GCR's a bit to stable?

[Kurnugia]

Why not? The playing field is increasingly slanted over the years toward User Created Regions. They have: Founders, ultimate authority; no Influence decay, and the Founder can banject without losing any Influence; passwords; and ROs, or Regional Officers.

Game Created Regions, meanwhile, have: ROs.

Don't forget what is essentially free recruitment via foundings/refoundings and that handy-dandy welcome tg that comes before any other tg sans the game message one

Don't forget that most nations that are sought after are also the ones that are more likely to read through the telegram spam

[Pergamon]

Feederite/Userite is a very real dichotomy, I mean this thread is a prime example.

Read my post again. I wasn't talking about UCRs vs. GCRs, I was talking about there being no conflict between a GCR serving their own interests and either raiding or defending.

Also, it doesn't back your arguments if you just throw in some pointless accusations without actually knowing what you are actually talking about.



This is correct.

@Galiantus III:

1. Warzones are Game Created Regions, so it isn't us sacrificing anything in favor of UCRs
2. The Warzone you mentioned as example got raided by a UCR and the GCR embassies were closed, except the TP one (I guess they actually tried to avoid us, but didn't work too well)
3. When we last told them they shouldn't touch GCR embassies, we meant ALL GCR embassies, they closed them, we came, simple as it is.

I demand another example of you, since this one was kinda a bummer.
I mean I am fair enough to give you a chance

Okay, so I was wrong about your purposes in Warzone Europe, but it doesn't really change my point - you are doing defending. And by your own admission you also raid. Thus The Pacific is a region that raids and defends. This is why it makes no sense for you to claim that a GCR can't do raiding or defending without giving up their sovereignty, then claim to be sovereign.

Edit: I am not trying to assert that the NPO isn't sovereign. On the contrary - I see the NPO as being sovereign. My beef is that you are willing to look at another GCR and judge them not to be sovereign simply because their military actions don't fit with your ideology.

You don't get it, do you?

There is a huge difference between having Raiding or Defending as predominant ideology and only regarding both, Raiding and Defending as tool.
The base motivation is entirely different.
Raiders want Raiderdom to succeed, Defenders want Defenderdom to succeed, their ideology is what binds them together and allows them to either interact with each other on friendly terms or oppose each other.
A Raider has Raiders as potential natural allies, A Defender has Defenders as potential natural allies.

The New Pacific Order, the Pacific, rejects the false R/D dichotomy, does not partake in it, due to that in a R/D dominated gameworld, the Pacific has no natural allies. The Pacific regards mechanical Raiding and Defending both as tools and not philosophies. It applies them as tool, not as philosophy.

Nothing I said in this thread so far has been a contradicting item.
Our operation to save the GCR embassies may be regarded as mechanical "defending", albeit we also tagged the region and suppressed posts, which to Defenders wouldn't be seen as defending anymore. The political motivation behind that was not to stop raiders, or care about the nations residing within, what the motivation of Defenders would be - Our motivation was different: It was the GCR Embassies. We acted to benefit the GCRs and nothing else. Not for Defenderdom and not to protect some nations we're not affiliated with.

You cannot shove the Pacific into one of the two R/D sides, the Pacific belongs to neither. From political motivations, to the execution of operations, the New Pacific Order, the Francoists, remains to be an entire own faction, fundamentally different from Raiders or Defenders.

And we do not particularly like it if Game Created Regions adapt philosophies and ideologies that make them subordinate to Metafactions instead of serving itself and the other GCRs, yes. You know, there was a reason we had a long lasting war against the ADN and it was not only because they opposed us and tried to destroy us, it was also because we think that anything they stood for and everything they were has no space nor legitimacy within the GCRs: GCRs for GCRs, for nothing and no-one else.

[Aclion]

The base motivation is entirely different.
Raiders want Raiderdom to succeed, Defenders want Defenderdom to succeed.

That doesn't sound very different at all.

[Pergamon]

The base motivation is entirely different.
Raiders want Raiderdom to succeed, Defenders want Defenderdom to succeed.

That doesn't sound very different at all.

This is correct. They are not too much different, they are two sides of the same coin. And this coin is something the Pacific refuses to be part of. See my previous post.

[Aclion]

That doesn't sound very different at all.

This is correct. They are not too much different, they are two sides of the same coin. And this coin is something the Pacific refuses to be part of. See my previous post.

They only seem similar because you are grossly oversimplifying them.

[Unibot III]

Read my post again. I wasn't talking about UCRs vs. GCRs, I was talking about there being no conflict between a GCR serving their own interests and either raiding or defending.



Okay, so I was wrong about your purposes in Warzone Europe, but it doesn't really change my point - you are doing defending. And by your own admission you also raid. Thus The Pacific is a region that raids and defends. This is why it makes no sense for you to claim that a GCR can't do raiding or defending without giving up their sovereignty, then claim to be sovereign.

Edit: I am not trying to assert that the NPO isn't sovereign. On the contrary - I see the NPO as being sovereign. My beef is that you are willing to look at another GCR and judge them not to be sovereign simply because their military actions don't fit with your ideology.

You don't get it, do you?

There is a huge difference between having Raiding or Defending as predominant ideology and only regarding both, Raiding and Defending as tool.
The base motivation is entirely different.
Raiders want Raiderdom to succeed, Defenders want Defenderdom to succeed, their ideology is what binds them together and allows them to either interact with each other on friendly terms or oppose each other.
A Raider has Raiders as potential natural allies, A Defender has Defenders as potential natural allies.

The New Pacific Order, the Pacific, rejects the false R/D dichotomy, does not partake in it, due to that in a R/D dominated gameworld, the Pacific has no natural allies. The Pacific regards mechanical Raiding and Defending both as tools and not philosophies. It applies them as tool, not as philosophy.

Nothing I said in this thread so far has been a contradicting item.
Our operation to save the GCR embassies may be regarded as mechanical "defending", albeit we also tagged the region and suppressed posts, which to Defenders wouldn't be seen as defending anymore. The political motivation behind that was not to stop raiders, or care about the nations residing within, what the motivation of Defenders would be - Our motivation was different: It was the GCR Embassies. We acted to benefit the GCRs and nothing else. Not for Defenderdom and not to protect some nations we're not affiliated with.

You cannot shove the Pacific into one of the two R/D sides, the Pacific belongs to neither. From political motivations, to the execution of operations, the New Pacific Order, the Francoists, remains to be an entire own faction, fundamentally different from Raiders or Defenders.

And we do not particularly like it if Game Created Regions adapt philosophies and ideologies that make them subordinate to Metafactions instead of serving itself and the other GCRs, yes. You know, there was a reason we had a long lasting war against the ADN and it was not only because they opposed us and tried to destroy us, it was also because we think that anything they stood for and everything they were has no space nor legitimacy within the GCRs: GCRs for GCRs, for nothing and no-one else.

This phrase “reject R/D dichotomy” is nonsense. ‘Invading’ and ‘defending’ share mechanics - there’s materially little difference between an invasion and a liberation or an occupation or a restoration or spotting for invaders or liberators. “Invading” and “defending” are not ‘tools’ - the tactics that underpin them are (e.g., spotting, endorsing, surfing.)

The difference between invading and defending as philosophies is clear: one respects a right to self-determination, the other does not. To deny that this is a binary set of propositions is to deny logic - arguing that invaders and defenders do not have different philosophies is to ignore the premises behind their philosophies.

I think what you mean to say is that NPO believes that a region doesn’t need to be either invader or defender (which no one disputes) and that it uses Gameplay Mechanics as a means to its own end: the advancement of the New Pacific Order.

It’s at this point where one should wonder why any Game-Created Region should opt to surrender its own autonomy to assimilate with a wider collective of GCRs? Much of the NPO’s doctrine is an appeal to “nature” (GCRs are meant for GCRs, UCRs are meant for UCRs) which supposes segregation is natural and neccesssarily right - it’s not based on a rational argument: the value and self-interest of individual GCRs in maintaining their independence is dismissed and the New Pacific Order is asserted unilaterally as the “right” and “only” voice for the liberation of the GCRs - it never anticipates a competing feederite order (“The New New Pacific Order.”)

Many people mistakenly identify as ‘Francoist’ because they don’t understand that the NPO isn’t concerned with the welfare and security of individual regions but rather, an exclusive class (feederites) and the supposed source of their liberation (The Order.) There are no natives in that universe, no ownership is claimed based on residency - feeders belong to all feederites solely by virtue of being feederites and this collective birthright is to be represented by the Order. For obvious reasons, this is a part of NPO doctrine they tend to leave out with their “allies” because one man’s class liberation is another’s hostile subjugation.

[Consular]

This is correct. They are not too much different, they are two sides of the same coin. And this coin is something the Pacific refuses to be part of. See my previous post.

They only seem similar because you are grossly oversimplifying them.

Indeed, and Perg is smarter than that, he's just throwing rhetoric. Sure -- many regions and players find themselves caught in a struggle between two factions. Some blame the situation and see both sides as at fault, but in doing so they ignore the context. The two sides aren't equally at fault for that situation at all. If defenders didn't exist, raiders would still raid -- but the same doesn't hold true in reverse. Many defenders would explicitly prefer the "coin" didn't exist at all.

[RiderSyl]

Many defenders would explicitly prefer the "coin" didn't exist at all.

I've never really bought into this.

The same defenders that go around saying they'd prefer not to be defending are, more often than not, the same ones that love basking in the praise and moral superiority that defending provides them with.

[The Church of Satan]

The thing I don't understand about the NPO is how they can so willingly and happily undermine another GCRs government while having the gall to claim they are so pro-GCR. It can't be just because of the "big bad defenders" because as they say they "reject the R/D dichotomy". If that were the case then why don't they attack raiders with the same vitriol? Why haven't they encroached on the sovereignty of raider-aligned GCRs like Osiris and TWP? After all as the NPO likes to say so often it's basically for their own good, right? So are they truly pro-GCR or are they just anti-defender?

[Pergamon]

The thing I don't understand about the NPO is how they can so willingly and happily undermine another GCRs government while having the gall to claim they are so pro-GCR. It can't be just because of the "big bad defenders" because as they say they "reject the R/D dichotomy". If that were the case then why don't they attack raiders with the same vitriol? Why haven't they encroached on the sovereignty of raider-aligned GCRs like Osiris and TWP? After all as the NPO likes to say so often it's basically for their own good, right? So are they truly pro-GCR or are they just anti-defender?

You must have missed the most recent history in Lazarus. It was evident that we didn't support Lone Wolves United, so we are not anti-defender or anything else but Francoist, unless you claim they (LWU) are defenders too

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

The whole point of a feeder is a large player safe zone.

[Jar Wattinree]

The whole point of a feeder is a large player safe zone.

[The Church of Satan]

You must have missed the most recent history in Lazarus. It was evident that we didn't support Lone Wolves United, so we are not anti-defender or anything else but Francoist, unless you claim they (LWU) are defenders too

You're ignoring the more relevant part of my post. Give me a moment to refresh your memory:

"why don't they attack raiders with the same vitriol? Why haven't they encroached on the sovereignty of raider-aligned GCRs like Osiris and TWP?"

[Syberis]

You know, it's funny. Raiders will always say that the NPO is too pro-defender. Myself included, at times in my career.

This claim that the NPO is... Somehow anti-defender makes me wonder.

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

You know, it's funny. Raiders will always say that the NPO is too pro-defender. Myself included, at times in my career.

This claim that the NPO is... Somehow anti-defender makes me wonder.

Yeah where did this come from?

Why is the NPO seen as pro-raider all of a sudden?

[Syberis]

You know, it's funny. Raiders will always say that the NPO is too pro-defender. Myself included, at times in my career.

This claim that the NPO is... Somehow anti-defender makes me wonder.

Yeah where did this come from?

Why is the NPO seen as pro-raider all of a sudden?

It's fairly easy to believe, if you ignore the last couple years worth of... This game? Or if you literally have been paying so little attention to, in particular, Osiris and TWP, to realize that particular sentiment is just kind of objectively wrong.

[The Church of Satan]

It's actually rather easy to believe. While they have continued to spout their francoist propaganda their focus over the last 5+ years has been primarily against defenders. If their francoist ideas are so important then why ignore the so-called userites in raider-aligned GCRs?

[Xoriet]

...Meanwhile, in the Halls of Justice NPO Headquarters:

“Ahahaha! They’ll never manage to agree whose side the NPO really sympathizes with! Gameplay shall not cohesively agree on who the NPO really is against! Utter victory!”

*evil laughter ensues*

—

This topic annoyed me at first, but now I just want to laugh at it.

[Ehplam]

...Meanwhile, in the Halls of Justice NPO Headquarters:

“Ahahaha! They’ll never manage to agree whose side the NPO really sympathizes with! Gameplay shall not cohesively agree on who the NPO really is against! Utter victory!”

*evil laughter ensues*

—

This topic annoyed me at first, but now I just want to laugh at it.

A good sign that your org is neither fenda or raider is if people are accusing it both ways. Just look at the NPA, one moment we're passing raider legislation and the next we're working with defenders and detagging constantly! People don't know what to think. Of course the idea that we don't really care about R/D was off the table from the start.

On a more serious note, these "are they raider or defender?" discussions always annoy me. They are what they say they are, they don't have to prove their ideology to you by trying to balance out their defending and raiding. I know that when I was running the NPA I didn't give a rats ass about whether or not I was raiding or defending more, which is only because I wasn't getting berated about it by some armchair gameplayers.

The whole point of a feeder is a large player safe zone.

I used to think that too, until I really got much experience in them. They've got way more nuance than just a glorified spawning area.

[Jar Wattinree]

...Meanwhile, in the Halls of Justice NPO Headquarters:

“Ahahaha! They’ll never manage to agree whose side the NPO really sympathizes with! Gameplay shall not cohesively agree on who the NPO really is against! Utter victory!”

*evil laughter ensues*

—

This topic annoyed me at first, but now I just want to laugh at it.

Francoism, breaking the round boxes since 2003.

[Belschaft]

UCR players want GCR’s to be less stable so they can exercise influence in them and have an exciting GP experience. Meanwhile GCR players want GCR’s to be stable so their community can get on with it’s own thing in peace, without being screwed with by UCR players.

In other news bears are catholic and the pope shits in the woods.

[Galiantus III]

UCR players want GCR’s to be less stable so they can exercise influence in them and have an exciting GP experience. Meanwhile GCR players want GCR’s to be stable so their community can get on with it’s own thing in peace, without being screwed with by UCR players.

In other news bears are catholic and the pope shits in the woods.

This made me lol

I personally think that UCR players are just annoyed at the combination of stability and WA power. If GCRs could remain just as stable as they are right now, but have less power in the WA, I believe this discussion would die overnight. And come on: they already get free advertisement, so asking for some nerf to their power or stability makes perfect sense from a game design point of view.

Edit: To be clear, I agree with the premise of your post. I'm just adding to it. GCRs can pick either power or stability, but not both. And I am consistent enough to suggest that UCRs ought to be held to the same standard.

[The Church of Satan]

GCRs have both not just because they have an enormous amount of nations. Sure they have a lot of nations because they are GCRs but the stability was not. Players in each respective GCR have worked hard for the last five to fifteen years to establish their governments and build up to the stability they have now. Has that given them vast power in the WA? Sure, but it has been earned by players who have worked harder and achieved more than most UCRs can ever hope to achieve. They don't really have to worry about stability like GCRs do because they have control over their region given to them by game mechanics. They can't expect to have the kind of influence in the WA that GCRs have because they aren't willing to put in the admittedly enormous amount of work required. It takes time and work. If they want it then they should earn it like GCRs have.

[Galiantus III]

GCRs have both not just because they have an enormous amount of nations. Sure they have a lot of nations because they are GCRs but the stability was not. Players in each respective GCR have worked hard for the last five to fifteen years to establish their governments and build up to the stability they have now. Has that given them vast power in the WA? Sure, but it has been earned by players who have worked harder and achieved more than most UCRs can ever hope to achieve. They don't really have to worry about stability like GCRs do because they have control over their region given to them by game mechanics. They can't expect to have the kind of influence in the WA that GCRs have because they aren't willing to put in the admittedly enormous amount of work required. It takes time and work. If they want it then they should earn it like GCRs have.

GCRs can expend about one tenth the effort of a UCR to get the same result, and a lazy GCR can run on fumes for much longer than a UCR - a UCR would die if it did that. It's the difference between walking up stairs and walking up an escalator. Don't tell me about how GCRs have worked this or that much harder than UCRs when the only UCRs that come close to GCRs are the ones who pour literal sweat, tears, and money to get there, and GCRs need only have a welcome telegram and look alive to experience extreme growth.

[Lord Dominator]

Regardless of other validity Gal, I don't think extreme growth is the right phrase, when a more accurate term would likely be holding stable or the like.