Bring back the competition

[Defaultia II]

Belgium is not unique, its been happening. To suddenly scream about it now is hypocrisy, and demeaning to the rest of the regions that were locked.

I'm not suddenly screaming about Belgium now because I don't care about the other regions, Biyah. I'm screaming about Belgium now because I only returned to NationStates a few days ago, and had left shortly before Influence was implemented. I thought you knew that, because I'm pretty sure you were in the Equilism channel the very day I returned. With this system, we'll at least have a chance to save the Belgiums of the world instead of waiting while they're slowly bled dry.

Furthermore, you seem to be making the assumption that the delegacy would change hands every day. My intuition says that such a fight would follow a geometric distribution where only a very few regions would end up in battles of more than a few days. I mean, there's only so many friends you can call on.

[Defaultia II]

There will be no point, at all, to moving soldiers around before update. Because, of course, the invaders wouldn't be able to remove the defenders during the day. There would be no liberation attempts, just extended troop movements to make sure we had more people then the invaders come next update.

That's a feature for those of us who live on the East Coast. You see, not all of us can stay up at four in the morning.

[Biyah]

But you did once. And so have other east-coasters, for years.

Again, there is no strategy here. And when I say 'numbers game' and 'networking', I'm not talking about generics. I'm not talking about the ADN or general cliques. I'm talking about pouring all the people you can into one region, regardless of tactics or skill.

That would not be a win I would be proud of, not night after night.

[Defaultia II]

Again, there is no strategy here. And when I say 'numbers game' and 'networking', I'm not talking about generics. I'm not talking about the ADN or general cliques. I'm talking about pouring all the people you can into one region, regardless of tactics or skill.

And when you say "strategy", do you mostly mean "staying up until update and pouring defenders who can stay up to 4AM at *just* the right time?" Because aside from the incompetent invaders, that's what we did.

And no, pre-Influence, I didn't stay up for update. My parents had me in bed by 10PM back then. Part of why my focus switched to feeder politics.

[Biyah]

That's part of the strategy, yes.

Meaning we had spotters, we had intelligence and moles to watch for plans. We had people out roaming, waiting for invasions.

That is, my boy, the definition of 'strategy'.

[[violet]]

Thanks for the idea!

An issue I have is it does not prevent the "game over" scenario: it just makes it less likely. Which is an improvement, but sometimes defenders will not manage to "win" within that 24 hour window, leaving us with the same situation Belgium faces now. I would rather find a solution that removes the "game over" aspect altogether than one that merely reduces its frequency.

[Defaultia II]

That's part of the strategy, yes.

Meaning we had spotters, we had intelligence and moles to watch for plans. We had people out roaming, waiting for invasions.

That is, my boy, the definition of 'strategy'.

I don't see how this plan would destroy the need to spot invasions. It would just mean that the numbers game which previously applied to people who could wake up at 4 in the morning would apply to all of us.

[Biyah]

Because defenders would have 24 hours to pile in enough people to take back the delgacy.

This would herald in the new age of Lazy Defending. Don't bother watching for invasions at update, just wait til early in the morning to see what fell, then move your troops there to take it back before the invaders can boot.

And violet has a good point. Some invasions would still take place, and succeed. Not that all invaders are griefers, mind.

[Marcuslandia]

I think this is a very bad idea, actually.

It means that for 24 hours, there is no control, a delegate can't remove invaders (or defenders, on the flip side) so the region is a free-for-all.

I can very easily see invaders and defenders pouring more and more people into a single region, seeing it switch hands daily, until eventually everyone available is tied up- before anyone could finally boot the other side.

For a region that never wanted that play in the first place, this would be hell. For those of us who do like to move around to new defenses daily, this would be a serious pain in the arse.

No ban limit.

Uh, that's how quite a few Real World battles developed. One side is set for defense and sees enemy troops massing. He calls in reinforcements. The attacker sees that the defenses have been beefed up, so _he_ brings in more forces. It goes back and forth until one side or the other hits a critical masses and attacks his opponent. I can think of at least a dozen examples in history, just off the top of my head.

If a game mechanism does a more realistic simulation of Reality, isn't that a Good Thing?

[Marcuslandia]

This means there would be no clear end to an invasion or defense. It would be one, long, battle- it would become a war of attrition.

As opposed to the current game, where it's a war of attrition with no fighting back. (See: Belgium)

I'd call it blitzkrieg.

[Biyah]

This game is not RL, nor has it ever been.

If we're going to try emulating life better, then I'd insist upon weapons that destroy annoying regions/countries.

[Marcuslandia]

This game is not RL, nor has it ever been.

If we're going to try emulating life better, then I'd insist upon weapons that destroy annoying regions/countries.

_NO_ game is RL. But this _is_ a simulation of RL. Vague, but the the inspiration for the game mechanics are there to be seen in RL.

And as Voltaire said, "God is always on the side of the heaviest battalions."

[Valipac]

Thanks for the idea!

An issue I have is it does not prevent the "game over" scenario: it just makes it less likely. Which is an improvement, but sometimes defenders will not manage to "win" within that 24 hour window, leaving us with the same situation Belgium faces now. I would rather find a solution that removes the "game over" aspect altogether than one that merely reduces its frequency.

Well I think that the combination of items together could be used to remove the game over aspect rather than finding one cure-all solution.

For example, this gives a 24 hour window for the defenders to take the region back. Then, if they were unable to do so, they can use the Liberation proposal, remove the password, and try again.

[Kandarin]

Valipac put it well. It doesn't have to be this, but if we have some way of reducing Game Over, any mechanism (like the Liberation category) that can be applied after Game Over kicks in would be faster and more effective.

[Ballotonia]

Wit the addition of blocking passwording as well: I like this idea!

And for the record, as far as I'm concerned that 24 hr time period can be extended to infinity

Ballotonia

[Bears Armed]

As for the "numbers game" - NS has always been about networking. It's about being able to coordinate well enough and quickly enough to get a job done. That's what led people to group together in regions,

Oh really? I thought that regions were a game-coded aspect of the game that existed before 'raiding'? [/sarcasm]

I would oppose setting too long a limit on Delegates gaining the power to eject & ban nations, because a longer restriction would penalise those regions where the Delegate is actually elected democratically (with the voters moving their endorsements around, as necessary, after each election...) at regular intervals rather than determined purely by game-mechanics. Some people in this thread seem to forget that NS isn't solely about raiding & defending...

Thanks for the idea!

An issue I have is it does not prevent the "game over" scenario: it just makes it less likely. Which is an improvement, but sometimes defenders will not manage to "win" within that 24 hour window, leaving us with the same situation Belgium faces now. I would rather find a solution that removes the "game over" aspect altogether than one that merely reduces its frequency.

Forbid boasting about conquests in WFEs, RMBs & these forums: If the griefers & empire-builders can't gloat to the NS public about their "triumphs" then maybe that will discourage them...

[Erastide]

I agree with Biyah on this one. Either a) defenders and invaders go back and forth night to night or b) on the day the defenders are coming into region 1, the invaders move on to region 2, and repeat the following night moving to region 3.

I had thought one of the complaints about influence was that it delayed actions like ejections, this would make it even worse, yes?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I agree with Biyah on this one. Either a) defenders and invaders go back and forth night to night or b) on the day the defenders are coming into region 1, the invaders move on to region 2, and repeat the following night moving to region 3.

I had thought one of the complaints about influence was that it delayed actions like ejections, this would make it even worse, yes?

Yes. That would defeat the purpose of the motive.

[Defaultia II]

I agree with Biyah on this one. Either a) defenders and invaders go back and forth night to night or b) on the day the defenders are coming into region 1, the invaders move on to region 2, and repeat the following night moving to region 3.

I had thought one of the complaints about influence was that it delayed actions like ejections, this would make it even worse, yes?

Now the first one I've already explained why it's unrealistic(you assume that one side is going to stop just because they have the delegacy) but the second scenario is interesting. But at the very least, a chase would end up with fewer Belgiums.

[Naivetry]

As for the "numbers game" - NS has always been about networking. It's about being able to coordinate well enough and quickly enough to get a job done. That's what led people to group together in regions,

Oh really? I thought that regions were a game-coded aspect of the game that existed before 'raiding'? [/sarcasm]

"Being able to coordinate well enough and quickly enough to get a job done" need not refer to raiding, which is why I didn't say raiding; that's simply been the biggest catalyst. But the existence of raiding is the only thing that, as I went on to say after that comma, led to interregional diplomacy.

Forbid boasting about conquests in WFEs, RMBs & these forums: If the griefers & empire-builders can't gloat to the NS public about their "triumphs" then maybe that will discourage them...

That still leaves the offsites. And then what counts as "boasting"? "This region is now allied with The Macedonian Empire" might be a boast; "This region is now allied with 10000 Islands" probably isn't. Plus - who's going to police 6000 RMB's looking for raider insinuations of ownership?

If you start in on mod-based rulings again, you're just opening the door to accusations of bias (not to mention destroying the foundations of the whole political side of the game).

---

I got smacked around on IRC last night by Evil Wolf, Biyah, and Todd McCloud (with more passive objections from Neenee) for thinking this was a good idea. The objection is that this would make traditional raiding harder - which, no doubt, it would - without definitively solving the griefing problem. My reasons for suggesting it were as follows:

1) Given that Ballontonia has already proposed removing ejection powers from the Delegate, period, I figured this wasn't that drastic of a change.

2) While Evil Wolf suggested my problem was that I deal mostly with liberations and that I should try defenses sometime, my answer is that there is no defense against a well-executed raid, which means I have to deal with liberations. Defenders can stop raids only if raiders are sloppy and don't move in just before update. When raiders choose to pursue the same strategy forced on defenders during liberations, they cannot be stopped in the absence of an Intel network that knows where they're going in advance.

3) Since the drastic depopulation of the game, the defender world is in serious need of unified and disciplined leadership in order to be effective at spotting and stopping even incompetent raids. Thanks to a series of diplomatic snafus compounded by a widespread blithe self-satisfaction over being a defender without ever stopping to identify the principles on which defending is based, no such leadership exists. "But I'm a defender" covers up a multitude of unexamined sins and excuses behavior in direct contradiction to the principles which must govern defender action. Defenders are still trying to play the old pre-Influence game under the same pre-Influence assumptions about right and wrong and the justification for military action - and those of us who step outside that outdated model, like Equilism, find ourselves ostracized by people who shake their heads at us and then cannot explain why when we confront them.

Granted that number 3 is a problem we ought to be able to solve as players, the problem of legalized region destruction still exists, and the ease with which a dedicated raider group can take a region makes every raid a potential Belgium. Only two things can stop them: laziness/incompetence, or their own good sportsmanship.

With that said, maybe I should qualify my objection to two major updates - inasmuch as it would increase the instances of raider incompetence by increasing the dedication needed to maintain the delegacy, fine - go ahead. It's still going to be an absolute nightmare, it'll just be more of one for everybody.

[Erastide]

I got smacked around on IRC last night by Evil Wolf, Biyah, and Todd McCloud (with more passive objections from Neenee) for thinking this was a good idea. The objection is that this would make traditional raiding harder - which, no doubt, it would - without definitively solving the griefing problem.

I agree with Biyah on this one. Either a) defenders and invaders go back and forth night to night or b) on the day the defenders are coming into region 1, the invaders move on to region 2, and repeat the following night moving to region 3.

I had thought one of the complaints about influence was that it delayed actions like ejections, this would make it even worse, yes?

Now the first one I've already explained why it's unrealistic(you assume that one side is going to stop just because they have the delegacy) but the second scenario is interesting. But at the very least, a chase would end up with fewer Belgiums.

I missed the explanation why a) is unrealistic, it's people continuing to fight over 1 region night after night. That seems decently likely.

[[violet]]

Forbid boasting about conquests in WFEs, RMBs & these forums: If the griefers & empire-builders can't gloat to the NS public about their "triumphs" then maybe that will discourage them...

Just for the record, I never said that: you were quoting Bears Armed.

[Daistallia 2104]

Forbid boasting about conquests in WFEs, RMBs & these forums: If the griefers & empire-builders can't gloat to the NS public about their "triumphs" then maybe that will discourage them...

That's something that deserves a better look.

And Nai, "This region has been INVADED by Mencer and The Macedonian Empire" reads as gloating to me.

And this certainly is:

Welcome to the Former German Republic of France.

One of the fastest, most impressive and most effective raids in NS history.

This region is a colony of the Macedonian Empire and Mencer .

Greetings from Macedonia to Sarkozy, our "friend".

Taking the gloating off the WFE would be a start.

[[violet]]

You gotta let raiders gloat. You ban that, you might as well abolish invasions altogether.

[Marcuslandia]

You gotta let raiders gloat. You ban that, you might as well abolish invasions altogether.

I can understand a _reasonable_ amount of gloating between head-to-head competitors. But the sheer mean-ness of it escalates to a whole different realm when the gloating is aimed at the residents of a region that had wanted to never be even remotely connected to the invader/defender game. Like after having knocked someone down unexpectedly, you start kicking him and chanting, "See what your pacifist attitude gets you???" [Believe me. Since the SPHere was invaded, I am all too familiar with the sensation. Two of my former neighbors that were ejected already quit the game, just for this reason.]