Advertisement
by Mahaj » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:45 pm
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations
by Dragomere » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:00 pm
Mahaj wrote:I think there should definitely be a cost for using regional controls, else the officers have too much power.
by Cerian Quilor » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:05 pm
The North Polish Union wrote:Cerian Quilor wrote:If raiders can't immediately remove ROs that have ban or ejection ability, then the raid is shot within hours.
True. Maybe after a Delegate change, all the ROs temporarily lose their powers. After a few updates they get them back and it would cost influence to remove them. Raids would still succeed, but the raiders would have to remove the ROs before they resumed their powers to have the raid succeed.
by Astarial » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:47 pm
Dragomere wrote:Mahaj wrote:I think there should definitely be a cost for using regional controls, else the officers have too much power.
A lot of times, the RO's are the ones charged with a duty that involves a curtain control; however, if they were charged influence, then they would not be able to perform their job well.
by Dragomere » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:25 pm
by The Black Hat Guy » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:35 pm
Dragomere wrote:Astarial wrote:
How is that any different from a delegate?
Delegates are not "In Charge" of a region per say, but rather representatives in the WA for their region. I do not know of many regions that have their delegate as the most powerful (or near that powerful) as other government officials.
Take the NWP for example, the delegate gets little to no executive power (except what is needed due to the current structure of the NS Regional Controls), The only real thing that the Delegate gets in the NWP is a "Delegate" mask, and to help other WA members in the region to create proposals. The NWP Delegate has no other power or authority.
by Cerian Quilor » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:53 pm
by Kiwitaicho » Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:19 pm
I think the whole point should be that all powers bar voting for the region in the WA, should be available. I also think that it should cost 1.5x to 2x the influence for the officer to do what the delegate does. Although the power to password should probably remain with the delegate/founder.What powers Regional Officers can be given?
I'm not sure how the calculation should work exactly but lets say it takes 48 hours to be 'sworn in'. The more power the officer gets, the more influence it should cost to put them into power. So let's say the delegate wants to give an officer the power to eject and ban a nation - the cost of this might be half the cost of ejecting and banning the nation with the median influence in that region. As for the 48 hour period, the influence would already have been spent when the delegate appoints an officer so if someone can interfere, they can remove that same officer with no influence cost. Removal of an officer outside of that 48 hour period costs a slightly lower amount than it otherwise took to appoint them.The method for appointing and removing officers, including the length of time it takes to do so, and whether this costs influence.
Perhaps one-two others MAX can have the power to ban and the rest can be as many as necessarily?Whether there is a limit on the number of officers that can have certain powers (such as to eject and ban).
I think the option should be open to the founder to do both.Whether officers can access regional controls when the delegate's access is denied?
by Dragomere » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:54 am
by Astarial » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:07 am
by Kiwitaicho » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:06 pm
Exactly! Couldn't agree more. Yeah I hadn't considered the implications of ejecting/banning a delegate. While a founder can be ejected and banned - they can physically remove themselves from the list. (At least how I understand it) A delegate isn't in the same position so I guess the answer would be to make ROs unable to target the delegate for banning/ejection. That won't stop the RO from being able to ban other raiders who come in to endorse the raider lead (or defender depending on your standpoint). It's probably a good idea also that if an RO is banned / ejected their RO status lapses. I don't think they should have quasi-founder powers they can use outside the region. You need to have a clear hierarchy and have clear benefits to being the delegate of a region.Astarial wrote:No it shouldn't. And I find it highly implausible that any plan which completely disallows delegates from ever banning or ejecting will be considered viable by the admin team.
The Founder has all available powers, unless they opt to be non-executive. The Delegate has all Founderial powers if there is no Founder or the Founder is non-executive, and I would support the Founder being able to choose which regional powers to turn on and off for their delegate on a case-by-case basis. Officers should be able to be given any and all powers except the ability to create more Officers or to vote in the RA, and possibly to eject or ban (giving them this power would greatly impede raiders' ability to hold a region - dear raiders following along, would it be better if they could eject and ban but not touch the delegate?).
RO actions should cost at least as much as the delegate's actions in terms of influence, and I'm with Kiwi on 1.5-2.0x more.
by Dragomere » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:37 pm
by Astarial » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:02 pm
Dragomere wrote:Also, It is my belief that the RO's should have more power than the Delegate in most cases. The Delegate would have founder's powers if there was no founder in that region. I shall emphasis, that since the RO's usually have higher authority in most regions, then they should have to "spend" less influence than the Delegate does on the same things.
by Dragomere » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:13 pm
Astarial wrote:Dragomere wrote:Also, It is my belief that the RO's should have more power than the Delegate in most cases. The Delegate would have founder's powers if there was no founder in that region. I shall emphasis, that since the RO's usually have higher authority in most regions, then they should have to "spend" less influence than the Delegate does on the same things.
I'm not sure where you're getting that statistic from - in the vast majority of regions I'm familiar with, the Delegate outranks all regional officers. This certainly isn't always the case, and foundered regions with disempowered delegates will likely make use of the non-executive function, but you'll want to provide actual data if you're asserting that non-existent in-game positions are, across the board, more powerful in regional governments than existing ones.
by Frisbeeteria » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:23 pm
Dragomere wrote:My Idea for Regional Government Permission Set:
([x] means has that power, [?] means can be given that power)
by Evil Wolf » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:42 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by The Black Hat Guy » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:52 pm
Dragomere wrote:One such example is the NWP. The only reason the delegate can do executive functions, would be because RO's in NS side do not exist yet.
by Dragomere » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:32 pm
The Black Hat Guy wrote:Dragomere wrote:One such example is the NWP. The only reason the delegate can do executive functions, would be because RO's in NS side do not exist yet.
That's 1 example. In all GCR's, the Delegate has by far the most power. In most UCRs I've seen, the delegate has substantial power, generally more than other officers. Certainly in the majority of large regions.
by Leutria » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:39 pm
Dragomere wrote:The Black Hat Guy wrote:
That's 1 example. In all GCR's, the Delegate has by far the most power. In most UCRs I've seen, the delegate has substantial power, generally more than other officers. Certainly in the majority of large regions.
In all of the regions that I had encountered, the delegate had very little authority.
by Dragomere » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:27 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:39 pm
by Weed » Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:17 am
by Bodobol » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:28 pm
Dragomere wrote:Leutria wrote:Indeed, that is what I have seen in the UCR's S well. The delegate having little to do other then voting in WA proposals.
Yes. If some regions want to give their Delegates governmental authority, then they should be able to; however, they should not try to force their government systems onto regions that work quite differently.
by Confederate People of the United States » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:35 pm
Lunas Legion wrote:I run Fallout RPs. Everything else about the universe doesn't matter.
The Pan-Slavian Union wrote: Give a shotgun to a Gay, and he'll eventually find some way to masturbate with it. Give a shotgun to a Russian, and he'll defend his country.
The New Sea Territory wrote:All government oppresses by violating all our rights to "protect our rights".
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Confederate People of the United States wrote:You realize you will never win an argument on this website.
Advertisement
Return to Gameplay "R/D" Summit
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement