ADST World wrote:Pz4 wrote:
Isn't that already the case in the current situation, though? It's not particularly difficult to opt out of the r/d game, as has exhaustively been said.
DEN members, what would be your thoughts here? My understanding is that you raid because there is no war system, right?
Raided nations, why are your thoughts? Would you prefer an opt-in war system over the raiding system?
It would entirely depend upon the specifics of such a system and how many people decided to opt in.
Lyra and Bon Bon wrote:And once again, how do you draw the line between a raid, an internal coup, an internal coup with external support, inter-regional politicking, a long-term sleeper operation, and so on?
Well, granted I have been only playing for about three years or so now, but I have yet to even once run into any type of regional coup or inter-regional politicking that came about from a flood of external nations flooding into a region and taking control.
Like a previous poster had said, actions against this is rather easy to implement. From as simple to as flagging a region that repeatedly does this action as 'a raider' nation. Once in a blue moon a single region is politicking probably, but say several times a week and in a different region every time? Not that difficult to tell the difference between internal power struggles and raiding to be honest; not sure why you are making it out to be.[/quote]
Here is one of the main issues I see with this ridiculous idea of a system: is it right to punish a nation for the actions of their region, and is it right to punish a region for the actions of individual members? The way I see it we either mark regions as raiders (which would punish the nations that are in the region but do not raid), we mark nations as raiders, which is as easy to get around as being banned from the WA (make a new nation), or we mark a player (which would be an incredibly far leap from "this is not at all illegal" to "you are a pariah in the eyes of this website"). And what would be the point of marking out any of the options? Would we be banned?
Additionally, an occupation an a coup with external support are extremely similar events, if not exactly the same. A long standing member of the region takes control of the delegacy and another region's army comes in to support them.
Or something as easy an instituting a WA delegate cooldown upon entering a new region; a day, three days, a week, or whatever. That would seriously hamper the ability of raiders rolling in and immediately taking over.
But just like with influence, the SC, Liberations, ROs and the new delegate rules we would find a way to either bypass the impediment or turn it as a weapon against natives and defenders. Delegate cooldowns would harm defenders just as much as raiders, because it would make already difficult liberation proccess even more difficult, but it would do nothing against occupations... actually the first thing would only make the second easier.
There are many tools for a region to use to defend themselves against raiding, and almost all of them have detrimental effets on the region. Password locking does stop raiding, but it also stops any new members from joining the region, which equals stagnation for the region. As soon as a password is handed out to any prospective new member you just opened the door to it being quickly passed around to anyone wanting to enter (Raiders). A one-time use password would perhaps also be an option against this, but that has never been implemented either.
Emphasis mine/fixed it. Passwording with a foundered region is stupid: it is far more worth it for you to risk getting tagged than hampering your own growth. Passwording founderless regions is smart, because recruitment should not be a priority for them.
Also, the claim that there are very few tools for regional defense is only made more laughable by the fact that you neglected to mention most of said tools.
The fact is that the raiders have a very distinct advantage, plus the backing of Max Barry and the NationStates staff. Pretending that it is somehow the fault of regions that they are so easy to raid is rather laughable with regions being handicapped with minimal defensive capabilities, that more-or-less hinge on having an active founder, and no real 'opt out' system.
As we have covered for about the tenth time in this thread, there is an opt-out system: non-executive delegates. The question is whether this is the system that should be in place.
I will state again that I do not see why those who decide to play as raiders and enjoy destroying what others have built up in NationStates gets to take precedent over those who just enjoy playing.
And we've had this argument several times in this thread too, and I do not want to participate in it again.