NationStates Jolt Archive

I am an advocate of the system proposed whereby regions are given the option to have a founder, but this negates the possibility of them partaking in gameplay; meaning all gameplay regions are founderless. I don't see how this excludes those who simply want to answer issues or engage in UN/RL debate, as they too could have founders on their regions. The current problem is that all the gameplay regions are founded (or at least the vast majority of them) and as such are invulnerable to military conflict, which is a major factor in any political simulation. I would even go as far as to suggest that founders are a major part of the reason the current invading/defending of non-gameplay regions exists, since the only kind of war possible is a proxy war via another region. Remove founders in gameplay regions and it opens up a whole new area of play whereby regions can genuinely conflict - or genuinely threaten conflict - rather than throw words at one another.

The reason I am in feeder politics and not user-created-region politics is that I find them much more realistic, and part of this is that security is a very real issue, indeed, it is security that has shaped nearly every aspect of my home region, The Pacific. This is what makes it interesting, and this is what makes it one of the most discussed, controversial and attacked regions in the game. While obviously no other region will experience it to the extent The Pacific has, security concerns are a very real part of politics, and I think other gameplay regions (which generally try to have real political institutions etc.) will benefit immensely from this new dimension.

The point I'm trying to make here is that this, for me at least, is not simply about the fairly infantile practice of invading and defending, it is about creating a more realistic political set-up that brings the concerns of real-life nations to the virtual nations (ie. regions) of NationStates. Furthermore, I believe that this would actually protect the non-gameplay regions, where it seems to be the belief that any form of advance for gameplay must be to the detriment of all other regions.
I rather like this idea. I'd like to hear expansions and thoughts on it.Would you allow existing regions to convert to GameZones?

Wouild feeders be exempt? (I think so - I think only Founders should have the ability to remove their own foundership)

How would this be an improvement over Warzones, apart from players being able to create many more of them?

What rules would apply? What rules wouldn't apply? How would you maintain a balance over raw numbers?Let's hear it.

Copied from other thread before I realized it was split:

I rather like this idea. I'd like to hear expansions and thoughts on it.Would you allow existing regions to convert to GameZones?

Wouild feeders be exempt? (I think so - I think only Founders should have the ability to remove their own foundership)

How would this be an improvement over Warzones, apart from players being able to create many more of them?

What rules would apply? What rules wouldn't apply? How would you maintain a balance over raw numbers?Let's hear it.

A modification of a proposal I've heard thrown about is thus:

A region chooses to go gameplay or not. If not, their UN nations cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa. A nation that is not in the UN cannot move into gameplay regions and vice-versa frequently (put some realistic cap on it, thereby preventing any slow invasion sort of thing). Thus, a gameplay region has no founder and is vulnerable to invasion. Gameplay regions can fight amongst themselves. Feeders remain unchanged. A non-gameplay region does whatever it wants; it can have offsite diplomatic relations with gameplay regions. Those relations just won't be based on military aid.

Warzones are not effective at generating support for invading them, because you're not fighting over anything moral. Politics has a moral element in it. It's easy to raise troops to fight a battle when it's for defending your homeland, but it's a great deal harder to raise troops to capture a meaningless piece of land with no gain other than pride. Similarly, for invaders who base their principles off of fighting off imperialist defenders, it's not a blow to defenders to hold a warzone, where it is most definitely so to hold a defender region, or a contested defender battleground. Additionally, for "defenders" who in great part base a lot of their gameplay on principles of being morally superior than invaders, invading a warzone is anathema to them.

Dread Lady Nathica:

I apologize if I'm being defensive.

We've looked inwards quite a bit. We've struggled to determine why our regions are failing.

My "struggle" has destroyed no reasons, and I resent the implication that defenders have destroyed regions. I am a defender, and I've made a career defending regions from invaders, who would seek to destory them and subvert the democratic means and mechanisms of the natives. This if course, an argument for another time, I would say.

Would you allow existing regions to convert to GameZones?
Yes, but only at the discretion of an existing founder. And Mik, if a region is *already* founderless, they should probably be protected by default, and if they want to join the invading/defending, they have to change their region.
Wouild feeders be exempt? (I think so - I think only Founders should have the ability to remove their own foundership)
Feeders have no founders, so the delegates in place would be the same as the delegates in the founderless regions. But as is, they would be part of the "gamezones" (coining a new phrase? :p). You can't really shut off the feeders like you could other regions.
How would this be an improvement over Warzones, apart from players being able to create many more of them?
People would have more investment in their home regions, or satellite regions. Warzones by their nature aren't really anyones. They're *too* chaotic. People like defending and invading things that matter to other people. The warzones seem pointless when there's almost always someone's actual region being invaded. As Unlimited said, this would bring it back to people playing around in their own regions as opposed to others.
What rules would apply? What rules wouldn't apply? How would you maintain a balance over raw numbers?
I'm not sure you would *need* much of a change beyond the no founder rule. Perhaps a lessening of the kick percentages? I'm not sure what you mean by maintaining a balance over the raw numbers...

I'm also interested in keeping this simple from a coding perspective, for the simple reason that our admins are quite busy. Adding a switch that would allow a Founder to opt out would be fairly simple. Coding the game to restrict the movement of certain nations would be enormously more difficult. What about the newb who wanted to get into gameplay after several months? The problems are numerous.

What if we simply didn't enforce the Griefing rules on specially-created founderless regions? Code it so that the region name shows up in red, or with a GameZone banner, or something simple like that. Leave the existing game as it is (with enforced griefing rules) and let the ones who wanted to bash and bluster have free reign? You'd still have a mixture of mature politicians and insane warlords, but enforcement would come from the players, not the mods.

There are plenty more options, and they don't have to come from us. Speak up.

I'm also interested in keeping this simple from a coding perspective, for the simple reason that our admins are quite busy. Adding a switch that would allow a Founder to opt out would be fairly simple. Coding the game to restrict the movement of certain nations would be enormously more difficult. What about the newb who wanted to get into gameplay after several months? The problems are numerous.

Allow nations to move between zones, but they can only move once a month. They can only transfer UN status once a month. Or some other reasonable time window.

What if we simply didn't enforce the Griefing rules on specially-created founderless regions? Code it so that the region name shows up in red, or with a GameZone banner, or something simple like that. Leave the existing game as it is (with enforced griefing rules) and let the ones who wanted to bash and bluster have free reign? You'd still have a mixture of mature politicians and insane warlords, but enforcement would come from the players, not the mods.

There are plenty more options, and they don't have to come from us. Speak up.

No would be willing to abandon the griefing rules, to be honest. It's one thing to allow your region open to invasion by invaders, and they rule over your region, it's another thing to see it destroyed. I remember when regions could be griefed, they took over half a year, if ever, to recover.

I guess the question would be, would losing founders be enough to cause some instability in regions? Or would you have to add something else to cause delegates to lose thier regions? Could you make the regions unable to be passworded?

I don't like losing the griefing restrictions. It seems to make them more into simply another warzone, where people would have little stake in what was going on. What would happen if the griefing restrictions were made *tighter* for non gamezone regions and slightly looser for the gamezones?

I agree that removing griefing restrictions is a bad idea, as it would simply lead to the one-by-one destruction of gameplay regions. What would be better to see is a loosening of the restrictions in order to allow things like empire-building, territory occupation, etc.

Obviously since the other regions have founders and wouldn't be termed as legitimate gameplay regions, they really wouldn't need to be concerned about invasions and griefings, etc.

As long as griefing calls are a mod judgement call, there are going to be complaints on both sides. Tell me a way to eliminate total mod oversight and still have a playable game. That's the goalpost here, folks.

As long as griefing calls are a mod judgement call, there are going to be complaints on both sides. Tell me a way to eliminate total mod oversight and still have a playable game. That's the goalpost here, folks.
That may be a highly desireable goalpost, but it seems highly unlikely given that we can't program in a way to declare nations natives or not. Sorry, but it seems the mods *have* to be able to make judgement calls on griefing. On the plus side, the rules for all the non gamezone regions could be much more clearly defined, with smaller percentages.

And if passwords were removed, there wouldn't be a problem with handing out passwords... People have also talked about standardizing update again, I'm not precisely sure what that would do, someone else should talk about it.

Here is what I deem an interesting proposal.

All foundered regions should have an option that only the founder can enact in the regional controll panel. If they enact this option, it essentially shuts off the regional control panel to the founder and makes the region essentially founderless. When this option is checked, make it that greifing rules are removed (or at least relaxed a bit), a big banner (similar to the warzone disclaimer) is posted on the bottom of the WFE, but yet, have it that the founder is un-able to be kicked from his region.

This condition would remain until either (1) the founder is the only person left in the region and the button auto-unchecks or (2) the delegate in controll disables the option.

The advantage to this is that regions who wish to be in open warfare can (check the option). Regions who like the current system can (leave it off). And regions who like only roleplay can as well (password/del-controll off). The nice thing about it too is that it prevents a region from being destroyed if a founder cannot be kicked from his own region... and thus, greifing does not carry with it the threat of region hawkers.

I too would be in favour of removing passwords and standardising update times, but more than that, I would be in favour, if it is at all possible (and I'm unsure if it runs at a time because it can only run at that time), I would like to see update time brought into a more appropriate hour. Most people who play the update are Americans and Europeans, and for both these groups the update occurs in the middle of the night, obviously making it difficult, if not impossible, for most people to take part. This is likely unworkable, but I thought I'd mention it on the off chance.

Obviously since the other regions have founders and wouldn't be termed as legitimate gameplay regions, they really wouldn't need to be concerned about invasions and griefings, etc.
You need to read my post in the other thread about invader idiots. Unless you make it programatic that original-style regions can't be invaded, there will always be problems. Our problem is not people who follow the rules, it's people who don't even glance at the FAQ and start booting natives as soon as they get their multi-delegacy.

Okay, we like griefing rules. What say we remove the password restriction, the nativity restriction, and limit boots to 50%, calculated daily? Seems like determined natives could manage to get back in and do some booting of their own within 24 hours.

I don't see GameZones as being permanent regions, so a full griefing could destroy a GameZone and allow its refounding as a Founder region. How can we prevent that? Mods aren't active 24/7, and sneaky update watchers could easily defeat the most vigilant of mods. I'm not asking for code, just suggestions.

[edit - posted simultanously with E-Xtremia's excellent suggestion.] Given that the unkickable founder would always have access to the password (if left enabled), what's the invader's incentive? And what happens when the semi-Founder dies, either by inactivity or rulebreaking deletion? We've still got major annoyances with refoundings.

The bragging rights of destroying a region...

However, the founder can still make it rise again from the ashes without worrying that someone else can refound their region.

I know from experience, nothing hurts more than being a founder when you go to bed, and being in TRR in the morn with someone else as the founder of your region. Basically, my idea prevents region-hawkers, but still enables an increase to the war game. Remember, I propose only regions that enable the button get this new treatment... everyone else goes by the present rules.

{EDIT: I believe the servers are out of sync again... I just saw Fris's post appear 20s before typing mine, yet it says it was written 10 mins ago}

This condition would remain until either (1) the founder is the only person left in the region and the button auto-unchecks or (2) the delegate in controll disables the option.
Under this, I would worry about delegates/founders turning on and off the button to manipulate invaders/defenders. If the delegate disables the option right before update, then are the invading forces doing the invading illegally?

It seems to me that once the choice is made by the founder, it needs to be permanent. No going back and forth. If they want that, they could make 2 regions, one to invade/defend in, and one to keep safe.

But Fris, I don't see why gamezones couldn't be permanent regions. People would have to work their butts off to hold a region, but it could be done.

Consider the following:

I found a region. I wish to be active in the War game. I turn on the full-out war senario. I an my regionmates enjoy our times engaged in war with other like-minded individuals.

Now, Jan 23rd rolls around, and I must return to college. Should my region remain wide-open to whoever wants to take it? I think that I should be able to have my delegate turn the option off so we can all take a break until May.

To deal with cuniving delegates/founders, make it that any change in status (either to or from war status) does not occur in one update. The first update after enableing (or disabling) the option stays put, the second update it enables. So in the senario you proposed Erastide, my delegate could turn off the war mode, the delegate swap occurs and they get one day free reign until the option actually shuts off.

But Fris, I don't see why gamezones couldn't be permanent regions. People would have to work their butts off to hold a region, but it could be done.
Clutter. Some moron will create 1000 of them, just because he can. Empty regions either need to be limited in number, or disappear when empty.

Now, Jan 23rd rolls around, and I must return to college. Should my region remain wide-open to whoever wants to take it? I think that I should be able to have my delegate turn the option off so we can all take a break until May.
Nah. You and your regionmates would need to move from the Gameplay region of E-Xtremia to the founded region of EX-tremia for the duration, and take your chances on your return. We can't accomodate everyone, and the potential for abuse far outweighs what we owe you in convenience.

Having a founder being unkickable would work to keep people from hawking it, but they should only be founder in name, having no powers whatsoever.

I don't think that will work. If a region chooses to be a gameplay region it should remain a gameplay region. It cannot put on a giant forcefield at times when it may come under threat (be that from inactivity or any other reason). If this is to work, all gameplay regions must be without founders, and all gameplay regions - as long as they remain as such - must remain without founders until their fall or rise by their merits.

As far as 'gamezone' regions go, I don't see why they should operate differently when empty than they do now. When they're empty they disappear. People can create them, people can build them, good ones rise, bad ones fail.

Clutter. Some moron will create 1000 of them, just because he can. Empty regions either need to be limited in number, or disappear when empty.
Oh, I didn't mean for the regions to remain if noone was in them. I just thought that it *would* be possible for people to retain control of them.
To deal with cuniving delegates/founders, make it that any change in status (either to or from war status) does not occur in one update. The first update after enableing (or disabling) the option stays put, the second update it enables. So in the scenario you proposed Erastide, my delegate could turn off the war mode, the delegate swap occurs and they get one day free reign until the option actually shuts off.
It seems rather complicated to move a region back and forth from a gamezone to a non-gamezone. If you want to safeguard your region, why not just have one that's a designated safe zone for people to stay in?
My worry if the delayed action were to take place would that the delegates under non-war status (I believe) would still have access to delegate controls. So wouldn't there then be an increased chance of the invaders kicking a now illegal number of nations?

My idea was that the region would still say "War-Status" even even if the RCP did not. So the invaders can attack freely until the following update.

Perhaps to avoid problems code it that a region can only have 2 status changes:

Choose either War or Regular at creation, then:

1) Change status to the oposite one,
2) Change status back

It would give the founder the ability to experiment without the abuse aspect.

Having a founder being unkickable would work to keep people from hawking it, but they should only be founder in name, having no powers whatsoever.

I don't think that will work. If a region chooses to be a gameplay region it should remain a gameplay region. It cannot put on a giant forcefield at times when it may come under threat (be that from inactivity or any other reason). If this is to work, all gameplay regions must be without founders, and all gameplay regions - as long as they remain as such - must remain without founders until their fall or rise by their merits.

As far as 'gamezone' regions go, I don't see why they should operate differently when empty than they do now. When they're empty they disappear. People can create them, people can build them, good ones rise, bad ones fail.

Unlimited has the right of it.

If your region goes gameplay and you have second thoughts, tough luck, that's life in the big city, kid.

If your region goes gameplay and you have second thoughts, tough luck, that's life in the big city, kid.
Given that this is all raw speculation and has no guarantee of implementation, it doesn't really matter ... but I also agree with Blackbird and Unlimited. No take-backs.

After discussing with Unlimited over AIM, I wish to clarify my position somewhat:

I feel that a founder should be able to enable a "War-Status Region," in so doing he gives up all powers of being a founder save for one; he cannot leave the region except by his own power.

"War-Status Regions" have no-greifing rules.

When a region is to the point that the only person in the region is the founder, and no-one else, the founder's powers should be returned to him and the region revert to regular status.

(For those of you not tracking this constantly, I have recalled my suggestion to allow a delegate to un-enable "War-Status")

As a nation builder player, I like Erastide's suggestion that current founderless regions would be considered off limits for the GameZone designated regions and I like Frisbeeteria's suggestion that this regions carry a banner of sorts that warns players that moving to these zones leaves their nations vunerable to being ejected without "griefing".

That said, could this then potentially turn the non-GameZone regions into safe staging areas? That seems problematic, as there would be no need to guard a staging areas, though the GameZone could always be fought for ... so maybe this isn't a major issue. *shrug*

Are you then speaking of making all invasions of non-Warzone or non-GameZone regions illegal?

If not, I don't think the addition of "GameZones" will change the invasion game too much, much like invaders currently continue to prefer attacking normal regions over Warzones.

I think this would also decrease participation in some large aspects of gameplay (whether or not you think that's a good or bad thing). If regions designate themselves as GameZones they are then asking to be challenged with invasion. I think that will cause many defenders to lose interest, since a good number of us defend to protect the innocent from unwanted invasions (ethical rather than purely militarial reasons, etc). I'm not saying I personally agree or disagree that it would be a good or bad change; I just think that will naturally happen.

I do think it would probably create more invaders (again, whether or not you think that's a good or bad thing), and if invasion of non-GameZones were to be prohibited (unless invaders were to be physically restrained from invading non-GameZone regions through some technical change), I think it would create a great increase in rule infractions as well as a possible increase in griefings for the moderation staff to have to deal with. Just my opinion.

I've been in favour of no-founder power in declared invader/defender regions for a long time. I believe it would change the very invader/defender dynamic. What may develop would be several groups of competing invaders, invading eachother, as opposed to defender regions or "innocent" (regions that are not actively involved as invader/defender). Thus defenders would have little need to defend these regions. Why help one group of invaders against another.
However, will the defender go extinct? Most defenders I know don't defend simply for the etical implications (the right thing to do), they also defend for the fun of it. And since there is nothing unetical about invading a region that has declared themselves a gamezone/warzone, then why not. It's part of the game.
Whether or not I'm right is hard to say, and the staked for such an experiment are high no doubt.
Regardless, I am strongly against revoking griefing rules. There's a difference, as I think someome already mentioned, between having your home region occupied until you can retake it, and having it destroyed. There needs to be a certain amount of repsect among foes, and griefing/flaming/spamming isn't respectful, to say the least.

PH, I don't think it's necessarily that "invasions" would be illegal per se in non gamezone regions, but more that the restrictions would be *much* tighter in terms of passwording and ejections. There has to be some allowance for ejections so that people can ejected unwanted people from their regions that are neither invaders or defenders. :p

The problem would be finding a way to make the non-gamezone regions unattractive to invaders (and therefore defenders) while still allowing people free access to and from their region. The goal would be for invaders and defenders to restrict themselves to gamezones.

Invaders/defenders already have the ability to remain in a non-founder region. Just create their home region with a puppet, and have it die (put in a long random string as the password). They don't do that though.

What I expect to see happening with this addition is that both invaders/defenders' home regions will just continue to have founder protection, and that any wars between them will be fought using UN puppets. Pretty much the same as it is now, with the added twist that any founder silly enough to accept 'gamezone' status for his/her region will see both sides descend on that region like a pack of vultures on a dead horse.

Ballotonia

So how will we know if a region is a gameplay or not? Will there be a big banner saying "We are a gameplay region come and invade us" or what? Now some of my un-important opinions, I think that the option can be changed. But at a maximum of once every 24 hours. If it is always everlasting then you will just be back to paroxy wars.

I agree with Ballotonia; opening up any region for griefing would in my opinion be a bad idea. Just because you've want to participate in gameplay does not mean that you wish to see your region destroyed.

The idea of designating "main nations" and requiring them to be in a Gameplay-active region is nonimplementable, as many of us hold citizenship in multiple regions. Although "Goobergunchia" (my main nation) is a member of Democratic Underground, much of my Gameplay activity is conducted through "Goobergunchia II", a member of Nasicournia. If DU and Nasi were to take different stances, I would be left in a gray area of confusion.

I believe that a solution cannot be created by designating special regions with special properties; I'd also note that Delegates can protect regions quite effectively using passwords, even without Founder powers. If they wish to have limited access to their regions, passwords seem to me to be a quite effective solution.

Invaders/defenders already have the ability to remain in a non-founder region. They don't do that though.
Ballo raises the real issue here. It is currently possible to create such regions, yet apparently nobody has done so. Ultimately, who is likely to have or want strong regional ties to a region that is a perpetual battleground?

We've seen long-established major regions damaged or destroyed when a founder was deleted for cause. We've seen major regions griefed when a founder died of inactivity. Most people don't seem to want that happening in their major region. Who is going to establish these new regions and call them 'home'?

If anyone can provide an adequate answer to that question, I'll push this on the admins as a coding change. We've got the 'how' figured out. Give us the 'who' and 'why'.

I personally can say that I would not volentarily make my region a battle ground. I do know there are some groups that might, groups like The Jolly Roger who move from one region to the next plundering and pillaging until people loose interest in kicking them out. Others, like RAA might as well.

Many regions though would be unwilling to accept the change in the gaming if they can remain as is and still conduct war. From the region I am most active in, I would say forcing people who wish to dabble in war loose their founder would put us on equal footing (we do not have a founder) but when given the option to give up a founder if they get no gain from it... I do not think anyone would.

I think D|N makes a good point here. How do we solve the "free rider" problem? What are the rewards for regions that choose to become GameZones, as opposed to regions that decide to continue having founders and would be able to invade these Gamezones?

I think D|N makes a good point here. How do we solve the "free rider" problem? What are the rewards for regions that choose to become GameZones, as opposed to regions that decide to continue having founders and would be able to invade these Gamezones?

Well one solution is Blackbird's proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10137026&postcount=106), but this is already being shot down.

The other solution is to isolate such "free riders." The players would use the offsite forums and such to advertise who the free riders are and could band together to stop them through infiltration and subversion. This would probably create a new gameplay dichotomy between the "true" gameplayers and the free riders. To me at least, the true gameplayers would have the appeal of emotion and honor on their side, much like today's defenders. The free riders would take on more of the invading role, representing the dark side that so many enjoy using this game for. Of course, this time, the tables would be turned, with the free riders having the upper hand as far as coding and gamplay go (versus the defenders of today). However, the true gameplayers would still have the self-righteous appeal so effective in recruiting new defenders. It would certainly be an interesting experiment to see which side would win in the end.