Most secure founderless regions

[Jakker]

The argument is not that raiding is good for a region, but it is not always all bad. Regardless, I'm sure all founderless regions will experience it at some point, so we can find out what they think then.

[Solorni]

The argument is not that raiding is good for a region, but it is not always all bad. Regardless, I'm sure all founderless regions will experience it at some point, so we can find out what they think then.

My founderless region has not yet experienced it, so I really don't know.

[RiderSyl]

I would argue that raids can be quite the catalyst for change. However, it takes twisted logic to think your "helping" them.

Not very twisted.

We've raided regions that weren't secure.
After the raid they became secure.
Being secure has helped the regions.
We're the reason they're secure.
We helped them.

That's logic as straight as a line, Stalk.

[Corvus Corax]

Important part of that straight logic is also the fact that a founderless region Is secure at least next 12 hours.

[The Stalker]

My point was Ridersyl, that most regions post-raid aren't more secure or "benefited" afterwards, raiding will always be a destructive force that leads to the erosion of a region. The majority of founderless regions are on there way out being down a founder as is. Only large founderless regions with committed communities even stand a chance, and that is often at a high price.

[Corvus Corax]

Stalker. Let's look at to the example. My Little Pony. I know history of this late updating region as I founded it. I was very drunken during one of my "off-duty"/"retirement" periods, unable to contribute raiding activities because my puppets were CTE'd. However, I noticed so familiar movements out from TBR jump point to a various other regions. I noticed Dear Syl was one member of that team out there. I made new puppets, applying them to WA and taking part 'incognito' as I could. One of those created puppets was Hug4Syl. My Little Pony was so called instant jump point for me then. It was raider's gentle salute to other raider. I sent password via TG to that puppet to Syl after the update. I was that drunken I cannot anymore recall the password and it apparently disappeared to the system messages in a TG BOX of a Syl's random raiding puppet.

That's the Creation story of that founderless region.

What happened then. As a late updating region it became constant target for TBR tag teams as a certain internal joke. There after various groups has continuously "liberated" that region again and again. The region is full of place holders and sleepers. Maybe. Just maybe. Someday, once upon time in NS, My Little Pony fans of the Multiverse manage organize sufficiently determined and numerous force of WA-nations and make it the home of the Living community of My Little Pony. And I have no objections if that ever happens and I think Syl won't complain about it either.

Meanwhile it is secured as it exist. Particularly so after this statement.

[RiderSyl]

My point was Ridersyl, that most regions post-raid aren't more secure or "benefited" afterwards, raiding will always be a destructive force that leads to the erosion of a region. The majority of founderless regions are on there way out being down a founder as is. Only large founderless regions with committed communities even stand a chance, and that is often at a high price.

When I saw you calling my logic "twisted", I stopped caring about what point you were trying to make and just decided to respond to that part of your comment.

Raiding is evil, blah blah, we get it, King of Hell.

[Zaolat]

I would argue that raids can be quite the catalyst for change. However, it takes twisted logic to think your "helping" them. Most invaded regions are more damage by the experience, particularly in the area of regional population.

Anarchy was certainly not helped by months long occupation. Having a population between 140 and 120 prior to the raid, now still only at 70.

I think the instantiates where the region did pull together are just more memorable, but they are not nearly as often or as positive as your suggesting.

Here's the thing Nibu. At best from a non-raider perspective raids are seen as petty vandalism/graffiti, which is nowadays the most common type. This is not the same thing as burning the whole fucking house down. Even the ones that take the house hostage for a while isn't necessarily a Macedon massacre.

It's not all that bad.

[Todd McCloud]

I would argue that raids can be quite the catalyst for change. However, it takes twisted logic to think your "helping" them. Most invaded regions are more damage by the experience, particularly in the area of regional population.

Anarchy was certainly not helped by months long occupation. Having a population between 140 and 120 prior to the raid, now still only at 70.

I think the instantiates where the region did pull together are just more memorable, but they are not nearly as often or as positive as your suggesting.

Well, back in 2006 I didn't really know how the game worked and I just answered issues in the region Poland (not that there's anything wrong with that). It took a raid performed by the Blades of Conquest to sort of wake us all up to gameplay. Had it not been for that, I'd have probably retired long ago, Poland might be a part of the Macedon Empire, and a bunch of us over there may have lost interest. So yeah, in my case, and in the case of Poland, raiding helped.

I often wonder how many people were "pulled" into gameplay due to the R&D game. That is, they were minding their own business, they were raided, they then joined the R or D side. I believe it was a lot back then, I don't know how many it is today.

[Corvus Corax]

@Todd. That "pull to R/D" by raids is exactly why TBR have continuous stream of new recruits. Unfortunately only 1 new comer out of 100 stays, but many of those whom leave continue still in R/D, in way or another.

[The Stalker]

I'm not saying there aren't instances where a raid helps the community more in the end, just that it's not the case for most, and that it's often at a price.

Hippy Haven is defiantly better off now, larger, raid free, and more active than Hippiedom was, but it was at the cost of our original name. Hell's occupation lead to us finally uniting, now more secure and active then we've been in years, but that was at the price of a decent chunk of our population and a lot of conflict.

[The Blaatschapen]

The argument is not that raiding is good for a region, but it is not always all bad. Regardless, I'm sure all founderless regions will experience it at some point, so we can find out what they think then.

My founderless region has not yet experienced it, so I really don't know.

That can be arranged

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

If I move in, and you let me play the endo cap up to about 90-100 instead of 15, we'll have a right old party going on in a few days, Hawk-Style

[Weapons and War]

No founder less regions are safe

[Bodger]

Ceraser presents: Largest founderless regions sorted by endorsements.

Our starting point for this is http://www.nationstates.net/page=tag_se ... ounderless , but it only shows the largest founderless region by size which includes regions with lots of puppets. I had to manually check for endorsements to get the real picture of the most successful and secure founderless regions.

GCRs

The North Pacific: 544
The West Pacific: 265
The Pacific: 264
The East Pacific: 226
The South Pacific: 222
The Rejected Realms: 144
Balder: 115
Lazarus: 134
Osiris: 82

UCRs

Social Liberal Union: 45
Canada: 44
NationStates: 38
European Union: 28
ITALIA: 25
Atheist Empire: 19
Anarchy: 18
Equestria: 18
Portugal: 15
Hell: 15

(The Mountains to the East 30 but excluded as under defence/raid)

My motivation for doing this is show how difficult it is to build a founderless UCR and to recognise those who have been successful in doing so. Secondly when the typical response to founderless regions that were raided was to secure yourselves better, I want to so show these regions are already at the top of the game, have done all they can and it's near impossible to do any better. (Referring to Anarchy and Hell which had been raided in recent times, not sure about the others). This is especially when the natives' part often forgotten in gameplay....when they form the primary preventive defence in the first place by building a region is high endos.

Lastly, I am selfish and looking for some belated recognition when I built EE to 6th on the list through most of 2012-13 and only got a "who's that".

I am curious to see how this has changed in almost 5 years. Brackets show the old number.


GCRs

The North Pacific: 895 (544)
The South Pacific: 639 (222)
The East Pacific: 569 (226)
The West Pacific: 492 (265)
The Pacific: 337 (264)
Balder: 322 (115)
Lazarus: 274 (134)
Osiris: 265 (82)
The Rejected Realms: 178 (144)


UCRs - 10 or more endorsements

The Communist Bloc 195
Nationstates 48 (38)
Yggdrasil 34 (Though GRO may revive himself)
Canada 32 (44)
Social Liberal Union: 28 (45)
Eurasia 28 (Founder recently CTE though)
Portugal 25 (15)
South Pacific 20
Warzone Sandbox* 19
Warzone Asia*** 16
Warzone Europe 15
Anarchy 13 (18)
Japan 13
Hell 13
Christmas 12
ITALIA 11 (25)
St Abbaddon 10
Furry Antifascist Alliance 10
North Ustaynga** 10

*Technically a GCR but more relevant to compare to founderless UCRs
** This is unique because it's voluntarily chose to be founderless by starting the region with a Non-Executive Founder
*** Many of these are NPO reinforcements

I stopped at page 7 as total nation count was less than 20.

My thoughts:

TNP is still the biggest but it I think it has reached a limit to growth, at least to the overall state of the game. TWP, TSP and TEP all had a surge. TP's policies meant its growth was much slower. Balder despite being "irrelevant" to GP may well overtake it soon which would be the first time in a non-post-coup situation. It'll be an interesting day when a Sinker overtakes a Feeder. Osiris has lots of growth but 2015 was also its lowest point. TRR has hardly changed at all in 5 years - it might an inherent limitation of a region based on rejects.

For Founderless UCRs, the situation has hardly changed in 5 years. Most of those were always founder-less even 5 years ago and are already comfortable at their size. It's simply more logical to have a founder afterall - the main exception is The Communist Bloc which far outstrips other founderless regions.

Warzones are making a good showing on themselves compared to most founderless regions. They deserve more respect.

[The Stalker]

Nice 5 year update!

Though, you know, "most endorsements" is bit different than "most secure". Also I feel calling feeders / sinker regions, founderless regions is inaccurate. They are massive regions that spawn nations. They're more secure than any UCR, founderless or not lol. The site is their founder, and it's still here.

If we're talking founderless regions security, should base it off of region's community size and last time raided. I'd put Nationstates at number one, and Hell at number two.

I'd be curious to see what the hardest to raid founderless regions list would be.

[WayNeacTia]

Nice 5 year update!

Though, you know, "most endorsements" is bit different than "most secure". Also I feel calling feeders / sinker regions, founderless regions is inaccurate. They are massive regions that spawn nations. They're more secure than any UCR, founderless or not lol. The site is their founder, and it's still here.

If we're talking founderless regions security, should base it off of region's community size and last time raided. I'd put Nationstates at number one, and Hell at number two.

I'd be curious to see what the hardest to raid founderless regions list would be.

Hell number two? You are the only one who knows the password. It is impossible to raid.

[Marxist Germany]

Nice 5 year update!

Though, you know, "most endorsements" is bit different than "most secure". Also I feel calling feeders / sinker regions, founderless regions is inaccurate. They are massive regions that spawn nations. They're more secure than any UCR, founderless or not lol. The site is their founder, and it's still here.

If we're talking founderless regions security, should base it off of region's community size and last time raided. I'd put Nationstates at number one, and Hell at number two.

I'd be curious to see what the hardest to raid founderless regions list would be.

Hell number two? You are the only one who knows the password. It is impossible to raid.

Not impossible, The SC, though almost impossible, may Liberate Hell.

[WayNeacTia]

Hell number two? You are the only one who knows the password. It is impossible to raid.

Not impossible, The SC, though almost impossible, may Liberate Hell.

Like I said, impossible.

[Honeydewistania]

Eurasia is Antifa reinforcements

[The Stalker]

Nice 5 year update!

Though, you know, "most endorsements" is bit different than "most secure". Also I feel calling feeders / sinker regions, founderless regions is inaccurate. They are massive regions that spawn nations. They're more secure than any UCR, founderless or not lol. The site is their founder, and it's still here.

If we're talking founderless regions security, should base it off of region's community size and last time raided. I'd put Nationstates at number one, and Hell at number two.

I'd be curious to see what the hardest to raid founderless regions list would be.

Hell number two? You are the only one who knows the password. It is impossible to raid.

Well depends on how what you'd wanna factor in for such a ranking. I put Hell as number two to NationStates, because it has never been raided, Mike has held the seat for over 15 years. If you had to guess which do you think would be raided, Hell or NationStates?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

TP's policies meant its growth was much slower.

I'd give this, in part, a "technicalllllly" rating. They've not pursued endorsement growth as strongly as some regions have; they also had an unusual delegate and leadership transition, and a long-running endorsement campaign against them.

Overall, too, some combination of the trend charts of each delegate's endorsements over time, stitched together, would tell a much better story for all of these regions than two single data points.

If we're talking founderless regions security, should base it off of region's community size and last time raided. I'd put Nationstates at number one, and Hell at number two.

I'm not sure I agree with that, depending on the lens we're looking through.

NationStates is "secure" because of it's social-political ties. Mainstream raiders don't want to touch it, and they have ties with large regions. But, if a large party that did not care about those things wanted to take it, there have been more than a few times in recent history when the endo gap between Mike and the baseline avg around the region was uncomfortably small.

Hell, on the other hand, as you well know, is an actively managed fortress of security. It's protected by countermeasures, not by promises. Perhaps you could argue it's less "secure" in that raiders actually want to raid it, but it's also certainly more "secured."

[WayNeacTia]

Hell number two? You are the only one who knows the password. It is impossible to raid.

Well depends on how what you'd wanna factor in for such a ranking. I put Hell as number two to NationStates, because it has never been raided, Mike has held the seat for over 15 years. If you had to guess which do you think would be raided, Hell or NationStates?

Both have about as much chance of being raided as the sun has going supernova, but I will defer to your judgement on the matter.