A Problem with Liberations

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

And I still say people are over-complicating things and getting stirred up where the don't need to.

So long as we don't have a repeat of the oft-mentioned debacle involving Haven back in '05 with a well-meaning attempt at re-founding going bad, that's what's available, and that's what ought to be done.

Get the word out. No founder? No desire to deal with raiders? Re-found your region, put up a password. Worried about keeping an active founder? Set up a joint account. Difficulties doing any of that due to whatever reason? Ask the Moderators. They've got this set up the way they want it by all accounts, so they ought to be able to handle the few instances that crop up where the natives can't for whatever reason re-found. By everything being said here, that shouldn't be much of a problem.

Right?

[Somewhereistonia]

Raiding is a catalyst for activity as it generally occurs in decaying regions, where the natives have stopped logging in as often and are drifting away from the game. Whatver happens to their region, these people are once again involved in the game and probably more involved than ever before.

Do they? Are there any statistics are calculations to say that these regions were dying? What about testimonies from those from regions that got invaded?

As activity is a habit, they often continue their involvement and NS gets more active players. An example of this is Land of The Liberals, which was two months ago by New Earth (who were eventually fought off). Before New Earth came in, the region had six, inactive nations. Since then, they have rallied around, got the WA to help them, called in nations from allied regions to build the region back up and have now built it up to 19 nations, with an active delegate.

6 nations up to 19. Where did the other 13 come from? Other regions I reckon, which means that you are not creating activity, but moving it. Also, were those 6 nations really active or were they just taking part in a different part of the game to you i.e. were they active in non I/D elements of the game. Those 6 nations, what are their names? How active are they now? No they still exist? Are they even still in the region or have they moved elsewhere (away from the invaders)? You make it look very clear, but there are a lot of things your argument misses. You assume that you increase activity because you only look where you are invading, not what was there before and after you were there.

Gameplay regions make sure that they are well protected because they don't want to be dominated by another group. Defeat is never wanted, but accepted as inevitable sometimes.

I don't mind how you would play the game, that would be up to you, like I wouldn't expect you to tell me how to roleplay. Design the regions how you see fit to accommodate your game best, or create an alternative.

This is the same as in RP, those fighting for militaristic dominance do not want to lose, but know that sometimes they might do.

Not at all, in II you can simply choose not to take part in a war. If they want to roleplay in X fashion they can. They do not have to bend over and take it if they don't want to.

In RP sports, people who are desperately trying to win don't want to lose, but know that sometimes they might (I'm not sure if I've correctly grasped the concepts behind RP but you get the general picture).

True they don't want to lose, but they sign up to a tournament and if they lose, they are back to where they were to begin with. They did not have their community torn apart, their friends probably didn't leave in horror at their home being ripped up.

This is why Warzones failed and any other attempt to make regions that it is "acceptable" to invade will fail as well, there is no point beating something that is there to be beaten.

Maybe the issue is that it was too easy? Design a system for new I/D regions which is harder. Make the game interesting instead of complaining that it's too easy. Use some imagination here. Each time the rules on this sort of thing have changed raiders have been forced to adapt, a system like this would give you the chance to build a system adapted to you, not the other way around.

Raiding generally happens in decaying regions, where the activity isn't there and it's stimulating people to get more involved.

Like Haven? Maybe inactive in the I/D game, but in other ways not so, the regions are as active as those in the regions want in most cases. That's why they are in those regions.

Even when an active, but new and founderless region (a combination of the three is very, very rare) is invaded, the experience just encourages the natives to fight back and get more involved. This has been evidenced over many years.

As above, I don't think this really has been evidenced. Still, this is forcing people to get involved in your game. How many of those in the regions you invade actually want to be involved? If someone says to raiders "hey guys, we're a little bored, can we defend against you" then I'd be happy for you to invade them. They want it. If they don't ask for it, or are not already involved in the I/D game then really, you have no right to interfere in those regions.

I see the subject has come up of the relative popularity of raiding, RP, etc. vis-a-vis each other and other aspects of the game. I feel that this information might be helpful here.

Thanks for the link, was wondering where that was. Still for my uses it only shows that the I/D community is only a small proportion of the player base, very much different from the core suggested by some. As for the question of how many who have left, this survey doesn't give any indication. If the last question had a breakdown of those who were considering leaving because of raiding or other reasons then we might have a better idea. The best conclusion you can really draw from this is that, at best, the I/D game is neutral on impact on the activity/number of nations. I think.

[Kalibarr]

It is not fun to raid a warzone because no one cares, conflict inspires patriotism in both sides, this emotional response from both sides makes it interesting and makes it more political, which after all is the point of this game.

[Somewhereistonia]

It is not fun to raid a warzone because no one cares, conflict inspires patriotism in both sides, this emotional response from both sides makes it interesting and makes it more political, which after all is the point of this game.

What about if you became able to raid a defender group's region? That would deliver you what you want. You are allowed to think outside of what has previously been done, offer alternatives, not just "we don't want X so we can't help you". That is not a solution.

[Kalibarr]

Except they have founders...

[Somewhereistonia]

Except they have founders...

If you had read my previous posts, you would know that I suggested that I/D regions might not have founders at all. In fact, I said you could design the regions to suit your game best.

EDIT: I don't mean to come off as rude, but really, read the suggestion before you dismiss it please. Since I have gone through the effort to compose and write out the idea.

[Kalibarr]

Except they have founders...

If you had read my previous posts, you would know that I suggested that I/D regions might not have founders at all. In fact, I said you could design the regions to suit your game best.

EDIT: I don't mean to come off as rude, but really, read the suggestion before you dismiss it please. Since I have gone through the effort to compose and write out the idea.

ahh, my bad.

I believe that was what I was trying to say in my earlier post about the no-founders, except having no founders for gameplay regions would be better, heck the optional founders idea topid came up with would be a good solution, though I am unsure how many Gameplayers would be willing to go without a founder... I know I would be more entertained if Qwendra had no founder, but I used my main nation as the founder so I can't just scramble the PW and let it die...

I'll bring up the optional founders idea again...

[Kelssek]

There's very little possibility that a resolution such as this one would have reached the floor. It's a nuisance, but it won't be a major problem.

Unfortunately I must disagree, particularly when you consider that such communities not be in the habit of checking the WA. Given the deliberately deceptive wording, meant to convince an uninformed 3rd-party that removing the password on Haven would be a good thing, it could very easily have escaped notice and indeed passed a floor vote.

conflict inspires patriotism in both sides, this emotional response from both sides makes it interesting and makes it more political, which after all is the point of this game.

Raiding is a catalyst for activity as it generally occurs in decaying regions, where the natives have stopped logging in as often and are drifting away from the game.

I've heard this sort of argument before and it's always struck me as a tad perverse. It's like launching airstrikes on Vanuatu thinking it'll encourage Pacific island nations to be more engaged in international politics. The game isn't everything, and you're even causing people real emotional distress and perhaps distracting them from inherently more important real-life matters by this sort of behaviour.

[A mean old man]

Well, we could always actually use warzones...

Maybe warzones should be made a little more public, in order to make people actually want to take them over. Perhaps, on The World's page, there could be a link to "Warzones" that displayed the WFE's and delegates of every in-game warzone region.

[Sedgistan]

Except they have founders...

If you had read my previous posts, you would know that I suggested that I/D regions might not have founders at all. In fact, I said you could design the regions to suit your game best.

What? So because defenders make an effort to help other regions which suffer from invasions, we should lose our founders? How does that make sense?

[Somewhereistonia]

Except they have founders...

If you had read my previous posts, you would know that I suggested that I/D regions might not have founders at all. In fact, I said you could design the regions to suit your game best.

What? So because defenders make an effort to help other regions which suffer from invasions, we should lose our founders? How does that make sense?

I made a suggestion that might make the I/D game thrive. I didn't say it had to be that way. Again, read the posts. The other regions also wouldn't need defending, the only ones that would would be the I/D regions. So um, it makes sense to me, but you have to read the whole idea, posted several times by me over the last few pages.

Seriously, the only responses I've got to this have been when I've posted one or two lines, when I've actually gone through the idea, nobody has commented. That, to me, is quite startling. The way you come down with a crude rebuffs without having the thought to read the idea. I even said in the post you quoted that I had posted it before. It really isn't that hard.

[Kalibarr]

And yet all of you ignored the idea that we bring up the optional founders thing again...

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Pfft - most of you have ignored common sense in favor of more complications, changes, and sensationalizing. *shrugs* To heck with it. My region is safe. Good luck with the continued bawwwing and fighting about it for the rest of you. Not gonna waste any more time talking to an unresponsive brick wall.

[A mean old man]

Pfft - most of you have ignored common sense in favor of more complications, changes, and sensationalizing. *shrugs* To heck with it. My region is safe. Good luck with the continued bawwwing and fighting about it for the rest of you. Not gonna waste any more time talking to an unresponsive brick wall.

Cool down; you're not the only one trying to send the general message you've been arguing.

EDIT: I would like to see an admin response to this post, as I believe it is perfectly reasonable, simple, and would solve a few problems.

Well, we could always actually use warzones...

Maybe warzones should be made a little more public, in order to make people actually want to take them over. Perhaps, on The World's page, there could be a link to "Warzones" that displayed the WFE's and delegates of every in-game warzone region.

...and if you really need me to, I'll write up a big, long, descriptive, wordy post on why this would be a good thing, but I know you're smart enough to understand its benefits without my having to elaborate.

[Sedgistan]

Warzones? Defenders don't care about them, as there's no natives to protect. Invaders don't care, as there's no natives to annoy/they won't get a defender response.

[Bavin]

Howabout this, after x amount of time, any region gets the chance to vote in a new founder (or to not have a founder for whatever reason, if one exists) , and only natives that have been there x amount of time can vote, and the founder remains so until he steps down (a good option to add) or gets deleted. Allows regions like Haven to get founders without continual mod intervention.

[Pythagosaurus]

EDIT: I would like to see an admin response to this post, as I believe it is perfectly reasonable, simple, and would solve a few problems.

What? I'm not going to refound their region for them. I don't care whether or not they do it at all, and I don't think it's necessary. I certainly wouldn't bother before there was an actual liberation proposal at vote that looked like it was about to pass. If it makes them feel somehow more secure, fine, but it's none of my business.

[A mean old man]

EDIT: I would like to see an admin response to this post, as I believe it is perfectly reasonable, simple, and would solve a few problems.

What? I'm not going to refound their region for them. I don't care whether or not they do it at all, and I don't think it's necessary. I certainly wouldn't bother before there was an actual liberation proposal at vote that looked like it was about to pass. If it makes them feel somehow more secure, fine, but it's none of my business.

That is not what I was asking for a response to.

[A mean old man]

Warzones? Defenders don't care about them, as there's no natives to protect. Invaders don't care, as there's no natives to annoy/they won't get a defender response.

Exactly why making them more public via a link to a list of the warzones and their WFE's/delegates would be a benefit - raiders and even non-raiders would take an interest in claiming them as their own for advertisement space. This would draw these raiders away from fucking around with regions with natives, and create a fun activity for regions who aren't necessarily raiders but would like something to do.

Cut down on region griefing, increase activity, and don't change game mechanics. What is there to lose?

[Oseato]

EDIT: I would like to see an admin response to this post, as I believe it is perfectly reasonable, simple, and would solve a few problems.

What? I'm not going to refound their region for them. I don't care whether or not they do it at all, and I don't think it's necessary. I certainly wouldn't bother before there was an actual liberation proposal at vote that looked like it was about to pass. If it makes them feel somehow more secure, fine, but it's none of my business.

Aren't you suppose to care about the community you're suppose to be admin/mod of? Or would you rather just piss them off?

[Pythagosaurus]

EDIT: I would like to see an admin response to this post, as I believe it is perfectly reasonable, simple, and would solve a few problems.

What? I'm not going to refound their region for them. I don't care whether or not they do it at all, and I don't think it's necessary. I certainly wouldn't bother before there was an actual liberation proposal at vote that looked like it was about to pass. If it makes them feel somehow more secure, fine, but it's none of my business.

That is not what I was asking for a response to.

Well, I'm fairly certain that's what Dread Lady Nathicana was talking about.

Aren't you suppose to care about the community you're suppose to be admin/mod of? Or would you rather just piss them off?

What? It's not my job to refound regions. Should I start making issue decisions for you, too? I can RP for you if it's too much trouble.

[A mean old man]

EDIT: I would like to see an admin response to this post, as I believe it is perfectly reasonable, simple, and would solve a few problems.

What? I'm not going to refound their region for them. I don't care whether or not they do it at all, and I don't think it's necessary. I certainly wouldn't bother before there was an actual liberation proposal at vote that looked like it was about to pass. If it makes them feel somehow more secure, fine, but it's none of my business.

That is not what I was asking for a response to.

Well, I'm fairly certain that's what Dread Lady Nathicana was talking about.

The EDIT line was directed to the post beneath it regarding warzones. But never mind answering that in this thread, as we're veering off-topic. I'll make a new thread here for it.

NOTE: Is anyone else here experiencing some intensely powerful lag?

[Romanar]

NOTE: Is anyone else here experiencing some intensely powerful lag?

Yes!

[Euroslavia]

EDIT: I would like to see an admin response to this post, as I believe it is perfectly reasonable, simple, and would solve a few problems.

What? I'm not going to refound their region for them. I don't care whether or not they do it at all, and I don't think it's necessary. I certainly wouldn't bother before there was an actual liberation proposal at vote that looked like it was about to pass. If it makes them feel somehow more secure, fine, but it's none of my business.

That is not what I was asking for a response to.

Well, I'm fairly certain that's what Dread Lady Nathicana was talking about.

The EDIT line was directed to the post beneath it regarding warzones. But never mind answering that in this thread, as we're veering off-topic. I'll make a new thread here for it.

NOTE: Is anyone else here experiencing some intensely powerful lag?

Yep, I've been getting quite a few errors in the last 10 minutes.

[Allbeama]

Nearly all things WA related started seeming absurd before now to be honest. Aren't regional passwords designed to keep a region out of the R/D game if they so choose?