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

[Evil Wolf]

It doesn't help that the increase of the WA happenings from ten spaced to twenty-five made it near impossible, if not completely impractical, to WA Happenings Clear effectively.

That would certainly effect stealth at the update. It was always standard procedure to drop a WA clear when switching puppets during an update when I was starting out.

[AS22]

It doesn't help that the increase of the WA happenings from ten spaced to twenty-five made it near impossible, if not completely impractical, to WA Happenings Clear effectively.

That would certainly effect stealth at the update. It was always standard procedure to drop a WA clear when switching puppets during an update when I was starting out.

lol you're old

And I don't think so...I mean the stealth that we seem to be talking about would be one that involves no switching at update at all...not from those to be engaged in endorsing the stealth lead anyway...switching at update, happenings clear or not seems less stealthy than not doing so.

Besides, Grand Wizard Eluvatar can probably just make a script to query the WA page enough that it won't make a difference. I doubt altering the size of the happenings would do much for raiders at this point.

[PhDre]

AS22, BB's nation being in a passworded region is a non-issue. I'd much rather hear discussion on the merits of his proposal (which reminds me, how'd this conversation end up in the 'comments on R/D nirvana' thread?

[AS22]

AS22, BB's nation being in a passworded region is a non-issue. I'd much rather hear discussion on the merits of his proposal (which reminds me, how'd this conversation end up in the 'comments on R/D nirvana' thread?

Excuse me, but I think his hypocrisy is an issue, one which reflects on his proposal's lack of merit.

Your opinion is noted however.

[Johz]

Valid, maybe, but not very fun.

It's quite hard for a human raider to compete against a Defender script unless we in turn use scripts of our own to counter your scripts and then the game becomes script vs script rather than human vs. human, and that's a game I don't want to be a part of.

Then let's discuss that, rather than whether Unibot can spot even an EW Supa-Sneaky Special. Because of course, there are issues. For a start, not everyone knows much about scripting, an ignorance which leads to the prevailing opinion among some that scripts are automatically bad, and do things far beyond their capabilities. Then there's the fact that, as you say, scripts take away many human aspects of the game.

We do, however, need to differentiate between different types of script. I think we can largely agree that some scripts are relatively acceptable, or at least nigh-on impossible to halt. They're the sort that do nothing more than sift through endless reports, API calls, feeds, and other NS pages, and compile them into something sensible for a human to read. In some cases, the functionality could be mimicked simply by grabbing a feed-compiler. In other cases, you need something more complex to analyse what's actually going on, but ultimately the same thing is happening: the user is simply reading accessible information from multiple sources in a convenient format. This is not only extremely hard to stop, it's also not necessarily overly useful. It's a convenience tool more than anything else.

More advanced types of script are the sort that would take that data, and store it. So for example, you might have a script that hunts down dirty puppets, and stores them all in a text file to easily load into someone's dossier, making spotting for dirty tag-raiders a lot easier. Or maybe it aggregates information about relatively inactive nations in relatively inactive regions, providing a list of would-be sleepers. I haven't done much stuff in this area, as you can probably tell, so I imagine the actual applications of such tools would be a lot more advanced. Ultimately, the point here is that these are the tools that can spot long-term potential raids, and provide the forewarning that AS22 suggests. Are they bad? I would argue not. Again, it's information that's widely available, just condensed and analysed by a machine that is far more efficient (if still lacking in the basic intuition of a person) and stored. It's a clever text file.

Then you get a bit of a leap. Those are both data-gathering, and they still require an end-user to act on them. However, we're also given the tools (and the permission) to actually perform in-game actions using scripts. While this is carefully regulated, the applications of these are far more like what I assume you were referring to when you describe games of script-vs-script. Currently the rules prevent us from automatically doing most actions, but scripts can take moving to a region (a complex manoeuvre involving two, three clicks minimum) to simply tapping on one's keyboard, and this is perfectly legal. Alternatively, a script could combine previous parts, and ban people based on information gathered, all on the basis of one click per ban. Now at this point, I can see your problem with scripting.

It should be noted that scripting tends to be hurried along when it becomes necessary. Certainly there are certain defender tools that are almost necessary for defending against Halcones' tags, because they have the advantage, and it is becoming almost impossible to match their speed. However, the banjection script I outlined above would perhaps be less necessary - the styles of liberation and regional defence have not changed as much in recent times, and so tools are not so desperately being sought. Certainly equivalents for moving at speed through a delegate's defence are not as widely sought in the circles I have mixed in.

I'm not sure where I'd draw the line. We need a clear line to draw, but it very much seems to be all or nothing. The current system works acceptably, but there are issues where gameplay is - or at least could be - becoming a match of machine vs machine. I've already suggested banning any script that attempts to perform actions on NationStates, regardless of whether they are simply communicating a user's action or not. This seems excessive to me - and would ruin many of the scripts I've been lovingly working on, but I'm willing to make such sacrifices. However, it's hard to find an intermediate point.

This is all assuming that data mining scripts are acceptable, and there are those that say that they shouldn't be. I'd disagree. They collate information more efficiently than humans, and can analyse it faster, but it's a sharp match between a human refreshing and a computer refreshing due to current script limits, and on the main NS pages the computer is actually forced down to a rate of one request per six seconds, making humans far quicker at that job. So I'd argue there's already sufficient limits to prevent abuse in that area.

[Mousebumples]

Totally different subject, but I was reading Cerb's post here, and I remembered that Wordy's previous post in Tech (I think it was Wordy's, anyhow), about mirating the update an hour each month ran into issues because it would move/affect WA voting times.

However, techie question, here: Is it possible to "divorce" the WA and Regional update times? i.e. WA votes still start at 12am/pm EST, but the Regional Update (for R/D) could then migrate throughout the year?

Not sure if it'll get noticed in here, but I figured this was the most appropriate place to put it ...

[Johz]

It doesn't help that the increase of the WA happenings from ten spaced to twenty-five made it near impossible, if not completely impractical, to WA Happenings Clear effectively.

That would certainly effect stealth at the update. It was always standard procedure to drop a WA clear when switching puppets during an update when I was starting out.

lol you're old

And I don't think so...I mean the stealth that we seem to be talking about would be one that involves no switching at update at all...not from those to be engaged in endorsing the stealth lead anyway...switching at update, happenings clear or not seems less stealthy than not doing so.

Besides, Grand Wizard Eluvatar can probably just make a script to query the WA page enough that it won't make a difference. I doubt altering the size of the happenings would do much for raiders at this point.

The current rate limits are once every six seconds for simply accessing the member log, and 50 requests every thirty seconds (slightly under twice a second) for the member log API shard. The former is definitely too slow. The latter is probably quick enough, but you have to remember that Eluvatar is almost certainly running scripts for other purposes, both R/D, and also for personal, regional, or other reasons. Assuming that all the scripts are run at full pace, it would take a minimum of ten scripts running simultaneously that Elu might as well be using the actual member log page, and sticking to the once-every-six-seconds rule. I've no idea how fast BW thinks he can clear happenings, but I imagine he'd be happy if he could do it in somewhat less time than six seconds. Well, at least if he had his beloved ten-happenings feed back.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

lol you're old

And I don't think so...I mean the stealth that we seem to be talking about would be one that involves no switching at update at all...not from those to be engaged in endorsing the stealth lead anyway...switching at update, happenings clear or not seems less stealthy than not doing so.

Besides, Grand Wizard Eluvatar can probably just make a script to query the WA page enough that it won't make a difference. I doubt altering the size of the happenings would do much for raiders at this point.

The current rate limits are once every six seconds for simply accessing the member log, and 50 requests every thirty seconds (slightly under twice a second) for the member log API shard. The former is definitely too slow. The latter is probably quick enough, but you have to remember that Eluvatar is almost certainly running scripts for other purposes, both R/D, and also for personal, regional, or other reasons. Assuming that all the scripts are run at full pace, it would take a minimum of ten scripts running simultaneously that Elu might as well be using the actual member log page, and sticking to the once-every-six-seconds rule. I've no idea how fast BW thinks he can clear happenings, but I imagine he'd be happy if he could do it in somewhat less time than six seconds. Well, at least if he had his beloved ten-happenings feed back.

Couldn't someone else who isn't running any other scripts run the member log script at the legal maximum? Then EW would have to be able to clear the happenings in half a second to hide a switch mid-update.

[Johz]

The current rate limits are once every six seconds for simply accessing the member log, and 50 requests every thirty seconds (slightly under twice a second) for the member log API shard. The former is definitely too slow. The latter is probably quick enough, but you have to remember that Eluvatar is almost certainly running scripts for other purposes, both R/D, and also for personal, regional, or other reasons. Assuming that all the scripts are run at full pace, it would take a minimum of ten scripts running simultaneously that Elu might as well be using the actual member log page, and sticking to the once-every-six-seconds rule. I've no idea how fast BW thinks he can clear happenings, but I imagine he'd be happy if he could do it in somewhat less time than six seconds. Well, at least if he had his beloved ten-happenings feed back.

Couldn't someone else who isn't running any other scripts run the member log script at the legal maximum? Then EW would have to be able to clear the happenings in half a second to hide a switch mid-update.

True. But currently that doesn't appear to be the case, even in the UDL, which is probably one of the more pro-scripting organisations out there. Neither do I see many signs of this changing, for whatever reasons.

Additionally, and I should point out that I'm moving towards wild conjecture here, as it's been a while since I last read EW's training manual, and the UDL's does not contain as much information on how to be a raider, but is it necessary to switch in a sleeper during update? If one didn't know who had switched, nor what the target was, it would be almost impossible to notice that a single nation had joined the World Assembly if it wasn't on the happenings feed. And I can assure you that if there are few enough people to run scripts during update, there would be far fewer that would be happy to run a script all day, every day, on the off-chance the someone was going to do something interesting. But then I'm working off of half-remembered posts from long ago, so if you could add some raiding expertise to my theoretical conjectures it might be nice...

[Wopruthien]

Johz: I'd had no idea defender scripting had gotten that sophisticated. Certainly FRA with the exception of one none updater hardly ever use scripts, and certainly not for spotting. I've had to change the way I spot with the introduction of fast switching but that's more my concern than anyone else's. As for preventing Halcones tag-raiding with a script didn't know there was anything on the market, but I think we do okay without it, most of the time anyway.

Evil-Wolf: I do think in part raiders have gotten a little sloppy with their stealth-tactics, but equally so, I imagine some defenders will have gotten sloppy with their spotting tactics, I doubt Wordy has, as she was always one of the best, but if you took some steps to going about it, you wouldn't have too much of a problem, and even more so with the introduction of fast switching, you can pick a time well outside of update to apply and admit. Defenders have to be watching the WA happenings 24-7 to guarantee they notice it.

As for the increase in WA happenings to 25, if you are switching mid update well there is one of your major problems why you were spotted (alright I'll stop being a smart-arse now), if tag-raiding was used as a form of diversion tactic, (why Unibot told you to do that I've no idea, but I'm sure you'd have figured it out eventually) the WA happenings are cleared in seconds anyway. You have 3-4 raiders all resigning, applying and admitting, and 5-6 defenders, plus whoever is on de-tag duty doing the same thing. I've known times when a raider who has just switched barely seconds ago been bumped off the regional happenings which makes dossiering them and checking who is point all the more difficult.

[Ballotonia]

Note that the length of the happenings and such don't matter anymore once the 'WA nations' list is added to the API. That way anyone can just grab it twice randomly far apart and look at the difference to know exactly who joined/dropped in the intermediate time period.

Ballotonia

[General Halcones]

Then that being added to the API makes stealth raiding even harder. No wonder it no longer happens. No wonder tag raiding currently dominates.

[Ballotonia]

Then that being added to the API makes stealth raiding even harder. No wonder it no longer happens. No wonder tag raiding currently dominates.

NB: that information is already freely available, just not as convenient. So instead of someone hitting the API at high speed to gather the desired information, one call would do the same thing.

Ballotonia

[The Bruce]

If "gameplay" devolves (although some might say evolves) into scripts playing against scripts then unless you're a script there's not much actual gameplay going on.

[Unibot III]

If "gameplay" devolves (although some might say evolves) into scripts playing against scripts then unless you're a script there's not much actual gameplay going on.

"If"

[Cerian Quilor]

@Halc's comments in Mal's thread.

While I like the idea of regional issues, not all regions are going to be themed around one RL political ideology, or something that can be reflected in issues well - like Europeia, TNI, Kantrias, and other brokers and would-be brokers (to use Unibot's terminology). Having moving into a region affect your stats would reduce influx to those regions that aren't concerned with such details, but newcomers usually are, and the results in terms of regional vote...

So perhaps founders could turn them off? Not WAD's, just Founders?

An egress for influence is probably one the best ideas I've seen though.

[Evil Wolf]

If "gameplay" devolves (although some might say evolves) into scripts playing against scripts then unless you're a script there's not much actual gameplay going on.

"If"

The way we're going now, more of a matter of "when".

[Unibot III]

While I like the idea of regional issues, not all regions are going to be themed around one RL political ideology, or something that can be reflected in issues well - like Europeia, TNI, Kantrias, and other brokers and would-be brokers (to use Unibot's terminology). Having moving into a region affect your stats would reduce influx to those regions that aren't concerned with such details, but newcomers usually are, and the results in terms of regional vote...

So perhaps founders could turn them off? Not WAD's, just Founders?

I'd imagine you could just.. not answer (or dismiss) issues, like we can do with national issues.

However, because brokers tend to have a "basketcase" identity to fit other ideologies in, I'd imagine those kinds of regions would be the most fun (and difficult) to answer issues for -- federalism, woot!

[Firstaria]

Ok, I read about things like removing founders and passwords. WHAT BS IS THAT?

This is a summit to improve the R/D game, not force people who don't want to have anything to to with it to join it.

Remove founder, everyone will transfer in the major regions. Who will go in a 10-12 people region if he can be invaded anytime? Same for password.

Please people don't be IDIOTS and forget NS comes BEFORE the R/D game, if we propose something to kill NS just to advantage the R/D game, violet is gonna slam the door on our face and it would be the right thing to do.

If "gameplay" devolves (although some might say evolves) into scripts playing against scripts then unless you're a script there's not much actual gameplay going on.

"If"

And Unibot, you must be the only being on earth who reads this and stops on If. Are you an Italian politician? You would fit the character.

The Bruce is right, I would LOVE to see anything that would force scripts to be abandoned.

[Xanthal]

Ok, I read about things like removing founders and passwords. WHAT BS IS THAT?

This is a summit to improve the R/D game, not force people who don't want to have anything to to with it to join it.

I don't know if you're referring to me specifically or not, but to clarify: I don't support doing away with Founders, but I am open to modifying- within reason- the list and extent of their powers, and I do support discouraging regions from refounding, though I don't think I'm prepared to make it impossible. Passwords I'm more willing to see go away; partially because they tend to do a lot of harm to a region's ability to grow and thrive over time, partially because they make withdrawing from R/D entirely easier- which as I've noted is something I'd like to discourage, and partially because they're used by invaders against natives almost as readily as they're used to keep invaders out to begin with, especially if the region in question didn't have a password in the first place. My mind isn't totally settled on this issue, and as with everything I'm open to input, but I do have a pretty well-developed feeling about it. That said, whether or not it gets actively pursued depends in no small part on the direction of the Summit.

In my mind, R/D is part of NS, at least on the gameplay side of things, and moreover the number of nations and regions involved in R/D have, I believe, a direct positive impact on the health of R/D. I understand that some people will want to have nothing to do with it no matter what and I'm willing to support the viability of that choice, but I'd rather see people participate than not participate and I'd like my role at the Summit to reflect that.

[Blackbird]

Ok, I read about things like removing founders and passwords. WHAT BS IS THAT?

I support trying to find gameplay changes that would creates more political development, and fewer raids of regions that are utterly unrelated to normal gameplay.

[Cerian Quilor]

While I like the idea of regional issues, not all regions are going to be themed around one RL political ideology, or something that can be reflected in issues well - like Europeia, TNI, Kantrias, and other brokers and would-be brokers (to use Unibot's terminology). Having moving into a region affect your stats would reduce influx to those regions that aren't concerned with such details, but newcomers usually are, and the results in terms of regional vote...

So perhaps founders could turn them off? Not WAD's, just Founders?

I'd imagine you could just.. not answer (or dismiss) issues, like we can do with national issues.

However, because brokers tend to have a "basketcase" identity to fit other ideologies in, I'd imagine those kinds of regions would be the most fun (and difficult) to answer issues for -- federalism, woot!

Who would dismiss them? The WAD/Founder?

Can you elaborate on your second point? Not sure what you're saying.

[Firstaria]

Ok, I read about things like removing founders and passwords. WHAT BS IS THAT?

This is a summit to improve the R/D game, not force people who don't want to have anything to to with it to join it.

I don't know if you're referring to me specifically or not, but to clarify: I don't support doing away with Founders, but I am open to modifying- within reason- the list and extent of their powers, and I do support discouraging regions from refounding, though I don't think I'm prepared to make it impossible. Passwords I'm more willing to see go away; partially because they tend to do a lot of harm to a region's ability to grow and thrive over time, partially because they make withdrawing from R/D entirely easier- which as I've noted is something I'd like to discourage, and partially because they're used by invaders against natives almost as readily as they're used to keep invaders out to begin with, especially if the region in question didn't have a password in the first place. My mind isn't totally settled on this issue, and as with everything I'm open to input, but I do have a pretty well-developed feeling about it. That said, whether or not it gets actively pursued depends in no small part on the direction of the Summit.

In my mind, R/D is part of NS, at least on the gameplay side of things, and moreover the number of nations and regions involved in R/D have, I believe, a direct positive impact on the health of R/D. I understand that some people will want to have nothing to do with it no matter what and I'm willing to support the viability of that choice, but I'd rather see people participate than not participate and I'd like my role at the Summit to reflect that.

I would like too to see more people participate, but there is a difference between joining and BEING FORCED to join. We can make the game fun and inviting, but not just shove it in their mouth and say "eat it".

[Blackbird]

I would like too to see more people participate, but there is a difference between joining and BEING FORCED to join. We can make the game fun and inviting, but not just shove it in their mouth and say "eat it".

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

[Cerian Quilor]

I would like too to see more people participate, but there is a difference between joining and BEING FORCED to join. We can make the game fun and inviting, but not just shove it in their mouth and say "eat it".

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.