Advertisement
by BrightonBurg » Wed May 13, 2009 8:52 pm
by Naivetry » Wed May 13, 2009 9:06 pm
by Kandarin » Wed May 13, 2009 10:29 pm
BrightonBurg wrote:Forgot about the 3rd option between raider and defender region, The Mercenary, the free lancer aka ME, I have been known to aid both sides,just in it for the kicks.
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.
by Daistallia 2104 » Thu May 14, 2009 8:34 am
Naivetry wrote: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.
Naivetry wrote: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.
Naivetry wrote: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.
by Whamabama » Thu May 14, 2009 2:03 pm
Daistallia 2104 wrote:
Let me put it this way. I still don't understand the point of allowing raiding in any form. It smacks of vandalism. To make an analogy, playing the "raiding game" is no different from being a forum troll or a wiki vandal. Trolling the forums is not permitted. Vandalising wikis is not permitted. I honestly still don't understand why what amounts to vandalism is permitted.
by Daistallia 2104 » Fri May 15, 2009 8:27 am
Whamabama wrote:Because it doesn't amount to vandalism. It's part of the game. It's part of many games. The one thing that this game offere that no other game does, is nobody can attack your nation. They can't wreck havoc on you economy, population, or anything to do with your nation. Worst possible thing that can happen to you is you get a automatic message saying "you have been banjected from (region) by (nation), so they have made a spot in the rejected realms for you." Many games a raider would have taken X amount of resources ect from you. This is not on par from trolling a forum, or vandalizing a Wiki. Both of which are bad. However raiding is a typical game mechanic in almost any type of game.
by Northern Chittowa » Fri May 15, 2009 8:33 am
by BrightonBurg » Fri May 15, 2009 6:55 pm
Naivetry wrote:Under the old-school definitions, BrightonBurg dear, you're a raider. Sorry to break it to you. Defenders are in it for more than the kicks... that's the difference.
The real problem is that the old definitions have become politically meaningless. It used to be very clear-cut and mutually exclusive - you could no more be a raider and a defender than you could be a registered Republican and a registered Democrat (at least, not openly). After the big defender alliances died, so did most of the public, political stigma attached to raiding... a normalizing process that was substantially encouraged, imo, by the creation of the Black Sheep Squadron in TWP.
by BrightonBurg » Fri May 15, 2009 6:57 pm
Kandarin wrote:BrightonBurg wrote:Forgot about the 3rd option between raider and defender region, The Mercenary, the free lancer aka ME, I have been known to aid both sides,just in it for the kicks.
A while back we toyed with the idea of adding "centrist" to the terminology - that is, a militarist region that only attacks their enemies and only defends their allies. While that's certainly the most realistic model, in practice it takes a lot of time and involvement as something more basic for a region to get enough friends and enemies to pull that off well.
by Whamabama » Sat May 16, 2009 10:30 pm
Daistallia 2104 wrote:
Well, as I said above, I've ventured into your version of the game. Don't know if you knew who it was you welcomed yesterday, but the welcome was appreciated.
If nothing else, you and Nai have made me reconsider my opinions and prejudices.
by Naivetry » Sat May 16, 2009 10:35 pm
Daistallia 2104 wrote:If nothing else, you and Nai have made me reconsider my opinions and prejudices.
by The Corrupt and Evil » Tue May 19, 2009 8:02 am
by Kandarin » Tue May 19, 2009 10:46 am
The Corrupt and Evil wrote:is the general consensus that influence killed NS's numbers (i.e. people were here mainly to attack and defend)? or was it the idea that new players weren't interested in a text-based nation simulator that never changed with practically zero nation to nation interaction?
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.
by Numero Capitan » Thu May 21, 2009 12:29 pm
by Naivetry » Thu May 21, 2009 10:04 pm
Numero Capitan wrote:I think the clearest cut difference between raiders and defenders is this.
*snip*
by [violet] » Fri May 22, 2009 11:09 pm
Naivetry wrote: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?
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.
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,"
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.
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.
by Ballotonia » Sat May 23, 2009 2:36 am
[violet] wrote:Pre-Influence, an invasion that crossed over into griefing would be sorted out by the mods. Post-Influence, they won't help you. Doesn't that provide a more compelling moral imperative than ever for Defenders? Because now there's no-one to right the wrongs but Defenders.
[violet] wrote:I'll grant you that invading has become harder--maybe too hard. And that as a result, there are fewer invasions than there used to be, and fewer wrongs to right. But I don't get the argument that there are fewer Defenders because there's more scope for griefing.
[violet] wrote:What are some examples of the "real outrages" you refer to? Gimme some details.
[violet] wrote:Mmm, unfortunately, more often, no defenders showed up. I think Defenders did (and do) a great job, but they can't be everywhere, and in practice they only defended the more visible regions.
[violet] wrote:I would like to understand this better, too, because right now I'm in favor of abolishing Founders.
[violet] wrote:And I don't get why you say there's an "absence of griefing rules." There are griefing rules; they're just codified in the game instead of written up in a forum post. Influence did change them somewhat--for example, the old rule of "You cannot expel more than 10% of natives" (was it 10%?) is now something like "You cannot expel natives who have been there longer than you have, unless you have more endorsements"--but the rules remain. If you think they're less effective than the old ones, then please make that argument. I don't understand when you say there are no rules.
[violet] wrote:Personally, I'm in favor of swinging the balance back a little toward the invasion game. But not all the way to the pre-Influence days, so if you want change, we need to find a compromise.
by Romanar » Sat May 23, 2009 4:57 am
by Numero Capitan » Sat May 23, 2009 5:08 am
Ballotonia wrote:On top of that, Invader's jobs have been made much easier. All they need to do is get a password lock and they've won the region permanently. Prior invasion rules meant defenders always had a way to fight back. Defenders can't fight against a password, so... game over in favor of the invaders. It's understandable to me they now whine it takes them too long to achieve their inevitable 'victory' (even if given all five fingers, there's always the hand itself to ask for), but what amazes me is that you're willing to cater to their complaints by removing Founders (note this doesn't make things go faster for them anyway, it just means noone wil be safe). This only makes matters worse, much worse. If you're gonna go that route, at least remove the banbutton as well so nations will be able to remain in 'their' region despite it being ruled over by hostile invaders.
by Bears Armed » Sat May 23, 2009 5:12 am
And if the invaders have any sleeper agents present then they can go tell the invaders...Numero Capitan wrote:Here's an idea, why dont we remove the option to hide passwords from the nations in the region. That way, if theres any native in the region that doesn't want the invaders there they can go tell the defenders.
by Unibot » Sat May 23, 2009 9:04 am
[violet] wrote: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.)
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Unibot » Sat May 23, 2009 9:22 am
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ballotonia » Sun May 24, 2009 12:53 am
by [violet] » Sun May 24, 2009 5:59 am
Ballotonia wrote:Before it was clearly stated that it was illegal to empty a region in the course of an invasion. Now that's legal to do. Legalizing it ended the moral argument in the favor of the invaders: it's ok for them to do such a thing.
Ballotonia wrote:[violet] wrote:What are some examples of the "real outrages" you refer to? Gimme some details.
I think he meant regions with communities in them being emptied out completely.
Ballotonia wrote:[violet] wrote:Mmm, unfortunately, more often, no defenders showed up. I think Defenders did (and do) a great job, but they can't be everywhere, and in practice they only defended the more visible regions.
Nope. In the heyday of the invasion/defense game the vast majority of invasions was thwarted. Think 95%+. Defenders kept a good overview of all invasions that took place, had spies all over, so the top of the defender orgs knew what was happening and where.
Ballotonia wrote:I argued against installing Influence stating: "you might as well just make griefing legal if you proceed with this plan in the form you suggested it." Well, that's what you did. ... I strongly suggest you reread some of the stuff both invaders and defenders posted back then (that forum is still up and running, and no I do not mean Jolt), and what each sides' rationale was back then. Let's face it, the defenders were right on the mark in that discussion.
Ballotonia wrote:Now I'm stating "you might as well remove the banbutton as well." Once again, this is not a suggestion to go ahead and do both, but meant as an indication of how much I think removing Founders is gonna mess the game up even more.
Ballotonia wrote:always allow WA Delegates to alter the WFE (regardless of whether the Founder allows access tro regional controls). That way there's a (political) vulnerability which doesn't immediately offer up all regions to the destructive kiddy invaders on a silver platter.
by Kandarin » Sun May 24, 2009 12:11 pm
There are griefing rules; they're just codified in the game instead of written up in a forum post.
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Galactic Powers
Advertisement