by Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:43 am
by Romanar » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:52 am
by Erastide » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:49 am
by Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:26 am
Erastide wrote:It depends what you mean by "opt out". Do you confine people to a region and never allow them to leave?
by Martyrdoom » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:08 am
by Naivetry » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:17 am
Marcuslandia wrote:Erastide wrote:It depends what you mean by "opt out". Do you confine people to a region and never allow them to leave?
Well _that_ depends on the identifying characteristics of an invasion. Basically, a large group of WAs move into a region. The newcomers vote as a block to install their own Delegate. The Delegate sets a secret password. The banjects start.
If a region has decided to opt out, that fact is very boldly shown in the WFE. "Thou shalt not invade this region! Violators will be persecuted." If any of the of the last three steps in an invasion occurs, the Mods get flagged. (They're in the best position to recognize an invasion when they see one.) If they ascertain that the large influx was of invaders, "appropriate" steps are taken to dismantle the invasion and the violators properly chastised for invading an opt-out region.
The flipside of being resident in an opt-out region MUST be that no resident or recent resident ("recent" to be defined) may participate in an invasion or liberation of another non-opt-out region, under the same penalty of receiving the same chastisement dished out to invader violators.
"recent" to be defined
by Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:29 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:41 am
by TannerFrankLand » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:44 am
Security Council FanaticWA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
by Martyrdoom » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:45 am
Marcuslandia wrote:It's a given that players are permitted to have multiple player positions (nations). If a player places one of those nations in an opt-out region, there is no requirement that he treat ALL of his nations as opted out.
If an opt-out resident runs off to play I/D, it is _that_ nation that would be at fault; NOT the entire region.
I do not see opting out as a mechanism that replaces or supersedes other game mechanics. It is simply a way to allow players to be assured that their region will not be invaded, nor will their immediate neighbors often be off stomping on somebody else's region. It would be a community where you didn't need to lock your doors, and burglars are not allowed to be residents. Cuts down on the atmosphere of paranoia everyone else must breathe everywhere else they live in NS.
by Fatatatutti » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:48 am
by Naivetry » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:40 pm
Fatatatutti wrote:Don't know much about it but the whole Invader/Defender thing seems pretty silly to me. When I was twelve, the big kids in school would take the soccer ball away from the little kids and kick it over the school. Isn't that about the same thing?
TannerFrankLand wrote:More important numbers would be how many invaders/defenders would end up losing interest in the game if raiding was outlawed, which is basically what this would do seeing as almost every major region would opt out probably...
Marcuslandia wrote:It's a given that players are permitted to have multiple player positions (nations). If a player places one of those nations in an opt-out region, there is no requirement that he treat ALL of his nations as opted out.
If an opt-out resident runs off to play I/D, it is _that_ nation that would be at fault; NOT the entire region.
by Erastide » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:11 pm
by Fatatatutti » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:17 pm
Naivetry wrote:And then the defenders come in and give the soccer ball back.
naivetry wrote:That's the heart and soul of the game for me, but it is only made possible because actual threats exist which I have to work to prevent.
Naivetry wrote:Every major region would absolutely opt-out because no one wants to be invaded.
by Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:43 pm
by Erastide » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:50 pm
Fatatatutti wrote:Naivetry wrote:And then the defenders come in and give the soccer ball back.
So the robbers un-rob the bank and the rapists un-rape their victims. Good to know.naivetry wrote:That's the heart and soul of the game for me, but it is only made possible because actual threats exist which I have to work to prevent.
But you create the threats in the first place. Sounds like Münchausen syndrome by proxy.Naivetry wrote:Every major region would absolutely opt-out because no one wants to be invaded.
If nobody wants it done to them, why do you feel justified in doing it to them?
by Fatatatutti » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:12 pm
Erastide wrote:If you haven't been paying attention, Naivetry is a defender. That means no invasions.
Erastide wrote:Max has decreed that there will be invasions and defending. That part of the game will not go away.
Erastide wrote:The question and struggle is how much it can impinge on the way other people play the game.
by [violet] » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:13 pm
Marcuslandia wrote:If you had the option, would you have your region choose to opt out of the Invader/Defender game?
by Ephialtes of Trachis » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:58 pm
[violet] wrote:Marcuslandia wrote:If you had the option, would you have your region choose to opt out of the Invader/Defender game?
If? That's what Founders are for.
by Laderhig » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:32 pm
by Marcuslandia » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:04 am
by Naivetry » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:44 am
Fatatatutti wrote:Naivetry wrote:And then the defenders come in and give the soccer ball back.
So the robbers un-rob the bank and the rapists un-rape their victims. Good to know.
Naivetry wrote:Every major region would absolutely opt-out because no one wants to be invaded.
If nobody wants it done to them, why do you feel justified in doing it to them?
Marcuslandia wrote:In a game with over 10,000 players, that should amount to several hundreds, if not several thousand. If those that want to play the I/D game refrain from opting out themselves, then there would be plenty of people to play it with.
by Fatatatutti » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:04 am
Naivetry wrote:Defenders are not raiders. You're talking about two different sets of players. At the risk of being obnoxious... there's a helpful link in my sig.
by Erastide » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:34 am
Fatatatutti wrote:My concern is that what you consider "helping the defenseless" is actually giving the raiders exactly what they want - attention. It's like feeding a troll when he should just be ignored.
by Fatatatutti » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:08 am
Erastide wrote:But it's not as though invaders would stop without defenders. You ignore an invader, they'll just empty more regions because there's noone there to stop them.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ankuran, The United Vex Imperium
Advertisement