NationStates

Belschaft wrote:Are admin considering the broader embassy style delay system? It faces fiercer opposition than the 26 hour delay, but is actually useful in fighting coups as well as raids.

Yes, it's one of the popular proposals. Just personally, and right now, I think it has too much overreach in that it makes ROs more powerful than Delegates, with it becoming almost impossible for regional residents to rid themselves of a Delegate they don't like. But I'll implement it if that's where the consensus winds up.

Again I want to encourage people to provide feedback, and especially to others in the same thread as different people raise different ideas and thoughts. What happens in this thread goes a long way toward determining what gets implemented.

If you want tests run on what I've mentioned, just let me specifically know, and I'll do my best to round up some folks and carry them out.

Gest wrote:The better question is why should founderless regions have near perfect defensive capabilities? Why shouldn't they have to get a custodian? Why shouldn't they go to a region with a founder, which is now unassailable if the founder sets it up properly.

Because we like our [RMB history | polls history | iconic region name] (pick one) and don't want to lose it?

Back at you: why should an entire community be permanently unsalvagable because one person lost interest in playing NationStates (or is no longer capable of doing so for some reason)?

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:You see, Chester, even the regions made to be raided have Natives who don't like them to be.

New Perotasoa wrote:I thought the same when I first settled in the Warzones a few months ago. It is indeed true

And even as a rabid raider-hater, I agree that's stupid

These are regions that were created for the explicit person of being fought over, and are clearly advertised as such from the beginning. If you don't want constant battle, don't go there. (I didn't.) I also support the right of players to create their own "warzone-like" regions if they want to.

Sure, it still isn't fun when you lose and some people are sore losers, but there's a huge difference between losing a game you chose to participate in, and being forced to play a game you don't want to.

If you sign up for a boxing match, expect to get punched. If you sign up for debate club and get punched anyway, there's a problem.

[violet] wrote:Ask me a question, I'll answer it.

I have asked before about allowing founders to grant officers influence-independent border control (a feature that would have zero positive or negative effect on R/D balance, since it explicitly only applies to regions with founders), and received no response: no "that's a good idea, thanks", no "no, that's stupid, we're not doing that", not even a "that might be worth doing later, but it'd be too much effort to code right now".

I also made a suggestion for allowing ceremonial officers with a game-displayed title but no powers (in a somewhat rambling post also about something else, granted), which another player also suggested independently. This should be trivially easy to implement - the game has to explicitly check for this situation to print an error message, so allowing it would be a matter of deleting lines of code, not adding them.

[violet] wrote:

• Regions should be unable to eject more than one nation per second. (This would reduce the effectiveness of a team of Border Control Officers working together to hold a newly-captured region against liberators).

One ejection per second already seems like a ridiculously fast ejection rate that excessively rewards having a fast internet connection rather than actual strategy. A limit that low is basically nothing.

However, I don't like the idea of rate limits that are per region rather than per officer. You shouldn't fail to do something just because something completely unrelated done by someone else.

One per second is actually fairly slow, even for a barebones manual rate. If you even just open a bunch of tabs, scroll each to the bottom, put your mouse over the "eject button," then click, ctrl-w, click, ctrl-w a bunch of times, you can beat that rate.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:One per second is actually fairly slow, even for a barebones manual rate. If you even just open a bunch of tabs, scroll each to the bottom, put your mouse over the "eject button," then click, ctrl-w, click, ctrl-w a bunch of times, you can beat that rate.

That's burst activity - you can only do this a few times before it takes you longer than a second to find the next person you need to open a tab on.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:One per second is actually fairly slow, even for a barebones manual rate.

????? Is there some other way, other than manually ejecting nations that we should know about?

The Silver Sentinel wrote:

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:One per second is actually fairly slow, even for a barebones manual rate.

????? Is there some other way, other than manually ejecting nations that we should know about?

As I described in my post on the last page - there are options such as the NS++ banhammer tool. If you're using that tool to clear a region (and you're doing so in a month where it's working properly xD), when you click the ban button, the entry fades out, the list compresses, and you can click again almost immediately without moving a mouse or hitting any other key. Granted, this is not an option for stopping an incoming force.

[violet] wrote:

Belschaft wrote:Are admin considering the broader embassy style delay system? It faces fiercer opposition than the 26 hour delay, but is actually useful in fighting coups as well as raids.

Yes, it's one of the popular proposals. Just personally, and right now, I think it has too much overreach in that it makes ROs more powerful than Delegates, with it becoming almost impossible for regional residents to rid themselves of a Delegate they don't like. But I'll implement it if that's where the consensus winds up.

Again I want to encourage people to provide feedback, and especially to others in the same thread as different people raise different ideas and thoughts. What happens in this thread goes a long way toward determining what gets implemented.

What if you used a shorter time period than the three days embassies take, or added increased influence costs to RO actions whilst they are being removed? I recognize the need for careful balance, but instant dismissal just makes them utterly useless against a rogue Delegate.

What I'm looking for is a balance where the traditional one man rogue Delegate coup is ineffective, requiring multiple plotters in positions of power for a coup to be pulled off.

Belschaft wrote:

[violet] wrote:Yes, it's one of the popular proposals. Just personally, and right now, I think it has too much overreach in that it makes ROs more powerful than Delegates, with it becoming almost impossible for regional residents to rid themselves of a Delegate they don't like. But I'll implement it if that's where the consensus winds up.

Again I want to encourage people to provide feedback, and especially to others in the same thread as different people raise different ideas and thoughts. What happens in this thread goes a long way toward determining what gets implemented.

What if you used a shorter time period than the three days embassies take, or added increased influence costs to RO actions whilst they are being removed? I recognize the need for careful balance, but instant dismissal just makes them utterly useless against a rogue Delegate.

What I'm looking for is a balance where the traditional one man rogue Delegate coup is ineffective, requiring multiple plotters in positions of power for a coup to be pulled off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a pretty GCR-specific worry, yes? IIRC it was stated somewhere that considerations might be made for slight differences in application between GCR's and UCR's (like with influence now) - perhaps this could be looked at under that umbrella?

Belschaft wrote:

[violet] wrote:Yes, it's one of the popular proposals. Just personally, and right now, I think it has too much overreach in that it makes ROs more powerful than Delegates, with it becoming almost impossible for regional residents to rid themselves of a Delegate they don't like. But I'll implement it if that's where the consensus winds up.

Again I want to encourage people to provide feedback, and especially to others in the same thread as different people raise different ideas and thoughts. What happens in this thread goes a long way toward determining what gets implemented.

What if you used a shorter time period than the three days embassies take, or added increased influence costs to RO actions whilst they are being removed? I recognize the need for careful balance, but instant dismissal just makes them utterly useless against a rogue Delegate.

What I'm looking for is a balance where the traditional one man rogue Delegate coup is ineffective, requiring multiple plotters in positions of power for a coup to be pulled off.

How about the same influence cost to appoint or remove a nation regional officer as it would take to eject that nation.

What about making the delay time similar to the delay we have sending recruitment telegrams. The older the nation the shorter the delay?

The Candy Lane wrote:What about making the delay time similar to the delay we have sending recruitment telegrams. The older the nation the shorter the delay?

Because there are quite a few raider nations whom aren't new to the game?

Non R/D question -

Is there any debate against having posting from embassy regions in embassies, instead of under communications? It feels to me like that's an RMB-posting power more than an embassy power, and especially with suppression now under communications, like it belongs there.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Non R/D question -

Is there any debate against having posting from embassy regions in embassies, instead of under communications? It feels to me like that's an RMB-posting power more than an embassy power, and especially with suppression now under communications, like it belongs there.

IMHO that should be an executive decision and should be delegate/founder only power.

The first update after the first new raid under RO's looks to prove that, in fact, RO's are not the end death of defending.

It also goes to prove that, as I've said, multiple ejectors are not all flowers and butterflies and 6x ejections - I only got three, and hit a good 7-8 already ejected while trying to get more.

If the preliminary, self-reported count is right, our best got 10, our second got 7, our third got 3, our fourth man got 2

That puts us at roughly as effective as 2x normal, with little room to depreciate more. And I think we even accidentally unbanned someone

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:The first update after the first new raid under RO's looks to prove that, in fact, RO's are not the end death of defending.

It also goes to prove that, as I've said, multiple ejectors are not all flowers and butterflies and 6x ejections - I only got three, and hit a good 7-8 already ejected while trying to get more.

If the preliminary, self-reported count is right, our best got 10, our second got 7, our third got 3, our fourth man got 2

That puts us at roughly as effective as 2x normal, with little room to depreciate more. And I think we even accidentally unbanned someone

With possibly the deepest and most effective sleeper operation in recent years, a great defender turnout only an update following the hit, and only 3/12 ROs, we won by one endo. Not exactly

I can't confirm all 22 mentioned were before update, and someone in another thread just stated only 18 were, as a note. Our numbers our off our own region happenings, so they're out of context - some may have been post update but pre-office removal/influence dryness. I did exclude those ejected prior to the defender jump.

Guy wrote:

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:The first update after the first new raid under RO's looks to prove that, in fact, RO's are not the end death of defending.

It also goes to prove that, as I've said, multiple ejectors are not all flowers and butterflies and 6x ejections - I only got three, and hit a good 7-8 already ejected while trying to get more.

If the preliminary, self-reported count is right, our best got 10, our second got 7, our third got 3, our fourth man got 2

That puts us at roughly as effective as 2x normal, with little room to depreciate more. And I think we even accidentally unbanned someone

With possibly the deepest and most effective sleeper operation in recent years, a great defender turnout only an update following the hit, and only 3/12 ROs, we won by one endo. Not exactly

I literally just posted on the rapidly dropping effectiveness of the subsequent RO's With a curve of 10-7-3-2, there's not much lower for another 9 RO's to drop on the curve.


Another note: Burst rates, even with clashing, met or exceeded one ejection a second, depending on what window is set. For example, from 1:08:18 to 1:08:25, JakkerWocky ejected seven nations in seven seconds - But ejected 3 in 2 if you just measure 1:08:20 to 1:08:21, and two in one second if you just look at 1:08:21. This shows that even in perhaps the least ideal ejection scenario - nations jumping in (as opposed to clearing out nations already in the region), while clashing with other RO's in trying to eject folks, 1 per second is still not a good fit for an actual manual speed.

Guy wrote:With possibly the deepest and most effective sleeper operation in recent years, a great defender turnout only an update following the hit, and only 3/12 ROs, we won by one endo. Not exactly

It was a mess. I'd say that 2-3 Border Control Officers is the maximum for effectiveness in suppressing liberations. With the count at 17 kicked (7, 7, 2, 1) before update, I'm not sure how you can justify having more ROs would be helpful (one was even unbanned after his trip into TRR).

Knot II wrote:

Guy wrote:With possibly the deepest and most effective sleeper operation in recent years, a great defender turnout only an update following the hit, and only 3/12 ROs, we won by one endo. Not exactly

It was a mess. I'd say that 2-3 Border Control Officers is the maximum for effectiveness in suppressing liberations. With the count at 17 kicked (7, 7, 2, 1) before update, I'm not sure how you can justify having more ROs would be helpful (one was even unbanned after his trip into TRR).

What I'm learning is that the only 100% accurate count may have to come from admin xD But the point about roughly double efficiency then rapid depreciation stands regardless of exact numbers.

When you have 20+ sleeper nations in the region, near close enough to 30 jumpers, short triggers, clean jumpers and non-WA cannon fodder it should not come down to one endorsement to win that. The idea that we can pull off this sort of liberation 50% of the time is ludicrous.

--Karp

Not sure how "clean jumpers" play a role when we just got anyone who moved in as fast as possible. The chaff certainly plays a role there, those sleepers were certainly a well-played pain in the ass, and that was a trigger worthy of praise - no 15 second gap to eject people in, or 3/4 of the party late today - but I'm not entirely sure how this is a testament to Libs being impossible so much as it's a testament to the fact that those methods work, and could be repeated. Especially if this is publicized as being effective at taking out us ebvul raiders, and next time you show up with more recruits


/me braces for impact

I would be interested to see the bans per second rate as well as any other relevant data Admin fee like sharing.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:It also goes to prove that, as I've said, multiple ejectors are not all flowers and butterflies and 6x ejections - I only got three, and hit a good 7-8 already ejected while trying to get more.

If the preliminary, self-reported count is right, our best got 10, our second got 7, our third got 3, our fourth man got 2

That puts us at roughly as effective as 2x normal, with little room to depreciate more. And I think we even accidentally unbanned someone

Is that due to stepping on each others' toes, or due to differing skill on the players' parts?

If the players were equally skilled (and had equal intenet speeds), then I would expect that they would have approximately the same ejection counts, just with that count being lower than what the same player could (hypothetically) have achieved alone.

The large difference between the best- and worst-scoring player suggests that redundant efforts are not the sole factor, even if it's one of them. Which means that if a fifth player is added, I would expect his contribution to be closer to the average of the first four players, rather than the minimum.

Jardenfell wrote:When you have 20+ sleeper nations in the region, near close enough to 30 jumpers, short triggers, clean jumpers and non-WA cannon fodder it should not come down to one endorsement to win that. The idea that we can pull off this sort of liberation 50% of the time is ludicrous.

--Karp

So this gets to be the second post-lib thread tonight where I say "what Karp said."

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:and next time you show up with more recruits

No. Don't say that, even in jest. Admin may think that your "suggestion" is somehow viable. We had an abnormally high number of sleepers. We managed to give out that abnormally high number of sleepers. We pulled people from everywhere for sleepers and the jump. We also somehow managed the jump with a tight trigger and without errors.

This kind of showing on our part should not have ended with a +1 endo win - we should have had this in the clear. For 99% of regions this kind of liberation would have been impossible. We would not have this kind of sleeper bank and would have needed to cross - with that kind of preparation your ROs would have trashed us (even more so than you already did. 18 is A LOT to banject on a liberation attempt).

And then to somehow assume that we can pull more magic WAs from the air? You did not use all the pilers you had. You did not use the total ROs that you could have used. This op was basically what we have, and you are fully aware of that. To pretend that a win, in this specific case, somehow means that we can replicate this and/or that the situation is "fair" is totally dishonest.