NATION

PASSWORD

Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Talk about regional management and politics, raider/defender gameplay, and other game-related matters.
Not a roleplaying forum.
User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Naivetry » Wed May 06, 2009 10:33 pm

About This Thread
This thread is meant as an explanation of the military game in NationStates (NS) - the one based in the game code, not in Role Play (RP). There are many excellent threads on how to RP wars - this is not one of them. This is about the phenomenon known as region crashing or invading. It covers the distinction between raiders and defenders, how they each work within the game code to accomplish their goals, and what difference this makes for the players who care about this side of the game.

If you are new to NS and all this sounds very confusing, I recommend reading this first.
The sections on the WA and Regions in this thread are particularly important: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=286
And for RP, you can try here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=310 (NS) or here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12342 (II)
More info on RP here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=753

Vaguely Polemical Introduction
Region crashing/invading was not included in the original design concept of NS. Invasions were an invention of the players, who discovered that by moving their nations from one region to another, they could, in effect, make war on another region. Because other players objected to being invaded, they teamed up in order to retaliate, to defend their home region, or to protect other regions. Over time, this led to the development of many "off-site" regional forums, created and controlled by the players, so that they could better organize their activities. Governments, embassies, and alliances sprang up between these regional forums, and very soon a large portion of the NS world consisted of a far more complicated political simulation than anyone could have anticipated. This is the world referred to as "Gameplay."

I am speaking as someone with command experience in the NS military as a defender (see definitions below), although it is not my primary focus in the game. I am a proponent of preserving the military element because it was the origin and remains the underlying source for all NationStates power politics - by which I mean the rise and fall and interrelationship of regional communities, not the passage of World Assembly (WA) legislation. These, then, are the basics, and they are absolutely foundational to military and political life in the sphere of Gameplay. I hope that this overview will help to remove some of the fundamental misunderstandings and misleading assumptions about the military game that generally plague people who have not participated in it themselves.

A. Definitions
1) Invasion - nations moving into a region in order to control the WA Delegacy
2) Liberation - an invasion that aims to return the WA Delegacy to the "natives"
3) Raider - someone who invades in order to exert their own control over a region
4) Defender - someone who invades in order to preserve or return "native" control
5) Native - someone who resides in a region and considers it home (highly contested definition)

B. Mechanics
1. Update - NS updates twice during the day. The major update usually occurs from 2-4 am EST, depending on the region. This is the only time when the WA Delegacy changes, and so all military activity leads up to this hour. The updates occur 12 hours apart, beginning at approximately 04:00 and 16:00 GMT. These are the only times when the WA Delegacy changes, and so all military activity leads up to these hours.

2. The Numbers Game - Who controls the WA Delegacy is determined only by who has the most endorsements at update. This is the biggest reason why WA multying (having more than one nation in the WA) is illegal. Because WA multying is illegal, success in the military game depends upon cooperation, planning, and coordination. Well-developed military organizations have complete ranking systems, a chain of command, special awards and conditions of promotion, training materials, scheduling, and division of labor within the army itself. Even given these elements, the essential thing is, in the end, simply to outnumber your opponent. The drop in NS population has therefore had a devastating effect on the excitement of the military game as battles that were formerly orchestrated nightly on the scale of hundreds of players have dropped to encounters with 5-10 people - on a really good evening.

3. Influence - Each WA Delegate has an amount of Influence to spend. Influence is gained primarily by gathering endorsements, and secondarily by remaining in the same region for a long time. Nations gather Influence much more slowly in a large region than in a small region. If you move to a new region, you will very quickly lose all of the Influence you had accumulated in your old region. Influence allows you to eject or banject (eject and ban) nations, and institute passwords. You can never be certain exactly how much Influence you have left to spend.

4. Eject, banject, passwords - It costs the Delegate more Influence to banject nations than simply to eject them. It costs the Delegate more Influence to eject a nation the more Influence that nation has. It costs more Influence to set an invisible password than to set one that is visible to nations in the region. Once the Delegate runs out of Influence, he is out of Influence until after the next update. If an attack is launched on the region while the Delegate is out of Influence, the Delegate can do nothing to stop it. Any region is safe, however, so long as it has an active Founder. The Founder can eject and ban nations without cost, and so for as long as the Founder remains, no community is ever in danger of total annihilation.

C. Tactics
1. Time is of the essence - If you are a raider, you will have the greatest chance of not being spotted and prevented from taking a region if you move into a region very close to update. If you are a defender, you will have the greatest chance of succeeding in a liberation if you move into a region very close to update. If the raider delegate is awake during update, he will be watching for movement into the region and will banject new nations before their endorsements can be counted.

2. Switchers - Because of the possibility of being banned by an active raider delegate, defenders have developed a tactic that allows them to switch between WA nations almost instantaneously (rather than waiting for 24 hours), without ever having more than one in the WA at the same time. This is a vital tactic for defenders who are attempting to liberate a region, so that they can have a second chance during the same night if their first attempt to liberate a region fails.

3. Puppets - Defenders quickly figured out that raids could be spotted and prevented by tracking raider nations. Raiders responded by creating dozens of puppets and using them as "clean," disposable nations. Once a puppet has participated in a raid, it is "dirty," and is typically not used again. These puppets drop WA status (so that WA status may be shifted to another puppet) and are normally left to CTE. Some may, in fact, never be used. If absence of nation activity is a good sign of such puppets, approximately 30-60% of the nations 4-7 days old and still residing in the Pacifics consist of puppets of this kind.

4. Mobility - Due to a desire to conceal one's identity as a raider or defender from the other side, the vast majority of raider/defender WA nations never reside in their home regions. Raider organizations sometimes retain ties to on-site regions, and sometimes they do not. It should be stressed that, aside from advertising their organization more easily, there is no real reason why raiders should base themselves out of a region at all.

5. Intel - Because of this deadlock over tactics on-site, a complicated spy-game developed. Since the advent of Influence and the drastic depopulation of the military gameplay community, this Intel game is practically dead. From the defender side, it consisted of multiple levels - anything from tracking suspected raider puppets to adopting a false identity under which to join a raider forum. Once defender agents had worked themselves into positions of trust within the raider hierarchy, the organization's raids could be subtly undermined, their members identified in any attempts to counter-infiltrate, and eventually the whole raiding group might be dismantled.

D. What's the Big Deal?
1. Raiders - I assume raiders enjoy raiding for the thrill of transgression/power, the challenge, and the bragging rights. A raid that is not advertised on the World Factbook Entry (WFE) is pointless. A raid conducted where no one else cares to control the region is also pointless. And finally, a raid that doesn't have the potential to shock is pointless... in fact, the bigger the shock value, the better. Raiding pushes the boundaries of what is acceptable; raids are about seeing what you can get away with. This is why Influence killed the raiding game - it said that anything raiders could do, they would now by default get away with. And so many of the raiders who liked the momentary thrill of transgression left, and the griefers - the people who played for permanent control and the total destruction of regions - remained, with a guarantee that no mod would interfere with them again.

2. Defenders - Until the advent of Influence, defenders almost universally saw themselves as the protectors of NationStates in a very black-and-white world. Raiders took away a nation's right to live in peace, and a region's right to self-determination. This was morally unacceptable, and raiders were often ostracized from the larger political world where peace was the primary desire. Still today, defenders fight because raiders fight first. They have no raison d'etre except to prevent raiders from wielding power over others. Defenders do not, and never have, fought competitively with raiders as if conflict were an end in itself. They fight as protectors. They fight for ideals. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain the raiding/defending game in a designated "war is okay here" area - witness the epic failure of the warzones. If war is okay, the defenders have no motivation to stop it (and then the raiders have no reason to raid if they're not going to get a rise out of people, and so on in a vicious cycle). This is why Influence killed the defending game - it declared the moral argument meaningless. Might makes right in NS. The defenders still around are simply in denial of the very clear game rules, that anything you can do to a region, goes.

3. Politics - At the most basic level, politics between regions are conducted with the threat of military force or promise of military aid in the background. Most regions, regardless of their "defender" or "raider" stance, reserve for themselves the right to participate in war with other regions. In the age of the major military alliances, formally announced declarations of war were considered a separate phenomenon from the ordinary background of raiding and defending. So, for example, the ADN (Alliance Defense Network), back in the very early days, declared war on Ireland after Ireland invaded one of their member regions, and presumably would've invaded had a peace treaty not been signed.* Defenders usually recognized official declarations of war between regions, and would take sides according to their political commitments rather than in their capacity as "defenders"... or would spin what they were doing as a defense or liberation, and not a raid at all (as in the ADN vs. The Pacific). Modern day defenders have gotten into trouble politically for not showing similar discrimination.

In those days, if you participated in any military offensive aside from one that had been justified by political spin or by a declaration of war, you were considered a raider. That meant that the most hardcore defenders considered any group that "switched" between raiding and defending to be raiders, pure and simple. Defenders were/are ideologically divided about whether or not it was okay for "defenders" to raid raider home regions, as TITO is in the habit of doing with DEN. The answer to that question might depend on whether or not you consider yourself as a defender to have a standing declaration of war against raiders.

In-game politics become far more complex, but the potential for military action, direct or indirect, still underlies every major conflict; this can be seen especially in the various conflicts over the WA Delegacy in the feeders. For a variety of reasons, the feeders have become and will always remain the biggest political stage in NS; but that's a story for another epic post.

* The President of the ADN, Vazquez, ended up invading anyway with nations from Alcatraz after the peace treaty was signed; Prosecutor General Westwind investigated and found evidence of the planning on the ADN boards; Vazquez resigned, Vice President Democratic Donkeys revealed he was an invader spy, and shortly afterward Pope Hope declared Martial Law to break a gridlock in the House and Senate and inaugurated the ADN Reloaded. As they say, those were the days...

EDIT: 2009-05-09: Made more newbie-friendly. 2009-05-17: Added another RP link. 2009-08-15: Updated update information (1)(2). 2009-11-12: Switched RP (II) link from this to a better one that works. 2009-11-20: Added griefing link.
Last edited by Naivetry on Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:24 pm, edited 15 times in total.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Naivetry » Sat May 09, 2009 1:32 am

Updated with links to the RP guides. If anyone knows of more in that vein, let me know and I'll add them.

User avatar
Northern Chittowa
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Mar 03, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Northern Chittowa » Sun May 10, 2009 5:35 am

I have to say Nai, some of its pretty biased against defenders, but ill let it be ;)

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Naivetry » Mon May 11, 2009 11:35 am

Well, I figured I should criticize the side of the game I know, rather than the one I don't. :P

I assume you're referring to this statement:
The defenders still around are simply in denial of the very clear game rules, that anything you can do to a region, goes.

That's my take on it. From where I stand the debate between raiders and defenders simply is not realistic if it's based on ignorance of that transformation in game code. I would love for the moral argument to come back - really. But it was sometime in 2007, when Equilism was the only region - defender or otherwise - to cut diplomatic ties with Taijitu after their invasion of TRR, that we realized that side of the game was dead as a political motivator.

Annoying other regions - raiding - was always legal. But now griefing other regions is legal. How can a compelling defender ideology survive that, unless we consciously set ourselves in opposition to - that is, superior to - the ruling of the mods and the reality of game code? I have heard nothing from modern defenders that could convince me we are ready to take that step, or that most of us are even conscious of the fact that it needs to be taken. We're living on outmoded habits and outdated, unexamined rhetoric. If you want a new generation of defenders to match the enthusiasm, professionalism, and political relevancy of the old, then defending has to be rethought. Until it is, defenders will remain the footnote to which Influence has reduced us.

User avatar
Daistallia 2104
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7848
Founded: Jan 14, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Daistallia 2104 » Mon May 11, 2009 11:53 am

Northern Chittowa wrote:I have to say Nai, some of its pretty biased against defenders, but ill let it be ;)


And the whole thing is heavily biased towards the region crashing "game". I've always thought that part of the game to be very distasteful when involving players who weren't interested. If griefing's your cup of tea, then stick to the warzone regions where it's acceptable and don't fuck up other players experience.
NSWiki|HP
Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or evil, and you don't want to get any on you. - Scott Adams
Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness. - Terry Pratchett
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
How our economy really works.
Obama is a conservative, not a liberal, and certainly not a socialist.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Naivetry » Mon May 11, 2009 12:52 pm

Daistallia 2104 wrote:And the whole thing is heavily biased towards the region crashing "game". I've always thought that part of the game to be very distasteful when involving players who weren't interested. If griefing's your cup of tea, then stick to the warzone regions where it's acceptable and don't fuck up other players experience.


This entire thread is about region crashing and the people who try to stop it - how this situation developed, what it means to either side, and why no one raids Warzones. If you don't like griefing, ask for the rules against it to be re-instituted. I'd like nothing better.

If my first post did not make that clear, please explain where, and I will update it.
Last edited by Naivetry on Mon May 11, 2009 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Northern Chittowa
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Mar 03, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Northern Chittowa » Mon May 11, 2009 4:16 pm

Naivetry wrote:Well, I figured I should criticize the side of the game I know, rather than the one I don't. :P

I assume you're referring to this statement:
The defenders still around are simply in denial of the very clear game rules, that anything you can do to a region, goes.

That's my take on it. From where I stand the debate between raiders and defenders simply is not realistic if it's based on ignorance of that transformation in game code. I would love for the moral argument to come back - really. But it was sometime in 2007, when Equilism was the only region - defender or otherwise - to cut diplomatic ties with Taijitu after their invasion of TRR, that we realized that side of the game was dead as a political motivator.

Annoying other regions - raiding - was always legal. But now griefing other regions is legal. How can a compelling defender ideology survive that, unless we consciously set ourselves in opposition to - that is, superior to - the ruling of the mods and the reality of game code? I have heard nothing from modern defenders that could convince me we are ready to take that step, or that most of us are even conscious of the fact that it needs to be taken. We're living on outmoded habits and outdated, unexamined rhetoric. If you want a new generation of defenders to match the enthusiasm, professionalism, and political relevancy of the old, then defending has to be rethought. Until it is, defenders will remain the footnote to which Influence has reduced us.



Just because its game code and hence game law doesn't really mean that we have to like it. Just because it is legal to grief doesn't mean that the defenders out there have to agree with it. I still personally defend because i dont feel raiders should do what they do, they have the legal right now yes but morally, it is still questionable. Taking a modern example of legal v's moral, the recent PM expenses row in the UK, what they did was legal yes but morally wrong, the same can be applied to this debate here.

Also in regards to the Taijitu thing, the FRA would have cut ties with them if we had ties in the first place! We cant cut what isnt there. TRR is a member of the FRA after all, and as such we condemned the move as much as possible and moved against it.

I do agree that influence has done far more harm than good, and i wish above all that it is removed from the game, but thats all ill say on that matter as im sure it has already been said many times before and the mods that be must be sick of hearing it by now!

User avatar
Kandarin
Diplomat
 
Posts: 869
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Kandarin » Mon May 11, 2009 7:56 pm

Northern Chittowa wrote:I do agree that influence has done far more harm than good, and i wish above all that it is removed from the game, but thats all ill say on that matter as im sure it has already been said many times before and the mods that be must be sick of hearing it by now!


Of course, there are a number of reasons why that hasn't happened, even if it would be a good idea.

The first (and, I think, much more reasonable) reason is that as the mods have pointed out time and again, enforcing the griefing rules was a colossal headache to them. Some of the salient points, nativity in particular, were very hard to pin down in a provable way. How much time in a region is required for native status? What actions might negate it? Do deep-cover plants count? It wasn't very feasible to answer these questions in a way that was mutually satisfactory and internally consistent; As it was, it seems to have come down to a matter of bewildering case law and establishing rules that were guaranteed to offend lots of people no matter what happened. So they assigned the decision to an automated process that is at least purely objective if not necessarily satisfactory.

The second reason is that public support is behind it. Not the support of the invader/defender and diplomacy/politics communities; it's pretty widely despised within those groups. Despite this, the majority opinion of RPers, Issues players, General posters, WA wonks, and in general those communities based on this official forum is that Influence was a very positive change that protects them and thwarts griefy invasions. These are the terms in which Influence was initially presented to these communities and these are the terms in which they continue to see it. Since many of those folks are reading this thread, I have to say that you're welcome to express otherwise, but I have listened to a great many official-forumites and am yet to hear any significant divergence from this view. If that's not you, please speak up!

As many folks from the Gameplay side have tried to point out in recent times, this simply isn't how Influence has played out. In actual practice the result of Influence has been to increase the frequency and ambition of the griefiest styles of invasion while eliminating nearly everyone else in the region-war game, including the groups that acted the most to prevent that sort of thing. Nevertheless, this fact is not widely known on official-forum communities and the inhabitants of those communities (or at least the ones I have spoken to) continue to see Influence as a feature that has selectively defeated the worst excesses of invasion rather than one that has exacerbated them relative to all others. As a result, any suggestion to remove influence would be (and in the past, has been) strongly opposed by representatives of official-forum-based communities.
Last edited by Kandarin on Mon May 11, 2009 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Whamabama » Mon May 11, 2009 11:02 pm

Daistallia 2104 wrote:
And the whole thing is heavily biased towards the region crashing "game". I've always thought that part of the game to be very distasteful when involving players who weren't interested. If griefing's your cup of tea, then stick to the warzone regions where it's acceptable and don't fuck up other players experience.


You can't grief a warzone. It has no natives. It's also one reason they are not used.

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Naivetry » Mon May 11, 2009 11:06 pm

Northern Chittowa wrote:Just because its game code and hence game law doesn't really mean that we have to like it. Just because it is legal to grief doesn't mean that the defenders out there have to agree with it. I still personally defend because i dont feel raiders should do what they do, they have the legal right now yes but morally, it is still questionable. Taking a modern example of legal v's moral, the recent PM expenses row in the UK, what they did was legal yes but morally wrong, the same can be applied to this debate here.

Oh, I agree there's a distinction. But I also think there's a distinction between legitimate raiding and griefing, just like there's a distinction between spraypainting someone's house and burning it down. Raiding can of course be annoying (though the places that get raided these days rarely seem to notice), and I still think griefing - a la Feudal Japan - is unquestionably, morally wrong. But I don't see anyone actually fighting griefers. Now, of course, if you're running a deep cover operation in The Macedonian Empire to save France, I'll take that back - and do let me know, because that sort of operation would pull us back into the defender game right quick.

I'll stay up all night to keep someone from being burned alive - I'll go through military training, I'll sit out in the bushes with a Bowie knife and a shotgun, I'll track every movement made by potential threats, I'll mobilize a back-up team to assist me, run practice drills five times a week, and go over the defense plan in detail until I see it in my sleep. You'll have a hard time convincing me to do the same to keep someone's porch free of graffiti. That's the difficulty we're facing - explaining to new recruits why they have to jump through all these hoops and then stay up until 3 in the morning (EST) seven days a week to keep someone from writing "DEN was here" on a region. The offense we're combating simply does not balance against the commitment it takes to prevent it... and meanwhile the real outrages and griefing go on, completely unaffected by any defender activity whatsoever. That's what needs to change. Influence doesn't do the job, and we're not picking up the slack because it's hard to stop determined griefers... so we play our game of hide and go seek with ordinary raiders and leave NS to be ravaged by the real, unpunished culprits. Convince me I'm wrong, and I'll lighten up a bit on my analysis of how we're doing as "defenders."
Last edited by Naivetry on Mon May 11, 2009 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Northern Chittowa
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Mar 03, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Northern Chittowa » Tue May 12, 2009 7:48 am

The offense we're combating simply does not balance against the commitment it takes to prevent it... and meanwhile the real outrages and griefing go on, completely unaffected by any defender activity whatsoever. That's what needs to change. Influence doesn't do the job, and we're not picking up the slack because it's hard to stop determined griefers... so we play our game of hide and go seek with ordinary raiders and leave NS to be ravaged by the real, unpunished culprits. Convince me I'm wrong, and I'll lighten up a bit on my analysis of how we're doing as "defenders."


I do see where your coming from and, if im honest, the more i think about it the more i do believe your right. Perhaps more emphasis does need to be placed upon what you call the 'real outrages' rather than the age old defender v's raider hide and seek. Ill have a word with those in the FRA about what can be done when i get the chance and see what we can do to change this.

User avatar
Daistallia 2104
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7848
Founded: Jan 14, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Daistallia 2104 » Tue May 12, 2009 10:19 am

Naivetry wrote:
Daistallia 2104 wrote:And the whole thing is heavily biased towards the region crashing "game". I've always thought that part of the game to be very distasteful when involving players who weren't interested. If griefing's your cup of tea, then stick to the warzone regions where it's acceptable and don't fuck up other players experience.


This entire thread is about region crashing and the people who try to stop it - how this situation developed, what it means to either side, and why no one raids Warzones. If you don't like griefing, ask for the rules against it to be re-instituted. I'd like nothing better.

If my first post did not make that clear, please explain where, and I will update it.


OK, maybe you can explain it to me. I've always seen the "crashing game" and "greifing" as indistinguishable. Somebody sets up a region, and unless it passworded, it's free game for any group of players to "crash" and screw around with. The only difference between "crashing" and "greifing" that I ever understood was that "crashers" weren't allowed to ban players from rejoining.

To me, that's a negligible difference. Both still ruin play for others as far as I understand it.
NSWiki|HP
Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or evil, and you don't want to get any on you. - Scott Adams
Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness. - Terry Pratchett
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
How our economy really works.
Obama is a conservative, not a liberal, and certainly not a socialist.

User avatar
Daistallia 2104
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7848
Founded: Jan 14, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Daistallia 2104 » Tue May 12, 2009 10:21 am

Whamabama wrote:
Daistallia 2104 wrote:
And the whole thing is heavily biased towards the region crashing "game". I've always thought that part of the game to be very distasteful when involving players who weren't interested. If griefing's your cup of tea, then stick to the warzone regions where it's acceptable and don't fuck up other players experience.


You can't grief a warzone. It has no natives. It's also one reason they are not used.


As far as I'm concerned, warzones are the only regions where takeovers should be permited.
NSWiki|HP
Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or evil, and you don't want to get any on you. - Scott Adams
Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness. - Terry Pratchett
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
How our economy really works.
Obama is a conservative, not a liberal, and certainly not a socialist.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Naivetry » Tue May 12, 2009 11:55 am

Daistallia 2104 wrote:OK, maybe you can explain it to me. I've always seen the "crashing game" and "greifing" as indistinguishable. Somebody sets up a region, and unless it passworded, it's free game for any group of players to "crash" and screw around with. The only difference between "crashing" and "greifing" that I ever understood was that "crashers" weren't allowed to ban players from rejoining.

To me, that's a negligible difference. Both still ruin play for others as far as I understand it.

Indeed. The OP tries to explain what else has developed from that mechanic. Because when crashers and griefers came alone, so did people who used the same basic mechanics to try to stop crashing and griefing.

In other words, a group of players crashed a region. Another group of players came in, kicked out the invaders, restored all of the information from the WFE, told the natives to call if they ever needed help in the future, and rode off into the sunset. That second group called themselves "defenders," and while they were technically using the same mechanics as region crashers, they were acting in order to prevent griefing, minimize the effects of region crashing, and reduce the amount of region crashing that happened (by infiltrating groups of region crashers and gaining their trust, then giving away their plans to people who would stop them).

This is what led to the larger political game, which most people on the official forums have as little conception of as I have of II or NSG. Defenders and raiders alike formed regional governments based on off-site forums in order to more easily organize their activities. Defenders formed massive alliances aimed at policing NationStates and preventing region crashing. Raiders attempted to infiltrate those alliances or to take over other regional governments from the inside, to turn them into region crashers.

Other regional governments formed that sometimes took sides, and sometimes tried to remain completely peaceful by staying out of both region crashing AND defending - these could and did still ask for protection from the defenders against region crashers, and usually received it as a matter of course. In time, the giant defender alliances became centers for politics - real politics, because they were meant to control game realities like region crashing. People took part in a chain of command that involved ordering players from dozens of different regions to move their nations through the game, in order to prevent griefing. The responsibility to know what you were doing - to make sure that you weren't interfering with an innocent change of delegacy in some unsuspecting region - came with that. It involved trust, expertise, and dedication on the part of the players who led these alliances, because they were wielding real control over things like how late hundreds - no exaggeration - of people stayed up on a given night to try to protect a region from crashing.

The defenders' goal was ostensibly to protect NationStates from region crashers and tyranny of all kinds - which is why they opposed Francos Spain in The Pacific, when he started ejecting thousands of nations. This commitment to protect NationStates from region crashing - or to perpetuate it, if you took the other side - was therefore the seed for all politics between regions - not just a debate on what ought to be allowed in the game, but a commitment from players to enforce the standards of gameplay that they thought were appropriate.

The point to take away is that defenders are not region crashers. They formed in opposition to region crashers, but rather than complaining about how awful region crashing was and how it shouldn't be allowed, they took matters into their own hands and worked to prevent it by countering region crashing activity in the game itself. Influence and the abolition of the rules against griefing - which stated, among other things, that you weren't allowed to ban natives - took the heart and soul out of these defender organizations, who felt that their commitment and their dedication to protecting NationStates had been declared obsolete. New game code - Influence - would be the substitute for all the time and energy they had put into protecting others, because the mods would no longer interfere to stop griefing... they ruled instead that griefing didn't exist and abolished all the rules that had once governed against it.

We (defenders) would like those rules to come back, because right now NS is far more vulnerable than it was before Influence. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to stop a well-executed griefing, like the destruction of France or of Feudal Japan, which ripped apart two peaceful regional communities while we watched and tried in vain to attempt a liberation. They've been reduced to single nations, passworded, and left as trophies - it's the NS equivalent to pinning your victims' scalps on the wall, and Influence, because it superseded the griefing rules, is what permits that.

As far as I'm concerned, warzones are the only regions where takeovers should be permited.

Unfortunately, this is like saying the only place you'll permit territorial disputes in RL is Antarctica. The region crashers don't want to take over a warzone - because there's nothing there to take over. Don't bother allowing for region crashing at all if you're going to limit it to warzones. It won't happen there even if you invite them in.

The other problem is that unless you remove the position of WA Delegacy, or remove the Delegate's access to Regional Controls, or change the way Delegates are selected, you still have the problem of internal takeovers. If a member of your region decides they don't like you, they can still use the same mechanics to take over and kick you out, by getting more support than you have within your own region... and then, how are you supposed to tell the difference between an internal takeover, and an outside invasion, if the nation in question has been lurking in the region with his friends for a long time?

User avatar
Silentvoice
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Jan 15, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Silentvoice » Tue May 12, 2009 1:50 pm

I think Kandy sums up the prevailing thought very well. However, there is another solution. Keep influence as a cosmetic RP element, but also resurrect the no-griefing rule.

If "enforcing the griefing rules was a colossal headache to them (moderators)" as you said, I'm pretty sure many defenders will be more than willing to volunteer as "griefing" moderators.
Member, Alliance of Abh Nations

User avatar
Romanar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 624
Founded: Feb 15, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Romanar » Tue May 12, 2009 5:00 pm

IMO, Influence not only hurt the defenders, but it hurt the raiders too. I don't know first-hand what raiding was like before Influence, but with Influence, it's often a boring grind. On one of my last raids, some of the raiding nations literally CTEd waiting for the Delegate to gain enough Influence to password the region. Worse, for most of that time, we had already won. There was little or no chance of the Defenders ousting us. I don't know about other raiders, but for me the fun of conquest was soured by having my WA stuck in a region for over a month with nothing to do but wait for the inevitable.

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Whamabama » Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 am

Daistallia 2104 wrote:
Whamabama wrote:
Daistallia 2104 wrote:
And the whole thing is heavily biased towards the region crashing "game". I've always thought that part of the game to be very distasteful when involving players who weren't interested. If griefing's your cup of tea, then stick to the warzone regions where it's acceptable and don't fuck up other players experience.


You can't grief a warzone. It has no natives. It's also one reason they are not used.


As far as I'm concerned, warzones are the only regions where takeovers should be permited.


Well they are not. and nor should that happen. If you don't like the military part of the game, then don't play it. Does your region have a founder? Cause I bet it does. That is all that is needed to protect you from region griefers. Even if you lived in a region where your founder has CTE, and raiders came in. More than likely you would not be touched. Give them a week, and they will simply leave. Most raiders don't grief.

The biggest point is I have no desire to limit where you can RP your nation, or answer issues. I am not saying your style of play is so unimportant you should be minimized to a RP zone. Those of us who like to play the inter-regional politic game has every right to play the game the way we like every bit as much as you.

You can state your fears about what ifs. In reality I am sure you have never experienced a griefing, and found yourself in the Rejected Realms, and unable to return to your region, and your friends.

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
Daistallia 2104
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7848
Founded: Jan 14, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Daistallia 2104 » Wed May 13, 2009 12:05 pm

Whamabama wrote:Well they are not. and nor should that happen. If you don't like the military part of the game, then don't play it.


I don't. My objection here is what appears to be the increasing opinion that all players should do so.

Whamabama wrote:Does your region have a founder? Cause I bet it does. That is all that is needed to protect you from region griefers.


Currently I'm in my own founded and passworded region - done so to prevent asshole greifing.

Whamabama wrote:Most raiders don't grief.


Sorry, but I still don't see any differentiation between "raiding" and "griefing". Both are aimed at ruining other players experience.

Whamabama wrote:The biggest point is I have no desire to limit where you can RP your nation, or answer issues. I am not saying your style of play is so unimportant you should be minimized to a RP zone. Those of us who like to play the inter-regional politic game has every right to play the game the way we like every bit as much as you.


I have no problem with the raiding/griefing game, so long as it's kept apart from othe aspects, a la limited to warzones.

If griefer players simply want to spoil other players experience, as seems to be indicated, that play should be corralled an limited to players who want to play that game. Other players should be protected from malicious greifer/"raider" players.

Whamabama wrote:You can state your fears about what ifs. In reality I am sure you have never experienced a griefing, and found yourself in the Rejected Realms, and unable to return to your region, and your friends.


This outlines one of my basic objections to the greifing game. It spoils players expeience.

All this being said, of course their is room for the griefing game. Just make sure that playerrs who don't want to participate aren't attacked.

Only warzones ought to be open to greifing/"raider" attacks.

There shold be some mechanism to allow warzones that are more attractive. (Or a carrot stick approach.)
Last edited by Daistallia 2104 on Wed May 13, 2009 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NSWiki|HP
Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or evil, and you don't want to get any on you. - Scott Adams
Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness. - Terry Pratchett
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
How our economy really works.
Obama is a conservative, not a liberal, and certainly not a socialist.

User avatar
Krulltopia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 168
Founded: Feb 29, 2004
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Krulltopia » Wed May 13, 2009 12:13 pm

Wait, you are in a founder created region....which is password protected...why are you complaining about crashing' then? You can't be crashed. And it's not hard to switch to a position where you can't be harmed by griefers.
There are regions, such as feeders, which don't get a choice...which is why they are far more exciting.

So, what is your problem?
Last edited by Krulltopia on Wed May 13, 2009 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kandarin: "Tsk. Everything I know about propaganda, I learned from Nationstates."
Former Delegate of The Pacific: Birthplace of the New Pacific Order

User avatar
Daistallia 2104
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7848
Founded: Jan 14, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Daistallia 2104 » Wed May 13, 2009 12:20 pm

Krulltopia wrote:Wait, you are in a founder created region....which is password protected...why are you complaining about crashing' then? You can't be crashed. And it's not hard to switch to a position where you can't be harmed by griefers.
There are regions, such as feeders, which don't get a choice...which is why they are far more exciting.

So, what is your problem?


My problem is two fold:
1) New players are not explicitly made aware that their nation/region is open to attack.
2) Said proterctions need constant vigillance.
NSWiki|HP
Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or evil, and you don't want to get any on you. - Scott Adams
Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness. - Terry Pratchett
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
How our economy really works.
Obama is a conservative, not a liberal, and certainly not a socialist.

User avatar
Krulltopia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 168
Founded: Feb 29, 2004
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Krulltopia » Wed May 13, 2009 12:23 pm

I knew about raiding from the off set, I read the FAQ. It isn't rocket science.

Also, their nation is never under threat of attack. Get your distinctions right.
Kandarin: "Tsk. Everything I know about propaganda, I learned from Nationstates."
Former Delegate of The Pacific: Birthplace of the New Pacific Order

User avatar
Northern Chittowa
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Mar 03, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Northern Chittowa » Wed May 13, 2009 3:11 pm

I have to say Daistallia, you seem to wish to live in an utopian style world where things are all fair and right. It isnt going to happen and to believe that is will is foolish. As stated before, the mods attempted to create a proper place for invading, yet it fell on its backside due to the fact that it was an idealic thought.

Now, while i dont like the griefing side one bit, and wish it would go away, i dont mind the raiding bit as i understand it will always be there. I will continue to make moves against it, but ultimately i know i will never stop it. The greifing we can stop eventually...the raiding we cant.

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Whamabama » Wed May 13, 2009 3:57 pm

Daistallia 2104 wrote:I don't. My objection here is what appears to be the increasing opinion that all players should do so.


So people want to recruit players into their style of play? Big deal. What is the problem here? If I want to RP I am going to do that. If I want to play the inter-regional politics, I will do that. Are you so weak that if someone tries to recruit you into a play style you will do it despite you not wanting to?

Currently I'm in my own founded and passworded region - done so to prevent asshole greifing.


What a shock. You are completely untouchable, yet paranoid. I knew you would be because you have no idea how it works, nor the desire to. You only want to play your game, and think everyone should play it your way.

Sorry, but I still don't see any differentiation between "raiding" and "griefing". Both are aimed at ruining other players experience.


You have no clue how it works, no threat of having it done to you. Yet you are worried.

I have no problem with the raiding/griefing game, so long as it's kept apart from othe aspects, a la limited to warzones.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and obviously raiders, defenders, alike believe so as well, as they are not used, not needed. They provide absolutely nothing to fight about. I will also point out that you are still safe from this, and wonder why you are so conserned over something that can't effect you. You don't even have the first clue what it is all about.

If griefer players simply want to spoil other players experience, as seems to be indicated, that play should be corralled an limited to players who want to play that game. Other players should be protected from malicious greifer/"raider" players.


I will address this if you can tell me the difference between a griefer, and a raider.


This outlines one of my basic objections to the greifing game. It spoils players expeience.


and your game has been spoiled how?

All this being said, of course their is room for the griefing game. Just make sure that playerrs who don't want to participate aren't attacked.

Only warzones ought to be open to greifing/"raider" attacks.

There shold be some mechanism to allow warzones that are more attractive. (Or a carrot stick approach.)


I wonder, would you like to have 4 or 5 regions to play your game so you can leave us alone? I doubt it. You don't even know what the idea of how our game works, or why we do it. There is plenty of reasons why warzones are not used. There is a reason why you are safe from griefing, as is most players in NS.

For someone in your position who has no desire to know about the gameplay side of things, and can't not be touched by it in anyway. I am really confused why you are so worried about it. If you were, it would seem you would at least learn how it works, and why it is done.

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
Kandarin
Diplomat
 
Posts: 869
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Kandarin » Wed May 13, 2009 7:41 pm

Daistallia, I have to second (er, third) the objections voiced by Northern Chittowa and Krulltopia. You're railing against something that poses no threat to you and that saying that it affects things that it actually does not. In addition, you're tarring two very, very different groups of people with one brush.

You seem to be a Generalite - how would you like it if I compared you to the spammers, flamers and trolls that the mods have to clean out of General? It's the same deal here. If you don't want to see the distinction between regular raiders and griefers, you really shouldn't be commenting on the raiding game.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

Postby Naivetry » Wed May 13, 2009 8:43 pm

First, I don't know if I have this right from having started the thread, but I would like to ask everyone - especially the Gameplay folks, because I know you - to calm down. This, my friends, was supposed to be diplomacy, and it is not helped by attacking those who do not understand.

Dai, let me be honest. Your first response made me wonder if you had read the OP all the way through, or if I had just written it in a way that doesn't make sense to people who only play on the official forums - which is why I asked what about the OP didn't make sense.

I have not seen an effort from the majority of players on the official forums to understand what they criticize when they criticize our world. This was my attempt, plain and simple, to explain how our game works. "Gameplay" is not "griefing." It is a complex, varied, fascinating world, full of people who are fighting for justice (defenders) as well as people who are playing for the fun of a temporary conquest (raiders) and then and only then the people who are playing to ruin other people's fun - the griefers. And we, the majority of Gameplayers, dislike the griefers as much as you do.

This was not an attempt to recruit people to play our style of game. We are perfectly happy to leave you alone to play your game, and if that consists of sitting in a password-protected, Founded region, that is absolutely okay with us. You're not playing our game by sitting in that region. Nor would anyone else be playing our game, if they also chose to sit in a password-protected, Founded region. They would be opting out, just as we opt out of the culture of these official forums.

Please understand - no one opts into being raided - not raiders, not defenders, and certainly not griefers. Everyone who has the choice obviously opts out of being attacked by making sure they have an active Founder, so that they can act from a position of true strength and safety. A certain level of existential security is the only foundation for trust and for community, which is what our side of the game is all about.

If you don't understand why we play - and it is clear that many here do not, which is why I wrote the OP - you cannot suggest any solution that moves beyond insults or the knee-jerk reaction that we should be obliterated. The heartbreaking thing for me is that people ask for the destruction of the military game - often not even realizing that's what they're doing - without even asking what else they would be destroying in the process. This military aspect is just the ground floor of a political game that has taught me more about state formation and how politics operate in the real world than 3 years of graduate education.

Official forum-residents: Think of how you feel when people suggest, say, reforming General (or II, or NS), when you consider how your criticisms come across to us.

Gameplay: If anyone else from Gameplay posts in this thread suggesting Founders be eliminated or any such nonsense, we need to have a talk in private so I can get you to think that idea through for a moment. It's not good for anyone in the absence of griefing rules. The griefing rules are all that allowed for the growth of civilization in the early days, and those rules are gone now. Eliminating Founders now, without reinstituting rules against griefing, would result in excitement, sure - if your idea of excitement is the bloodbath in which the world as we know it perishes. The only reason being Founderless works for the feeders is that so few groups have the manpower necessary to conquer them.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Gameplay

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads