by Jinckus » Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:22 pm
by RiderSyl » Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:33 pm
by Jinckus » Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:34 pm
Ridersyl wrote:It's simple.
1. 'Defending' may just be counter-raiding on a technical level, but the 'defenders' have people that are very good at spewing rhetoric to make it sound like 'defending' is the holiest activity since the Crusades, while raiding is the most wicked thing since the Black Plague.
2. Raiders will say that 'defenders' don't deserve to be called counter-raiders because that would imply they're somehow raiders. I agree with that notion. Let them keep their self-created label.
by NoblePhnx » Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:37 pm
by Indian Empire » Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:40 pm
Jinckus wrote:Hello, fellow Gameplayers. For awhile, something has bothered me about the terms "raiders" and "defenders". It is that raiders and defenders consider themselves different than each other, yet they use the same mechanics to get their "mission" completed. Would it not be more appropriate then to rename "defenders" to "counter-raiders", as a 'defender' assumes that they are native to the location being invaded. In my tenure on Nationstates, I've noticed that the biggest difference between raiders and defenders is that one has a higher horse, and has the WA overtly on their side- in the form of Liberations, which are always used as a last line of "defense" against the raiders. But in reality, once a raider captures a region, do they not become defenders of the land that they have "fought" to capture? Would that not make them "defenders" against the "defenders" whom are attempting to raid back the region and restore it to the natives? Would it not make more sense to simply call "defenders" counter-raiders, and natives "defenders"- as most raiding regions make puppets to become natives of the target region before they pounce, accumlating massive amounts of regional influence in order to eject any member of the "defending" region, or the "counter-raiders"?
It seems to me that this is a topic that isn't questioned because it's "status quo", so I ask this of you folks, why do you call it the raiding/defending game when in reality it's just raiding and counter raiding? Is it because it's too much of a mouthful? Or is it because you want to feel different from each other? To me, raiding/defending is merely two sides of the same coin - and natives are caught right smack dab in the middle of it.
by Jinckus » Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:47 pm
NoblePhnx wrote:We call them defenders because they defend regions from invaders or attackers. If you are country A and Country B attacks you, then Country C rides to your aid then Country C is defending you against Country B.
Its just what you call it for example you can call them special forces or you can call them counter-terrorists. The difference to me is calling them special forces is broader and includes more than just going after terrorists.
Indian Empire wrote:If it has the word "Raider" in it, I dont want it, unless it is the Mongols.
by Indian Empire » Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:59 pm
Jinckus wrote:NoblePhnx wrote:We call them defenders because they defend regions from invaders or attackers. If you are country A and Country B attacks you, then Country C rides to your aid then Country C is defending you against Country B.
Its just what you call it for example you can call them special forces or you can call them counter-terrorists. The difference to me is calling them special forces is broader and includes more than just going after terrorists.
But Country B becomes the occupying force of Country A, "owning" it, thus becoming the defenders of Occupied Country A, whilst Country C has now become the "raiders" even if they are white-knighting Country A's "liberation" in the name of Country A's government.
----Indian Empire wrote:If it has the word "Raider" in it, I dont want it, unless it is the Mongols.
And why is that?
by Nephmir » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:08 pm
Jinckus wrote:So it's just a "I hate anything calling itself a "raider" and not a reasonable argument?
GP References
Military Gameplay
Login Script
Manual Recruitment
The 300 Endorsements of Nephmir
"100 by land, 100 by air, 100 by sea."
Mercenary of The Sable Order
Commander in Project Soul
by Eluvatar » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:10 pm
by Indian Empire » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:19 pm
Eluvatar wrote:Where you argue that by occupying a region raiders become its owners, defenders could hardly disagree with you more.
by Lord Nuke Is So Kewl » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:36 pm
Eluvatar wrote:Where you argue that by occupying a region raiders become its owners, defenders could hardly disagree with you more.
by NoblePhnx » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:41 pm
Jinckus wrote:NoblePhnx wrote:We call them defenders because they defend regions from invaders or attackers. If you are country A and Country B attacks you, then Country C rides to your aid then Country C is defending you against Country B.
Its just what you call it for example you can call them special forces or you can call them counter-terrorists. The difference to me is calling them special forces is broader and includes more than just going after terrorists.
But Country B becomes the occupying force of Country A, "owning" it, thus becoming the defenders of Occupied Country A, whilst Country C has now become the "raiders" even if they are white-knighting Country A's "liberation" in the name of Country A's government.
----
by Lord Nuke Is So Kewl » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:02 pm
by RiderSyl » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:20 pm
Eluvatar wrote:I would not advise trusting a raider's definition of defenderdom
by Jinckus » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:32 pm
by Kazmr » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:36 pm
Ridersyl wrote:Eluvatar wrote:I would not advise trusting a raider's definition of defenderdom
The raider definition of defenderdom is the most true because raiders have the most experience and familiarity with defenders, without being part of the defender culture of rhetoric, self-importance, and holier-than-thou attitude. Really, the definition of defenderdom that should never be trusted is that of defenders themselves.
by Jinckus » Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:00 pm
Kazmr wrote:Ridersyl wrote:
Than the same should go for the defender definition of raiders
I happen to believe that you guys are all Reptilians, here trying to gain control of Nationstates. I'm a defender, so I have experience and familiarity with you guys without being a part of raider culture of self-aggrandizing report posts, native taunting, and devil may care attitude. Really, the definition of raiderdom that should never be trusted is that of raiders themselves, so I say again, you all must be Reptilians :3
by RiderSyl » Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:25 pm
Kazmr wrote:Than the same should go for the defender definition of raiders
Kazmr wrote: I'm a defender, so I have experience and familiarity with you guys without being a part of raider culture of self-aggrandizing report posts, native taunting, and devil may care attitude. Really, the definition of raiderdom that should never be trusted is that of raiders themselves, so I say again, you all must be Reptilians :3
by Kazmr » Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:42 pm
by Sichuan Pepper » Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:21 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Yeah but no one here can read. Literacy is a tool used by fendas, like IRC or morals.
Advertisement
Advertisement