NATION

PASSWORD

A Modest Proposal

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

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

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Zombielandes » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:02 pm

Neasmyrna wrote: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.


Actually YOU are Wrong, I read the new FAQ and it clearly states the longest standing resident recieves the delegacy.

User avatar
Spartzerina
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: May 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Spartzerina » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:22 pm

Zombielandes wrote:
Neasmyrna wrote: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.


Actually YOU are Wrong, I read the new FAQ and it clearly states the longest standing resident recieves the delegacy.

Wrong again. Read the new FAQ:
The New Tech [and Mod] Forum FAQ wrote:What happens when there is a tie for the WA delegate position?
Depending on the situation, the game uses one of two processes to determine who the new WA delegate will be.
1) If the current WA delegate is one of the people involved in the tie, then they retain delegateship. You have to beat the current delegate to become delegate of a region.
2) If the current WA delegate is not involved in the tie (or there is no current delegate) then whichever nation has been in the region longest will win the tie.

As it clearly states, if the current WA delegate is in the tie, it always wins. If the current WA delegate is not involved in the tie, only then does the longest standing resident that is in the tie becomes delegate.
The Council of Narnia - Our Forums
CoN Vice Chancellor
FRA Vice Chancellor
A male of the species Homo sapiens

User avatar
Pythagosaurus
Cute Purple Dinosaur
 
Posts: 549
Founded: Nov 24, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Pythagosaurus » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:25 pm

The official FAQ says nothing of the sort. Any other FAQ is maintained by people who don't have access to the code and are thus only guessing.

A tie goes to the current delegate. If the delegate is not involved in the tie, then it's... complicated. Suffice it to say that the criterion is non-obvious, and I'm going to change it now to something more deterministic.
Last edited by Pythagosaurus on Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Unibot » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:34 pm

Pyth wrote: I'm going to change it now to something more deterministic


Maybe something involving regional influence levels?

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

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Havensky » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:11 pm

Pythagosaurus wrote:The official FAQ says nothing of the sort. Any other FAQ is maintained by people who don't have access to the code and are thus only guessing.

A tie goes to the current delegate. If the delegate is not involved in the tie, then it's... complicated. Suffice it to say that the criterion is non-obvious, and I'm going to change it now to something more deterministic.


Is it going to be published or something the Skyan Intelligence Service is going to have to figure out?
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
Pythagosaurus
Cute Purple Dinosaur
 
Posts: 549
Founded: Nov 24, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Pythagosaurus » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:18 pm

I prefer not to publish such things, as then it can have bugs without people blaming me.

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

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Neasmyrna » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:22 pm

Aye ^ :bow:

And yes... after I posted I thought about it a lil more... and then remembered that cases change depending on whether there is a delegate or not and stuff... my bad EW :P
Founder of 00000 A World Power

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

User avatar
Evil Wolf
Minister
 
Posts: 2271
Founded: Apr 28, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Evil Wolf » Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:00 pm

Pythagosaurus wrote:I prefer not to publish such things, as then it can have bugs without people blaming me.


Too late Pyth, I was already planning on blaming everything that goes wrong with the game on you anyway. :p
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
Pythagosaurus
Cute Purple Dinosaur
 
Posts: 549
Founded: Nov 24, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Pythagosaurus » Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:50 pm

That's pretty reasonable anyway, but this way you won't know it's wrong.

User avatar
Kandarin
Diplomat
 
Posts: 869
Founded: Antiquity
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Kandarin » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:11 am

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


Are you referring to this? Personally, I found that the result saying that about a third of the active playerbase was interested in raiding/defending a lot more telling than the one that said that only 10% thought it was the most important aspect.

There's a lot more interest in raiding/defending than those well outside of it realize. That said, there's a lot more outside of it than those inside of it realize, and nobody, it seems, makes up a majority of the game. That doesn't mean it ought to be considered the domain of a tiny minority, because it isn't.

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.


We all know that the defender community has lots of people who don't believe it. There are plenty of defenders and organizations that are in it for purely cynical reasons, and both the invader and defender communities have a rather hefty population of people who hopped over to give the other side a try. Despite this, there are indeed plenty of people who really believe in defender ideology. For everyone who says defender things with tongue lodged firmly in cheek, there's at least someone who genuinely believes that they're doing a good turn. And y'know, a lot of the time they are.

Indeed, the defender community wouldn't exist without them. All defenders - even the ones with 'defender' scrawled over their passkeys to the Old Raiding Club's rum cellar - need the fact that there are true believers to give their cause purpose. Without that ideology and those that stand by it, defenders could not recruit, could not organize, and could not run. Invaders are not much different in the respect of need for ideology; invaders are by no means a rigidly structured group and a lot of different sorts are doing it for a lot of different reasons. Most invaders really aren't fiery old-school raiders who preach about "fenda hegemony", raider unity and the sanctity of a geomorphic gamemap, but the raider community would be a lot less significant if those people didn't exist.

(Note to TORC members: Change the lock on the rum cellar already.)
Last edited by Kandarin on Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.

User avatar
Leporida
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Aug 19, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Leporida » Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:44 am

Well, I'm not a raider nor a defender, but, if I had to choose, I'd go for the defender side, just because of ideology... Should we make a poll?
Redarding the main topic, the way I see it, if there was a War-World and a Peace-World, players who want to do their game without being invaded would be on the Peace side, whereas raiders (and defenders, perhaps) would move to the War-World. Now: who would the raiders raid and who would defenders defend, since "raidable" regions would be on the Peace-World?
As far as liberation resolutions are concerned, I tend to see them as the real UN missions for peace maintenance and, in this respect, I do not really have a problem with them.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:30 pm

Kandarin wrote:Are you referring to this? Personally, I found that the result saying that about a third of the active playerbase was interested in raiding/defending a lot more telling than the one that said that only 10% thought it was the most important aspect.


The flaw with that is bolded. Most of the playerbase aren't 'active' in that sense -- they aren't involved in one of the bigger regions, or in the forums, or in raiding/defending. They're groups of people who've drifted together for some reason into a small region, post to each other occasionally on the RMB, and answer some issues. Of course, those are also the groups most likely to be targeted for invasion -- they're small, probably weak, likely to not be particularly active.

I suspect that if you could get all of those people as well, the percentage of the game who had a broadly negative opinion of raiding and region destruction would go up rather a lot.
Fnord.

User avatar
Evil Wolf
Minister
 
Posts: 2271
Founded: Apr 28, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Evil Wolf » Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:40 pm

Well I suppose you could try to poll the inactive player base, it would just take a really, really long time :P

I for one don't like this idea, it reminds me too much of warzones. Besides, we already have a version of this "War-World and Peace-World" idea in play, its called founderless vs. founder regions. If you don't want to get raided, be in a region with a founder. If your nation is in a founderless region, you have to accept the fact that, on some level, you are partaking in the raider/defender game.
Last edited by Evil Wolf on Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
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.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Khronion, Sandaoguo

Advertisement

Remove ads