Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:33 amIt'd probably have worked the same as a Liberation - i.e. not been in effect if the region's founder was present.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[Change #5] Reformation SC proposal [ON HOLD]
Page 9 of 9
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:33 amPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:35 amAhh fair enough....might have made things VERY interesting if it could be used in regions with a founder though
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:39 pm[Redacted]
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:54 pmIt's not 'cheating', it's literally one of the few ways that massive piles could be overcome. It'd break the 'end game' that exists these days for long occupations.
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:16 pm*ahem* I made that post over a year ago, back before I had fully grasped game mechanics. (Redacted)
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:39 amFair enough!
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:57 amWhy is this on hold?
If it is a reformation, why does it only temporarily strip the Delegate of their powers. Wouldn't a reformation be a reforming of a regions government?
If it is a reformation, why does it only temporarily strip the Delegate of their powers. Wouldn't a reformation be a reforming of a regions government?
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:57 amFlying Circus 6 wrote:Why is this on hold?
If it is a reformation, why does it only temporarily strip the Delegate of their powers. Wouldn't a reformation be a reforming of a regions government?
It's on hold because it's one sided and ridiculously overpowered, especially when combined with the other suggested changes. At least, that's the impression I've gotten from this thread. To quote myself:
Evil Wolf wrote:What shocks me the most about all these recent proposed changes to the SC is that they are aimed at ensuring that Defenders win. It's as if ADMIN is declaring that raiders should not be able to win and that Defenders must always come out the victor in order for the game to be "fair and balanced", but proposals like this one doesn't make the gameplay balanced, it just turns raiders into nameless Red-shirted mooks for Defenders to crush at their leisure.
This proposal is essentially trying to fix a problem that doesn't even exist and through an extreme manner that, if this were Role Play, would be equal to screaming out "I nuke you, and I win".
But the official reason is "due to concerns that it may further reduce the incentive for invaders to hold regions".
You do bring up a point, though, the name is pretty misleading.