The United Defenders League

[Mirror of Erised]

Could've fooled me.



That requires numbers. Numbers that we don't have every damn night.

Tell me again how detagging regions keeps them from being destroyed?

Well, first off we've been defending the last few updates. Not just detagging (which we did at minor today primarily). Defending regions would, by definition, stop a raider from getting control of a region..thus not allowing them to destroy, if that was their intent at all. So it actually does, in a direct way.

But the point that Sov is making here is that we'd -love- to try to liberate the regions that TBR and TBH are holding. We just..can't get the numbers for it at update, especially not every update. So..we do what we can, when we can. And we have fun with it, and we defend and detag. It's enjoyable and rewarding too.

EDIT: Frakking puppet! This is Lyanna Stark.

[Galiantus]

Tell me again how detagging regions keeps them from being destroyed?

Tell me where I said that?

Well you didn't say that, and so far no one has. I am meerly pointing out that while you are detagging regions, you could be doing liberations and defenses, which are more vital to regional survival.

[/quote]

And the very least UDL could do is try to protect regions from destruction, rather than following TBR into oblivian.

This is a reference to detagging, not numbers.

[Gest]

(Image)

---

Really that's the best Robin Hood picture you found. It screams bland. Somehow all the characters manage to look sullen and lost at the same time. Stick with the cartoon fox.

[Sovreignry]

Tell me where I said that?

Well you didn't say that, and so far no one has. I am meerly pointing out that while you are detagging regions, you could be doing liberations and defenses, which are more vital to regional survival.

Need numbers for the highlighted.

[Cormac Stark]

Really that's the best Robin Hood picture you found. It screams bland. Somehow all the characters manage to look sullen and lost at the same time. Stick with the cartoon fox.

Maybe we'll go with him next time.

[Galiantus]

Tell me again how detagging regions keeps them from being destroyed?

Well, first off we've been defending the last few updates. Not just detagging (which we did at minor today primarily). Defending regions would, by definition, stop a raider from getting control of a region..thus not allowing them to destroy, if that was their intent at all. So it actually does, in a direct way.

But the point that Sov is making here is that we'd -love- to try to liberate the regions that TBR and TBH are holding. We just..can't get the numbers for it at update, especially not every update. So..we do what we can, when we can. And we have fun with it, and we defend and detag. It's enjoyable and rewarding too.

EDIT: Frakking puppet! This is Lyanna Stark.

I like most of this, actually. The point I am trying to make is that when you get bogged down with detagging a few regions while small groups of raiders take between 12 and 20 regions at a time, you allow more damage to occur. And against a usual number of 3 or 4 raiders per update, I don't see what is so hard to match. Against 3 raiders, you only need 2 defenders to have a shot at successfully defending the region, isn't that right?

[Galiantus]

Well you didn't say that, and so far no one has. I am meerly pointing out that while you are detagging regions, you could be doing liberations and defenses, which are more vital to regional survival.

Need numbers for the highlighted.

Okay, fine. You are right about that part of the argument.

[Sovreignry]

Against 3 raiders, you only need 2 defenders to have a shot at successfully defending the region, isn't that right?

You would think so, until basic arithmetic kicks in and you realize 3>2.

In different terms if there is no delegate (which TBR seems to prefer) then if you have any number less you don't have that realistic a shot at defending the region.

[Galiantus]

Against 3 raiders, you only need 2 defenders to have a shot at successfully defending the region, isn't that right?

You would think so, until basic arithmetic kicks in and you realize 3>2.

In different terms if there is no delegate (which TBR seems to prefer) then if you have any number less you don't have that realistic a shot at defending the region.

Yeah. I just said in order to have a shot, not in order to always have a shot.

[Sovreignry]

You would think so, until basic arithmetic kicks in and you realize 3>2.

In different terms if there is no delegate (which TBR seems to prefer) then if you have any number less you don't have that realistic a shot at defending the region.

Yeah. I just said in order to have a shot, not in order to always have a shot.

But your neglecting reality where if Raiders discover that we can catch them and bump a native up they will go after delegateless regions instead. Reality hardly ever jives with what we want.

[Galiantus]

Yeah. I just said in order to have a shot, not in order to always have a shot.

But your neglecting reality where if Raiders discover that we can catch them and bump a native up they will go after delegateless regions instead. Reality hardly ever jives with what we want.

But you make them work a little harder to plan a raid. Also, my 2 vs. 3 example is extreme, since raiders have just as hard a time getting people on during the updates as you do. And considering that they have been on almost daily for at least a week, I am sure you are capible of the same at least half the time.

[Mirror of Erised]

I like most of this, actually. The point I am trying to make is that when you get bogged down with detagging a few regions while small groups of raiders take between 12 and 20 regions at a time, you allow more damage to occur. And against a usual number of 3 or 4 raiders per update, I don't see what is so hard to match. Against 3 raiders, you only need 2 defenders to have a shot at successfully defending the region, isn't that right?

Well, we usually do defend if we can over doing detags, as what I've noticed as SOP--but I've only been back on the field for the last three updates, so I may be wrong with this. But I do think that this is usually standard procedure. Also, if we do have less than them, we often -can't- defend as Sov pointed out, and thus end up going back to detags. Detags are also important, though, to ensure that the regions don't face more damage than they must after having been raided.

We've been rather successful with our defenses for the last few updates, as Cormac pointed out early on in this thread, and Tim and Cromarty pointed out in the TBR thread. We are defending, and considerably more than we've been detagging.

I'll mention once again that it isn't defenders' faults when a region is destroyed or harmed by raiders--it is singularly those raiders' responsibility. While it'd be nice for us to be able to stop everyone, it's just simply not possible. So when we do miss a region, blame still rests on the hostile initiators taking and doing as they please with the region--not on the defenders.

And also, with respect to getting people on at update--the invaders do have the upper hand here. We have to react to their numbers -immediately- to be able to do anything about stopping their actions. In contrast, raiders can raid if they have two or twenty updaters that update.

I hope that cleared this up adequately, in some sort?

~LS

EDIT: *@($*#($! Darn this puppet! It'd be showing me signed in properly right now. >.>

[Galiantus]

I like most of this, actually. The point I am trying to make is that when you get bogged down with detagging a few regions while small groups of raiders take between 12 and 20 regions at a time, you allow more damage to occur. And against a usual number of 3 or 4 raiders per update, I don't see what is so hard to match. Against 3 raiders, you only need 2 defenders to have a shot at successfully defending the region, isn't that right?

Well, we usually do defend if we can over doing detags, as what I've noticed as SOP--but I've only been back on the field for the last three updates, so I may be wrong with this. But I do think that this is usually standard procedure. Also, if we do have less than them, we often -can't- defend as Sov pointed out, and thus end up going back to detags. Detags are also important, though, to ensure that the regions don't face more damage than they must after having been raided.

We've been rather successful with our defenses for the last few updates, as Cormac pointed out early on in this thread, and Tim and Cromarty pointed out in the TBR thread. We are defending, and considerably more than we've been detagging.

I'll mention once again that it isn't defenders' faults when a region is destroyed or harmed by raiders--it is singularly those raiders' responsibility. While it'd be nice for us to be able to stop everyone, it's just simply not possible. So when we do miss a region, blame still rests on the hostile initiators taking and doing as they please with the region--not on the defenders.

And also, with respect to getting people on at update--the invaders do have the upper hand here. We have to react to their numbers -immediately- to be able to do anything about stopping their actions. In contrast, raiders can raid if they have two or twenty updaters that update.

I hope that cleared this up adequately, in some sort?

~LS

EDIT: *@($*#($! Darn this puppet! It'd be showing me signed in properly right now. >.>

Yes, to a certain extent. I guess you are right about most of the gameplay issues I have. However, I still maintain my same problems with how UDL has been handeling foreign affairs recently.

I would still like to know in what ways you employ your inactive or non-update troops, because if any of them are simply sitting around, I am not exactly pleased.

[Lyanna Stark]

I would still like to know in what ways you employ your inactive or non-update troops, because if any of them are simply sitting around, I am not exactly pleased.

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what entirely would you like us to be doing with our inactive or non-update troops? I'm not asking as a hostile question, I'm honestly curious of your thoughts on the matter.

We do a lot with the ones that want to participate, and try to involve everyone in the UDL as much as we can when we can, but..we're a defender organization--being online and available to either defend, liberate, or detag at update is kind of one of the biggest things you can do to get involved. Like I said, though, we do involve some of our non-updates a shitton. My prime example of this would be Tim, whose been helping with triggering for liberations in the last week (we liberated two regions two majors in a row earlier this week), and is always online and helping with spotting during update too. His WA is busy as Vice Delegate in The North Pacific.

We can't force people to participate--but we do the best with who we've got and try to get everyone we can involved and having fun doing so!

((And I'm finally back onto the right nation. Yeesh!))

[Cromarty]

And even some of those who aren't on IRC regularly, or even at update, have shown themselves to be available when we need them, be it for a big liberation or for when we need to bring in troops for an ongoing defence or delegacy transfer.

[Galiantus]

I would still like to know in what ways you employ your inactive or non-update troops, because if any of them are simply sitting around, I am not exactly pleased.

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what entirely would you like us to be doing with our inactive or non-update troops? I'm not asking as a hostile question, I'm honestly curious of your thoughts on the matter.

Well in the past I have suggested that helping founderless regions refound would solve the raiding problem entirely for these regions. If I was at the head of my own defending organization, that is exactly what all my non-updaters would do when they could. The nice thing about this is that even the most very inactive players who get on only once a week could help almost as much as our updaters. Of course an updater is valuable on any day or update, but if regions in want of refounding could reach their goal faster, that will solve some of the problem.

[Lyanna Stark]

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what entirely would you like us to be doing with our inactive or non-update troops? I'm not asking as a hostile question, I'm honestly curious of your thoughts on the matter.

Well in the past I have suggested that helping founderless regions refound would solve the raiding problem entirely for these regions. If I was at the head of my own defending organization, that is exactly what all my non-updaters would do when they could. The nice thing about this is that even the most very inactive players who get on only once a week could help almost as much as our updaters. Of course an updater is valuable on any day or update, but if regions in want of refounding could reach their goal faster, that will solve some of the problem.

While I very much like that idea, and it could be good for people in founderless regions that want completely -new- regions, empty regions only Cease To Exist during update--which requires being up, well, at update--and the time of update is one of the main problems of our non-updaters (it's really darn late for our younger ones, or really darn early for our Brits, minor is plain inconvenient, etc). I hope this short response makes sense of the slight problem with that idea, it's 4 AM my time so I'm off to bed myself.

[Flibbleites]

Hell, I'm surprised someone hasn't used the fact that I've got a post visible in one of those screenshots to try to claim "Mod Bias!"

I think your statement that you were moving a puppet into Eastern Islands of Dharma, apparently to provide moral support for the invasion and griefing of the region (given the context of the thread in which your statement was made), speaks for itself.

Right, the truth is, I absolutely abhor this entire aspect of NS with a fiery burning passion. In fact, if it were to be banned tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. And anyone who actually knows me, already knew that.

[Cinistra]

I think your statement that you were moving a puppet into Eastern Islands of Dharma, apparently to provide moral support for the invasion and griefing of the region (given the context of the thread in which your statement was made), speaks for itself.

Right, the truth is, I absolutely abhor this entire aspect of NS with a fiery burning passion. In fact, if it were to be banned tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. And anyone who actually knows me, already knew that.

Which aspect?

[The Blaatschapen]

I think your statement that you were moving a puppet into Eastern Islands of Dharma, apparently to provide moral support for the invasion and griefing of the region (given the context of the thread in which your statement was made), speaks for itself.

Right, the truth is, I absolutely abhor this entire aspect of NS with a fiery burning passion. In fact, if it were to be banned tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. And anyone who actually knows me, already knew that.

Mod bias!

[Cerian Quilor]

You know, I get tired of saying this...

WE DON'T HAVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF UPDATERS EVERY NIGHT LIKE EVERYONE ASSUMES!

Why not?

I mean, Raiders have fairly large numbers of updaters - how is it that Raiders manage to get more? What is it about Raiders that makes them more appealing?



Is it that Raiding is more appealing? No, no, that could never be. It has to be that the sneaky raiders are cheating!

[Mahaj]

You know, I get tired of saying this...

WE DON'T HAVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF UPDATERS EVERY NIGHT LIKE EVERYONE ASSUMES!

Why not?

I mean, Raiders have fairly large numbers of updaters - how is it that Raiders manage to get more? What is it about Raiders that makes them more appealing?



Is it that Raiding is more appealing? No, no, that could never be. It has to be that the sneaky raiders are cheating!

haha no.

Defenders still have more updaters than raiders.

[Cerian Quilor]

Well in the past I have suggested that helping founderless regions refound would solve the raiding problem entirely for these regions. If I was at the head of my own defending organization, that is exactly what all my non-updaters would do when they could. The nice thing about this is that even the most very inactive players who get on only once a week could help almost as much as our updaters. Of course an updater is valuable on any day or update, but if regions in want of refounding could reach their goal faster, that will solve some of the problem.

While I very much like that idea, and it could be good for people in founderless regions that want completely -new- regions, empty regions only Cease To Exist during update--which requires being up, well, at update--and the time of update is one of the main problems of our non-updaters (it's really darn late for our younger ones, or really darn early for our Brits, minor is plain inconvenient, etc). I hope this short response makes sense of the slight problem with that idea, it's 4 AM my time so I'm off to bed myself.

Yes, but the person who actually founds the new region need only be one updater. Whereas you can use a large number the inactive/non-updater Defenders to help with propping up a delegate so he can eject everyone (even the inactive nations) from the region and passwrd it, thus making the refounding doable. then, come update, once the region has CTE'd, you can immediately make a new one - and for that, you need only one Native, or maybe a single UDLer to do it (and then hand the nation in question over to someone else who is a native of the old region). So instead of needing several updaters, you need just one, and you got use out of your players who (for various reasons) can't make update.

Another idea, amazed you haven't tried it, is to find potential targets for the big ticket raids (founderlless, active community regions that get the raids and occupations that people notice - regions like Stargate and Catholic (though obviously not Catholic now), Belgium, and the like - there are only a handful, comparatively, of big-ticket targets. You could help make said targets more defensible by assigning the less active soldiers, who for whatever reason, can't make update regularly, in packets of one, or two to prop up said regions. And said soldiers, when they can make update, can easily enough leave the big-ticket region for some defending, and then come back when they're done.

@Mahaj: Then where are they?

[Cromarty]

I mean, Raiders have fairly large numbers of updaters

Ha.

6 at best for TBR, 2 for ERN, maybe another 12 more total.

[The Blaatschapen]

Another idea, amazed you haven't tried it, is to find potential targets for the big ticket raids (founderlless, active community regions that get the raids and occupations that people notice - regions like Stargate and Catholic (though obviously not Catholic now), Belgium, and the like - there are only a handful, comparatively, of big-ticket targets. You could help make said targets more defensible by assigning the less active soldiers, who for whatever reason, can't make update regularly, in packets of one, or two to prop up said regions. And said soldiers, when they can make update, can easily enough leave the big-ticket region for some defending, and then come back when they're done.

Some people do that actually (being in big-ticket regions that is).