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

[Blackbird]

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.

Well, no. Invasions are still possible. Just much harder. Your force has to outnumber the endorsements of the Delegate by X (where X is the number of the days the delegates IP is calculated by). In the real world, a coup is much more likely than an outright invasion by another nation.

[Takaram]

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

This is still military gameplay.

Well, no. Invasions are still possible. Just much harder. Your force has to outnumber the endorsements of the Delegate by X (where X is the number of the days the delegates IP is calculated by). In the real world, a coup is much more likely than an outright invasion by another nation.

When has NS ever gone for realism? This whole game revels in a high level of absurdity.

[Cerian Quilor]

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

This is still military gameplay.

Well, no. Invasions are still possible. Just much harder. Your force has to outnumber the endorsements of the Delegate by X (where X is the number of the days the delegates IP is calculated by). In the real world, a coup is much more likely than an outright invasion by another nation.

Yes, but any region that has a delegate is basically immune to outright invasions.

The real world is presently experiencing an abnormally low amount of actual war because of the current systems of modernity. But the geopolotical structure of NS is not reminiscent of Modern Earth.

[Blackbird]

When has NS ever gone for realism? This whole game revels in a high level of absurdity.

Point taken. Nevertheless, I still believe we need to increase more political development.

Well, no. Invasions are still possible. Just much harder. Your force has to outnumber the endorsements of the Delegate by X (where X is the number of the days the delegates IP is calculated by). In the real world, a coup is much more likely than an outright invasion by another nation.

Yes, but any region that has a delegate is basically immune to outright invasions.

The real world is presently experiencing an abnormally low amount of actual war because of the current systems of modernity. But the geopolotical structure of NS is not reminiscent of Modern Earth.

Well, like I said, I'll acknowledge that NS isn't supposed to model the real world. However, I believe we need to increase political development of military gameplay, and I think this is a mechanism that does that. I'm certainly not wed to the mechanism, but when the Summit called for political development discussions, I thought I'd engage in this hypo where I would sketch out a mechanism that would achieve that.

[Evil Wolf]

Well, no. Invasions are still possible. Just much harder. Your force has to outnumber the endorsements of the Delegate by X (where X is the number of the days the delegates IP is calculated by). In the real world, a coup is much more likely than an outright invasion by another nation.

It's interesting to note that Blackbird's region, TPC, which is founderless, has a delegate who has been in power for 1 year 58 days. This would make TPC more or less impossible to take.

But I digress, this would be a nightmare not only for the R/D game but for natives as well. Lets say someone in TWP gets elected to the delegate seat for a year and then decides to coup the region at the end of their term. The fight to retake the delegacy would be nigh impossible, since not only does the resistance have to fight against the delegate's large numbers, a feat in and of itself, but also this "Delegate's endorsements by 1 year" calculation. The feeders would become dictatorships after the first coup, in fact, people would be tripping over themselves to seize power upon realizing this.

Also makes influence rather pointless, I feel.

[Blackbird]

Well, no. Invasions are still possible. Just much harder. Your force has to outnumber the endorsements of the Delegate by X (where X is the number of the days the delegates IP is calculated by). In the real world, a coup is much more likely than an outright invasion by another nation.

It's interesting to note that Blackbird's region, TPC, which is founderless, has a delegate who has been in power for 1 year 58 days. This would make TPC more or less impossible to take.

Well, no, you read the proposal wrong. The proposal would say that Delegate's influence expires after X days. Let's say 5. So a Delegate of a region like TPC would have 5 days of influence behind him. If though, some invaders come in with equal numbers, it would cost the Delegate a days worth of influence to eject them all. See how that works? It makes invasions more like sieges that require political action that blietzkriegs.

But I digress, this would be a nightmare not only for the R/D game but for natives as well. Lets say someone in TWP gets elected to the delegate seat for a year and then decides to coup the region at the end of their term. The fight to retake the delegacy would be nigh impossible, since not only does the resistance have to fight against the delegate's large numbers, a feat in and of itself, but also this "Delegate's endorsements by 1 year" calculation. The feeders would become dictatorships after the first coup, in fact, people would be tripping over themselves to seize power upon realizing this.

Also makes influence rather pointless, I feel.

You misread the proposal. It doesn't give the Delegate an amount of influence equal to the time they've been delegate, but only the influence for some arbitration number of days. Say 5.

[Evil Wolf]

Well, no, you read the proposal wrong. The proposal would say that Delegate's influence expires after X days. Let's say 5. So a Delegate of a region like TPC would have 5 days of influence behind him. If though, some invaders come in with equal numbers, it would cost the Delegate a days worth of influence to eject them all. See how that works? It makes invasions more like sieges that require political action that blietzkriegs.

Oh, so the intent is more to limit region destruction rather than update raiding?

You misread the proposal. It doesn't give the Delegate an amount of influence equal to the time they've been delegate, but only the influence for some arbitration number of days. Say 5.

And how would this "arbitration number of days" be determined, exactly?

[Blackbird]

Well, no, you read the proposal wrong. The proposal would say that Delegate's influence expires after X days. Let's say 5. So a Delegate of a region like TPC would have 5 days of influence behind him. If though, some invaders come in with equal numbers, it would cost the Delegate a days worth of influence to eject them all. See how that works? It makes invasions more like sieges that require political action that blietzkriegs.

Oh, so the intent is more to limit region destruction rather than update raiding?

You misread the proposal. It doesn't give the Delegate an amount of influence equal to the time they've been delegate, but only the influence for some arbitration number of days. Say 5.

And how would this "arbitration number of days" be determined, exactly?

I mean, the mods pick a number. I don't have any suggestion on what the number should be, other than greater than 1. If it's greater than 1, then a successful invasion needs at least twice the endorsements of the delegate to succeed in taking the region. If you combine that proposal with say, removing founders for regions with more than 50 nations/365 days of existnece/something-else-arbitraty, then you've succeeded in making raiding more political and de-emphasizing update rating, with all it evils surrounding speed and such.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I cannot find the thread regarding removal of founders in tech ideas........point me to that could you?

EDIT: Blackbird supplied link via TG, thanks!

[Firstaria]

I agree, I read the idea and I have to admit it doesn't look really good. Actually it doesn't look in like on what you said before, that was a little more acceptable.

I'm a strong pro-defender, but I can see that if there could be something to promote big raids instead of these stupid tag games, raiders would be more active. To say a joke, like if you actually can steal gold or something .

[Whamabama]

One thing I would like to point out, and some of you seem to get it, but some not so much.

While many have a choosen side for this game, I think the idea is to not make your game easier, but to make a game that is entertaining, and one you want to play. Meaning that it is fun to play no matter your choosen side.

[Cerian Quilor]

It's interesting to note that Blackbird's region, TPC, which is founderless, has a delegate who has been in power for 1 year 58 days. This would make TPC more or less impossible to take.

Well, no, you read the proposal wrong. The proposal would say that Delegate's influence expires after X days. Let's say 5. So a Delegate of a region like TPC would have 5 days of influence behind him. If though, some invaders come in with equal numbers, it would cost the Delegate a days worth of influence to eject them all. See how that works? It makes invasions more like sieges that require political action that blietzkriegs.

But I digress, this would be a nightmare not only for the R/D game but for natives as well. Lets say someone in TWP gets elected to the delegate seat for a year and then decides to coup the region at the end of their term. The fight to retake the delegacy would be nigh impossible, since not only does the resistance have to fight against the delegate's large numbers, a feat in and of itself, but also this "Delegate's endorsements by 1 year" calculation. The feeders would become dictatorships after the first coup, in fact, people would be tripping over themselves to seize power upon realizing this.

Also makes influence rather pointless, I feel.

You misread the proposal. It doesn't give the Delegate an amount of influence equal to the time they've been delegate, but only the influence for some arbitration number of days. Say 5.

And after the first raid, Defenders will move in to protect it.

For that matter, if a region elects its delegate on say, its forums, it would also make delegate changes take more time.

[Bears Armed]

One thing I would like to point out, and some of you seem to get it, but some not so much.

While many have a choosen side for this game, I think the idea is to not make your game easier, but to make a game that is entertaining, and one you want to play. Meaning that it is fun to play no matter your choosen side.

Preferably without making NS as a whole less fun for those players who don't want to be involved in -- or have their home regions subjected to -- the R/D side of things at all...

[Astarial]

Blackbird has posted numerously about a lack of risk in the game, and the lack of incentive for political action in the game because people are too protected and don't face real threats. As a result, he has advocated for foundered regions to become founderless regions.

Yes.

He lives in a founderless region, but it is passworded.

Also yes.

Okay, that isn't "making everyone vulnerable". That's making everyone else vulnerable while locking yourself up in a fort.That is called being a hypocrite.

This is where you're wrong. BB is not advocating removing protection from others and not from himself. He's advocating removing protection from all and not doing so on himself without being matched by others. It is a fairly classic, "None of us should have guns pointed at each other, but I'm sure as hell not putting mine down first" scenario.

I'm not saying I support his idea, necessarily, but simply proposing it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

It is important to distinguish between "This is my idea for an ideal world" and "This is how I cope with the world that exists."

[Blackbird]

This is where you're wrong. BB is not advocating removing protection from others and not from himself. He's advocating removing protection from all and not doing so on himself without being matched by others. It is a fairly classic, "None of us should have guns pointed at each other, but I'm sure as hell not putting mine down first" scenario.

I'm not saying I support his idea, necessarily, but simply proposing it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

It is important to distinguish between "This is my idea for an ideal world" and "This is how I cope with the world that exists."

I thank Astarial for the words of support. He certainly has the right of it.

My personal situation aptly demonstrates how much we desperately need gameplay changes. I say, without modesty, that I was one of the greatest defenders NationStates ever saw. I was a leader in two of the mightiest organizations, the RLA and the ADN. Invaders trembled and turned against themselves at the thought of my intelligence operations being aimed against them. MIghty regions united under my diplomacy in common defense, and we raised the greatest armies the world had ever seen.

I did those things, because it was rational for me to do so. It was rational for me to take these steps, extraordinary though they were, to protect my region.

Now, things are different. As my region decreases in numbers and we no longer recruit, why keep it open? Why not simply password protect it? Isn't that easier than going to all the trouble of creating mighty defensive organizations? If I had a founder, why would I ever have gone into defending? Why would I ever have left my region, but for the fact that my whims took me there?

You have to make the gameplay create incentives for players to interact with each other.

***


As I've said several times, I am not wed to this proposal. I don't really know that I particularly care for it. What it does do however, is to get a lot of regions to have some skin in the game. I think removing founders on regions above a certain size or time limit, coupled with the proposal about calculating delegate "votes" over a period of more than 1 day, would make the game much more political, and de-emphasize speed raids and the tactics of modern invasions and defense.

If someone else would want to make a better proposal that also accomplishes those twin aims, I'd be happy to sign on.


***


I hate to pull an "oldie" card, but what I think the younger generations of players has not yet realized about NationStates is that it's not very fun to engage in ceaseless conflict with no gains and no losses. I've played this game for 10 years. A decade. The world in 2002, with its geopolitical forces, was radically different than the world of 2003, or 2004. But the game stagnated, in part due to gameplay mechanics that insulated creation and prevented destruction. Essentially, NationStates has become a glorified message board, with a whimsical nation as your character instead of a forum profile. Yes, there's the UN/WA and all the fun that that is. But back before influence and before fonders had been widely adopted, there was a pressure on players to build up defensive mechanisms. Your region could be lost; it could be destroyed; that which you had created would be turned to ashes.

Now I understand this presented problems. [violet], I'm sure, was inundated with complaints of small communities of players, 10 nation regions, destroyed by invaders they knew nothing about, whom they had never wronged. Giving those people founders certainly redressed those wrongs. But why should a region of 100 nations, or 200 nations, have that same protection? I was motivated to get involved in defending, because I was afraid that my region would fall. My region had more than 250-300 nations at one point. It was one of the largest regions in the world, but still, even it could be threatened by invasions. And that threat compelled some of the greatest nations in the game to become involved in inter-regional play, rather than merely remaining in our little balkinized corner of the world.

I think [violet] has given an opportunity to promote real gameplay change by asking for proposals about "political development." Now, we can certainly maintain the status quo, and NS will continue going down the path into obscurity that it has been for some time. Perhaps some of this is inevitable, as the novelty certainly wore off years ago. But I think it can be revitalized. And I ask invaders: when was the last time you took something from defenders that mattered? And I say "mattered" in an objective sense, not in some subjective sense of "we wanted it, so they didn't want us to have it, so it mattered." Tags don't "matters." And I ask defenders: when was the last time something you truly cared about was threatened? I suspect most defenders can never remember such a time, or if they can, can count it on one hand.

If you think these things matter, then we should make proposals to revitalize that kind of gameplay. Implicit in that is removing the protection of founders or creating other mechanisms for at least some nations/regions to become vulnerable and thereby have to engage in political development for common defense.

[Bears Armed]

Now I understand this presented problems. [violet], I'm sure, was inundated with complaints of small communities of players, 10 nation regions, destroyed by invaders they knew nothing about, whom they had never wronged. Giving those people founders certainly redressed those wrongs. But why should a region of 100 nations, or 200 nations, have that same protection?

Set any threshold above which regions lose their founders, and what keeps raiders from moving enough nations into any region that's quite narrowly below that limit to push it past the barrier -- remove the founder -- and make its seizure & destruction possible? Why should those 'founded' regions whose members want to participate in other aspects of NS instead of R/D be arbitrarily restricted in size as a price for safety?

[Blackbird]

Now I understand this presented problems. [violet], I'm sure, was inundated with complaints of small communities of players, 10 nation regions, destroyed by invaders they knew nothing about, whom they had never wronged. Giving those people founders certainly redressed those wrongs. But why should a region of 100 nations, or 200 nations, have that same protection?

Set any threshold above which regions lose their founders, and what keeps raiders from moving enough nations into any region that's quite narrowly below that limit to push it past the barrier -- remove the founder -- and make its seizure & destruction possible? Why should those 'founded' regions whose members want to participate in other aspects of NS instead of R/D be arbitrarily restricted in size as a price for safety?

Again, this is a pretty skeletal proposal in terms of the actual gameplay mechanisms, but I can dream of several solutions to your proposed problem. For instance, requiring that a region be above the threshold for a week would be one way to do it.

You make it sound like arbitrariness is a bad thing. We have to draw lines somewhere. Acknowledging that they're arbitrary makes them easier to move if they don't work out, rather than pretending that they're some sacrosanct commandment handed down from God.

Why not? If you don't want to play R/D, you keep your region small than whatever arbitrary number you need. If you're above that number, it'd be hard for most invaders to unseat you, particularly if the Delegacy is determined by votes that occur over a period of time greater than one day. That means it's much harder to be unseated swiftly in one update. If, say, the Delegacy is determined by votes over two days, invaders need twice as many votes as the Delegate has in one day to unseat them. If it's three days, three times as many, etc., etc.

Even when the risk of something horrific, like an invasion happening, is very low, because the magnitude of the damage is high, regions will take protection. So by imposing a threat on regions that is low very low, though very grave, we'll induce a very large amount of political activity.

[Bears Armed]

Why not? If you don't want to play R/D, you keep your region small than whatever arbitrary number you need.

I repeat, why should we have to do that? You do realise that region size can affect other aspects of the game too, such as RP or the GA, don't you?

[Firstaria]

The simple facts that this topic is still talking about such a stupid idea is baffling. Founders are not gonna get removed because what, 10 people wants it?

What people will do is massing into big regions of myriad of nations, almost impossible to invade, and so both R/D game and the aspect of the NS personalization will die. This after 50% of the nations in game will CTE as they see their reunion place being transformed in a target because 10 people wanted to play raiding and defending with them.

There is nothing else to talk, the idea is stupid and you all know it. Please move to the next topic, thank you.

[AS22]

This is where you're wrong. BB is not advocating removing protection from others and not from himself. He's advocating removing protection from all and not doing so on himself without being matched by others. It is a fairly classic, "None of us should have guns pointed at each other, but I'm sure as hell not putting mine down first" scenario.

I'm not saying I support his idea, necessarily, but simply proposing it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

It is important to distinguish between "This is my idea for an ideal world" and "This is how I cope with the world that exists."

This is garbage. His "protection" is already gone, he doesn't have a founder. That's the irony of his proposal, he is saying that being founderless will increase risk or w/e but doesn't deal with the password issue.

You have the scenario wrong, he wants to take everyone's guns away while having one hidden in his back pocket.

Any by not dealing with the password issue, he is allowing everyone a gun in their back pocket, putting us back to zero, except now regions that want to recruit will have an extra penalty on them just because they are trying to provide for their security.

If he really wants more risk, then I want a framework which will allow me to invade his region and eject him out of it.

Seriously...has he even addressed the issue of influence? How does destroying founders do anything when no invader will be able to kick the "founding" nations anyway, because of influence?

His proposal gets dumber every time I read it.

[Blackbird]

This is where you're wrong. BB is not advocating removing protection from others and not from himself. He's advocating removing protection from all and not doing so on himself without being matched by others. It is a fairly classic, "None of us should have guns pointed at each other, but I'm sure as hell not putting mine down first" scenario.

I'm not saying I support his idea, necessarily, but simply proposing it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

It is important to distinguish between "This is my idea for an ideal world" and "This is how I cope with the world that exists."

This is garbage. His "protection" is already gone, he doesn't have a founder. That's the irony of his proposal, he is saying that being founderless will increase risk or w/e but doesn't deal with the password issue.

You have the scenario wrong, he wants to take everyone's guns away while having one hidden in his back pocket.

Any by not dealing with the password issue, he is allowing everyone a gun in their back pocket, putting us back to zero, except now regions that want to recruit will have an extra penalty on them just because they are trying to provide for their security.

If he really wants more risk, then I want a framework which will allow me to invade his region and eject him out of it.

Seriously...has he even addressed the issue of influence? How does destroying founders do anything when no invader will be able to kick the "founding" nations anyway, because of influence?

His proposal gets dumber every time I read it.

Just read my !@#$ing proposal for once, instead of just trolling me. I address influence, but your'e either too dumb, too ignorant, or too malicious to read to it.

[AS22]

This is garbage. His "protection" is already gone, he doesn't have a founder. That's the irony of his proposal, he is saying that being founderless will increase risk or w/e but doesn't deal with the password issue.

You have the scenario wrong, he wants to take everyone's guns away while having one hidden in his back pocket.

Any by not dealing with the password issue, he is allowing everyone a gun in their back pocket, putting us back to zero, except now regions that want to recruit will have an extra penalty on them just because they are trying to provide for their security.

If he really wants more risk, then I want a framework which will allow me to invade his region and eject him out of it.

Seriously...has he even addressed the issue of influence? How does destroying founders do anything when no invader will be able to kick the "founding" nations anyway, because of influence?

His proposal gets dumber every time I read it.

Just read my !@#$ing proposal for once, instead of just trolling me. I address influence, but your'e either too dumb, too ignorant, or too malicious to read to it.

Calm yourself, I already addressed the influence measure in your proposal - while also pointing out that in contradicts your supposed intent of "more risk".

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=212605&p=12014792&hilit=influence#p12014792

So your ideas still make no sense.

[Astarial]

This is garbage. His "protection" is already gone, he doesn't have a founder. That's the irony of his proposal, he is saying that being founderless will increase risk or w/e but doesn't deal with the password issue.

...And how, exactly, would it be hypocritical, again, if everyone is still able to password their own regions?

If he really wants more risk, then I want a framework which will allow me to invade his region and eject him out of it.

His does. I'm not sure you've actually read it, despite your wild insinuations to the contrary.

Seriously...has he even addressed the issue of influence? How does destroying founders do anything when no invader will be able to kick the "founding" nations anyway, because of influence?

Yes, many times. This assertion is simply... what's the word... false.

[AS22]

Okay well, if a proposal intends to create more risk it is hypocritical for it to destroy founders while allowing passwords.

So on to your second statement, his proposal -clearly- does not allow for me to invade and eject him. How am I supposed to invade his region and eject him if he has a password?

And thirdly, I have addressed his influence idea, which again...directly contradicts his supposed intent of more risk.

Each of your three points are easily refuted because you are standing up for a proposal that is fundamentally at odds with itself and completely broken.

[Sichuan Pepper]

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.