Frontiers, Governors, Successors and Injunctions

[Quebecshire]

I know this was a bit further back, but I had an idea. We were talking about the whole "Governor" title thing for founders and successors. Why can't we just have customizable founder/delegate/successor names? That would really help with regions that involve the founder in their government. It would make my title in Thegye change from "Founder / Diarch" to just "Diarch". Much cleaner, especially if the founder/successor is also the delegate.

This is a good idea. Tie it to executive perms and boom. NS++ used to have something like this as well and it was cool.

[Brox Reple]

Hello!

I am curious as to whether the spawning will be equally split among all frontiers, perhaps proportional to WAD endocount (either linear, logarithmic, square root, or even something else) as it was mentioned a while ago.
I mention this in addition to the boosts violet envisioned

What do you think would be best? This is your chance to help determine the outcome.

It was argued earlier that equal splits would lead to empires and colonies, that linear with endos would encourage large regions with less incentive for R/D conflict, and that log/square root would be somewhere in between.

I like Flanderlion's suggestion of scores, but I don't agree with what makes up the score. Someone already mentioned that basing score on RMB posts would encourage spam. I'd say that you could spam polls too - every two weeks you could set up a 24 day poll "Is this a poll?" and game the system that way. So yeah, maybe bonus points for a poll, but not many.

I do agree with the share being related to endo count in some way tho.

Yeah fair point I think I should put in my opinion in the ring as well. I do think that equal split would be counterproductive, as we still want regions to have a higher chance of spawning in properly established regions. While the spawning boosts that [violet] mentioned do have an effect on that, I think a long-term mechanic like factoring in endocount is beneficial.
As for which function to use, I guess that largely depends on what kind of region you represent. Larger regions will prefer linear while smaller while be enticed by equal split. I think the compromise of logarithmic or sqrt would probably work best.

[Bassiliya]

I know this was a bit further back, but I had an idea. We were talking about the whole "Governor" title thing for founders and successors. Why can't we just have customizable founder/delegate/successor names? That would really help with regions that involve the founder in their government. It would make my title in Thegye change from "Founder / Diarch" to just "Diarch". Much cleaner, especially if the founder/successor is also the delegate.

This is a good idea. Tie it to executive perms and boom. NS++ used to have something like this as well and it was cool.

I loved the NS++ version of that (when it worked) and I've been thinking about it ever since. It would really save a lot of wasted space on the WFE.

[Haganham]

We still need to have default terms for it for regions that don't bother with a custom name... unless we're going to require a custom name at setup, ew.

[Bassiliya]

We still need to have default terms for it for regions that don't bother with a custom name... unless we're going to require a custom name at setup, ew.

Just like how ROs have default settings for appointments, I don't see why the Founder/Successor/Delegate can't have their own defaults, just customizable ones.

[Johanneslanden]

If I'm understanding this correctly: a founderless region may gain a founder by transitioning from Stronghold to Frontier, and back. This would make the delegate at time of transition the new founder.
That presumably means a raid during the update that the region is meant to become a Stronghold again, would lead to the raiders gaining total control over the region.

Would appreciate confirmation of this, as delegate of a founderless region it'll be useful in working out our options here.

[Sincluda]

Where does development on this stand at the moment?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

If I'm understanding this correctly: a founderless region may gain a founder by transitioning from Stronghold to Frontier, and back. This would make the delegate at time of transition the new founder.
That presumably means a raid during the update that the region is meant to become a Stronghold again, would lead to the raiders gaining total control over the region.

Would appreciate confirmation of this, as delegate of a founderless region it'll be useful in working out our options here.

Nope, this was addressed:

If the Delegate position changes hands during this process, then an additional 3 days are added to the transition time period.

Personally I don't think 3 days is long enough (particularly because passing an SC resolution takes a minimum of 4 days...) but that's a different issue - what you suggested above is not possible.

[Apatosaurus]

Personally I don't think 3 days is long enough (particularly because passing an SC resolution takes a minimum of 4 days...) but that's a different issue - what you suggested above is not possible.

Yeah, agreed with Shrew, what's the stance on increasing the 3 days limit?

[Insidium]

"Fortify" was okay. Looking at synonyms of the better words above, "Ensconce" could be fun, though that may be just because it's a funny word. What about "Anchor"? It seems a highly appropriate description; you're anchoring a region as one type so it cannot be changed to the other. And everyone can shout "anchors aweigh" when one gets repealed, and make all sorts of nautical puns.

How about “Freeze”?

[Flanderlion]

It should always go to the ex-founder, not the delegate. Too easy for a region to be raided and the raider being appointed founder.

[Comfed]

It should always go to the ex-founder, not the delegate. Too easy for a region to be raided and the raider being appointed founder.

That would remove the option for founderless regions to get a founder.

[Flanderlion]

It should always go to the ex-founder, not the delegate. Too easy for a region to be raided and the raider being appointed founder.

That would remove the option for founderless regions to get a founder.

Doesn't sound a bad thing to me. Custodian should be the only way for regions to appoint a new one.

[Comfed]

That would remove the option for founderless regions to get a founder.

Doesn't sound a bad thing to me. Custodian should be the only way for regions to appoint a new one.

I think regions should be able to use that tool for themselves rather than subject their foundership to a popularity contest.

Also, I have yet to see an argument as to why raiders making themselves founders is such a problem when there are already tools against it being proposed.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Doesn't sound a bad thing to me. Custodian should be the only way for regions to appoint a new one.

I think regions should be able to use that tool for themselves rather than subject their foundership to a popularity contest.

Also, I have yet to see an argument as to why raiders making themselves founders is such a problem when there are already tools against it being proposed.

Because the time delay between a raider being appointed as Founder after seizing the Delegate position is shorter than the time required to make use of the main tool against it.

Other than this, I agree that this mechanic should absolutely remain because as you said appointing a Founder should not be a popularity contest.

[All Wild Things]

I think regions should be able to use that tool for themselves rather than subject their foundership to a popularity contest.

Also, I have yet to see an argument as to why raiders making themselves founders is such a problem when there are already tools against it being proposed.

Because the time delay between a raider being appointed as Founder after seizing the Delegate position is shorter than the time required to make use of the main tool against it.

Other than this, I agree that this mechanic should absolutely remain because as you said appointing a Founder should not be a popularity contest.

I suppose the tactic would be for ROs to eject unnecessary nations from the region, then the delegate applies a secret password.
The delegate needs to have enough influence remaining for the transition to Stronghold.
The delegate also needs to figure out who they can trust to be inside the passworded region while the transition goes through.
If it's a strong community, then people would understand that they were getting kicked out only temporarily, and that it was necessary for the transition to be secure.

[Sedgistan]

Where does development on this stand at the moment?

There's not any progress to report at present. We don't have a finalised plan for the the eligibility / rate of spawns in Frontiers, but that's being worked on, based on the feedback that's been given here. It's a tricky balancing act as there's some competing goals.

[Sedgistan]

Frontiers/Strongholds is officially on admin's to-code list. I'll get around to updating the OP at some point, but as discussed over the last couple of pages, the eligibility criteria for Frontiers receiving spawns is now more granular than previously planned.

[Queen Yuno]

That's great news to see this update happen. I fully support this, this will be good for the health of the game down the long run.

I hope you go ahead and implement your idea fully and don't worry about the GCRs interests, UCRs are too small. Good luck

Please don't make it too hard for UCRs xD

But regardless I have faith in this idea for a long time and eagerly await these exciting new developments. Thanks for innovating

[Altmoras]

So do you lose new nations for a whole week if you change your welcome TG?

[Katerose von Kreutzer]

So do you lose new nations for a whole week if you change your welcome TG?

Way I read it, and the way I think it would be more logical to apply, is that if you stop having a welcome telegram you stop spawning. Changing welcome telegrams shouldn't trigger a stop to nation-spawning.

[Leutria]

So do you lose new nations for a whole week if you change your welcome TG?

Way I read it, and the way I think it would be more logical to apply, is that if you stop having a welcome telegram you stop spawning. Changing welcome telegrams shouldn't trigger a stop to nation-spawning.

The issue is you have to cancel your existing welcome telegram to set a new one.

[Galiantus III]

So do you lose new nations for a whole week if you change your welcome TG?

The week period you are thinking of is a stipulation on the number of delegate endorsements, to prevent people from griefing the system with lots of flash frontiers. So just swapping welcome TG's definitely won't stop new spawns for a week. The worst-case scenario would only be until the next update, when spawn eligibility is evaluated. And this could easily be implemented to be instantaneous - welcome TG's are a requirement born out of concern for new players, not gameplay.

[Unibot III]

The smarter way to do the password/welcome tg requirement is to make it an automatic implementation for all frontier, rather than as a condition for ‘feederization.’

In other words, there would be a default Welcome Tg slapped on any frontier that became eligible for feederization automatically in lieu of an existing Welcome tg. You could replace the Welcome tg but you wouldn’t be able to delete it. And again, any passwords would be dropped if a Frontier gained eligibility for feederization, as though it had been WA liberated.

So the only actual condition would be the population condition.

---

The more complicated problem remains how to best distribute Frontier nations and personally I think it’s the most important question facing the project … and if you answer it wrong, the proposal will not be a positive change for NSGP.

The three key things to keep in mind, IMO, is (1) the F/S proposal will significantly displace R/D gameplay due to planned successions in UCRs… and unless you can find a ‘home’ for military gameplay activity, you’ll just dry up a subgame of NS over the course of a few years, (2) regional governments are technologically sophisticated these days and they want to be ‘big,’ but they’re oftentimes disinterested in the actual day to day activities of engaging residents and building a community — expect players to gamify growth, code through challenges, and take shortcuts where they can to grow. (3) Regional security is largely based on endorsement margins not founder status.

So far during this thread we’ve talked about a few different proposals…

Even/flat distribution. Effect: big legacy frontiers will frequently invade small, upstart frontiers to choke off the leakage early. This shifts NSGP into a kind of anarcho-cannibalism, where defenders and raiders from the old world NSGP become mercenaries, protection rackets in a game of corporate warfare. Pros: military gameplay is still useful, but its identity is morphed. Con: this isn’t necessarily encouraging productive growth, so much as it is ‘Mad Max’ rentierism.

Merit-based distribution. Effect: if you make growth conditional on RMB posts, expect lots of spam… if you make it conditional on activity, expect log-in scripts…. If you make growth conditional on endorsement rates, expect anti-marsupialism tactics etc. etc. etc. Players are crafty, lazy, and exploitive. Pro: better performing frontiers should be better at the metrics being evaluated. Con: the frontiers will only superficially meet the targets provided, growth will stabilize around key performers, and NS R/D will be choked out and displaced.

Venterized distribution. Effect: if you allow GCRs or the WA as a whole to continuously allocate which share of nations each frontier will receive, over time internationally popular frontiers will grow relative to unpopular ones. Pro: deters isolationism/rentierism (rotten big regions like Absolution and Europe that Sedge will remember); involves the rest of the game in the success of frontiers; shifts the recognition of merit from quantitative criteria to qualitative and political reasoning that cannot be as easily gamed. Con: R/D military still lacks purpose.

Two additional ideas would be…

Mining-based distribution. Effect: if you have a trigger, a button, something that nations are clicking or interacting with in the frontier, the share of each daily allocation would be proportional to the total ‘plays’ or ‘clicks’ in the region divided by the total number overall in the game. Nations would effectively be mining for nations in frontiers. The trigger could be as simple as a button that the region clicked on, or more complicated or interactive like a puzzle or mini-game. Pro: regions would have to organize teams to mine for nations, creating a team building exercise or competitive challenge that the region has to pursue…, military gameplayers would still target small frontiers to choke off mining in the start-ups. Con: the repetitive activity may bore players.

One vague (and not fully fleshed out) idea I had was that the trigger might not be a simple button-to-nowhere, but rather you’d be presented two recruitment tgs in the queue in each region and asked to rank them in the queue, so recruiters from other regions would have reason to want to participate in the mini-game too to give preference to their tg’s… meanwhile, the action would be contributing rather than detracting to the frontier region. I thought this might result in recruitment preference treaties, where frontier regions struck preference agreements to particular recruiting regions that agree to mine exclusively in their region.

Opportunity-based distribution. Effect: If allocations are given preference to characteristics that traditionally contribute to regional insecurity, you would create a NS-eque double-sword where the frontiers that are most preferred for allocations are the frontiers that are most dynamic/fluid/unstable/insecure. For instance you can evaluate ‘endorsement equality’ and ‘influence equality’ like a Gino coefficient, and give preference to regions with the shortest average terms for Distinct-WA-Delegates (calibrated to the players themselves, like Dispatch upvotes, rather than distinct nations.) This means frontiers have to take on risks to themselves to grow more than other frontiers. Pro: expands the focus of military gameplay to bigger, ‘legacy’ frontiers that will inevitably face chronic challenges and regular security threats maintaining open policies. Con: authoritarian frontier regions would be, by design, discriminated against; I worry too that these frontiers would be such creatures of change, that they might struggle to maintain distinct identities, personalities, and cultures, because the region by necessity has to keep moving on — the faster, the better.

Some thoughts!

[Sedgistan]

Posting in brief (I will update the OP at some point but it is not pressing) - the waiting period for Frontiers to spawn nations is gone; that was a suggestion from admin as mentioned a page or two back, who wanted more granular control over nation spawn rates rather than a strict on/off.

It will continue to be the case that having a password set, or being in the process of transitioning to Stronghold stops spawnings, as will a lack of WA residents or a population of over 5,000 nations.

Other factors that will affect spawning rates include length of time the region has existed (strongly favouring those that have been around at least a week, with some tapering benefits for older regions) and verified Delegate endorsements (different boosts at different levels). Inactivity (deliberately undefined) and lack of welcome TG set will reduce the rate of spawns drastically.

The above buffs/debuffs to the rates aside, spawnings will be shared equally between Frontiers. The factors above are also designed so the numbers can be tweaked at a later stage if desired.