Pestarzt's Suggestion to the NS Admins on Executive Powers

[Pestarzt]

I recently posted this idea on NS' Technical forum. I'm curious to hear what people think of the concept and hypothetical consequences of its implementation. I thought it could be fun.

 

 

Suggestion - Abolish Executive Founders in GP UCRs

Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:04 pm

by Pestarzt the Traveller

Hello.

As I and many others see it, GP is currently tedious and somewhat boring because there are no consequences or in-game risks to GP UCRs, so instead of having actual in-game conflicts, we attack/liberate the same founderless regions every week and tag/de-tag founderless backwaters. They're the only targets available and oftentimes there are more sleepers than natives in the region. No one can attack their true political opponents and enemies directly because they have founders and non-executive delegates. Furthermore, politics are a lot less intense because you don't really need the support of the international community if you're an invulnerable fortress with an active founder, and therefore alliances are weightless and irrelevant.

I'd like to suggest that we remove executive founders in large GP UCRs because I think it would raise the stakes, and more people would care if the larger and more relevant GP UCRs were actually vulnerable. We see people perk up and start caring whenever feeders/sinkers are shaken up because they have native populations, they're active in GP, and they're large. It seems silly that the regions that can project the largest attacks cannot be attacked themselves: it just prevents a lot of potential from being reached.

If there is interest in this sort of thing, perhaps we could discuss criteria to determine what regions would qualify for this. 

Thoughts?

 

[Intelligent Holograms]

It would certainly shake things up although I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement. It would also be the beginning of a new warfare, in that I agree with you.

 

Do you see founders having the ability to decide whether or not to relinquish their hold?

 

Also, this follows from the long conference the Mods and GPers held on R/D, they'll be implementing changes from that first.

[Pestarzt]

If you want to be safe you should have to deal with restricted relevance. Perhaps regions with executive founders would be physically unable to take in more than the nation cap.

[Westwind]

If you want to be safe, set a password.

 

Originally, there were no Founders, they were an invention to fight the problem of griefing.  Later, Influence was established to replace griefing rules.  Then players were given the additional tool of suppression to deal with greifing or another RMB annoyances.  It's worth considering whether or not Founders are still a valid part of game mechanics, given that Influence, Suppression, and Passwords are available for regional security.

 

What if Founders were removed for newly founded regions, but allowing an option upon founding that the region can be designated a 'social' region that would allow executive powers for the founder.  If a 'social' region later engages in attacks on other regions, the Security Council could pass a Liberation Resolution that would remove those executive powers.

[Consular]

I quite like the idea, though UCRs are not invulnerable. You just have to get to them from the inside... 

 

This would definitely spice up gameplay, though I can't help but think it would be a bad thing for RP and social based regions which don't have competent militaries and defence personnel. 

[Pestarzt]

I would hope ideally that there would be some way to exclude them, but that's probably not possible.

[Libetarian Republics]

I doubt the admins will make a big change on this =\ but it's worth a try

[Pestarzt]

They won't.

[Consular]

A good idea anyway. Where is this, a link would be handy, I rarely venture into the NS forums?

[Intelligent Holograms]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=258483

 

It's being debated by a few prominent figures (Cerian and Eist) but an Admin or Mod has yet to give their opinion.

[Consular]

My thanks IH.