Poll: Opting out of the invader/defender game

[Erastide]

Founders offer an optout. Getting a founder isn't that hard unless you're extremely attached to your region and unwilling to move to a region you create yourself. The discussion about replacing founders can offer those regions some hope perhaps. But I personally don't see why an "opt-out" option needs to be added.

[Marcuslandia]

Founders offer an optout. Getting a founder isn't that hard unless you're extremely attached to your region and unwilling to move to a region you create yourself. The discussion about replacing founders can offer those regions some hope perhaps. But I personally don't see why an "opt-out" option needs to be added.

Guaranteed protection: Be the Founder! -- Good for you, but for everyone else they can only hope that you actually stick with it forever, that you don't turn out to be a petulant control freak, that you aren't so incredibly laissez-faire that you just "let everything sort itself out on its own", that that, that

Lose your Founder? Re-Found! -- As mentioned in several places, the larger the region, the more hassle is involved. And the new region is _never_ quite the same as the old one. And after going through all that hassle, there's no guarantee that the new Founder will stick with it any longer than the last one.

[Erastide]

Founder has absolute rights. You don't like it, you can leave and form your own region with the regionmates that agree with you.

Refounding, yes that'll be a problem. But there are too many factors to create a standard plan for refounding. You can't make everyone happy when it comes to refounding a long time region. And at some point, you can't guarantee everyone's safety. Founders offer them a chance, and the discussion on replacing founders offers a possible venue to helping regions when their founder goes missing. Much more than that is a bit overboard.

[Fatatatutti]

When you come right down to it, the game has developed a pretty good system of checks and balances that prevent anybody from getting his own way all the time.

[Marcuslandia]

Founder has absolute rights. You don't like it, you can leave and form your own region with the regionmates that agree with you.

Refounding, yes that'll be a problem. But there are too many factors to create a standard plan for refounding. You can't make everyone happy when it comes to refounding a long time region. And at some point, you can't guarantee everyone's safety. Founders offer them a chance, and the discussion on replacing founders offers a possible venue to helping regions when their founder goes missing. Much more than that is a bit overboard.

The whole discussion about Founders, and Re-Founders, and Replacement Founders is actually just a distraction. The bottomline to the whole discussion is that quite a few players simply do NOT want to get dragged into the I/D game. So why NOT go directly to _the_ issue: We want to be left alone! Instead what is proposed over and over again is the same methods that are riddled with shortcomings and loopholes that invaders keep on exploiting.

And maybe that's exactly the kind of "solution" they want to continue to see? "What we have now works for us because it guarantees we continue to find easy targets. And why anything that actually does a better job of reducing the number of easy regions we can pick off is something that NEEDS to be fought tooth-and-nail."

[Martyrdoom]

When you come right down to it, the game has developed a pretty good system of checks and balances that prevent anybody from getting his own way all the time.

Exactly.

This is the wellspring from where my own thoughts on this matter are essentially derived.

[Marcuslandia]

When you come right down to it, the game has developed a pretty good system of checks and balances that prevent anybody from getting his own way all the time.

Yup. Every time someone that did NOT want to play the I/D game gets banjected from the region that was his home for many, many months, you definitely have someone there that was prevented from getting his own way. The Invaders, otoh.....

[Whamabama]

The whole discussion about Founders, and Re-Founders, and Replacement Founders is actually just a distraction. The bottomline to the whole discussion is that quite a few players simply do NOT want to get dragged into the I/D game. So why NOT go directly to _the_ issue: We want to be left alone! Instead what is proposed over and over again is the same methods that are riddled with shortcomings and loopholes that invaders keep on exploiting.

And maybe that's exactly the kind of "solution" they want to continue to see? "What we have now works for us because it guarantees we continue to find easy targets. And why anything that actually does a better job of reducing the number of easy regions we can pick off is something that NEEDS to be fought tooth-and-nail."

Don't want to be a part of the military gameplay? Then don't. There is no need for game changes. You simply don't mess with it. Join an active community, with an active founder. Worried he will leave? Found your own region. What you want is easily attainable.

Trouble here is, you don't want just to be left alone, you want to change the entire aspect of the game. You want to ensure that you always get your way, even if it means destroying the game for countless others. At the same time ignoring the advice of anyone telling you how you can reach your goal.

There are many types of regions out there. Choosing one that fits you might take a little time perhaps, but visiting different communities can also be entertaining in itself.

[Erastide]

The whole discussion about Founders, and Re-Founders, and Replacement Founders is actually just a distraction. The bottomline to the whole discussion is that quite a few players simply do NOT want to get dragged into the I/D game. So why NOT go directly to _the_ issue: We want to be left alone! Instead what is proposed over and over again is the same methods that are riddled with shortcomings and loopholes that invaders keep on exploiting.

And maybe that's exactly the kind of "solution" they want to continue to see? "What we have now works for us because it guarantees we continue to find easy targets. And why anything that actually does a better job of reducing the number of easy regions we can pick off is something that NEEDS to be fought tooth-and-nail."

At a certain point, you are playing a game. You have a way to remove yourself from it to a certain point if your safety is superduper important to you, get in a region with a founder. You and your buddies can found another region if you love each other so much. If you value the identity of your region, then your regionmates will have to agree to refound the region. Max decreed that invasion/defending would happen. Rules were put in place to mitigate the worst of the effects, but not all problems will go away.

[Marcuslandia]

Don't want to be a part of the military gameplay? Then don't. There is no need for game changes. You simply don't mess with it. Join an active community, with an active founder. Worried he will leave? Found your own region. What you want is easily attainable.

Trouble here is, you don't want just to be left alone, you want to change the entire aspect of the game. You want to ensure that you always get your way, even if it means destroying the game for countless others. At the same time ignoring the advice of anyone telling you how you can reach your goal.

There are many types of regions out there. Choosing one that fits you might take a little time perhaps, but visiting different communities can also be entertaining in itself.

At a certain point, you are playing a game. You have a way to remove yourself from it to a certain point if your safety is superduper important to you, get in a region with a founder. You and your buddies can found another region if you love each other so much. If you value the identity of your region, then your regionmates will have to agree to refound the region. Max decreed that invasion/defending would happen. Rules were put in place to mitigate the worst of the effects, but not all problems will go away.

My problems with the existing solutions (I was tempted to put the last word in quotes):

Guaranteed protection: Be the Founder! -- Good for you, but for everyone else they can only hope that you actually stick with it forever, that you don't turn out to be a petulant control freak, that you aren't so incredibly laissez-faire that you just "let everything sort itself out on its own", that that, that

Lose your Founder? Re-Found! -- As mentioned in several places, the larger the region, the more hassle is involved. And the new region is _never_ quite the same as the old one. And after going through all that hassle, there's no guarantee that the new Founder will stick with it any longer than the last one.

Don't want to go to the bother of re-Founding? Have the Delegate install a password! -- Not a bad solution if the region is closed to immigration, or if it's a tight knit group that KNOW they can trust each other. Then a visible password will suffice. But if a region would like to grow _quickly_, any kind of password makes certain that the process be anything but "quick" growth. And if it's a visible password in a region that welcomes immigrants, the probability that one of those immigrants is an infiltrator that will share the password with his invader buddies approaches 100%.

[Erastide]

Do you have anything new to add? Requoting yourself isn't exactly adding to the discussion.

[Marcuslandia]

Do you have anything new to add? Requoting yourself isn't exactly adding to the discussion.

You reiterate a couple inadequate "solutions" and I reiterate why those "solutions" are inadequate. Repeatedly saying "Go Found your own region!" is a _fine_ solution -- for that ONE person, but what about the 50 other players in his region? "Re-Found the region!" is a _fine_ solution if you have advanced training in herding cats, and a quite logical progression in rational logistics -- ONE person leaves, so now 50 players have to coordinate a move to a new home that ALL of them agree should the one they should share.

Riiiiggghhhhttt. Totally adequate solution. The question is, adequate for _who_? Not the people made to jump through hoops, that's for sure.

My proposed solution in contrast is incredibly simple in comparison: one tick in a check box and the desired result is accomplished.

[Martyrdoom]

Do you have anything new to add? Requoting yourself isn't exactly adding to the discussion.

You reiterate a couple inadequate "solutions" and I reiterate why those "solutions" are inadequate. Repeatedly saying "Go Found your own region!" is a _fine_ solution -- for that ONE person, but what about the 50 other players in his region? "Re-Found the region!" is a _fine_ solution if you have advanced training in herding cats, and a quite logical progression in rational logistics -- ONE person leaves, so now 50 players have to coordinate a move to a new home that ALL of them agree should the one they should share.

Riiiiggghhhhttt. Totally adequate solution. The question is, adequate for _who_? Not the people made to jump through hoops, that's for sure.

My proposed solution in contrast is incredibly simple in comparison: one tick in a check box and the desired result is accomplished.

My proposed solution is even more incredibly simpler in comparsion: no box, no tick.

NS as a game is thus preserved and the ritualistic tendencies are kept at arm's length.

[Whamabama]

You reiterate a couple inadequate "solutions" and I reiterate why those "solutions" are inadequate. Repeatedly saying "Go Found your own region!" is a _fine_ solution -- for that ONE person, but what about the 50 other players in his region? "Re-Found the region!" is a _fine_ solution if you have advanced training in herding cats, and a quite logical progression in rational logistics -- ONE person leaves, so now 50 players have to coordinate a move to a new home that ALL of them agree should the one they should share.

Riiiiggghhhhttt. Totally adequate solution. The question is, adequate for _who_? Not the people made to jump through hoops, that's for sure.

My proposed solution in contrast is incredibly simple in comparison: one tick in a check box and the desired result is accomplished.

Trouble with your solution is it gets rid of an entire aspect of the game that many of us enjoy. Simply because you don't want to do anything that might be a challenge. You also don't want to go to a different region. Listen I feel for your predicament. I really do. However I am not willing to see my game eliminated to help you.

[Erastide]

You reiterate a couple inadequate "solutions" and I reiterate why those "solutions" are inadequate. Repeatedly saying "Go Found your own region!" is a _fine_ solution -- for that ONE person, but what about the 50 other players in his region? "Re-Found the region!" is a _fine_ solution if you have advanced training in herding cats, and a quite logical progression in rational logistics -- ONE person leaves, so now 50 players have to coordinate a move to a new home that ALL of them agree should the one they should share.

Riiiiggghhhhttt. Totally adequate solution. The question is, adequate for _who_? Not the people made to jump through hoops, that's for sure.

My proposed solution in contrast is incredibly simple in comparison: one tick in a check box and the desired result is accomplished.

Trouble with your solution is it gets rid of an entire aspect of the game that many of us enjoy. Simply because you don't want to do anything that might be a challenge. You also don't want to go to a different region. Listen I feel for your predicament. I really do. However I am not willing to see my game eliminated to help you.

Learn how to do your quotes properly. >_> You keep making me say things I didn't.

[Romanar]

Trouble with your solution is it gets rid of an entire aspect of the game that many of us enjoy. Simply because you don't want to do anything that might be a challenge. You also don't want to go to a different region. Listen I feel for your predicament. I really do. However I am not willing to see my game eliminated to help you.

I second that opinion. I'm all for reducing the region destroying, but against an "opt out" beyond what refounding already provides.

[Erastide]

You reiterate a couple inadequate "solutions" and I reiterate why those "solutions" are inadequate. Repeatedly saying "Go Found your own region!" is a _fine_ solution -- for that ONE person, but what about the 50 other players in his region? "Re-Found the region!" is a _fine_ solution if you have advanced training in herding cats, and a quite logical progression in rational logistics -- ONE person leaves, so now 50 players have to coordinate a move to a new home that ALL of them agree should the one they should share.

Riiiiggghhhhttt. Totally adequate solution. The question is, adequate for _who_? Not the people made to jump through hoops, that's for sure.

My proposed solution in contrast is incredibly simple in comparison: one tick in a check box and the desired result is accomplished.

If all of the people can't agree to move to another region or refound together then they don't *really* have their safety as their paramount concern. And that's fine, people can stay together without the absolute safety of a founder.

Opting out leads to all sorts of problems when it comes to people legitimately moving in and out. You want the security, get a founder. That's the way the game is, and there doesn't seem to be a big enough problem to justify this new structure.

[Marcuslandia]

Trouble with your solution is it gets rid of an entire aspect of the game that many of us enjoy. Simply because you don't want to do anything that might be a challenge. You also don't want to go to a different region. Listen I feel for your predicament. I really do. However I am not willing to see my game eliminated to help you.

Can one of you just once explain how it is, when there are literally thousands of invader/defender nations, that ANY change will "get rid of an entire aspect of the game" and "eliminate" the game you play?

My God! They tweaked my game! It's all over! Doom and gloom! I've been cut, and now I'm going to die!

If you can brag that your section of the game is a "substantial percentage", any change like this doesn't reduce that "substantial percentage" AT ALL. The _only_ portion of the game that you would lose access to are those players that do NOT want to play your game.

Jeez. It's starting to (has been) sound like vampires: Well, it's not the same if we have to feed on our own!

[Marcuslandia]

If all of the people can't agree to move to another region or refound together then they don't *really* have their safety as their paramount concern. And that's fine, people can stay together without the absolute safety of a founder.

Opting out leads to all sorts of problems when it comes to people legitimately moving in and out. You want the security, get a founder. That's the way the game is, and there doesn't seem to be a big enough problem to justify this new structure.

Oh, please. If you don't want to go to the bother of buying a pistol and getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon, then you must not really care about being mugged and possibly murdered.

[Romanar]

Oh, please. If you don't want to go to the bother of buying a pistol and getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon, then you must not really care about being mugged and possibly murdered.

IRL, I have decided that the risk of getting shot isn't worth the hassle of getting a firearm. If I thought otherwise, I'd get the damn gun.

Likewise, I have a puppet in a vulnerable region, and if that region really expected to get destroyed like Belgium, we COULD refound. Personally, I think we SHOULD refound, since NS is even worse than my RL neighborhood, but I understand the concerns raised about doing so, and it's up to the region one way or the other.

[Erastide]

LOL

So outline a workable way for this to function. One that is automated and doesn't require moderator interpretation of events. Most of us will still disagree with the option, but at least it would be something possible to put into the game. As it stands the opt-out option is just an idea for more protection.

[Marcuslandia]

Likewise, I have a puppet in a vulnerable region, and if that region really expected to get destroyed like Belgium, we COULD refound. Personally, I think we SHOULD refound, since NS is even worse than my RL neighborhood, but I understand the concerns raised about doing so, and it's up to the region one way or the other.

Looking for your opinion: IF your region could identify itself as a nonparticipant in the I/D game, assuring that it was not an eligible target for a hostile takeover, would you go that route rather totally re-Founding the region?

[Romanar]

Likewise, I have a puppet in a vulnerable region, and if that region really expected to get destroyed like Belgium, we COULD refound. Personally, I think we SHOULD refound, since NS is even worse than my RL neighborhood, but I understand the concerns raised about doing so, and it's up to the region one way or the other.

Looking for your opinion: IF your region could identify itself as a nonparticipant in the I/D game, assuring that it was not an eligible target for a hostile takeover, would you go that route rather totally re-Founding the region?

That's a tough one. As someone who has participated in the I/D game, I dislike the idea. But if the option was available, and I was the Delegate of the region in question (I'm not), then I probably would use it, simply for the good of the region. But I still wouldn't like it personally.

[Marcuslandia]

LOL

So outline a workable way for this to function. One that is automated and doesn't require moderator interpretation of events. Most of us will still disagree with the option, but at least it would be something possible to put into the game. As it stands the opt-out option is just an idea for more protection.

Just got back from dinner.

The first hurdle is: "What is the definition and characteristics of an invasion?" What _is_ the current definition of an invasion? [The defense is sort of the resistance to an invasion, employing similar tactics.] I honestly have never seen such a definition posted anywhere. It would be helpful if someone could point me in the right direction. Having such a definition becomes important so that one can differentiate between a democratic change of management versus a hostile takeover. (Believe it or not, I'm inclined to think that many "invasions" are actually the former management crying "We wuz robbed!" when they lose power in a legitimate election. The main indicator of an actual invasion seems to be when the "Under New Ownership" telltales start to appear.)

The second hurdle is: Which regions are eligible to opt-out? Would a Founder be able to unilaterally choose to opt-out his region without even consulting with the residents? For the sake of "fair is fair", every resident in an opt-out would be ineligible to run off and take part in the invasion of, or defense of another region. That is, you can't secure _your_ home region this way, and then go stomping on others. What motivates a player to NOT try to sneak around that prohibition? The only answer I have for that is to be brutal. Try to break in, or try to sneak out to go raiding and if spotted doing it, the player and every one of his nations get deleted from the game. One may be inclined to try to bend the rules, but when the risk-cost analysis comes back, the only players likely to intentionally break the rule would be players planning to quit the game anyway and want to "go out with a bang." Enforcement of this actually becomes ridiculously easy because there are two very highly motivated groups to monitor traffic in and out of opt-out regions: Invaders and Defenders. Either group would dearly love to see a cheater on the opposing team permanently ejected from the game. I foresee extensive databases being constructed and nation movement history tracked for nearly every nation in every opt-out region. All free of charge to the Mods, and easily verifiable simply by backtracking a nation's movement history.

But this leads to the third hurdle, which is delineating time periods before and after opting-out. Keep in mind that these regulations would have to be formulated and hammered out prior to the implementation of the mechanism, just like Influence was hammered out beforehand. The absence _now_ of such regulations is NOT a valid counter-argument. As the saying goes, "Details to be worked out later." But the thing to be decided is, how long after having been an Invader or a Defender (defined as nations that actively moved into a "hot" region) must pass before said nation can move to an opt-out region? And how long must pass before a nation leaving an opt-out region is allowed to go invading or defending? It is highly UNdesirable to allow a nation to finish an invasion, pop into an opt-out region, and then pop out again just in time for the next invasion. Therefore, "buffer" periods would be useful. Once again, the penalty for deliberately violating this regulation is game ejection. And also once again, both Invaders and Defenders would watch opt-out regions like hawks, just for the chance to reduce their opponent's numbers.

I anticipate some loud squawks about, "You can't expect the very players that are most hurt by this change to do all the work necessary for it to succeed!" [ ] Well, I don't. Not at all. But you know and I know that the Invaders and Defenders will, in fact, do it anyway. The _primary_ reason will be because they will want to amass as much evidence that "This isn't working! We told you it wouldn't work!" The ironic thing is, that by doing so, _they_ will be the very people that makes the system work as it was intended. And incidentally reduce the ranks of their opponents. And remove the kinds of players from the game that helps to improve the quality of the game population. That is, they'll be helping to eliminate cheaters.

[Whamabama]

Learn how to do your quotes properly. >_> You keep making me say things I didn't.

Sorry about that, I will pay closer attention to the quotes. I have fixed them.