Game Suggestion: Natives & Revolutions

[punk d]

Hi all, I posted this on the NS Forums. I'd love some feedback:

Aiiiyygghtt…

After years of whining, I'm finally getting off my lazy behind and actually thinking of an improvement to the R/D game rather than my perfunctory “please get rid of influence” rant.

Native Registration
This would work like offsite forum gameplay citizen registration in that nations can become registered residents of a region and be the true (and only) definition of “native”. To summarize the process:

• Nation X joins Region A.
• On Nation X’s nation page there would be a button called “Apply for Native Status” or something.
• Nation X clicks the button.
• A Telegram is sent to the Founder. In the region’s administration there would be, like pending embassy apps, pending Natives applications.
• The Founder would accept or reject the application. Note: Nations would have the ability to apply again after a certain timeframe (2, 5,7 days?)
• If accepted, Nation X would have a small badge “Native” and on the regional page “Natives” would be denoted by something (“NN”[Native Nation] as an example)

Founders would not have the ability to remove Natives once accepted. Natives lose their native badge when they leave the region either by banjection or voluntarily. The former is a bit problematic but I’m not quite sure how to get around this just yet.

Ejecting a native would carry an extra influence cost above the current natives influence level, perhaps something like 1.05.
In GCR’s the sitting delegate would have the same powers as the Founder in terms of conveying native status.

A follow up idea, is the concept of a “revolution”.

Revolution
A revolution would occur when natives vote to remove a delegate from power (the game would send the delegate to TRR regardless of influence level) and when natives vote to revolt against their founder stripping the founder nation of his/her powers making the region a founderless region. Natives then would have the opportunity to select a new founder.

Potential Impacts on R/D game
Well, I have always felt that the definition of a “native” has been dubious, at best, for years. Raiders can come in raid and wreck a region, boot everybody, and refound a region saying that because they had a couple of plants there for a week or so they were 'native'. Some raiders are just looking to tag regions and that would continue but we’ve seen instances of raiders completely disrupting a community. The natives haven't had much of way to combat raiders other than unendo telegrams and requesting aide from defenders.The concept of ‘native’ gives natives a bit of efficacy in many ways. Bad founder? Give him/her the boot. Bad delegate? Adios. Raiders in your region? Gone. Obviously, founders, delegates, and raiders could banject the natives to TRR and remove some of their political opponents. However, if there is a struggle natives would have a fighting chance unlike they really have today.

Another outcome I see is raiders and defenders looking to “stack” in regions so that they control the ‘natives’ in particular regions. To me this would happen in a ‘war’ and really there would need be significant espionage to do this as any competent founder isn’t going to accept any random ol’ native application. Still – I foresee the defenders and raiders attempting to try and control/manipulate native votes.

I’m sure there are a number of other impacts good and bad, but this is just the overall concept to give non-R/D paradigm players a tool to exact change in their regions.

 

[Former English Colony]

Founders would not have the ability to remove Natives once accepted. Natives lose their native badge when they leave the region either by banjection or voluntarily. The former is a bit problematic but I’m not quite sure how to get around this just yet.

Ejecting a native would carry an extra influence cost above the current natives influence level, perhaps something like 1.05.
In GCR’s the sitting delegate would have the same powers as the Founder in terms of conveying native status.

Realistically, why should there be an extra cost above influence? If you are in the region for a long time, you gather a lot of influence. The point of influence was to provide such a protection.

Why could a founder not remove native status? If you're going to have it that a founder gives out native status, I think that should be left, maybe make it so delegates can't change it.

A follow up idea, is the concept of a “revolution”.

Revolution
A revolution would occur when natives vote to remove a delegate from power (the game would send the delegate to TRR regardless of influence level) and when natives vote to revolt against their founder stripping the founder nation of his/her powers making the region a founderless region. Natives then would have the opportunity to select a new founder.

Once you've stripped a region of the founder, aren't you making it *more* susceptible to attacks and native disruption, given that there is no possibility of removing delegate control of the region? And electing a new founder? Why not just go.... create a new region with all the dissatisfied people?

Potential Impacts on R/D game
Well, I have always felt that the definition of a “native” has been dubious, at best, for years. Raiders can come in raid and wreck a region, boot everybody, and refound a region saying that because they had a couple of plants there for a week or so they were 'native'. Some raiders are just looking to tag regions and that would continue but we’ve seen instances of raiders completely disrupting a community. The natives haven't had much of way to combat raiders other than unendo telegrams and requesting aide from defenders.The concept of ‘native’ gives natives a bit of efficacy in many ways. Bad founder? Give him/her the boot. Bad delegate? Adios. Raiders in your region? Gone. Obviously, founders, delegates, and raiders could banject the natives to TRR and remove some of their political opponents. However, if there is a struggle natives would have a fighting chance unlike they really have today.

Okay, so types of regions.
1) Regions with a founder
2) UCR without a founder (either too old or gone)
3) GCR without founders

Type 1 is already sufficiently protected. Unless their founder dies, they have protection
Type 2 is supposed to be protected through influence. And/or a password on the region. And under this scheme since they have no founder they couldn't even use the native thing anyways.
Type 3 I'm assuming would not fall under these rules.

 

[punk d]

Lots of good questions FEC

Realistically, why should there be an extra cost above influence? If you are in the region for a long time, you gather a lot of influence. The point of influence was to provide such a protection.

Why could a founder not remove native status? If you're going to have it that a founder gives out native status, I think that should be left, maybe make it so delegates can't change it.

Re: Cost - the extra cost would be to deter raiders from ejecting natives making it slightly more costly to eject a native than non-native.

Re: Founder removing native status - I don't like this b/c natives would never be able to revolt against a founder ever. And founder revolutions would be pointless as founders would just remove native status from political opponents.

Once you've stripped a region of the founder, aren't you making it *more* susceptible to attacks and native disruption, given that there is no possibility of removing delegate control of the region? And electing a new founder? Why not just go.... create a new region with all the dissatisfied people?

See last line in the text you originally quoted. Natives could select a new founder once the revolted against the old one. I think people like their regions and should have a method to remove leadership and not just go and create something new.

Okay, so types of regions.
1) Regions with a founder
2) UCR without a founder (either too old or gone)
3) GCR without founders

Type 1 is already sufficiently protected. Unless their founder dies, they have protection
Type 2 is supposed to be protected through influence. And/or a password on the region. And under this scheme since they have no founder they couldn't even use the native thing anyways.
Type 3 I'm assuming would not fall under these rules.

1 - Or if the founder is inactive.
2 - Natives also can revolt against delegates so it would matter. When I was thinking of this founder revolutions was more the afterthought than delegate revolutions.
3 - Delegates would have founder powers and natives could revolt against delegates.

 

[Former English Colony]

Okay, so types of regions.
1) Regions with a founder
2) UCR without a founder (either too old or gone)
3) GCR without founders

Type 1 is already sufficiently protected. Unless their founder dies, they have protection
Type 2 is supposed to be protected through influence. And/or a password on the region. And under this scheme since they have no founder they couldn't even use the native thing anyways.
Type 3 I'm assuming would not fall under these rules.

1 - Or if the founder is inactive.
2 - Natives also can revolt against delegates so it would matter. When I was thinking of this founder revolutions was more the afterthought than delegate revolutions.
3 - Delegates would have founder powers and natives could revolt against delegates.

One point immediately, maybe others to follow. How would Type 2 *get* native status if there is no founder.

 

[Lennart]

My humble opinion.

The "native-status-meter" is influence. We could think of new uses for that, or a fix... Before thinking of asking any authority for Native Status. Ehlnar (silly example) was born in TNP, never moved and is WA member here. Ehlnar is a native, by any definition, it shouldn't matter what the WAD says.

But anyway, it would be like multying, and a goldmine for puppeteers. The silent, intelligent, discreet, patient kind. I may fool the founder an get Native Status for a bunch of my nations, or even worse: I may be elected WAD and give native Status to my 400 puppets and my friends.

Offsite forums citizenship and the like, it's the only thing we count in now. I'll gladly accept any change over this in-game, but also understand why it isn't implemented.