Just got invaded by DEN

[The old wildlife pen pal]

snip

You could have posted this earlier and save a lot of time here . Ty for your explanation.

Not sure what you're smoking, but TG me, I want some too. We have yet to have more than 8 people on at an update. And 8 is like, insane numbers, once in a billion years. As for the "100 breaker", there were 6 peepz + me.

/me leaks a little

Feb 27 00:13:25 <BenevolentThomas> you've got 10 god damn people and you're going to tag a foundered region?!?
...
Feb 27 00:18:50 <PenPal> oh, they actually have 10 people :/

[Eluvatar]

Also, Max said he would not add war because it was too complicated, But I could program it in in less than a month. Is there another resin for no war?

Actually, the FAQ used to have:

How do I go to war against another nation? Or trade with them?

In one sense, you can't. NationStates doesn't include these things—because it's a simple game, and because they would bias things in favor of militaristic and capitalist nations. One of the nice things about NationStates is that you can craft a nation into your idea of Utopia without having to worry about such pragmatic concerns as national defence.

There are, however, two types of wargame that have been developed by the NationStates community. One is regional invasions, where nations attempt to move into another region and topple the Regional Delegate; the other is an in-depth role-playing game that takes place in the International Incidents forum.

Many people have suggested a more sophisticated version of NationStates, with trade and military conflicts, but this is unlikely, as it would fundamentally change who we are. At its core, NationStates is a political game, not a wargame.

And as of recent changes, in shorter form, has:

Can I attack other nations?

No. Nations cannot be damaged or destroyed by foreign powers. You develop your nation the way you want, without being forced to take care of the military, or the economy, or anything else you don't especially prioritize.

But I keep hearing about invasions.

Some nations craft battles, trading pacts, and more on their regional boards or in forums such as International Incidents. But there's also a type of interregional invasion known as "raiding" or "R/D". This is where organized groups of nations attempt to seize control of regions by moving there en masse and endorsing each other to gain political power. Unlike nations, regions can effectively be captured and destroyed. This isn't common, but isn't unheard of, either.

NationStates is not the game for that.

[ChingisOtchigin]

Feb 27 00:13:25 <BenevolentThomas> you've got 10 god damn people and you're going to tag a foundered region?!?
...
Feb 27 00:18:50 <PenPal> oh, they actually have 10 people :/

10 people....

/me starts salivating.

Who would hit one region, with 10 people worth of switcher potential.....

You monster I bet you it was Varax <_<

[ADST World]

Also, Max said he would not add war because it was too complicated, But I could program it in in less than a month. Is there another resin for no war?

Actually, the FAQ used to have:

How do I go to war against another nation? Or trade with them?

In one sense, you can't. NationStates doesn't include these things—because it's a simple game, and because they would bias things in favor of militaristic and capitalist nations. One of the nice things about NationStates is that you can craft a nation into your idea of Utopia without having to worry about such pragmatic concerns as national defence.

There are, however, two types of wargame that have been developed by the NationStates community. One is regional invasions, where nations attempt to move into another region and topple the Regional Delegate; the other is an in-depth role-playing game that takes place in the International Incidents forum.

Many people have suggested a more sophisticated version of NationStates, with trade and military conflicts, but this is unlikely, as it would fundamentally change who we are. At its core, NationStates is a political game, not a wargame.

And as of recent changes, in shorter form, has:

Can I attack other nations?

No. Nations cannot be damaged or destroyed by foreign powers. You develop your nation the way you want, without being forced to take care of the military, or the economy, or anything else you don't especially prioritize.

But I keep hearing about invasions.

Some nations craft battles, trading pacts, and more on their regional boards or in forums such as International Incidents. But there's also a type of interregional invasion known as "raiding" or "R/D". This is where organized groups of nations attempt to seize control of regions by moving there en masse and endorsing each other to gain political power. Unlike nations, regions can effectively be captured and destroyed. This isn't common, but isn't unheard of, either.

NationStates is not the game for that.

At no point did I say it would harm or destroy your region. People who enjoy the battle aspect can join a PVP type area, where you can spend your economy on weapons and vehicles, and then have a chance to fight each other.

NOTE: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE TO JOIN

[ChingisOtchigin]

At no point did I say it would harm or destroy your region. People who enjoy the battle aspect can join a PVP type area, where you can spend your economy on weapons and vehicles, and then have a chance to fight each other.

NOTE: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE TO JOIN

I believe there is a special forum for these kinds of suggestions.

[ADST World]

At no point did I say it would harm or destroy your region. People who enjoy the battle aspect can join a PVP type area, where you can spend your economy on weapons and vehicles, and then have a chance to fight each other.

NOTE: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE TO JOIN

I believe there is a special forum for these kinds of suggestions.

Yeah, but the conversation started here, so here is where it is.

[Cora III]

One raid is pretty insignificant, easily fixed, harmless byproduct. It is ridiculously easy prevent to get targeted by DEN (or anyone else).

Regions that are unable to protect themselves doesn't deserve their peaceful existence. They are only dirt in raiders' sandbox we try shovel best we can, and are usually treated like failed sandcastles or sandcakes, without any special emotions involved. It happens rather often raiders target someone participant's own region, and even then that doesn't cause serious moral outbursts. Sometimes raiders tag their own regions without any problems, only because they know that only one who to blame is the one itself, and because raids are always acts of collaboration of a team.

Trouble here is in the dirt, not in the end of a shovel.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Who would hit one region, with 10 people worth of switcher potential.....

This is the mentality I've been worrying was going to start spreading among the new crop of raiders.

[Jersey Republic]

Actually, the FAQ used to have:


And as of recent changes, in shorter form, has:


NationStates is not the game for that.

At no point did I say it would harm or destroy your region. People who enjoy the battle aspect can join a PVP type area, where you can spend your economy on weapons and vehicles, and then have a chance to fight each other.

NOTE: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE TO JOIN

Yeah but don't you realize raiders go into regions, destroy it, and then boast about it. We are not able to not have to join.

[Cora III]

Who would hit one region, with 10 people worth of switcher potential.....

This is the mentality I've been worrying was going to start spreading among the new crop of raiders.

This is the raider mentality I've been worrying as long as being raider as it's main reason of un-necessary inefficiency, thus better to be obliterated for better efficiency. By raiders themselves.

If we can occupy more regions by using our resources more optimally, how there can be something to worry about that for raider, Koth?

[Appalachiaa]

Whos DEN?

[Leppikania]

Whos DEN?

To sum up, the stock invader region.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Whos DEN?

To sum up, the stock invader region.

Stock is being raided? We Are Not The IRS is on the case!

[Ambroscus Koth]

If we can occupy more regions by using our resources more optimally, how there can be something to worry about that for raider, Koth?

That wasn't my point at all. I have no problems with multiple occupations at a time.

[Cora III]

If we can occupy more regions by using our resources more optimally, how there can be something to worry about that for raider, Koth?

That wasn't my point at all. I have no problems with multiple occupations at a time.

Ah. Sorry about misunderstanding then. I've got an impression there would be something wrong with attempts develop raider updater corps more capable to do their part for that goal. There seems to be some unexplained issues concerning critisisms upon the fact that raider updaters' training procedures produce some other results too, than just a tag.

Now, if piler and infiltration branches of the raiderdom would also improve little bit their own operational efficiency, and co-operation with updater branch... oh that would help make a day!

You have power to help organize efforts for that direction, Koth.

[Exxosia]

There's two ways to opt out. Have an active founder or a regional password. I hate raiding, but it's not going anywhere, by Max's orders.
Also, no region wants to be raided, so having to ask permission before raiding would basically shoot it in the head. Giving raiders an identifying badge would do the same. But just for fun, exactly how would you implement this labeling system? How would the game decide whether a nation was a raider?

A report system that matches an IP address to a raider. So anyone making a nation with that IP will be labeled a raider. Then they have to get a special, direct permission from someone in the control branches of even an open region to move there once labeled.

[Reploid Productions]

There's two ways to opt out. Have an active founder or a regional password. I hate raiding, but it's not going anywhere, by Max's orders.
Also, no region wants to be raided, so having to ask permission before raiding would basically shoot it in the head. Giving raiders an identifying badge would do the same. But just for fun, exactly how would you implement this labeling system? How would the game decide whether a nation was a raider?

A report system that matches an IP address to a raider. So anyone making a nation with that IP will be labeled a raider. Then they have to get a special, direct permission from someone in the control branches of even an open region to move there once labeled.

Wouldn't work. IPs alone are extremely disposable.

And once again, how do you draw the line between a raid, an internal coup, an internal coup with external support, inter-regional politicking, a long-term sleeper operation, and so on?

[Pz4]

NOTE: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE TO JOIN

Isn't that already the case in the current situation, though? It's not particularly difficult to opt out of the r/d game, as has exhaustively been said.

[Hillary Clinton 2016-2024]

My region was recently invaded by DEN. I have reset everything, and revoked all privileges for WA delegates. How can we bring them to justice? They seem to be running rampant, taking over both small and large nations. Honestly, I can see many players getting frustrated with invaders. I want people to join my nation, but not destroy it. Is there any was to give them a badge or label, or even just keep them from entering nations without submitting a request to the officers?

Lets start an Anti-DEN alliance!

[The old wildlife pen pal]

NOTE: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE TO JOIN

Isn't that already the case in the current situation, though? It's not particularly difficult to opt out of the r/d game, as has exhaustively been said.

Opt-in =/= Opt-out.

The current situation is opt-out, the quoted note suggests opt-in.

[Pz4]

Isn't that already the case in the current situation, though? It's not particularly difficult to opt out of the r/d game, as has exhaustively been said.

Opt-in =/= Opt-out.

The current situation is opt-out, the quoted note suggests opt-in.

Granted. I missed the distinction between the two.

[We Are Not the NSA]

There's two ways to opt out. Have an active founder or a regional password. I hate raiding, but it's not going anywhere, by Max's orders.
Also, no region wants to be raided, so having to ask permission before raiding would basically shoot it in the head. Giving raiders an identifying badge would do the same. But just for fun, exactly how would you implement this labeling system? How would the game decide whether a nation was a raider?

A report system that matches an IP address to a raider. So anyone making a nation with that IP will be labeled a raider. Then they have to get a special, direct permission from someone in the control branches of even an open region to move there once labeled.

In addition to what Reploid already said about IPs being disposable, a system like this could be and would be easily taken advantage of. When it comes down to it, raiding is the same process as electing a new WA delegate. Figuratively anyone who moves to a new region and joins the WA could be flagged as a raider. The way to get around this is by devising some form of criteria as to what counts as a "raider", but by limiting what counts a raider you leave openings for us to use in getting around the sytsem.

[ADST World]

NOTE: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE TO JOIN

Isn't that already the case in the current situation, though? It's not particularly difficult to opt out of the r/d game, as has exhaustively been said.

Yes, but this way people who just joined the game and know nothing of raiding don't have to worry about it.

DEN members, what would be your thoughts here? My understanding is that you raid because there is no war system, right?

Defender region members, what do you think? You guys don't like raiding, which is why you made your regions, right?

Raided nations, why are your thoughts? Would you prefer an opt-in war system over the raiding system?

[Pz4]

Isn't that already the case in the current situation, though? It's not particularly difficult to opt out of the r/d game, as has exhaustively been said.

Yes, but this way people who just joined the game and know nothing of raiding don't have to worry about it.

DEN members, what would be your thoughts here? My understanding is that you raid because there is no war system, right?

Defender region members, what do you think? You guys don't like raiding, which is why you made your regions, right?

Raided nations, why are your thoughts? Would you prefer an opt-in war system over the raiding system?

Again, opinions vary greatly within the involved groups. Personally, I enjoy and partake in tag-raiding because it's mechanically interesting, and the fast pace makes things exciting. If there was a war system within the intended bounds of the game, I don't quite know how much of that would transfer. Especially since my main nation is hyper-pacifistic.

[Lyra and Bon Bon]

And once again, how do you draw the line between a raid, an internal coup, an internal coup with external support, inter-regional politicking, a long-term sleeper operation, and so on?[/quote]

Well, granted I have been only playing for about three years or so now, but I have yet to even once run into any type of regional coup or inter-regional politicking that came about from a flood of external nations flooding into a region and taking control.

Like a previous poster had said, actions against this is rather easy to implement. From as simple to as flagging a region that repeatedly does this action as 'a raider' nation. Once in a blue moon a single region is politicking probably, but say several times a week and in a different region every time? Not that difficult to tell the difference between internal power struggles and raiding to be honest; not sure why you are making it out to be.

Or something as easy an instituting a WA delegate cooldown upon entering a new region; a day, three days, a week, or whatever. That would seriously hamper the ability of raiders rolling in and immediately taking over.

There are very few tools for a region to use to defend themselves against raiding, and almost all of them have detrimental effets on the region. Password locking does stop raiding, but it also stops any new members from joining the region, which equals stagnation for the region. As soon as a password is handed out to any prospective new member you just opened the door to it being quickly passed around to anyone wanting to enter (Raiders). A one-time use password would perhaps also be an option against this, but that has never been implemented either.

The fact is that the raiders have a very distinct advantage, plus the backing of Max Barry and the NationStates staff. Pretending that it is somehow the fault of regions that they are so easy to raid is rather laughable with regions being handicapped with minimal defensive capabilities, that more-or-less hinge on having an active founder, and no real 'opt out' system.

I will state again that I do not see why those who decide to play as raiders and enjoy destroying what others have built up in NationStates gets to take precedent over those who just enjoy playing.