[Idea] CTE Delayon Regions

[Luna Amore]

A random thought I had to make it harder for raiders to destroy/refound regions after occupying - what if there was a, say, 12 hour delay from the region having no nations in it and CTE'ing, so they must have no nations for 2 updates to CTE? This would make it easier for defenders or natives to snipe refounds.

[Comfed]

Definitely not. Refounding regions has been part of R/D since 2006. As well, natives also refound regions.
(And you may want to make the title of the thread more descriptive.)

[The Python]

Definitely not. Refounding regions has been part of R/D since 2006. As well, natives also refound regions.
(And you may want to make the title of the thread more descriptive.)

true, but there should still be a delay between regions having no members and them CTE'ing.

[Comfed]

Definitely not. Refounding regions has been part of R/D since 2006. As well, natives also refound regions.
(And you may want to make the title of the thread more descriptive.)

true, but there should still be a delay between regions having no members and them CTE'ing.

Why? Then, instead of refounding right away raiders would just wait until the next update.

[The Python]

true, but there should still be a delay between regions having no members and them CTE'ing.

Why? Then, instead of refounding right away raiders would just wait until the next update.

it would give defenders and natives more time to snipe the refound. Right now raiders can refound unpredictably, so natives/defenders do not have much time to snipe the refound, a 12 hours delay would give defenders more time to spot it and snipe the refound.

[Comfed]

Why? Then, instead of refounding right away raiders would just wait until the next update.

it would give defenders and natives more time to snipe the refound. Right now raiders can refound unpredictably, so natives/defenders do not have much time to snipe the refound, a 12 hours delay would give defenders more time to spot it and snipe the refound.

It mostly just sounds like you’re giving defenders an unfair advantage - there are many tools to fight refounds before the update where it happens that this is unnecessary.

[One Small Island]

it would give defenders and natives more time to snipe the refound.

It would also give raiders more time to snipe defender and native refounds.

[The Sherpa Empire]

What would this actually accomplish, though?

If people can still enter the "reserved" regions, then they can still be raided. If people can't enter, then it is still unusable for everyone else, just like it would be unusable if it was held by raiders.

[Flanderlion]

I actually like this idea. It sucks for R/D refounds, but R/D should be taking and building regions, not taking and destroying.

[LollerLand]

This is not such a great solution because

It would also give raiders more time to snipe defender and native refounds.

Also, fully against admin intervention to give either side of R/D an unfair advantage.

[The Python]

What would this actually accomplish, though?

If people can still enter the "reserved" regions, then they can still be raided. If people can't enter, then it is still unusable for everyone else, just like it would be unusable if it was held by raiders.

it would make it easier if defenders are online at update and refound the region before the raiders to regain control - they would have more time to spot it.

I actually like this idea. It sucks for R/D refounds, but R/D should be taking and building regions, not taking and destroying.

This, this, this. Raiders shouldn't be destroying regions if they are occupying, if they have to they should just leave the region once they're done rather than actually destroying it. This doesn't stop them but gives defenders/natives an extra chance before they lose the region forever.

What would this actually accomplish, though?

If people can still enter the "reserved" regions, then they can still be raided. If people can't enter, then it is still unusable for everyone else, just like it would be unusable if it was held by raiders.

I thought about this and realised that yes the idea of regions that were large cannot be refounded would be useless because then raiders cannot keep it as a trophy but natives also cannot refound.

[Luna Amore]

it would give defenders and natives more time to snipe the refound.

It would also give raiders more time to snipe defender and native refounds.

This is the first thing that came to mind.

What percentage of refounds are raiders trying to cap a region? If it's a small, you are making your average users attempts at refounding harder to benefit niche situations. If this were in place when I refounded my region Free Thought, I'm not so sure I would have been successful.

[Unibot III]

At least historically, defenders have the advantage in refound scenerios because defenders usually had more people who can be called online for update - most raiders were pilers, not updaters. No idea if that's still true.

The more people you have clicking "Create Region," the greater chance you can snatch the refound though. So increasing your updater count, increases the probability you will win the refound.

In general though, the better strategy is to not leave it up to chance if possible: flooding updaters into the region right before update blocks the refound before it can take place, but screws up the occupation. This is why WA Liberations are so helpful in discouraging regional griefing because it is regional passwords that block that latter manuever. Trying to grief a region without a password is a lot more difficult than griefing a region with a password.

What I think could be a helpful discussion is over the timeline of WA Liberations. Recalling Illuminati and Westphalia, for instance. Players nowadays have a lot better understanding of influence accumulation and the science behind it than previous generations, and they can obstruct the WA Queue through quorum raiding. Invaders have figured when to strike, how many pilers to use, how long to stash their lead puppet in the region beforehand, and how long it will take to optimize their occupation, so that defenders are behind the eight-ball when it comes to trying to get a WA Liberation in the queue and passed in time to prevent the regional griefing.

[The Python]

At least historically, defenders have the advantage in refound scenerios because defenders usually had more people who can be called online for update - most raiders were pilers, not updaters. No idea if that's still true.

The more people you have clicking "Create Region," the greater chance you can snatch the refound though. So increasing your updater count, increases the probability you will win the refound.

In general though, the better strategy is to not leave it up to chance if possible: flooding updaters into the region right before update blocks the refound before it can take place, but screws up the occupation. This is why WA Liberations are so helpful in discouraging regional griefing because it is regional passwords that block that latter manuever. Trying to grief a region without a password is a lot more difficult than griefing a region with a password.

What I think could be a helpful discussion is over the timeline of WA Liberations. Recalling Illuminati and Westphalia, for instance. Players nowadays have a lot better understanding of influence accumulation and the science behind it than previous generations, and they can obstruct the WA Queue through quorum raiding. Invaders have figured when to strike, how many pilers to use, how long to stash their lead puppet in the region beforehand, and how long it will take to optimize their occupation, so that defenders are behind the eight-ball when it comes to trying to get a WA Liberation in the queue and passed in time to prevent the regional griefing.

This is actually true, because like people are better at judging whether a refound is for malicious intentions/raiding than leaving it up to technical/robots to do it for all refounds. Maybe there could be a lowered approval requirement for WA liberations andWA repeal liberations to reach quorum, as well as them taking priority over all others in the queue? (for example if a WA condemn reaches quorum and later a liberation, the liberation will always go first and then the condemn)

[Comfed]

That idea also gives defenders an unfair advantage - honestly I don’t see any problems with the current system.

[United Calanworie]

A random thought I had to make it harder for raiders to destroy/refound regions after occupying - what if there was a, say, 12 hour delay from the region having no nations in it and CTE'ing, so they must have no nations for 2 updates to CTE? This would make it easier for defenders or natives to snipe refounds.

So you mean a whole 24 update cycle? Like, I'm genuinely curious as to the point of this. You're asking for an admin solution to what is not a problem in need of admin intervention. There are not many refounds taking place that are raiders refounding trophies. It would also substantially impact antifascist action as it would give fascists a whole extra update in which they can snipe their region back.

[Tim-Opolis]

I don't think this is necessary, and is frankly a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

[Lord Dominator]

Any failures to liberate Illuminati or Westphalia on the SC side was due to the interregional community not wishing to do so.

[Parxland]

A random thought I had to make it harder for raiders to destroy/refound regions after occupying - what if there was a, say, 12 hour delay from the region having no nations in it and CTE'ing, so they must have no nations for 2 updates to CTE? This would make it easier for defenders or natives to snipe refounds.

Full support (duh). DO THIS NOW!

[Leutria]

Are region hawks not an issue anymore? I remember them being a concern when natives wanted to refound a region back when I started playing. This would make it easier for such players over natives, but if it isn't a thing anymore, then that concern might not matter (unless making it easier brings back region hawking).