Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Katganistan]

Well I appreciate the feedback regardless. Two points on that though - first, the intention is that the R/D activity is increased in regions that choose to take that risk - regions that don't want that involvement gain a further way of staying out of it. Second, improving recruitment rates is not an either/or thing, and there are other changes being debated in Technical that look to address this.


Nothing beyond the Development Managers news post that announced the roles a little while back. There's lots of Tech changes under discussion all the time, and I don't think we can regularly promote those on the News page. If people are interested in giving feedback on changes, they find their way to Technical.


First question - I'm not sure of the exact mechanics that Ballo used when he implemented influence decay with feeders, but it would probably work the same way. Second question - while the region is a Frontier, the influence decay would be happening regardless of whether it's in the process of transitioning back to Stronghold or not.


To promote retention of new nations within the game. We do also definitely envisage some of the spawns will stick around and get involved in the Frontier they're spawned in. It's a requirement of some minimal effort from the region. If they can't be bothered to set a welcome telegram, they don't deserve nations spawning there.


Typo - I've corrected that to "Executive Founder".


An Executive Founder is only possible in a Stronghold. You cannot be an Executive Founder in a Frontier. A Frontier by definition does have an Executive Delegate (but that confusion on terms is probably the result of my typo above).


I expect Feeders would definitely get less spawns if they became Frontiers. But as I put in the OP, I do like an element of inbuilt inequality, and also inbuilt diversity in region types. This changes looks to cut down the size of Feeders, thus reducing their in-game influence, but doesn't have further changes planned for them.

Lol pathetic. It's almost like you're trying to break the game and are purposely not listening to feedback. Where's season 3 of cards? What about fixing recruitment or anything else that would actually improve the game instead of this awful update?

Season 3 is not the topic. Recruitment rates are being dealt with elsewhere. Stay on topic.

[Kepler-0085]

We should have a third option to stay as we are now, it could be the default one and named the "Camp" Like a mix between Frontier and Stronghold

[Bears Armed]

We should have a third option to stay as we are now, it could be the default one and named the "Camp" Like a mix between Frontier and Stronghold

That was considered originally, but was dropped as the rules for the currently-planned two types were developed. 'Stronghold' basically gives us/you everything that "as we now are" does, plus the possibility of Founder's appointing successors, so what advantage would your suggested third option have over that?
And you might want to check all the definitions of the word ''Camp'...

[Lord Dominator]

Would it be possible to have that 3 type of region as a sort of temporary holding for existing founderless regions so they can go either way without potentially losing influence or gaining unwanted spawns?

I can think of a few ways to do this:
- current founderless regions don't become frontiers but can switch either way (with or without a time limit), basically a modern version of true founderless regions relative to mechanics
- the ability to switch region types is turned on some period of time before spawns and influence decay do

[The Stalker]

Would it be possible to have that 3 type of region as a sort of temporary holding for existing founderless regions so they can go either way without potentially losing influence or gaining unwanted spawns?

I can think of a few ways to do this:
- current founderless regions don't become frontiers but can switch either way (with or without a time limit), basically a modern version of true founderless regions relative to mechanics
- the ability to switch region types is turned on some period of time before spawns and influence decay do

I had suggested this exact thing a few pages back. Where founderless would temporarily be "unknown", and could change into one or the other. Then default onto stronghold after like 6 months. Make it easier to gain a founder than the switching back and forth.

Think it be helpful.

[Lord Dominator]

Would it be possible to have that 3 type of region as a sort of temporary holding for existing founderless regions so they can go either way without potentially losing influence or gaining unwanted spawns?

I can think of a few ways to do this:
- current founderless regions don't become frontiers but can switch either way (with or without a time limit), basically a modern version of true founderless regions relative to mechanics
- the ability to switch region types is turned on some period of time before spawns and influence decay do

I had suggested this exact thing a few pages back. Where founderless would temporarily be "unknown", and could change into one or the other. Then default onto stronghold after like 6 months. Make it easier to gain a founder than the switching back and forth.

Think it be helpful.

I’d personally say that they default to Frontier - I understand that’s going to be the new founderless anyways

[The Stalker]

Eh pretty sure it's set-up everyone defaults to stronghold. Being founderless and forced into frontier would kill founderless regions with that influence decay. It's what keeps us safe.

[The Python]

As of 15 September, this petition has 39 valid signatures and is found here. Concerned players may still sign it to be added to this post.

Note: A total of 5 invalid signatures were removed. 2 of these were either by or impersonating players blacklisted for OOC reasons, 1 was an impersonation attempt and 2 had provided nation names that do not exist, one of which was a clear troll signature.

UPDATE: For clarity, opinions stated and/or signatures do NOT necessarily represent the opinions of the respective regions of the players signing this.

We,

Noting that the proposed technical change "Frontiers and Strongholds", previously referred to as "Democracy/Autocracy", has significant detrimental impacts on the community of NationStates as it only penalises regions that do not wish to convert to the system of Frontier by putting them at a heavy disadvantage in recruitment, and also causes Frontiers to lose much of their security and be prone to raids and even region griefing,

Concerned that moderators have not taken many of these concerns into account,

SIGN THIS PETITION requesting that the planned change of Frontiers and Strongholds be abandoned by the NationStates Administration.

Signed by:
Altys, Concerned Player
Amerion, Delegate of the South Pacific
Aynia Moreaux, Founder of Caer Sidi
Brototh, Delegate & President of Thaecia
Calvin Coolidge, President of Europeia
Controlitia, Senator of 10000 Islands
Doge Land, Concerned Player
Drecq, Former Vice Chancellor of Europeia
Eshialand, Councillor of the LCRUA
Flying Eagles, Senator of 10000 Islands
Grandfather Clock, Vice President of Europeia
Great Algerstonia, Former Minister of Immigration of The East Pacific
Hesskin Empire, Delegate of Chaylia & Original Founder of Hartfelden
Huks Gares, Concerned Player
Indusse, Current Founder & Former Delegate of India
Kanaia, Former 10000 Islands Treaty Organisation Commander
Kazaman, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Balder & Former President of Europeia
Kuramia, Former President of Europeia
Lebatrip, Concerned Player
Mancheseva City, Concerned Player
Mingulay Isle, Chancellor & Former Delegate of Palatine
Narvatus, Former Delegate of the Free Nations Region
Nepleslia, Concerned Player
Obets, Former Minister of Culture of the Free Nations Region
Pajonia, First Minister of The Communist Bloc
Pland Adanna, Former Minister of World Assembly of Europeia
Phoenix Coalition, Former President of the Union of Democratic States
Quebecshire, Founder of The League
Rotasu, Delegate of Sky Haven
Sanjurika, Former Delegate of Karma & Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the North Pacific
Sincluda, Senator of Europeia
Soap Tips, Concerned Player
Spode Humbled Minions, Minister of Foreign Affairs of The League
The Church of Satan, Former Delegate of the Rejected Realms
The Independent States of Allied Forces, Delegate of Wintercrest
The Islamic Country of Honour, Concerned Player
The Nation of the People of the Nation, Former President of Europeia
The Python, Minister of Defense of the Free Nations Region & Administrator of Chicken Overlords
Wischland, Delegate of 10000 Islands

Some opinions were also provided by people signing the petition below:

I am concerned about how the moderators have not taken many user concerns into account, as well as that this change encourages region griefing.

A number of reasons regarding regional security, recruitment band-aid solutions, and making the SC have to deal with nonsensical embargos that should be handled by moderation. I've elaborated more in other venues.

Forces people that want to grow their community to risk the collapse of said community

Because I hope that the administrative and gameplay teams will reconsider this move in favour of different reforms to NS gameplay.

This project neglects the needs of broader NationStates community in order to push regions into military gameplay, an aspect that, while enjoyable for a segment of the userbase, does not interest a majority of it's users. It does so under the claim that this will generate conflict, and by implication, content, for the game. However Sedge has made little effort to ensure that the conflict produced is meaningful. Instead leaning on mechanics to encourage prospective region builders to participate. This will make military gameplay less, not more engaging, by encouraging conflict over regions for mechanical reasons, rather then regions of genuine interest.

I hate everything about this. I'm not just being conservative, I truly believe that it's going to further imbalance the game. Big regions are going to capitalize and get bigger, most small regions aren't going to risk security for the sake of how many new nations in a month? What are the projected numbers? NS has over 24k regions right now, and assuming only 1% goes for having new nations spawn in, realistically what are these spawning numbers going to look like? Is it even going to be worth putting security at risk for one nation to spawn every few days who may or may not immediately leave?

It legitimizes raiding and punished (sic) region-builders who don't want to put their communities at risk.

This change just seems too unnecessary and complicated to warrant it coming to the game.

[Sedgistan]

Eh pretty sure it's set-up everyone defaults to stronghold. Being founderless and forced into frontier would kill founderless regions with that influence decay. It's what keeps us safe.

That's correct.

*snip*

Since petitions, polls and votes are irrelevant to decision making on technical changes, that was a waste of your time. Also, given that you went from "Noice!" to "petition against" with no real contributions of note in between, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you jumped on a populist bandwagon when you saw a couple of bigger regions weren't keen on this. If you want your view to count for something on technical changes, try reasoned argument -- it's worked for other participants in this thread.

[The Python]

Also, given that you went from "Noice!" to "petition against" with no real contributions of note in between, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you jumped on a populist bandwagon when you saw a couple of bigger regions weren't keen on this.

What's wrong with a simple change in mind?

[Quebecshire]

Hi. Please remove the mention of my office as Minister of Culture of the South Pacific from this. I don't care that you included TL given that TL took an official position on this.

I signed it (as an individual) because it was a harmless Google Form you threw at my DM's. My positions, namely those entrusted to me by electoral bodies, are not for you to arbitrarily flaunt to advance your opinions, even if we might agree in a general sense.

[The Python]

Hi. Please remove the mention of my office as Minister of Culture of the South Pacific from this. I don't care that you included TL given that TL took an official position on this.

I signed it (as an individual) because it was a harmless Google Form you threw at my DM's. My positions, namely those entrusted to me by electoral bodies, are not for you to arbitrarily flaunt to advance your opinions, even if we might agree in a general sense.

While I removed it anyway, just so it's clear, it was not meant to imply it was on behalf of the regions/positions mentioned.

[Phydios]

Noting that the proposed technical change "Frontiers and Strongholds", previously referred to as "Democracy/Autocracy", has significant detrimental impacts on the community of NationStates as it only penalises regions that do not wish to convert to the system of Frontier by putting them at a heavy disadvantage in recruitment

Strongholds work exactly like foundered regions do now, with the added ability to appoint a successor. We can argue whether it's fair for present-day UCRs to have a "heavy disadvantage in recruitment" compared to GCRs, but the fact that they've survived and thrived for years makes the argument pretty much moot.

and also causes Frontiers to lose much of their security and be prone to raids and even region griefing,

No one's losing anything. Frontiers fall between GCRs and founderless UCRs. We can argue whether it's fair for those regions to be "prone to raids and even region griefing", but the fact that they've survived and thrived for years makes the argument pretty much moot.

[Galiantus III]

it only penalises regions that do not wish to convert to the system of Frontier by putting them at a heavy disadvantage in recruitment,

This is simply false. All regions would get the same recruitment pool, the only difference here is where they initially start. If anything, this will improve recruitment for regions that don't switch because (a) fewer of their would-be competitors won't be sending telegrams, and (b) frontiers are more likely to be worse at retention than the feeders who have over a decade of practice.

Also this argument no different than saying "it's unfair that feeders get free recruitment". That argument has never flown in the past, so why should it now? And honestly, having these central regions where new nations spawn has been a good thing - it starts new players in areas of activity, and has provided something of inherent value to motivate conflict.

and also causes Frontiers to lose much of their security and be prone to raids and even region griefing,

Yeah, it's called a trade-off. Literally in the same sentence you are complaining about how good this will be for frontiers and how bad it will be for frontiers. Your argument is confused out of its failure to recognize this fundamental connection. It's like you are compartmentalizing either side of this intentional trade-off and not putting them in context of each other so you can argue against this proposal.

A cogent argument would recognize both sides and attempt to evaluate life as a frontier as either an absolute good or an absolute bad, then make a claim about obsoletion: either frontiers will go unused because other existing regions are obviously better, or frontiers will become the main attraction and other kinds of regions will go by the wayside. Your argument literally attempts to have its cake and eat it too by saying both situations will happen - which is logically impossible. Only one could happen. So pick one and stick with it.

(Also, yay thousandth post!)

[A Bloodred Moon]

We,

Noting that the proposed technical change "Frontiers and Strongholds", previously referred to as "Democracy/Autocracy", has significant detrimental impacts on the community of NationStates as it only penalises regions that do not wish to convert to the system of Frontier by putting them at a heavy disadvantage in recruitment,

Recruitment for Strongholds is not being changed, to my knowledge. I fail to see how Strongholds would be “detrimental[ly] impact[ed]” through this change.

and also causes Frontiers to lose much of their security and be prone to raids and even region griefing,

Conflict on a political simulator should really at no point surprise you, and it’s part of the aim to encourage a more meaningful conflict. Instead of invading a random roleplay region, invasions would happen in regions that accepted the risk. Frontiers would have a logical reason to participate in raiding, to gain a larger % of spawns. There would be far more legitimacy to invasions of Frontiers (and thus, more reason for political conflict) then there could ever be for invading random founderless regions. Who knows, wars between major regions might actually mean something.

I am concerned about how the moderators have not taken many user concerns into account, as well as that this change encourages region griefing.

You’d really, really start to wonder whether the OP was even read. In the OP, one of the aims is to create a more “consensual” R/D game. This is something I don’t particularly care about, but it seems logical to me that the moralists would be happy about this.

Forces people that want to grow their community to risk the collapse of said community

If you want to grow your community but are too scared to risk much of anything, there is nothing in the change that forces you to do so.

This project neglects the needs of broader NationStates community in order to push regions into military gameplay, an aspect that, while enjoyable for a segment of the userbase, does not interest a majority of it's users. It does so under the claim that this will generate conflict, and by implication, content, for the game. However Sedge has made little effort to ensure that the conflict produced is meaningful. Instead leaning on mechanics to encourage prospective region builders to participate. This will make military gameplay less, not more engaging, by encouraging conflict over regions for mechanical reasons, rather then regions of genuine interest.

I don’t understand this. Are you saying the current system of invading random regions for no specific reason is preferable to generating meaningful conflict over recruitment resources?

I hate everything about this. I'm not just being conservative, I truly believe that it's going to further imbalance the game. Big regions are going to capitalize and get bigger, most small regions aren't going to risk security for the sake of how many new nations in a month? What are the projected numbers? NS has over 24k regions right now, and assuming only 1% goes for having new nations spawn in, realistically what are these spawning numbers going to look like? Is it even going to be worth putting security at risk for one nation to spawn every few days who may or may not immediately leave?

This, I think, is a far more valid reasoning. Getting 50% of all spawns divided across all Frontier regions and having to compete with standard recruitment as well is really no guarentee for success. It might be beneficial to lower the % of spawns the Feeders get - more benefit for Frontiers, and less stable Feeders.

It legitimizes raiding and punished (sic) region-builders who don't want to put their communities at risk.

The “punishes region builders” is equally heartwarming as it is utter nonsense. The proposal doesn’t punish Strongholds, it rewards taking risks - something the game could greatly benefit from.

Anyone still complaining about “legitimizing raiding” really hasn’t kept up over the past 18 years

While I had mixed feelings on this, I think this is an interesting idea. However, I worry whether the benefit of Frontier status outweighs the risk. 50% of all spawns, divided by however many Frontiers there are, and also having to compete with conventional recruitment does raise some concern as to whether it’d be enough incentive to switch to Frontier. A higher % of spawns might perhaps help. Secondly, 10 endorsements is a really low requirement. I understand we don’t want the ultra-large regions to be the only ones benefitting, but 10 is fairly low. I’d say 20 would be a better number - not out of reach, while still reducing the risk of too many Frontiers.

Question: the Feeder welcome TG was delayed recently. Would it be possible to reverse this change for Frontiers, as to help with retention and to further incentivize switching to Frontier status?

[Sedgistan]

Question: the Feeder welcome TG was delayed recently. Would it be possible to reverse this change for Frontiers, as to help with retention and to further incentivize switching to Frontier status?

Good question. Currently I'm intending not to have the delay in place for Frontiers (it's coded specifically for Feeders only at present), but I'm open to arguments on this.

[Sailiopia]

Thanks Sedge for working so hard on this - I hope that the admins will take this proposal well and will support it's implementation, even if as a variant to it's current form.

In case anyone (and prior posts suggest this is the case for a significant number of people) needs convincing of the benefits of this proposal, the second half of this dispatch contains information about why we really should support this proposal (read the first half if you also want to hear a statement about the importance of opposing fascism).

[Jutsa]

I'm sorry I don't have anything to add, and am fully aware that my opinion is meaningless regarding any outcome,

but I just wanted to say that I love this idea so much you can't even imagine.

I'm excited to see what new Security Council legislation might come out of this, at that... though I imagine that's all quite a bit down the road.

[Amerion]

Hi. Please remove the mention of my office as Minister of Culture of the South Pacific from this. I don't care that you included TL given that TL took an official position on this.

I signed it (as an individual) because it was a harmless Google Form you threw at my DM's. My positions, namely those entrusted to me by electoral bodies, are not for you to arbitrarily flaunt to advance your opinions, even if we might agree in a general sense.

I would likewise make clear that this petition was agreed to in an entirely personal capacity and does not reflect on any position of the South Pacific's government.

[Porflox]

I personally don't think the proposal is half bad, and though I have some minor qualms in line with XKI's statement on the matter, it seems like a decent way to improve UCR recruitment and put super-UCR's on a more similar level with feeders. From an admin's point of view, I can definitely see how this update makes sense.

However, I am very concerned about the possibility of the proposed change being implemented despite widespread oppositions from nearly all major regions and many individual nations. If most people don't want a change, I do not believe it would be a good idea for it to be pushed through anyways by the admin team. This would set a bad example and create the idea that the admin team is detached from the playerbase of the game they run, and lead to further opposition against any major future changes to the game.

[Frisbeeteria]

However, I am very concerned about the possibility of the proposed change being implemented despite widespread oppositions from nearly all major regions and many individual nations.

It's not surprising that the regions and nations with the most to lose might object to the change. That doesn't mean that Staff isn't listening or is detached from the playerbase of the game. We have to balance things between all players, vocal or not. We're happy for input, but balance is more important than popularity.

[Lord Dominator]

Eh pretty sure it's set-up everyone defaults to stronghold. Being founderless and forced into frontier would kill founderless regions with that influence decay. It's what keeps us safe.

Since Sedge said this was the case, are there any thoughts on my proposal to enable the succession & region type switching mechanics some period of time before the spawning & influence decay portions to avoid that portion of influence decay for those that do want to get a new founder back?

[Old Hope]

Eh pretty sure it's set-up everyone defaults to stronghold. Being founderless and forced into frontier would kill founderless regions with that influence decay. It's what keeps us safe.

Since Sedge said this was the case, are there any thoughts on my proposal to enable the succession & region type switching mechanics some period of time before the spawning & influence decay portions to avoid that portion of influence decay for those that do want to get a new founder back?

I think we DO need a third region type
Derelict Stronghold
If the founder of a region ceases to exist without successor or the Successor CTE'd before, and the region is not in process to switch to Frontier, then the region switches to the type Derelict Stronghold. A Derelict Stronghold can be turned back into a Stronghold by different means:
The founder returns.
The Successor returns and becomes the new founder.
The WA delegate switches the region to Stronghold in a similar manner than Frontier->Stronghold. This, however, takes 8 weeks before going into effect.
The WA delegate can also switch the region to Frontier in a similar manner than Stronghold->Frontier.
All regions without active founders would start as Derelict Stronghold.

[Tinhampton]

Some opinions were also provided by people signing the petition...

I hate everything about this. I'm not just being conservative, I truly believe that it's going to further imbalance the game. Big regions are going to capitalize and get bigger, most small regions aren't going to risk security for the sake of how many new nations in a month? What are the projected numbers? NS has over 24k regions right now, and assuming only 1% goes for having new nations spawn in, realistically what are these spawning numbers going to look like? Is it even going to be worth putting security at risk for one nation to spawn every few days who may or may not immediately leave?

Wrong. 141 regions had delegates with ten or more endorsements as of the major update beginning at 5am BST on Friday 17th September. Of those 141:

• five are feeders (TNP, TSP, TEP, TWP, and TP);
• four are sinkers (Osiris, Lazarus, Balder and TRR);
• two are warzones (Warzone Asia and Warzone Sandbox);
• six are class regions, which are passworded by design (Benigtopia, Far Essos Assia, Federation of Martian Colonies, KlozikShrineLand, WRHS Demon Valley, and Somersetonia); and
• six are passworded non-class regions (Liberal Democratic Union, Entropy, Hell, The Immaterial Plane, The Blue Star Union, and Lux Immortalem).

This leaves us with approximately 118 regions which can declare themselves to be a Frontier and have nations spawn in them if the change were to be implemented right now* - about 0.48% of all regions on NS. If "only 1%" of those regions makes such a declaration, that'll be one region getting half of all new nations. Which... would be pretty lopsided. I mean Anime Daisuki levels of WTF.

*: It's worth noting that five of the 118 eligible spawning Frontiers (10000 Islands, The Communist Bloc, Europeia, Thaecia, and The League) have all issued statements against Frontier/Stronghold; I suspect they will declare themselves to be Strongholds given the opportunity. One of the remaining 113 regions - Sophia - has said it will declare itself to be a Frontier.

[Queen Yuno]

However, I am very concerned about the possibility of the proposed change being implemented despite widespread oppositions from nearly all major regions and many individual nations.

It's not surprising that the regions and nations with the most to lose might object to the change. That doesn't mean that Staff isn't listening or is detached from the playerbase of the game. We have to balance things between all players, vocal or not. We're happy for input, but balance is more important than popularity.

yeah I'm gonna quote someone I saw in a UCR say

"are GCRs actually saying that we don't need changes anymore because there's been a mild die off
you literally still have 500 delegate endorsements
call me when it's 150"

UCRs die so easily.


Also, if you piss off a single GCR Officer and get banned from there? It's over for you. You're banned from that 1 GCR forever, and that cuts you off from thousands of nations and 20% of the playerbase right off the bat. I want more UCRs to be bigger. I don't want a single GCR that I pissed off politically, to hoard all the playerbase from everyone else.

What right does that GCR officer have to do that? The only reason he was able to do that was, he got there first and declared himself "Admin" of the GCR, even though he's just a regular player. He's just "older" so he got to join NationStates FIRST and establish HIS OWN forum website (which collects your IP addresses) and declaring himself ADMIN before you could. A single GCR being controlled by 5 self-proclaimed GCR admins, has the power to cut off anyone they dislike from 20% of the game's playerbase, that's way too much power lol. How rigged is that?

I have to add the disclaimer that I am currently banned from 2 GCRs, and that automatically cuts me off from 40% of the NS playerbase (16,500 nations,) due to the biased, political and unfair decision of a total of 5 PEOPLE ON NATIONSTATES!



(Someone might ask me: Why not just create a new identity / new nation and rejoin those GCRs? Guess what, you CAN'T. These GCR forum "admins" harvest your residential IPs through their off-site forums, and then they'll instantly know that you're the same person they banned, and block you from entering. If you use a VPN, they'll block you. If you use a mobile IP address, they'll block you. So you're basically just flat out cut off from a significant chunk of the game, even if you make a new nation, unless you move houses or move to another country or state.
So you might ask, why not just stay on the RMB? Because that's not enough when the RMB is controlled by the same people who banned you, who would ban you again if you're found out. You can't ADVANCE to ANY regional positions or roles or do anything, or join their R/D, or advance to GCR officer or GCR delegate without joining their off-site forums and handing over your IP.
You basically are blocked off from everything unless you register for their forums and hand over your IP.
Also, why should I have to create a brand new Discord (and have to move houses,) just to be able to play with 2 GCR regions - 16,500 nations - of NS, which I was cut off from because I pissed off the wrong 5 players on NS? Just as an example. )

PLEASE do this change!!!