NationStates Jolt Archive

No-ones using them at the moment, I was wondering if some changes could be made to either make the delegate positions easier to take (eg: everyone in the region except the delegate gets an anonymous endorsement, or 1 less endorsement is required to take the delegacy for every 10 days the delegate has been in office). Other suggestions very welcome.

No-ones using them at the moment, I was wondering if some changes could be made to either make the delegate positions easier to take (eg: everyone in the region except the delegate gets an anonymous endorsement, or 1 less endorsement is required to take the delegacy for every 10 days the delegate has been in office). Other suggestions very welcome.

Exactly- we need feedback on how to make the things better, so we can saddle Max and [violet] with even more coding stuffs! 8)

Exactly- we need feedback on how to make the things better, so we can saddle Max and [violet] with even more coding stuffs! 8)

I'm insulted.

Exactly- we need feedback on how to make the things better, so we can saddle Max and [violet] with even more coding stuffs! 8)

I'm insulted.

Aw, does Salsie want to be saddled with more coding stuff, too? :wink:

Random update times

Random update times Or publishedupdate times (but that might make it easier for the defending delegate). How about update times that work out when the delegate is least likely to be online and changes to be at those times?

Random update times

I like this idea, too, it makes things more interesting and it would make it harder to hold the delegacy.

Random update times

I like this idea, too, it makes things more interesting and it would make it harder to hold the delegacy.

I thought it already did?

But good idea, they have gone stale, nobody can be bothered because they don't have the support.

Have two delegates at once :shock:


Well really though, how about:

-Randomly kick some people each day
-Randomly Remove people off the ban list before it expires
-Have a special region where nations kicked from the warzones go, doesn't really add anything but would be interesting.
-Randomly password it with a random password for a breif peiod
-Anthing Random and Chaotic
-Add a whole sperate status besides UN that would be used in invading/defending things, would basically be a copy of the UN but called something differnt and the resolutions/ proposals would be cut out of it, that may be too much coding though, or something.

Have two delegates at once :shock: That would be complicated and weird.


Well really though, how about:
-Randomly kick some people each day Including the Delegate? That could be really fun. :wink:

-Randomly Remove people off the ban list before it expires That wouldn't do much

-Have a special region where nations kicked from the warzones go, doesn't really add anything but would be interesting. This would be fun, but kind of hard to implicate

-Randomly password it with a random password for a brf peiod This I like

-Anthing Random and Chaotic i repeat

-Add a whole sperate status besides UN that would be used in invading/defending things, would basically be a copy of the UN but called something differnt and the resolutions/ proposals would be cut out of it, that may be too much coding though, or something. I agree too much coding

This would be fun, but kind of hard to implicate <-- I think you mean implement.

I abandonned my Warzone yesterday, and no-one even moved to try and take it.

I mean, honestly! :roll:

I abandonned my Warzone yesterday, and no-one even moved to try and take it.

I mean, honestly! :roll:

Once we've fully sorted out what we're doing with them, (most likely post-Jolt) there'll be a News Page announcement which will hopefully drive more interest :D

I abandonned my Warzone yesterday, and no-one even moved to try and take it.

I mean, honestly! :roll:

Once we've fully sorted out what we're doing with them, (most likely post-Jolt) there'll be a News Page announcement which will hopefully drive more interest :DAh, ok, cool.

I abandonned my Warzone yesterday, and no-one even moved to try and take it.

I mean, honestly! :roll:

I can move in with 15 UN nations, but you'll simply eject me, so why would I waste time on that?

I abandonned my Warzone yesterday, and no-one even moved to try and take it.

I mean, honestly! :roll:

I can move in with 15 UN nations, but you'll simply eject me, so why would I waste time on that?Well its updated now.

I abandonned my Warzone yesterday, and no-one even moved to try and take it.

I mean, honestly! :roll:

I can move in with 15 UN nations, but you'll simply eject me, so why would I waste time on that?Well its updated now.

Place is secured http://mig81.com/carinthe/images/smiles/001.gif

Ok, heres an interesting one. How about we set up the six warzones to represent RL locations for historic battles. This'd mean basicly that the warzones' names get changed periodically to be the territories that they represent. (I know this'd cause disruption to the steady passage of events in the warzones, but thats exactly whats supposed to happen)


Lemme give some examples.

The Alamo
Warzone Alamo vs the other 5 Warzones representing Mexican territories.

The delegate of WZ Alamo has to try and defend for as long as possible against the mounting forces of the Mexican warzones.


Korean war
Warzone South Korea + Warzone USA vs Warzone North Korea + Warzone China. When both the North and the South are controlled by the same alliance, that side wins.


WW2
Warzone Germany + Warzone Italy + Warzone France vs Warzones USA, Britain and Russia. WZ Germany and Italy get + 3 endorsements automaticly as long as they still hold France.


I'm sure better ideas could be come up with than this.

Actually, maybe it'd be better with "Alamo East" and "Alamo West", so that the defences have to be spread thin. Also, some kindof bonus to the Alamo side as long as they have both east and west under their control.

sounds like it could be fun, also sounds like a lot of code for someone to write.

sounds like it could be fun, also sounds like a lot of code for someone to write.It could be coded, but I think that for the most part it'd be a case of the mods changing the names. The +3 endorsment thing could just be 3 UN puppets controlled by a mod or by the Admin who endorse whomever the current delegate is (as long as the requirements are in effect.

sounds like it could be fun, also sounds like a lot of code for someone to write.It could be coded, but I think that for the most part it'd be a case of the mods changing the names. The +3 endorsment thing could just be 3 UN puppets controlled by a mod or by the Admin who endorse whomever the current delegate is (as long as the requirements are in effect.

good idea, would be a lot easier than coding. I'd definatly go to one of the warzones to take part in it, what does everyone else think?

Renaming regions takes all of about 10 seconds (server willing). The endorsement thingie would be more complicated.

Renaming regions takes all of about 10 seconds (server willing). The endorsement thingie would be more complicated.
Could it be done manually, with someone (a mod or admin) controlling extra UN nations and just endorsing whoever they were supposed to?

(Bump)

Not a good idea, and here's why:

MODERATOR X IS UNFAIR! HE ENDORSED Y AND Z!

or

MODERATORS IN GENERAL ARE UNFAIR! THEY ENDORSED Y AND Z!

so on and so forth. Honestly, I deal with enough of that as is.

Having been part of the Warzone creation effort, I do like the idea of random update times. One of the big problems is Mister Francos Spain Wannabe staying up all night to just kickban whoever threatens him. The idea isn't that Warzones should be extremely difficult to take; that depends on the opposition. They should be difficult to hold. Randomly kicking the delegate doesn't work because then the other draw--who holds it longest--could fall flat.

What tools do delegates use to protect their scaly hides? Passwords, for one. But we don't have those, and putting them in would be silly--no one is invading the Warzones as is, and we want them to invade. Then there's bans. With the current system, it's kickban umpteen million enemies of the state, kick back for twenty-four hours, then repeat. Reducing the time limit of the ban--say from UN updates to four hours after ban placement--would be useful (especially with random UN updates) but could be problematic to pull off. Giving the delegate only a set limit of bans to use per update could be useful, but then there's the problem of "what number of bans are appropriate?" All someone would need is number of endorsements + number of bans + 1 and then be automatically successful.

Now, here's my idea. Here's the invaders, all jumping in just before the defined UN update period. Here's the delegate kicking them all... now, here's the catch. How about making it impossible to ban people from a warzone? Then whoever gets kicked just jumps back on, gets kicked again, repeat, and it's a feverish battle between delegate and the invaders until the update rolls through and delegacy either changes or remains the same... but only after a lot of work either way. Now, fifty people clicking buttons have a better chance than one person clicking a button, so maybe if the current delegate's endorsers can kick as well (especially without bans) then that could be an idea.

That would open it up to an entirely different manner of play in that real coups could be possible. Mister Number-Two who endorses Mister Boss could then kick him and take his place. The only way Mister Boss can be assured of keeping the delegacy is by staying up all day and all night constantly kicking anyone who has any other endorsements... very Stalinist indeed, sure, but seeing how anyone who can endorse him can also kick him, then he ends up with no endorsements and gets pushed over in the next wave. Treachery can be fun.

Then there's the possibility of a spoiler just constantly sitting and kicking out any and all delegates. Well, then, we could place a limit on the number of times someone can kick a delegate in X number of UN updates. These people would also make names for themselves rather quickly, and so they'd be the first targets by "enforcers" loyal to the delegate. These "enforcers" could prevent a slow take over of power (but theoretically shouldn't have to because the delegate can pick off people one by one) but would still be clicking for their lives in an en-masse invasion... and if the leaderboard is set up to count delegacies in hours (UN updates) rather than days, then it could be rather interesting.

Also, on the assassination idea... say a delegate gets "assassinated." He's still delegate until the next UN update, so he can jump back in and eliminate the kicker. Then you could have conter-coups making these places notoriously hard to hold...

...which is the entire point. Anyone who can hold them would need to have a loyal group of followers they can trust AND be quick on the button-clicking draw. Then they would get pushed over by whoever was bigger... but the bigger a group gets, the more likely it will be that some guy will be the one to knock off the boss... and if a delegate gets too trigger-happy about removing feared 'enemies' then his forces can mutiny just as easily.

Thoughts?

I like the idea of making it impossible to ban people from a warzone, and to let the current delegate's endorsers kick as well.

I also like the idea of warzones fighting against other warzones.

How do you think about this:

Create a clock in the warzones that gives the time available until the next random update.
Or maybe just start the clock one hour before the update.

How about: random stranger walks into warzone, endorses the delegate, and proceeds to kick out everybody. Those on-line will return, and the random stranger walks away. What's the point of being in 'power' in a warzone if any random passerby can kick you out and humiliate you?

I fail to see the strategic challenge in a click-fest...

Ballotonia

Perhaps the 'endorsees'(the people who the Delegate endorses) can kick.

It is just the update that makes it less fun to fight in a Warzone. If we can arrange an invasion, the delegate has all day to kick us out. The problem is finding people who have no work or school to go to. The Warzones are only fun for large groups with no lives. What if there is a continues update time every hour. That means that the ruling delegate has to be online every hour, and all invaders have to do is wait until he isn't. Right now, I can defend Warzone Australia with only one endorsement. There is no way invaders can pass me by. It means exitement (What never comes) of 5 minutes every day. The rest of the day, you are begging for people to come in.

Not a good idea, and here's why:

MODERATOR X IS UNFAIR! HE ENDORSED Y AND Z!

or

MODERATORS IN GENERAL ARE UNFAIR! THEY ENDORSED Y AND Z!

so on and so forth. Honestly, I deal with enough of that as is.
If its explained in the message below the WFE (Or even in an unalterable section of the WFE), then anyone who says something like that will simply be treated with the scorn and derision that they deserve.

No support on my clock idea? grmbll...

Maybe we just have 2 many warzones and is everybody occupied with the north pacific...

No support on my clock idea? grmbll...

Maybe we just have 2 many warzones and is everybody occupied with the north pacific...
I don't know about the clock idea... I think it would help you to defend just as easily as it'd help you to invade, ie: no change.

well... warzone europe has just been invaded.
:gundge: :sniper: :mp5:

And you are already there for 44 days :headbang:

UN Delegate: The Empire of The Bundesrepublik (elected 44 days ago).

Longest-serving Delegate: The Rogue Nation of Upper Tuscadero (44 days)

Warzone Europe contains 19 nations. [List all nations]

Yeah, that's on the list of "Really Irritating Things That Aren't Critical".

So, what do people think about Warzone Tournamount Alamo?

..

i am repeating myself:

I like the idea of warzones fighting against other warzones.

Maybe we should use the delegates endorsements in these fights and give the delegate an attackbutton..

Something like this:
Delegate europe has 5 endorsements, delegate Asia has got 7 endorsements. The Asian delegate attacks the warzone europe delegate. He wins because he has more endorsements. It is not necessary to invade this other warzone.
Ofcourse he/she should not be able to use the attackbutton more than once a day against an already attacked warzone.
After winning he/she gets points for a game placement. The delegate who has the most points will be the number one on the list.

So if you are an invader/defender and want to get your name high on game rankings you should
1) invade and become delegate in a warzone.
2) get/hold enough endorsements
3) attack the other warzones.

I think a more interesting option would be to allow a warzone delegate the option to eject nations into other warzones (this would probably require bans to be removed from warzones though, which could result in unscrupulous players devising auto-eject or auto-return programs, or simply produce clicking races which don't add anything, as Ballotonia mentioned). The intrinsic downside is that it would remove the need for the attackers to synchronise their movement. Of course, there's also the advantage that fewer warzone nations would be passing through the Rejected Realms when they're kicked out (or do regional events involving warzones not show up in the RR? I haven't been around much recently, due to university, so I'm not sure). Anyway, I can see several obvious implementations:

Delegate chooses the destination for each ejected nation from other warzones and RR - allows a complete invasion against another warzone to be prepared in advance, and triggered by the delegate. Furthermore, an invasion attempt could be redirected against another warzone by a defending delegate, or the attackers could be dispersed over several warzones. If the RR is removed from the list of destinations, an attack is more likely to be redirected than negated (by the nations involved simply being booted to the RR, where they'd stay until the owners wake up or whatever).
Each warzone has a single destination for ejected nations - there could be one cycle of all warzones, several smaller cycles, or the destination could change at updates or random times (after a random number of ejections probably wouldn't be a good idea, as it promotes boot/unban/return behavior with a puppet or friend until the desired destination shows up again). I think random changes would be the best of these options, as they'd creates better attack oppertunities, and if only the delegate knows the destination then there's more potential for surprise attacks.
Delegate chooses the destination for each ejected nation from a subset of the other warzones - like the random changes above, but the availability of each destination varies (independently of the others) over time. Each warzone's set of available destinations would differ from those of the others as well, so there's an advantage to a group or alliance between groups (with the possibility of betrayal that goes with it in either case) controlling multiple warzones - especially if a nation can be kicked from one to the other.



Another thing that I think would make a difference would be making the warzones more individual. Some variation in parameters such as update frequency would mean the effectiveness of a strategy varies between warzones. For example, have one update every eight hours, another update at a random time (6-10 hours after the previous update, displaying "The next update is in hh:mm" somewhere on the region page), another update on a random hour (5-7 hours after the previous update, but without stating that hour in advance - perhaps displaying "The last update was hh:mm ago"), etc. Similarly, one warzone might give regional control to the two nations with the most endorsements. There could even be small hidden bonuses (e.g. +1 to endorsements, less frequent delegate updates, or advance warning of random delegate updates) based on the government type or customisable fields of the delegate (a bit like that issue with the lever), unique to each warzone and only mentioned on the region/delegate pages when active, and then only by the effects.

I think I like the historical Warzones, and one Warzone battling the another, the best out of the ideas being discussed here.
We even left warzone europe delegate-less for 3 nights, and nobody invaded...pretty boring.
And thanks for clearing up that the "44 days" thing was just a glitch, I was seriously preturbed when I woke up the morning after...

i must say , mr ledge, variation in parameters is a nice plan.

It seems to me there's still a lott of coding to be done. What are the opinions of Salusa and [violet] on this matter?

I think I like the historical Warzones, and one Warzone battling the another, the best out of the ideas being discussed here.
We even left warzone europe delegate-less for 3 nights, and nobody invaded...pretty boring.
And thanks for clearing up that the "44 days" thing was just a glitch, I was seriously preturbed when I woke up the morning after...
What historical battle would you like to see enacted?


I have one other idea about how to change the warzones though: make them completely independant. If you made Warzones to be, in effect, a completely different part of nationstates, and allowed nations to be created either within warzones or outside warzones with no flow between the two. People could have 1 UN nation inside the warzones, and one UN nation outside the warzones, which would mean that people would be free to concentrate on warzone-politik without neglecting the real side of NS (as most people feel happens). It'd be kinda like those isolated class-regions that some schools have, except that it'd be several regions linked together.

If this were done, I think it would bring a return to the golden era of gameplay, and regions outside the warzones would still be allowed to build up unmolested (kinda like the opt-in system that was suggested, except that you couldn't use the throwaway opt-in region that Max was concerned about)

*

-- Can we make this a sticky?

Stickies tend to kill threads pretty fast. If were were actually getting anywhere, then it'd be nice.

I think that the Warzone concept is a really great idea, but it desperately needs some spice. Ideas, please.

My region is holding 2 warzones at the moment, and I must admit that it is the most boring experience of this game. Our soldiers are asleep or simply become inactive and cease to exist. There is no reward in capturing a warzone, and holding it is making me feel sleepy. I thought that it was a great training ground for us. :mad: Come one people, I know you can beat these newbies, if you only tried?!
There should be a reward for holding a Warzone, and my idea was giving a Warzone delegate more power in the UN, by making his total number of endorsements count double. That will spark up wars more. Right now, would be invaders come there, and don't even bother to hide their intentions. They know they will be unbanned when ejected, and that makes stealth kinda useless. Give a Warzone Delegate a bonus for holding the region, and it would be a whole new ballgame.
Right now a Warzone has no strategical importance whatsoever.

Thats cos regions like your hog them :P

Let them go and then get them back again!

I think warzones would greatly be improved if the UN Delegates lose power after a few days and are automatically ejected from the region.

Thats cos regions like your hog them :P

Let them go and then get them back again!

I think warzones would greatly be improved if the UN Delegates lose power after a few days and are automatically ejected from the region.


Our soldiers are asleep or simply become inactive and cease to exist.

We stay there, and wait until somebody dares to invade. I am not sure if stealth is necesary, but at least try to capture it. There is no honor if I simply leave the region, or be ejected by the game.

--other thread by spoffin (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344450)

other thread by carinthe (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344571)

There may be no honour for you, but theres no fun in them for anyone! Remember in the end, this is a game, not a real warzone where perhaps honour is respected.

Besides its typical of people defending a region to eject the invaders, that way no one will ever get the warzone.

I can MERGE!

--other thread by spoffin (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344450)

other thread by carinthe (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344571)

I couldn't find this thread anymore, and I think this is more a "technical" issue.

Wooo! ph34r my merging skillz. Don't rush me now, you'll all get your autographs.

Wooo! ph34r my merging skillz. Don't rush me know, you'll all get your autographs.

Can you delete the posts that came with it, about it being technical, and about it should be locked?

Your wish is my command.

Your wish is my command.
tell us who [Violet] is

I can MERGE!

Thanx!

If you want to add a reward to spice things up...why not make it something realy worth getting. Mabey the right to a second UN Nation or something nice like that. Or have differant prizes for holding it longer. Hold for a week mabey it doubles your vote power, hold it for a month get something better. This would encourage people to attack, and it would keep your traniees awake.

I can MERGE!
What are you merging?

He's only just relised he can lol

Anyway there was another topic on the warzone issue

i think it will take some time before a new warzone concept will be available.

Maybe in the meantime you (the game mods) can close 3 or 4 warzones? That way there will probably be more interest in the remaining warzones.

I agree with Amicus curiae, what interest in the warzones there is at the moment, is split between 5 or 6 unused warzones, close some and maybe then the warzones that are left will attract the attention of the people who are in the shut down warzones.

The number of warzones should be carefully monitored and perhaps the last 4 shouldn't have been opened and kept and "Sand Box" and "Airspace"

i think it will take some time before a new warzone concept will be available.

Maybe in the meantime you (the game mods) can close 3 or 4 warzones? That way there will probably be more interest in the remaining warzones.

We'll soon be cleaning 2 Warzones, and leave them empty. I like to see what happens if it is empty during an update.

We'll soon be cleaning 2 Warzones, and leave them empty. I like to see what happens if it is empty during an update.
I can answer that for you: nothing. I already recieved confirmation that they do not disappear when empty.

I can answer that for you: nothing. I already recieved confirmation that they do not disappear when empty.

Were going to leave anyway. My soldiers are falling asleep there.