Military Gameplay and Game Mechanics - A Primer

[Naivetry]

There's a Gameplay forum right ? Whay can't Gameplayers sort out there differences there, I mean now that the Forum is in-game so to speak why do Gameplayers need to create new organisations which could simply be set up in the Gameplay forum without any need for compliated code issues ?

Because our game depends on the code. It's predicated on the grouping of nations in regions, their membership in the WA, and their endorsement count. It is concerned with the words written on an RMB or WFE, and sometimes even the flag flown over a nation. We can no more do without the NS code than WA legislators could do without the proposal queue and voting process. To create a Gameplay council here that could talk but not affect the code would be like allowing you to discuss WA legislation without being able to pass any of it.

W.A. regulars have to do their work in the forums, so do IIers and Generalites why can't Gameplayers ?

We do almost all of our work in the forums... off-site forums, which provide us with a sense of identity, self-determination, and security. We have regional forums, which have varying levels of complexity and secrecy - those serve as our real homes in NS. We also meet on each other's forums for conferences, or create brand new (= neutral) forums for particularly significant conventions or interregional organizations. All of our diplomatic work gets done on those forums - that's where we "sort out" our differences. Hosting something like that here would involve co-opting this entire forum for that purpose, and would not allow us to organize threads by topic, create subforums to deal with appeals, or otherwise structure the madness that would ensue. In January of 2008, for example, we had 166 participants show up for a conference on how to save NS. That took place in Neutral Territory, which over the span of 2 weeks until the conference ended grew 4 major forum categories, 15 subforums within those, and 2929 posts in over 100 threads.

That's just for a 2 week game-wide conference, where information was spread word-of-mouth and at which, as a result, not every region was represented. We elected no leaders and set up no committees, because it was a temporary brainstorming session. That would not be the case with the type of Security Council proposed here. There is no way the official forums could house a permanent Gameplay organization on that scale - there's not enough forum infrastructure in place here to support even the most basic political institutions. The official forums could be an interface - a court of appeals, at best. The real business would need to take place off-site.

Well, that's exactly what I don't want. I don't want a Gameplay organization to be in any way related to the World Assembly. It's muddling things for no necessary reason. If it's possible split the WA, then it's possible to create a completely separate and distinct organization.

Is this just an argument over what the thing is named, or do you want Gameplayers to have membership in some other body besides the WA?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is this just an argument over what the thing is named, or do you want Gameplayers to have membership in some other body besides the WA?

I would prefer if the game mechanics changes were used in a completely separate body, yes.

[Naivetry]

Is this just an argument over what the thing is named, or do you want Gameplayers to have membership in some other body besides the WA?

I would prefer if the game mechanics changes were used in a completely separate body, yes.

If you're talking about mirroring the WA in terms of the application process and multi-testing, etc., that strikes me as being considerably more difficult to implement in terms of code for what amounts to a cosmetic change - and that change could be accomplished in an easier way. None of the resolutions passed by the Security Council would overlap with the legislative concerns of the WA itself, so if they were simply placed in separate queues and recorded under a different main link from the sidebar, I would think the end result - a clear and unambiguous segregation - would be the same. We'd need a subforum for the Security Council to keep its proposals from cluttering your forum, as well, but that would seem easy enough to do.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Is this just an argument over what the thing is named, or do you want Gameplayers to have membership in some other body besides the WA?

I would prefer if the game mechanics changes were used in a completely separate body, yes.

Why do you want a separate body?

Do you want us Gameplayers to keep our dirty hands from your turf? To the extent of claiming the very name "World Assembly" as part of that turf?

We already play through the WA. I'm sorry if that offends you.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Is this just an argument over what the thing is named, or do you want Gameplayers to have membership in some other body besides the WA?

I would prefer if the game mechanics changes were used in a completely separate body, yes.

Why do you want a separate body?

Do you want us Gameplayers to keep our dirty hands from your turf?

Didn't [violet] basically endorse this sentiment before? "I have no interest in forcing people in Group 2 to play the invasion game." <-- voting on invasions would seem to squash that noble ideal

To the extent of claiming the very name "World Assembly" as part of that turf?

Call what we do the Global Cheese Shop if you like; the name's not the issue.

We already play through the WA. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Great! Here are some good threads to get started with. :)

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

We already play through the WA. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Great! Here are some good threads to get started with.

I was aware of them. I just may start posting in them as well.

I just don't think there's a difference if the WA starts having a Security Committee and Legislative Committees or something versus creating a new and separate Security Assembly (which doesn't include the "World"?) who's interrelation with WA membership would be... unclear.

Would you be demanding that the WA stop being used for regional government entirely? Or would you be demanding that Gameplayers join two separate organizations with their nations to participate in Gameplay? I'm not exactly sure what you want.

[Risellia]

I had this idea which I thought was unrealistic, and now it's sorta similar to what is being discussed. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Split the endorsement function away from the WA. Allow players to enter as many nations into the WA as they wish (or don't, just a thought).

Create a new category for nations, "Officially Recognized" (or whatever, I'm not married to it). Transfer the current "one WA nation per player" to this category. These will be the nations that can endorse, become delegates, etc.

This way, nations that want to play interregionally don't have to participate in the WA. Dictatorial nations that are only there for the endorsements and have a clear ideological disconnect with the WA can safely ignore it. Current WA nations that appreciate the aims of the WA can safely stay and vote on legislation knowing that the countries it will affect are members solely for the legislation (I often vote against WA resolutions that I would be fine with adopting for my country on behalf of other countries who are not WA by 100% choice, in a sense). Organizations in opposition to the WA can tone down (if they wish) knowing that only those nations that choose to be subject to the WA's rules and regulations will be affected by it.

It also removes the (nitpick) logical disconnect that tiny WA nations are more powerful in the endorsement game than large non-WA's, by virtue of? Nations are free to fight wars without the sponsorship of the WA alongside every movement from every army, which is another oddity.

The liberations I guess would go through the officially recognized nations somehow. I hadn't ever thought of that idea, so it's perhaps messy in this structure.

And a giant hole I just noticed would be the current role of delegates and regions in the WA (perhaps you can tell I'm not a WA regular). I'm not sure it's necessary to have the regional vote in the WA (bit of an odd intersection between gameplay and WA). I'd almost be in favor of splitting that part away and giving the new WA members equal footing on supporting the proposals and the vote itself. I'm sure not everyone agrees, though, but I'm also not sure how much lobbying of delegates still goes on with respect to the proposals and votes. Plus, it just sounds like a pain to try to change all that.

Anyways, the whole thing seemed like it would be a lot of coding (I guess, I have no idea), but there it is.

[Northern Chittowa]

Didn't [violet] basically endorse this sentiment before? "I have no interest in forcing people in Group 2 to play the invasion game." <-- voting on invasions would seem to squash that noble ideal

How so? You aren't being forced into the invading/defending side of things in a great way in my opinion. If this were to be implemented it would add an extra dimension to the WA that would appeal to Gameplayers while not encroaching upon other players to such an extent that it would harm their form of gaming. Indeed, if this did come into practise it could be of benefit to both sides, with a number of players from each perhaps going over to the other side to have a crack at what they have to offer.

[Mayor For Life]

One suggestion that was raised by one of our long term players at the West Pacific forum was to remove founders of regions once the region had reached a certain amount of nations like 50 or 75 or 100. That way, the small foundered region can still sit back and remove themselves from the defender/invader war but once they reach a certain size they should have to defend like any other non-founded region.

And if their membership dropped back below that level, as many regions' memberships have been declining lately, would they regain the right to have a Founder again?

I'm with Bears Armed - I think if I understand Bears right.

This "tipping point" idea creates perverse consequences. Examples:

- some nations identify with no region, they caravan in groups - Desert is a friend of ours - and the risk of allowing nomads in if you're near a tipping point might discourage this active gameplay
- my nation name is not a joke (well our colony Animal House IS a joke) - I could sit and banject every nation that threatens to push me over the tipping point - do we want a security incentive to keep regions small?
- set the limit at 100, for argument's sake. All I have to do is put together a 100 nation coalition and every NS region is raidable.
- Ulthar had a party this weekend. Completely impromptu - and old friend from The South Pacific dropped by and my nations just decided to throw a shindig. Friends from multiple regions (and nomad friends) stopped by, some just for an appearance, some stayed, and my regional census jumped to 80 last I checked. It'll no doubt drop again when the party's over. Should a party in a virtual community result in security concerns?
- we have this Ideobot Experiment http://cityofulthar.wordpress.com/ns-school/ideobot-community-center/ that created over a dozen new nations for the purpose of studying political values and priorities and how they play out in NS dilemmas - a study of public policy and values - quite popular locally - and it would be impossible if the experiment had created the need to defend

My region's military is a guy named bob that fires marshmallows with a tabletop trebuchet. I'm not kidding. That's the way my nations like it.

[Urgench]

There's a Gameplay forum right ? Whay can't Gameplayers sort out there differences there, I mean now that the Forum is in-game so to speak why do Gameplayers need to create new organisations which could simply be set up in the Gameplay forum without any need for compliated code issues ?

Because our game depends on the code. It's predicated on the grouping of nations in regions, their membership in the WA, and their endorsement count. It is concerned with the words written on an RMB or WFE, and sometimes even the flag flown over a nation. We can no more do without the NS code than WA legislators could do without the proposal queue and voting process. To create a Gameplay council here that could talk but not affect the code would be like allowing you to discuss WA legislation without being able to pass any of it.

W.A. regulars have to do their work in the forums, so do IIers and Generalites why can't Gameplayers ?

We do almost all of our work in the forums... off-site forums, which provide us with a sense of identity, self-determination, and security. We have regional forums, which have varying levels of complexity and secrecy - those serve as our real homes in NS. We also meet on each other's forums for conferences, or create brand new (= neutral) forums for particularly significant conventions or interregional organizations. All of our diplomatic work gets done on those forums - that's where we "sort out" our differences. Hosting something like that here would involve co-opting this entire forum for that purpose, and would not allow us to organize threads by topic, create subforums to deal with appeals, or otherwise structure the madness that would ensue. In January of 2008, for example, we had 166 participants show up for a conference on how to save NS. That took place in Neutral Territory, which over the span of 2 weeks until the conference ended grew 4 major forum categories, 15 subforums within those, and 2929 posts in over 100 threads.

That's just for a 2 week game-wide conference, where information was spread word-of-mouth and at which, as a result, not every region was represented. We elected no leaders and set up no committees, because it was a temporary brainstorming session. That would not be the case with the type of Security Council proposed here. There is no way the official forums could house a permanent Gameplay organization on that scale - there's not enough forum infrastructure in place here to support even the most basic political institutions. The official forums could be an interface - a court of appeals, at best. The real business would need to take place off-site.

Well, that's exactly what I don't want. I don't want a Gameplay organization to be in any way related to the World Assembly. It's muddling things for no necessary reason. If it's possible split the WA, then it's possible to create a completely separate and distinct organization.

Is this just an argument over what the thing is named, or do you want Gameplayers to have membership in some other body besides the WA?

I'm afraid the admins of this board aren't accepting any more registrations, so I can't embibe of the wisdom of Gameplay, indeed this is hardly a surprise, w.a. regulars really aren't even remotely a part of what you guys are planning, so this makes perfect sense.

[Lucretia Borgia]

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

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.

Sorry to go this far back in the topic, but I wanted to correct this(sorry Nai). Two other regions actually cut ties as well. Gatesville(lol) condemned our actions and The Pacific cut all ties with us.

[Erastide]

So as someone who stands ready and willing to change the code, I wish I could get suggestions beyond "scrap Influence." Because, first, that means different things to different people, and second, there are parts of Influence that have been so beneficial that their removal is basically non-negotiable. I'm talking mainly about the way that Influence converted our sprawling "Region Griefing Rules" forum post into code, relieving mods of the need to make judgments on whether players had broken the rules or not, who was or wasn't a native, and whether this nation had maliciously violated the rules or just hadn't read all the way through that 8,000 word Rules sticky. (The emails we would get about that. THE EMAILS.)

I don't see why people in favor of the invasion game can't make an argument that doesn't start and finish with "scrap Influence." It would go something like this: "Nations should gain Influence much more slowly, and it should be capped, and there should be no Influence cost for password-protecting a region." Or whatever. Even if you're in favor of complete anarchy, you can phrase it as, "The Influence cost of banning, ejecting, password-protecting, and updating the WFE should be lowered to zero." That at least allows us to have a discussion.

I'll just remind [violet] that we *have* had this discussion http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=584415 Also addresses the removing Founders point...

[Erastide]

In essence, that's what [violet] is suggesting. Just we'd be keeping the World Assembly as the roof over the two (like it's always been really).

Well, that's exactly what I don't want. I don't want a Gameplay organization to be in any way related to the World Assembly. It's muddling things for no necessary reason. If it's possible split the WA, then it's possible to create a completely separate and distinct organization.

As [violet] suggested, splitting the WA into a legislative and "security council" part would be more appropriate.

[Unibot]

As [violet] suggested, splitting the WA into a legislative and "security council" part would be more appropriate.

I've thought up some of the potential Security Council's Proposal Categories - just to start up conversation really.


Commendation
A resolution to recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.

Condemnation
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

Liberation
A resolution to free our oppressed regions.

Bookkeeping
A resolution to establish administrative parameters.

Preventive Diplomacy
A resolution to harmonize our world through political stability.

(Increases Regional Influence Costs everywhere)

Administrative Reform
A resolution to dismiss the current delegate of a region using a forceful WA takeover, and subsequent banishment.

(Bans and Rejects a particular Delegate - Yes, I know we have defenders. But what about feeders?)

Judicial Diplomacy
A trial decision upon regions for war crimes, penalizing them through disempowerment.

(Upon the first submission of such a bill, the names of the nations in a region are remembered – so they can’t flee the results of this bill passing. Upon the passing of the bill, those nations must now pay a much heavier regional influence cost – or have a much slower influence growth. Yes, I realize raiders can just create new puppets.)

Expansion of Democracy
A resolution to declutch the hands of despotism from our world.

(Disempowering a particular founder)

__________________________

Then there are some categories that would effect regional categories, if we had them
If you haven't seen my concept for regional categories.. . take a looky.

International Sanction

Area of Effect >

• Diplomatic Sanction (Raise Sovereignty)
  A resolution to reduce or remove diplomatic ties.


• Economic Sanction (Lower Regional Trade)
  A resolution to reduce trade with the sacrifice of intraregional relations.


• Military Sanction (Lower Intraregional relations)
  A resolution to prevent military action among regions.

Military Intervention
A resolution to legislate Military Intervention in the name of freedom, security and their lacklusterful brother, hyperinterventionism

(Raises Intraregional relations)

Advancement of Influence
A resolution to further empower the administrations of the World Assembly.

(Lowers regional influence costs everywhere, and lowers National Sovereignty Rating)

Development of National Relations
A touchy/feely resolution to warm the hearts of everybody!

(Increases Intra-regional Rating)

----------------------------

That was all I could think of at the moment (It's really early in the morning, err...).

[Unibot]

I was kind of thinking that both the General Assembly and the Security Council could condemn or commend.

[Sirocco]

That all looks quite formidable. It might be wise to put anything about changing statistics to the side until it seems necessary or beneficial.

[Unibot]

That all looks quite formidable. It might be wise to put anything about changing statistics until it seems necessary or beneficial.

Oh, sorry - I was just spitballing.

[Kandarin]

No, I mean that invaders would think, "Now we can't password-protect before we start ejecting nations. The only way to do this is to wait in the region until we have enough influence to eject everyone at once, then password-lock it." At that point, since the region contains only invaders, it doesn't matter that you have to distribute the password to residents.

I'd like to hijack the thread back to this, since there's already a decent discussion on C&C resolutions in the thread next door.

You have a valid point, but I don't see any way to prevent this from happening under Influence. This invader tactic works regardless of whether passwords can be set - take a look at Belgium for an example. Influence, after all, replaces the old Native measurement. If they have enough Influence to eject everyone else, no matter how much they had to game the system to get it, Influence says they have the right. The current system states that the invaders in Belgium are the most native, and the locals they kicked out don't belong as much as they do, years of history notwithstanding. I know you dislike it when this happens and think that those that want to stay out of the invadergame should have the right to their regions, but this is in direct conflict with part of the fundamental framework of Influence. Decent play and decent moderation says that those that want to keep their regions peaceful should have the right to their regions; Influence says that situations exist in which invaders have the full right to those regions instead.

[Naivetry]

Sorry to go this far back in the topic, but I wanted to correct this(sorry Nai). Two other regions actually cut ties as well. Gatesville(lol) condemned our actions and The Pacific cut all ties with us.

No biggie... Gatesville soon reopened its embassy, however - I remember that clearly. TP - you'd know better than I, I know you had to deal with it. But I think TRR was just a last straw in that instance...

*snip*

Could that be put in a new thread (in Gameplay, I assume, since it would deal with the Security Council and not the regular WA)? It would be good to brainstorm, but I'd rather not get into such specifics here, since that has to do with a lot more than military play.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Sorry to go this far back in the topic, but I wanted to correct this(sorry Nai). Two other regions actually cut ties as well. Gatesville(lol) condemned our actions and The Pacific cut all ties with us.

No biggie... Gatesville soon reopened its embassy, however - I remember that clearly. TP - you'd know better than I, I know you had to deal with it. But I think TRR was just a last straw in that instance...

Actually, Taijitu was told TP was otherwise planning to propose a treaty of friendship and whatnot with Taijitu. That embassy was also later reopened, though not very shortly.

[Ballotonia]

To get back to offering suggestions on how to improve the current gameplay situation:

The invader/defender game has developed a lot over time. It started off in the time that no Regional Controls existed, and it worked back then. Changing the World Factbook Entry was enough back then, and nations fought long and hard to determine the 'face' of a region. Providing delegates with the power to eject and password regions, if I understand correctly this was done to combat spammers, surely has changed a lot. So much even that the ruleset covering invasions became overly complicated, leading to that being handled by Influence. And let's face it, it has come down to legalizing region griefings, abandoning the concept that natives could play their own NS game with only limited disturbance to their region. Invasions are now utterly destructive to player communities.


So, please allow me to put forth this idea: what if delegates would once again only be allowed to change the World Factbook Entry? Passwording and ejections would be left to founders only (so, the 'delegate access to regional control' switch would only influence the ability to alter the WFE...) with passwords dropping once a founder dies/leaves (like the access switch functions today).

Most regions now already have a founder. I don't think the change would matter a lot to those regions. Many regions have delegacy access switched off anyway. It has become standard practice. If anything, it would allow those delegates more power than they have now: to change the WFE.

Invaders can then return to playing the way they did long before: beating the natives in order to change the WFE. Those battles were about ideology (like nazism vs socialism, etc...) as the prize was the text of the WFE, not causing random mayhem and destruction in someone elses region.

Those nations who "play nice" are not really our problem to begin with. The real problem IMHO lies with those nations who don't care about playing nice. They will do whatever the game system allows them to do, without wondering or asking whether it's ok or not. Taking away delegate access to ejection/passwording will IMHO take away the core problem: WA Delegacy (a representative role towards the World Assembly, in essence a political leadership position) is mixed up with a 'policeman' function which is IMHO best left for founders to handle as de-facto 'owners' of the region.

(if this post sounds familiair to the Mods... it's a small rewrite of what I suggested back in january 2005, an idea which back then got wide support from the mod-team but fell by the wayside in favor of Influence... and 4 years later we all now know what Influence has brought us Gameplay-wise)

Ballotonia

[The Sedge]

The problem with that system is that there are still regions who don't have founders, and also those with founders whose founder may CTE at some point in the future, who would be given no additional help against griefing. Those regions with founders are safe from invasion anyway, so making a change to the powers of the delegate is pretty meaningless in terms of security. What is necessary is something that improves security for regions without founders.
If I've misunderstood you, and you're suggesting that this change would affect those regions without founders, then any region which lost its founder would lose aany control over its security, as the delegate there wouldn't be able to eject/ban invaders, or password protect the region to keep them out.

[Roumberre]

Maybe every region that doesn't have a Founder should be given one, with that role automatically assigned either to the nation that's been present there for longest or according to some formula that also takes activity levels into account?

[Ballotonia]

If I've misunderstood you, and you're suggesting that this change would affect those regions without founders, then any region which lost its founder would lose aany control over its security, as the delegate there wouldn't be able to eject/ban invaders, or password protect the region to keep them out.

That is what I'm suggesting, major effect would be for regions without a founder.

Also keep in mind it means that invaders can't kick anyone out either. They'll have to be happy with just altering the WFE. If they have political motivations they can surely stay for a while, and both sides could call in outside support. But the fight would be essentially never-ending. Currently the fight DOES end: in favor of the invaders, time and time again, inevitably. So I'm seeing this as a major step up for communities in NS.

Ballotonia

[Innconscience]

Innconscience

Egotistical

Fighting for in sake of nationalistion is a key step in fundematalistic point of view, take a chance on my side of the fence where ego can be the fail of few but the successer of many with wave after wave of wolves at my disposal. But my wolves fight for injustice in the soulheart of NationStates, We are driven by injustice, corruption and sovertinity. By a quote of Innconscience

"Those who try to fail, Fail to try"

Yours Sincerly

Founder of Innconscience