Xanthal's Drafting Thread [Invite Only]

[Usual People In Life]

OOC: Thanks for the invite, sorry for my delayed response - college work took over

IC: I've been having a look through this and I like what I see so far, you've raised some interesting points which I would also have raised myself.

An example being about founders or delegates handing out banjection powers to natives seems useful to hellp with defending, whilst I also sense a balanced viewpoint.

[Xanthal]

[Summit #3] Agenda Breakout

This post will lack reference to many raider-defender balancing ideas, not because they are unimportant but because I recognize my understanding of them is limited. I will leave initial comment on these to other Representatives.

I agree almost entirely with the principles of Reploid Productions in [Summit 2], though I sympathize with the Representatives who commented on the value of tag raiding as a training tool. If there were a way to merely make tag raiding less impactful on the target regions, and thus less appealing to do for its own sake, perhaps that would be worth exploring?

I agree very much with the sentiments of Andacantra and COE for bold action to revitalize a stale R/D game, but recognize the legitimacy of [violet]'s position that we need to seek out the biggest bang for the coding buck, and in that regard I hope [violet] will provide ongoing insight. I also think it wise to echo Mallorea and Riva's note of caution that we need to be constantly auditing ourselves to avoid making changes without a very clear goal in mind; if even a couple of the proposals on the table at this Summit are accepted, it will represent a major shakeup of the R/D game and have effects none of us will be able to completely foresee. There will be plenty of change for its own sake purely from these side effects.

Communist Eraser raises the issue of enabling more direct attacks between raiders and defenders, which holds great interest for me. To this end- and for other reasons- I think Charles Cerebella's version of the Protectorate idea is very promising.

Cerberion mentions- and I think it is worth emphasizing- accessibility in our changes, for me this is particularly critical in regard to natives who may want to participate, but will not want to make R/D the center of their gameplay lives. On a related note, I think it is important to remember, as other Representatives have said, that this is only a game, but not to discount the very real feelings people form for their nations, their regions, their style of play, and each other, whether we fully agree with them or not. Frattastan's observation that native frustration has driven withdrawal from R/D is important to acknowledge, as is the possibility that such feelings could instead be harnessed to drive greater participation and generate fun for the players which, as Solm notes, ought to be the whole point of all this.

Mallorea and Riva's suggestion that Influence needs tweaking is one I'm eager to look into, but I urge caution in the details, particularly in the context of other changes to R/D being considered. Not otherwise mentioned here, cited suggestions for technical changes by COE and Astarial also deserve to be explored.

FIrst pass on [Summit #3], open for comment. Currently runs 469/500 words and targeted for posting at the end of tomorrow.

[Galiantus]

I don't know what to say, other than that it looks great. It is very compelling and very applicible to the current gameplay situation.

[Xanthal]

[Summit #3] Agenda Breakout

This post will lack reference to many raider-defender balancing ideas, not because they are unimportant but because I recognize my understanding of them is limited. I will leave initial comment on these to other Representatives.

I agree almost entirely with the principles of Reploid Productions in [Summit 2], though I sympathize with the Representatives who commented on the value of tag raiding as a training tool. If there were a way to merely make tag raiding less impactful on the target regions, and thus less appealing to do for its own sake, perhaps that would be worth exploring?

I also agree very much with the sentiments of Andacantra and COE for bold action to revitalize a stale R/D game, but recognize the legitimacy of [violet]'s position that we need to seek out the biggest bang for the coding buck, and in that regard I hope [violet] will provide ongoing insight. Additionally, I think it wise to echo Mallorea and Riva's note of caution that we need to be constantly auditing ourselves to avoid making changes without a very clear goal in mind; if even a couple of the proposals on the table at this Summit are accepted, it will represent a significant shakeup of the game and doubtless have effects which none of us will be able to completely foresee, on R/D and beyond. There will be plenty of change for its own sake purely from these unintended consequences.

Communist Eraser raises the issue of enabling more direct attacks between raiders and defenders, which holds great interest for me. To this end- and for other reasons- I think Charles Cerebella's version of the Protectorate idea is very promising.

Cerberion mentions- and I think it is worth emphasizing- accessibility in our changes; for me this is particularly critical in regard to natives who may want to participate, but will not want to make R/D the center of their gameplay lives. On a related note, I think it is important to remember, as other Representatives have said, that this is only a game, but not to discount the very real feelings people form for their nations, their regions, their style of play, and each other, whether we fully agree with them or not. Frattastan's observation that native frustration has driven withdrawal from R/D is important to acknowledge, as is the possibility that such feelings could instead be harnessed to drive greater participation and generate fun for the players which, as Solm notes, ought to be the whole point of all this.

Mallorea and Riva's suggestion that Influence needs tweaking is one I'm eager to look into, but I urge caution in the details, particularly in the context of other changes to R/D being considered. Not otherwise mentioned here, cited suggestions for technical changes by COE and Astarial also deserve to be explored.

476/500. A few minor grammatical and word choice changes. Also, an update on [Summit #4]: since the target close date isn't until Wednesday, I'm going to hold off until tomorrow on a first draft (or Sunday if discussion on [Summit #3] suddenly takes off in the next few hours and makes me push the submission date back to tomorrow). For now, the target submission time for [Summit #3] remains tonight, so get your comments in if you have them! I'm also soliciting input on my Extra Credit questions on an ongoing basis, so feel free to chime in on those as well!

[Xanthal]

[Summit #3] has been posted. An initial draft of [Summit #4] will be available for comment tomorrow.

[Astarial]

I intend to respond to your extra credits in a couple days - I have a 15-page paper due Monday, and an Arabic exam that morning, but I should be able to put something together in the afternoon, if that's all right.

[Xanthal]

[Summit #4] Realizing Nirvana

I am most interested in pursuing COE's "Allow high-influence natives limited access to regional controls" and Astarial's "Native Resistance of Delegate Power" proposals. Both get at the core of what I want to push for at this Summit: greater self-help capacity for natives. There are numerous good (and bad) ways to implement either or both of these ideas, and even some intriguing ways in which they could be combined- such as allowing natives to control certain regional control tools in a quasi-democratic fashion. The specifics are open to debate, the need to fully consider their merits and details, I believe, is absolute.

One concern I wish to voice explicitly which I feel some takes on these and other ideas overlook is that mobilizing natives who have other priorities and lives outside the game can take time- sometimes days- and even if natives can be mobilized immediately I don't believe the goal should be to have them take on an invader reflexively. Native tools are already front-loaded. Invasions can be fun, and rather than a system which compels natives to train their weapons on a raider the moment one steps through the door, I would like to see one that accommodates a period of assessment, and allows effective action to be taken when a benign invasion turns to griefing at whatever stage that may occur. I also wish to clarify that although my objective is to encourage R/D participation among natives, and I am even willing to go so far as to take measures that discourage withdrawal, I will not support the absence of a feasible opt-out.

267/500 words, targeted for submission by the end of Sunday (I'm on PST, by the way; that's UTC-08:00). This probably needs expansion, but I'm not entirely convinced of the direction it should go. Your input is gratefully accepted.

[Xanthal]

I intend to respond to your extra credits in a couple days - I have a 15-page paper due Monday, and an Arabic exam that morning, but I should be able to put something together in the afternoon, if that's all right.

Whenever you have time, obviously.


I've also added Bears Armed to the list of Invitees.

[Xanthal]

Update: I've been out and about all day, and then it started raining and now I'm cold and wet and don't really feel like finalizing a submission. :P

[Summit 4] will be completed tomorrow. In the meantime, the draft remains open for comment.

[Bears Armed]

I also wish to clarify that although my objective is to encourage R/D participation among natives, and I am even willing to go so far as to take measures that discourage withdrawal, I will not support the absence of a feasible opt-out.

"measures that discourage withdrawal" = ?

[Astarial]

Extra Credit #1

I generally hate to simply quote somebody else wholesale rather than making my own argument, but the lovely Lady Naivetry has a wonderful definition of nativity, as well as its interaction with influence, that I really can find no fault with. The bolding within is my own.

Any claim that Influence represents the degree to which someone is a native is doublespeak from our perspective, on the order of "black is white" or "war is peace" - first and most importantly, because no one for whom the word "native" still holds meaning believes there are "degrees" to being a native. You either are one or you aren't. As a status, "native" is the equivalent of a citizenship, not a series of tax brackets.

The term originally represented one thing, whether or not people used these exact words: a nation which takes up residence in a region without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force. All of the complicated rules were just an attempt (ultimately hopeless) to take that subjective quality and turn it into something measurable. Influence mistook those stabs in the dark - things that moderators used as clues about native status, like length of residency in the region and WA membership - and pretended that that's all nativity ever meant. It was the equivalent of trying to define happiness by noticing that cell phones and ice cream often make people happy, and then saying anyone who has a cell phone and ice cream must happy by definition. That just doesn't cut it.

The problem as I see it is that Influence and nativity - as defined above, and as fairly broadly accepted as a standard - are almost completely incompatible. Nativity is a binary; influence is a spectrum. Nativity cannot be afforded to an outsider; influence accrues to everyone. Nativity can be wrongly attributed; influence is absolute. Nativity is not a currency; influence can be spent in the maintenance of nativity.

Can the system be tweaked or reworked? I'm not sure that would help. Influence could be changed to accrue faster the longer a nation has been in the same region, but doing that everywhere would worsen the situation in the feeders and not really change the nature of raiding - one would simply (and frustratingly) need to invest more time into a region, either through a sleeper or an active raid, to grief it. Ultimately, finding compatibility with the nativity binary requires more than just tweaks.

Here's an idea I'm just throwing out there - came up with it while drafting this idea, and haven't really thought it through. It would be a counterpart to influence, and not a change, and please forgive the slight rambliness of it.

Nativity becomes a binary, yes or no question. Any nation in any region is either a native, or it isn't. Natives cannot be banned or ejected from the region except by the founder, if one exists. Nativity is a status granted by the WAD/founder at will, and revoked at will. It costs influence (I'm thinking a small amount) to declare a nation a native, and influence (much larger amount) to revoke that declaration in order to allow the nation to be banned. Influence cost would likely be relative to the influence of the affected nation - higher influence is a slightly smaller cost for granting nativity and a much larger cost for revoking it (with fake numbers, a newly arrived nation might cost 5 influence to nativize while a nation who's been in the region since the beginning of influence might cost 3, but removing the first might cost 50 while removing the second might cost 500), but that's certainly an arbitrary and debatable point. Nativity sticks even when the nation moves, but a nation can only be "native" to one region at a time. Any grant of nativity by the WAD/founder must be accepted by the nation in order to take effect.

WAD elections would continue to work as they do now, except that a non-native elected as delegate would be unable to add/remove nations from the nativity list for some minimum amount of time - three updates? three days? correlated to the number of non-native endorsements? some time period, anyway, after which the delegate would automatically receive "native" status, and could then begin to remove nations from nativity if the goal is to grief the region.

I can certainly see some problems with this idea - once a raider delegate gets nativity, if defenders move in and liberate the region, there could then be a protracted battle, a struggle to keep control until they themselves get access to the nativity list and can banject the raiders. This would be a lovely chance to get non-updater reinforcements in on the game, from both sides. The downside, of course, is that this pitched battle would take place only after an already-difficult liberation, as the new raider delegate would have no restrictions on banjecting non-native defender puppets.

Possible tweak: Make it so that non-native delegates don't get ban/eject powers until becoming natives, either.

Fallout: Defenders doing detags would have to hold each region far longer in order to banject raider puppets littering up the region; regions simply undergoing a non-R/D delegate transfer might be left unable to deal with spam or threats from the outside during their transition.

Tweak: ???

Anyway, that's my totally crazy sleep-deprived idea of the day. I know Mall is going to hate it, because it is deliberately targeted to make griefing that much harder, and I'm sure it's chock-full of holes you could fit a spaceship through. But ultimately, I firmly believe that influence is coming at the game with an entirely different perspective of legitimacy than the idea of nativity is, and the two are simply not compatible without some major change.

[Xanthal]

"measures that discourage withdrawal" = ?

I don't have a specific answer; there are lots of ways this could happen, some more acceptable than others. Two that I've considered so far are cutting banning and passwording, but the statement is in there more broadly as an indication of willingness to explore an area of potential compromise.

What if the WA Delegate (or Founder if non-exec WA Delegate) had a way to "appoint" particular individual nations as Natives of the given region? These appointed Natives (non-WAD, non-Founder) would gain influence at a slightly increased rate - perhaps 1.25 x regular influence accrual. This could help to insulate some specific nations (especially if they are non-WA) from eventual booting/griefing by future raiders.

Nativity becomes a binary, yes or no question. Any nation in any region is either a native, or it isn't. Natives cannot be banned or ejected from the region except by the founder, if one exists. Nativity is a status granted by the WAD/founder at will, and revoked at will.

I don't like this approach for two reasons. First, it doesn't really protect natives because it can be used against them as well as for them, either by raiders or by a power-hungry native Delegate. Second, in Asta's version, it represents a major change in a fundamental game mechanic with a benefit I would define as questionable at best. I don't think this meets the criteria set forth by [violet] for acceptance by administration.

The problem as I see it is that Influence and nativity - as defined above, and as fairly broadly accepted as a standard - are almost completely incompatible. Nativity is a binary; influence is a spectrum. Nativity cannot be afforded to an outsider; influence accrues to everyone. Nativity can be wrongly attributed; influence is absolute. Nativity is not a currency; influence can be spent in the maintenance of nativity.

I have a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint, but I don't think it's fair to raiders or conducive to an enhanced R/D game to alter the system in a way that renders regions immune to any form of meaningful control by invaders. Nativity is a buzzword; it means different things to different people, and contrary to your assertion I do not believe it is binary. Influence is a spectacularly imperfect system to define nativity, but I don't think coding a definition of nativity is a reasonable goal: there's just too much variation in what people think a native is and too many ways to game a system.

Designations of Threats and Natives could be used by both sides - although I'm sure that raiders are much likely to populate the lists with Threats v. Natives, given my understanding of Raiding Theory/Influence Accrual. Natives and Defenders could use both to bolster fellow Natives and/or to limit the influence being accrued by what they view as a potential sleeper puppet.

This isn't a bad idea, but I'm not sure what it would really add to the game. It has the ring of change for change's sake.

Conversely, I'd wonder if there should be an impact on activity (logging in) to influence accrual. As has been mentioned in other threads in this summit chamber, it seems counterintuitive for inactive nations (i.e. not having logged in for 20+ days) to maintain a very large influence level, even if they're not doing much of anything.

This is interesting in principle, I'm just not sure what good it would do anyone in practice. If you have more to say on the subject, I'd be interested to hear it.

[Xanthal]

[Summit #4] has been posted. I'm re-posting the Extra Credit questions here since they're a bit buried now.

Extra Credit #1
Suggest tweaks or additions to the Influence system that could be used to better favor a broad definition of natives that I can propose, bearing in mind the need for buy-in from raiders and defenders, and the fact that it should be entirely gameplay mechanics-based (i.e. require no moderator refereeing).

Extra Credit #2
Share your thoughts on the tools that natives currently have to block invasions; which you hold sacred and which- if any- you would be willing to part with and why.

[Astarial]

Second, in Asta's version, it represents a major change in a fundamental game mechanic with a benefit I would define as questionable at best. I don't think this meets the criteria set forth by [violet] for acceptance by administration.

I will grant you that point, though it pretty much coincides with my understanding. In order for nativity to be something held as real by the game itself, a change of this magnitude would be required.

Nativity is a buzzword; it means different things to different people, and contrary to your assertion I do not believe it is binary.

I honestly, seriously, truly do not see how nativity is anything but a binary. If there's any way you can elaborate on this point, I would be grateful.

I recognize that the implementation of Influence has essentially turned recognition of nativity into a gradient ("more" vs "less" native), but I would argue that that is a terrible corruption.

[Mousebumples]

Conversely, I'd wonder if there should be an impact on activity (logging in) to influence accrual. As has been mentioned in other threads in this summit chamber, it seems counterintuitive for inactive nations (i.e. not having logged in for 20+ days) to maintain a very large influence level, even if they're not doing much of anything.

This is interesting in principle, I'm just not sure what good it would do anyone in practice. If you have more to say on the subject, I'd be interested to hear it.

Yeah, in practice, I'm re-thinking it a bit too. I could see most GPers getting/having a script that would login their puppets every X days if influence was based on activity - but most "average" players wouldn't have one. I don't really want influence to be tied to answering issues (because I've successfully ignored my "You have 5 issues" notice for about 3 years now ) or forum activity or RMB spam or ... anything.

Perhaps - for WA nations - voting in the WA could impact activity However, I would then push pretty darn hard for the addition of an "Abstain" button as there are some votes I intentionally do not vote in - and I would expect that others would feel much the same way. (Of course, for others yet, it may just be that they don't really care at all about the WA and have no desire to vote, period. I'd defer to non-WA focused nations for that distinction, of course, because that's not me. Although, I was usually pretty good about voting in the WA, back before I really started up with my authorship stuff a few years back. [/random tangent])

Not sure if this is useful at all - and my apologies for being so MIA as of late. RL's been keeping me busy, with holiday planning and the like. I've been poking my head in to read, but haven't had as much time to contribute.

Cheers!

EDIT TO ADD: A few more general comments:
I have serious concerns about Halcones' Vice Delegate proposal for reasons I laid out in his thread. Along those same lines, I really hope that you're going to be trying to check to make sure that any "solutions" aren't overly complicated and are fairly presented to natives, as well as those who are really into the R/D game.

I still remember being completely clueless when my region was raided. I mean, I knew how to get the WAD back - get more endos than the other guy. And, yeah, passwording is/was pretty straightforward. But I had no idea on how to (safely) refound, but I was fortunate enough to have contacts who were able to help me out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have concerns that any changes might be potentially helpful to natives ... IF they understood them, IF they were aware of them, IF they had (really) any involvement in R/D at all. Since you want natives to be more active in self-defense (as I understand it), to at least some extent, I hope you're either trying to look at some of these solutions as a theoretical native WAD with no clue about R/D ... just to make sure that they're accessible and understandable and not overly complicated.

[Bears Armed]

Extra Credit #2
"Share your thoughts on the tools that natives currently have to block invasions; which you hold sacred and which- if any- you would be willing to part with and why."

What would the raiders be giving up in exchange? I don't mind the idea of changes to gameplay mechanics if all that they basically end up doing is raising the suspense level for R/D players (which was the basic idea behind this conference, yes?) but I object strongly to the idea of any changes that would make it even easier for raiders to seize and destroy regions... If we're going to give them anything that makes taking regions easier then that should be balanced (or, for my preference,surpassed) by how much the complete set of changes introduced makes it harder for them to actually destroy regions if & when they do seize them. Raiding is largely about doing things to regions despite those regions' natives' wishes after all, and some raiders have even said publicly that they only find raiding fun if it upsets other players, so I don't see why we should be expected to make playing the game in the various ways that the rest of us like it harder -- by making the destruction of our home regions easier -- just so that the raiders can have more fun.
And after all, no other set of players tries forcing everybody else to participate in their favoured aspect[s] of NS, so why should the rules be slanted to make it easier for the only faction that does try acting like that?

[Xanthal]

I honestly, seriously, truly do not see how nativity is anything but a binary. If there's any way you can elaborate on this point, I would be grateful.

To me, nativity is about trust. Ascribing the prerequisites for native status to some arbitrary mental state that people may not fully grasp in themselves, let alone by which others could judge them, may be ideal in theory, but it is useless in practice. I would feel much more confident in some residents of SPACE than others, but when you get down to it I don't know who any of them are, whether they would reveal or develop affiliation with an outside group, or what they would do if given power. The binary approach to nativity only works when one has the ability to read minds. I do not, so I have to make relative judgments about individuals. The output of this analysis is, for me at least, not "yes" or "no," but "how much?"

Few would claim that Influence has no failings, but it exists and is functional, and I am asking for changes to it, not replacements for it. I will not advocate that it be torn down without something clearly better lined up to replace it.

I have serious concerns about Halcones' Vice Delegate proposal for reasons I laid out in his thread. Along those same lines, I really hope that you're going to be trying to check to make sure that any "solutions" aren't overly complicated and are fairly presented to natives, as well as those who are really into the R/D game.

It is a fine line to walk, and may require a two-track approach, but I intend to do my best, as I noted in one form or another in every one of my Summit submissions. As for General Halcones' specific proposal, I hate to marginalize the work he's done on it, but it sounds like administration already has a plan to implement Regional Officers, so I'd like to hear more about that before I take up debate on other ideas to add gameplay positions to a region's governing body.

I object strongly to the idea of any changes that would make it even easier for raiders to seize and destroy regions... If we're going to give them anything that makes taking regions easier then that should be balanced (or, for my preference,surpassed) by how much the complete set of changes introduced makes it harder for them to actually destroy regions if & when they do seize them. Raiding is largely about doing things to regions despite those regions' natives' wishes after all, and some raiders have even said publicly that they only find raiding fun if it upsets other players, so I don't see why we should be expected to make playing the game in the various ways that the rest of us like it harder -- by making the destruction of our home regions easier -- just so that the raiders can have more fun.
And after all, no other set of players tries forcing everybody else to participate in their favoured aspect[s] of NS, so why should the rules be slanted to make it easier for the only faction that does try acting like that?

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think the "us versus them" mindset is what I want to have foremost in my mind during the summit. It's certainly part of the gameplay reality, but it's not helpful to the cause of a collaborative effort for reform. That said, I agree that griefing should not be made easier, and possibly should be made more difficult. However, this may be a point that requires compromise. On the subject of compromise, you didn't really answer the question I posed: of the tools natives already have, which- if any- would you be willing to part with and why?

[Astarial]

Few would claim that Influence has no failings, but it exists and is functional, and I am asking for changes to it, not replacements for it. I will not advocate that it be torn down without something clearly better lined up to replace it.

Not sure if there was a misunderstanding or that's just a general statement, but I'm not advocating the removal of influence. It was an idea of something to erect alongside it, for nativity and influence to exist side-by-side and complement one another.

But thank you for explaining to me where you're coming from, that makes a bit more sense now.

[Bears Armed]

I would feel much more confident in some residents of SPACE than others, but when you get down to it I don't know who any of them are

Daxam, Autonomous CyberTanks, and Anglia and Northumbria are me.

That said, I agree that griefing should not be made easier, and possibly should be made more difficult. However, this may be a point that requires compromise. On the subject of compromise, you didn't really answer the question I posed: of the tools natives already have, which- if any- would you be willing to part with and why?

I didn't? I thought that my meaning was fairly clear: I'd give away no tools whose loss to the natives wasn't at least matched in effectiveness by the loss of tools to the raiders. So, what tools would they be willing to part with? How far are they willing to compromise?

[Xanthal]

It was an idea of something to erect alongside it, for nativity and influence to exist side-by-side and complement one another.

In a perfect world this would be nice, but don't you see the potential for massive abuse of a feature that let the Delegate choose who was a native? The stricter the system becomes, the more entrenched the status quo becomes. The looser it becomes, the less effect it has. I like the idea, I just can't see any way to put it into practice that won't do at least as much harm as good. To me, "nativity" is an abstract idea, and abstract ideas don't code well. That's why I've opted to sidestep the nativity definition issue for the purposes of the Summit.

I'd give away no tools whose loss to the natives wasn't at least matched in effectiveness by the loss of tools to the raiders. So, what tools would they be willing to part with? How far are they willing to compromise?

We haven't gotten to that part yet. I'll deal with the give-and-take of it when and if I'm called upon to do so. For now I'm just interested in people's thoughts on the relative merits of existing tools in their own right.

[Astarial]

To me, "nativity" is an abstract idea, and abstract ideas don't code well.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

As for Extra Credit #2: I've been mulling it over, but not coming up with many ideas that I actually like. Perhaps passwording could be lost for delegates? I think that would hit both sides, but given that raiders can hold regions indefinitely without a password, I'm not sure the hit would be equal.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Asta, I can comment as a raider that your suggestion would help raiders far more than it would hurt us. I'm not sure how many founderless passworded regions there are, but I'm sure someone can find out. That number would be how many immediate new targets there are.

In addition, it would render the entire liberation category moot, so I don't think that idea's got legs.