Updating nations (ATTN Defenders/invaders!)

[Crazy girl]

Alright, since [violet] suggested I'd make a new thread about this, here goes.

In the old days *waves her cane around* we weren't bothered by being unable to defend (or invade) only one region with a nation. Nations could update more than once per update cycle. Now, you need to switch WA nations (I really have to keep in mind not to post UN here, that was the best april fool's joke we ever had...the non-joke) and if you forget to apply (or your application bounced for whatever reason) you can no longer play along.

I would love to see it go back to the way it was, so we could run and run and keep running without that bothersome switching, or even being unable to play after only defending/invading one region..

Any input from my fellow gameplayers?

[[violet]]

I think the issue we had with that was nations got a few unfair benefits from surfing the update, like rapid population increase and double-counting of their vote in WA resolutions. I'm not sure if there were other problems.

So what if we split things out, so that update surfing allowed you to make your endorsements count in multiple regions per update, but did not have any other bonus effect on population, issues, the Regional Delegate's WA vote weight, etc.

Someone from Gameplay chime in and tell me why this is terribly stupid.

[Crazy girl]

That...was why SalSal removed it in the first place. We found out that it bumped up your population more than normal. Told some folks who weren't much into defending, but really liked the (then new) feature of having your custom pre-title at 500 million..and they went update surfing. That group grew and grew and...got caught.

I remember people complaining when it was changed back then, I'm sure there will be people complaining when it's changed back. I'll see if I can get some folks from both sides of the game to give their thoughts on this, since I've been away for quite some time myself

[Johz]

I reckon a lot of people are used to it now, and tie it into their strategies. I mean, LWU's invasion of, I believe, Eastern Europe, or somewhere like that, relied on getting defenders into Western Europe using dirties, then diving into the recently liberared Eastern Europe, leaving the defenders trapped in update. So I think, now that strategies have evolved, it would be almost as weird for people as it was, presumably, when the update thing was created. Like unevolving a strategy...

However, I wonder if defenders would feel entirely the same way...

[Sedgistan]

I only ever defended under the current system, and I actually quite like it. Having to prepare several 'switchers' in advance of each update adds an extra level of skill to update raiding/defending, especially with invaders trying to draw defenders into updating early on so they can't defend against raids later in the update. I can see why it's annoying to old-timers who were used to using one nation throughout an update, but there doesn't seem to be a particular problem with the current system which means that it should be changed.

[Crazy girl]

I think it was one of the reasons a lot of old timers left, well..along with randomizing the update times, which has thankfully already been turned back.

Don't you think that by making it easier, it would also make it more open to newer players interested in this side of the game? For both invaders and defenders.

[Warzone Codger]

What I would like is something that'll will trigger an instant update if invader's endo count is significant bigger than the current delegate's.

Say if I got 20 endos and the current delegate only has 5, it should instantly update to change. But if I only have 6 vs 5 it needs to wait till the next update.

It makes it easier to get involved imo, - one knows they can claim a region just by throwing enough numbers at it, while it still allows people to play with finesse with all it's switching and puppets and timing for updates for those who want it.

The RP explanation of game mechanics, if that a close count means the delegate can still hold them off for a while (the next update) hoping for reinforcements, but an overwhelming count means they get overthrown...

(I'm saying this because it's a tough time teaching my nations how to crash, and I'll like to just say, everyone move in!)

[New Spartzerina]

I'm ok with the system as is, and don't really see a need to change it.

[Evil Wolf]

I don't see this as a problem at all, at least not on the Crasher side of things. Us Crashers are always going to use switchers, we have to in order to avoid being tracked by defenders.

This is more of a problem for defenders, since its probably a huge pain for them to only be able to go after one invasion an update. However, its really only a problem for defenders, not Crashers. If this change goes into effect, its more or less guaranteed to benefit only the defender side, as if they already don't have a numerical and tactical advantage over Crashers.

[Wopruthien]

That ^ ^

It's also fun/harder to have to switch all the time chasing around raiders making sure we don't update.

[Naivetry]

I've only played under the current system as well, but I would love to see this change (not that I can do any defending at the moment, but still).

I know a lot of defenders take pride in the skill it takes to use switchers in the middle of an update... planning in advance so you have your 3-4+ email addresses and WA-ready puppets lined up in late-updating regions, the text files with the date of application and whether or not you received a confirmation and when (so you're not trying to use one that's expired)... all of that gritty strategic stuff that makes you feel like you're an expert. But it's not conducive to getting new players involved, and imo that's something we need to be thinking about, too - what's best for the liveliness, not just the sophistication, of the game.

Thinking about the impact it would have on crashers... they would lose their ability to trap defenders in an update, although that only works when the defenders aren't using switchers, anyway. In other words, it eliminates the advantages they get from defender incompetence. It doesn't give raiders a similar benefit, because if they were going to conduct a second raid during update, they'd probably want to switch nations anyway just to avoid being followed by the defenders who'd spotted them on the first one. ...On the other hand, it would mean crashers could use any new puppet in any region; their puppets could just sit in the feeders all update and then jump in, for example, rather than moving to a late-updating forward base first. And that would make them significantly harder to spot. Whaddya think, EW?

[Evil Wolf]

For the advantage it gives defenders, it just wouldn't be worth the trade off, if any trade off really even exists.

[[violet]]

Hmm, thanks. I think it would be good to remove a little need for jumping through hoops, but I'm not sure defenders need any more advantages over invaders at this point.

Maybe something to implement alongside something with a counterbalancing benefit for invaders.

[Unibot]

Perhaps something nuts like if a WA nation has updated in 10 regions before the end of update, it can elicit a RMB invisibility cloak -- essentially it clears the regional happenings for a period of 5 minutes (or maybe just till the end of update?).

EDIT: This is just a baaaaad idea.

[CommiesUnited]

I don't see this as a problem at all, at least not on the Crasher side of things. Us Crashers are always going to use switchers, we have to in order to avoid being tracked by defenders.

This is more of a problem for defenders, since its probably a huge pain for them to only be able to go after one invasion an update. However, its really only a problem for defenders, not Crashers. If this change goes into effect, its more or less guaranteed to benefit only the defender side, as if they already don't have a numerical and tactical advantage over Crashers.

I agree with that and what Wopruthien has said. I like the current system. I feel it is fun for the most part and requires skill. If we were to implement Crazy Girl's ideas it would mostly benefit defenders and as VIOLET stated defenders don't need any more advantages.

If we do make any changes it ought to benefit both sides or raiders, as they seem to have been hampered more by recent gamepley changes then us defenders.

[Sedgistan]

It'd be interesting to see what The Union think of this, since they're the raiders using switchers the most at the moment.

Perhaps something nuts like if a WA nation has updated in 10 regions before the end of update, it can elicit a RMB invisibility cloak -- essentially it clears the regional happenings for a period of 5 minutes (or maybe just till the end of update?).

Erm...

Maybe something to implement alongside something with a counterbalancing benefit for invaders.

The annex feature?

[Wopruthien]

Yeah I contacted a the Union to come and post here to give their thoughts.

Unibot sorry, but I don't think that would work.

[Jedi-Gangsters]

I do like the annex idea and I think it would add to the game for sure.

[Unibot]

Unibot sorry, but I don't think that would work.

It would pretty much mean that you can take on any region if you moved through 10 updates, so, it'd be used by both. My thought was that mass movement through regions would be difficult to get in the right order and would be 'spottible'. It would actually be nuts... soooo indefensible. But I'm still thinking about the application of a regional happenings/nation happenings blanket.

[Evil Wolf]

Maybe something to implement alongside something with a counterbalancing benefit for invaders.

The annex feature?

Woah, Woah, Woah, hold on now. Don't take a game element that has already been promised to be added, re-wrap it in a shiny new bow, and act like its a totally new gift. That's re-gifting right there, and I don't like being re-gifted.

And no, that doesn't counterbalance the proposed change at all. What use is the annex feature to us if there is a roving swarm of 25-30 Defender nations roaming around the entirety of update, trouncing everything in sight?

No this change basically takes the small unit tactics that favor the clever and the imaginative and throws them right out the window in favor of large unit, mass maneuver, siege tactics. Now, I'm gonna tell you right here, right now, that's a fight Crashers lose. There is a reason they call us "raiders" and not "swarmers" or "siegers" because we use small unit blitz attacks, deception, misdirection, and trickery. You take away our ability to trap a much larger defender force in an update and that whole "misdirection and trickery" thing doesn't count for jack-squat.

My basic point being that if you take away the "update only once" feature (which, by-the-by, we Crashers sometimes get caught up in too, so don't act like its just defenders who have to deal with it) and your robbing a lot of the fun out of the game for the Invaders.

[Unibot]

No this change basically takes the small unit tactics that favor the clever and the imaginative and throws them right out the window in favor of large unit, mass maneuver, siege tactics. Now, I'm gonna tell you right here, right now, that's a fight Crashers lose. There is a reason they call us "raiders" and not "swarmers" or "siegers" because we use small unit blitz attacks, deception, misdirection, and trickery. You take away our ability to trap a much larger defender force in an update and that whole "misdirection and trickery" thing doesn't count for jack-squat.

My basic point being that if you take away the "update only once" feature (which, by-the-by, we Crashers sometimes get caught up in too, so don't act like its just defenders who have to deal with it) and your robbing a lot of the fun out of the game for the Invaders.

If it was implemented, what 'gift' for raiders would 'counterbalance' it, do you think ?

[Evil Wolf]

I'm not sure I can think of anything that would make up for the loss, to be honest with you. It would have to be fairly major, however.

[Unibot]

I'm not sure I can think of anything that would make up for the loss, to be honest with you. It would have to be fairly major, however.

Perhaps something that could directly negate defenders ability to multi-update? I'm thinking of something called a 'trap' region, a setting in administration that would have to be set (like a mousetrap) before every update for it to work, it would cost very little influence... essentially it would cause everyone in the region to update once, including both the invaders in the region and anyone who enters into the region before it updates. The trap being set would not be acknowledged on the regional happenings obviously, but it would be recognized by a telegram from the Ministry of Logistics following the update in the region. If you were working with another group or just using a pair to distract a group of defenders, this would require switchers on the part of the defenders and throw a curve-ball their way. *shrugs*

EDIT: errr.. raiders would of course be occasionally trapped too, but they're bound to still use switchers.

[Evil Wolf]

That seems horribly complex and very unlikely to work.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

If this change goes into effect, its more or less guaranteed to benefit only the defender side, as if they already don't have a numerical and tactical advantage over Crashers.

You should have kept your mouth shut. After all, everyone knows that we mods are filthy, filthy defender-lovers who would cut off our own arm if it meant a slight inconvenience to raiders.