The Halibut Man wrote: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?
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.The Halibut Man wrote:I can't see anyone falling on their swords, I just can't.
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?The Halibut Man wrote: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.
The Halibut Man wrote: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?
Dysian wrote: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?