I never said they did. I'm stating that the worse actions of past raiders doesn't justify any notion stating that today's raiders are by any means benign.
Advertisement
by Anemos Major » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:45 pm
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Anemos Major » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:49 pm
Evil Wolf wrote:That's Tag raiding. Not every raider region tags, in fact, the majority do not. So tag raiding might survive, but every other raider group in the game would die off.
Defending would probably die off entirely, since most Defender groups don't even bother trying to stop tag raids anymore.
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Mad Jack » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:56 pm
Anemos Major wrote:Evil Wolf wrote:That's Tag raiding. Not every raider region tags, in fact, the majority do not. So tag raiding might survive, but every other raider group in the game would die off.
Defending would probably die off entirely, since most Defender groups don't even bother trying to stop tag raids anymore.
How long has that been the case? Last I saw, defenders were putting quite a lot of back and players into detagging.
by Anemos Major » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:57 pm
Mad Jack wrote:Heh. It's been some time since defenders bothered about detagging. It's why TBR have started hitting foundered regions.
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Evil Wolf » Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:02 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by Coraxion » Tue Dec 24, 2013 4:00 pm
Evil Wolf wrote:Good times, those were, good times. I should note that messing up the WFE was not against the Invasion rules. That's always been legal.
Current TBR-Tagging Procedure after successful Seizure of Delegacy:
- Clear Ban list or Unban at least fellow raider puppets (if Any)
- Banject or Eject as much you can, starting possible Fendas and other Nations visible on the Regional Happening
- Add standard Format tag to WFE
- Change Regional Flag (TBR Flag)
- Add tag 'Recruiter Friendly" and remove all other tags (it is possible optionally add also tags 'Puppet Storage' and 'Invader')
- Delete regional welcoming message
- Withdraw/abort all embassies (if region is 'Retag' then abort withdrawal with The Black Riders)
- Supress RMB posts (few pages is enough, leaving possible past Raider Comments visible)
- Request Embassy with The Black Riders
- Move Raider puppet (Pointman) back to Current Puppet Storage Region
by Grenartia » Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:58 pm
Esternial wrote:Grenartia wrote:And what about my solution of a separate aspect (I guess close to the Associations thing Uni brought up earlier) of the game that gives RP all the functions we like in regions, but immune to R/D, while allowing us to join regions and participate in R/D if we so choose?
Don't see the point for it at the time. 1. You would demand new work as opposed to using the changes that are schedule to happen that also allow us to do the exact same thing?
It's still being debated, so if there are parts that you don't like you can discuss them.
For example, the only issue I can imagine so far is the fact Custodians require involvement in the SC, which means we should discuss the mechanics on Custodians and not ignore everything and work out something entirely different that requires a bundle of coding as opposed to some minor changes which have a chance at being implemented if you bothered discussing it in the relevant thread.
2. Can you realistically imagine something else that will allow us to "opt-out" and won't be vehemently opposed by the raiders? Like it or not, their opinion also carries weight, so you can't just make demands or ask that you punish them for doing something that's legal. It's not "me, me, me, me", we have to think of more than just an ideal situation for ourselves.
Anemos Major wrote:Evil Wolf wrote:f you don't want to take those measures, you're fair game, as are all regions in Nationstates that choose not to opt-out, RP or not. So, don't say I have no right to hit targets that don't opt-out, when I have every right granted to me by the Game Creator himself.
The right granted to you by the game creator was over the debate as to whether raiding constituted a legitimate form of gameplay or something more akin to cyber-bullying - not whether raiding in its current form with the current countermeasures available to players was legitimate. As has been laboured already, we're not calling for an end to raiding by a long shot; what Max Barry said, as such, doesn't go anywhere near refuting the need for this debate.
In fact, I don't believe that what we're calling for suggests that you have 'no right' to hit targets that don't opt out (notwithstanding the fact that, as stressed previously, existing opt-out mechanisms are fairly poor as it is). What we're looking for are changes to the conduct of raiders and the resources available to active regions that will ensure that, in the face of the threat posed by raiding, they will still be able to utilise their region as they see fit without making significant concessions simply to ensure that they aren't needlessly affected by a form of gameplay that they're not here to play, and that, in the event of a successful raid, the disruption and offence caused by the raiders will be held down to a minimal level.
by Anemos Major » Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:02 pm
Coraxion wrote:After introduction of influence system, Tag-raiders can very rarely actually banject any "natives" from the Target regions as they have too high influences for that. Possibility to Make 'WA-Kill' is even more scarce in occurence. Any kind Password locking is absolute out of possibilities.
So, it's actually hard to understand where is actually problem now. TBR (and other raider organisations) has done similarly several years, but when Fendas ceased to Defend situation changed to what it is currently and, Of course, that is purely Fendas' fault not TBR'.
All these miles high long debates can be minimized simply by barring Delegate Access of a Region. This is exactly that Opt-Out.
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Coraxion » Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:13 am
by SFBA wabbitslayah » Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:25 am
Coraxion wrote:Thanks Anemos Major.
No. I don't read all those topics through as we will maintain our ability to adapt existing circumstances, what ever they might be. Something what would be very useful to learn also in the RPing circles of The NationStates. Fendas of GamePlay could not do that, but I'm sure RPer's can do that because your approach to The Game is based to Imagination, Totally different and Unlike to The typical Defender Approach to it.
...And this is only Christmas Present I can Give to You My fellow RolePlayers.
- Cora -
The Black Riders
by SFBA wabbitslayah » Wed Dec 25, 2013 10:10 am
by Pravengria » Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:28 pm
Esternial wrote:So, let's review.
The issue being discussed here is the request to find a way for Roleplaying Regions to opt-out of R/D, meaning that these Regions would be able to permanently safeguard themselves against Raiders AND be able to maintain their regions.
Passwords will not suffice. It has since been pointed out that:
- They close off a Region and make it less "open" to RP'ers.
- If Raiders want to, they can acquire the password anyway.
Thus we need some sort of measure that isn't currently featured.
The optimal solution would be one that:
a) Does not interfere (significantly) with R/D.
b) Allows RP Regions to opt-out of R/D.
Before we can move on, we need both sides to realise something:
R/D: We really want this change, so acknowledge that you can't brush us off with "get a password" or anything like that.
RP'ers: The R/D community does not want this to interfere with their game, so we need to have respect for that and ensure that our solution to not significantly impact the R/D facet of NS. We aren't here to "punish" Raiders.
You can't get around this. If you don't want to accept it, leave. All you'll likely do is rehash stuff we've heard before.
Okey, now that has been settled, we can move on. Several solutions have been submitted:1) Just prevent your Delegate from accessing Regional Controls!
Not an option, I'm afraid. Sometimes the Founder cannot manage the region on its own and thus fares much better with someone to assist him/her in the management of the WFE and other management. This is something we want to preserve.Crystal Spires wrote:
- They close off a Region and make it less "open" to new RP'ers.
- Communication with other RPers for Interregional affairs is stifled.
- It forces RPers to not have a friendly and open community in order to protect RPs and they must rigorously vet people to ensure they are not being raided.
- It is essentially forced upon an unwilling RP Community who does not want to participate in R&D
- If Raiders want to, they can acquire the password anyway and ruin what the RP authors create.
2) Implementation of a tag and rule to indicate a Region that has opted out.
As advantage to this, people have stated that it wouldn't significantly impact the game code. This is true, but would require Moderation to enforce this new rule and would likely result in more issues than there are now, since Mods will be forced to make their own judgements which may not always please everyone. The opposition from the R/D side simply doesn't make this a feasible option, in my opinion.3) Do that same thing Class Regions do.
Have a password and block TG's from non-members? Barely even an option.
4) Introduce two Region Categories: Regular and Roleplay.
What this would bring into effect would be fairly simple: Regions can be founded that are excluded from all WA-related activity and feature the following change: The WA Delegate would be replaced by Region Assistant that is instated by the Founder of the region, who can choose to elect this person or organise elections within the region (or even a thread on NS, which would only add to the RP value).
Note that Regions can't change category after being founded. However, we could allow a period during which active RP regions can make the change after the implementation of this system.
UPDATE: It might be a good idea to just have Regions within the Roleplay category reduce the access privileges given to a WA Delegate and pass them on to this Founder-instated Region Administrator. The WA Delegate would only remain to vote in the Assembly (which is relevant for II RP Regions) while the Administrator takes care of managing the WFE and assisting the Founder.
5) Introduce a system similar to "Associations".[violet] wrote:What a few mods are hinting at here is that we basically already have this coded. The project name is "Associations." Anyone can create a new association, you can associate yourself with as many of them as you like, and each Association has a bunch of features like a RMB-style board, an emblem, etc.
The idea was to provide a flexible framework that could be used for a variety of purposes. Empires could be used to tag puppet nations to their main, Alliances could represent the kinds of trans-regional organizations that already exist, Pacts could signify the nation has signed up to a particular deal, Belief Systems could allow you to display your ideological allegiances, and so on.
So this was all quite nifty, and many cool features were added, such as allowing Alliances to make their membership lists and boards private (i.e. viewable only by members), to allow for extra intrigue.
However, during testing we noticed that Associations seemed to basically play like super-regions, to the extent that regions almost began to feel like crappy Associations. There were still many things regions could do that Associations couldn't--like have a WA Delegate--but they felt very similar. They look very similar. So the project was halted until we could figure out some greater differentiation between them.
This was a while ago, NS development pace being what it is, and really the problem wasn't so enormous to justify shelving the project indefinitely. But I feel that regions are absolutely critical to your sense of "home" in NationStates, and wanted some time to think about how best to make sure we didn't erode that with Associations.
This would require us to work together with the Admins to find a solution to the "super-regions" issue that [violet] expressed her concern about.
I've contacted Reppy to find out more about this, so I'll get back to you later once I get a better understanding of it.
I'd like to hear constructive criticism.
by Shadow Afforess » Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:58 am
Pravengria wrote:
As well, I'm talking with Afforess to see if we can design a plug-in that'd warn a WA delegate or Owner of a nation that's associated with a Raider group by checking through the nation's history automatically. Any association with a raider group would send a message, and hopefully help curb those raiders who intrude on RP regions after gaining a password.
by ALMF » Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:18 am
Mad Jack wrote:And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?
I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?
by Mad Jack » Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:52 am
ALMF wrote:Mad Jack wrote:And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?
I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?
The old gifting rools (such as thous of 10 years ago) wold be a place to start. Reagons could declare themselves participants to R/D and be thereby exempt?
by Arumdaum » Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:53 am
by Chrinthanium » Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:28 am
by Mad Jack » Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:34 am
by Chrinthanium » Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:15 am
by Evil Wolf » Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:42 am
Chrinthanium wrote:Quite frankly, I equate raiding to stealing because it is taking something that isn't yours by force for your own enjoyment. The raiders did not build that region, the raiders did not invest the time and effort into creating those forums, the raiders did not create the WFE or the regional flag, but now they have complete control over them and change them to shove it in the face of those from whom they've stolen the very region they called home. I, for one, do not call that fun, nor do I call that a game of any sort.
Chrinthanium wrote:And the absolute worst idea ever invented by NationStates players would be utterly destroyed? Then, by all means, I am FOR this proposal.
Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by Delmonte » Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:00 am
Evil Wolf wrote:Chrinthanium wrote:Quite frankly, I equate raiding to stealing because it is taking something that isn't yours by force for your own enjoyment. The raiders did not build that region, the raiders did not invest the time and effort into creating those forums, the raiders did not create the WFE or the regional flag, but now they have complete control over them and change them to shove it in the face of those from whom they've stolen the very region they called home. I, for one, do not call that fun, nor do I call that a game of any sort.
I like to call it Nationstates.net.
Chrinthanium wrote:And the absolute worst idea ever invented by NationStates players would be utterly destroyed? Then, by all means, I am FOR this proposal.
You do realize that RP was invented by players too, if you want to get really snippy, and isn't hard coded into the game either. Raiding has just as much right to exist as RP does. Don't like it? Find another game, because we're not going to destroy the R/D sub-game in order avoid the minor and very occasional inconvenience it causes in yours.
The Batorys wrote:The Delmontese like money, yeah, but they also like to throw down.
[b][color=#0000FF][background=red]United in Opposition to [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=303025]Liberate Haven[/url][/background][/color][/b]
[color=#FF0000][b]Mallorea and Riva should [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=303090]resign[/url][/b][/color]
by Farfadillis » Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:04 am
Evil Wolf wrote:Chrinthanium wrote:Quite frankly, I equate raiding to stealing because it is taking something that isn't yours by force for your own enjoyment. The raiders did not build that region, the raiders did not invest the time and effort into creating those forums, the raiders did not create the WFE or the regional flag, but now they have complete control over them and change them to shove it in the face of those from whom they've stolen the very region they called home. I, for one, do not call that fun, nor do I call that a game of any sort.
I like to call it Nationstates.net.Chrinthanium wrote:And the absolute worst idea ever invented by NationStates players would be utterly destroyed? Then, by all means, I am FOR this proposal.
You do realize that RP was invented by players too, if you want to get really snippy, and isn't hard coded into the game either. Raiding has just as much right to exist as RP does. Don't like it? Find another game, because we're not going to destroy the R/D sub-game in order avoid the minor and very occasional inconvenience it causes in yours.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bogsu, Bomb Bay, Countriopia, Danternoust, Geopolity, Goryeong, Grishahakkaverchynot, Hyponichtmallieturam, Khantin, Taylor Swift-, Three Galaxies
Advertisement