Defender/raider dynamics: balancing the equation

[Ora Amaris]

As it is, raiding is a part of the game and this is not going to change.
But I think there has to be more power to Liberation resolutions, especially to serve as a last resort.
This game is fun, but I think a raid can drag on too long, and end up just a grief fest for the raider's amusement.
I'm not sure how one could code it, but I definitely feel as though Liberations could be improved to help a raided region much better than simply taking the password off.

If not this idea, then something needs to change in regard to the raiding/defending dynamic, imo.

[Tramiar]

As it is, raiding is a part of the game and this is not going to change.
But I think there has to be more power to Liberation resolutions, especially to serve as a last resort.
This game is fun, but I think a raid can drag on too long, and end up just a grief fest for the raider's amusement.
I'm not sure how one could code it, but I definitely feel as though Liberations could be improved to help a raided region much better than simply taking the password off.

If not this idea, then something needs to change in regard to the raiding/defending dynamic, imo.

What else, exactly, do you expect a liberation resolution to do?

[Yes Im Biop]

If i may? Permently ban the raiders from said region?

[Solorni]

If i may? Permently ban the raiders from said region?

It would be impossible in any case for the game to determine that with 100 percent accuracy.

[Tramiar]

If i may? Permently ban the raiders from said region?

Which would be really dumb. Defenders would have no reason to defend. Their job would literally be to write a few paragraphs on why raiders are evil (and detag the tag raids), and then all kinds of people who are uninvolved in gameplay and have no idea how it works would be like "I'm voting yes, yay me, I'm saving the world!" There would no longer be any reason to have a raid other than a tag raid, because you would only hold it for 4 days (or however long one of those SC votes last) no matter what.

So no. Lots of no.

[Ora Amaris]

As it is, raiding is a part of the game and this is not going to change.
But I think there has to be more power to Liberation resolutions, especially to serve as a last resort.
This game is fun, but I think a raid can drag on too long, and end up just a grief fest for the raider's amusement.
I'm not sure how one could code it, but I definitely feel as though Liberations could be improved to help a raided region much better than simply taking the password off.

If not this idea, then something needs to change in regard to the raiding/defending dynamic, imo.

What else, exactly, do you expect a liberation resolution to do?

Help the natives and hinder the raiders more:
Reset and temporarily freeze the accumulation of influence and WA endorsements for those that are in the region already.
Banject the current WA delegate of said region.

Any more ideas?

[Tramiar]

What else, exactly, do you expect a liberation resolution to do?

Help the natives and hinder the raiders more:
Reset and temporarily freeze the accumulation of influence and WA endorsements for those that are in the region already.
Banject the current WA delegate of said region.

Any more ideas?

Influence and endorsements- only helps those outside the region. All defenders would need to do is keep sending people in til we're out of influence, while they can send in people and gather influence and endorsements. Or, you know, a different group of raiders. Making things worse for natives.
Banject- again, it would make it impossible to hold a region. The defenders' job shouldn't be as easy as writing a few paragraphs.

[Ora Amaris]

Banject- again, it would make it impossible to hold a region. The defenders' job shouldn't be as easy as writing a few paragraphs.

That's why I think it should be used much more rarely - as a last resort.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Banject- again, it would make it impossible to hold a region. The defenders' job shouldn't be as easy as writing a few paragraphs.

That's why I think it should be used much more rarely - as a last resort.

They wouldn't use it that way. There are plenty of defenders who think the invasion game should not exist at all. From one of your recent RMB posts, I can tell you share that opinion. Defenders will use the most powerful tool at their disposal to stop invasions, and they'll do it as often as possible. Liberations of raider-controlled regions are always effortless to pass, and getting them to quorum if not a question of "if" but of "how many hours." This suggestion would make any kind of multi-update invading an entirely hopeless endeavor.

[Luna Amore]

Banject- again, it would make it impossible to hold a region. The defenders' job shouldn't be as easy as writing a few paragraphs.

That's why I think it should be used much more rarely - as a last resort.

If liberations were given more power, I think you'd find people using them more not less. How would we limit their usage?

While we're at it, why do they need to be amped up in the first place? The only justification I see so far is "raiding happens and sometimes it drags on longer than I'd like".

[Ora Amaris]

That's why I think it should be used much more rarely - as a last resort.

If liberations were given more power, I think you'd find people using them more not less. How would we limit their usage?

While we're at it, why do they need to be amped up in the first place? The only justification I see so far is "raiding happens and sometimes it drags on longer than I'd like".

Maybe make the threshold for Liberations to go to WA vote higher?

And I don't know, I think the raider/defender dynamic pretty lopsided in favour of the raider.

[Tramiar]

If liberations were given more power, I think you'd find people using them more not less. How would we limit their usage?

While we're at it, why do they need to be amped up in the first place? The only justification I see so far is "raiding happens and sometimes it drags on longer than I'd like".

Maybe make the threshold for Liberations to go to WA vote higher?

And I don't know, I think the raider/defender dynamic pretty lopsided in favour of the raider.

The answer to raider/defender imbalance is never fixed by leaving it up to the SC. You aren't listening. The SC being given the ability to end raids would make raiding other than tags entirely pointless. Can't successfully defend? Thats fine. Just go write a few paragraphs and everything will be fine in a few days!

[Ora Amaris]

Maybe make the threshold for Liberations to go to WA vote higher?

And I don't know, I think the raider/defender dynamic pretty lopsided in favour of the raider.

The answer to raider/defender imbalance is never fixed by leaving it up to the SC. You aren't listening. The SC being given the ability to end raids would make raiding other than tags entirely pointless. Can't successfully defend? Thats fine. Just go write a few paragraphs and everything will be fine in a few days!

How do you know that's what will happen? I mean, I think people would be more prudent in voting for a WA liberation resolution if it is granted more powers.
And hey, at least I'm trying. You gain from the status quo.

[Riemstagrad]

you can't blame a native for trying to do something.

because this really is the only thing they can do. and this is the reason people want change. and this is the reason natives are punished for trolling again and again. because there really isn't anything else they can do.

as long as every proposed change to the game is seen as 'a vile attempt to destroy raiding' these same things will happen over and over.

[Tramiar]

you can't blame a native for trying to do something.

because this really is the only thing they can do. and this is the reason people want change. and this is the reason natives are punished for trolling again and again. because there really isn't anything else they can do.

as long as every proposed change to the game is seen as 'a vile attempt to destroy raiding' these same things will happen over and over.

It is only seen that way when that is what would happen. You know as well as I do what would happen. If he wants to come up with some way for natives to fight that doesnt drastically make a defenders job easy and a raiders job impossible, great. But this idea sucks, and I'm not going to go "sure, it is an awesome idea, thanks for sharing!"

[Ora Amaris]

you can't blame a native for trying to do something.

because this really is the only thing they can do. and this is the reason people want change. and this is the reason natives are punished for trolling again and again. because there really isn't anything else they can do.

as long as every proposed change to the game is seen as 'a vile attempt to destroy raiding' these same things will happen over and over.

It is only seen that way when that is what would happen. You know as well as I do what would happen. If he wants to come up with some way for natives to fight that doesnt drastically make a defenders job easy and a raiders job impossible, great. But this idea sucks, and I'm not going to go "sure, it is an awesome idea, thanks for sharing!"

So, you wouldn't be against ideas to try to bring more balance to the raider/defender equation besides making liberations more powerful?

[Tramiar]

So, you wouldn't be against ideas to try to bring more balance to the raider/defender equation besides making liberations more powerful?

Depends on the idea. If it seems like it will kill raiding, or simply shift the balance to defenders, I will be against it. If it is just trying to even things out, bring it on. Balance makes things more interesting. For instance, I prefer having variance again because it gives defenders a chance to try to stop us while we're still doing our best.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

It is only seen that way when that is what would happen. You know as well as I do what would happen. If he wants to come up with some way for natives to fight that doesnt drastically make a defenders job easy and a raiders job impossible, great. But this idea sucks, and I'm not going to go "sure, it is an awesome idea, thanks for sharing!"

So, you wouldn't be against ideas to try to bring more balance to the raider/defender equation besides making liberations more powerful?

Absolutely not! There's a sort of megathread about this, where defenders and raiders (EDIT: and natives!) are trying to find a workable fix. Especially in the last few pages, there are a lot of raider-backed changes coming out, some of which are getting a little defender support as well. Here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=184195

[Galiantus]

you can't blame a native for trying to do something.

because this really is the only thing they can do. and this is the reason people want change. and this is the reason natives are punished for trolling again and again. because there really isn't anything else they can do.

as long as every proposed change to the game is seen as 'a vile attempt to destroy raiding' these same things will happen over and over.

I agree. I suggested in anther thread I think a better way to solve this problem would be to give non-delegate residents certain powers usable at a significantly higher influence and political cost than the Delegate. If we were to do this, though, I would endorse the idea of removing SC Liberations altogether. If we are going to balance power in such a way Defenders/Raiders/Natives are rewarded by good tactics and politics, we need to increase native power, while taking a little away from Defender power.

This focus on the WA, Invaders, and Defenders is destroying gameplay. Althoiugh this idea is interesting, I do not see it balancing power or solving the problem.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I might be in support of a way for natives to use influence to access the regional controls in a limited way, perhaps limited to removing passwords and removing nations from the ban list. Since they do not have the legitimacy that a delegate has, they would naturally have to expend influence at a MUCH higher rate to do such a thing, perhaps 50 or 75 times as much (and in the case of removing nations from the ban list, have to expend influence where a delegate would not have to at all...) Perhaps there would also be a requirement to be at a certain influence level, say, Eminence Grise.

I would definitely not support giving non-delegate natives the power to eject, ban, change the flag, WFE, embassies, tags, etc. If this were taken seriously, it would have to be limited to anti-region-destruction. In effect, this would give very high influence natives the power to prevent their region from being totally destroyed. These are defensive measures, designed to hold onto their region, not stop the actual raid. This is crucial - forcing raiders to fight a two front battle against natives and defenders would unbalance the game. I say leave liberations to the defenders, but let the natives fight against any existential threat.

This would naturally have a HUGE effect on intra-regional affairs, particularly in the feeders. If this suggestion were taken seriously, there should definitely be thought put into requiring founders to choose whether this feature will be implemented in their region upon founding. This feature effectively disrupts any kind of democratic system a region might set up. Former delegates would be able to hold onto a bit of power for long after they lose office. Perhaps game created regions should be excepted from this altogether.

In any case, I think it is definitely worth looking into giving some power to access the regional controls to non-delegate residents of a region. A flaw: this would encourage keeping multiple puppets in your region, so that you would have multiple high-influence nations to access the regional controls with. This is a kind of gameplay puppet-wanking that (on its face, at least) doesn't seem quite fair. Requiring WA membership doesn't solve the problem, as the player can transfer membership at virtually any time. If people like this idea, then we need to figure out 1) if this actually is a problem, and 2) if it is, how to solve it.

EDIT: Changed the paragraph structure a bit.
EDIT2: I just realized, this may be considered off-topic and deserve its own thread. If anyone agrees, I'll be glad to start one.

[Ora Amaris]

Hmmm. I respect that you guys want to make it more balanced. Those are good suggestions, COE.

How about when it comes to founderless regions, the WA delegate can assign a native nation with founder powers until they resign from the position, move regions, or cease to exist? Perhaps assigning a nation to a founder-like position takes away all of the influence from a WA delegate, making it a serious decision.

EDIT: I have changed the title of the topic, so we don't have to keep creating topics for different ideas.

[Tramiar]

Hmmm. I respect that you guys want to make it more balanced. Those are good suggestions, COE.

How about when it comes to founderless regions, the WA delegate can assign a native nation with founder powers until they resign from the position, move regions, or cease to exist? Perhaps assigning a nation to a founder-like position takes away all of the influence from a WA delegate, making it a serious decision.

EDIT: I have changed the title of the topic, so we don't have to keep creating topics for different ideas.

Don't like that one. It would mean the end of founderless regions. There is already a founder-like position filled til CTE, and that is the founder position. Founderless regions pretty much need to exist if we're going to raid. I'm sure defenders would be more than happy to move to each founderless region, become delegate, and lose all their puppet's influence in that region to give a native founder powers.

[Ora Amaris]

Hmmm. I respect that you guys want to make it more balanced. Those are good suggestions, COE.

How about when it comes to founderless regions, the WA delegate can assign a native nation with founder powers until they resign from the position, move regions, or cease to exist? Perhaps assigning a nation to a founder-like position takes away all of the influence from a WA delegate, making it a serious decision.

EDIT: I have changed the title of the topic, so we don't have to keep creating topics for different ideas.

Don't like that one. It would mean the end of founderless regions. There is already a founder-like position filled til CTE, and that is the founder position. Founderless regions pretty much need to exist if we're going to raid. I'm sure defenders would be more than happy to move to each founderless region, become delegate, and lose all their puppet's influence in that region to give a native founder powers.

Hmm.
This is true. =\

Maybe, they can only appoint said founder after a certain amount of days? I dunno, haha.

There has to be something that makes it more fair.

[Tramiar]

I'm sure there is... just need to figure out what.

[Ora Amaris]

How about... new delegates' influence grows slower than older delegates? To what degree, I'm not sure, but would that work? If it's already implemented, make it to a higher degree. It would make banjecting more costly, and it would give an advantage by default to natives.