List of Technical Suggestions for Gameplay Improvement

[Frisbeeteria]

In the interest of providing a baseline list of Technical Suggestions for Gameplay Improvement, here's a place to gather all the various ideas that have been discussed at length.

• For this purpose, we want to keep the list extremely simple.
• This list is a compilation of existing ideas, not a discussion thread. If you have new ideas, feel free to start a thread in Technical.
• Wherever possible, the OP of the idea should be the one posting it here.
• Remember that some of the more interesting ideas came from threadjacks well into the topic. For those, link to the first such post.
• Please try VERY HARD not to post duplicates.

Please use the following format:

Code: Select all

[size=150][b]Summary:[/b] 10 words or less describing the change  [/size]

[b]Proposed by:[/b] [nation] Nationname [/nation]
[b]Link to Technical Thread or Post:[/b]

[b]Brief description:[/b] 200 words or less describing the basic concept, along with pros and cons suggested in the thread
[blocktext][b]Pros[/b]: 
[b]Cons[/b]: [/blocktext]

Example:

---

Summary: New SC Category: Influence "Freeze"

Proposed by: Auralia
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=183757

Brief description: An SC proposal category that would halt influence growth (and possibly decay) in a given region, until repealed.

Pros: would help defenders by preventing growth of raider influence.
Cons: no obvious raider benefit; would take at least 4 days to get approved and voted in.

[Unibot III]

Summary --> New SC Proposal: Reformation

Proposed by: Unibot III
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=201020

Brief description: A WA Category that can wipe endorsements on every nation in a region.

Pros: Makes responding to extreme piling possible; A way to allow for more regime changes in GCRs but without the drawbacks of removing Regional Influence (nearly impossible to liberate).
Cons: Could be used to frustrate foundered regions; Raiders can abandon raids while the vote is passing (although this stops the raid so it's a trade-off); The WASC is greater encroaching on regional sovereignty;

Summary --> Major+ and Minor+ Updates

Proposed by: Unibot III
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?p=9742839#p9742839

Brief description: Two short updates that follow the major and minor updates which only updates the regions that had a delegate change during the major or minor respectively.

Pros: Gives a chance for defenders to liberate a region before raiders can pile a region much; Depending on how much time a Major+ or Minor+ occurs after the Major or Minor, it may give something to do for soldiers in off time-zones; Raiders, if they spotted delegate changes during update, could use these updates to raid as well
Cons: Difficult to predict what time a region would update in the Major+ or Minor+; Admins said no more updates (?);

Summary --> Move the Major Update An Hour Back

Proposed by: Unibot III
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?p=7927293#p7927293

Brief description: Move the Major update from 12 EST to 11 EST. I also discussed moving back the Minor update, but it was suggested that would hurt Europeans and Americans not help them.

Pros: Increases the amount of younger Americans (who have midnight as their bed-time -- which is A LOT) and Europeans can attend the Major update.
Cons: Depending on Day Light Savings Time, Europeans can still be more negatively effected by this changed (the difference of 3 AM and 6 AM is whether you're wanting to catch the late owls or the early-birds);

EDIT: Safe-switching has been accepted by the moderators.

[Galiantus]

Summary: Regional Controls: Resident Access

Proposed by: Galiantus
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=184195&start=468 (first two posts) and viewtopic.php?f=15&t=184195&start=480 (first four posts)

Brief description: Inhabitants of all regions with access to regional controls would have limited access to the regional controls, either by influence cost or complete exclusion from certain powers. One idea in specific was to allow inhabitants to temporarily remove the password on the region, but there could also be permanent blocking from control of the WFE, Tags and Flag. Inhabitants could possibly eject or ban other nations from the region or remove other nations from the ban list, provided they have X amount of influence in relation to the other player or the delegate. Perhaps a certain number of players would be required to perform such operations, besides the influence cost.

Pros: Gets Natives more involved in the R/D game, allows two warring factions to exist in the same region, creates more political conflict inside the regions, influence means more.
Cons: Possibility of puppet-wanking, and makes raiding harder. The raiding problem could be partially corrected by making the WAD immune to ejection from the region, or by raising the cost of ban/ejecting a nation endorsing the delegate.

Edit: Crushing Our Enemies expanded on the limitation side of this idea. The original idea was mine, but his ideas added significantly to my perception of how it could effect gameplay, and I consider his idea legitimate on its own. I also agree with him that there needs to be a large enough limit on this new power in order to protect invaders.

[Riemstagrad]

Summary: Delegate change Pending

Proposed by: riemstagrad
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=184224

Brief description: delegate change will be postponed until the next update. if an update detects that the sitting delegate has no longer the most endorsements, the region will enter a "WA-delegate change pending"-phase, which lasts until the next update. whoever has the most endorsements by that time will become the delegate. The executive powers of the sitting delegate will be limited during that phase.

Pros:
- requirements to participate are drastically lowered --> anyone can participate
- it will boost interregional politics
- update-raiding will still exist
- destruction of regions is made much harder (it should require a heavy effort to destroy a region...)
Cons:

- requires attention to maintain invader-defender balances.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Summary: Don't allow switching WA during update

Proposed by: Klaus Devestatorie
:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=201044

Brief description:To ensure that every raid counts for something, it should not be possible for nations to join the WA during the two periods of time considered to be "update". Only one shot per update.

Pros: Targets chosen by invaders would become more more important. It may boost politically motivated invasions rather than tag runs.
Cons:Reduction in tag raids, some defenders and invaders enjoy and make use of the ability to switch WA during update

Summary: API region update order change

Proposed by: Sichuan Pepper
:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=210966

Brief description:My proposal is to have the information that is readily available via the API that lists regions by update order be changed to alphabetic order.
My reasoning behind this change is there was a major increase in clocked raids when this was made public.
Clock raids being when invaders can pinpoint update of a region precisely and move in seconds before it updated allowing no time for defenders to deploy or native delegates to take defensive measures.

Pros: Less tag raids as precise update time would no longer be readily available
Cons: Less tag raids as precise update time would no longer be readily avaiable

[Mousebumples]

New SC Category idea - Protectorate

Proposed by: Mousebumples

Tech Thread

Brief Description: When passed by the SC, a randomized (visible to residents) password would be imposed on the region. It would override a password previously imposed by a WA Delegate but would not impact a Founder-imposed password. (Similar to how Liberations work.)

Pros:

• It could potentially be used as a form of "protection" from raiders for founderless regions - without needing to cost the native delegate influence.
• It could be used as a precursor to a refound for said regions - either before or after they've been raided - to, again, save delegate influence.
• Possibilities for intrigue, espionage, etc., to try to get the password from said regions.
• Such a tool may encourage more short-term raids (i.e. just to reset the delegate's "clock") versus long-term invasions/griefing by raiders.

Cons:

• It would limit the power that delegates have over their regions, they aren't in "charge" of the password.
• It could be weaponized against "less popular" regions (i.e. Nazis, etc.) to impose a password against the region's will.
• Passwords may kill regions, rather than save them, as it can stifle recruiting attempts.

---

Applying for Foundership

Proposed by: Mousebumples

Right now, this doesn't have it's own thread, as I included it in another, larger, thread discussing the replacement of CTEd founders. The idea itself is first introduced in this post. The entire thread itself is here.

Brief Description: If the WA Delegate of a founder-less region has held the delegacy, continuously, for a set, extended period of time, an "Apply for Foundership" option appears in the Regional Control Panel. If this button is pushed by the WA Delegate, it would start a process (much like the initiation of an Embassy) that make them the founder if they are not replaced as the WA Delegate after a set period of time of relatively short duration.

Pros:

• It would allow founderless regions - with a stable governance from a given WA Delegate - an avenue for self-protection from invasions.
• The "extended period of time" limit should minimize the number of regions to whom such an option applies. The exact time period is certainly negotiable and could be determined by looking at the range of "time served" for current WA Delegate for founderless regions.
• It's could be a use for "non-updater" defender troops. (i.e. non-updaters could move in an endorse the WA Delegate, whenever, if the region is going through the Refound process.)

Cons:

• It would remove some founderless regions from the list of raiding targets. (Although, admittedly, some may view this as a Pro point, but it is a concern that was mentioned in that thread.
• "Founderless regions would disappear in a very short time. The invasion game has been going on for almost 10 years - it would not see it's 12th birthday." - Fris's stated opinion in that thread.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Summary: Allow high-influence natives limited access to regional controls

Proposed by: Crushing Our Enemies
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?p=11147231#p11147231

Brief description: If a non-delegate, WA nation has a requisite influence level, say Eminence Grise, that nation would be allowed very limited access to their regional controls, possibly limited to removing passwords and removing nations from the ban list, at a very high influence cost. They would not be able to change the flag, eject or ban nations, change the WFE, make embassy requests (although they might be able to withdraw embassy requests, or cancel embassy withdrawals), etc. The goal here would be to give native communities some agency to fight back against invasions, and prevent damage to their region/community. This would not allow natives to overthrow raider delegates, or even prevent invasion from occurring. This would be strictly for self-defense, and give natives some power to hold off the more devastating effects of invasion. This creates a new role in the R/D game: not invading, not defending, but resisting. This, I think, is the real role of natives: to resist invaders attempts to destroy them. This requires skill and wisdom on the part of these high-influence natives, because if they use up their influence unbanning nations, they might not have enough to remove a password later on.

Pros: Adds a third side to the game, gives natives power to resist invasion, without substantially affecting the raider/defender dynamic. Doesn't allow natives to assist defenders, but rather resist raiders. Creates a sort of "regional guard" to hold off invaders and allows defenders time to build a strong coalition.
Cons: Would create new incentive for raiders to ban high-influence natives immediately upon taking power (although they might find this difficult). Possibly subverts democratic systems created in some regions, giving power to non-elected nations. Creates new incentive for raiders to "sleep" for long periods of time in a region, and then disrupt it without even taking the delegacy (unbanning unwanted nations, for example.) Creates the possibility for natives to remove a defensive password without the consent of the delegate.

EDIT: Galiantus posted something like this above, but I think I was the first one to make a robust, workable suggestion. His idea was a bit more extreme, and allowed natives to actually overthrow a raider delegate, or end an invasion. The more moderate aspects of the suggestion, which he includes in his description, were suggested by me in the post I link to above, and not linked to in his post.

[Todd McCloud]

Summary: Mass Telegrams in Regional Controls

Proposed by: Todd McCloud
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1100

Brief description: Somewhere in the regional controls there is a box that can allow whoever has the ability to use said regional controls (delegate, founder) to send one telegram to everyone in the region. Such an ability would allow those individuals to send information out to regionmates they might ultimately miss by glancing at the World Factbook Entry, RMB, or the regional forums. This can either be free for such individuals to use, cost a little influence, or have some sort of cap on it (like once per day, or once per week, etc). Those in the region who do not wish to receive telegrams can simply block it the way we normally block telegrams.

Pros:

• Allows for more connectivity between the regional government (or a couping nation) and other nations in the region
• Can be used to notify region mates of elections, important changes in the region, or other events pertinent events.

Cons:

• Has the potential for abuse
• Might be difficult to code into the game

Summary: In-Game Annexations

Proposed by: [violet]
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4498

Brief description: There have been a multitude of tweaks and compromises suggested by various individuals in this thread, but the general synopsis seems to be a region (region A) would send an annexation request to another region (region B) and, pending region B's acceptance, region A would annex region B. The delegate / founder of region B could remove the annexation at any time, which would return both region A and region B to pre-annexation states, but the annexation would be noted in both region A and region B's history. (A tweak I particularly like is having the annexation stated on both regional pages in the headings while the annexation is still in effect. Another one I like is maybe adding a 'liberated' thing for defenders, like if they were to remove the annexation tag, the new delegate of region B could write the liberating region's name so that the 'liberated' status would appear in region B and the liberating region's history page).

Pros:

• Adds another dimension to the raider / defender conflict
• Gives some in-game recognition to raids and can be used as a motivator for both sides

Cons:

• Might be problematic for raids in which multiple regions are represented
• I don't believe it would solve many of the underlying issues in the R/D game

[General Halcones]

Summary: WA delegate re-elections

Proposed by: General Halcones
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=184195&hilit=WA+delegate+re+elections+Halcones&start=325

Brief description: If a group of WA nations takes WA delegacy within less than 10 seconds of the region updating, a WA delegate re-election is triggered. Until the re-election, the WA delegate has severely limited powers, only being able to eject and ban any nations arriving after them. The re-election occurs 15-20 seconds after the region updated, allowing time for defenders to react. This would run on a separate process to the update, so as to not slow down the update at all, or create any extra variance.

Pros:

• Slows down tag raiding - raiders can't leave a region as soon as they take delegacy - they have to wait at least 15 seconds to acquire the proper delegacy.
• Gives defenders ample time to react to a split second raid, while still giving raiders a chance. Regions raided cannot be tagged until defenders have had a chance to counteract the invasion.
• Adds an element of battle between raiders and defenders during the update, rewarding good "clock skills" on both sides.
• Makes tag raiding a more tense and fun activity for both sides.

Cons:

• Raiders can use this to their advantage, allowing them to react to any defender detag operations.
• Raiders could potentially use this to counteract successful liberations, although very unlikely.

Summary: Safer switching

Proposed by: General Halcones
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=184195&hilit=WA+delegate+re+elections+Halcones&start=325

Brief description: Players can apply infinitely many nations to the WA under the same email address. If a player admits a nation to the WA, the game automatically resigns all previous WAs under that same email address. This makes switching quicker and safer. The player does not have to be concerned that they may accidentally end up with multiple WAs - it is the game's responsibility to prevent that, as long as all those switchers are under the same email address.

Pros:

• Prevents accidental multying by both raiders and defenders, a common occurrence during fast moving tag and detag operations.
• Switchers are easier to make, helping new players.

Cons:

• Makes switching faster, possibly making tag raiding faster and more of a problem.
• Potentially a strain on the game server to do any necessary calculations to make this possible. There is already considerably WA lag - this may add to it.

[Strawberrry Fields]

For my ideas I included a "Thought Process" bit as I feel it is the best way I can express my ideas, although it maybe should have been under the "description".
--------------------

Summary: New Founder Assigned

Proposed by: Strawberrry Fields
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=207705

Thought Process: I personally find it a bummer when a large region with an active community looses it founder and thus place at risk. That just one person can cause the downfall of an entire community, due to going inactive or deleted for breaking NS rules.

Brief description: (A) Allow the current founder of a region to be able to assign a new founder as a Regional Control function.
(B) Allow a long time WA Delegate of a founderless region to become the founder as a Regional Control function unlocked after being delegate for X amount of days. X being like 300 days, a year, or longer, to ensure it's a native and not a raider.
-Possibly include a regional population requirement or WA nation population requirement to ensure it's used for large active communities.

Pros: The actions of one person won't cause the down fall of an entire community. Large active regions will be able to live beyond their original creator.
Cons: There will be less regions for raiders to raid and possible destroy or claim as trophies.

-----------------------

Summary: Allow 2 WA nations for senior NS players

Proposed by: Strawberrry Fields
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=207706

Thought Process: I have played NS for 9 years, and the two aspects of the game I enjoy most are being a WA Delegate and the defending / raiding element. I wish it was possible to be a Delegate in one region, while still being able to participate in the defending / raiding action, instead of being made to choose one or the other.

Brief description: Allow long time NS players to have two WA nations. Determining long time player status likely through nation population of main / oldest nation. (5 billion+ or so population requirement)

Pros: Would allow senior active members to participate in all elements of the game instead of choosing one or the other. Would generate more activity and things to do for many.
Cons: Probably would make the MODs job harder. Might be difficult to validate and implement.

-----------------

Summary: Ripple Regional Flags (Edit: removed as irrelevant to R/D summit)

[Punk Daddy]

Summary: Creation of Natives and Revolutions.

Proposed by: Punk_Daddy
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=208525

Brief description: Creation of regional “natives” with the power to eject delegates and remove founders based upon the votes of natives.

Pros:

• Allows native nations the power to influence their region above and beyond their WA affiliation.
• May cause delegates and founders to be more responsive to native concerns.
• Complicates the R/D paradigm, causing an evolution.

Cons:

• Rogue delegates can eject many natives replacing them with non-natives, effectively blocking out true natives.
• Gives raiders new tool to abuse.
• Adds additional complexity to the code.

[Todd McCloud]

Summary: Add a Feeder

Proposed by: Many people, but I'll use the one I proposed a while ago, Todd McCloud
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=16691

Brief description: This idea sort of came back to life when a few of us gameplayers were talking to Max a few days ago. I know there is no imminent plan to increase the feeder numbers, but I do believe adding a feeder would be an interesting gameplay twist and should therefore probably be discussed. I posed creating "The Central Pacific", but we also postulated what would happen if we opened up the Atlantic and/or if a feeder would be more fun without any ban ability. Yes, some sinkers have that, but the fact that it's new and influence wouldn't be really set in it makes for an interesting circumstance.

Pros:

1. Possibility for a bit more chaos / conflict in the game, especially if raiders and defenders get involved
2. More feeders could lead to more diversity
3. More people would be attracted to the empty feeder first, but this could branch out to totality later on.

Cons:

1. This could backfire and lead to a dilution of gameplayers in the feeders
2. Population numbers in the feeders are in fact on the rise (and have risen since the end of that analysis), but I don't know what the population numbers would look like if we added one or more feeder.

[Jakker]

Trading Influence:

More info can be found in the thread below:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=206686&hilit=trading+influence

[Mousebumples]

Summary: Creation of Regional Custodian

Proposed by: Mousebumples (originally, with adaptations by Fris, and others)
Link to Technical Thread or Post: Ta-da!

Brief description: Details are still in flux, but it would be an additional (or alternative, if the founder has CTEd) regional admin position. Admin activities would cost influence.

Pros: Another high-influence individual in the region would be able to help with spam clearing, regional defense, etc. It would be another leadership position within the region.
Cons: May make it more difficult to maintain raids as raids could be ended by the Custodian, if they have enough influence to banject the raiders.

Note: More Pros/Cons are (obviously) possible, but I'd rather not list too many pros or cons until more details are "decided" upon.

[Astarial]

Summary: Native Resistance of Delegate Power

Proposed by: Astarial
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=211613

Brief description: Nations within a region could "resist" the sitting delegate, slowing or even stopping influence gain.

Pros:
a: Empowers natives who can work together; privileges 'active' natives over inactive/passive ones (this may be seen as a con, but solutions to enhance native participation are going to have to do so unequally or else eliminate raiding entirely.)
ii: Can combine nicely with other suggestions, such as COE's proposal to allow high-influence natives access to regional controls.
3: Specifics are easily tweakable to find a balance between ineffectivity and overeffectivity, allowing invested and committed destructive raids while limiting more whimsical "meh, kickbans for funsies".
Orange: Opens up military action to non-WA members, who can assist even if tied up elsewhere.

Cons:
i: Protects older regions more than newer ones - established founderless regions have highly influential natives, while new regions whose founder CTEs may not have the numbers, influence, or experience to utilize this suggestion.
2: Risks puppet-spamming, where both sides flood a region with their puppets to affect the proportion of resistance.
c: Possibly overpowering to defenders, if resistance can be done upon move-in.

Both:
1: Doesn't touch tag-raiding
b: Introduces feeder instability
iii: Gives non-WA nations control in a region

[Eist]

Summary: Proposal: Update bins; increasing variance in two dimensions

Proposed by: Eist
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=210741

Brief description: Bin regions into three groups that run separately through update simultaneously. Each group has an associated speed and variance that differs between groups. Because each group would run independently, regions would run slightly out of order and at slightly different times. The unpredictability inherent in the groups and their associated speed and variance could be set to not only balance the R/D game, but offer greater protection to founderless regions through making it more difficult to calculate update times.

Pros: Update times are less predictable and harder to calculate resulting in less tag raids and less success for taggers. I hope that this will encourage raiders to seek alternative forms of raiding which I believe will invigorate the currently stale R/D game. I believe that shifting away from tag raiding will increase regional sovereignty, get members more involved in their region, and will result in less people leaving NS because of frustration that their region is attacked sometimes multiple times a week.

Cons: This hits tag raiders the hardest because this makes calculating update times of regions harder, particularly multiple regions in a single update. There is also a marginal increase in the difficulty of calculating region update times for liberations. It also increases game mechanic complexity.

[Charles Cerebella]

Summary: Protectorate Regions

Proposed by: Charles Cerebella
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=212721

Brief description: Basically a variation of [violet]'s annexation idea that Todd links to but with more meat. Instead of just being a little note that a region has been annexed, for a significant influence cost by the protectee WAD the protector region (either through the founder or the WAD) would get access to the protectee region's control panel but to use this would cost influence. There have been a few suggestions of how that is calculated, either through the protector region or from the protectee. Either way there should be a limited pool available which would make problems of overstretch meaning the more regions you protect the more vulnerable they become. This would alter the dynamics of gameplay without impacting on core things such as tags and so on and will also have the major benefit that region's don't have to be griefed for another region to gain real control over it.

Pros:

• Natives are protected from griefing by regions aiming to take control
• It provides a tool for imperialists to build an empire and defenders to protect regions
• It will change the dynamics of gameplay, giving new roles to major actors who might not have update power to take protectorates by force but have significant influence to establish protectorates through diplomacy

Cons: None that I can think of at the moment

Summary:Delayed Influence for new Delegates/ Increased influence Cost for New Nations in Regions

Proposed by: Charles Cerebella
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=212718

Brief description: The idea is that this will make liberations easier and more feasible by slowing the rate that influence accumulates and/or raising the influence cost of ejecting new nations in a region thus making attrition a possibility and lessening the capacity of raiders to hold on to a delegacy. It would also reward stealth raiding by making the accumulation of influence before taking control more important.

Pros:

• Would make liberations easier
• Provides greater incentive for stealth raiding
• Does not negatively effect tag raiding

Cons:

• Could affect non R/D delegacy changes negatively though those in GCRs should not be impacted too much due to the amount of influence accumulated before taking the delegacy anyway.
• If the influence of new nations goes up the cost of ejecting spammers will too. This is why I like the idea of a limited timeframe so only new delegates are affected
• Would probably take small tinkering and experimentation so holding regions doesn't become too difficult under this

[General Halcones]

Summary: Make stealth raiding easier: Require endorsement approval

Proposed by: General Halcones
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=212871

Brief description: The Defenders are campaigning for measures to make tag raiding more difficult, to make it harder to pinpoint update times. In the past, raiding was mainly via stealth. This ended and switched to precision strikes and tag raiding because Defenders got too good at spotting raids. This is largely thanks to more and more information becoming available. This proposal allows raiders to hide some key actions which act as triggers for Defender intervention. A nation can choose to have their endorsements approved before they take effect. Nothing shows up on happenings or the endorsement list until the endorsements have been accepted.

Pros:

• Makes stealth raiding easier, therefore allowing other game changes that target the ability to pinpoint update times and limit tag raiding.
• Opens R/D game to nonupdaters again - nonupdaters can endorse outside of update, yet such endorsements only take effect during update when the raider point accepts them.
• Beneficial to players outside of the R/D game, who want to prevent unwanted endorsements from players trying to make them delegate to put them in trouble.

Cons:

• Unaware players may accidentally select the option to have endorsements approved before they take effect. Being a founderless region delegate, this could be catastrophic in case of invasion, seeing that any defender endorsements would be put on hold.
• Potentially negative impact on feeders, making it too easy for nations to gather endorsements without being seen. This, however, may be a good thing.

[General Halcones]

Summary: Vice Delegates - reduce Piling and increase native involvement

Proposed by: General Halcones
Link to Technical Thread or Post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=214015

Brief description: The "holding" stage of an invasion is currently not a game at all. Raiders frequently pile endorsements high, such that defenders lack the numbers to liberate the region. Liberation attempts are now rarely seen, if ever. The "holding" stage of an invasion is thus rendered boring and pointless. This suggestion has the effect of extending the R/D battle through the "holding" stage. Essentially, the idea is to include a Vice Delegate position. The Vice Delegate only has the power to eject nations. The Vice Delegate is the nation with the second most endorsements, though any endorsements shared between the Delegate and Vice Delegate are not counted in the Vice Delegate election.

Pros:

• Significantly reduces Piling. Raiders have to "split" their pile of endorsements between the Delegate and Vice Delegate, in order to hold both positions. Natives gaining Vice Delegacy would result in ejection of raiders, reducing the pile further, and potentially bringing the invasion to its end.
• Makes large founderless regions more vulnerable to attack.
• Brings natives into the R/D game, giving them the ability to overcome the raiders, if they cooperate with defenders.
• Raiders have to be more careful when planning an invasion, ensuring they take both Delegacy and Vice Delegacy, and deciding how many endorsements should be placed on each.
• Makes the "holding" stage of an invasion more challenging for raiders, and much more of an ongoing R/D battle.

Cons:

• More calculations required during the update of regions, potentially slowing the update down.
• Potentially damaging effects on those players outside of the R/D game, although if Vice Delegates can be turned off by the Founder, this is not a problem.