[Change #6] Custodian SC proposal

[Todd McCloud]

It should be a total drain of all of their influence, assuming they have a large amount to begin with. It should be at least double what the normal del would have to pay, and even if they choose not to spend it all, their influence should get wiped. Why? Because there should be at least some hesitation about employing this, beyond the scope of what they will choose to do.

So... double influence costs of a normal delegate under the same influence, and once they leave the position their influence is wiped?

[Mallorea and Riva]

It should be a total drain of all of their influence, assuming they have a large amount to begin with. It should be at least double what the normal del would have to pay, and even if they choose not to spend it all, their influence should get wiped. Why? Because there should be at least some hesitation about employing this, beyond the scope of what they will choose to do.

So... double influence costs of a normal delegate under the same influence, and once they leave the position their influence is wiped?

That is my opinion yes.

[All Good People]

I'm not sure I see why the Custodian should be charged more Influence than a Delegate. If the SC decides to empower a Custodian, I would expect the cost to be the same as a Delegate. On the other hand, I don't object to the concept of doubling the cost.

I don't think a region should be able to have multiple custodians at a given time, but sequential custodians would be possible as as the resolution expires. As to the time for expiration, I really don't know but my initial thought is one week.

I do think that a nation should be allowed to be custodian of multiple regions at once. If a nation has the Influence available to be Custodian of those multiple regions, I see no reason to limit it.

[Ballotonia]

Wiping influence also means the resolution can be used in a hostile manner.

Ballotonia

[Whamabama]

An interesting idea.

What I would do in this idea is these.

A region should only be allowed one. The custodian would lose the same amount of influence as a delegate per each use. I see no reason why influence use should be different.

The length of the resolution I would say depends. Mainly because my idea is a bit different than those here.

In order to be a custodian, the nation targeted to be the custodian has to have an influence rating above a certain mark. For simplicity sake, I'll say you have to be a vassal. Custodianship is lost once the custodian uses enough influence to become a minnow.

[Topid]

The custodian should most certainly not have his influence cleared for using his powers once. How much you use your power should be the factor in determining how much influence you spend. There should be a reason not to ban and ban until you just can ban anymore. Just my two cents.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The custodian should most certainly not have his influence cleared for using his powers once. How much you use your power should be the factor in determining how much influence you spend. There should be a reason not to ban and ban until you just can ban anymore. Just my two cents.

Then where is the risk or disincentive for using this?

[Topid]

The custodian should most certainly not have his influence cleared for using his powers once. How much you use your power should be the factor in determining how much influence you spend. There should be a reason not to ban and ban until you just can ban anymore. Just my two cents.

Then where is the risk or disincentive for using this?

Twice the risk that the delegate will do it. Sacrificing the ability to use that influence later. Plus a little extra check because if grossly abused a repeal is possible.

[Ravania Prima]

Keep in mind that influence will be regained in six months. All these changes have an effect on one another. Losing all your influence won't be that bad if it isn't carefully gained over years...

[Nalt]

Keep in mind that influence will be regained in six months. All these changes have an effect on one another. Losing all your influence won't be that bad if it isn't carefully gained over years...

The influence change is only in the feeders and sinkers...

[Ravania Prima]

Keep in mind that influence will be regained in six months. All these changes have an effect on one another. Losing all your influence won't be that bad if it isn't carefully gained over years...

The influence change is only in the feeders and sinkers...

Correct, for now... (but it was asked not to be discussed, so I'll just stand corrected)

[Astarial]

I'm not sure that I agree with wiping a custodian's influence after they lose that status - seems like it might promote re-raiding in a way that could border on harassment.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm not sure that I agree with wiping a custodian's influence after they lose that status - seems like it might promote re-raiding in a way that could border on harassment.

Liberations, the only precedent for a gameplay mechanics altering SC proposal, have the exact same downside. Why shouldn't the Custodian proposal?

[Cerian Quilor]

What do you think about influence cost? Don't worry about the numbers or the code, just describe what you think the role of influence should be, and perhaps suggestions like "double this" or "half that".

Well, alright!
Personally, I would once again suggest to have it be x2 of what the W.A.D can do regarding Eject/Ban. However, nations without influence in the region should also cost something to eject/ban. I 'd throw around 1-2/2-4 influence points for Eject/Ban respectively. This was it's not too draining, but it prevents a Custodian from being used by the SC in a potential coup (got to think of the worst case scenario). Furthermore, have all of the things that don't cost any influence cost influence (WFE Change, Flag Change, Embassies, Supress, etc). Not a ton, but an amount that would make it difficult for a rogue to be able to suppress RMB posts/constantly update back to a coup WFE/just go against a government of the region at least moderately difficult.

Definately. Again, the idea is that a custodian is a kind of backup defense, rather than a full-on defense, in case of a raid on the region. They shouldn't have too easy a time of it throwing the raider forces out.

[Astarial]

I'm not sure that I agree with wiping a custodian's influence after they lose that status - seems like it might promote re-raiding in a way that could border on harassment.

Liberations, the only precedent for a gameplay mechanics altering SC proposal, have the exact same downside. Why shouldn't the Custodian proposal?

A liberation does not wipe anybody's influence - any cost is imposed prior to the liberation, when a password is set. A custodian will already be left vulnerable if they choose to expend most of their influence to ban a raider delegate (or if they're not provided ban powers, to eject at update) - taking what remains away seems excessive.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Liberations, the only precedent for a gameplay mechanics altering SC proposal, have the exact same downside. Why shouldn't the Custodian proposal?

A liberation does not wipe anybody's influence - any cost is imposed prior to the liberation, when a password is set. A custodian will already be left vulnerable if they choose to expend most of their influence to ban a raider delegate (or if they're not provided ban powers, to eject at update) - taking what remains away seems excessive.

Liberations leave a region open to reraiding by removing the native delegate's ability to password, until it is repealed. The native Custodian will become vulnerable to raider action until their influence recovers. The parallels are logical.

[Astarial]

A liberation does not wipe anybody's influence - any cost is imposed prior to the liberation, when a password is set. A custodian will already be left vulnerable if they choose to expend most of their influence to ban a raider delegate (or if they're not provided ban powers, to eject at update) - taking what remains away seems excessive.

Liberations leave a region open to reraiding by removing the native delegate's ability to password, until it is repealed. The native Custodian will become vulnerable to raider action until their influence recovers. The parallels are logical.

The parallels are silly. Repealing a liberation is probably just as easy as passing one - Cormac, wanna run the numbers? - and can be done in a matter of days. Regaining lost influence could take years.

The parallel would be if the WA could vote to restore the native's influence. And that would be even sillier.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Liberations leave a region open to reraiding by removing the native delegate's ability to password, until it is repealed. The native Custodian will become vulnerable to raider action until their influence recovers. The parallels are logical.

The parallels are silly. Repealing a liberation is probably just as easy as passing one - Cormac, wanna run the numbers? - and can be done in a matter of days. Regaining lost influence could take years.

The parallel would be if the WA could vote to restore the native's influence. And that would be even sillier.

That's why it's a parallel and not a perfect match dear

The point is that there should be a significant reason for defenders and natives to have to think about what they're about to do. This hardly works for Liberations, but it *might* be better with the Custodian proposal.

[United States of Natan]

so, if the founder is not CTE'd, but does not currently occupy the region, then this would work?

[Cerian Quilor]

They can access the RCP anyway, and thus we don't need a custodian for them.

[Mousebumples]

Random thought (regarding the influence of the custodian) - could a custodian initially be granted, say, enough influence to banject 20 minnows in the given region? I like the idea of the custodianship naturally ending when the influence level drops enough to make the custodian influence level that of a minnow.

However, in order to allow some regions to have a somewhat self-sustaining custodianship, would it be possible to allow for natives (still in Custodian Region) to donate some of their influence to the custodian pot? (perhaps in increments of 5-10% up to a max of 25% donated or something, and not being allowed to donate more than, say, one time weekly) That would allow for an active community to work together to keep their custodian active, with sufficient influence to do the work that's needed to protect their region.

In order to balance that with ensuring that inactive regions aren't kept in perpetuity by custodians, there could be a natural decay of a custodian's influence over time. If the natives aren't supplementing said influence with donations - and no regional admin actions use up influence, the custodianship will naturally end after, say, 4 weeks.

I know that influence donation has been tossed about the tech forum before, and there could be a coding reason why it's not feasible, but it seems like a nice partnership idea to allow some custodianships - that are working well - to be somewhat self-sustaining and not need to be endlessly re-passed by the SC. And, if the goal is to minimize the need for risky refoundings, that seems like an option could really work for certain regions in perpetuity. Of course, it may also eliminate too many targets for raiders to be an appealing option, too. But I'll let you gameplayers battle out those details, I guess.

[Astarial]

Random thought (regarding the influence of the custodian) - could a custodian initially be granted, say, enough influence to banject 20 minnows in the given region? I like the idea of the custodianship naturally ending when the influence level drops enough to make the custodian influence level that of a minnow.

Not to be too much of a nitpick, but this is pretty wiggly - in TNP, nations up to about 300 influence points are considered minnows, while in Osiris, the transition to Vassal happens at about 90. The gap of what constitutes minnow-ness is smaller the less influence is in the region, and larger the more there is... and being granted enough influence to ban 20 300-influence nations from TNP would be... Well, if you were giving it to a nation with zero influence, they'd have more influence than any single nation in TNP has - and Eras is no slouch, at 945 points.

In terms of the rest... I'm not sure self-sustaining custodianship is something to be desired. I see merit to a custodian able to interfere with the efficacy of a raid by unbanning nations, changing the WFE, that kind of thing (but, I think, not ejecting or banning, because the role of natives should be distinct from that of defenders), or to a custodian being appointed in the leadup to refounding an important region, to try to prevent it from being hawked, but if a custodian nation could be maintained indefinitely I think it would encourage an overwhelming number of SC resolutions that would take a whole lot of otherwise perfectly raidable regions off the table. And that wouldn't be good for the game.

[Mousebumples]

Random thought (regarding the influence of the custodian) - could a custodian initially be granted, say, enough influence to banject 20 minnows in the given region? I like the idea of the custodianship naturally ending when the influence level drops enough to make the custodian influence level that of a minnow.

Not to be too much of a nitpick, but this is pretty wiggly - in TNP, nations up to about 300 influence points are considered minnows, while in Osiris, the transition to Vassal happens at about 90. The gap of what constitutes minnow-ness is smaller the less influence is in the region, and larger the more there is... and being granted enough influence to ban 20 300-influence nations from TNP would be... Well, if you were giving it to a nation with zero influence, they'd have more influence than any single nation in TNP has - and Eras is no slouch, at 945 points.

True enough. I would figure the "same" amount of influence would be granted to any such custodian (i.e. the same amount for all regions), and that 20 minnows would be a good "baseline." Obviously TNP minnows are different than 20 minnows in my much smaller region.

And I see your point about not wanting a self-sustaining custodianship. (There's probably a reason that an SC proposal called "Refounding" wasn't offered as an option.) However, I could see the merits to having a variable length of the custodianship, depending on the situation at hand, and the benefits to having the custodianship naturally "end" should the custodian's influence bottom out. (Plus, wouldn't that add in another possible "challenge" for raiders? See if they can get the custodian to ban/eject enough raider puppets to zero out their influence and thereby bringing the custodianship to an early end.) Setting a maximum duration (say, 4 weeks to a few months) is good, but having an influence-less custodian seems somewhat worthless, would it not?

[Sedgistan]

All these points still need a fair amount of discussion:

The following aspects in particular need further discussion:

• The amount of time that a Custodian resolution would be valid for prior to expiring.
• Whether the custodian spends influence at the same rate as a delegate or at a different one.
• Whether a region can have multiple custodians at once.
• Whether a nation can be custodian of multiple regions at once.
• Security Council proposal rules issues, especially regarding duplication.

Some quick thoughts:

The amount of time that a Custodian resolution would be valid for prior to expiring.

A period of around 3-4 months would prevent them from being used to significantly reduce the number of targets for invasion, while also ensuring the SC isn't constantly clogged up with "renewals" of expired ones.

Whether the custodian spends influence at the same rate as a delegate or at a different one.

Inevitably, people will try to use these on occasion to undermine Delegates. However, that's not the primary intention of the change - so I'd expect Custodians to spend influence at a higher rate (say around double).

Whether a region can have multiple custodians at once.

I'd say yes, because I think the SC would naturally limit such cases to only exceptional circumstances.

Whether a nation can be custodian of multiple regions at once.

Ultimately influence would make it pointless, so it doesn't seem necessary to ban it.

[Mahaj]

Thank you for answering your own questions.


lol but yes I agree with a lot of your points.