Founderless regions?

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
I was thinking. If NS is supposed to be a political sim, one thing that seems odd is the notion of founders who cannot be toppled. I mean, where in real life do you see that? Even monarchies can be replaced.

Why not end the notion of founder status? As the feeders show, the lack of a founder is no real handicap.

And I think founders make regions complascent.
 
That gives a significant advantage to invaders and discourages people from creating new regions. I would prefer to see either reduced founder power or benefits to regions with no founder, to encourage more of them.
 
It's not tricky to have a region with no founder; you just need enough people.

My region has never had a founder.
 
Emperor Matthuis:
That gives a significant advantage to invaders and discourages people from creating new regions. I would prefer to see either reduced founder power or benefits to regions with no founder, to encourage more of them.
Click to expand...
Not really. Founderless regions used to be the norm and, well, growth was clearly not a problem. It was argued after regional controls were put in place (early April 2003) that it would actually make the region crasher problem worse, by drastically increasing the amount of damage that could be done --which turned out to be the case. Wales was one of the first regions to be annihilated.
 
I would prefer to see either reduced founder power or benefits to regions with no founder, to encourage more of them.

Like having a feeder like situation where nations start in some of these founderless regions.

EDIT Typos
 
TAO still thinks it would be a good idea to erase all founderless regions outside the Game regions to stir up activity. Well ... maybe not all ... but at least the very small dead looking ones.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I would like to see it be optional on whether you want to start a region with or without a founder.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this idea, would make a lot of sense really and it would bering the game back slightly to how it was before founders were introduced.

If not that however i would support having founders taken away altogether...Would make things moer interesting.
 
I agree with blue wolfs optional stance.

removing founders stops people playing just for fun.

And dont kid yourself into thinking we can give founderless regions nations. The feeders would just die
 
The problem with having optional founders is that most people would choose to have Founders for the security advantage, which means we're back where we started.
 
TAO:
TAO still thinks it would be a good idea to erase all founderless regions outside the Game regions to stir up activity. Well ... maybe not all ... but at least the very small dead looking ones.
Click to expand...
*chuckles*

As long as I'm not dead and small.
 
And dont kid yourself into thinking we can give founderless regions nations. The feeders would just die
Click to expand...

You mean feeders would have to recruit in order to keep thier power, they would have to entice and interest nations to thier region? Oh dear god noo!!

Anyway you could just a situation where every 9 out of 10 nations founded went to a feeder and the other one goes to a player region over a certain population.
 
Knockavale:
And dont kid yourself into thinking we can give founderless regions nations. The feeders would just die
Click to expand...

You mean feeders would have to recruit in order to keep thier power, they would have to entice and interest nations to thier region? Oh dear god noo!!

Anyway you could just a situation where every 9 out of 10 nations founded went to a feeder and the other one goes to a player region over a certain population.
Click to expand...
We already do have to do just that and that is why TAO pushed the CommRangers into the international arena to assist the Feeders with recruiting.

The Feeders have been finding themselves with a shrinking pool of new and talented blood for a long time now. The spammers are able to pull off a few good newbs every week but the majority of newbie nations just sit there doing nothing. Randomly tossing newbs to the Userites won't change anything. But TAO wonders if purposefully pushing them out wouldn't be better. Allow them a few weeks to painlessly play in the region and, if they decide to become a Userite drone, OK. If they decide to join the Feeder, even better. If they simply sit and vegetate like NS welfare recipients and the nation is past its welcome honeymoon, the delegate should send them on their way. If they come back and get involved, fine.
 
You mean feeders would have to recruit in order to keep thier power, they would have to entice and interest nations to thier region? Oh dear god noo!!

Anyway you could just a situation where every 9 out of 10 nations founded went to a feeder and the other one goes to a player region over a certain population.
Click to expand...

Regions are craeted with groups of like minded people. In this new world your going to force people into these groups, which may or may not work. With the increased war you'd likely be throwing newbies into war. Its just an easy way to turn people off the game -> the opposite of our aims here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top