NationStates

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:24 am**

Coraspia wrote:*Snip* Friends... sky... founder -'snip*

Solution 2. Or if this founder friend is going to a sky, he surely can telegram a password to one of these friends before disappearing to the sky, as in such circumstances sharing access to founder account wouldn't risk anything, but only if this sky-going-founder-friend doesn't decide later descent back among his earthly friends, which happens rather often btw., and doesn't have record breaking criminal register in the arts of trolling, spamming, flaming, baiting, gloating, mods as weapons, and other higher level mal-deeds...

Note, that sharing accounts is still strongly dis-encouraged by Admins and moderators.

Then, generally, ability to be online during updates is pretty much an issue which determines outcomes of various R/D happenings, with founders, delegates, and ROs.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:20 am**

I believe all these wouldn't be a problem if we got rid of Border Control from ROs. Leave Border Control to the Delegates and Founders instead.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:27 am**

Honestly I fail to see whats actually wrong with tipping the balance in the favor of natives and away from R/D in general. Natives have essentially been, with a few welcome exceptions, NPCs in military gameplay for the past 12 years. Once theyre raided they have never actually had any chance to fight back and they then rely entirely on someone outside to do their work. The vast majority of people subject to the game of these days a few dozen.

Give them an actual chance to retaliate. With some work it would still be possible for raiders to raid, it just means that theyll have to take the advice they're always so fond of goving defenders. There's certainly no guarantee that most regions will actually take advantage of Border Control, just as most now dont take advantage of non-exec delegates, passwords, or refounding. I guarantee that even if this still went into place there would be plenty of raiding targets left standing. But it would allow those communities that are truly active and, well, communities the chance to finally breath a bit knowing that if the day comes when someone finally decides to crash through the gates, they arent just helpless pawns in a game they never wanted to play.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:37 am**

Elke and Elba wrote:
Eh, realised a slight error in my post - "without a delegate and founder."

Maybe time to take back all the hypotheticals that don't apply now?

I don't really give a flying flute about you taking a region for tag-raiding. What I am more concerned is with one Cora taking all the regions and making them virtual wastegrounds by banjecting everyone on a regular basis due to the self-appointed RO status before leaving the place. Or the like. Like what may have happened in WZ Airspace.

Cora II wrote:Hah. Not even "Crazy Cora" begin stalk all hundreds of tagged puppet dumps on daily basis. Come on, defenders! Please, get a grip to reality.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:02 am**

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
Elke and Elba wrote:
Eh, realised a slight error in my post - "without a delegate and founder."

Maybe time to take back all the hypotheticals that don't apply now?

I don't really give a flying flute about you taking a region for tag-raiding. What I am more concerned is with one Cora taking all the regions and making them virtual wastegrounds by banjecting everyone on a regular basis due to the self-appointed RO status before leaving the place. Or the like. Like what may have happened in WZ Airspace.

Cora II wrote:Hah. Not even "Crazy Cora" begin stalk all hundreds of tagged puppet dumps on daily basis. Come on, defenders! Please, get a grip to reality.

Well, just look at Warzone Airspace to see how this is going all badly.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:46 am**

Kazmr wrote:Honestly I fail to see whats actually wrong with tipping the balance in the favor of natives and away from R/D in general. Natives have essentially been, with a few welcome exceptions, NPCs in military gameplay for the past 12 years. Once theyre raided they have never actually had any chance to fight back and they then rely entirely on someone outside to do their work. The vast majority of people subject to the game of these days a few dozen.

Give them an actual chance to retaliate. With some work it would still be possible for raiders to raid, it just means that theyll have to take the advice they're always so fond of goving defenders. There's certainly no guarantee that most regions will actually take advantage of Border Control, just as most now dont take advantage of non-exec delegates, passwords, or refounding. I guarantee that even if this still went into place there would be plenty of raiding targets left standing. But it would allow those communities that are truly active and, well, communities the chance to finally breath a bit knowing that if the day comes when someone finally decides to crash through the gates, they arent just helpless pawns in a game they never wanted to play.

I suspect that what you are advocating for will have an exact opposite effect to what you wish. With an exception of a few regions with organised, high-influence natives (i.e. the high-profile targets), this will just allow a long invader hold to sustain itself almost in perpetuity.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:46 am**

Sedgistan wrote:
Topid wrote:Now, since R/D is not my main focus most of the time.. What on earth is the "World Assembly" power listed in the news update? Other than voting for the region what kind of powers do Delegates/Founders have in the WA that they could even give away? O.o

That'd be the Delegate's ability to approve/vote on WA proposals - like "Executive", it's not something that can be assigned to Officers.

Can I suggest that this actually be something that can be done? It would be useful for regions that have regional governments. In TSP, we would likely use it by creating a special position that can approve of proposals and cast the region's votes, with the goal being to create more interest in the WA. Our Delegate (and I imagine others) already have a lot to do, and can't dedicate a ton of time to the WA. A lot of regions have special WA officials that manage that, but right now they can't actually do anything in-game.

I don't see any particular non-coding reason why the Delegate's vote couldn't be cast by a Regional Officer, or their approval couldn't be given on a proposal. Certainly it would take writing some new code, but all of this did.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:52 am**

What about something like a 2 hour delay until executive WADs can appoint or dismiss new ROs? That's long enough to prevent tag raiders from dismissing all existing ROs and appointing themselves as Appearance/Embassy RO so they can chance the WFE, tags, embassies. It's also significantly less than the 26 hours originally suggested above and while it may minimize some raiding holds, it's still short enough that - especially with a stealth raid (i.e. no other changes or announcements being made on the RMB or WFE until after the delay has expired), it would require region members to check who the regional delegate is atop the main page to notice that Something Has Changed.

My biggest concern about allowing new WADs to dismiss existing ROs right away is mostly from a tag raiding cleanup perspective. If founderless regions (typically without enough endos in the region to have a WAD) can get an active player in as an RO with Appearance/Embassy power, they can "reverse" most of the tag raiding changes themselves, without needing Defenders to come in and clean up the mess after the fact. Making a new WAD wait a matter of hours before being able to appoint or dismiss ROs would allow these natives to maintain power even if a tag raid swing through the region.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:35 am**

Is it possible for communications authority to be divided further so that control over who can send recruitment telegrams is separated from the ability to send mass telegrams within a region and the ability to suppress RMB posts? Suppression of RMB posts and mass telegrams within a region are both functions which the LKE would like to delegate to its regional officers, but I am unwilling to give anyone else control over who can send recruitment telegrams.

Gest wrote:If the admins don't want occupations then it's not a problem. The defenders, who let's get real wouldn't shed many tears if there was no invading, being perfectly satisfied doing some other secondary activity in this game, will probably not have a problem. If you believe the R/D needs to be "mitigated", who cares if it happens, then again it's not a problem.

I would add my voice to this. Deciding to prevent new delegates from removing border control regional officers for 26 hours would pose a massive obstacle to any occupation following a standard raid in a region with border control region officers (who would presumably have very high-influence levels compared to the new invaders). Most large founderless regions would presumably embrace this option. The decision on whether to implement this change is basically a choice on whether such occupations such be allowed to continue or whether the vast majority of raiding activity should degenerate into tagging. There would of course be some founderless regions without border control regional officers, but these would generally be smaller and less desirable targets.

It has been suggested that raiding regions could move to stealth raiding, rather than brute-force update takeovers, and that this is a solution to a problem. The first point to make is that stealth raiding is a minority activity that takes a lot of time and (especially if it goes involves organising a large number of units) effort. Non-raider regions which invade (i.e. imperialist and independent regions), that don't focus exclusively on military gameplay and raid for the political advantages rather than the enjoyment of the skill of raiding in itself, would therefore be particularly disadvantaged if this is the expectation. However, the more general point is that even following a stealth raid, conducting an occupation in these circumstances would still be significantly more difficult and complicated than it is today. There would be much fewer occupations. It is tagging, not stealth raiding, which would see the main uptake.

As for the suggestion of a shorter delay, that may not be as quite bad, but it would still present significant difficulties in cases where border control regional officers are habitually active in that 2-hour window or can be contacted; this might not be the case in ordinary founderless regions, but in defender regions and other such good targets, it may well be - indeed I would expect them to specifically arrange so that border control officers are appointed in major potential targets who would be habitually active near every update, which would advantage them regardless of this change. Just because no changes are made on the WFE doesn't mean an invasion cannot be quite easily spotted by natives, especially the more militarily aware natives (which we would expect border control regional officers to be); they could just look at the regional happenings and make inferences in the case of a brute-force takeover.

On the other hand, I can entirely support prohibitions that prevent new delegates from appointing new border control regional officers within a particular time-frame (perhaps the precise time-frame to be determined by influence level so it can be lengthened for typical invading delegates) or which maintain ejection speeds at a rate which represents the maximum a single human could feasibly do. I would also be happy for the number of regional officers with border control powers to be restricted. Such changes merely help preserve the status quo, whereas preventing new delegates from dismissing, or removing border control power from, regional officers simply has the consequence of making occupations extremely difficult. In fact, I would prefer to see Rivercastle's proposal of removing border control from regional officers altogether than the 26 hour delay on removing border control regional officers.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:40 am**

Why should invasion be so much easier than defense?

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:49 am**

Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:Why should invasion be so much easier than defense?

If a group of players desire absolute protection from invasion, then they can found a new region or password their existing region, or both if they wish to retain their existing region as a relic while creating an active community in another region. It is in fact already extremely easy to protect yourself.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:29 pm**

TBH just raided Asia. There were two ROs in the region who both had border control powers. One of the ROs was active a few minutes after the raid occurred. Had we not been able to immediately dismiss the ROs, the raid would have lasted a few minutes. A raid that took a couple of months to develop. This is why occupations and raiding large regions would be almost eliminated if current ROs can't be immediately dismissed.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:34 pm**

Jakker wrote:TBH just raided Asia. There were two ROs in the region who both had border control powers. One of the ROs was active a few minutes after the raid occurred. Had we not been able to immediately dismiss the ROs, the raid would have lasted a few minutes. A raid that took a couple of months to develop. This is why occupations and raiding large regions would be almost eliminated if current ROs can't be immediately dismissed.

And look how much use those BC/RO's were for the natives.... None whatsoever.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:46 pm**

Belschaft wrote:
Jakker wrote:TBH just raided Asia. There were two ROs in the region who both had border control powers. One of the ROs was active a few minutes after the raid occurred. Had we not been able to immediately dismiss the ROs, the raid would have lasted a few minutes. A raid that took a couple of months to develop. This is why occupations and raiding large regions would be almost eliminated if current ROs can't be immediately dismissed.

And look how much use those BC/RO's were for the natives.... None whatsoever.

In this case, perhaps. But ROs give natives more people who might be on around update to stop a raid. Had I not immediately went to dismiss the officers, the current RO could have ejected me. Natives already have other options to nullify raid threats including passwording and working to refound the region.

ROs should not serve to nearly eliminate the possibility of raids and that is what you are arguing for.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:48 pm**

Belschaft wrote:
Jakker wrote:TBH just raided Asia. There were two ROs in the region who both had border control powers. One of the ROs was active a few minutes after the raid occurred. Had we not been able to immediately dismiss the ROs, the raid would have lasted a few minutes. A raid that took a couple of months to develop. This is why occupations and raiding large regions would be almost eliminated if current ROs can't be immediately dismissed.

And look how much use those BC/RO's were for the natives.... None whatsoever.

Exactly Belschaft. Natives can't effectively use Border Control powers for their RO's anyway as it is. They don't know when raids are coming, many of them don't even know there are raiders or how to find them. Border Control for ROs is more a helpful griefing tool for raiders than anything else and should be heavily restricted in its uses, because the Native benefit is so low

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:50 pm**

Jakker wrote:
Belschaft wrote:And look how much use those BC/RO's were for the natives.... None whatsoever.

In this case, perhaps. But ROs give natives more people who might be on around update to stop a raid. Had I not immediately went to dismiss the officers, the current RO could have ejected me. Natives already other options to nullify raid threats including passwording and working to refound the region. ROs should not serve to eliminate the possibility of raids.

Yes, he could have. But did he even notice? How often do players check to see who the WAD is on their region? I doubt anyone would have missed the WFE changes, etc., but just because he could have doesn't mean he would have noticed and followed through. Also, depending on whether or not you had a sleeper in the region, he may not have had enough influence to eject the nation in question, especially with the doubling of costs. Plus, if you're ejected - but already have the WAD position - and not banned, you could return before the update, retain your endorsements and influence and make him eject you again, thus sapping his own influence further.

It would require a change in how the game is played, but that doesn't mean that such a change is inherently bad.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:54 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:
Jakker wrote:
In this case, perhaps. But ROs give natives more people who might be on around update to stop a raid. Had I not immediately went to dismiss the officers, the current RO could have ejected me. Natives already other options to nullify raid threats including passwording and working to refound the region. ROs should not serve to eliminate the possibility of raids.

Yes, he could have. But did he even notice? How often do players check to see who the WAD is on their region? I doubt anyone would have missed the WFE changes, etc., but just because he could have doesn't mean he would have noticed and followed through.

I'm sure the native out of the goodness of his heart and appreciation for raiding wouldn't have followed through. A telegram after the raid and the officer will know.

Also, depending on whether or not you had a sleeper in the region, he may not have had enough influence to eject the nation in question, especially with the doubling of costs.

One of the Asia's officer's had 300 influence points.

Plus, if you're ejected - but already have the WAD position - and not banned, you could return before the update, retain your endorsements and influence and make him eject you again, thus sapping his own influence further.

Hop to it Black Hawks, only 300 influence points to whittle down.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:01 pm**

Deadeye Jack wrote:
Belschaft wrote:And look how much use those BC/RO's were for the natives.... None whatsoever.

Exactly Belschaft. Natives can't effectively use Border Control powers for their RO's anyway as it is. They don't know when raids are coming, many of them don't even know there are raiders or how to find them. Border Control for ROs is more a helpful griefing tool for raiders than anything else and should be heavily restricted in its uses, because the Native benefit is so low

Which is why I have been arguing for a delay in dismissal and appointment of RO's from day one. At present BC/RO's are of use only to raiders and coupers, and reduce regional security making natives lives harder.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:03 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:Plus, if you're ejected - but already have the WAD position - and not banned, you could return before the update, retain your endorsements and influence and make him eject you again, thus sapping his own influence further.

Let's not forget the fact that all support will also be kicked from the region, so the delegacy will be lost by the next update. Some people, believe it or not, cannot be on their computer every hour of the day to move a new puppet in every single time it happens.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:06 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:
Jakker wrote:
In this case, perhaps. But ROs give natives more people who might be on around update to stop a raid. Had I not immediately went to dismiss the officers, the current RO could have ejected me. Natives already other options to nullify raid threats including passwording and working to refound the region. ROs should not serve to eliminate the possibility of raids.

Yes, he could have. But did he even notice? How often do players check to see who the WAD is on their region? I doubt anyone would have missed the WFE changes, etc., but just because he could have doesn't mean he would have noticed and followed through. Also, depending on whether or not you had a sleeper in the region, he may not have had enough influence to eject the nation in question, especially with the doubling of costs. Plus, if you're ejected - but already have the WAD position - and not banned, you could return before the update, retain your endorsements and influence and make him eject you again, thus sapping his own influence further.

It would require a change in how the game is played, but that doesn't mean that such a change is inherently bad.

You're making a ton of assumptions there. It literally takes months just to get a chance of raiding regions such as Asia and even then, success is still up in the air with the update. The site went down and almost caused us to miss. And when a raid is missed by people moving in late, it is lost and we have to try all over again.

You are saying even when all of that work has been put in and you have been successful in raiding the region, you now need to not only worry about natives endorsing back and forth, and defenders trying to liberate, but ROs with tons of influence that will shut your raid up in minutes.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:08 pm**

Belschaft wrote:
Deadeye Jack wrote:
Exactly Belschaft. Natives can't effectively use Border Control powers for their RO's anyway as it is. They don't know when raids are coming, many of them don't even know there are raiders or how to find them. Border Control for ROs is more a helpful griefing tool for raiders than anything else and should be heavily restricted in its uses, because the Native benefit is so low

Which is why I have been arguing for a delay in dismissal and appointment of RO's from day one. At present BC/RO's are of use only to raiders and coupers, and reduce regional security making natives lives harder.

It sounds like we are specifically talking about border control. I am fine with delaying appointment, but please tell me how delaying dismissal won't kill most raids?

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:22 pm**

Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:Why should invasion be so much easier than defense?

There are several changes coming that will benefit defenders.

There's delegate-elect, update time displayed, custodians (it helps natives remove themselves from gameplay entirely), and the admins are going to change how long player's keep access to delegate controls.

It's hardly being a raider supremacist to argue that delaying dismissal of officers would be a step too far unless the admins want, as one player said to tilt the game to the natives, by tilting invasions overboard.

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.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:25 pm**

Bel, Mouse, and Jack have the right of it... This basically proves right on what I've been saying this whole thread about BC being an absolutely useless tool for natives. Raiders are pointing out how a native RO was on minutes before, but its not as if it would have made that much of a difference (and in this case it didn't). There are already only a handful of people who are willing to be on at update regularly; asking people to be on at every update in case there happens to be a raid in their particular region just to make it an effective tool is ludicrous. From the last time Asia was raided till today was a gap of around three years. Had RO's been implemented then, for BC to be an actual security tool would require people to spend three years at updates waiting for nothing.

The fact that there was a minute window where the RO may have happened to notice a change in the WAD ignores the fact that from now on the very first thing and raider is going to do when they start an occupation is dismiss all ROs. It simply isn't going to happen.

And the point that even had they been ejected they could have still unbanned themselves had they gained the delegate spot really only supports a point I made earlier that people with BC power should lose it upon exiting the region; that should, frankly, extend to delegates as well.

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:26 pm**

Gest wrote:
Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:Why should invasion be so much easier than defense?

There are several changes coming that will benefit defenders.

There's delegate-elect, update time displayed, custodians (it helps natives remove themselves from gameplay entirely), and the admins are going to change how long player's keep access to delegate controls.

It's hardly being a raider supremacist to argue that delaying dismissal of officers would be a step too far unless the admins want, as one player said to tilt the game to the natives, by tilting invasions overboard.

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.

How does update time display help defenders?

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:26 pm**

To me I would be in favor of A) Limiting the # of Border Control ROs in a region to maybe 2 or 3. B) Putting a delay on Border Control powers being received. I'd say a minimum of 3 days. C) You can still immediately dismiss ROs. D) Maybe add some influence cost to appoint border control ROs

I can recognize that it would suck for raiders to do their work and then natives immediately get rid of them. Should the natives have such a power? Yes they probably should be given better options for defense but I think it's well established that admin is not in favor of actually empowering them to be able to defend themselves in such a way.

Border Control is not a viable form of native defense as it stands right now because asking natives to be aware of eminent raids and to be competent at ejecting them is just too much to ask of anyone other than the most dedicated participants of R/D. But as the powers stand now they not only don't really help natives, they drastically improve the raiders' position in any region they occupy. At least the criteria I proposed would make border control powers closer to a non factor in the R/D game instead of an outright disaster for natives.

NationStates

Regional Officers