NationStates Jolt Archive

By default of course rejected realms is good but we should be able to choose, as foudner or delegate, if we have other regions created by ourselves to sendrejected members there

And what would this serve other than a method of griefing for recruitment, and a founder power which would have no purpose except abuse? Personally, I fail to see any benefit. That may just be me though.

Well for example, my region has a rule based on flags, where a nation cant use ... well they have to have their own realisstic flag to keep it short.... Instead of having them languish around in the region against legislation, but instead of having them sent to the rejected realms, they could be sent to a transition region until they update their flag at which point they would be allowed to return, if someone really needs to be booted they can just be booted from the transition region

This would mean a fair amount of coding for something with little to no benefit to the game... I doubt this will be considered.

This would mean a fair amount of coding for something with little to no benefit to the game... I doubt this will be considered.It would also require a lot of moderation to prevent abuse. It's an interesting concept though.

This is definitely an interesting idea, but the power for abuse of this feature would be too much for anyone to keep up with within the game.

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

I would love to be able to send folks to Siberian Gulag (shameless plug) rather than clutter up Kandarin with useless nonsence.

Heh, 'tis Kandarin's choice to rule there. And somehow I doubt he'd be too happy with what you propose.

What this would mean for invasion / defense plays:

Groups of invaders would wait in their own region with endorsements given, with only the founder staying up for the update. At a designated time the founder 'transports' (ejects) the entire army to some target region. That means invasion / liberation manouvering without requiring the member of ones army to be active...

Or ... even willingly participate! Just think the havoc any pacific delegate could create by transporting idle players around who previously participated in an endorsement swap. Even regions where the delegate has 200+ endorsements wouldn't be safe anymore.

At least limit it to regions who have indicated (like a regional control setting) to be a willing recipient of the ejected nations. And turn that setting off by default.

Ballotonia

What this would mean for invasion / defense plays:

Groups of invaders would wait in their own region with endorsements given, with only the founder staying up for the update. At a designated time the founder 'transports' (ejects) the entire army to some target region. That means invasion / liberation manouvering without requiring the member of ones army to be active...
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Now that could be fun. Or it could be a disaster, there's no way of knowing.

Or ... even willingly participate! Just think the havoc any pacific delegate could create by transporting idle players around who previously participated in an endorsement swap. Even regions where the delegate has 200+ endorsements wouldn't be safe anymore.

At least limit it to regions who have indicated (like a regional control setting) to be a willing recipient of the ejected nations. And turn that setting off by default.

Ballotonia
That seems that it would take an input field (target region where applicable) and a checkbox (recieve ejected nations).

I wonder how much coding that would require.

Also, about 2/3 of the time(or so it seems to me) when I see Salusa deny a feature it is on the grounds of that it would make invading much harder. This would make invading easier, but it would make defending easier as well.

I wonder why Sal hasn't responded to this thread yet. :?


Also, I should point out that this option would create a couple more loopholes(Loopie, please don't quote me an d bold this).

First off, it would open up a new type of griefing. I recall that Hack once opened a region where it emptied and the natives told to move to a griefer region. I seem to recall a couple more cases like this when I first joined. THis would make it possible to create expendable UN nations, grief a larger region, and deport its inhabitants to your own region, an even losing your temp nation, the inactive nations would remain.

Secondly, it would allow involuntary invading/defending, in which the founder transports the delegate and all endorsers, or the delagate transports all endorsers then moves to a region.

Seems kinda iffy to me. You get a large group of friends to sign up, put their nations in vacation mode and endorse you, and you have a massive army that can invade anywhere at all for 60 days, until they all die of inactivity. And once you get control of your target region, you can just bounce them off to the next one again.


Incidently, if a Pacific delegate has ever wanted control of the RR, they could invade it in this way. :D

Ok, this won't be happening. There are too many problems, and no apparant benefits.

Qaal, I often will wait to respond until after the players have had a chance to hash out the idea amongst themselves first.

Qaal, I often will wait to respond until after the players have had a chance to hash out the idea amongst themselves first.Ahh. That makes sense. It also explains why you appear as soon as I ask where you are. :) :P

I'm rather curious though. How much coding would it have taken if there were actual benefits other than a new new mode of invading? I've always wondered how much code is behind regional control . . .

Actually not too much code would be needed. There would be various issues, but nothing too bad. It just confers absolutely no benefits to the game.

Actually not too much code would be needed. There would be various issues, but nothing too bad. It just confers absolutely no benefits to the game.
Well, I'll disagree with you there Sal. It would enhance invading. I still oppose it though, since it would likely have significantly more negative effects than positive ones.

It just confers absolutely no benefits to the game.

I disagree, I think that Regions with more than 35 Members and that have been around for at least 10 months should be able to do this *wink* :p

gravedigging? besides, the admin already said 'no'.

And this is a perfect example of gravedigging.

Vilita, cut it out.