Moratorium on tech raiding

[Mogar]

This IS OOC Forum, though I'm aware you have trouble drawing a line between fantasy and reality, if the next war isn't a complete curbstomp without a CB, I'll be very surprised.

[The Zigur]

My opinion isn't solely IC. I am savoring the tears of you not being rolled. Hail the Hegemony of Good.

[autosave36]

Here...Here...I think that is an excellent idea...Everyone raid NpO for 8 weeks and let's see how many quit their AA... :awesome:

 

Haven't we been doing this like every winter for 3 years now?

[Caustic]

 

Haven't we been doing this like every winter for 3 years now?

 

Some people like routine  :ehm:

[Captain Enema]

Dajobo, we've disagreed on this particular issue before so let me share the story of one of my best new officers in Supernova X.

Leicaboss had been rotting away on none, fighting random wars but otherwise doing nothing productive with his nation for a while. I raided him and we had a chat about how alliances work. As a new player he simply didn't know about alliances and game mechanics beyond a few hundred infra.

He joined SNX and immediately with my assistance got his nation in order, got trades, made new friends, and followed a roadmap to strength. He started tech dealing and signed up as a paramilitary officer.

So rather than being chased from the game, he is now more active than ever and extremely loyal.

 

I know stonewall has picked up a few nations for DK/DS this same sort of way. 

[Emperor Whimsical]

Cull the weak, leave the strong behind. If you can't take a week of war and getting your stuff pushed in, then feel free to join a neutral alliance. 

[Hereno]

i think intelligence is probably the #1 thing making players not play CN anymore after making a nation

 

why is it that we always assume that we're the ones in the right and that we need to get people to start playing?

 

maybe we should be facing the music and leaving along with them

[Lysergide]

i think intelligence is probably the #1 thing making players not play CN anymore after making a nation

 

why is it that we always assume that we're the ones in the right and that we need to get people to start playing?

 

maybe we should be facing the music and leaving along with them

 

Why don't you delete then? If you think that everyone should be leaving, take the initiative and delete.

[rileyaddaff]

IRON and Pacifica are far bigger threats to your alliance than TOP is, but I mean, pretend you aren't playing the political game the same as almost everyone else does.
Alliance Rank: Ranked #1 of 46 alliance nations
Nation Rank:



 Ranked #177 of 7,567 Nations (Top 2.34%)
 
Alliance Rank: Ranked #2 of 46 alliance nations
Nation Rank:



 Ranked #383 of 7,567 Nations (Top 5.06%)
Come on dude, you can do better than that, Roll TOP, Roll Polar, roll whoever you want for the next war, just do it so we might actually get a real war for once in this world's existence. I remember the Great Wars and what it was like to fight a war that isn't predetermined months before anyone fired a shot, your alliance had plenty of ability to actually do something new, instead you're just destructive brats playing the same political game everyone else does to ensure you don't actually risk a loss.

If you do something risky and plan on another alliance from the other side of web to come save your ass you already lost. They rather watch you burn pixels against their enemy than lend a hand.

How many times could DS/DK get away with a noCB war without getting blindsided by 10 AAs? Not a whole lot. Sorry we had to go all conventional and got us some treaties.

The great wars weren't mapped out to the T like the wars are today, but you did have a general idea of who you had as support. (I also wasn't gov back then so i could be wrong) It was always fun to see how things chained out and to see which side the swing AAs went. Back then you also didn't have alliances that tossed their ally under a bus

[Eddard]

End the IMMORAL tech raiding.  This idea was romanticized and popularized by the m, condoned by the NPO, and executed by the GOONS as well as other INITIATIVE alliances.  It's time for this outdated, barabric practice to be put to an end.  

[Hereno]

 

Why don't you delete then? If you think that everyone should be leaving, take the initiative and delete.

 

a combination of nostalgia (played it as a kid) and knowing people who are still here

 

plus i hate myself (see: i post in the boiler room from time to time)

[Sephiroth]

There are 2 main types of raiders. Those who if they get hit back fight it out as long as the raided nation wants and then moves on; knowing they were in the wrong to attack the nation to begin with. Then there are those who will try bringing the full might of their alliance and sanctions against a nation who fights back, doing everything they can to completely destroy the nation for just fighting back & make getting peace into a hassle. The first type isn't so bad and I doubt have a big impact on whether nations stay or not. Its those who intentionally try driving nations out of the game for fighting back who I think can cause player retention problems. Few nations are cool with being hit & not getting to at least hit their attacker back before peacing out. Although since usually the one being raided is in a weaker political situation, the raiders can often times get away with whatever they want in how they deal with unaligned nations.

 

I think one way of dealing with raiding is if color treaties include some clause that any nation on the color shares an optional assistance pact with the rest of the sphere & color treaty signatories, so then the raided nation has something to fall back on if the raiders won't give them peace & also adds some risk to raiding nations on that color at all. If a raid is considered excessive, such as many nations piling up on one; that could also possibly bring the full might of the color against them.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Methrage

[Pingu]

I support science, so I would like to see this experiment run at some point. But it will need very carful attention to experimental design, controlling for initial conditions etc. Choosing an active raiding period of the year will be important.

[Captain Enema]

Everytime I war MHA it ends up being a prolonged tech raid, could we please not put a moratorium on them? Cause dang, it's like free money.

[ChairmanHal]

I'd be curious what the profile of the typical raiders looks like today versus what it was 4-5 years ago.  I think you might find that the era of the large, systematic raiding alliances is mostly over.  What you've always had and continue to have however are people who roll up a nation, get bored within the first week and started putting the pain to other noob nations. Guaranteed that occasionally someone who otherwise might have stuck around long term will get frustrated and quit instead when that happens, unless the victim is lucky enough to have someone come along and rescue them, and most don't get rescued.  

 

How many alliances actually make an effort to seek such people out?  Probably no one.  Let's face it, the numbers for retention of new member/new player types aren't all that great, even if you have a descent program to keep people active and guides to help them along with their nation development.  Investing $6 mill up front in someone who more likely than not won't stick around long enough to be of benefit to the alliance even temporarily as a trade circle filler and tech dealer doesn't seem worth it.  However, if we value the game and want to see the number of players at least bottom out if not increase a bit, then I think we've reached a point that we need to reach out, dust some people off, and take the losses that will inevitably occur.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ChairmanHal

[Caustic]

We actually recruit via raiding, it works out fine. The issue as always is with retention, as the pay taxes/collect bills for 9 months on end takes its toll on people in this bold new era of the finest flash games on the market.

[Razgriz24]

 

a combination of nostalgia (played it as a kid) and knowing people who are still here

 

plus i hate myself (see: i post in the boiler room from time to time)

 

Is knowing people is different from having friends?

[Lysergide]

 

a combination of nostalgia (played it as a kid) and knowing people who are still here

 

plus i hate myself (see: i post in the boiler room from time to time)

Then continue on your path then.

[HeroofTime55]

I like the desire for science, but the methodology is wrong.  A better strategy would be to "tag" raid recipients just like animals in the wild, and compare them to a control group (and the control group should be protected by force, because controls are necessary for science to happen).

In this manner, not only do you avoid pissing off tech raiders, but you actually invite them as an important participant.

We would randomly select 2 groups of nations.  One is the control group, this group must remain untouched.  The second group is the raid group, each nation in this group not only is open to raids, but MUST be raided at least once during the course of the study period.  Joining an alliance removes them from raid eligibility, but if they were raided at least once before they joined an alliance, they remain in the raid group.  Otherwise they are discarded.  Likewise, should anyone from the control group be raided, that data will have to be discarded.

We track these nations over a 4 month period.  The nations selected for the study should all be relatively new nations.

Edited September 1, 2015 by HeroofTime55

[tayloj7]

Yeah we don't need to stop raiding to track the nations, I like Hero's idea here. Science! My only input would be that you can't keep your 'untouched' control untouched without actively interfering, so perhaps just make that group much much larger so that if say somebody gets raided 30 days into the study you still have a sufficiently large pool to draw from for data. [Plus you could also look at retention rates for different scenarios, i.e. raided in first 30 days, raided in first 90 days, etc., I would suspect somebody raided on day 10 is more likely to just saw well screw this compared to somebody raided on day 30 or 60 but I could be wrong!]

 

It'd be nice to ask players why they're leaving the game too, especially new players, but that's tricky since often the new guys just stop playing completely so you'd never get a response once you've figured out they're quitting :(

[The Zigur]

The strong survive, the weak just don't eat.

[HeroofTime55]

Yeah we don't need to stop raiding to track the nations, I like Hero's idea here. Science! My only input would be that you can't keep your 'untouched' control untouched without actively interfering, so perhaps just make that group much much larger so that if say somebody gets raided 30 days into the study you still have a sufficiently large pool to draw from for data. [Plus you could also look at retention rates for different scenarios, i.e. raided in first 30 days, raided in first 90 days, etc., I would suspect somebody raided on day 10 is more likely to just saw well screw this compared to somebody raided on day 30 or 60 but I could be wrong!]

 

It'd be nice to ask players why they're leaving the game too, especially new players, but that's tricky since often the new guys just stop playing completely so you'd never get a response once you've figured out they're quitting :(

The problem is that the test group and control group must be random.  We can't change the control group so much after the fact, because there are other factors that might cause one to be more likely to get raided (for example if they are an active nation and they're building up and buying stuff).  The control group MUST be untouched once selected, or we do not have a study.

However, I think it is in the realm of possibility to build an agreement with raiding alliances to make that protection happen, for two reasons.  One, their active participation is required with regards to the test group (the raid targets), and secondly, the study has the potential to absolve tech raiders of responsibility for the declining population.  Imagine if you had a rigorous scientific study to present every time someone accuses you of killing the population numbers.  This is every bit of incentive to make sure the study is done to the highest of standards and rigor.

A list of nations involved in the study would be publicly posted for all to see, and distributed to raiding alliances (which hopefully have agreed to participate in the study, both in raiding the test group and protecting the control group).  This study will not be possible without a majority of raiding alliances on board.

[saxasm]

Don't you think having your name put on a "raid for science" list might in itself cause lower retention?

[HeroofTime55]

Don't you think having your name put on a "raid for science" list might in itself cause lower retention?

I do.  The ideas I have submitted above are not a finalized proposal.  Things like information management (since the study nations are run by sentient, thinking persons) need to be addressed here.  There is a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out.

It might be the case that what I have referred to as the "control group" is, in fact, just an additional test group, and a third (and secret) control group would be just nations not either targeted for raids or put under protection, but just left to their own devices to interact with the world as normal.

Please note that, while joining an alliance does not remove you from membership in the "raid target group," it WOULD confer you protection.  In fact, it is expected that persons in the test group may seek out alliances, and that is fine.  But so long as they have been raided at least once before joining an alliance, they are still a valid data point.

The study would not only check for population retention, but also the likelihood of nations to, for instance, join an alliance.

There is a risk of subterfuge by someone who doesn't want the study to happen, either by informing the test subjects, purposely raiding the protected group (possibly even under threat of a full dismantling of their nation), sending aid, or any other number of methods of interference.

I, however, generally tend to hold enough faith in humanity, and faith that enough people would have an interest in uncovering the reality of the study matter.  Hell, it is very possible that being a raid victim actually may IMPROVE retention rates, we just don't know until it is studied.

[OOC]
Overall, I do not hold tech raiding as a big impact on retention, I believe our population numbers are down because this is an old game that has not aged well.  We lack previous major external factors that greatly boosted growth (Norway vs Nordreich drama, mass influx from [game that is censored but which most of the old major alliances like NPO came from cough cough], and other such factors).  I am still, nonetheless, interested to see a proper study done on the subject of tech raiding.
[/OOC]

Edited September 1, 2015 by HeroofTime55

[HeroofTime55]

A study can gather data on a whole lot of things, mind you.  Not just whether you were raided at 30 days vs 90 days as tayloj7 alluded to (though this is one possible question of interest).  We could study number of raids, damage done, which alliances did the raiding, how soon since the last raid, how many people raided them at the same time, where raided nations tend to go if they join an alliance, how long they subsequently remain in that alliance, and so on.  We could determine the most harmful versus the most beneficial practices for raiding alliances as well.