Advertisement
by Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:19 am
by Martyrdoom » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:23 am
by Erastide » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:52 am
Marcuslandia wrote:Here we are in region X. Residing there for the last year has been nation Native Son, which has been a WA all that time. In the last couple weeks, a dozen invader infiltrator puppets have arrived in region X. Those puppets have been in the game for a couple years each, but none have had a WA for more than a month at a time. D-Day minus 1, all 12 get their WA membership. D-Day and they make their move -- and bounce, because Native Son's WA outweighs all 12 of their WAs combined.
by TannerFrankLand » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:58 am
Erastide wrote:Marcuslandia wrote:Here we are in region X. Residing there for the last year has been nation Native Son, which has been a WA all that time. In the last couple weeks, a dozen invader infiltrator puppets have arrived in region X. Those puppets have been in the game for a couple years each, but none have had a WA for more than a month at a time. D-Day minus 1, all 12 get their WA membership. D-Day and they make their move -- and bounce, because Native Son's WA outweighs all 12 of their WAs combined.
Influence wise, nations in the WA already are ahead in a given region. I wouldn't be at all in favor of delegacy being determined by influence, then whoever is oldest would have an easy time controlling the region. I'm not quite sure I'm understanding what you're proposing though.
Security Council FanaticWA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
by Erastide » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:03 am
by TannerFrankLand » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:09 am
Erastide wrote:Yeah, not in favor of that scenario either.
Security Council FanaticWA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
by Kryozerkia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:16 am
by Tanaara » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:52 am
by Erastide » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:05 am
by Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:49 am
TannerFrankLand wrote:Erastide wrote:Yeah, not in favor of that scenario either.
Dittoed. Although that may not have been what he meant...
by Naivetry » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:47 am
Marcuslandia wrote:TannerFrankLand wrote:Erastide wrote:Yeah, not in favor of that scenario either.
Dittoed. Although that may not have been what he meant...
I keep coming back to this image of a large pack of Chihuahuas dragging down a small herd of elephants. When you factor in WA longevity, the image changes from a pack of Chihuahuas to that of a pack of _new-born_ Chihuahua puppies.
The invader/defender game as it has been practiced is all about Quantity, with not the least concern about the realistic impact of Quality.
by Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:50 pm
Naivetry wrote:But Longevity does not, in any way, shape, or form, equal Quality.
by Naivetry » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:49 am
Marcuslandia wrote:Naivetry wrote:But Longevity does not, in any way, shape, or form, equal Quality.
But is does mean that the nation/player has been active enough to avoid a CTE.
But just because there are no guarantees, must its influence on the game be _totally_ disregarded? I figure it's at least suggestive that the player is interested enough in the game, he has been a participant long enough, that perhaps his participation is _likely_ to be more....substantial than someone else whose nation's longevity could be measured in hours.
by Marcuslandia » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:29 am
by AP3 10 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:29 pm
Valipac wrote:Erastide wrote:The idea is to have a mechanism to replace founders. Perhaps a vote that can be initiated?
If region residents were voting to replace founders, wouldn't it then be the same as delegates?
by Marcuslandia » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:36 pm
by Valipac » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:02 pm
by Whamabama » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:04 pm
by AP3 10 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:12 pm
raiding would once again become impossible.
The founder has the power because it's his region, he created it. Yes I understand that others choose to be there, participate within the region. Helped it grow, and called it home. It however still belongs to the founder. If the founder CTE, well then the power of the founder does as well
by Marcuslandia » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:37 pm
Valipac wrote:That's just silly. Why should a founder lose his status by leaving the region? Perhaps he wants to have a certain region for his puppets, but he himself wants to live in another region. Under your proposal, he would not be able to continue being the founder of that region.
Furthermore, this would force every region to have a founder, and in the cases of some regions, would allow people to become founders who shouldn't be. Just because someone has been there the longest doesn't mean they know how to properly govern the community, and it could tear some regions apart. And since every region would gain a founder, raiding would once again become impossible.
by Erastide » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:16 pm
Marcuslandia wrote:1) Why should a Founder lose his status? Try "commitment to purpose". What was his purpose for founding the region in the first place? If he voluntarily walks away on his own, he should _know_ that he is making a statement to everyone else that he's leaving behind. That statement being, "I no longer feel totally commited to the reason why I founded this region that I remain here myself.
2) There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that the Founding nation needs to leave a region. _Exactly_ like how a WA status transfers to a player's other puppet. What does the player accomplish by moving the Founding nation out, instead of dispatching a puppet? If he truly, sincerely wants to retain control of his region, he leaves _that_ nation there and sends off an alter ego.
Marcuslandia wrote:3) Do you REALLY want for a single player with a single nation to be able to Found 20-50-100+ regions, all with Founder powers in all of those regions? The exercising of the potential in that ability smacks of something underhanded and detrimental to other players.
Marcuslandia wrote:5) Just because someone Founds a region, given how easy that is to do, is most definitely NOT a guarantee that he knows how to administer a region either.
by Marcuslandia » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:42 pm
Erastide wrote:Marcuslandia wrote:5) Just because someone Founds a region, given how easy that is to do, is most definitely NOT a guarantee that he knows how to administer a region either.
There's never been a requirement that by founding a region you "know how to administer" it. What that means can mean different things to different players.
Valipac wrote:Just because someone has been there the longest doesn't mean they know how to properly govern the community
by Valipac » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:23 pm
Marcuslandia wrote:Valipac wrote:That's just silly. Why should a founder lose his status by leaving the region? Perhaps he wants to have a certain region for his puppets, but he himself wants to live in another region. Under your proposal, he would not be able to continue being the founder of that region.
Furthermore, this would force every region to have a founder, and in the cases of some regions, would allow people to become founders who shouldn't be. Just because someone has been there the longest doesn't mean they know how to properly govern the community, and it could tear some regions apart. And since every region would gain a founder, raiding would once again become impossible.
There are soooo many holes in logic going on here..... (I'm saying "faulty reasoning; NOT "stupid", okay?)
1) Why should a Founder lose his status? Try "commitment to purpose". What was his purpose for founding the region in the first place? If he voluntarily walks away on his own, he should _know_ that he is making a statement to everyone else that he's leaving behind. That statement being, "I no longer feel totally commited to the reason why I founded this region that I remain here myself.
2) There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that the Founding nation needs to leave a region. _Exactly_ like how a WA status transfers to a player's other puppet. What does the player accomplish by moving the Founding nation out, instead of dispatching a puppet? If he truly, sincerely wants to retain control of his region, he leaves _that_ nation there and sends off an alter ego.
3) Do you REALLY want for a single player with a single nation to be able to Found 20-50-100+ regions, all with Founder powers in all of those regions? The exercising of the potential in that ability smacks of something underhanded and detrimental to other players.
4) Your counter-argument forces others to deal with NOT having a Founder. Which approach injures the regional inhabitants more? Hmm. Replace the Founder, we retain protection. Do NOT replace the Founder and we either have to jump through a myriad of hoops re-Founding the region -- plus dealing with the civil war as multiple players vie to be the new Founder. Or do NOT replace the Founder and risk becoming Invader fodder. Hmm. Which direction should we move on this?
5) Just because someone Founds a region, given how easy that is to do, is most definitely NOT a guarantee that he knows how to administer a region either.
6) Kills the I/D game? Got me there. But given the full population of players, what percentage would you guess don't want to be playing that game in the first place. Buutttttt, since this whole discussion would require a game change anyway, then make another game change as well: Specifically allow a region to opt into the I/D game. (That would clarify things even more than having regions opt out!) Of course, an opt-in Founder would have to have weaker powers than an opt-out Founder, just to make it possible for a region to be inrvaded.
by Marcuslandia » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:25 am
Valipac wrote:1. You completely ignored my potential scenario. Good job. Here's another potential scenario. You found a region that is your alliance's main region. You also found a region for nations who want to be in your alliance but aren't "good" enough yet. In your scenario, you would no longer be able to control one of those two regions.
Valipac wrote:2. Yes, there is. See both of my examples above. It's a lot easier not to have to log in to a puppet whenever you want to access regional control.
Valipac wrote:3. This has never been a problem before, why would it become a problem now?
Valipac wrote:4. Since my region has a password, we don't need a founder, thank you very much. The same is true for the region my puppet is in, which actually doesn't have a founder. Your statement of purpose shows what this is truly a means to, an effort to eliminate raiding completely. Which I had already surmised.
Valipac wrote:5. Yes, but in that case, we can move out. In this case, we have already moved in and grown attached to our communities. By adding a new founder, a person whom the residents would never elect into a position of power could gain the control and ruin the community that they had built during the reign of either the previous founder or the time that they had no founder. If the first founder is tyrannical, it won't be a big deal, the region is small and young, relationships are only just forming. If the second founder is, it will ruin the entire region, and all of the well developed communities within it.
Valipac wrote:6. Ah yes, killing the I/D game. Yep, we should definitely ruin the game for a fairly high percentage of the players... We shouldn't be aiming to destroy the raiding game, we should be aiming to rework it so as to prevent griefing as it was previously defined. Also... Opt-in founders weaker than opt-out founders? Way to make the coding extremely complicated.
by Valipac » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:05 am
Marcuslandia wrote:Valipac wrote:1. You completely ignored my potential scenario. Good job. Here's another potential scenario. You found a region that is your alliance's main region. You also found a region for nations who want to be in your alliance but aren't "good" enough yet. In your scenario, you would no longer be able to control one of those two regions.
Player has nation. Player founds region with that nation as Founder. Player starts puppet nation. That puppet nation is used to Found second region. Two regions; one player. With no cap on puppets, there is no limit to how many regions one player can Found.
Marcuslandia wrote:Valipac wrote:2. Yes, there is. See both of my examples above. It's a lot easier not to have to log in to a puppet whenever you want to access regional control.
Think of it as the price to be paid if you insist on running more than one region. What is EASIER for one player may not be the best solution _for the game_. Having ONE nation be simultaneously Founder for umpteen dozen regions is NOT a Good Thing.
Marcuslandia wrote:Valipac wrote:3. This has never been a problem before, why would it become a problem now?
Because it can become a problem. Once upon a time, invaders didn't have such an easy time of locking down regions -- until they learned to twist the rules to their advantage. It's just a matter of time before a player decides to make the Guiness Book of World Records for most regions Founded by one nation -- because he can and it hasn't been done before. {Hmm. Gee, I've got all this free time coming up now that it's summer....]
Marcuslandia wrote:Valipac wrote:4. Since my region has a password, we don't need a founder, thank you very much. The same is true for the region my puppet is in, which actually doesn't have a founder. Your statement of purpose shows what this is truly a means to, an effort to eliminate raiding completely. Which I had already surmised.
I have no desire to flat out eliminate the I/D game. What I _would_ like to see is for every region that does NOT want to play the I/D game to be able to do so, whether they have a Founder or not, or whether the region is passworded or not. And I can likewise see that you are NOT concerned about players that are forced to play that portion of the game, whether they want to or not. As long as you get what _you_ want, then what happens to them isn't your concern.
Marcuslandia wrote:Valipac wrote:5. Yes, but in that case, we can move out. In this case, we have already moved in and grown attached to our communities. By adding a new founder, a person whom the residents would never elect into a position of power could gain the control and ruin the community that they had built during the reign of either the previous founder or the time that they had no founder. If the first founder is tyrannical, it won't be a big deal, the region is small and young, relationships are only just forming. If the second founder is, it will ruin the entire region, and all of the well developed communities within it.
Your argument loops back around onto itself. How many players move to a given region because of who Founded it? The way you state your case, that's the ONLY reason they do so. From what I've seen, most immigrations come about because the region itself interests them. Unless you have a serious change in management styles, they probably wouldn't even notice. And if the alternative is to have no Founder at all -- THAT has a very serious change in regional conditions. The same holds true if regional management transfers to the Delegate, you get the same potential for drastic change. If your argument is, "At least they got to vote for him!" then you should likewise argue for an election for a replacement Founder for the one that CTEed. (Which is, in fact my preference, but all the old-timers are dead set against _that_ idea.)
[/quote]Marcuslandia wrote:Valipac wrote:6. Ah yes, killing the I/D game. Yep, we should definitely ruin the game for a fairly high percentage of the players... We shouldn't be aiming to destroy the raiding game, we should be aiming to rework it so as to prevent griefing as it was previously defined. Also... Opt-in founders weaker than opt-out founders? Way to make the coding extremely complicated.
This is probably the most maddening aspect about the whole debate. Of the estimated 10,000+ players in the game, just how many actually DO want to play the I/D game? 10%? 20%? 30%? 40%? (Excuse the caps) NOBODY KNOWS! We can make some educated guesses: We know that there are almost 50,000 active nations in the game. Quite a few of those are puppets, and of those puppets, my guess is that most of those are owned and operated by I/D players. So, how many I/D nations do we currently "see" as being in motion? (They _do_ tend to draw attention to themselves when they go stomping about.) So, 5,000 I/D nations? (10%) 10,000 I/D nations? (20%) 15,000 I/D nations? (30%) How many does it take to get to "fairly high"? Conversely, as the poll queries, how many players/nations really would prefer to NOT get involved in the I/D game at all? What about the desires of _that_ "fairly high" percentage of players?
As for the opt-in/opt-out, it's an either/or approach to the programming. If regions would opt-in, only nations in those regions may participate in the I/D game, and they would be limited to only invading other opt-in regions. If the programming identifies only those regions which have opted-out, then invasions could take place in any region not identified as opt-out. Programming for opting-in is easier than programming for opting-out.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Domanania, Ferneus, Fetra, Leoria and Portardosa, Pierpontia, Saint Neots, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The United Kindom under Socialist Rule
Advertisement