Eliminating regional secret passwords entirely

[Bears Armed]

I just don't believe that, Bears. Many were here during the "old days", can't see anything to suggest they'll be offski. Although a few will no doubt pop their heads above the parapet and claim differently in an attempt to permanently calcify the game we all love.

And anyway, even if there were yet more folks disappearing, the game would be more than adequately compensated for their absence by the newly enthused oldsters making their return ... and new blood too. That I do believe.

There aren't many nations left that were here before Founders were introduced, which is the condition to which your suggestion that nobody should be able to opt out of being vulnerable to invasion seemed to imply the game should return.
A majority of those "newly enthused oldsters" whom you forsee returning would beformer invaders & defenders, yes? In that case, if having a game whose membership consists mainly (if not entirely) of such types would satisfy you under those circumstances, why can't you just play the 'invasion' game amongst yourselves now and leave the rest of us alone as we desire?

I can't see anyone falling on their swords, I just can't.

Make particpation in the 'invasion' game unavoidable for everybody in NS, and I can see a LOT of people leaving... or simply letting their nations continue to exist in order to have forum access, but doing nothing with those nations outside of the forum.

No-one cared about the many raiders/fendas who left. It was a case of "hard cheese" for them. I don't see why those whose gameplay (such as it is) would best be suited on a social networking site should be afforded any special privileges, or be able to hold the rest of us to ransom.

Maybe the reason why there may have been little sympathy for raiders leaving was because their style of play involved stomping over other people's home regions, h'mm? Do you seriously not understand how aggravating many of the non-raider players find such activities, or why being able to maintain fairly stable regional communities is an important part of the game for many players?

There's so little input from raiders the whole things skewed from the very beginning.

Maybe the levels of input are roughly proportionate to the relative strengths of the various active groups, and there are simply a lot fewer raiders than some people have been assuming?

ergh Bears, no. If you don't want to play the defender/invader game, find yourself a founder. It's so simple. That's why it's different from real life.

So don't complain about it, this online game (unlike almost all the others of this kind) has made it way too easy for people not to participate in wars.

Most of my nations are in regions that have founders, I'm arguing as a matter of principle. (You do you know the meaning of the word "principle", yes?)
And i see no reason why every online game should make it hard for people to refrain from participation in wars... In any case, for the many role-players in the game, what you raiders do isn't "wars": Where are the effects on your nations of raising & equipping the forces involved, where are the movements of forces, where are the IC consequences of victory & defeat? At the most, from a RP viewpoint, the raiding "nations" are nomad hordes and the expulsions of nations from their home regions that you carry out are examples of 'ethnic cleansing'.

Seriously, if all you want to sdo is move playing tokens (which is all that you seem to treat your 'nations' as) around and mass superior numbers in order to seize regions, why don't you play online 'Risk' instead? That would seem to meet your requirements for a good game, after all.
Or is forcing your activities on the players who don't want involvement in the 'invasions' game actually a "necessary" part of your enjoyment?

[Mayor For Life]

.snip..

For the record, I favor Erastide's suggestions -- with two key alterations. Maybe for a period of indeterminate duration, they could just be just applied to regions which never had recorded founders (like Chicago and Belgium, or those where the founders were expressly removed by moderators). This demarcation could then offer a fair vantage point to study the longer term implications of this change.

In this way the multitude of regions with lapsed founders which are shown to be lapsed can remain as uncertainly secure regions which can only be made fully secure by a successful refounding. This would affirm invaders/raiders gameplay of using both their numerical influence and growing regional influence to effectively best their defender/native opponents -- while also considering whether the practice replicates the practice of "griefing" under the pre-2006 rules.

I have not accomplished a count of regions, but I would suggest that out of our experience in gameplay that there are far less regions existing in NS which never had founders than those which have lapsed founders and are still listed as such. It is for this reason that I can suggest that my own region of Chicago as well as Belgium be granted "protection" under the proposed rules without wholly ignoring my obvious bias

The second alteration suggestion would be that after a region under the current rules is emptied of its natives, that a time-limit is imposed (say 30 days) where the invisible password is made visible -- mitigating the chances that the region will be wholly left for dead by invaders and forcing them to attempt to refound the region sooner. The analogy here would be akin to the "shot clock" in American basketball. Invaders have a certain amount of time to hold their region before they must relinquish their advantage. In this way the changes can be both evaluated and begin to be removed from the realm of contention as akin to griefing which indeed is causing harm to others.

I support this.

Not just because my "mayor" character is crafted to after Richie Daley's old man. Or because I lived in RL Chicago for over a decade and retain a fondness for it.

Because it makes sense. There is no "great decline" that requires drastic action. No one need to "jump start" NS by eliminating the protections I now enjoy as Founder. Shake thing up a bit - fine - we're all enjoying the renaissance of original NS with substantive and aesthetic changes. But the assertion that the stability and security of regions who choose to opt out of raiding/defending is inhibiting existing gameplay is tantamount to asserting that what those regions choose is a bad choice. Those choices were made available a long time ago - and they remain choices - they aren't hard coded and they don't wreck my fun in any way. If you want to come to my region to wreck my fun, I have the ability to deal with that. Failure to deal with it inevitably allows one sort of raid or another - an NO ONE is invulnerable to that.

I like this guy - and Mister Bear. They speak to truth.

[The Halibut Man]

Bears, if most of your nations are in regions with founders then what's your problem ? A return to the invasion rules won't affect you a tinker's cuss. You maybe see yourself as speaking for the silent majority ... on a point of principle (yes we understand what that means, merci beaucoup) ... but to me you're just arguing for the sake of it. You're not affected. And if you're quite happy denying folks a game worth playing just because of some spurious debating point, well, it doesn't say an awful lot for your consideration of the other players, the ones you're content to have playing elsewhere.

I haven't the slightest idea what regions you participate in. But all regions will be awoken from their slumbers if we went back to the invasion rules. Activity would spread far and wide beyond the traditional raider/defender axis. It always did.

I think in 5 years years I've posted less than 50 times on the NS forums and it's invariably been in Moderation or Tech. Heavens, I remember just about running home from school in years gone by to check out the Mod forum, to find the latest update on some critical raider/defender crisis. But for me the other NS forums just aren't the game. Keeping your nation alive simply to post here is the saddest thing ever. Using your RMB to say hello to someone you came across years ago is just desperate. If that's what being "a stable community" means to you then, well, I gotta disagree.

I have the greatest respect for the role players on the NS forums, some of their work is the most creative I've ever seen. But that isn't the game. I've read some marvellous debating threads, the contributors being some of the greatest talents I've ever seen in print. But that isn't the game either. The game, for me, is the one you log into. Your nations. The ones you shift about, the ones you WA up for. The game for me is the wonderfully diverse offsite forums where we come together. My community is those forums and all my contacts on MSN, the ones you're quite content to see me denied by stubbornly sticking to the status quo (with a few wee tweaks about, but not too much).

Where's you passion ? "I want a stable community". Is that it ? You're arguing for total atrophy. And it's a argument you've lost, the players voted with their feet which is why we're both here today. I'm sorry. But the "stable communities" thing doesn't swing it for me. Adapt, hang on for better days or just leave. That's the only choice people like you gave me and many hundreds of other players. As it was for us why shouldn't it be for you too ? Give me one good reason.

[Marcuslandia]

I think NS in its gameplay should try its best to reflect real life. Poor Kuwait couldn't stop Iraq from invading. They didn't have some special opt out clause & I don't think we should have that here either. Now that might not be acceptable for some folks who play their regions more like online communities and for whom comfortable familiarity is their thing. I'm sorry about that. But this is a nation building game, war, peace is all part of the game. You can't opt out. You shouldn't be able to. It's that blunt reality which had the game thriving. What we have now is so detached from reality I think it explains why it's turned so many people off.e war, money, poverty etc have all been abolished.

Well, Kuwait went down because Iraq had a weight of force and Kuwait did not. In NS terms, Iraq would never have won because the whole invasion was ONE nation against ONE nation defending. Then later, Iraq got thrown out by a much bigger weight of force.

If you want to make the NS gameplay more realistic, the idea that 50 Chihuahuas can bring down 5 elephants (that would be 50 nations with less than 10 million people, versus 5 nations with a billion population each) would have to get chucked. And passwords would simply have to go: Whoever heard of stopping a wave of tanks simply by yelling, "You can't come in unless you tell me the password!"? And Founders -- totally UNreal. I can just see the Polish national leader telling the German Wehrmacht hordes, "I know you had your plans to gobble up our new nation, but I don't like you, so you all have to leave now."

[Marcuslandia]

Bears, if most of your nations are in regions with founders then what's your problem ? A return to the invasion rules won't affect you a tinker's cuss.

Does this paraphrase to "Unless you've been invaded, or you yourself have been an Invader or Defender, you shouldn't be voicing an opinion here"?

[The Halibut Man]

Nar. Paraphrase it in the following terms instead.

If he's denying playability to others, while not fully engaging with the game himself, then I take a dim view.

[Marcuslandia]

Ah, but the _potential_ for being engaged is there. All that has to happen is for the Founder to (sadly) be involved in a fatal auto accident, and/or a really deep Invader infiltrator slips into the Delegate position and removes any password or simply passes it on to an Invader group.

Are you suggesting that RPers and other extremely air-tight region members aren't entitled to offer an opinion? At all? (Unless it agrees with yours, of course, I'm sure would be an exception to that hard-and-fast policy.)

[Curious Inquiry]

Not that anyone would care, but the elimination of regional pw's would most likely have me leave. And why does this thread have no poll? If we wanna be democratic, and all, you know?

[Marcuslandia]

Not that anyone would care, but the elimination of regional pw's would most likely have me leave. And why does this thread have no poll? If we wanna be democratic, and all, you know?

Still a LOT of back-and-forth discussion. The best time to set up a poll is about when the debate is nearing an end and all sides have had a chance to hammer home their arguments. (I think that goal is just looming on the horizon.) Your comment of "the elimination of regional pw's would most likely have me leave" is, for instance, an argument I hadn't seen as yet.

[Erastide]

Not that anyone would care, but the elimination of regional pw's would most likely have me leave. And why does this thread have no poll? If we wanna be democratic, and all, you know?

I don't think most people want removal of all ability to password. Invisible passwords on the other hand...

[Goobergunchia]

The protection of founderless RP regions is an example that keeps coming up in this thread. Does anybody have a concrete example of such a region that has an invisible password? (Haven's password is visible to residents.)

[float=right][/float]The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
Resident, the Rejected Realms
Retired Officer, Nasicournia

[Allanea]

To my knowledge, before I quit Haven, the password was not visible to residents.

[Kampfers]

To my knowledge, before I quit Haven, the password was not visible to residents.

That has since changed, it is now visible. I (and the other residents) would not mind the removal of invisible passwords, but the removal of passwords altogether would be extremely against our wishes.

[Marcuslandia]

, but the removal of passwords altogether would be extremely against our wishes.

Notice that the thread's title was changed slightly. The point was conceded awhile back.

[Mayor For Life]

...snip...

Where's you passion ? "I want a stable community". Is that it ? You're arguing for total atrophy. And it's a argument you've lost, the players voted with their feet which is why we're both here today. I'm sorry. But the "stable communities" thing doesn't swing it for me. Adapt, hang on for better days or just leave. That's the only choice people like you gave me and many hundreds of other players. As it was for us why shouldn't it be for you too ? Give me one good reason.

I have no experience of NS getting better or worse due to rule changes because I've only been here 8 months. My region has only had password turned off for 7 months. We had about a dozen nations back then.

Today the average nation in Ulthar has 2 billion citizens, so most of our players have been in the game longer than our region has existed. Today we are ranked 50th region in NS. We don't judge those who like to raid: our nations simply don't have any interest in either raiding or defending. Our passion is stable community.

Atrophy? I don't have experience of that.

[Veilyonia]

Not that anyone would care, but the elimination of regional pw's would most likely have me leave. And why does this thread have no poll? If we wanna be democratic, and all, you know?

I don't think most people want removal of all ability to password. Invisible passwords on the other hand...

Not many people want the right to be completely taken away, but I think that the existing system needs some changes. The main reason why many people are against passwording is due to the fact that raiders use them to prevent defense missions or "liberations," so I think it would make much more sense to create a "delay" between the time a password is set and the time it goes into effect. In addition, it would make sense if passwords could only be used by nations with a delegate who has been in office for "X" days.

[Unibot]

needs some changes. The main reason why many people are against passwording is due to the fact that raiders use them to prevent defense missions or "liberations," so I think it would make much more sense to create a "delay" between the time a password is set and the time it goes into effect. In addition, it would make sense if passwords could only be used by nations with a delegate who has been in office for "X" days.

Its been suggested by Nai in this thread > viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3015

The fundamental nail in the coffin for the idea was that it would really ruin the raiding game.

I'm still liking decaying passwords however....

[Marcuslandia]

How about an on-going cost for keeping a password in place? Like the cost of the electricity to keep the Security system running 24/7.

[Unibot]

How about an on-going cost for keeping a password in place? Like the cost of the electricity to keep the Security system running 24/7.

Also previously suggested.

I suggested a 'Decaying Password' back in the Jolt days - the idea was particularly popular, if I remember correctly. I don't how the idea stands with people now though.... (things have changed, my old essays were on how the I/D needed invigoration in the Great Decline - but with the recent Rise of Macedon, the topic had shifted in reverse to more Regional Security).

[[violet]]

"Find new ways of invading" seemed to be the main reponse. We did. They failed. And they failed because it took too long for a delegate to acquire sufficient influence to do anything much. We could invade, aye ... but we couldn't do much for weeks on end.

What could you do before that you would like to be able to do again?

Don't doubt a return to the invasion rules would present moderation with some problems. Increased activity in a more vibrant game attracts the usual detritus, que sera sera. Get more mods. I can't understand why influence was never re-visited by the powers that be at a much earlier stage than this, at the time it was blatantly apparent that we were haemorraghing players left, right & centre. I suppose a return to the invasion rules would be a sign that the influence system failed ... can't we just admit it did ? And move on ? Quickly.

Without wanting to dredge up the entire argument again, the pre-Influence system was not sustainable from a mod/admin point of view. It wasn't just a lack of mod resources: mods were continually required to make impossibly subjective decisions, for which they were subsequently abused from all sides.

Changes can be made, though, and I'm glad to hear from a raider.

[StCharles West Apts]

The protection of founderless RP regions is an example that keeps coming up in this thread. Does anybody have a concrete example of such a region that has an invisible password? (Haven's password is visible to residents.)

[float=right][/float]The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
Resident, the Rejected Realms
Retired Officer, Nasicournia

None that I know of

[Bears Armed]

The protection of founderless RP regions is an example that keeps coming up in this thread. Does anybody have a concrete example of such a region that has an invisible password? (Haven's password is visible to residents.)

[float=right][/float]The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
Resident, the Rejected Realms
Retired Officer, Nasicournia

None that I know of

But then any regions like that seem quite likely to keep themselves to themselves, meaning that few "outsiders" would know about them, right?

[Mayor For Life]

But then any regions like that seem quite likely to keep themselves to themselves, meaning that few "outsiders" would know about them, right?

I do. My region exists in part to encourage a larger community - we have 18 ambassador nations in 18 regions containing 11% of NS. To get to that place, our twitchy recruiter didn't just send TGs to n00b nations in the feeders, he went through the entire alphabet of regions, stopping at every one that had an interesting name or WFE. (At one point the poor guy almost got mod-spanked for RH spam until I explained that this was Founder sanctioned activity!)

Along the way he met a lot of hermits and small groups who wanted nothing to do with my region, diplomacy, NS Forums, or even an offsite forum. Some were playing and debating issues and some were discussing last weekend's RL softball game. They wanted to be left the heck alone. Some of these were regions that had nations with over 10 billion citizens. And they WON'T read or post on this thread. "Waking them up" by making them more vulnerable is exactly what they don't want.

He bumped up against a lot of passwords, so I wasn't surprised it was 25% of NS. He also bumps up against something else today: a large percentage of new nations spawned have the same familiar names, flags and mottos - and they all head over to the WA to join, then go off to lurk somewhere to wait for a raid. So this "there are almost no raiders left" doesn't hold water for me. Particularly when the nations leading the regions coordinating these nations ALSO contain nations with 8+ billion citizens.

One other thing he found rather too frequently was a password protected region where the last RMB past was 138 days ago and the WFE said "Now under the protection of {raider acronym}." Not all of them were Founderless. In one, the Founder, who was a kid, had simply left on extended holiday and innocently thought that locking down the region wasn't necessary - it was being a kid, not being stupid - and came back to find all of her little friends banjected weeks before. I suppose she could have taken it back, but why? Her friends were gone and what she had built was an abandoned rusty railcar with an invisible password.

We have no military, no interest in raiding or defending and my off-site forum has had 5,500+ visits in 9 months. And my particular Forum does NOT count Administrator log ins, so our tinkering is not part of those stats. "Fall on our sword?" I only speak for me, but you bet I would if I lost the tools that made what we built less secure. Because we have a collective passion for stable community.

Oh and Mister Bear, welcome to Ulthar! It's good to have friends!

[Corvian]

Or we could just change it so only Founders can add a password...
And some people, like me, don't want to be raided...

I agree, If we just change it so only Founder's can add a password then it would help both causes, take-overs can't block nations out, and founders who want it to just be their friends can just leave it for their friends. It is a compromise.

[Ballotonia]

Or we could just change it so only Founders can add a password...
And some people, like me, don't want to be raided...

I agree, If we just change it so only Founder's can add a password then it would help both causes, take-overs can't block nations out, and founders who want it to just be their friends can just leave it for their friends. It is a compromise.

Agreed!

IMHO, regions who cling to a password to 'enhance' their regional security are deluding themselves. It's the ability to password which makes it less secure. Sitting in a region with a password isn't an 'opt-out' of the invader/defense game. It just means it's a bit harder for the invaders to get in (they'll have to pretend to be good folks and ask for the password, instead of just quietly moving a nation in), but if they feel like taking on an actual challenge they can and will.

Ballotonia