NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize my hopes of becoming a mod may never be fufilled, with my bad background.
But...I would still like to share my views on the game.
To make it a little fairer for the region crashers.
And don't say its fair because I am a region crasher.
My first thought was to get rid of the founder for the benift of Region Crashers but to keep the optional password for others.
You see...if you eject a founder he can still get to the regional control and unban himself as I have tested.
So to get rid of the founder would be a logical idea.
but I realize that that would be sort of drastic.
So to make it easier I have a solution.
If a region crasher gets UN delegate control(regional control should be acsessable for both founder and Delegate to be fair)of another region and ejects the founder, the founder should not be allowed to acsess regional control unless he some how gets back into the region.

And...in keeping the password you are garuntied saftey with it.
I don't see why you would ubject.
Its perfectly logical and fair for all.
I know i have been deleted twice and am not exactly a perfect rule follower but I will comtinue to share my views and try to help out.
INGS0C

I ain't gonna happen. We had this arguement 3 or 4 months ago when founders were introduced.

I am really sorry, I hope you don't take this wrong. But, could you please use the basic paragraph structure? There is no need to use a new line per sentence. Really, not trying to be negative, it is simply tre distracting, no?

If you get your way ( which I strongly doubt :P ) I will quit NS immediately. I like being founder, just the way it is. Just because you look at the the game from a different perspective, you want a rule change! Founders have a tough job building a regio, that takes months. And than a region crasher comes to intrude it all, and destroyes all the fun in 1 day, so he can have some fun his own way. It is'n even your regio, and you have no business there.

Actually, you may have a rule change if you want, but than I want a rule change too! A rule that says that you have to be 2 weeks a delegate before you can eject players. Not a rule of thumb, but in the script of the game, so you can't violate it!

*

My first thought was to get rid of the founder for the benift of Region Crashers but to keep the optional password for others.
You see...if you eject a founder he can still get to the regional control and unban himself as I have tested.

Ya know... my thoughts on the game are the exact opposite.

If I were to make a suggestion of that nature, I'd sooner remove region control for UN Delegates by default (unless there's a Founder to specifically allow it) than for Founders. Region Crashers and natives would be at a more level playing field, but at a different level.

The griefing I've seen generally involves abuse of region control access. Keep in mind that Region Control is a later add-on to the game, not part of its core functions. While region control access can be used very well to either create a closed community or provide some protection against spammers or troublemakers in general, to place it in the hands of someone who could've entered the region only recently is a recepy for abuse.

I do like Corinthe's suggestion, as it attempts to strike a balance between the needs of existing regions, and curbing abuse. The problem comes with implementing such a functionality.

Also, in that situation I would be in favor of less strict requirements for installing a Founder position, granting requests to non-founding nations in certain cases (region is sufficiently large, has a strong community built up, actual Founder is unknown or gone, very large agreement within the community on who the Founder should be, etc...)

Ballotonia

Actually, you may have a rule change if you want, but than I want a rule change too! A rule that says that you have to be 2 weeks a delegate before you can eject players. Not a rule of thumb, but in the script of the game, so you can't violate it!
Heh, two weeks would completly end all region crashing though... maybe a shorter time period, like three days.

Heh, two weeks would completly end all region crashing though... maybe a shorter time period, like three days.

Region crashing existed before there were any regional controls. Why would it cease to exist when they were removed again?

The 'power' over a region should be in having your name on the region's page, and representing it in the UN, not in having access to regional controls and booting people out.

Ballotonia

Did you not read my idea.
I would not get rid of the founder as I said that would be drastic.
What I think would be fair as i am a region crasher and a UN Delegate and a Founder, I would keep the optional password and right there you are assured saftey and I would keep the founders.The difference would be that the founder can only get to the regional control if he is in the region.
So if he gets ejected he can't get to the regional control.
It doesn't seem like a big change.
Just a bit fairer to the region crashers.
And i would like to state that region crashing was only fun before the founders and passwords.
It became dreadful work after the founders and passwords.But with a simple change it would be fair to everyone.
And don't tell me it already is as I am a UN delegate, founder and region crasher.
You see, its so hard to make an agreement with you.
With no authority at all, all I can do is suggest this.
However I will continue to help for the interest of fairness.

Complete nonsense. Founders have been designed to be ultimate controllers of regions. If you don't like it and want to invade without problems, get yourself a non-founded region, or a region where the founder ceased to exist.

What about the invaders who send in a "spy" to get the password, then invade passworder regions?

That aside, you claim that the system as is is unfair towards region invaders. You know what? It is. And thats good. I have heard it said that this is the best thing NS has to offer in the way of war. In case you didn't notice, war is rarely fair. Most of the time, a defender has the upper hand. One could say that the curent system simulates that.

Complete nonsense. Founders have been designed to be ultimate controllers of regions. If you don't like it and want to invade without problems, get yourself a non-founded region, or a region where the founder ceased to exist.
Shut up!
You fool.
You were made in August!

Ah, what resonable debate.... :roll: And we wonder why mods don't tend to resond all that well to these threads.

Complete nonsense. Founders have been designed to be ultimate controllers of regions. If you don't like it and want to invade without problems, get yourself a non-founded region, or a region where the founder ceased to exist.
Shut up!
You fool.
You were made in August!

Buddy, I'm with NationStates since december. But I guess you're too stupid to think this might be a puppet.

What about the invaders who send in a "spy" to get the password, then invade passworder regions?

That aside, you claim that the system as is is unfair towards region invaders. You know what? It is. And thats good. I have heard it said that this is the best thing NS has to offer in the way of war. In case you didn't notice, war is rarely fair. Most of the time, a defender has the upper hand. One could say that the curent system simulates that.
Ok...now I am talking to someone who knows the game.
I have planed a few targets without founders, 5 of them do far.
Now what happens when we have none.
There has to be a solution or they will lose alot of players.
They should be perpared for this.
At the moment I am getting along great, but its taking more effort then it should.
You see all these people say...I didn't do anything, they attacked me for no reason.
Its because we are running low on regions to take over.
I don't want to take over a region of 8.I want one of at least 30.
My opinion...I think that is what would be fair.

Mine is not a puppet.
HOWEVER I WAS DELETED TWICE>
MARCH!
So shut up!
Leave the debate to people with brains!

Mine is not a puppet.
HOWEVER I WAS DELETED TWICE>
MARCH!
So shut up!
Leave the debate to people with brains!

....must.......refrain.......from.......commenting........on.......that.........


Someone in a different thread said "When you stop attacking the issue and start attacking the person, you've lost the debate". Not sure who said it, but it seemed appropriate.

YOU ARE ALL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANTISEMITES!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE ALL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*sings*
Spam, glorious spam...

Was that you? Spam, spam, glorious spam?

BTW Bagel, love yer flag!

Was that you? Spam, spam, glorious spam?

BTW Bagel, love yer flag!

I'm not Bagel lovers...I think that's Kandarin or another RR country. I do have a puppet in the RR, but it's not Bagel.

All flaming/spam will end on this thread IMMEDIATELY or action may be taken.

INGS0C, the game is remaining as it currently is for the forseeable future.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

You are not a eral mod.
So what authority do you have to say that.
what is wrong with my ideas.
I would like a response from Neutered Sputniks and Melkor Unchained.

He has the authority to say that. He represents the mods in such issues as much as any mod. The system is not changing. I would sugest you either live with that ourstop playing.

Cspalla's right he does have that authority, and my opinion anyway is that the game shouldn't change. It's great the way it is.

Uh, yeah, It's not gonna change.


Maybe you should start listening to Sal as he's in on all the Mod stuff, just without the powers to move/lock threads and delete nations. Of course, that's what he's got the rest of us Mods around for.

You are not a eral mod.
So what authority do you have to say that.
what is wrong with my ideas.
I would like a response from Neutered Sputniks and Melkor Unchained.

INGS0C,

When I make a request like I did, it is with authority because it is one which I know the mods will back me up on (they always try to enforce anti-flaming rules). And as far as game changes go . . . I carry at least as much weight as the mods, I am called the TECH modling for a reason.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

Yeah...I'm sorry.
I should show more respect to anyone involved with the mods.
However...I still want it changed.
Why won't you.
it is a great game.
For RPers.
I just want a simple change.
Please.

If you get your way ( which I strongly doubt :P ) I will quit NS immediately. I like being founder, just the way it is. Just because you look at the the game from a different perspective, you want a rule change! Founders have a tough job building a regio, that takes months. And than a region crasher comes to intrude it all, and destroyes all the fun in 1 day, so he can have some fun his own way. It is'n even your regio, and you have no business there.

***

*
Exactly! My region may be a tempting target with only three UN Members(six players, two aren't ready for the UN, one quit playing and is letting her nations die), but I am putting effort into my region.

It is only fair that I'm able to block, UN delegate from regional control (and Bananapple agreed to it) so that you only gnash your teeth and spam the boards until I ban and report you (assuming that you do like most crashers and spam the boards). :twisted:

Yeah...I'm sorry.
I should show more respect to anyone involved with the mods.
However...I still want it changed.
Why won't you.
it is a great game.
For RPers.
I just want a simple change.
Please.
Since logic does not seem to work with you pehaps a simple set of ephrases like you are so fond of will do the trick

:evil: It is my region.
I founded it.
You did not found it.
You have a region which you did found.
If you want another region and are to lazy to found and recruit for another one, take over a non-founded region.

The mods will not change the game
so a small group of persons
can have "fun"
At the expense of the happiness of
a much larger group of persons.

This is why sadists do not have the right to torture non-masochists.
Understand?

Yeah...I'm sorry.
I should show more respect to anyone involved with the mods.
However...I still want it changed.
Why won't you.
it is a great game.
For RPers.
I just want a simple change.
Please.
Since logic does not seem to work with you pehaps a simple set of ephrases like you are so fond of will do the trick

:evil: It is my region.
I founded it.
You did not found it.
You have a region which you did found.
If you want another region and are to lazy to found and recruit for another one, take over a non-founded region.

The mods will not change the game
so a small group of persons
can have "fun"
At the expense of the happiness of
a much larger group of persons.
It is not at the expense of the happiness of RPers, they have the passwords AND founders.
But a founder would only be able to get to the regional control if he was in the region and he would have to share it with the founder.
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why will you not even consider!(I am talking to the mods)

This is why sadists do not have the right to torture non-masochists.
Understand?
You are fool, you cannot even understand other people.
You cannot consider us.
You treat us like outcasts.
Like you are a higher level of nation then I.
I don't answer my issues, I was deleted twice, I was banned from the UN.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER!
I am still a veteran to this game and you don't give me respect?
Why can't you consider others.And I am talking to everyone including the mods.
Why won't you change it.
Is there a good explaination?Lazy?huh?
Is that what it is, please just consider!

A founder OWNS a region. It is totaly theres. They made it, they have all rights to it. You do not. They have these things to keep you away from their region if they do not wnat to have you there. That is fair. Its theres, not yours. Its that simple. Invading can be done, but not in every region. Deal with that our don't, its all up to you. But (as the mods have said thousands of times) its not changing. Live with it or stop playing.

You are fool, you cannot even understand other people.
You cannot consider us.
You treat us like outcasts.
Like you are a higher level of nation then I.
I don't answer my issues, I was deleted twice, I was banned from the UN.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER!
I am still a veteran to this game and you don't give me respect?
Why can't you consider others.And I am talking to everyone including the mods.
Why won't you change it.
Is there a good explaination?Lazy?huh?
Is that what it is, please just consider!
I am polite to invaders as long as they stay out of my region and do not start threads imperiously demanding that founders be removed and yelling at the mods for not changing it (by the way only [violet] hypothetically could change it ).

Nobody else (including other invaders that I've heard) demands that founders be removed. There alkl still plenty of non-founded regions or regions where the founder died that you can invade.

You are a March nation, which many ntions here consider n00bs, and if you got yourself deleted tis you fault anyways.

Hmm. . .
March griefer. . .

:idea:

INGS0C, are you Sythia?

Since logic does not seem to work with you pehaps a simple set of ephrases like you are so fond of will do the trick

:evil: It is my region.
I founded it.
You did not found it.
You have a region which you did found.
If you want another region and are to lazy to found and recruit for another one, take over a non-founded region.

The mods will not change the game
so a small group of persons
can have "fun"
At the expense of the happiness of
a much larger group of persons.

This is why sadists do not have the right to torture non-masochists.
Understand?

Perfectly said, friend!

Ineptia

We should ban region crashing.

Ok, why should we ban region crashing?

Since logic does not seem to work with you pehaps a simple set of ephrases like you are so fond of will do the trick

:evil: It is my region.
I founded it.
You did not found it.
You have a region which you did found.
If you want another region and are to lazy to found and recruit for another one, take over a non-founded region.

The mods will not change the game
so a small group of persons
can have "fun"
At the expense of the happiness of
a much larger group of persons.

This is why sadists do not have the right to torture non-masochists.
Understand?

Perfectly said, friend!

Ineptia

Thank you.
Walks off gleefully, giddily happy that a mod likes his post.

<snip>

Perfectly said, friend!

Thank you.
Walks off gleefully, giddily happy that a mod likes his post.

...or, at least, a retired mod. :wink:

As for the issue at hand....

This is the way I see it:

NationStates was originally designed as a simple game, so the implications and consequences of the design choices were not fully understood. That is, when Max Barry decided to set up a system where UN member could endorse other UN members as Delegate and where nations could move from region-to-region at will, he probably didn't imagine that anyone would organize large groups of nations together for the purpose of entering an existing region and taking over the position of Delegate.

When regional invasions started to occur and were recogized as a phenomenon within NationStates, Max Barry decided to allow it to happen, but within rules.

The reasons for allowing regional invasions are that they make the game more interesting. If kept within a reasonable set of rules, I'm sure that they are interesting. If an invasion ruleset is ever implemented that I think is fair to everyone, I might even participate in invasions myself... someday.

The reasons against regional invasions are that region crashers severely disrupt the playing experience for those who are interesting in roleplaying. The invasion of the region "Mars" comes to mind; the residents had to set up a new region, "The Planet Mars", to conduct their roleplay.

Many people are opposed to regional invasions and, I think, with good reason: Max Barry designed this game so that each player could choose their own "Win/Lose" conditions (or that is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong) and region crashers impose a "Lose" condition on those players whose regions they crash. I present as an analogy, Max Barry has built the world's biggest sandbox and everyone is welcome to enter, form their own groups, and build sandcastles. However, bullies have started kicking sandcastles over.

Some people have described me as "anti-invasion". I'm not anti-invasion, I'm anti-jerk. I am in favor a ruleset that says that invaders can only target regions whose residents choose to be involved in invader play. If that rule is ever put in place, then I would be in favor of repealing other rules for the purpose of making invasions easier. To continue the sandcastle analogy, someone can only knock over the sandcastle of someone who also knocks over sandcastles. Those who don't choose to play invasions shouldn't have to worry about it.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia

Don't post for a sec here goes.

A founder OWNS a region. It is totaly theres. They made it, they have all rights to it. You do not. They have these things to keep you away from their region if they do not wnat to have you there. That is fair. Its theres, not yours. Its that simple. Invading can be done, but not in every region. Deal with that our don't, its all up to you. But (as the mods have said thousands of times) its not changing. Live with it or stop playing.

No one in a region wants invaders.But if they cooperate with the fact that they have been conquered, and they would all still live the same way.Almost no changes.
i think there shuold be some more complex ruling to region crashing.
to make it easier on everyone.Its not my job, but if it were I would do something.

You are fool, you cannot even understand other people.
You cannot consider us.
You treat us like outcasts.
Like you are a higher level of nation then I.
I don't answer my issues, I was deleted twice, I was banned from the UN.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER!
I am still a veteran to this game and you don't give me respect?
Why can't you consider others.And I am talking to everyone including the mods.
Why won't you change it.
Is there a good explaination?Lazy?huh?
Is that what it is, please just consider!
I am polite to invaders as long as they stay out of my region and do not start threads imperiously demanding that founders be removed and yelling at the mods for not changing it (by the way only [violet] hypothetically could change it ).
Did you read this post.I don't want founders removed.If only [violet] can do it, then maybe he should.I think it is necessary.

Nobody else (including other invaders that I've heard) demands that founders be removed. There alkl still plenty of non-founded regions or regions where the founder died that you can invade.
If you ask to be founder(if you rightly are)you can become founder, I've done it in my old region, the Family.And, I think if I made a petition asking all region crashers, I am sure they would agree, even some non region crashers would agree, and some would even convert to region crashing I am sure.

You are a March nation, which many ntions here consider n00bs, and if you got yourself deleted tis you fault anyways.
lol.You July nations make me laugh in pity.Since you don't give the natives respect, they should ban you.lol.

Hmm. . .
March griefer. . .I AM NOT A GRIEFER,I am quite sure region crashing and griefing are different.Griefing or Grieving witch is the correct term is against the rules I think.

:idea:

INGS0C, are you Sythia?
Are you an idiot or are you just stupid.Both?To stupid to understand the question?what about that one?

<snip>

Perfectly said, friend!

Thank you.
Walks off gleefully, giddily happy that a mod likes his post.

...or, at least, a retired mod. :wink:

As for the issue at hand....

This is the way I see it:

NationStates was originally designed as a simple game, so the implications and consequences of the design choices were not fully understood. That is, when Max Barry decided to set up a system where UN member could endorse other UN members as Delegate and where nations could move from region-to-region at will, he probably didn't imagine that anyone would organize large groups of nations together for the purpose of entering an existing region and taking over the position of Delegate.

When regional invasions started to occur and were recogized as a phenomenon within NationStates, Max Barry decided to allow it to happen, but within rules.

The reasons for allowing regional invasions are that they make the game more interesting. If kept within a reasonable set of rules, I'm sure that they are interesting. If an invasion ruleset is ever implemented that I think is fair to everyone, I might even participate in invasions myself... someday.

The reasons against regional invasions are that region crashers severely disrupt the playing experience for those who are interesting in roleplaying. The invasion of the region "Mars" comes to mind; the residents had to set up a new region, "The Planet Mars", to conduct their roleplay.

Many people are opposed to regional invasions and, I think, with good reason: Max Barry designed this game so that each player could choose their own "Win/Lose" conditions (or that is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong) and region crashers impose a "Lose" condition on those players whose regions they crash. I present as an analogy, Max Barry has built the world's biggest sandbox and everyone is welcome to enter, form their own groups, and build sandcastles. However, bullies have started kicking sandcastles over.

Some people have described me as "anti-invasion". I'm not anti-invasion, I'm anti-jerk. I am in favor a ruleset that says that invaders can only target regions whose residents choose to be involved in invader play. If that rule is ever put in place, then I would be in favor of repealing other rules for the purpose of making invasions easier. To continue the sandcastle analogy, someone can only knock over the sandcastle of someone who also knocks over sandcastles. Those who don't choose to play invasions shouldn't have to worry about it.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia
it is not a matter of whether they want it or not.No one wants it.
Thats why we keep the password AND founder.Only the founder can only get to the regional control while inside the region and would have to share regional control with the UN Delegate.This way it is fair to both sides.
And another thing!
WHY WOULD THEY BAN REGION CRASHING IS RIGHT!HOW DARE YOU EVEN SAY SUCH A THING!
BAN HIM FROM THIS POST!He does not know how to debate.Like the person who I am talking to.And shouldn't it be the mods who are telling me all this.
The debate will never be settled without them debating.

I may not be a mod! But I will always be Eridanus the Commie

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

it is not a matter of whether they want it or not.No one wants it.
Thats why we keep the password AND founder.Only the founder can only get to the regional control while inside the region and would have to share regional control with the UN Delegate.This way it is fair to both sides.
And another thing!
WHY WOULD THEY BAN REGION CRASHING IS RIGHT!HOW DARE YOU EVEN SAY SUCH A THING!
BAN HIM FROM THIS POST!He does not know how to debate.Like the person who I am talking to.And shouldn't it be the mods who are telling me all this.
The debate will never be settled without them debating.

INS0C, the changes you suggest are incredibly one-sided. It is not fair to both sides.

WHY WOULD THEY DISALLOW THE FOUNDER ACESS TO REGIONAL CONTROL FROM OUTSIDE THE REGION IS RIGHT!HOW DARE YOU EVEN SAY SUCH A THING!

BAN HIM FROM THIS FORUM!{Now, back to being serious}

I do not know how to debate. :roll: I admit that I've never taken a debate course, but saying, "so says the pot to the kettle" would be an understaement, as I do not rant/flame/demand that you be censored (exept sarcastically above).

No, this forum is open. If you wanted to discuss this privately you should have emailed [violet], although I'm sure that she'd be less than happy with all that she has on her hands right now though.

As for the last sentance:
Come again :?:

Ok, why should we ban region crashing?

Tough one, but here are my thoughts.

What is region crashing actually? As this thread tends to prove, it's quite a technical thing. And that's what I have against it. When I can understand region and nation invasions occuring in freeform RPs, where people can ignore godmodders and actually react to what's going on, I truly cannot get what the interest of region crashing is from an IC point of view. It's like an OOC game in the game, except it can have drastic consequences IC. That makes it completly worthless imo.

The fact you enter a region just to endorse another nation in order to gain control of the said region has to be the worst game mechanic ever. I don't see many region crasher at least trying to justify their OOC behavior from an IC point of view. That tells a lot.

In my opinion, region invasions should be dealt through RPs. What would be nice then would be an option for founders to give their priviledges to another nation, so that region invasion wars RPs can come to a conclusion. Of course, this would mean regions are actually considered as military alliances... and that's not always that way.

My 2 cents though.

I understand disagreeing with that, but not to not understand invasions, ahh there seems to be a lacking indeed (not a dig at you, just seeing that there are some facts you seem to be quite unaware of).

Ok, why should we ban region crashing?

Tough one, but here are my thoughts.

What is region crashing actually? As this thread tends to prove, it's quite a technical thing. And that's what I have against it. When I can understand region and nation invasions occuring in freeform RPs, where people can ignore godmodders and actually react to what's going on, I truly cannot get what the interest of region crashing is from an IC point of view. It's like an OOC game in the game, except it can have drastic consequences IC. That makes it completly worthless imo.



Firstly, why say invasions our OOC? In general, they are not. Not sure how many invasions you have seen, but most IO have witness (and not just by my own group) are quite in character. Now, we go a bit more into Rping then other invasion groups, but really if an invasion group is going to be around for long they had better RP. Why? For one thing, if they don’t they run the risk of greifing. It would be hard to hoard over the fact that you took over a region Out Of Character, without coming darn close to griefing. And the mods have pretty much said so. Also, beyond that, it would be darn boring to invade a regions without getting into character. I don’t see there would be much of a long term appeal.

Secondly, it seems that you describe invasions as Rping but with more significant consequences. What is wrong with that? Invasions aren’t cases of godmodders, they actually have to have the forces behind them to back it up. It seems odd to describe it as such.

Thirdly, sorry got to go back to your OOC comment. It is not OOC at all. How many invasion groups are there? A few, sorry I don’t have the numbers. But have you looked at these? Most of these are very group-focused, run almost like a militia. They are very much in character, and focused on the group they belong to. How many Anti-Invasion invaders are there? A lot, again sorry I don’t have #’s. I would say that there seem to be more anti-invaders then invaders now a days. So the consequence of having invasions have lead people into forming their own militias, to take out invasion groups. People have taken the game to the next level and have decided to be pro-active. They are taking matters into their own hands and fighting those that they consider enemies. How many regions have agreements to work together or help defend one another in case of an invasion? A lot, again, I don’t have a specific number for you, but it is a lot. Several several several nations have talked with each other and set of a system to help one another in case of need, this obviously has a positive role in strengthening foreign diplomacy.

What do all these questions add up to? More game play. Because of the complexities of invasions, people have begun to play the game more, and to a more spepecific level. Instead of just focusing on Rping in forums or regional boards, they have to take stock of where they are and play the game around them. This is a positive (besides the fact it doesn’t feel good to be invaded, that I can understand).

Again, we may disagree with the pros and cons, but not to see the pros seems a bit misguided perhaps. Or perhaps you were simply not aware of all of this information.

Either way, good luck in the game.

Ackbar, it seems to me you completly forgot the very first idea in my post: region invasion is a technical thing.

I don't see any realism or any good RP into the fact you can move X nations into a region and have them endorse you. Of course, I do understand it is a challenge and I do understand it takes time to make enough friends to be able to do something like this. However, gaining control of a region that way is not IC. It is a technical trick used by several players together.

Would you RP a war and gain control of a region in a RP thread (hopefully lenghty and entertaining), then, yes, I'd say you've actually achieved an invasion IC.

Of course, that's given the region has a geographical reality in the world of NationStates. But we all know this is not always true: some regions are purely IC (fans of something or another), others are military alliances, others are thematic (fantasy, etc), etc. So if you actually are to invade IC, this drastically restricts the number of region you could target.

Again, region invasion is a technical trick. To me, it's as fitting into the game as would be a technical trick allowing you to claim control over someone else's nation.

I don't blame region invaders. I guess everyone takes the fun where one want to. However, I find it really inconsistant in regard of the whole game. I, for instance, created a region for pure CO-RP fun. If people came to it and stole my UN delegate status (which wouldn't be difficult) but don't eject me, I wouldn't be able to call that griefing. However, they would completly kill the very reason why I created my nation: its region. Point is I would have no way to ignore it. The only solution would be to kick/ban like crazy which could make people think I'm actually griefing others.

Now, imo, the real problem is how weakly defined a region is. As it stands, it is nothing more than a box to put nations together and gain more UN power. I do hope that, in NS2, regions will seriously be rethought so that they are much more clearly defined.

What I don't understand is how invasions can affect your RP. It's all make believe anyway right? Who cares what region your nation is in if you're just fighting a "war" in a forum?

What I don't understand is how invasions can affect your RP. It's all make believe anyway right? Who cares what region your nation is in if you're just fighting a "war" in a forum?
To protect your region, you have two solutions: having a lot of UN members in it or having another region helping you in case of an attack. Now, these are technical protections to avoid a technical attack. It is in no way connected to RP and, hence, it is not IC.

However, nations that invade your region without your consent can claim to be in that region (since they are, heh). What if your whole RP is based around the fact there is a limited number of nations in your region? What if the nations begin to claim doing things in your region that doesn't respect the background you set for it? You're screwed by a technical trick.

IMO, that's very close to godmodding since, once again, the invasion hasn't been RPed. Problem is, given the rules on NationStates, this wouldn't be considered griefing.

But couldn't you just ignore the invaders and continue your RP like they don't exist?

But couldn't you just ignore the invaders and continue your RP like they don't exist?
That's surely what I would do. But if I can ignore them, they could very well destroy the background of the region on the forums because everyone would have to ignore them. So in the end, I would have no choice but to create a new region, to make sure other users don't mix my RP and the invader's one. Not a biggy I guess but a nasty way to kill the fun.
Like I said I don't make a trial to region invaders. I just try to explain why I think it doesn't fit in NationStates. This is not my game and I have no power on it. I know that. I just voice my opinion.

Why can't you just password your region to keep invaders out?

Sorry for so many questions, but since I don't RP I'm just trying to get some prospective from people who do.

Ok...now I am talking to someone who knows the game.
I have planed a few targets without founders, 5 of them do far.
Now what happens when we have none.
There has to be a solution or they will lose alot of players.
They should be perpared for this.
At the moment I am getting along great, but its taking more effort then it should.
You see all these people say...I didn't do anything, they attacked me for no reason.
Its because we are running low on regions to take over.
I don't want to take over a region of 8.I want one of at least 30.
My opinion...I think that is what would be fair.

I cannot believe I am hearing this! You come here and try to argue that griefing should be made easy to suit the way you play the game? You think that all those people who took the time to build up their regions over a period of months should have their work destroyed in a one-off attack by any newbie who can get enough of his friends to join in? You think there is glory in taking down a region rendered defenceless by a rule change made to suit people like yourself? No thanks! I am glad the Mods have more sense!

I am polite to invaders as long as they stay out of my region and do not start threads imperiously demanding that founders be removed and yelling at the mods for not changing it (by the way only [violet] hypothetically could change it ).

Nobody else (including other invaders that I've heard) demands that founders be removed. There are still plenty of non-founded regions or regions where the founder died that you can invade.

You are a March nation, which many ntions here consider n00bs, and if you got yourself deleted tis you fault anyways.



Hmm. . .
March griefer. . .

:idea:

INGS0C, are you Sythia?
Did you read this post.I don't want founders removed.If only [violet] can do it, then maybe he should.I think it is necessary.

If you ask to be founder(if you rightly are)you can become founder, I've done it in my old region, the Family.And, I think if I made a petition asking all region crashers, I am sure they would agree, even some non region crashers would agree, and some would even convert to region crashing I am sure.

You July nations make me laugh in pity.Since you don't give the natives respect, they should ban you.lol.

I AM NOT A GRIEFER,I am quite sure region crashing and griefing are different.Griefing or Grieving witch is the correct term is against the rules I think.

Are you an idiot or are you just stupid.Both?To stupid to understand the question?what about that one?
1. What you want amounts to the same thing, since founders become appointed delegates.

Who are you to order [violet] around anywhen?

2. As you seem to have not read that happen only in special cases.

3. First of all, everybody here is a "native". You mean the older players right? Age here does not always mean experience ya know.

Secondly, calling me names, and lobbing empty threats really does not advance your case.

4. You mean "Griefing, or grieving which is the correct term, ..." right? Don't try to lecture me on my lexicon, and I shall not correct thy grammar. And I don't think so, btw, as I've never heard it.

4.1 If you bwere deleted twice then you either griefed or had 5+ UN multis. Considering that you apparently always remaove founder and delegate, you griefed.

5. Once again, thy insulting of me advaces not thy case. And saying I'm stupid and an idiot is redundant. Although you're right. My IQ is merely 132, and bot person whose IQs I've heard around here is above 150, so I am comparitively unintellegent.

5.1 'K, then rephrase your question in a calm, rational, manner, and I shall, answer it.

5.2 Thou art correct. Sythia, posessed much better composture and calmer demeanor than thou do. I realized that after I posted and was too lazy to edit it.

Edit: Oh yeah, and in the future when you put your responses inside the quote it is very confusing.

It makes it look like I have a double personality.

Ok...now I am talking to someone who knows the game.
I have planed a few targets without founders, 5 of them do far.
Now what happens when we have none.
There has to be a solution or they will lose alot of players.
They should be perpared for this.
At the moment I am getting along great, but its taking more effort then it should.
You see all these people say...I didn't do anything, they attacked me for no reason.
Its because we are running low on regions to take over.
I don't want to take over a region of 8.I want one of at least 30.
My opinion...I think that is what would be fair.

I cannot believe I am hearing this! You come here and try to argue that griefing should be made easy to suit the way you play the game? You think that all those people who took the time to build up their regions over a period of months should have their work destroyed in a one-off attack by any newbie who can get enough of his friends to join in? You think there is glory in taking down a region rendered defenceless by a rule change made to suit people like yourself? No thanks! I am glad the Mods have more sense!

*aplauds*

Well said.

Ok, this is rapidly threatening to become a flaming thread, let's cut it short now.

Conclusion: The game isn't changing.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

Ackbar seemed to sum this up, but I'll try to put it in my own words.

The way I see it, invasions are not really RP at all in the sense of forum RPs, but are a part of a larger group of activities: Interregional politics. There's a whole tangled web of alliances, diplomats, spies, democracies, dictatorships, and many militant groups either patronized by a respected region or run on their own. The system of invasions allows the creation of villainous and heroic forces, or invasion-happy dictatorship regions and defensive democracy regions, respectively, thus always making things interesting for both sides. It's a very fascinating political simulation, and as much a part of the game as RPing is, if not more so. The mods recognize this, and as such the right to invade is not going anywhere.

Ok, this is rapidly threatening to become a flaming thread, let's cut it short now.
Sorry. Didn't intend to have it turning that way.

Ackbar, it seems to me you completly forgot the very first idea in my post: region invasion is a technical thing.

I don't see any realism or any good RP into the fact you can move X nations into a region and have them endorse you. Of course, I do understand it is a challenge and I do understand it takes time to make enough friends to be able to do something like this. However, gaining control of a region that way is not IC. It is a technical trick used by several players together.

Would you RP a war and gain control of a region in a RP thread (hopefully lenghty and entertaining), then, yes, I'd say you've actually achieved an invasion IC.

Of course, that's given the region has a geographical reality in the world of NationStates. But we all know this is not always true: some regions are purely IC (fans of something or another), others are military alliances, others are thematic (fantasy, etc), etc. So if you actually are to invade IC, this drastically restricts the number of region you could target.

Again, region invasion is a technical trick. To me, it's as fitting into the game as would be a technical trick allowing you to claim control over someone else's nation.

I don't blame region invaders. I guess everyone takes the fun where one want to. However, I find it really inconsistant in regard of the whole game. I, for instance, created a region for pure CO-RP fun. If people came to it and stole my UN delegate status (which wouldn't be difficult) but don't eject me, I wouldn't be able to call that griefing. However, they would completly kill the very reason why I created my nation: its region. Point is I would have no way to ignore it. The only solution would be to kick/ban like crazy which could make people think I'm actually griefing others.

Now, imo, the real problem is how weakly defined a region is. As it stands, it is nothing more than a box to put nations together and gain more UN power. I do hope that, in NS2, regions will seriously be rethought so that they are much more clearly defined.

I understand you say it is a techincal thing. And this is part of what makes no sense. do you believe RL war is just a technical thing? If not, then what are the differences.

Thanks.

Ackbar seemed to sum this up, but I'll try to put it in my own words.

The way I see it, invasions are not really RP at all in the sense of forum RPs, but are a part of a larger group of activities: Interregional politics. There's a whole tangled web of alliances, diplomats, spies, democracies, dictatorships, and many militant groups either patronized by a respected region or run on their own. The system of invasions allows the creation of villainous and heroic forces, or invasion-happy dictatorship regions and defensive democracy regions, respectively, thus always making things interesting for both sides. It's a very fascinating political simulation, and as much a part of the game as RPing is, if not more so. The mods recognize this, and as such the right to invade is not going anywhere.

Yeah, that's exactly what I intended to post. Perhaps we should post one reply together, to get the idea felt out in all the right spots.

I do think this helps to capture the heart of how RL and IC wars are not just technical. No more technical then death.

Why can't you just password your region to keep invaders out?

Sorry for so many questions, but since I don't RP I'm just trying to get some prospective from people who do.

Because many people are turned off py pwed regions.

I know that if a region is pwed then I rarely try to infiltrate it, and the same must be true for indivdual nations.