Advertisement
by Mallorea and Riva » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:19 pm
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:26 pm
by Mousebumples » Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:41 am
North Pacific Spy wrote:With natives always able to see the password (not too sure about this), deep sleepers in regions deemed at risk would be able to gather intelligence and passwords, so that liberation's could take place, and the region could gain Independence. That may promote having inactive puppets in a region, clogging up space and update time, although that already seems to be the case. Intelligence gathering - there would be a list like the embassies list, but of annexations, that would allow other regions to quickly view another regions holdings. Natives in a annexed region would always be able to see the password (I'm still not 100% sure about this, doesn't feel right natives not being able to see the password, but doesn't feel right about them always being able to see it as well - potentially have a far, far higher cost of invisible password, need to explore this later) which would increase the ability of other regions to intelligence gather, from the normal 'send delegate TG for access to region, share password, conquer' type intelligence at the present time.
North Pacific Spy wrote:How will it impact the non-R/D player that just wants to enjoy their (foundered) region?
It will impact the non-R/D player who wants to enjoy their region in a variety of ways. If they are hostile towards the invasion, there would be a thing on the WFE about it being annexed by Region B, and the WA Delegate/Governor position would have a nation they would not support. If they were happy with the region, it would reduce their own opportunities for delegacy due to the Governor having the power. It could also increase the amount of regions conquered with a larger level of WA nations free. On the other hand, they would have a presumably active Governor (Governor wants to keep control of region, and only practical way to do it is to keep natives happy for native endorsements, so the home region doesn't have to devote WA's to the region). The region would survive, at least for the short term, so they won't wake up one morning, and find their community destroyed, and their region refounded as a trophy.
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:32 am
by King Nephmir II » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:50 pm
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:34 pm
King Nephmir II wrote:I see a lot of "it should be like this" in that post without explaining why it should be so. I mean, I get that it's a proposal, but still: why should it take 14 updates to annex, as opposed to 2, or 8, or 12? Also an "update's worth of influence" varies depending on how many endorsements you have.
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:58 am
by Bears Armed » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:29 am
North Pacific Spy wrote:Regions that are more focused on WA affairs maintain armies to keep their Empires, and the precious WA delegate votes it would bring. GCRs and other major Founderless regions can choose whether to attempt to maintain an empire, which may open their own region to attack and annexations, or decide to hide within their own region, and slowly become irrelevant in the greater NS world.
by Valrifell » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:40 am
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:54 am
Bears Armed wrote:North Pacific Spy wrote:Regions that are more focused on WA affairs maintain armies to keep their Empires, and the precious WA delegate votes it would bring. GCRs and other major Founderless regions can choose whether to attempt to maintain an empire, which may open their own region to attack and annexations, or decide to hide within their own region, and slowly become irrelevant in the greater NS world.
So everybody who wants to do more in Nationstates than just answer issues or chat about RL in NSG would, effectively, be forced to engage in your style of gameplay even if that then left them with no time available for the aspects of NS that they actually enjoy?
That's a really foul idea: Opposed.
by Bears Armed » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:58 am
Valrifell wrote:2. Regions with founders are not at risk for getting invaded any way, so they can still chit chat all they wish. Annexation, as they said, would only largely affect founderless regions or WA-oriented ones, the former the game already affects greatly and the latter would be a natural consequence if they wanted to gain or maintain relevance in the World Assembly.
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:00 am
Valrifell wrote:1. People are already forced into Gameplay the minute they create a region. They are forced into R/D the second they lose their founder.
2. Regions with founders are not at risk for getting invaded any way, so they can still chit chat all they wish. Annexation, as they said, would only largely affect founderless regions or WA-oriented ones, the former the game already affects greatly and the latter would be a natural consequence if they wanted to gain or maintain relevance in the World Assembly. Which is already largely (and stagnantly) dominated by a handful of regions already.
3. Your opposition is meaningless as you don't really decide what ends up getting implemented in the long run. What did you think this was? A democracy?
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:04 am
Bears Armed wrote:Valrifell wrote:2. Regions with founders are not at risk for getting invaded any way, so they can still chit chat all they wish. Annexation, as they said, would only largely affect founderless regions or WA-oriented ones, the former the game already affects greatly and the latter would be a natural consequence if they wanted to gain or maintain relevance in the World Assembly.
In case you hadn't already noticed my own main involvement in NS is through a WA-oriented region -- although one whose current 'relevance' in the GA probably comes at least as much from our members' work on resolutions as it does from our delegate's usual number of votes -- and I am fairly certain that I am speaking for most of that region's other long-term members too when I say that we don't want to have to get involved in empire-building ourselves in order to maintain our 'relevance' in the face of other regions that use empire-building as a way of accumulating larger votes in the GA.
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:41 pm
Stellonia wrote:Shouldn't the founder or delegate of the conquering region also consent to the annexation?
by Canton Empire » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:01 am
by Mousebumples » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:41 am
Canton Empire wrote:I really like spy's idea. I want to know if the idea is under consideration
by Canton Empire » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:12 am
by Frisbeeteria » Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:56 am
Canton Empire wrote:I just want to know if their thinking About it, not working on it
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:27 pm
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:15 pm
by Cresenthia » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:16 pm
North Pacific Spy wrote:I'm thinking Governors should be Executive Officers in regards to appointing Regional Officers (possibly not when there is another delegate in the region)
by NOrTh pAcIfiC spY » Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:10 pm
by Cresenthia » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:19 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement