NATION

PASSWORD

A Modest Proposal

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Floating Tire
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jan 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

A Modest Proposal

Postby Floating Tire » Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:58 pm

A Modest Proposal

In the last few months several changes have been made to NS in the wake of the failure of NS2. Most of these have been cosmetic, though two major changes have been made to the actual game play of NS. The first have been WA liberations. The second has been the doubling of regional updates. Both of these changes are clearly designed to impede the operations of raiders in NS. It has become quite clear that the population of Nationstates is playing two different games. One is playing a game where Nationstates is supposed to be a simulation of the world they would want to live in, where everything functions according to democratic principles and the “bad guys” always lose due to the might of right. The others are trying to play an actual game where both sides in a conflict can win or lose depending upon variables such a strength, vigilance, and strategy.

I think there is no denying that the world of Nationstates is less than it was a few years ago. The only way to avoid the stagnation of Nationstates is to encourage conflict, not to diminish the possibilities for it through rule changes. This is what most major game play changes in NS have had the effect of doing, going back to the establishment of founders. The problem is none of this shall be reversed as long as those who run this game listen to majority opinion. The majority are afraid of losing their regions to raiders, so they will support any measures taken against raiders, not thinking of the larger game play consequences. The needs of the game of Nationstates and the wants of the majority of its players are therefore seemingly irreconcilable.

I propose to reconcile the irreconcilable by splitting NS in two, just as Solomon decided to split a boy in two who was contested by two fathers. The thing is though, unlike a little boy, splitting NS in two will not kill it, but make it better and stronger. My idea is simple. The current world of NS with all its existing regions and nations shall become Peace-World. Peace-World will function exactly as NS does now. However; players will have another world to play in if they choose. This world shall be called War-World. War-World will be the same as Peace-World, except that there will be no WA liberations, updates will be once a day, and there will be no founders for player created regions. Every region in War-World will be vulnerable to attack. Every nation currently in NS will have the option of transferring over to War-World. Every new nation created after the inception of War-World will have the option of choosing which world they wish to inhabit when they create their nation. Players that grow tired of the world they currently inhabit will be able to move, thought it would not be an instantaneous process like switching regions, but instead more like applying for WA membership.

In keeping with the idea of War-World being more violent and anarchic than Peace-World, the War-World version of the WA shall be called the League of Nations and member nations will be free to ignore resolutions that they don’t wish to implement. The League of Nations will also not be able to condemn individual regions and nations the way the WA can. Besides the previously stated differences, the League of Nations shall function in an manner identical to that of the World Assembly.

This proposal, if implemented would allow all players in NS to participate in the game they want to play.

Input and constructive criticism is welcomed.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Naivetry » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:41 am

First, the double update works both ways. Raiders have simply failed to organize to take advantage of it.

Second, WA liberations do not inhibit raiding. They limit region destruction griefing, which used to be straight out illegal and could get nations DEATed, back when the raiding/defending game was at its height. There was no permanent conquest in NS, unless you got away with it when the mods weren't looking. And raiders flourished all the same.

Finally, your idea will not work for the same reason that Warzones do not work. Defenders fight only because they wish to defend the helpless, the innocent, the ignorant. Anyone who opted into a "War-World" obviously would not qualify. And no organization will ever base themselves out of a world where they are vulnerable. Gameplay military play is real combat with real (regional) casualties; you don't leave yourself open to attack if you can help it, any more than a real nation today would decide to base themselves on a vulnerable stretch of beach in pirate-infested waters just because being held at gunpoint is oh-so-thrilling. It's not. Like real life, NS gameplay is not just a joke, it's not just a game, it forces you to make real and difficult decisions to ensure the safety and survival of your region - and that's the only reason why we care enough to play.

Now, if your second world simply removed Influence and reinstituted the griefing rules, I'd be all for it - but the chances of that happening are about as good as the chances that NS2 will ever be restarted.

User avatar
Darkesia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 787
Founded: Mar 01, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Darkesia » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:44 am

Naivetry wrote:

Defenders fight only because they wish to defend the helpless, the innocent, the ignorant.


You're kidding here. You must be kidding here. Right? :palm:
Blackbird wrote:Francoism is to fascism as Marxism is to peanut butter.
Greater Moldavi wrote:If I didn't say things like that then I wouldn't be...well me.
Katganistan wrote:I imagine it's the rabid crotch-seeking ninja attack weasels. Very hard to train, so you don't see them in use in many places.

User avatar
Mandalore Boba Fett
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Sep 13, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Mandalore Boba Fett » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:20 am

Darkesia wrote:
Naivetry wrote:

Defenders fight only because they wish to defend the helpless, the innocent, the ignorant.


You're kidding here. You must be kidding here. Right? :palm:


I don't think so. It's just that the number of defenders in NS taking into account his definition is probably less than π.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Naivetry » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:52 am

Darkesia wrote:
Naivetry wrote:

Defenders fight only because they wish to defend the helpless, the innocent, the ignorant.


You're kidding here. You must be kidding here. Right? :palm:

Nope, not kidding.

You and I both know this game is about ideals and ideologies; they're the motivation behind player action. You know the drill... it's like Gatesville exists to defeat the UN WA. ;) I'm not saying defenders are some kind of goody two shoes angelic group, because they're not. But this idea is what gives them a reason to exist, and it's why their behavior towards raiders sometimes leaves much to be desired. If it were only about competing with other military organization, the warzones would have worked, at least from the defender side. But they don't; they fail because there's no one there to defend.

EDIT: Typo.
Last edited by Naivetry on Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Darkesia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 787
Founded: Mar 01, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Darkesia » Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:22 am

...defend the helpless, the innocent, the ignorant? Come on, Nai. No one, not even Biyah or Tres could believe that.

You see, what I find incredible, is that you really seem to believe this.

I once witnessed one of those mentioned above admit that he thought invaders deserved off site forum destruction. I thought he was joking. But I learned afterward he wasn't. This is one example of what I see over and over again in the gameplay world: Defenders take themselves so seriously and speak so self-righteously while behaving in the most unrighteous manner.

Raiders, for the most part just want to have a good time. The result is that they are often younger players with a maturity level to match and very loose or non-existent discipline. But unlike their defender counterparts, they do not preach righteousness while reveling in stomach turning "sin."

I'll take an immature, uncommited, fun loving raider over an self-righteous, slimy defender any day.

(Note: On the personal, RL side- Tresville is one of my favorite people on the planet and Biyah's brain power is :bow: worthy)
Blackbird wrote:Francoism is to fascism as Marxism is to peanut butter.
Greater Moldavi wrote:If I didn't say things like that then I wouldn't be...well me.
Katganistan wrote:I imagine it's the rabid crotch-seeking ninja attack weasels. Very hard to train, so you don't see them in use in many places.

User avatar
Ryno III
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Jul 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Ryno III » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:33 pm

Most defenders I know don't approve of forum destruction so...
Former Sec. of Defense of COFR

User avatar
The Sedge
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Sep 25, 2007
Corporate Bordello

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby The Sedge » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:45 pm

Darkesia wrote:...defend the helpless, the innocent, the ignorant? Come on, Nai. No one, not even Biyah or Tres could believe that.

You see, what I find incredible, is that you really seem to believe this.


Well its why I defend. I find it incredible that you just don't believe it - why do you think that defenders defend - we come into the game, and decide to get involved in the raider/defender dynamic, and then flip a coin to choose sides? Yes, there's some element of fun to defending, but the 'fun' level is no different to that which raiders seem to have. I chose defending because my first region very quickly ended up founderless, and as delegate I worried about my region's security, so joined the FRA for protection. When we re-founded, I decided to try and help others who put in the same situation that I was. Yes, us defenders actually believe we are the good guys - and thats because we are. Defenders help protect regions which otherwise would be taken over, and sometimes destroyed. Explain to me how that isn't good?

I once witnessed one of those mentioned above admit that he thought invaders deserved off site forum destruction. I thought he was joking. But I learned afterward he wasn't. This is one example of what I see over and over again in the gameplay world: Defenders take themselves so seriously and speak so self-righteously while behaving in the most unrighteous manner.


And how would you like it if I tarred all invaders with the same brush, calling them all region-destroying cheats, just because some raiders do that? The vast majority of defenders comdemn forum destruction - you'll be hard pressed to find an active defender who supports it. Forum destruction has no place in defender ideology.

Raiders, for the most part just want to have a good time. The result is that they are often younger players with a maturity level to match and very loose or non-existent discipline. But unlike their defender counterparts, they do not preach righteousness while reveling in stomach turning "sin."


Yes, we all delight in forum destruction. Really :roll:


People often get confused becasue the game mechanics used by defenders and raiders are often similar - they assume there's no real difference. There is, and thats out motives.
Last edited by The Sedge on Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Havensky
Diplomat
 
Posts: 882
Founded: Jan 01, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Havensky » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:23 pm

You also have to remember that some of these regions have been defending since the very beginning of the Invader Wars.

Remember the Farkers? Of course you don't that was years ago. Ancient times as far as NS was concerned.

The Farkers had invaded a neighbor of Texas, and we Texans didn't take too kindly too it. This was before founders and so the only way to rid a region of invaders was by force. The very first invaders did some pretty crappy things to the regions they invaded. It was only natural that the regions that could assist in such times - did. Not for honor, not for glory, not because we enjoyed kicking the crap out of invader scum - but because it was the right thing to do. Friends don't let friends get ramsacked.

If you gathered up all the invaders and put them in their own little world were they would only raid each other, we'd be fine. Have at it.

As for me, I'd enjoy the peace and quiet.
The Skybound Republic of Havensky
(Pronounced Haven-Sky)

Territory held in
Texas - Gholgoth - Sondria

N&I RP Mentor Specializing in PMT, Character Development, Worldbuilding, and Diplomacy - TG me for help!

User avatar
Reploid Productions
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 29201
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Reploid Productions » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm

Changes to the game code such as this belong in Technical. *tosses the thread over to said forum*

(Plus [violet] is more likely to see it here than over in Gameplay.)
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003 -- Nation turned 18 on March 23, 2021!
Sunset's DoGA FAQ - For those using DoGA to make their NS military and such.
One Stop Rules Shop -- Reppy's Sig Workshop -- Getting Help Page
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2024! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
Neasmyrna
Envoy
 
Posts: 259
Founded: Mar 09, 2007
Anarchy

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Neasmyrna » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:09 pm

Wow...

Hypothetical situation:

Get 10-12 people. Do an update attack on a region...

even if it takes you 3 minutes to get everyone in... you'll win...

The person you're attacking can hardly be expecting anything... you win...

simple as that...

Defenders can get more people than that into a region in 45 seconds... and we can still lose...

now... who has the harder job?
Founder of 00000 A World Power

You're welcome to visit our forum at: http://z3.invisionfree.com/A_World_Power

User avatar
Nord Osterland
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Jun 01, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Nord Osterland » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:46 pm

I remember the Farkers, and yes, there was some issues with that wave of invading. The issue with setting raiders in their own little world is two fold. Firstly, how do you eliminate the mechanics that permit raiding in the first place? You can't without fundamentally changing the workings of the WA. Secondly, I doubt raiders will use War-World, take a look at the Warzones, completely ignored by all major raiding orgs and defenders.

Yes, some defenders take things too far. Yes, some raiders grief. Not every raider or defender is a terrible person that wants to stop you from playing the way you want to play.

As to who has the harder job, that is a tricky question. I don't doubt that monitoring regions, and exhibiting high levels of coordination is taxing. I know defenders lose, even after they've executed well. I think its safe to say, both raiding and defending have their challenges.
I do things.

User avatar
Floating Tire
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jan 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Floating Tire » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:55 pm

Has anybody here ever watched Babylon 5? I ask this because I think the main conflict in that series reflects the defender/raider conflict pretty well.

Naivetry wrote: Like real life, NS gameplay is not just a joke, it's not just a game, it forces you to make real and difficult decisions to ensure the safety and survival of your region - and that's the only reason why we care enough to play.


In real life conflict between nations can have real consequences. What ever happened to the Aztec Empire? Is Naples still an independent country? Is there even a place called Prussia anymore? Ensuring safety and survival? The way the game is now set up, even the smallest and most apathetic regions are guaranteed survival thanks to WA liberation and other measures taken to quell imperialism by raider orgs. The only way a region can really die in NS is if everybody gets bored and quits NS. How is that remotely realistic?

Nord Osterland wrote:I remember the Farkers, and yes, there was some issues with that wave of invading. The issue with setting raiders in their own little world is two fold. Firstly, how do you eliminate the mechanics that permit raiding in the first place? You can't without fundamentally changing the workings of the WA. Secondly, I doubt raiders will use War-World, take a look at the Warzones, completely ignored by all major raiding orgs and defenders.


I wasn't around back in the days before founders, but frankly from what I have read of it, it sounds like it was a more interesting time in NS history than our present era. As for banning raiding, well you couldn't really, because as long the game functions with regional delegates, region crashing will always be a possibility. But the thing is, the game has already made it virtually impossible for raiders to occupy a region long term(despite the fact that when regional influence was first introduced, it was advertised a making such imperialism possible). I'm sure creative minds could come up with further ways to hinder raiders through the WA and other game mechanics.

I would also advise all of you not to prejudice your view of my war-world concept based upon the war zones. The war zones were just a handful of regions. I am talking about an entirely separate world with both feeders and user created regions. There will be far more opportunities to actually build communities, and far more to fight over in War-World than there ever was in the war zones. Imagine if you were a some teenage guy who just came to Nationstates for the first time in their life and has just created their first nation. They are filling out the various questions, and they are asked which world do they want to go to? How many do you think will not choose War-World? Would already established raider and defender organizations migrate over to War-World? I think given the direction the game has taken, raiders will welcome an opportunity to raid without the meddling of the WA. Will defenders follow? Yes, because without raiders they have nothing to do. I would also expect War-World to not just attract traditional raiders and defenders, but various ideologues who wish to fight it out (Communist, Right Wingers, etc.), not to mention people who would prefer the weaker League of Nations to the WA. And really, in the end I expect War-World would attract people because it would simply offer a much more interesting and dynamic game play environment than NS currently offers.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Naivetry » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:46 pm

Darkesia wrote:...defend the helpless, the innocent, the ignorant? Come on, Nai. No one, not even Biyah or Tres could believe that.

You see, what I find incredible, is that you really seem to believe this.

I believe that's why defenders fight, because I know how people work. People need something to believe in to motivate them to act. Gatesville didn't grow to be as big as it did because people just liked the name, or even because they had fantastic recruiters (which they did), but because Gatesville had a cause.

When you get into power politics, it becomes less about what the cause is and more about how appealing people find it - how well it serves as a motivator. Defenders are still around because that rallying cry of defending the helpless pulls in a lot of people and motivates them to invest a lot of time on what is otherwise a rather silly text-based game - and from the pragmatic, political point of view, that's all that matters. If you want to take the cynical view, it doesn't even matter if the leadership believes in that cause or not - so long as their followers believe in it enough to do as they're told.

I think Biyah and Tres would agree with me on this. It's simply a fact of politics. As a politician, you may feel better about yourself if your own beliefs and sympathies actually match with your rhetoric - but that depends on how much you're concerned with personal integrity as opposed to the pure exercise of power. I'm sure there are leaders out there who have lost their faith in the ideals they espouse, but who have convinced or allowed themselves to continue believing in them, simply to avoid the unpleasant realization that they're also (mainly?) in it for the power - cognitive dissonance is to be avoided even at the price of self-deception. And on the other hand, there are leaders who unabashedly admit - at least in private or among people whom they trust - that all their nice-sounding ideals are so much hogwash, but that people need to hear it in order for the political edifice they've built up to survive.

So when I say defenders fight to protect the helpless, that is what I mean. That is the paradigm by which the whole structure of defending is maintained. Its truth or falsity in the minds of its leaders is irrelevant for practical purposes - all that matters is that it gives at least some people a raison d'etre.

In a way, then, the collapse of the ADN and the exodus of so many of the political players has been good for the integrity of the defender world. I think on the whole, now that so many of the power players have gone, the leaders who are left do, by and large, believe the things they say. I've noticed the astonishing political naivete that occasionally accompanies this idealism, and I believe there is no other explanation for it than that, no matter how imperfectly their idealism is translated into action, it is truly sincere.

Floating Tire wrote:The way the game is now set up, even the smallest and most apathetic regions are guaranteed survival thanks to WA liberation and other measures taken to quell imperialism by raider orgs.

Nonsense. It takes an incredible amount of dedication just to keep a region afloat. When I talk about existence and survival, I don't mean the on-site existence of little regions of RL friends who chat on the RMB or who drift into a region because they like the name; I mean the whole offsite forum-based political world built on that shaky foundation, invisible to people who aren't in Gameplay, which has steadily crumbled in the face of ever diminishing returns on recruitment, the impossibility of the learning curve, and the resulting sheer lack of manpower.

Floating Tire wrote:Will defenders follow? Yes, because without raiders they have nothing to do.

That's where you're wrong. The military game will simply and quietly die.

User avatar
Floating Tire
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jan 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Floating Tire » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:30 am

Naivetry wrote:
Floating Tire wrote:The way the game is now set up, even the smallest and most apathetic regions are guaranteed survival thanks to WA liberation and other measures taken to quell imperialism by raider orgs.

Nonsense. It takes an incredible amount of dedication just to keep a region afloat. When I talk about existence and survival, I don't mean the on-site existence of little regions of RL friends who chat on the RMB or who drift into a region because they like the name; I mean the whole offsite forum-based political world built on that shaky foundation, invisible to people who aren't in Gameplay, which has steadily crumbled in the face of ever diminishing returns on recruitment, the impossibility of the learning curve, and the resulting sheer lack of manpower.


Declining Recruitment? People leaving the game? Difficulty getting newer players interested in what you think the game should be? Maybe because NS as a game currently sucks? Maybe it needs to change if it is to expand and evolve as opposed to shrink and stagnate?

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Naivetry » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:38 am

Floating Tire wrote:Declining Recruitment? People leaving the game? Difficulty getting newer players interested in what you think the game should be? Maybe because NS as a game currently sucks? Maybe it needs to change if it is to expand and evolve as opposed to shrink and stagnate?

Yes, which is what the big list at the top of this forum, the recent creation of the Security Council, and several other ideas currently being discussed are all about. What NS doesn't need is to split into two "separate" worlds - which I put in quotes because it makes no sense from the perspective of players who organize off-site - based on a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the raider-defender conflict.

Sorry if I sound like I'm dismissing this out of hand; it's just that I have argued this point repeatedly with a succession of intelligent and well-intentioned individuals who, not having experienced it themselves, simply miss the fundamental psychological realities on which this side of the game is based.

User avatar
Floating Tire
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jan 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Floating Tire » Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:19 am

War-World is not necessarily my ideal solution, but I don't have much optimism on the game mechanics getting any better as far raiding and defending go. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I don't think anything that would actually increase the level of threat to regions (lets say getting rid of founder powers) will get implemented and if it did it would just get neutered somehow. This is what happened to regional influence. It promised to open up new avenues by getting rid of the ridiculous griefing rules and allowing for a new dynamic where actual conquest was possible if the invader delegate could amass enough influence. Ah, but some people got sad over France and Chicago as raiders actually lived up to their potential and so the game was changed again to undue the new game play possibilities that regional influence opened up. This is why I believe NS is doomed to stagnate. You can add all the new gew gaws you want, but without a strong military component to this game, it won't matter.
Last edited by Floating Tire on Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Disposablepuppetland
Envoy
 
Posts: 247
Founded: Dec 15, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Disposablepuppetland » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:56 am

I agree, the only way keep the game interesting as a game is to ensure new things keep happening.

Raiding is a necessary part of the game, but it has much less influence now than it used to. A few years ago almost every region maintained a defence/intelligence force, and the Minister of Defence was an important role. Nowadays, if you've got an active founder defence is irrelevant.

I would strip the founders of some of their power. Remove everything other than their ability to password/unpassword the region. That way a region is still protected from permanent destruction, but if they get raided, they have to work to be liberated.
Likewise, raiders will have to work to maintain control of a region, they can't just shut it down.

User avatar
Zombielandes
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Aug 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Zombielandes » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:33 pm

No that is terrible because if the founder is active and is involved with his region such as being the King/Tsar/President/Prime Minister or whatever then he deserves those ultimate rights.

User avatar
Neasmyrna
Envoy
 
Posts: 259
Founded: Mar 09, 2007
Anarchy

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Neasmyrna » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:56 pm

Disposablepuppetland wrote:I agree, the only way keep the game interesting as a game is to ensure new things keep happening.

Raiding is a necessary part of the game, but it has much less influence now than it used to. A few years ago almost every region maintained a defence/intelligence force, and the Minister of Defence was an important role. Nowadays, if you've got an active founder defence is irrelevant.

I would strip the founders of some of their power. Remove everything other than their ability to password/unpassword the region. That way a region is still protected from permanent destruction, but if they get raided, they have to work to be liberated.
Likewise, raiders will have to work to maintain control of a region, they can't just shut it down.


As a founder... I have mixed feelings on this... I think that if you invest so much time into something... you should know its safe... and can't end in a twinkling of an eye... but again... that's part of life...

I think the whole game would benefit from having fewer regions(which would happen over time without founders I think) ... It would also make starting a region very difficult...

but it would make the game a whole lot more competitive... which would be good... but you would also alienate a lot of people...

I have no solution to this really... both ways are cool...

I think removing founders would be epic... but not necessarily good... or something like that :P
Founder of 00000 A World Power

You're welcome to visit our forum at: http://z3.invisionfree.com/A_World_Power

User avatar
Disposablepuppetland
Envoy
 
Posts: 247
Founded: Dec 15, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Disposablepuppetland » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:31 am

Neasmyrna wrote:As a founder... I have mixed feelings on this... I think that if you invest so much time into something... you should know its safe... and can't end in a twinkling of an eye... but again... that's part of life...

A founder doesn't have to worry about loosing the region completely, because raiders won't be able to lock it.

If nothing is changed then it seems likely every region will just fade away as more people leave.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20885
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:49 am

Disposablepuppetland wrote:Raiding is a necessary part of the game,

Only to raiders, and to those defenders who defend more because they enjoy the conflict than because they believe raiding is an abuse of the system that should be stopped. The rest of us (which one actual raider estimated, in a thread earlier this year about changes in the game, to be about 90% of the players) could and would get along with our other aspects of the game perfectly well if there was no raiding at all... and I strongly suspect that most players who aren't raiders/defenders would prefer it if there was no raiding at all.
I've seen plenty of posts by raiders calling for raiding to be made easier; I've seen some posts by defenders calling for raiding to be made harder, and others calling for both defending and raiding to be made easier; I've seen plenty of posts by players who aren't involved in that side of the game asking for raiding to be made harder...
What I have not seen is any posts at all by players from outside of raider or defender circles asking for raiding to be made easier...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Disposablepuppetland
Envoy
 
Posts: 247
Founded: Dec 15, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Disposablepuppetland » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:39 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Disposablepuppetland wrote:Raiding is a necessary part of the game,

Only to raiders, and to those defenders who defend more because they enjoy the conflict than because they believe raiding is an abuse of the system that should be stopped. The rest of us (which one actual raider estimated, in a thread earlier this year about changes in the game, to be about 90% of the players) could and would get along with our other aspects of the game perfectly well if there was no raiding at all... and I strongly suspect that most players who aren't raiders/defenders would prefer it if there was no raiding at all.
I've seen plenty of posts by raiders calling for raiding to be made easier; I've seen some posts by defenders calling for raiding to be made harder, and others calling for both defending and raiding to be made easier; I've seen plenty of posts by players who aren't involved in that side of the game asking for raiding to be made harder...
What I have not seen is any posts at all by players from outside of raider or defender circles asking for raiding to be made easier...

You have, because I am not a raider or a defender.

I do however, recognise the importance of raiding/defending in drawing more people into the game, and keeping people playing. It also plays a part maintaining activity in regular established regions. They have to be active and vigilant or they get raided, and if they do get raided that spurs them back into activity, or they die off, and the remaining players move to active regions.

User avatar
Evil Wolf
Minister
 
Posts: 2328
Founded: Apr 28, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Evil Wolf » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:00 pm

Neasmyrna wrote:Wow...

Hypothetical situation:

Get 10-12 people. Do an update attack on a region...

even if it takes you 3 minutes to get everyone in... you'll win...

The person you're attacking can hardly be expecting anything... you win...

simple as that...

Defenders can get more people than that into a region in 45 seconds... and we can still lose...

now... who has the harder job?


Oh great, now you got me started on this topic. Breathe, Wolf, breathe.

Ok, yes, some aspects of your side *is* in fact harder. But the situation you described just about never happens. I have never committed, in my entire 4 year NS raider career which includes planning, organizing and participating hundreds of raids, that many troopers to one target unless we're talking the native delegate having 9 endorsements and we're going in on a all out update raid.

But that little aspect is missing from your assessment Neas, the native delegate. Let me play out that spotted raid when you include a native delegate with 9 endorsements, and I have only 11 troopers, which I maybe have on a really good night with prior notice.

-We do an update attack, maybe within 3 minutes if we know the update time, if not we're basically doing a blind stab.
-At this point the endorsement count is 10-9 in favor of the Invaders
-Defenders see the attack, commit one trooper. The count is now 10-10.
-11 raiders are now screaming "OH HELL! OH HELL!" in unison, scrambling to find backup in the 2 minutes we have left to react.
-Update happens, Invaders lose. Why? Because tie goes not to the invaders, but to the longest sitting resident in the region (the natives)
-We're in full retreat, Defenders are victorious, blah, blah, blah.

And they say one man can't make a difference. Well they LIE! :palm:
It's ok! You can trust me! I've been Commended!

Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.

Mallorea and Riva should be a Game Moderator Game Administrator.

User avatar
Neasmyrna
Envoy
 
Posts: 259
Founded: Mar 09, 2007
Anarchy

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Neasmyrna » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:28 pm

Sorry... I can't resist!

But I will try and make this my last post (kind of) on the whole invader defender thing here.

-We do an update attack, maybe within 3 minutes if we know the update time, if not we're basically doing a blind stab.

You can find out the update time the night before or earlier to the second (not hard at all)...

-At this point the endorsement count is 10-9 in favor of the Invaders

ok
-Defenders see the attack, commit one trooper. The count is now 10-10.

ok
-11 raiders are now screaming "OH HELL! OH HELL!" in unison, scrambling to find backup in the 2 minutes we have left to react.

ok
-Update happens, Invaders lose. Why? Because tie goes not to the invaders, but to the longest sitting resident in the region (the natives)

Wrong... the delegacy goes to the nation who had the most endorsements first.

if you get 11... and then we get 11... you win...

Anyway... there is no point in arguing this further. There are far more invader groups... and invader should win every time hands down... we only win when you make a mistake.
Founder of 00000 A World Power

You're welcome to visit our forum at: http://z3.invisionfree.com/A_World_Power

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jacques Foundation

Advertisement

Remove ads