Updating nations (ATTN Defenders/invaders!)

[Cocodian]

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.

I've only ever defended under the current system and while it will be a slight benefit to defenders, the majority have switchers now anyway so I don't think the difference will be that major.

There would be a benefit to raiders however, you would not have to store your puppets in late updating region, which is a massive clue to defenders spotting invasions. So to be honest I think the two slight advantages for each side would balance each other out and would be a pretty fair change.

[Ballotonia]

The MAJOR advantage to invaders is that they get to pick the target. If they're patient about it or time it well, they are entirely undetectable until after they've taken the target delegacy. And there's nothing tactically defenders can do about that, no matter their numbers.

Ballotonia

[Evil Wolf]

]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.

Well that came out of left field. I don't remember accusing the mods of bias...in this thread anyway.

There would be a benefit to raiders however, you would not have to store your puppets in late updating region, which is a massive clue to defenders spotting invasions. So to be honest I think the two slight advantages for each side would balance each other out and would be a pretty fair change.

A nation being updated only once is not really an inconvenience for us Crashers. We have developed tactics which allow our people to keep their puppets out of the late updating, defender watched regions. My problem is that this change would basically take all the tactics, all the clever maneuvers, all the danger and excitement of getting "caught in the update" and throws it out the window in favor of the mundane and uninteresting.

The MAJOR advantage to invaders is that they get to pick the target. If they're patient about it or time it well, they are entirely undetectable until after they've taken the target delegacy. And there's nothing tactically defenders can do about that, no matter their numbers.

Yeah, I've heard that argument 10000 times from the defender side. "Theoretically, Raiders should never lose", well I'm going to use another tired catch phrase and counter with "Looks good on paper, doesn't work in practice".

Let me explain why. Lets plan a hypothetical raid. The target is 45 nations large. The Delegate is semi-active, logging in once every few days, but strongly endorsed with, say, 10 endorsements. For one reason or another this target attracts the attention of Crashers and they plan an assault, however, its not a very large Crasher group and they only have the bare minimum number of Crashers needed to overtake the delegate, twelve (That's one to be pointman, eleven to endorse and overtake the delegate). Lets say this region updates early, within the first five minutes of the start of update. The Crashers take the proper precautions, they use clean puppets, the move out of the major, well watched regions, some even WA clear when they WA up to avoid getting WA dossiered by some well watching defender (*glares at Improving Wordiness*).

So, the Crashers have the update time to the minute. They attack, all members move in on time, they all endorse the pointman, everything is going to plan. And then, suddenly, one defender gets lucky and just happens to spot one of the members of the raid party moving into the region. That one defender moves in and endorses the native delegate. The count is now tied at twelve. Seconds later, the region updates, the native delegate remains delegate, the raid is ruined, and crashers lose.

That's right, 12 Crashers just lost to one lone defender. Crashing is not easier than defending, we do not have a "MAJOR" advantage, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know the first thing about Crashing.

Now, you could argue that being able to update more than once would work to the advantage of this twelve man crasher party. So lets say that they have backup targets, but shall use no switchers for this example, because if they were to use switchers it would make updating more than once a moot point for the Crashing side. They wait till close to these regions update times (their going after several...because that's what I would do) and attack. However, by this point that one defender has told every other defender in Nationstates about the failed raid and every defender and their dog are now watching these dirty puppets like a sexually frustrated man would a stripper at a titty bar.

Every follow up raid is promptly trounced, any that do succeed are due to sheer luck, not skill. Defenders don't even need the numerical advantage, they just need to make sure the native delegate gets more or equal endorsements to the Crasher pointman. This proposal does not work in the favor of Crashers, only defenders stand to gain from it and they don't need more help in winning.

[Ballotonia]

The MAJOR advantage to invaders is that they get to pick the target. If they're patient about it or time it well, they are entirely undetectable until after they've taken the target delegacy. And there's nothing tactically defenders can do about that, no matter their numbers.

[...] however, its not a very large Crasher group and they only have the bare minimum number of Crashers needed to overtake the delegate, twelve (That's one to be pointman, eleven to endorse and overtake the delegate).

The MAJOR advantage is that invaders get to pick the target, and then you reply with an example where an invader group chose their target really really really badly. I think that in itself explains why defenders keep on winning so much

Ballotonia

[Evil Wolf]

*facepalms*

[Jedi-Gangsters]

I would have to agree with the facepalm.

[Wopruthien]

LOL

I'd have sent in a WA first to collect a few native WA endorsements first then moved in my main body of troops if I was you EW.

[Evil Wolf]

Well, yes, there is always that, but this is a hypothetical. Besides, I have seen that happen and had it happen on my raids and the raids of others so many times I could just scream.

But nit-picking that hypothetical raids, or going into the timeless argument of which side has the harder job is getting off topic. My point is Crashers certainly are not kicking the crap out of defenders, in fact its quite the opposite, most raids get stomped, especially if the Crashers are inexperienced. Why give defenders another tool to use?

[Johz]

...Yeah, I've heard that argument 10000 times from the defender side...

Oh the irony...

What if you were allowed to multiple endorse during update only? So a raider could send in a puppet near the early end of update, then, after update has started, but before update as affected the region, (s)he can switch to another nation, resign the former from the WA, respond to the second's telegram, and endorse using the second switcher. The endorsement from the first puppet, however, stay until the region has updated. Upon update, the old delegate can be thrown out, blah blah.

Someone tell me this wouldn't work...

[Wopruthien]

Well, yes, there is always that, but this is a hypothetical. Besides, I have seen that happen and had it happen on my raids and the raids of others so many times I could just scream.

But nit-picking that hypothetical raids, or going into the timeless argument of which side has the harder job is getting off topic. My point is Crashers certainly are not kicking the crap out of defenders, in fact its quite the opposite, most raids get stomped, especially if the Crashers are inexperienced. Why give defenders another tool to use?

Yeah I've said though that defending is easier to get into, but defending well (spotting etc) is where the real skill can be found. Raiding is much harder to get into and has so many rules it can put people from even starting, especially as we defenders stomp on raiders numerically lately. That would be the only good thing about this being implemented would be it would attract more new nations to this side of the game. Yet it is negated by this next point.

The only way you have caused us problems is by hitting multiple regions with a small number of raider nations switching each and every update. Keeping us guessing and updating our defender nations early. As much as I'd like the defender advantage it takes a lot of the skill out of the game and means defenders pretty much win all the time. Which wouldn't be a bad thing but it would be nice to win with a challenge.

[Ballotonia]

My point is Crashers certainly are not kicking the crap out of defenders, in fact its quite the opposite, most raids get stomped, especially if the Crashers are inexperienced.

Really, that's your standard for when it's all fair and balanced, when even inexperienced invaders succeed against trained and experienced defenders?

Back to the topic: I remember defending when nations could go through the update multiple times. It was fun, since invaders and defenders would run around all throughout the update. Continuously sitting at the tip of your seat cause as regions updated anything could be happening. Good times. Like the OP, I fondly think back of those days. Unlike the OP, I'm fully aware they'll never return.

Ballotonia

[All Good People]

I miss update surfing, and chasing armies from region-to-region across during update. I'd love to have that back.

Bring the fun back.

[Kalibarr]

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.

[quote=Violet]Someone from Gameplay chime in and tell me why this is terribly stupid.[/quote]

Contradiction Much?

also, since when has a legitimate complaint about something meant you think the mods are insanely biased against you? This idea wasn't even proposed by a mod how does criticizing it even bare relevance to bias?

Seriously, when half the mods think every time a raider posts they are trying to be an ass, it generally doesn't convince people against believing crazy mod conspiracy stuff. And locking the thread every time I bring it up doesn't help either.

[Crazy girl]

Is that your goal then, getting this thread locked? if you have a problem, take it to your own thread, or where ever. Don't go hijacking other people's threads. Kthnxbye.

Now, anyone else who remembers hopping and chasing, timing, planning, the grand battles and wars..I still think it would be easier for both sides to be able to update more than once, and easier means more new players can join in..

[Kalibarr]

Is that your goal then, getting this thread locked? if you have a problem, take it to your own thread, or where ever. Don't go hijacking other people's threads. Kthnxbye.

I did a long time ago, they locked it.A quote from a mod brought it up again, I don't want this thread locked, so I'll go away.

After all I'm a raider, so every post I make must be intended to troll someone or another.

[Anime Daisuki]

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.

@Violet: We at 10000 Islands would be for this.

FRA does not represent us.

[Improving Wordiness]

I agree with Anime, 10KI would be for this change.

FRA have their own methods and I would ask that it is kept in mind they do not represent all defenders and nor do we.

[Wopruthien]

LOL

The FRA as a whole is very divided on this. The original poster CrazyGirl is involved in the FRA. I'm personally against this idea as I've stated, though I'm sorry if fellow defenders from 10k islands feel myself and others at the FRA believe we are speaking for them.

[Unibot]

FRA have their own methods and I would ask that it is kept in mind they do not represent all defenders and nor do we.

Well? I think we're going to need to thoroughly divulge into the potential benefits/consequences of this suggestion for defending and raiding, gameplay in general. Once having constructed a thorough list we will at least have something for violet to look at to judge the merits of the project for herself.. that way the minority opinion (which appears to be .. eh? I dunno which one is the minority now) isn't tromped over because one side has a louder voice attached to it. I'm sure we can all agree there are benefits and negative consequences (and just neutral consequences) to this suggested game-change, it's how much positive and negative value we attach to those consequences which seems to be causing the difference of the opinions.

Perhaps someone that is more knowledgeable on the subject than I would like to begin constructing a pros/cons/neutral consequences list for this suggestion.. that way when we leave the decision in [violet]'s capable hands, at-least we have given our informed input to her. If [violet] does decide to implement this change as [violet] has said before : we will probably need to further collaborate to come up with something that could even the playing-field out once again.

*takes off his dumb-faced mediator hat*

[[violet]]

I'm persuaded by Evil Wolf's post about this change making life harder for invaders, and since I think the current state of gameplay is (somewhat) too weighted against them already, I don't plan to implement this.

If we came up with a pro-invader improvement that this could offset, though, I would look at it, because it otherwise seems to make sense.

I don't think Annex is a relevant pro-invader improvement, as it won't actually make invading any easier.

[Unibot]

I'm persuaded by Evil Wolf's post about this change making life harder for invaders, and since I think the current state of gameplay is (somewhat) too weighted against them already, I don't plan to implement this.

If we came up with a pro-invader improvement that this could offset, though, I would look at it, because it otherwise seems to make sense.

I don't think Annex is a relevant pro-invader improvement, as it won't actually make invading any easier.

Well that makes this much clearer. Um... what about speeding up influence ? I mean, we have the SC now to prevent major incidents of grieving.. however speeding up influence would probably promote smaller incidents of region grieving and it would allow defenders to clean up regions quicker.. thus really only making raiding more extreme and defending more efficient. Hhhm..whatever improvement you make should probably promote more of the early hit-n'-run style of raiding that's gone out of fashion with influence, raiders have become more increasingly extreme with influence to the point where password grieving seems 'normal' and ' acceptable'.

Perhaps as I am not an invader I don't have a credible perspective on a problem that prevents (or is causing it to go out of fashion) the efficient blitzkrieg-style raiding that made gameplay much stronger than it is today. The great thing about that style of play for everyone in gameplay is (1) it doesn't destroy regions, (2) neither raiders nor defenders get tied up in one or two regions for long periods of time. So I think whatever implementation that is made to improve raiding, it should promote that style of play.

Just my fifteen cents, and then some.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

What if you were allowed to multiple endorse during update only? So a raider could send in a puppet near the early end of update, then, after update has started, but before update as affected the region, (s)he can switch to another nation, resign the former from the WA, respond to the second's telegram, and endorse using the second switcher. The endorsement from the first puppet, however, stay until the region has updated. Upon update, the old delegate can be thrown out, blah blah.

Someone tell me this wouldn't work...

If you're suggesting this as an additional rule change to "counter-balance" the benefit this would give to defenders, I think it is a supremely bad idea. It would turn raiding and defending into an exercise in creating and moving puppets quickly, and who can sit at the computer for the longest making dozens of puppets.

I agree with everything Evil Wolf and other raiders have said so far.

EDIT: You know what WOULD be an acceptable counter-balance (in my opinion)? Getting rid of influence altogether. . .but I have a feeling this discussion has been had before.

[Warzone Codger]

Or simply make influence apply only on WA Delegates and non WA nations.

So if not in WA, you gather influence which can prevent you from being kicked.
If you decide to join the WA, you no longer that Influence protection. All bets are off

The in game explanation (if you want one) is that if you're not in the WA you are "Native". WA means you are part of the "World" (especially since it's called the World Assembly) thus no longer "Native".

WA Delegates could also gain influence so there's way to accumulate enough power to kick non WA "natives". The assumption is that they have to hold the region for a while though.

(The obvious side effect of such a system is that'll it cause lot of people will run two nations. A non WA "native" and a WA puppet)

Anyways I'm drifting off topic..

[Improving Wordiness]

Soooooo invaders need a handicap? They already have a head start as only they know where they are going.

I suggest paintguns. Lets just have an old fashioned shoot out

I call shotgun.

[Evil Wolf]

Is it really a handicap if the field is unbalance in favor of defenders to start with?