by Galiantus III » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:22 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Tinhampton » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:25 am
by Roavin » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:31 am
by Indo-Malaysia » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:25 am
by The Notorious Mad Jack » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:12 am
by Frattastan IV » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:38 am
The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:I wonder if the reverse is feasible also, raiding regions to be able to approve resolutions. You'd probably need a larger force than you do to block resolutions.
Draganisia wrote:Also it seems the next war could be NPO fighting directly against Pacifica.
by Deutschess Kaiserreich » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:40 am
Socialist Minecraft Server wrote:Im thinking about what im thinking about what im thinking
Ethnic Female German living in [REDACTED] (Not comfortable with revealing my identity).
by Galiantus III » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:18 am
Armaros wrote:Im generally indifferent to the WA as a whole. It could be useful against liberations, but there it's use ends for about 90% of GP.
The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:I wonder if the reverse is feasible also, raiding regions to be able to approve resolutions. You'd probably need a larger force than you do to block resolutions.
Frattastan IV wrote:TBH did it to weaken the 'For' vote in Liberate Illuminati too, iirc.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Bears Armed » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:34 am
Galiantus III wrote:Armaros wrote:Im generally indifferent to the WA as a whole. It could be useful against liberations, but there it's use ends for about 90% of GP.
My personal hope is that this will involve people who care about the WA in gameplay more, adding more activity and depth here. Raiders and Defenders will keep doing their thing, but other people will be attacking or defending WA proposals.
by Frattastan IV » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:12 am
Bears Armed wrote:If raiders keep on mucking-up the GA like this then I'll probably just take a break from the GA, and spend more time on another aspect of the game that I actually enjoy -- so, not R/D -- instead.
I wonder how those authors who spend money on stamps to lobby for delegate approvals feel about raiders -- who apparently don't even care about the contents and merits of the proposals concerned -- deliberately taking those approvals away again just for schadenfreude?
I suspect that if more raiders had experience with trying to get proposals to the floor then fewer of them would be interested in this sort of wrecking.
Draganisia wrote:Also it seems the next war could be NPO fighting directly against Pacifica.
by Lord Dominator » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:13 am
by Kranostav » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:33 am
by Lord Dominator » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:34 am
Kranostav wrote:I know the topic of approvals has always been somewhere on the docket in the WA, this becoming popularized could impact how approvals are dealt with in the future, and would also probably incentivize approval stacking among authors and various WA blocs.
by Galiantus III » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:38 am
Frattastan IV wrote:If anything, the lack of interest would stem from the fact that the disruptive potential of this is too limited to be worth the effort as a regular thing.
Lord Dominator wrote:Tried this once, not something I want to do for anything other than the occasional SC proposal (probably Liberations for the most part). As noted by BA directly above, deliberately targeting GA proposals (especially) is rather rude to the people who play that game (myself included on occasion), and moreover in my opinion is rather a step above regular raiding since it involves deliberate targeting of something someone created as part of an entirely different game to destroy (not that regular raiding doesn't do something similar anyways, but it's usually not so essentially personal). I could go on about my thoughts with the forces needed to successfully run these sorts of things, but I think I've made my other point effectively.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Kranostav » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:39 am
Lord Dominator wrote:Kranostav wrote:I know the topic of approvals has always been somewhere on the docket in the WA, this becoming popularized could impact how approvals are dealt with in the future, and would also probably incentivize approval stacking among authors and various WA blocs.
Approval stacking isn't much of an option, there are very few delegates in the grand scheme of things that actually would care enough to do so who don't already.
by Frattastan IV » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:43 am
Galiantus III wrote:I could also argue that my vision for military gameplay is more likely in line with what Max Barry expected people to do than what raiders actually do: The WA is at the center of this game, and regions are the ones with strings to pull in the WA. From a design perspective, this is what you would have expected to happen, but in practice what actually happened is military gameplay was severed from the WA and became its own thing.
Draganisia wrote:Also it seems the next war could be NPO fighting directly against Pacifica.
by Galiantus III » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:56 am
Frattastan IV wrote:Galiantus III wrote:I could also argue that my vision for military gameplay is more likely in line with what Max Barry expected people to do than what raiders actually do: The WA is at the center of this game, and regions are the ones with strings to pull in the WA. From a design perspective, this is what you would have expected to happen, but in practice what actually happened is military gameplay was severed from the WA and became its own thing.
Yes, Max Barry totally expected people to try and prevent any proposal from reaching the voting floor.
Kranostav wrote:I know the topic of approvals has always been somewhere on the docket in the WA, this becoming popularized could impact how approvals are dealt with in the future, and would also probably incentivize approval stacking among authors and various WA blocs.
I imagine a more effective version of this would be to displace vulnerable delegates during close votes to sway the results. However I am not too experienced on the intricacies of how a delegate losing power at the final update of a vote closing or the update before a vote closes works with WA votes.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Lord Dominator » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:00 pm
Galiantus III wrote:I could say the same thing about raiders: It's rude to the community you are harming, and involves deliberate targeting of something never created to be involved in a raid - oftentimes with indifference to the existence of the WA. And yes, it can be intensely personal for the natives affected. This doesn't mean raiders are being mean, they're just doing what they see as fun. This is no different than if me or someone else carries out this kind of operation for fun.
In fact, both authors of the proposals I blocked have taken it extremely well - Tinhampton even posted here and says he thinks this is "an interesting concept". The people opposing this have not been personally affected. I could also argue that my vision for military gameplay is more likely in line with what Max Barry expected people to do than what raiders actually do: The WA is at the center of this game, and regions are the ones with strings to pull in the WA. From a design perspective, this is what you would have expected to happen, but in practice what actually happened is military gameplay was severed from the WA and became its own thing.
Galiantus III wrote:Yeah, it likely will serve to either create more defined political parties within the WA or it will result in the WA acting like a more homogeneous organization. Either way, it should lend some realism and depth to the WA.
by Auralia » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:40 pm
Galiantus III wrote:In fact, both authors of the proposals I blocked have taken it extremely well - Tinhampton even posted here and says he thinks this is "an interesting concept". The people opposing this have not been personally affected.
by Galiantus III » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:57 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by The Tri State Area and Maine » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:59 pm
Galiantus III wrote:@Auralia
Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. You were very composed in your responses in the GA forum, so I thought you weren't terribly annoyed. Sorry to misrepresent you.
At the same time, though, there is an argument to be made that the WA ought to put some effort into existing and functioning. This is the only kind of competitive power that exists to compete with it, and is a perfectly valid form of play. I hope to see many players make use of this, as well as many defend the WA from it. I have made a political move, and it is up to you or others to respond if you oppose it.
by Galiantus III » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:48 pm
The Tri State Area and Maine wrote:Gonna have to agree with Auralia, BA, etc, here.
Disrupting roleplaying by raiding RP regions isn't all that popular, so not sure why intentionally disrupting the GA is a good idea.Galiantus III wrote:@Auralia
Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. You were very composed in your responses in the GA forum, so I thought you weren't terribly annoyed. Sorry to misrepresent you.
At the same time, though, there is an argument to be made that the WA ought to put some effort into existing and functioning. This is the only kind of competitive power that exists to compete with it, and is a perfectly valid form of play. I hope to see many players make use of this, as well as many defend the WA from it. I have made a political move, and it is up to you or others to respond if you oppose it.
The only way they could do that is to participate in Gameplay, which they don't want to do.
Imagine if you had to RP out a raid in order to take a region.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anvilia, Astrobolt, Maximum Imperium Rex, The crowstrian people
Advertisement