Suggestion: Make Founders Optional!

[Topid]

I don't really like the 'founder' feature of this game. I recognize that some people would rather let their new regions be immune to the effects of the raider/defender aspect of the game, but I would not.

When I attempt to create a region, and I come to the screen where I must choose a name, create a WFE, choose to let a delegate access regional controls, and choose if I want a password for a region, the very last line above the 'create region' button, there is a line that says: "Founder: Topid".

Since I would prefer my regions be a part of the raider/defender aspect of the game I want to be able to edit that last line to say 'none' and the created region would be founderless.

[Violet] has said (and she does so there very clearly) that founders are a way for new communities to 'opt out' of the raider/defender game. Why can't new communities opt in?

Currently, I must found a region, wait 28 days (a month) for the founder to CTE, and then probably wait another 2-3 months before a raider would even consider raiding it, because the founder might come back. And when my regions are raided, if the raiders are really rude, it is very hard for me to resist refounding the founder nation. (My ability to do this isn't fair to the raiders, I could refound the founder nation and win anytime)

Basically, I'm frustrated that it is so hard these days to make a community 'raidable' and even then, the natives (me) could destroy the raiders at any time, which is tempting (even for those of us who really want our regions to be part of the r/d game).

I know there are some regions who consider never having a founder something to be proud of, since they are very old. And if new regions being founded who also never have a founder would be a big problem for these old communities, I'd suggest writing 'Historically Founderless Region' on all of their pages (like where badges go).

And there is also the problem that after a region is created (without a founder) and before the region gets a delegate, no one would be able to access regional controls. But that was a choice the would-be-founder made, so, not a problem in my mind.

What are your thoughts?

[Sedgistan]

I imagine that some defenders may get a little resentful that regions are not doing what they can to make themselves secure, by choosing not to have a founder - and this may create problems if a region which chose not to have a founder is being griefed (would people be willing to pass a Liberation resolution?). That aside I do like this idea, and wouldn't mind it being implemented.

[Pythagosaurus]

I'm going to leave the debate here up to the raiders, defenders, government builders, and [violet], but a possible extension of this is to allow founders to appoint someone else (or nobody) as the founder. Another point for debate is whether this should be allowed for all regions or just when you're creating one. Of course, such a decision could never be reversed, except by mods, so we'd take reasonable precautions for that.

[Topid]

I imagine that some defenders may get a little resentful that regions are not doing what they can to make themselves secure, by choosing not to have a founder - and this may create problems if a region which chose not to have a founder is being griefed (would people be willing to pass a Liberation resolution?). That aside I do like this idea, and wouldn't mind it being implemented.

Well yes I can see some arguement in the SC about that... But Argue is what the WA does, and everything causes debate anyway.
And it does mean more work for defenders... But, the community did CHOOSE to be without a founder.

It all comes down to, as [Violet] discribed it, founders being a madatory 'opt out' and I for one would rather not opt out.

I'm going to leave the debate here up to the raiders, defenders, government builders, and [violet], but a possible extension of this is to allow founders to appoint someone else (or nobody) as the founder. Another point for debate is whether this should be allowed for all regions or just when you're creating one. Of course, such a decision could never be reversed, except by mods, so we'd take reasonable precautions for that.

I assume you mean someone to appoint them whilie they are founder incase they CTE?
I like this idea, as it allows communitys who don't want to be part of the invader/defender game to remain out of it for good.

*awaits the debate and [violet]*

[Unibot]

Well, I've been thinking about this.

What if I applied that "Decaying Password" idea which seemed popular to this area of game mechanics, but in reverse.

The function could be a "Founder Suspension" or something like that, where a delegate can "depower" a founder (which would knock his name off the WFE, and strip him/her of the regional controls) by the click of a button. However the longer the founder suspension continues, the more it drains of the delegate's influence. At some point the suspension would have to end, when the delegate runs out of regional influence.

[Sedgistan]

Delegates don't just run out of influence if they're being endorsed by large numbers of nations. I wouldn't like that last idea - for those who don't want to be involved in invading/defending, founders should have the ultimate power, and I wouldn't approve of a system that undermined that.

I quite like the idea of fouders being able to appoint replacements, though that depends on mechanics. I don't think that many founders give up their position lightly (most who go just disappear without any warning), so I don't think it would significantly lead to a reduction in founderless regions (negating any possible raider complaint about lack of targets). It would also allow those regions which do want to opt out of the invader/defender game to do so, even if their original founder goes, and without having to go through the hassle of re-founding.

[Unibot]

Delegates don't just run out of influence if they're being endorsed by large numbers of nations. I wouldn't like that last idea - for those who don't want to be involved in invading/defending, founders should have the ultimate power, and I wouldn't approve of a system that undermined that.

I quite like the idea of fouders being able to appoint replacements, though that depends on mechanics. I don't think that many founders give up their position lightly (most who go just disappear without any warning), so I don't think it would significantly lead to a reduction in founderless regions (negating any possible raider complaint about lack of targets). It would also allow those regions which do want to opt out of the invader/defender game to do so, even if their original founder goes, and without having to go through the hassle of re-founding.

This reminds me of the old Regional Delegate idea I had back a while ago.

There would be the WA and the Regional Delegate.

In our current thinking, we believe the Founder should have ultimate determination of the region. But, shouldn't it be whoever the founder decides to be empowered, if he it be his self, or whoever the people want in charge, or the oldest regional member or what-not.

[Topid]

Well, I've been thinking about this.

What if I applied that "Decaying Password" idea which seemed popular to this area of game mechanics, but in reverse.

The function could be a "Founder Suspension" or something like that, where a delegate can "depower" a founder (which would knock his name off the WFE, and strip him/her of the regional controls) by the click of a button. However the longer the founder suspension continues, the more it drains of the delegate's influence. At some point the suspension would have to end, when the delegate runs out of regional influence.

Any idea in which the delegate removes the founder, isn't going to work. Griefers could abuse this power...

But, if we wanted to give the FOUNDER the option to remove himself in the Regional Controls, that might work. Although, my main concern with that would be a founder of a major region like Equilism or something accidently removing himself.

The best idea, I think, is still to allow regions to be created without founders.

[Neasmyrna]

Although this would cause enormous problems for us defenders deciding whether we should defend a region that basically asked to be invaded... I don't see why the option to not have a founder should not be available...

The game mods would have to decide whether they wanted to allow requests by people to appoint founders at a later time... which could get messy...

[Pythagosaurus]

No, game mods will not be manually appointing founders unless they were somehow removed illegally. There have been proposals for ways to select a new founder, and I won't rule that out, but it won't be the game mods' job.

[Topid]

Although this would cause enormous problems for us defenders deciding whether we should defend a region that basically asked to be invaded... I don't see why the option to not have a founder should not be available...

I think I may have been a bit unclear as to why I'd like to be in a region without a founder. I do not want to be raided.

Regional Governments within regions that have founders has been the aspect of the game I've spent 90% of my time in (And I mean regions that are not stated defender/invader regions). I don't want to name names as to which regions in particular I am speaking about, but most are the same.

Almost all regional governments (inside regions with founders who aren't a raider/defender region) will have a form of military or defence force. Because they have a founder, their region is never raided, and because they aren't raider/defenders they rarely use their military to help others/crush others, which means I will spend a lot of time keeping the militia organized and trained, when I know I'll never use it.

The same goes for Foreign Policy. These regions almost always make 'Alliances' with other founder regions that are not raiders/defenders. But since the other region's military is just as underused as our military, and we are both completely safe within our founder regions, there is no need for an alliance. We aren't making alliances to better each other’s regions, and to protect each other from a common threat... we are essentially just... making friends. And so a lot of time and effort will go into maintaining foreign embassies and organizing embassy grounds on regional forums, when they too are basically useless since the region in question does not need allies or assistance from anyone.

Most of the regional governments in this game have become nothing elaborate show with no real meaning.

I would rather be a part of a community which isn't immune to all negative happenings. I do not want to be raided. But I think that living in a community which must prepare for the possibility of a raid is more interesting. (Because then I have a reason to make allies and such).

EDITED to fix my god-awful spelling.

[Neasmyrna]

Ok... that makes sense... and I agree with most of your feelings there... I think it would be pretty neat in a way to actually have to worry about being invaded... and also to know that invaders can always get their own butts kicked by angry natives of destroyed regions.

However... since this wouldn't be an all out removal of founders... we would still have to decide whether to defend regions who put themselves in this position... and that may just not be cool.

I do encourage your adventurous attitude though!

[Tanara]

While being raided is the last thing I want - I don't want even the threat of being raided, thats NOT why I play NS, and I hope that no one ever tries to force me to play that part of NS. I get very tired of seeing what seems to be the blinders on the raiders and defenders of NS, and what appears to be their intent of pushing their game on everyone else.

I really resent the apparent attempts to make everyone have to play the raiding/ defending game.

[Topid]

While being raided is the last thing I want - I don't want even the threat of being raided, thats NOT why I play NS, and I hope that no one ever tries to force me to play that part of NS. I get very tired of seeing what seems to be the blinders on the raiders and defenders of NS, and what appears to be their intent of pushing their game on everyone else.

I really resent the apparent attempts to make everyone have to play the raiding/ defending game.

You are in a region which you founded. In no way can you ever be raided. Ever. Now if you move to a founderless region... maybe.

Either way, I hardly see how this comment is in the least way relevant. Every single suggestion that would end up affecting the Raider/defender game ends in this conversation... Let's try to stay focused people, the conversation is centered on whether players should be able to create regions without founders, in other words 'opt in' to the r/d game.

[The Cosmic Balance]

I don't play the R/D game, but I think this is a very good idea. It creates an "opt-in" for people who want to be part of that scene without forcing everyone into it.

[Pythagosaurus]

Well, there don't seem to be any reasonable complaints about this, so I guess I'll queue it. After all, regions can effectively already do this by handing off control of the founder nation or scrambling its password. And honestly, handing off nations makes things harder for the mods to sort out, so I guess it's better if we have an official way to do it. I'll just clear it with Max first.

[Naivetry]

Are we talking about making Founders optional at regional creation, or about passing on the Founder role when the original nation CTE's?

The first, I don't think will do a thing to our side of the game but cause a headache for defenders who have to figure out whether or not it's worth trying to save a region that intentionally committed suicide.

The second could be problematic for raiders.

I really don't understand the point to the first option. There are hundreds of Founderless regions out there already. If you want drama, why not just adopt one and try to build it up? And if you really want to opt-in, why not just start defending?

And I haven't been here to watch the topic for the last month or so, but if Annexation goes in and isn't something that the Founder can block the Delegate from doing, even Founded regions, if they care at all about politics, will have a reason to make alliances.

EDIT: And how are we supposed to explain to new players just creating their own region that they really need to have a Founder if they don't want to be raided? I'm just thinking about how many people might 'opt in' entirely by mistake.

[Topid]

Well, there don't seem to be any reasonable complaints about this, so I guess I'll queue it. After all, regions can effectively already do this by handing off control of the founder nation or scrambling its password. And honestly, handing off nations makes things harder for the mods to sort out, so I guess it's better if we have an official way to do it. I'll just clear it with Max first.

Thanks Pyth!!

Are we talking about making Founders optional at regional creation, or about passing on the Founder role when the original nation CTE's?

The first.

[Bears Armed]

There are hundreds of Founderless regions out there already. If you want drama, why not just adopt one and try to build it up?

If they really want drama then maybe they should start trying to build a stable, "native" community in one of the 'Warzone' regions...

[Topid]

I was in a hurry so now I can respond to the rest.

I really don't understand the point to the first option. There are hundreds of Founderless regions out there already. If you want drama, why not just adopt one and try to build it up? And if you really want to opt-in, why not just start defending?

I'm hurt. I was in Equilism for a short time, but decided defending isn't for me. I want to be a naitive.

As for joining an existing community, It's a great idea for those who don't want to build a new community. But for those of us who want to build a region (Alliances, laws, political systems, and all those things that these regions that have been around forever already have set in stone), it won't work.

There isn't much of a reason to make it so that if you want to be a native, you have to join someone else's region, I think we should all have the right to make our own region which will fit our own ideas as to what makes this game fun.

And I haven't been here to watch the topic for the last month or so, but if Annexation goes in and isn't something that the Founder can block the Delegate from doing, even Founded regions, if they care at all about politics, will have a reason to make alliances.

That being what? Founders can stop delegates from ever gaining power if they are going to do something negative... (Eject/Banject)

EDIT: And how are we supposed to explain to new players just creating their own region that they really need to have a Founder if they don't want to be raided? I'm just thinking about how many people might 'opt in' entirely by mistake.

First off the FAQ would have to be updated, but most new players don't read it.

Secondly, the default should be to have the founder. If for some reason the person chooses (Changes away from default) not to make himself founder (Because he doesn't know what it is) he will realize within a day he can't access regional controls and then there will probably be a refounding.

I guess if it's that much of a concern, there can be a warning screen... Like a confirmation.

[Berzerkirs]

Or you know, let the puppet be the founder and let it die off.

Also, just ignore all the powers you have as founder

[Sedgistan]

Did you not read Topid's first post? It clearly explains why those aren't viable options for him.

[North Wiedna]

Well, I've been thinking about this.

What if I applied that "Decaying Password" idea which seemed popular to this area of game mechanics, but in reverse.

The function could be a "Founder Suspension" or something like that, where a delegate can "depower" a founder (which would knock his name off the WFE, and strip him/her of the regional controls) by the click of a button. However the longer the founder suspension continues, the more it drains of the delegate's influence. At some point the suspension would have to end, when the delegate runs out of regional influence.

Well, I'm a founder, and my region is a Constitutional Monarchy where the people govern themselves but the Soverign has absolute power. What if a rouge delegate decided to suspend me? What would happen to the government? If they ejected me, would I be disallowed to come in before the password was up?

Also, raiders could use this to an advantage. They could become Delegate of a region, suspend the founder, and occupy it for some time.

Think about that.

[Flibbleites]

Well, I've been thinking about this.

What if I applied that "Decaying Password" idea which seemed popular to this area of game mechanics, but in reverse.

The function could be a "Founder Suspension" or something like that, where a delegate can "depower" a founder (which would knock his name off the WFE, and strip him/her of the regional controls) by the click of a button. However the longer the founder suspension continues, the more it drains of the delegate's influence. At some point the suspension would have to end, when the delegate runs out of regional influence.

Well, I'm a founder, and my region is a Constitutional Monarchy where the people govern themselves but the Soverign has absolute power. What if a rouge delegate decided to suspend me? What would happen to the government? If they ejected me, would I be disallowed to come in before the password was up?

Also, raiders could use this to an advantage. They could become Delegate of a region, suspend the founder, and occupy it for some time.

Think about that.

As founder you have access to regional control no matter where you are. That's the reason regions with Founders don't get raided.

[Pythagosaurus]

Flib, you're misunderstanding the suggestion. At any rate, it's all a tangent, so let's just drop it. (I think very good points against it have been made, anyway.)