
I would expect that for the most case, nations spawning in Frontiers would find their starting region to be very active. Any region opting for Frontier is doing so for the benefits of those new spawns, and thus has every interest in making the same effort that Feeders do to retain those nations. Those that are inactive face having their region taken, and those that are new will have to be highly active to maintain their security. I also think it is beneficial, for the most part, for nations to spawn in regions that might be in the midst of conflict, as it provides meaningful in-game events for them to immediately get involved in. So overall I don't see this new player experience being the issue that some think.
Aren't Sinkers/puppet dumps too large as well?Yes. Sinkers face a different challenge though, in that the nations they get are not generally new players who might get involved in their region, so cutting down their inflow might just harm their activity further. I'm open to ideas for addressing their size, but feel they should be separate to this change. Puppet dump related changes also need to be handled in their own threads.
Why not make Feeders into Frontier regions?I view it as a positive for the game to have a diversity of region types, as it encourages different player behaviours, provides for interesting interactions between them, and some players suit certain region types better than others. Feeders are part of that patchwork that also includes Sinkers (both types), Warzones, Frontiers and Strongholds.
On a more controversial note, I also like a level of inbuilt inequality within the game -- for example when people complain about Delegate voting power (meaning their endorsing nations effectively vote twice on proposals) being both unfair and undemocratic, I nod, and think yes - and that's good for the game, as it encourages people to build power bases, lobby etc. And having some regions that have an inbuilt status as being more powerful offers similar benefits - the regions are more prestigious, positions there are something many players aspire (and conspire) towards, and it ensures there are some mega-Delegates in the game. But it's gone a bit too far towards favouring this, and part of this change is about reducing (but not eliminating) that inequality.
Same answer applies to questions about making Warzones into Frontier regions.