NationStates

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:28 pm**

Cora II wrote:Let's see how this all will evolve. We shouldn't ever forget that alive and active founders can still override all horror scenarios here.

The issue is how this will affect the R/D game. It will have a disproportionately adverse effect on defenders, but [violet] has basically answered "meh" to that complaint. I guess the days of site administration ruling out changes that will have a disproportionately negative effect on one segment of the game have now ended.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:31 pm**

Sovreignry wrote:So you know that this is going to be horrible for defenders, and your response is "Lol, idc"? Really?

No, not all. Areas of the feature where there wasn't a consensus on what will happen or what should be done about it, I support launching now and adding brakes later if they turn out to be necessary.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:36 pm**

[violet] wrote:
Sovreignry wrote:So you know that this is going to be horrible for defenders, and your response is "Lol, idc"? Really?

No, not all. Areas of the feature where there wasn't a consensus on what will happen or what should be done about it, I support launching now and adding brakes later if they turn out to be necessary.

Personally, I think (whenever/if we tweak the system) as echoed earlier in the thread, RO's should be able to be dismissed immediately, but appointed by the delegate only after the delegate has been in the seat for X updates - then the restrictions disappear.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:36 pm**

Alustrian wrote:How much time? 10 failed liberations with 30 WAs each? 20 with 20 WAs? 5 with 40? I ask because getting players together for a mission that is guaranteed to fail is only going to be possible if all involved know that they are checking some box. "Hey all, I know that we are going to lose this lib, but we only need to lose 5 more before we see some movement in Tech!"

Yeah, exactly. I want to let you guys know that we've discussed all this and are prepared to move if necessary, but I absolutely don't want to create an expectation that if people lay down arms that admin will sweep in to the rescue. So all I can really say is that we'll be observing and taking feedback.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:37 pm**

[violet] wrote:No, not all. Areas of the feature where there wasn't a consensus on what will happen or what should be done about it, I support launching now and adding brakes later if they turn out to be necessary.

But you've also said that the first instance of using Regional Officers to beat down a liberation with multiple raiders ejecting and banning defenders won't be enough to demonstrate that it's "necessary." So what will qualify as "necessary"? To be honest, your lack of action over the course of years has already decimated the defender side of R/D and I haven't spoken to a single defender tonight who wants to continue defending after you announced this change. Not a single one. This feature hasn't even been abused yet and just the announcement has demoralized the few remaining defenders to the point of giving up.

Have you considered that by the time you decide the inevitable is "necessary" there won't be any defenders left? There are very few already. So much for fixing R/D.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:39 pm**

I feel like yelling at admin and saying "you'll never actually make any of these changes" before the situation is even implemented isn't exactly the best way to make those changes happen...

Hell, even I can agree that this seems like it will disproportionately benefit raider - but I also can't even begin to claim that I know for sure what will happen. Maybe natives or defender will find some way I haven't thought of before to use these features to stop us? Maybe this will make things too easy and we'll get bored and leave? Maybe increased frequency of devastating raids will lead to a larger anti-raider movement and create forces large and active enough to either counter jumps or make libs so massive that even six of us can't stop it? I can respect wanting to wait a bit and see how it goes. After all, you've been complaining for years how things are already overwhelmingly in the favor of raiders - surely this isn't that much worse, and if it is, then surely admin will step in and change the code?

I mean, if there was this much instant outrage over raids, the scales would have turned the other way months ago....

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:40 pm**

[violet] wrote:
Sovreignry wrote:So you know that this is going to be horrible for defenders, and your response is "Lol, idc"? Really?

No, not all. Areas of the feature where there wasn't a consensus on what will happen or what should be done about it, I support launching now and adding brakes later if they turn out to be necessary.

If this is the attitude you are taking now then please implement update time windows. We can start the window at 90 minutes and reduce it if necessary

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:42 pm**

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I feel like yelling at admin and saying "you'll never actually make any of these changes" before the situation is even implemented isn't exactly the best way to make those changes happen...

Hell, even I can agree that this seems like it will disproportionately benefit raider - but I also can't even begin to claim that I know for sure what will happen. Maybe natives or defender will find some way I haven't thought of before to use these features to stop us? Maybe this will make things too easy and we'll get bored and leave? Maybe increased frequency of devastating raids will lead to a larger anti-raider movement and create forces large and active enough to either counter jumps or make libs so massive that even six of us can't stop it? I can respect wanting to wait a bit and see how it goes. After all, you've been complaining for years how things are already overwhelmingly in the favor of raiders - surely this isn't that much worse, and if it is, then surely admin will step in and change the code?

I mean, if there was this much instant outrage over raids, the scales would have turned the other way months ago....

Where are we going to pull those numbers out of our ass? Unibot's not recruiting anymore.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:43 pm**

Sovreignry wrote:Where are we going to pull those numbers out of our ass? Unibot's not recruiting anymore.

Several hundred nations showed up to shit on TBR. Obviously the angry masses are out there. I see recruiting and training them as your issue, not as admin's.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:44 pm**

[violet] wrote:Yeah, exactly. I want to let you guys know that we've discussed all this and are prepared to move if necessary, but I absolutely don't want to create an expectation that if people lay down arms that admin will sweep in to the rescue.

You'll blink first.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:45 pm**

Will none WA nations be able to have these positions?

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:45 pm**

[violet] wrote:
Alustrian wrote:How much time? 10 failed liberations with 30 WAs each? 20 with 20 WAs? 5 with 40? I ask because getting players together for a mission that is guaranteed to fail is only going to be possible if all involved know that they are checking some box. "Hey all, I know that we are going to lose this lib, but we only need to lose 5 more before we see some movement in Tech!"

Yeah, exactly. I want to let you guys know that we've discussed all this and are prepared to move if necessary, but I absolutely don't want to create an expectation that if people lay down arms that admin will sweep in to the rescue. So all I can really say is that we'll be observing and taking feedback.

We may have had a miscommunication. I understand you want us to try with the new rules. Sure, we can try. I am asking how many tries, ballpark? No way I can sell a year of missions that I know will fail.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:46 pm**

Alustrian wrote:
[violet] wrote:Yeah, exactly. I want to let you guys know that we've discussed all this and are prepared to move if necessary, but I absolutely don't want to create an expectation that if people lay down arms that admin will sweep in to the rescue. So all I can really say is that we'll be observing and taking feedback.

We may have had a miscommunication. I understand you want us to try with the new rules. Sure, we can try. I am asking how many tries, ballpark? No way I can sell a year of missions that I know will fail.

Aren't missions with a clear intent to fail biased research data for Admin?

I mean, if they give you a "target" to hit, all they'll get is proof you can fail and hit a target number of failures.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:47 pm**

Bitely wrote:Will none WA nations be able to have these positions?

[violet] wrote:
Amerika I wrote:do you have to be a WA member to be a regional officer?

No.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:48 pm**

So we're going to be forced to spend countless updates throwing our bodies at raider Delegates and Officers with absolutely no chance of success just to prove that the system is broken? Unbelievable.

I don't think you understand that you aren't making things harder for liberators, you're making them impossible, pointless. What's the point of us even bothering? Why should we spend our time proving just how broken this is?

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:48 pm**

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I feel like yelling at admin and saying "you'll never actually make any of these changes" before the situation is even implemented isn't exactly the best way to make those changes happen...

Hell, even I can agree that this seems like it will disproportionately benefit raider - but I also can't even begin to claim that I know for sure what will happen. Maybe natives or defender will find some way I haven't thought of before to use these features to stop us? Maybe this will make things too easy and we'll get bored and leave? Maybe increased frequency of devastating raids will lead to a larger anti-raider movement and create forces large and active enough to either counter jumps or make libs so massive that even six of us can't stop it? I can respect wanting to wait a bit and see how it goes. After all, you've been complaining for years how things are already overwhelmingly in the favor of raiders - surely this isn't that much worse, and if it is, then surely admin will step in and change the code?

I mean, if there was this much instant outrage over raids, the scales would have turned the other way months ago....

It's because a large number of the regions raiders like you raid are targeting are small founderless regions, with no or very weak regional governments, and thus they have neither the connections and inter-regional influence nor the strength in both numbers of WA members and the organization, to do much about their situation. In fact a large segment of natives in regions that you raid seem to accept what ever raider group is in charge, as long as said raiders do not expel them. Thus the reason for the lack of outrage.

It also seems to me at least that the majority of raider organizations seem to lack both the initiative and the boldness to carry out or organize large numbers of raids on large to mid sized regions, or these things could be attributed to the fall of TBR.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:48 pm**

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
Alustrian wrote:We may have had a miscommunication. I understand you want us to try with the new rules. Sure, we can try. I am asking how many tries, ballpark? No way I can sell a year of missions that I know will fail.

Aren't missions with a clear intent to fail biased research data for Admin?

I mean, if they give you a "target" to hit, all they'll get is proof you can fail and hit a target number of failures.

I do not intend for them to fail. But my intention does not matter. I /know/ that they will fail.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:50 pm**

Alustrian wrote:
Bitely wrote:Will none WA nations be able to have these positions?

[violet] wrote:
No.

Does that include executive officers?

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:51 pm**

Bitely wrote:
Alustrian wrote:

Does that include executive officers?

Executive is granted automatically to Founder and Delegate and can't be granted to anyone else or revoked from them. (OP, point two)

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:51 pm**

Karputsk wrote:So we're going to be forced to spend countless updates throwing our bodies at raider Delegates and Officers with absolutely no chance of success just to prove that the system is broken? Unbelievable.

I don't think you understand that you aren't making things harder for liberators, you're making them impossible, pointless. What's the point of us even bothering? Why should we spend our time proving just how broken this is?

Then why not change tactics? It's been complained for years that libs are rarely effective, and have only become less so. Instead of bashing the head against the wall, why not change tactics? Infiltrate raider region, become an RO on a raid, eject a bunch of low-influence raider support right before update to make a lib possible, especially if some of the pilers infiltrated too. I mean, if you come in with an LKE flag and and give me some family name off the forums like half of their pilers, rather than a nation name, odds are you'll just be accepted. Hell, half of pilers don't TG or fly a flag, or just say they got the regionwide tg in TBH or something. Sure, those infiltrators would be burnt out, but that'd also be a huge hit to a raider group.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:52 pm**

Bitely wrote:Will none WA nations be able to have these positions?

I think Violet has already answered that question, or at least it is implied that WA members will be able to serve in the capacities described.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:55 pm**

Whining about changes taking too long to occur and the changes themselves after they've occurred isn't going to help with anything. As [violet] mentioned earlier, admin's not planning on flying in to the rescue if people stop making any effort whatsoever with the "why should I try when I know it's gonna fail" talk.

May I suggest working hard to train and recruit new defenders? These methods, believe it or not, actually work better.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:55 pm**

Saxe-Wittenburg wrote:It's because a large number of the regions raiders like you raid are targeting are small founderless regions, with no or very weak regional governments, and thus they have neither the connections and inter-regional influence nor the strength in both numbers of WA members and the organization, to do much about their situation. In fact a large segment of natives in regions that you raid seem to accept what ever raider group is in charge, as long as said raiders do not expel them. Thus the reason for the lack of outrage.

It also seems to me at least that the majority of raider organizations seem to lack both the initiative and the boldness to carry out or organize large numbers of raids on large to mid sized regions, or these things could be attributed to the fall of TBR.

1. I don't tag. Sorry to dissappoint. And actually, the majority of those in TBR were people pissed off at the tagging, not large operations.

2. That's bullshit. I've only seen one region accept our rule on a large level, ever. Equestria, bless it's heart.

3. Raids on larger regions are often much more time-consuming to make happen, and therefore worth more than a tag, and done in smaller numbers but for longer and more devastating periods. TBR has nothing to do with that.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:56 pm**

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I feel like yelling at admin and saying "you'll never actually make any of these changes" before the situation is even implemented isn't exactly the best way to make those changes happen...

You have to keep in mind that defenders have waited three years to see any change to the R/D game and now this one, that disproportionately benefits raiders to the point of making liberations impossible, is the first one rolled out. The skepticism that site administration will make changes when it's clear they'll be needed, in any kind of timely manner, is warranted. It's already clear they'll be needed.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Hell, even I can agree that this seems like it will disproportionately benefit raider - but I also can't even begin to claim that I know for sure what will happen. Maybe natives or defender will find some way I haven't thought of before to use these features to stop us? Maybe this will make things too easy and we'll get bored and leave? Maybe increased frequency of devastating raids will lead to a larger anti-raider movement and create forces large and active enough to either counter jumps or make libs so massive that even six of us can't stop it? I can respect wanting to wait a bit and see how it goes. After all, you've been complaining for years how things are already overwhelmingly in the favor of raiders - surely this isn't that much worse, and if it is, then surely admin will step in and change the code?

I mean, if there was this much instant outrage over raids, the scales would have turned the other way months ago....

Did you really just make the argument that since R/D is already almost completely tilted toward your side, this can't be much worse? This is much worse precisely for that reason. It's already extremely difficult to defend, virtually impossible to liberate. Now it will still be extremely difficult to defend and completely impossible to liberate. Why keep doing it? What's the incentive? What makes it fun for defenders at that point? Those are the questions site administration should be asking, but instead [violet] wants defenders to try to liberate raids a few times knowing they'll lose because they'll be helpful test subjects. Defenders aren't volunteer punching bags and guinea pigs for both raiders and site administration, they're players of this game who deserve some damn respect and consideration and currently are getting none.

I personally will neither raid nor defend until [violet] makes changes to Regional Officers that will curb abuse by raiders and restore, at a minimum, some semblance of balance. No defender should defend until she does that. No raider worth their salt should raid until she does that. Making radical changes to the game that the people affected by it absolutely hate needs to stop, and site administration needs to start recognizing that game changes should serve the players of this game, not the other way around. This game is utter crap at this point and it's almost entirely because of site administration's negligence and careless disregard for players' experiences.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:56 pm**

Guy wrote:
[violet] wrote:Yeah, exactly. I want to let you guys know that we've discussed all this and are prepared to move if necessary, but I absolutely don't want to create an expectation that if people lay down arms that admin will sweep in to the rescue.

You'll blink first.

Heh, that's what Ballotonia said, way back. Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.

Anyway, what I'd say is that if you're right about the problems this creates, then please trust us to see that. We all want the same end result, which you can help achieve just by playing it out and giving useful feedback. It would actually be harder to make changes if we couldn't tell which problems were real and which were deliberately engineered.