[Summit #2] Comments on R/D Nirvana [OPEN]

[Blackbird]

First, remove founders. ([edit]Note, this is controversial, and there's lots of ways to do this half-measure. For instance, remove founders when you get to 50 nations, or some other arbitrary number, under the theory that you want to protect small regions, and let large regions with thriving communities be responsible for their own protection.)

I am just going to point out this could be weaponized. Once a region gets close to the cap invaders can move a force in to de-founder it and take delegate position at the same time. Local nations will not be too watchful thinking that they have a founder and non-executive delegate so its easy pickings.
Also I feel this will restrict regional growth....you will have regions that will try to stay under the cap in order to keep security. Just too many flaws to this idea. I can understand the point behind it. In an ideal NS world those that attack should be open to attack but this idea does not do that.

Well, like I said, you can try to create technical mechanisms to mitigate that problem. For instance, if the WA cap is 100 to have your founder removed, require that you be above the cap for 30 days before the founder is removed. You could similarly add a clear timer to the region to indicate when it happens. There's ways to mitigate the issues, which are entirely legitimate, that you've pointed out.

[Firstaria]

So, to adapt to a kill game idea, admins should even do more work to keep under control that invaders would not get in? And how do you recognize when it's an entrance or an invasion? With the glass sphere?

I think I know now why many people has not been chosen to represent, the fact that we still talk about this demonstrates we are not mature enough to actually help creating an R/D game, we are only interested in our affairs and to win and boast that.

[Blackbird]

So, to adapt to a kill game idea, admins should even do more work to keep under control that invaders would not get in? And how do you recognize when it's an entrance or an invasion? With the glass sphere?

I think I know now why many people has not been chosen to represent, the fact that we still talk about this demonstrates we are not mature enough to actually help creating an R/D game, we are only interested in our affairs and to win and boast that.

The proposal doesn't require any admin "recognition" of an entrance of an invasion.

Not much to respond to that except to say that I reject your contention that I've proposed these types of mechanism as a way to let my side "win." I'm retired. I don't have a side, and I don't care much about the sides except that I'd like to see the game bloom in its political development like it did at the dawn of NS.

[Cerian Quilor]

And yet raiders and defenders contonue to enjoy themselves without all regions not having Founders.

All this is about is returning things back to your glory days, rather than accepting that the NS community has moved on.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

My proposal, which is in CoE's thread, was to remove founders while simultaneously make it more difficult to instant-invade. That is, invasions became more difficult in the short-term and more prolonged, which would make them, I think, more political. You can read more about my proposal here: viewtopic.php?p=11995311#p11995311

Invasions would no longer be invasions. They'd be coups.

This is still military gameplay.

The only difference between an invasion and a coup is that a coup happens from the inside. It's a revolution led by natives, against natives. An invasion comes from outside forces.

in light of that, your point about invasions turning into coups seems rather strange. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean?

[Blackbird]

Invasions would no longer be invasions. They'd be coups.

This is still military gameplay.

The only difference between an invasion and a coup is that a coup happens from the inside. It's a revolution led by natives, against natives. An invasion comes from outside forces.

in light of that, your point about invasions turning into coups seems rather strange. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean?

Well, I suppose what I'm saying is that in very large regions, in which invasions are simply impracticable, invaders will either have to enter and gain endorsements as traditional "sleepers" or get involved in the long-term politics of the regions as spies, and engage in more of a coup than a swift invasion.

[Firstaria]

I want to make you notice that while you are still babbling this Idea violet didn't even consider your speech dignified of answer in her general view of the summit until now. Further prove that people here are just banging the drums like kids knowing they would not get the toy.

Are you capable of moving to a next topic or should we consider this discussion abandoned on the basis that people are stuck on a failed idea?

[Blackbird]

I want to make you notice that while you are still babbling this Idea violet didn't even consider your speech dignified of answer in her general view of the summit until now. Further prove that people here are just banging the drums like kids knowing they would not get the toy.

Are you capable of moving to a next topic or should we consider this discussion abandoned on the basis that people are stuck on a failed idea?

*chuckles*

I'm "capable" of talking about anything, and for a long time. It's been a decade of this. If someone else brought up something here that I felt I should comment on, I would. No one has.

I don't interpret [violet]'s remarks the same way. My proposal addresses, as [violet] puts it, which parts of an invasion should happen slowly or quickly.

And moreover, you seem to feel I'm particularly wedded to this proposal. I'm not. I think it exposes a lot of the issues that need to be discussed however, and I haven't found that the criticisms of it are sufficient that it no longer serves that purpose.

[Cerian Quilor]

Invasions would no longer be invasions. They'd be coups.

This is still military gameplay.

The only difference between an invasion and a coup is that a coup happens from the inside. It's a revolution led by natives, against natives. An invasion comes from outside forces.

in light of that, your point about invasions turning into coups seems rather strange. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean?

An Invasion would be largely 'invading'/external units, and a coup is largely internal supporters. When Devionitas captured TSP's delegacy, the bulk/(all)? of his endorsements when he captured the Delegacy were from people inside TSP, due to his endoswapping.

A coup, in this sense, is far more about internal politics and the ability to get people already in the region to support you. It also takes longer to pull off. An invasion is when a largely external force moves in over the course of one update (usually closely before the update) and captures the delegacy.