Advertisement
by Galiantus III » Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:44 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Unibot III » Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:17 pm
Galiantus III wrote:@Unibot
Here's my take on compelling targets:
1. Valuable targets put effort into security. That's just how it works. Frontiers will probably function a lot like feeders and sinkers do now, and yes, this will make them harder to invade. However, I personally think the existence of targets of value is worth it, even if it comes with a defense network. There's not really a way to create valuable targets that people won't put effort into defending.
2. I suppose for defenders you are correct. That is the angle you think of things from, and playing like that would match defender goals. However, I don't think this is how raiders will play. They are the ones taking the initiative for conflict, and defenders react. And unlike defenders, raiders may not have a stake in a frontier at all. So they wouldn't care about defending an ally anyways. Their goal is to attack a target - any target - because that's what they find fun. The moment they start stationing troops in "allied" territory, they are no longer raiders, but some kind of independent or imperialist entity.
3. Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I am critical of correlating spawn share with endorsement count. It heavily disincentivizes participation in any military operation - and that's not the kind of thing we want. In fact, the goal should be to reward frontiers for invading each other: For example, what if frontiers could direct a portion of their spawns to another frontier? Do you think something like that would be enough to keep gameplay going?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Galiantus III » Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:53 pm
Unibot III wrote:
Why are we thinking these frontiers will be substantially less secure? Invaders don’t target feeders and sinkers because they’re extremely difficult to coup, and they’re tied to important alliances and partnerships. Frontiers have an advantage in that they’ll be double-dipping & recruiting on top of their spawning stipend. They’ll be big, influential, and secure.
I think it’s important to note most new Frontiers will figure out they need to pursue a “controlled launch” where they build a lot of endorsements on their WA delegate as a Stronghold region, far more endorsements than required, before starting the transition to Frontier.
3. Agreed. This is one of the main reasons I am critical of correlating spawn share with endorsement count. It heavily disincentivizes participation in any military operation - and that's not the kind of thing we want. In fact, the goal should be to reward frontiers for invading each other: For example, what if frontiers could direct a portion of their spawns to another frontier? Do you think something like that would be enough to keep gameplay going?
I like that idea, it’s hilarious; although I think it should include GCRs as possible spawn regions to, because that way GCRs may try to invade frontiers too to defer nations back to themselves too.
Deferment may also be used as a kickback to ensure political support for an invasion. Especially if you split the deferment between multiple spawning regions.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Sedgistan » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:02 am
Unibot III wrote:1. Would it take less, more, or equal influence to password a frontier than it would be to transition it? I don’t get why you’ve set up an obvious shortcut to a forced transition. (I recognize that eventually the WA could get around to passing a WA resolution.) Passwording the frontier would be a faster way of cutting off growth than forcing a transition.
2. If WA endorsements increases allocation size, you’re making regions bigger for being big. It’s circular.
3. What do you imagine military gameplayers will be doing in this new F/S reality on a day to day basis? Like are they just spending most of their time protecting small frontiers from big frontiers? Will defenders really be interested in spending their time protecting UCRs that may be consciously trying to disrupt big UCRs? It’s a complete realignment of R/D around a mercenary-esque game.
4. The proposal has never really addressed leeches where Frontiers flop back to Strongholds once they’re satisfied with their growth. The whole idea is that regions take on risks, they get rewards, but if they take on risks, grow, then limit that risk… they’ve scooped up free nations and don’t contribute anything long term back to NS.
Galiantus III wrote:1. Why stop spawns if a region has more than 5,000 nations?
2. I'm concerned any meaningful relationship between WA count and spawn rate (beyond meeting a relatively low minimum) will have a stabilizing effect, by (a) solidifying the strongest frontiers, and (b) discouraging frontiers from engaging in military gameplay. Is there a sufficient reason to have this connection? And if so, what is the general relationship we can expect?
3. I've always thought of the welcome TG requirement as the on/off switch for region spawns: If an otherwise qualified region wants spawns, they put up the welcome telegram. If they want to stop spawns (as may be the goal of an invading force), they remove it. Treating it as a debuff sort of changes that. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I am curious if an easy shut-off was deemed undesirable behavior behind the scenes, and this is the fix, or if this just a natural result of conforming to [violet]'s feedback.
4. How much potential variability in spawn rates are we looking at from region to region, relative to the default? Are we talking no more than 50% up or down from the default? Or are we looking at some frontiers getting multiples of the default weight?
Thousand Branches wrote:Question, is the OP up to date on recent changes? I was looking for exact info on stuff but I’m not sure if the information up there is still fully accurate (I only ask cuz it hasn’t been updated in about two months).
by Unibot III » Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:58 am
1. Transitioning will cost at least as much, and likely more than a secret password.
2. -ish, but the benefits are tapering and limited for larger regions. The main size benefit is for having a few WA nations (verified Delegate endos) to ensure there are some people there. The reason there are some limited further benefits are for a gentle encouragement of an organisation not "farming" multiple regions.
3. I don't intend to make a prediction on this.
4. You're effectively saying every UCR these days doesn't contribute anything long-term back to NS?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Galiantus III » Fri Dec 17, 2021 10:39 am
Unibot III wrote:No you’re reading an anti-UCR perspective into my post, I’m saying your proposal is built on risk and reward: you yourself have said this in your OP, but a UCR can take risks early on, get bigger than they could otherwise, then cut that risk out entirely. But the risk that these regions are taking on, their founderlessness and weakened security, is an important contribution to the geopolitical activity in NationStates that we’re losing when they transition to Stronghold. It feels like Apple accepting a grant from the U.S, growing big, then not paying taxes in the U.S, and continuing to capitalize on their success.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Unibot III » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:01 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Unibot III wrote:No you’re reading an anti-UCR perspective into my post, I’m saying your proposal is built on risk and reward: you yourself have said this in your OP, but a UCR can take risks early on, get bigger than they could otherwise, then cut that risk out entirely. But the risk that these regions are taking on, their founderlessness and weakened security, is an important contribution to the geopolitical activity in NationStates that we’re losing when they transition to Stronghold. It feels like Apple accepting a grant from the U.S, growing big, then not paying taxes in the U.S, and continuing to capitalize on their success.
But if regions leave the spawn pool after significant growth, they make space for smaller regions to transition. If anything, we actually want regions to play this maximizing game and try working the system as much as possible, because that circulates new regions in, and old regions out.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Archinstinct » Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:37 am
Unibot III wrote:Galiantus III wrote:But if regions leave the spawn pool after significant growth, they make space for smaller regions to transition. If anything, we actually want regions to play this maximizing game and try working the system as much as possible, because that circulates new regions in, and old regions out.
Let me put it this way. If the goal of the F/S plan is to reduce the size of feeder regions and increase the size of some UCRs, I can guarantee you that F/S will accomplish that goal regardless of whether any sort of magic balance is achieved. That part of the equation is not rocket science: we’re spreading nations around. Some UCRs are going to get bigger, perhaps much bigger. If that is pretty much your sole goal, I think F/S will do the job just fine but not necessarily with any tangible higher-level benefits in terms of geopolitical activity.
My personal belief is that it’s not really all that important whether GCRs lose 200 endorsements, or UCRs gain 200 endorsements, or whether relatively large but secure regions are founderless or foundered. What matters is crisis, vulnerability, dependencies, conquest, motivation, intrigue, conflict. It’s the glue that ties disparate communities together into an international political theatre, something that engages players on a higher level and keeps them interested. A kind of narrative that people can follow and involves the NS as a whole. That glue has been wearing thin lately in NS, I think. But I worry F/S will dry it up even faster, rather than replenishing it.
Like I get why Bluetopia would care about Greentopia receiving nations that otherwise might spawn in Bluetopia, but I don’t get why the vast majority of the rest of NS residing in feeders, sinkers, and strongholds would care about this competition. What’s the compelling thing that’s going to make people want to root for Bluetopia or Greentopia? It feels like we’re moving nations around but with no clear idea as to how it is going spark international attention and interest.
Deblar wrote:If even Switzerland is opposing your imperialist invasion, you know you've fucked up
by Unibot III » Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:25 pm
Archinstinct wrote:I know you've been retired Unibot, how fortunate for your sanity, but you may not realize how anal some of the leadership residing in feeders, sinkers, and soon-to-be strongholds have become in their quest to dominate all the bases. Trust me, there will be 'international attention and interest'. IDK if people will like it or not though.
Frankly though I'm all for this update. Potential source of new peeps please!
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Fauxia » Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:04 pm
by Tinhampton » Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:24 pm
by Galiantus III » Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:43 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Sedgistan » Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:15 pm
by Blattusordia » Wed Dec 22, 2021 7:58 pm
by Fauxia » Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:18 am
Blattusordia wrote:Can founders be Governors?
Sedgistan wrote:"Governor" is introduced as a new term to recognise a nation that has permanent Executive powers that can be used without influence cost. These get recognised on the region pages of Strongholds. "Governor Emeritus" is introduced to recognise the last Governor of a region that has now transitioned to Frontier status, and are recognised on the region page of Frontiers, but have no powers. All current Executive Founders become Governors.
Blattusordia wrote:How would the first governor of a new region be installed?
Sedgistan wrote:Strongholds
Like regions currently are, but the Governor can appoint a Successor, who takes over Executive status should the Governor CTE.
Sedgistan wrote:If the Governor Emeritus nation does not, then the Delegate holding the region at the time of the transition enacting becomes Executive Governor.
Blattusordia wrote:Is there a projected date for when this will roll out?
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Blattusordia » Thu Dec 23, 2021 9:25 am
Fauxia wrote:
Not Sedge but I can answer these.Blattusordia wrote:Can founders be Governors? Sedgistan wrote:"Governor" is introduced as a new term to recognise a nation that has permanent Executive powers that can be used without influence cost. These get recognised on the region pages of Strongholds. "Governor Emeritus" is introduced to recognise the last Governor of a region that has now transitioned to Frontier status, and are recognised on the region page of Frontiers, but have no powers. All current Executive Founders become Governors.
Yes, the founder if they choose to make a region a stronghold becomes Governor until they CTE or abdicate.Blattusordia wrote:How would the first governor of a new region be installed? Sedgistan wrote:Strongholds
Like regions currently are, but the Governor can appoint a Successor, who takes over Executive status should the Governor CTE.
It would just be founded as such. In the case of a frontier switching, Sedge explains this too:Sedgistan wrote:If the Governor Emeritus nation does not, then the Delegate holding the region at the time of the transition enacting becomes Executive Governor.
So if the region made the switch at one point, the last governor, if the nation is alive, becomes the governor, while if the Delegate makes the switch, the Delegate becomes Governor.Blattusordia wrote:Is there a projected date for when this will roll out?
Probably when season 3 of cards comes out. Just remember:[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Lenlyvit » Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:42 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Not quite. You can found a region as a Frontier. All existing regions become Strongholds to start with, but I'd like to have founders of new regions to have the choice of either.
by Sedgistan » Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:48 pm
by Brox Reple » Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:39 am
by Sedgistan » Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:47 am
by The Hinterplace » Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:34 pm
by Onionist Randosia » Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:35 pm
by MacEnthailand » Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:34 am
by The Orwell Society » Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:17 pm
MacEnthailand wrote:Hello! Is there any update on this update?
The Orwell Society
Straight Male | Political Alignment: Centrist leaning conservative | NSGP Alignment: Independent | Proud Wellspringer, join The Wellspring today!A vision without action is just a daydream
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Askobar, Dakota, Giovanniland, Hiptoban, Isla Pluma, Omnicontrol, PopeXII, Teffland, Telnuhq, Yektov, Yerrisey
Advertisement