[Region Locking] Something needs to be changed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm afraid that in my opinion the only real solution to the R/D crisis is moderator intervention under certain circumstances (i.e. where invasions would cause mass outrage). I wonder if this could be explored further.

I think most raiders would agree that that would be the worst possible solution that could be applied besides an outright ban on raiding. There is nothing wrong with invasions causing mass outrage. Those are the ones which people remember.

[Guy]

I don't think the mods want to go back to the days of policing invasions.

[Riemstagrad]

i'd like to add something to Xanthal's post:

One of the problems today is that many players don't have the option of contributing to gameplay, because to participate, you must be online during the updates, you must be a part of one of the bigger orgs, you must join IRC and you must have some technical knowledge of this game.
This excludes the majority of players from participating in gameplay and makes them just the powerless 'natives' undergoing the struggle between R and D.

If more players were enabled to participate, more players will participate, interregional politics will boom and mid-sized regions will start acting interregional again.

[Mallorea and Riva]

i'd like to add something to Xanthal's post:

One of the problems today is that many players don't have the option of contributing to gameplay, because to participate, you must be online during the updates, you must be a part of one of the bigger orgs, you must join IRC and you must have some technical knowledge of this game.
This excludes the majority of players from participating in gameplay and makes them just the powerless 'natives' undergoing the struggle between R and D.

If more players were enabled to participate, more players will participate, interregional politics will boom and mid-sized regions will start acting interregional again.

You only need technical knowledge to execute accurate update raids. Such raids are expected to be more difficult, and overall it is not strenuous to learn the methods. Nonupdaters can have various roles in R/D, although they are limited. This is to be expected though, R/D does best when the times for attacks are within a certain window.

[Tramiar]

i'd like to add something to Xanthal's post:

One of the problems today is that many players don't have the option of contributing to gameplay, because to participate, you must be online during the updates, you must be a part of one of the bigger orgs, you must join IRC and you must have some technical knowledge of this game.
This excludes the majority of players from participating in gameplay and makes them just the powerless 'natives' undergoing the struggle between R and D.

If more players were enabled to participate, more players will participate, interregional politics will boom and mid-sized regions will start acting interregional again.

Technically... defenders are claiming stealth raids are still possible. If this is true, players don't really have to be on at update. So someone should really pick one of the arguments, because both aren't really working.

[Ananke II]

In the past, the griefing rules prevented natives from losing their regions. Influence was supposed to replace those rules, but has not done so perfectly, or, indeed, particularly effectively.

That's not totally true, or well, it kept natives from losing their region, but it didn't keep regions from being emptied. It kept regular raiders from oppressing natives too much, but griefings still happened, since moderator action only happened after someone broke the rules, so the griefers would get deleted and the natives allowed to return to their region. The fact that griefings were still possible under the invasion rules was part of the reason many of us got into defending to start with. With raiders the invasion rules did protect natives though, since most of them weren't interested in getting all their nations deleted for rulebreaking, so they weren't able to empty regions completely (since that would get their nation deleted/kicked from the WA), keep natives banned from the region and they had to distribute regional passwords to all natives in the region.

I agree with Riemstagrad btw. These days if you're not online and constantly refreshing during update you're useless in military gameplay, which is a real shame. Raiding, defending and gameplay in general was a lot more vibrant when it was possible for everyone to participate.

[Mallorea and Riva]

In the past, the griefing rules prevented natives from losing their regions. Influence was supposed to replace those rules, but has not done so perfectly, or, indeed, particularly effectively.

I agree with Riemstagrad btw. These days if you're not online and constantly refreshing during update you're useless in military gameplay, which is a real shame. Raiding, defending and gameplay in general was a lot more vibrant when it was possible for everyone to participate.

When was this and how did it work?

[Tramiar]

I agree with Riemstagrad btw. These days if you're not online and constantly refreshing during update you're useless in military gameplay, which is a real shame. Raiding, defending and gameplay in general was a lot more vibrant when it was possible for everyone to participate.

When was this and how did it work?

I participated in raids not at update back when we did more stealth raids, years ago. So either stealth isn't really all that possible anymore, or everyone still can participate. I'd like to know which.

[Mallorea and Riva]

When was this and how did it work?

I participated in raids not at update back when we did more stealth raids, years ago. So either stealth isn't really all that possible anymore, or everyone still can participate. I'd like to know which.

Right, I'm curious from the Defender perspective though.

[Wopruthien]

I agree with Riemstagrad btw. These days if you're not online and constantly refreshing during update you're useless in military gameplay, which is a real shame. Raiding, defending and gameplay in general was a lot more vibrant when it was possible for everyone to participate.

When was this and how did it work?

Probably when there was a single update. Invasions were spread out through the day as not every raider could be online at update. This would allow both sides to pile if the invasion was spotted. Though it really sucked if you were in the wrong timezone as you still felt like you weren't doing a lot other than moving your WA around following orders and relieving updaters in the mundane work.

But right now unless you are an updater (at least on the defender side) there isn't an awful lot you can do. Tag raids all happen at update, now even medium sized invasions happen at update with timed precision. Stealth raids that are still possible aren't spotted so much now, as everyone is so update-centric. You could spend months (if you really wanted to) looking for stealth raids that may or not be happening and still not have much to do on the off chance that raiders might decide they fancy doing a stealth raid.

[Ananke II]

When was this and how did it work?

In 2003-2005 (probably later, but I didn't pay attention then), when the intel game was still flourishing. We quite often had missions which ran for hours before or after update for a couple of reasons (the ones I can think of at the moment anyway); 1) some raiders moved in early, 2) inactive native delegates, 3) intel about possible raids, 4) raiders losing delegacy in invaded regions due to rulebreaking.

[Mallorea and Riva]

We are always being ebil and somewhat stealthy somewhere >.>
And Ananke I don't see why Intel has suddenly fallen off the map as a Defender tactic. I mean sure I infiltrate the UDL on average once every 36 minutes (thanks Mahaj), but you guys can do the same to me. You just... don't.

[Sedgistan]

I agree with Riemstagrad btw. These days if you're not online and constantly refreshing during update you're useless in military gameplay, which is a real shame. Raiding, defending and gameplay in general was a lot more vibrant when it was possible for everyone to participate.

When was this and how did it work?

It was like that when I started defending (2007 until around mid-2009). I wasn't an updater then, yet managed to participate in missions regularly - spotting invasions and defending against them. The amount of work that it took to maintain and monitor a dossier meant that a lot of invasions carried out during the day would be missed - so you'd have many more attempted then. The FRA was also the main defender group around then, and didn't have access to a lot of the tools that previous/more recent groups made use of. The more information that people can get about the game, and the easier it can be accessed, the more important timing has become.

[Unibot II]

I don't think you can go back to that old balance -- raiders aren't going to just suddenly stop taking regions at update because less updaters are available for only one update. They usually stick to the major for their big raids still, anyway. The "problem" really isn't the rise of a second update, but a rise in professionalism in raiding that increased after '07. For that you can't blame raiders -- they just improved their tactics to be more successful.

I think if you took away the second update you'd probably just hurt defenderism and help raiderism -- since "minor" updates are when most liberations occur. It wouldn't change raider tactics, really.

---

Also, I think you guys are smoking something if you think raiders aren't going to resign if they move late -- only, frankly, incompetent raiders of old would try to go on a head-to-head piling battle with defender forces. The raiders we have today are a smarter breed and a more risk adverse breed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't think you can go back to that old balance -- raiders aren't going to just suddenly stop taking regions at update because less updaters are available for only one update. They usually stick to the major for their big raids still, anyway. The "problem" really isn't the rise of a second update, but a rise in professionalism in raiding that increased after '07. For that you can't blame raiders -- they just improved their tactics to be more successful.

I think if you took away the second update you'd probably just hurt defenderism and help raiderism -- since "minor" updates are when most liberations occur. It wouldn't change raider tactics, really.

I think I agree with Unibot. The only way to go back to the "old" balance would be to take away the ability to perform update raids, or to some way place incentives for nonupdate movement of troops.

[Tramiar]

I don't think you can go back to that old balance -- raiders aren't going to just suddenly stop taking regions at update because less updaters are available for only one update. They usually stick to the major for their big raids still, anyway. The "problem" really isn't the rise of a second update, but a rise in professionalism in raiding that increased after '07. For that you can't blame raiders -- they just improved their tactics to be more successful.

I think if you took away the second update you'd probably just hurt defenderism and help raiderism -- since "minor" updates are when most liberations occur. It wouldn't change raider tactics, really.

I think I agree with Unibot. The only way to go back to the "old" balance would be to take away the ability to perform update raids, or to some way place incentives for nonupdate movement of troops.

And make it more work again for defenders to find our non-updaters. Like Sedge said, it takes a lot less work for them to find us now.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I would like to see the game evolve in some way to include the third party of the R&D game. Without them (the nations in the regions under attack / defence) there would be no game. I hope they have a good representation at the summit. I have to wonder if given the chance to opt out of the R&D game altogether how many founderless regions would do that. Right now the only options to those players are to refound or move. Refounding involves risk and forces natives to take action in response to constant threats. Moving is also a somewhat forced action as it is due to the threat of invasions. Both of those in my opinion are forced upon Civilians as a responsive action to the R&D game. Something they already do not want to take part in but are forced to take one of three evils.
Stay and be invaded / defended constantly
Risk trying to refound
Give up and move.
Ideal would be a fourth option made open to them.

[Xanthal]

I would like to see the game evolve in some way to include the third party of the R&D game. Without them (the nations in the regions under attack / defence) there would be no game. I hope they have a good representation at the summit. I have to wonder if given the chance to opt out of the R&D game altogether how many founderless regions would do that.

I bet a lot of them would. But the reason they would, I think, is because as it stands raiders are an existential threat to them. If there were a way to make raids less threatening to natives, we could put a lot more energy into enjoying the R&D game when it came to our doorsteps and a lot less into worrying about whether or not this one will be the raid that tries to destroy our region.

[Gest]

I would like to see the game evolve in some way to include the third party of the R&D game. Without them (the nations in the regions under attack / defence) there would be no game. I hope they have a good representation at the summit. I have to wonder if given the chance to opt out of the R&D game altogether how many founderless regions would do that. Right now the only options to those players are to refound or move. Refounding involves risk and forces natives to take action in response to constant threats. Moving is also a somewhat forced action as it is due to the threat of invasions. Both of those in my opinion are forced upon Civilians as a responsive action to the R&D game. Something they already do not want to take part in but are forced to take one of three evils.
Stay and be invaded / defended constantly
Risk trying to refound
Give up and move.
Ideal would be a fourth option made open to them.

Natives hardly need more opt-outs. They have plenty of opt-outs they can; move, refound, password, and recruit more WA members. They have plenty of protections as well with influence and liberations. Natives assume the risk of R/D coming into their region when they reside in founderless regions and don't deserve any additional protections on top of everything they already have.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Civilians right now are not given a safe option. None of those you listed could be considered safe.

[Gest]

Civilians right now are not given a safe option. None of those you listed could be considered safe.

I disagree. Those all seem completely safe to me. How many refounds have raiders stolen from natives recently?

In fact I think what you mean is natives need an "easy" option to opt-out of R&D. I think the assumption of risk is something implicit in the game. Nations that move into GCR also assume risks for at any time the founder could decide to kick out all the inhabitants and they have no recourse, unlike the founderless natives who have an entire branch of the WA to protect them. I don't see why founderless natives should be entitled to more rights, when they already have more protections than everyone else. It seems completely reasonable to me that if you move from Switzerland to Kabul, Afghanistan, you know there are risks involved. Additionally, if you stay in Detroit as it crumbles around you, you also know what you're getting into.

[Xanthal]

Natives hardly need more opt-outs. They have plenty of opt-outs they can; move, refound, password, and recruit more WA members. They have plenty of protections as well with influence and liberations. Natives assume the risk of R/D coming into their region when they reside in founderless regions and don't deserve any additional protections on top of everything they already have.

Moving is just a way of abandoning a region, not a way of preserving it. Refounding is a time consuming, self-destructive, politically costly process which in many cases is unfeasible and in any case the regions which could theoretically benefit from it the most are also in the most danger of having the Refound hijacked by outsiders. Moreover, it is only a permanent solution if the Founder never leaves the game. Passwords must be continually changed to prevent a single infiltrator from sharing them, which carries a high and ongoing cost in recordkeeping and Influence, and raises a barrier to legitimate entry that impedes regional growth. Having more native WA members is always nice, but there are only so many to go around and raiders have repeatedly demonstrated a capacity to overwhelm Delegates even with dozens of endorsements. Once a region is captured, Influence is a fleeting stopgap against raiders with destructive intentions, and as raiders themselves are fond of pointing out in every SC debate, Liberations are a blunt instrument which are inefficient at achieving the overthrow of invading forces and capable of causing significant collateral damage to the regions that use them. We have many options, yes, but not a single one is good or- as Sichuan Pepper notes- safe.

[Gest]

Natives hardly need more opt-outs. They have plenty of opt-outs they can; move, refound, password, and recruit more WA members. They have plenty of protections as well with influence and liberations. Natives assume the risk of R/D coming into their region when they reside in founderless regions and don't deserve any additional protections on top of everything they already have.

Moving is just a way of abandoning a region, not a way of preserving it. Refounding is a time consuming, self-destructive, politically costly process which in many cases is unfeasible and in any case the regions which could theoretically benefit from it the most are also in the most danger of having the Refound hijacked by outsiders. Moreover, it is only a permanent solution if the Founder never leaves the game. Passwords must be continually changed to prevent a single infiltrator from sharing them, which carries a high and ongoing cost in recordkeeping and Influence, and raises a barrier to legitimate entry that impedes regional growth. Having more native WA members is always nice, but there are only so many to go around and raiders have repeatedly demonstrated a capacity to overwhelm Delegates even with dozens of endorsements. Once a region is captured, Influence is a fleeting stopgap against raiders with destructive intentions, and as raiders themselves are fond of pointing out in every SC debate, Liberations are a blunt instrument which are inefficient at achieving the overthrow of invading forces and capable of causing significant collateral damage to the regions that use them. We have many options, yes, but not a single one is good or- as Sichuan Pepper notes- safe.

You're region is a prime example of why more opt-outs aren't necessary. You have a large number of endorsements making your region difficult to capture. You have a ton of influence which would require months and many endorsements to overcome. Any password would be removed by a Liberation. You're region is more or less untouchable.

If you live next to a volcano don't complain that it's too warm.

[Eist]

You're region is a prime example of why more opt-outs aren't necessary. You have a large number of endorsements making your region difficult to capture. You have a ton of influence which would require months and many endorsements to overcome. Any password would be removed by a Liberation. You're region is more or less untouchable

Yes, because a delegate with 8 endorsements has never been raided It certainly doesn't take much effort to overcome a delegate with 8 endorsements, and it doesn't take much influence to password a region. Not every region that is passworded gets a liberation resolution written for them.

To say that they are untouchable is laughable at best.

If you live next to a volcano don't complain that it's too warm.

This is still the GTFO or be hounded by raiders forever argument. Nobody that isn't a raider or Sedge is buying it.

[Xanthal]

You're region is a prime example of why more opt-outs aren't necessary. You have a large number of endorsements making your region difficult to capture. You have a ton of influence which would require months and many endorsements to overcome. Any password would be removed by a Liberation. You're region is more or less untouchable.

I don't know what parallel NS universe you're playing in, but I can assure you SPACE gets raided plenty. Frankly, I'm perfectly happy to host them, too, as long as they don't try to trash my region. The thing is, every time a raid comes through I have to be ready to fight tooth and nail because I never know if or when some jerkwad will decide SPACE would make a pretty trophy. I would be much happier if my only way of fighting back didn't involve relying on other players as proxies, or if I was confident enough in SPACE's continued independence that I could spend more time having a good time with raiding parties and less time agonizing over their every move to try to guess at whether they posed a threat. Both would be good approaches: either give natives the tools to fight back on their own terms, or just stop making them victims in the first place.