Advertisement
by Bears Armed » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:38 am
by Lun Noir » Fri Jan 03, 2014 11:44 am
by Evil Wolf » Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:08 pm
Bears Armed wrote:they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose.
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 Whamabama » Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:42 pm
JURISDICTIONS wrote:
And if there is no activity in the region, then why would a founder appoint a successor??? Founders who have an active region, but wish to move on, can have a true ability to do so under this proposal. Plus, raiders are already raiding foundered regions now too, thanks to the Black Riders. What are you so against?
Even then, hell. If this idea is causing such a problem, maybe we should make a "founder nation swapping service" for people to go and ask for a puppet nation to founder with so several members of the regions can be the founder, and post the service everywhere! I mean, if having this option is such a problem, surely you would support that instead of my proposal.
by Whamabama » Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:48 pm
Bears Armed wrote:As I've already pointed out, there's no reason why this should "destroy" R/D because if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose. Inn fact the rules would even let them set those regions up with non-executive founders, so that the players involved couldn't subsequently change their minds and take those regions out of the battlefield...
by JURISDICTIONS » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:55 am
Takaram wrote:Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.
by [violet] » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:08 pm
Bears Armed wrote:if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose
by Grenartia » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:02 am
[violet] wrote:Bears Armed wrote:if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose
No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.
by The Angry Clown » Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:10 am
[violet] wrote:Bears Armed wrote:if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose
No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.
by -Land- » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:42 am
[violet] wrote:No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders
by Andacantra » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:38 am
by Esternial » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:44 am
[violet] wrote:Bears Armed wrote:if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose
No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.
by The Dark Star Republic » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:39 am
[violet] wrote:Bears Armed wrote:if the R/D crowd think that there aren't enough regions left open for them to fight over then they are -- and would, under this proposal, remain -- perfectly free to create new regions themselves for that purpose
No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders. Imagine that the entire NS world is comprised of people who want to play the invasion game, then we give each region the power to make themselves invulnerable to invasion. Everyone would use that. There would be no reason not to. They'd wish other regions didn't use it, but they'd use it themselves. And that would be the end of R/D.
The Angry Clown wrote:I agree. No one would want their "home regions" invaded. But Warzones would begin to serve a real function; we could have more of them. And quite a few players would begin to create regions especially for R/D, even if they are initially puppet regions. (Law of supply and demand...)
by Lun Noir » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:45 am
Esternial wrote:As for the discussion, how about we simply allow Founders to actively pass on their powers rather than use a system where their executive access is passively passed on when they CTE?
-Land- wrote:[violet] wrote:No-one wants to opt-in to having their own region invaded, not even invaders
Then make it a neccessity. If you want to raid, or defend or liberate, then you *have* to opt-in. Your founder becomes non-exec, and your delegate becomes executive (both in your home region and any outposts/jump points you use). We can do away with the whole proxy war thing and actually have an R/D game, not an R/D/N game.
by Mousebumples » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:29 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Do other people think this might spur activity in Warzones, or is that a forlorn hope?
by Whamabama » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:21 pm
The Angry Clown wrote:I agree. No one would want their "home regions" invaded. But Warzones would begin to serve a real function; we could have more of them. And quite a few players would begin to create regions especially for R/D, even if they are initially puppet regions. (Law of supply and demand...)
I'm not saying this is the ideal solution, I'm just saying that the argument posted by holy [violet] doesn't necessarily holdtrue.
by [violet] » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:37 pm
Esternial wrote:Seems odd to make a game so dependent on people who don't want to play it.
by Evil Wolf » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:54 pm
-Land- wrote:Then make it a neccessity. If you want to raid, or defend or liberate, then you *have* to opt-in. Your founder becomes non-exec, and your delegate becomes executive (both in your home region and any outposts/jump points you use). We can do away with the whole proxy war thing and actually have an R/D game, not an R/D/N game.
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 -Land- » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:57 pm
Lun Noir wrote:I like the direction of your thinking... however, this would not exactly be plausible, since many switch nations used during raiding or defending don't really have a 'home region', and since jump point regions can be created and dropped more or less on demand. Any R/D faction who still wanted their home region to be safe would simply not stage raids or defenses directly from it.
Also, it's getting a bit off topic.
[violet] wrote:-snip-
by [violet] » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:06 pm
-Land- wrote:Yes, but as you point out. People play Halo expecting to kill or be killed. That is not the case with NS. R/D is made up of a very small, but very loud, group of players, and people do not join NS expecting to be raided or defended.
by The Dark Star Republic » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:13 pm
[violet] wrote:Esternial wrote:Seems odd to make a game so dependent on people who don't want to play it.
Quite a few people have missed the point of my post, so let me try again. I will use Halo as an example. Let's assume there are a lot of people who want to play multiplayer Halo. What this means is they want to run around and try to kill each other as much as possible and die as infrequently as possible. That's the game. They want to play that game. Now let's introduce a checkbox that allows Halo players to be permanently invulnerable. What happens? Everyone uses that checkbox. And no-one can kill each other, and there is no more game.
Is this proof that no-one really wanted to play Halo after all? No, it's not. It's just a bad feature, because it removed something essential from the game.
We should not call something an "opt-out" feature if it's going to fundamentally alter the landscape for all players, including those who wish to opt-in. That's a misrepresentation of what it is. A true opt-out feature would only be used by those people who don't wish to participate in the war game at all, not just those who don't want to be shot. Because the latter is everyone.
by [violet] » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:24 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:all that's being asked for here is a means to protect those uninterested in that game from having it damage theirs.
by Lun Noir » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:26 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:.. but all that's being asked for here is a means to protect those uninterested in that game from having it damage theirs.
by The Dark Star Republic » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:43 pm
[violet] wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:all that's being asked for here is a means to protect those uninterested in that game from having it damage theirs.
Of course, and notice that to a large extent, that's been implemented. Invaders can no longer eject whoever they like. They can't throw up passwords. They can't invade regions that have been passworded. They can't retain control of the Delegacy in regions with active Founders. They can't do anything with the Delegacy in regions that have made that office non-executive. They can't retain passwords even if they eventually get them up if the WA Security Council doesn't want them to. These are all changes we've made to protect regions from damage.
Now, I understand perfectly that what remains is still too much for some. But if you're presenting an idea, understand its implications. It's not appropriate to argue for "balance" or "opt-out" if what you're actually proposing is something that will effectively eliminate R/D for everyone, even those people who want to play it. That's the point. Would your idea eliminate R/D even if all NS players were invaders? Yes? Then that's not balance and it's not opt-out. It's a "no R/D" idea.
by Celestis Union » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:38 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 7 Trees
Advertisement