![Razz :P](./images/smilies/sm_tongue.gif)
Advertisement
by Klaus Devestatorie » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:43 pm
by Ballotonia » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:32 am
[violet] wrote:Ballotonia wrote:So... what if defenders were to decide that, say, starting tomorrow, they're really not gonna bother anymore and sit back and relax. Would you then decide to give them more advantages in the game to make up for that? Would be consistent, given your approach towards invaders...
Well, yes. If defenders all vanished tomorrow, and invaders roamed the world as they please, I would think we should balance that.
by [violet] » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:16 am
by Bears Armed » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:22 am
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by Just Guy » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:22 am
by Evil Wolf » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:51 am
Bears Armed wrote:[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
Speaking as somebody who's never felt any interest at all in becoming involved in raiding, and who has only defended (for ideological reasons) once, why?!? From what I've read in the forums before this, it certainly wasn't part of Max's original plan for NS...
To me, that statement seems like (the hypothetical situation of) a person who manages a beach saying "There are supposed to be kids who kick other kids' sandcastles over"...
Just Guy wrote:You did not address the point at all Violet. You have said that you will balance out the game, even if one of the sides stopped doing its work or absolutely sucked at it. Why should I defend then?
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 Crushing Our Enemies » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:57 am
[violet] wrote:I've had this debate before, with Naivetry I think. Nai argued that defenders exist to protect the game, not play the game, and require the moral imperative that they are effectively doing admin's work. But... well, it's not true. The invasion game doesn't exist because admin is incapable of stamping it out. There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by Crazy girl » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:18 am
Evil Wolf wrote: Things will find a balance in the end, just so long as you're not messing with the basic game formula >_>
by Bhagavan » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 pm
Just Guy wrote:You did not address the point at all Violet. You have said that you will balance out the game, even if one of the sides stopped doing its work or absolutely sucked at it. Why should I defend then?
You are opposing a change which you claim will benefit defenders (and I don't see how) as gameplay is already tilted towards the defenders. However, the game itself does not give us any advantage over the invaders (if anything it is actually the other way around).
by Sedgistan » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Just Guy wrote:You did not address the point at all Violet. You have said that you will balance out the game, even if one of the sides stopped doing its work or absolutely sucked at it. Why should I defend then?
by Krevantas » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:22 pm
by Wopruthien » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:47 pm
by Krevantas » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:53 pm
They have the same problem with variance. If raiders happen to move in just perfectly, which I have seen, rarely, they could be right behind the raiders by half a second and just barely miss the UDT while the Raiders slip through.
by Ballotonia » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:31 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Defenders have always known that the invasion game (excluding the region-destruction side of it) is admin sanctioned - otherwise it wouldn't have been allowed. Why defend? Because you don't need admin support to believe that what you're doing is morally correct - helping to keep regions free to run their own affairs. Additionally, most defenders also enjoy defending - it's not just done as a service to help founderless regions - people defend because it's fun.
by Sedgistan » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:04 pm
Ballotonia wrote:Region-destruction became legal with Influence.
Ballotonia wrote:Compare it to playing chess with a tournament official standing on the side who will occasionally add new pieces to the board if it seems one side may be getting an advantage. It makes playing chess utterly pointless.
(and, yes, the comparison to chess holds since unlike the overall NS game the invasion/defense subgame DOES have winners and losers)
Ballotonia
Ballotonia wrote:But I think you're missing the point, Sedge. It's not that Admin OKs invading, we already knew that since 2003. It's that now (and this IS new) Admin has told us that any advantage one side manages to obtain (by spending lots of time and effort, mind you) will be undone by Admin by providing various perks to the other side.
[violet] wrote:Well, yes. If defenders all vanished tomorrow, and invaders roamed the world as they please, I would think we should balance that. I wouldn't run out and start coding, because, as you know, we tend to go years between major gameplay changes. But over the long run, I am focused on the practice of the invasion game; i.e. how often it actually happens and how often it's defeated. I'm not an invader or defender; I'll never understand exactly how easy or difficult certain things are as well as you guys do. I only observe how frequently things are happening. And my mandate is to ensure there is a reasonably active invasion game.
by [violet] » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:28 pm
by Ballotonia » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:15 am
[violet] wrote:B, you're doing that thing where you ask about an extreme hypothetical situation, then act as if we were discussing regular gameplay. What I said was if we had a long-term downward trend on one side, in the context of passing years, I would look at balancing that. Anybody downs tools tomorrow, I'm not helping.
by Mousebumples » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:21 am
Ballotonia wrote:... and you're doing that thing where you presume I'm part of the microwave generation looking for instant solutions. I think long-term. I was seriously posing as a possibility that defenders could simply stop defending, wait two years, and then have you step in to return 'balance' to the game. I've been here almost 8 years now. Waiting 2 is a drop in the bucket.
Seems there IS a way to defeat those invaders. It's called 'not playing'.
by Crushing Our Enemies » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:05 pm
Ballotonia wrote:I was seriously posing as a possibility that defenders could simply stop defending, wait two years, and then have you step in to return 'balance' to the game. I've been here almost 8 years now. Waiting 2 is a drop in the bucket.
Seems there IS a way to defeat those invaders. It's called 'not playing'.
Ballotonia wrote:...and, FYI, I personally stopped being an active defender many many years ago already, ever since invaders were favored big time when it was made legal for them to empty out regions. (which is also a comment towards Sedge's claim that invaders have barely been favored by game changes)
Ballotonia
by Crazy girl » Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:51 am
by Evil Wolf » Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:59 am
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 Ballotonia » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:44 am
[violet] wrote:Hmm, thanks. I think it would be good to remove a little need for jumping through hoops, but I'm not sure defenders need any more advantages over invaders at this point.
Maybe something to implement alongside something with a counterbalancing benefit for invaders.
[violet] wrote:I'm persuaded by Evil Wolf's post about this change making life harder for invaders, and since I think the current state of gameplay is (somewhat) too weighted against them already, I don't plan to implement this.
If we came up with a pro-invader improvement that this could offset, though, I would look at it, because it otherwise seems to make sense.
I don't think Annex is a relevant pro-invader improvement, as it won't actually make invading any easier.
[...] No records beaten, but again The Black Hawks swooped through Nationstates, claiming all in their path. A further 10 regions were taken. Timing was almost always accurate, rarely beyond 10 seconds, with the best timing of 2 seconds! This is the second time we have achieved such an accurate timing, claiming the region within only 2 seconds from arrival.[...]
by Uranus Territory » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:52 am
by Ballotonia » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:48 am
Uranus Territory wrote:If they really have a "guaranteed way to win", that means the defenders have a "guaranteed way" to take the regions back.
by Evil Wolf » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:25 am
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Arctic Lands, El Nuevo Mundo, Empire of Dabiristan, Migs, Namwenia, Reyo, Riemstagrad, The Koryoan Union
Advertisement