Advertisement
by Silentvoice » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:32 pm
by Topid » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:04 pm
by The Blaatschapen » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:37 pm
by Spartzerina » Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:06 pm
The Blaatschapen wrote:Can I suggest, that if the opt-in is implemented, that you can also see *that* a region opted in. So basically it would state "This region has no founder on purpose" . That way invaders know that the region wants to be invaded, because they specifically opted in
by Topid » Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:33 pm
Spartzerina wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:Can I suggest, that if the opt-in is implemented, that you can also see *that* a region opted in. So basically it would state "This region has no founder on purpose" . That way invaders know that the region wants to be invaded, because they specifically opted in
I was just going to post here to suggest that!
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:01 am
Topid wrote:I like the idea of marking all the other never-had-a-founder regions: 'Historically Founderless Regions' like I said in the OP, (So regions like Belgium or Nationstates would say somewhere on the page 'Historically Founderless Region') . That seems like a fitting little reward for them being around for so long, and the raiders would know those without the label are the ones who decided to risk being raided.
Topid wrote:Besides, if you put on my region "This region doesn't have a founder on purpose." Most raiders (now-a-days) are going to think I wanted to be raided (I don't of course, if you've read the thread) and that would take the fun out of it for them. So you may actually be making it less likely for them to choose a region who 'opted in' for a raid (Which I won't object to ).
Topid wrote:And the regions who haven't had founders all this time are older, and bigger prizes, so no matter what you mark on regional pages, they will be the most valuable target, just like they are now, and given a choice I think the raiders would choose the older.
by Gruffydd ap Llywelyn 2 » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:01 am
by Topid » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:02 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:It would also make them even more bigger prizes. This is a tricky one, how to opt-in, distinguish them from "before founder implemented" regions, without making the bfi regions even bigger prizes. Although perhaps distuishment is even something you do not want, to make the historically founderless regions less of a prize. Tricky issue indeed.
by Daynor The Anzian » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:13 pm
by Crushing Our Enemies » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:02 am
Gruffydd ap Llywelyn 2 wrote:I know this is slightly off topic, but why don't we have a short bit on the FAQ about the R/D game
Silentvoice wrote:In nowhere on the FAQs or introduction tells you about the invader-defender aspect of the game.
If the powers-there-be decides to introduce regions with no founders, the most responsible thing to do is to post a sentence to warn the would-be-region-creator, that creating such founderless regions can lead to your entire community being destroyed.
Nationstates FAQ wrote:>Can I invade other people's regions?
Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.
>Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?
You can try. Invader Delegates tend to have very little Regional Influence, which makes ejecting long-time residents difficult. But Delegates can be as kind, generous, evil, or despotic as they wish. It's up to regional residents to elect good Delegates.
by The Blaatschapen » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:51 pm
by Daynor » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:12 pm
by Fit battion » Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:44 am
by Romanar » Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:02 pm
by The Blaatschapen » Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:03 pm
Daynor wrote:Hey now, he isn't the only raider in the game. I wouldn't care, and I don't think most would.
Most of us aren't in it to make natives mad. I don't care what the native attitude is.
by Daynor » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:32 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Thats because there's rarely any people to piss off in warzones.
by [violet] » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:25 pm
Neasmyrna wrote:Although this would cause enormous problems for us defenders deciding whether we should defend a region that basically asked to be invaded...
Naivetry wrote:[M]aking Founders optional at regional creation... I don't think will do a thing to our side of the game but cause a headache for defenders who have to figure out whether or not it's worth trying to save a region that intentionally committed suicide.
by Topid » Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:25 pm
[violet] wrote:I do like the idea of letting Founders step down! I think we'd want to keep their name on the region page, perhaps with a tag like "(non-executive)" to indicate that they don't have power over members.
[violet] wrote:And yes, a checkbox asking Founders if they want executive power when creating a region would be handy.
[violet] wrote:Allowing Founders to designate a successor would be a lot trickier though. Not sure I want to get into that one.
[violet] wrote:Neasmyrna wrote:Although this would cause enormous problems for us defenders deciding whether we should defend a region that basically asked to be invaded...
I don't think you could assume no Founder == "please invade me." I might create a region as a non-executive Founder just because I want it to be democratic, not beholden to me. Practically, of course, my region would be a lot more vulnerable to external influence than it would otherwise be, but that would be a risk I'm prepared to accept, as opposed to something I actually want to happen. I would still desire assistance from defenders should I come under attack.
(Hmm, should have read further in the thread. Topid expresses this very eloquently.)
[violet] wrote:Naivetry wrote:[M]aking Founders optional at regional creation... I don't think will do a thing to our side of the game but cause a headache for defenders who have to figure out whether or not it's worth trying to save a region that intentionally committed suicide.
You could equally argue that all regions "intentionally commit suicide" if, following the loss of their Founder, they don't immediately organize a refounding. People have other priorities besides guarding against invasion.
by Pythagosaurus » Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:33 pm
by Topid » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:42 pm
by A mean old man » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:12 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Astrobolt, New Temecula
Advertisement