NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading the "mission statement' of the Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organization (TITO) in the region of 10000 Islands, I am left with a very clear impression that the purpose and propriety of region-crashing (aka, "raiderplay") is both misunderstood and unfairly villified by many players in this game. As a former raider commander, I take serious issue with those "defender" organizations which seek to equate raiderplay with "cowardice" and/or "bullying." The simple fact is raiderplay is authorized by the NS rules, and is one of the most enjoyable facets of the game for those players so inclined.

By contrast, defensive organizations interfere with operations which, more often than not, effect neither the home region of the defender organization nor any of its allied regions. With the notable exception of the Emergency Auxiliary Army (EAA) in the region of The World's Stronghold, most defensive organizations are officious intermeddlers, judgmental and condescending, and undeservedly self-righteous in their condemnation of raider organizations.

But that is one soldier's opinion. I am interested in hearing a more global, less biased view of raiderplay in NationStates.

I think you have too harsh a view of defenders, just as some have too harsh a view of invaders.

I am pro-defender myself, but I don't dislike invaders as a whole.

Um, forgive a new player a stupid question, but what is raider play?

Invading.

After reading the "mission statement' of the Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organization (TITO) in the region of 10000 Islands, I am left with a very clear impression that the purpose and propriety of region-crashing (aka, "raiderplay") is both misunderstood and unfairly villified by many players in this game. As a former raider commander, I take serious issue with those "defender" organizations which seek to equate raiderplay with "cowardice" and/or "bullying." The simple fact is raiderplay is authorized by the NS rules, and is one of the most enjoyable facets of the game for those players so inclined.

By contrast, defensive organizations interfere with operations which, more often than not, effect neither the home region of the defender organization nor any of its allied regions. With the notable exception of the Emergency Auxiliary Army (EAA) in the region of The World's Stronghold, most defensive organizations are officious intermeddlers, judgmental and condescending, and undeservedly self-righteous in their condemnation of raider organizations.

But that is one soldier's opinion. I am interested in hearing a more global, less biased view of raiderplay in NationStates.

Defenders and invaders are opposing sides, so it's natural that a certain amount of propaganda is thrown around by both sides. From a defender viewpoint, invaders do pick on unsuspecting innocent regions who just want to be left alone. They often avoid attacking a difficult target, but focus on the weakest regions. That's where the terms 'cowards' and 'bullies' come from. I've seen lots of invasions of delegateless regions containing nothing more than a handful of non-UN nations. Where's the honor in that?!?

A logical error in your post: the sentence "By contrast, defensive organizations interfere with operations which, more often than not, effect neither the home region of the defender organization nor any of its allied regions." is more applicable to invaders than defenders. After all, invaders are the ones who interfere in the normal (peacetime) operations of regions, even though those regions do not pose any threat to the invader organizations whatsoever. Invaders are the primary meddlers in other region's affairs, so arguing that defenders would somehow be 'wrong' by meddling in the affairs of invaders is quite inconsistent.

When invaders meddle in the affairs of innocent regions, defenders will meddle with the affairs of the invaders in defense of those innocent regions.

Ballotonia

Stop whining. If you can meddle in the affairs of other regions (many of whom I doubt want to be invaded and would probably prefer to continue with their normal peacetime operations) then defenders have every right to meddle in your affairs. If it's some poor tiny region being invaded, then of course it's cowardly bullying. Defenders exist because, believe it or not, some people do not like to be invaded. Did you honestly expect to invade and encounter no resistance?

Did you honestly expect to invade and encounter no resistance?
I don't think that's NFM's issue here. He was just pointing out that the attitude of some defenders is a bit insufferable, in his opinion.

I don't think that's NFM's issue here. He was just pointing out that the attitude of some defenders is a bit insufferable, in his opinion.

OOC, for those who wouldn't figure that out...

Isn't that part of the roles each has chosen? Invaders are the imperialistic conquerors who subjugate regions through military force, it's the part they're choosing to play!

Look for instance at Francos Spain and his NPO. Francos played the game as a fascist (note the name, and recall that the real Francos in Spain was a fascist), so isn't it quite normal to oppose him by telling people "watch out, he's a fascist!" Many others in the NPO play as (Soviet) communist dictators, so isn't it logical and acceptable to criticize them for being communist dictators?

It's just part of the game, ya know. Some fight the nazi's just because they look like nazi's, in disregard of whether or not the players behind them actually personally believe in the role they play. Same for capitalists versus communists or anarchists or, well, any side really!

As a defender, I play the game as a democratic freedom-loving nation hell-bent on installing my version of democracy and freedom everywhere. Zealot-style ;) And just as the NPO will claim to rule benevolently while really oppressing the masses, I will claim to defend the freedom of the people without asking them too much about what they really want, cause I already know that: they want freedom and democracy, even if they don't know it (yet) themselves :D

Ballotonia

Well said, Ballotonia! :)

OOC: Yeah, but how do you invade a region? Moving in? What would that do?

OOC: Yeah, but how do you invade a region? Moving in? What would that do?
You move in, take the delegate's spot, change the WFE, sit around for a while, leave, and add it to your bragging list.

*shrugs*

Oh, I get it. It seems like that would be fairly easy to do, even if there was a password. Still, it seems like the founder could simply disable the delegate having region control, and it'd be stopped.

Oh, I get it. It seems like that would be fairly easy to do, even if there was a password. Still, it seems like the founder could simply disable the delegate having region control, and it'd be stopped.
Unless theres no founder.

OOC, for those who wouldn't figure that out...

Isn't that part of the roles each has chosen? Invaders are the imperialistic conquerors who subjugate regions through military force, it's the part they're choosing to play!
The problem is, a lot of defenders believe their own hype, that they're really fighting for goodness and honour and truth in an unfair world, whereas infact, defending and invading are just two sides of the same coin.

Yeah. Seems to me might makes right. Doesn't seem like it helps you much though, what advantage, political or otherwise, can be gained by raiderplay?

Yeah. Seems to me might makes right. Doesn't seem like it helps you much though, what advantage, political or otherwise, can be gained by raiderplay?
I figure its just for fun.

I guess. I mean, after all, all of the power-grabbing in the UN is only for fun too, no real gains there either.

True, but the beauty of it is that because of the whole invaders vs. defenders thing, so many things become possible in NS. There is diplomacy--real diplomacy between players and their regions. There are alliances, backstabbing, backdoor negotiations, espionage, tactical planning, and an overall closer sense of community. Basically, it's more real than the RP's that get done on the forums here (not to mention, the quality of play is often better).

It's actually rather fun. Anyone that hasn't at least dabbled in regional politics should try it. (Although it might be better to be in a larger region for this.)

I've always felt that region-crashing was about the cheesiest, most OutOfCharacter thing ever.

I'm here to write, to tell my story. I chose my region because they are the one's that I like to roleplay with. I don't think I would be happy to come home one day, log on to NS, only to find that some 'Raiders' had taken control of my region when I wasn't watching.

Why would this piss me off? Because national and regional politics, for me, are ALWAYS in-character. This means that ICly, if said group of 'region-raiders' tried to invade my region, my non-coded soldiers would bludgeon their coded, region-raiding asses straight out of my region before they had a chance to 'takeover'. I don't believe in 'diplomacy' like region crashing, which in-character would mean that somehow, those fleets of super-choppers moved in a super-continent of region-crashers, right before my eyes and then proceeded to execute a hostile takeover of a region that, InCharacter, they would have never gotten near in the first place without getting themselves thoroughly raped and tied.

'Region-Raiding' may be approved of in the rules of NS, but they have no place around me or the NS that I know and love, which is writing, roleplaying, and telling the story that I'm here to tell.

So, I suppose that this is Pantera's offical condemnation of 'region raiders'.

Word.

...which is one reason why there are defenders in the world.

If raiding a region is allowed, which I believe it should be, then so should defensive organizations, or mercenaries.

I'm glad my region is invader-proof. I think I would find it very irritating if some bunch of nations had suddenly come in and changed it all around. In fact, I'd be pretty pissed. I know it's all part of the game, but one thing that annoys me about invaders is that they often don't consider the fact that some regions really don't want to be part of the whole invading/defending thing.

I'm glad my region is invader-proof. I think I would find it very irritating if some bunch of nations had suddenly come in and changed it all around. In fact, I'd be pretty pissed. I know it's all part of the game, but one thing that annoys me about invaders is that they often don't consider the fact that some regions really don't want to be part of the whole invading/defending thing.

You think it's invader proof? How is this? Personally, I think raiding's a stupid idea that is unrealistic, but you have to hand it to them, it can effectively work on any region that's not larger than them.

NS does allow raiderplay, and defensive operations are an anticipated adjunct to this practice. My concern is the moralizing done by most defender organizations in concert with their efforts on behalf of target regions. It is erroneous to call raider attacks on founder-less regions "cowardly," in as much as the regions targeted are usually:

1. inactive (or intermittently so)
2. Dead or dying (in terms of membership and activity) and
3. Politically and socially inert.

Raiderplay has the beneficial consequence of reinvigorating target regions (look at A Liberal Haven and Ille de France (an unusual target) as the best examples.) Unless you have taken the time to research a target, plan a raid and watch it come about according to plan despite defender intervention (which is anticipated, of course), you can never really appreciate how much fun raiderplay is to those involved (raider and defender alike.) During my time as field commander and founder of DEN (now DEN II,) I thoroughly enjoyed the game. I know this hold true for most defenders as well.

Thank You for all the informative responses.

You think it's invader proof? How is this? Personally, I think raiding's a stupid idea that is unrealistic, but you have to hand it to them, it can effectively work on any region that's not larger than them.

Not if the delegate does not have access to regional control, heh heh. They can invade all they want, but they'll just get booted. It doesn't matter if they secure the position of delegate, because the delegate can't do anything.

Not if the delegate does not have access to regional control, heh heh.

Ah ha! I get it now. Yeah, that's the only way to do it. Passwords don't work.

You asked for a more global view, and I will deliver. Regarding the question of the defender hype; I'm a defender, (TITO, in fact) and I think the hype my leaders spout is absolute bull. Invading isn't evil, it's just annoying. It's legit, just as Player-Killing is a legit part of any MMORPG. However, Player Killer Hunting is also a legit part of any MMO. I don't believe I'm fighting for goodness or truth or anything like that. I don't revile the invader. I just assist those he attacks, just as when I played UO, I killed any Murderers I saw attacking n00bs and spared any Murderers I saw minding their own business. And the fact is, some-not all, but some- invaders are just cowards and bullies, deliberately invading weak regions. But look at TITO. We invaded DEN when their delegate/founder was DEATed. We didn't invade when they had a chance; we invaded when it was going to be a cakewalk. So there's some hypocrisy there. But there is also hypocrisy in the invader condemnation of defender "meddling". That's the point of invading, for crissakes. We at least stand aside for the region's elected delegate, assuming we didn't endorse the original. It's no different than a foreign nation becoming involved in a war that doesn't concern him because it's a war of aggression and he wants to preserve the sovereignity of the attacked nation. Not because it concerns him any; rather because he cannot stand by and let the conquest occur. A nation that does that isn't condemned for meddling; rather, their assistance is celebrated in the defended nation for generations to come. The Stars and Stripes are still flown in France every June; even with Franco-American relations as they are. Anyway, that's just the opinion of one defender. I'd love to stay and debate, but class calls and the school has a filter, so, for now, I gotta jet. If you want to attack any points in my post, go ahead; I'll respond when I regain access to the forums.

The problem is, a lot of defenders believe their own hype, that they're really fighting for goodness and honour and truth in an unfair world, whereas infact, defending and invading are just two sides of the same coin.

How do you know what defenders truly believe?

Also, it is important to see that defending always happens in response to an invasion. As such they're not two sides of the same coin, but one is a response to the other.

Ballotonia

How do you know what defenders truly believe?

I know they believe this, I used to belong to a defender region and that is indeed what they believe.

...which is one reason why there are defenders in the world.

Fair enough, so I guess I'll 'endorse' defenders, though I would much rather never have to think about invaders or their noble counterparts...

My distaste for fanboiz, trains of lapdogs, and 'Uber Alliancez' is well known. My passion for writing is just as well known. Now, without forging a giant alliance of 'defenders', how am I supposed to protect my own region?

I don't have 1,000 nations to call on if an invader tries to takeover my region. I don't have UN puppets lying around to help out, or an obscure alliance to come to my rescue. Why not? For one because I'm not in the UN and never plan to be, but also because I have avoided making alot of IC friends, simply for the fact that Pantera is a solitary nation by nature. I have my select few InCharacter allies, but I would rather rely on my own talent at RPing, rather than an uber alliance of faceless nations. So, this means that I'm SOL if someone wanted to 'Region Raid' me.

Now, the rules of NS accept region crashing, as well as roleplaying. This is all well and good, but I don't play the region-raid game, and from what I've seen that aside from regional HQ's, most RR alliances don't roleplay.

So, how am I, as a non-code-supported ROLEPLAYER supposed to defend against the coded assault of an uber alliance of region crashers? I'm almost positive that if it came to IC, roleplayed, wars I would trash ass on most Raiders. Yet...

Everyone is NOT forced to roleplay, but we are ALL forced to accept that Raiding is officially approved of by the NS rules and Mods. How is this fair? I am more than willing to throw my own RPing talent up against anyone who wants to scrap, and woe to the person who calls down the fire, but I simply refuse to build a base of fanboiz, or a 21000000000 member alliance of Defenderness.

*shrugs* Just idle musing from a roleplayer. I trust my delegate and my regional allies to keep the trash out of our region, and in doing so protect ourselves from crashers, but I suppose I'll give a big *THUMBS UP* to defenders.

Fair enough, so I guess I'll 'endorse' defenders, though I would much rather never have to think about invaders or their noble counterparts...

My distaste for fanboiz, trains of lapdogs, and 'Uber Alliancez' is well known. My passion for writing is just as well known. Now, without forging a giant alliance of 'defenders', how am I supposed to protect my own region?

I don't have 1,000 nations to call on if an invader tries to takeover my region. I don't have UN puppets lying around to help out, or an obscure alliance to come to my rescue. Why not? For one because I'm not in the UN and never plan to be, but also because I have avoided making alot of IC friends, simply for the fact that Pantera is a solitary nation by nature. I have my select few InCharacter allies, but I would rather rely on my own talent at RPing, rather than an uber alliance of faceless nations. So, this means that I'm SOL if someone wanted to 'Region Raid' me.

Now, the rules of NS accept region crashing, as well as roleplaying. This is all well and good, but I don't play the region-raid game, and from what I've seen that aside from regional HQ's, most RR alliances don't roleplay.

So, how am I, as a non-code-supported ROLEPLAYER supposed to defend against the coded assault of an uber alliance of region crashers? I'm almost positive that if it came to IC, roleplayed, wars I would trash ass on most Raiders. Yet...

Everyone is NOT forced to roleplay, but we are ALL forced to accept that Raiding is officially approved of by the NS rules and Mods. How is this fair? I am more than willing to throw my own RPing talent up against anyone who wants to scrap, and woe to the person who calls down the fire, but I simply refuse to build a base of fanboiz, or a 21000000000 member alliance of Defenderness.

*shrugs* Just idle musing from a roleplayer. I trust my delegate and my regional allies to keep the trash out of our region, and in doing so protect ourselves from crashers, but I suppose I'll give a big *THUMBS UP* to defenders.

I totally agree. However, just look how much support you're going to get from the mods or admin. It seems to me that every rule in this game is considered to be written in stone.

See, I don't want the mods to hold my hand and make sure the Raiders don't crash my region. I would like to see something of a distinction between Raider regions and Roleplayer Regions.

I never plan to make ANYONE RP who doesn't want to, and I expect Raiders to return the favor, and leave me and my region the hell alone...

Which they have so far, and I approve.

Once again I've never been threatedned by Raiders, nor do I hold any grudge agaisnt them, I'm just speaking up for the roleplayers like myself, who have no interest in raiding or defending, only writing.

I've always felt that region-crashing was about the cheesiest, most OutOfCharacter thing ever.

I'm here to write, to tell my story. I chose my region because they are the one's that I like to roleplay with. I don't think I would be happy to come home one day, log on to NS, only to find that some 'Raiders' had taken control of my region when I wasn't watching.

Why would this piss me off? Because national and regional politics, for me, are ALWAYS in-character. This means that ICly, if said group of 'region-raiders' tried to invade my region, my non-coded soldiers would bludgeon their coded, region-raiding asses straight out of my region before they had a chance to 'takeover'. I don't believe in 'diplomacy' like region crashing, which in-character would mean that somehow, those fleets of super-choppers moved in a super-continent of region-crashers, right before my eyes and then proceeded to execute a hostile takeover of a region that, InCharacter, they would have never gotten near in the first place without getting themselves thoroughly raped and tied.

'Region-Raiding' may be approved of in the rules of NS, but they have no place around me or the NS that I know and love, which is writing, roleplaying, and telling the story that I'm here to tell.

So, I suppose that this is Pantera's offical condemnation of 'region raiders'.

Word.Founders were put in place so that people could get on unmolested, or not, if they so choose.

How do you know what defenders truly believe?

Also, it is important to see that defending always happens in response to an invasion. As such they're not two sides of the same coin, but one is a response to the other.

Ballotonia
One side of a coin may be the direct opposite of the other side, but they're still very similar.

Obviously I can't read minds, but when I hear moralistic defenders talk about trying to rid the game of all crashing behaviour, I get a fairly clear picture.

Fair enough, so I guess I'll 'endorse' defenders, though I would much rather never have to think about invaders or their noble counterparts...

My distaste for fanboiz, trains of lapdogs, and 'Uber Alliancez' is well known. My passion for writing is just as well known. Now, without forging a giant alliance of 'defenders', how am I supposed to protect my own region?

I don't have 1,000 nations to call on if an invader tries to takeover my region. I don't have UN puppets lying around to help out, or an obscure alliance to come to my rescue. Why not? For one because I'm not in the UN and never plan to be, but also because I have avoided making alot of IC friends, simply for the fact that Pantera is a solitary nation by nature. I have my select few InCharacter allies, but I would rather rely on my own talent at RPing, rather than an uber alliance of faceless nations. So, this means that I'm SOL if someone wanted to 'Region Raid' me.

Now, the rules of NS accept region crashing, as well as roleplaying. This is all well and good, but I don't play the region-raid game, and from what I've seen that aside from regional HQ's, most RR alliances don't roleplay.

So, how am I, as a non-code-supported ROLEPLAYER supposed to defend against the coded assault of an uber alliance of region crashers? I'm almost positive that if it came to IC, roleplayed, wars I would trash ass on most Raiders. Yet...

Everyone is NOT forced to roleplay, but we are ALL forced to accept that Raiding is officially approved of by the NS rules and Mods. How is this fair? I am more than willing to throw my own RPing talent up against anyone who wants to scrap, and woe to the person who calls down the fire, but I simply refuse to build a base of fanboiz, or a 21000000000 member alliance of Defenderness.

*shrugs* Just idle musing from a roleplayer. I trust my delegate and my regional allies to keep the trash out of our region, and in doing so protect ourselves from crashers, but I suppose I'll give a big *THUMBS UP* to defenders.The game is massively unbalanced in favour of those who just want to get on with things. Thats not a bad thing, that's how I think it should be, but please, the game is on your side, you can't really call "foul" on this.

The way I look at things is that if you really want to be a good raider, try to invade another raider region. Defenders just make the game more difficult.

As a member of an invader group we are very discerning of the regions we prey upon. We don't bother innocent regions where the nations are totally unaware of what invading is. And we don't attack inactive or small regions. That would be boring and it doesn't build a strong reputation.
We look for active regions or regions that are well known. We also look for regions that post alliances in the WFE. That usually signals that they are aware of the danger.

~Agua Azules
H.A.A.Z.
(Currently on summer holiday)

Your region has a founder,so you likely have no reason to worry....But just out of curiosity: does the delegate have access to the regional controls?

Your region has a founder,so you likely have no reason to worry....But just out of curiosity: does the delegate have access to the regional controls?

Lol. Yeah, that's just asking for trouble if they do.

I know all too well what happened in DEN after my founder nation (General Colin Powell) was improperly deleted by the mods. TITO's griefing of DEN is one of the reasons why I suggest that many defenders are being hypocritical in their condemnation of raiderplay.

I simply suggest that raiders are authorized by NS rules to do what we do. Defenders seek to interrupt an authorized practice. I do enjoy coming up against defenders, but do not appreciate the moralizing that surrounds their practice. After all, raiders do NOT call defenders "evil."

We just call them "hall monitors." LOL

The problem is, a lot of defenders believe their own hype, that they're really fighting for goodness and honour and truth in an unfair world, whereas infact, defending and invading are just two sides of the same coin.

How do you know what defenders truly believe?

Also, it is important to see that defending always happens in response to an invasion. As such they're not two sides of the same coin, but one is a response to the other.

Ballotonia

Likely Spoffin can make this claim in the same way that a defender might claim that most invaders are dumb, immature, cake-eatersà simply by observing their actions and dialogues. I am an invader, and I don’t get touchy feely about those who insult the worse of us. Likewise, there is a general arrogance that surrounds and insulates many, many defenders. Does it effect all defenders, not at all—but there are several whom I consider bloated by their own sense of self-worth.

I can think of one off the top of my head (powerful in one of the more effective defenders, won’t name them), always been nice to me, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have made inference time and time again that they would be for defenders breaking Ns rules in the task that they perform, because the defender’s cause is more important then the NS rules. That is an amazing degree of arrogance and B+S to my thinking. This is a game, not the crusades, once you begin to “believe their own hype” (as Spoffin put it), it glares- it takes little interpretation from the observers.


I totally agree. However, just look how much support you're going to get from the mods or admin. It seems to me that every rule in this game is considered to be written in stone.

I wish. One problem for smart invaders, who follow the rules, is that the rules will often change. I’m far from anti-mod, I just feel that interpretation often leads to the misfortune of the invader (I am sure it is a coincidence considering that there are no invader-mods, and so many pro-defender mods—mods attempt to be objective, but never underestimate personal perspective).