Jump to content

Moratorium on tech raiding


Dajobo

Recommended Posts


Here are a few observations from many talks with non-aligned:

 

!. The #1 reason that I'm given by people who hesitate to join alliances i that he or she doesn't want to be required to sign up on a forum.  So, my solution was to find alliance(s) that don't require and suggest that the join. 

Here is one: http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?ID=10091

 

 

Here is another: http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?ID=11559 :)

 

And yes, offsites are bulky and time consuming and most new rulers in my experience will go far to avoid them. I deleted ours some years back and have been doing all alliance business in-game since, that has it's own problems as well but overall I am happy with it.

 


2.  Out of frustration I started sending personal alliance invites to nations being raided, specifically mentioning that the alliance I was recruiting them for was non-raiding and offering diplomatic help to end there war and help them rebuild.  I had at least a 50% success rate from those who were active.  They would join and I would send the raider a PM and all but GOONS would offer peace when asked.  Last Call still has active nations who were recruited by me in that fashion.  So this is what I suggest for people if the take an interest in helping non-aligned who are being raided.  If the person doesn't want to sign up on a forum, see #1.  Also, if the person says no, ask why.

 

This is a much constructive response than most. I've also seen raid targets recruited by the raider, using almost exactly the same script as you would here. The key is to be polite and respectful even while raiding. Not everyone finds that comes naturally, and of course it can interfere with accumulation of tech/land/xp, but the alternative becomes abusive too easily for my taste.

 


3.  The best time for non-aligned in terms of not being raided are during "world wars."  Very very few raids during those times, and they last more than 8 weeks.  I think I've been told that numbers go up at those times but only slightly.  Look closely during the next global war.  (it's also a fantastic time to recruit if your alliance isn't involved in the war.  Far less competition :) )

 

My nation created during GWII and fought off raiders nonstop for several weeks until joining an alliance. That was a long time ago but it does make me skeptical of your last point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I got raided with my very first nation and learned about alliances and their function. Nowadays, I recruit those that I raid with more success than using a blanket PM campaign. Raid everyone you can, its a great way to meet new people! Explain the dangers of rolling solo and advise them to join an alliance (doesnt even have to be yours) to learn to play CN like a pro and meet other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the raid.

There are raids where nations do two GBs send peace case closed, if they don't accept peace keep looting. I don't think those hurt planet Bob.

What hurts planet Bob is what I'll call "Chow raids" when regardless of tech or land stolen the un nuclear nation will eat a week of nukes, just for sitting unaligned, whether they ask for peace or not.


So saying 'raiding' drives nations to quit is a grey area because there are many different types of raids.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the raid.

There are raids where nations do two GBs send peace case closed, if they don't accept peace keep looting. I don't think those hurt planet Bob.

What hurts planet Bob is what I'll call "Chow raids" when regardless of tech or land stolen the un nuclear nation will eat a week of nukes, just for sitting unaligned, whether they ask for peace or not.


So saying 'raiding' drives nations to quit is a grey area because there are many different types of raids.

 

 

This is very much what I have been saying.

 

That's really not a raid at all. At the very least qualify it as 'abusive.'

 

Raiding in the spirit of greenacres and simply destroying nations because you can are entirely different phenomena, it only confuses the heck out of everyone including the speaker to refer to both with the same word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is very much what I have been saying.

 

That's really not a raid at all. At the very least qualify it as 'abusive.'

 

Raiding in the spirit of greenacres and simply destroying nations because you can are entirely different phenomena, it only confuses the heck out of everyone including the speaker to refer to both with the same word.

 

 

It's the language barrier that gives raiding a bad name.

 

Unaligned nations at war is seen from a bird's-eye-view as a "raid" regardless of the what's actually occuring

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
It's the language barrier that gives raiding a bad name.
 
Unaligned nations at war is seen from a bird's-eye-view as a "raid" regardless of the what's actually occuring

This. Of course, it doesn't help when those engaging in the abuse refer to these despicable activities as raids. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this sort of abusive raiding is likely what Dajobo refers to. Where you see not one or two, but multiple nations piling on top of one nation, either because they tried to defend themselves (which is their right and should be considered a risk to raiders that they must accept) or because they are simply easy pickins and so are being taken advantage of.

I haven't paid much attention to this stuff in a while due to my own lack of activity, but is this sort of abuse as common as it used to be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. Of course, it doesn't help when those engaging in the abuse refer to these despicable activities as raids. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this sort of abusive raiding is likely what Dajobo refers to. Where you see not one or two, but multiple nations piling on top of one nation, either because they tried to defend themselves (which is their right and should be considered a risk to raiders that they must accept) or because they are simply easy pickins and so are being taken advantage of.

I haven't paid much attention to this stuff in a while due to my own lack of activity, but is this sort of abuse as common as it used to be?

 

I would argue that the latter is more common in today's world than a 'raid' (you never hear about it from the 'victims' because they've already left bob).

 

In fact: here is a current example of a "Chow raid": http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=516582&Extended=1

 

 

 

...and as you can see, White Chocolate is quick to tender this topic in an attempt to put makeup on a pig

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pace of play.

Why play CN when the pace of play is slow compared to App games or console games that are much faster?

Fantasy sports leagues emphasized weekly play but Daily Fantasy Sports is growing tremendously. Why? Pace of Play.
I don't have to wait for this miserable season to end and then wait until next year. Every day is a new season.

10 day lock on foreign aid slots is out dated. To increase interest foreign aid slots should open daily. The most active players will excel and the least active will fail.

1 attack per day in wars? Boring. If I attack and my oppenent counters, then I should be able to counter again once he/she has countered, and on and on and on. In theory if both people are online and refreshing we could attack each other hundreds of times in one day. Or use the same current"update" rule but use a 12 hour day - update at noon and at midnight CN time. Promote activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've suggested 7 day aid slot resets before, I am not sure how much of the rest are good ideas.

 

As you say, it's all about pace. Leaders may need to be more active but your typical cn player is doing good to be active weekly. 10 day slots makes it hard on them and they take 14 to turn around in practice. Shorten it to 7 you make it better for everyone.

 

But daily? A handful of hyper-actives (myself included) would thrive but 90% of players would not, and that would be bad for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would argue that the latter is more common in today's world than a 'raid' (you never hear about it from the 'victims' because they've already left bob).

 

In fact: here is a current example of a "Chow raid": http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=516582&Extended=1

 

 

...and as you can see, White Chocolate is quick to tender this topic in an attempt to put makeup on a pig

 

I really don't see the necessity of this sort of comment, I have this impression that you hold grudges against people who you feel slighted you, yet in reality White Chocolate advocated that Doom Kingdom not intervene military in your war against Kashmir.

 

Please don't try to hold the moral high ground when Monsters Inc is itself engaged in a "chow raid" supposedly justified by an earlier raid against a 3 weeks inactive member of an alliance you aren't treaty partners with. Let's be honest before pointing fingers at other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with 'raids' is that they destroy a disproportionate amount of time. You can lose weeks of game play in minutes. Months in days,

 

That ain't a 'raid'.

 

Even your 'soft gentle raid' is a bit like having a glass encrusted baseball bat shoved up your unmentionables.

 

Beyond the top tier land stealing raiders don't even profit from raiding.

 

So for a little 'hurr durr i blow stuff up' and no other gain raiders either frustrate folks into realizing the game is futile or occasionally convince them to join an alliance for protection.

 

You can have a moratorium and collect data, but you already know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't have issue with raiding, although we aren't a raiding alliance.  The Chow raids as described above I see more as organized rougery.  They are two different aspects of raiding, with the latter being less desirable.  If data existed, I would expect it to show that normal raids have minimal impact on game decline, and chow raids, while still small would have slightly more impact than normal raids.  

 

The problem is once the nation is gone, there is no way to determine why they left.  Boredom, busy would be my assumption as well.

 

 

 

 

Please don't try to hold the moral high ground when Monsters Inc is itself engaged in a "chow raid" supposedly justified by an earlier raid against a 3 weeks inactive member of an alliance you aren't treaty partners with. Let's be honest before pointing fingers at other people.

 

You have no idea what this is about, so you probably shouldn't comment on it.  No, they are not Chow raiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no idea what this is about, so you probably shouldn't comment on it.  No, they are not Chow raiding.

 

I know exactly what it is about, because Monsters Inc is doing exactly what I proposed in the Outer Party ;)

 

I just think it was silly for LH to point fingers when he himself is following unconventional modes of warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigrun, daily slots will change the behavior of less active players. I play in and ESPN league and I set my lineup for the entire week. I change it if I hear that someone went on the DL or is DTD or sent down to AAA. I set the lineup on Monday and did not even bother to check how my team was doing until Sunday because who cares. My players are pretty much undroppable so it's not like I will bench them or drop them if they are in a slump.

Now with daily fantasy sports I play daily and am more active. I pay closer attention to pitcher batter match ups, what park are they in, and all sorts of stats. I am reading as much as I can about it daily.

I think the same would apply to CN. Make it more of a daily game and you will increase activity in game and here on the forums because everything will happen at a faster pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with 'raids' is that they destroy a disproportionate amount of time. You can lose weeks of game play in minutes. Months in days,

 

That ain't a 'raid'.

 

Even your 'soft gentle raid' is a bit like having a glass encrusted baseball bat shoved up your unmentionables.

 

Beyond the top tier land stealing raiders don't even profit from raiding.

 

I used to think that too but it's really not accurate. A couple of cautious GAs, even 4 of them in a row, performed without tanks, won't set most nations back by more than a day or two. I know once you get a big load of infra that changes a little, but do you actually have to rebuy exactly to 7999 or whatever?

 

It's true that raiding is probably not profitable in the long run. We've all seen or had profitable runs, but there's always some luck involved. But the more important thing is it helps keep people active while they are waiting 20 days to collect or 10 to send/receive aid.

 

 

Sigrun, daily slots will change the behavior of less active players.

 

But not in a good way. Far too many do not *want* a game they need to  check on every single day. (And this is why wars are perceived as stressful.)

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't have issue with raiding, although we aren't a raiding alliance.  The Chow raids as described above I see more as organized rougery.  They are two different aspects of raiding, with the latter being less desirable.  If data existed, I would expect it to show that normal raids have minimal impact on game decline, and chow raids, while still small would have slightly more impact than normal raids.  

 

Data does exist, you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should do less anecdotes and more data? It should be possible to check the deletion rate for raided new nations versus the deletion rate for non-raideds, and similarly the deletion rates for (small) raiders and for small non-raiders. That should at least give a hunch of how it works, and is a much more minor undertaking than a worldwide raiding ban.


I do like this idea of someone knows how to do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would support this, as I am certain that raiding does negatively impact the popularity of the game; in TE, lower tier raiding does scare players off, as can be corroborated by talking to said players - this, I believe, can be directly translated to the situation in the lower tiers in SE, though as those players tend to leave entirely after being run out we cannot confirm.

What we can confirm in SE, though, is the actions of larger raiders running players out of the game. I know many and I'm sure all of us know of some players who have left the game after having been raided by a top tier nation and being unable to counter due to ridiculous imbalances in the system.

However, while I said I would support this, I don't believe there is any chance it would occur in the current political climate, so perhaps a better idea would be to propose mechanical solutions that perhaps both allow for raiding but make it such that it is less likely to run players out of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we can confirm in SE, though, is the actions of larger raiders running players out of the game. I know many and I'm sure all of us know of some players who have left the game after having been raided by a top tier nation and being unable to counter due to ridiculous imbalances in the system.

 

Personally I've come to have little sympathy for upper tier nations who spend years avoiding wars and hugging their infrastructure, and then when they finally face a tough situation, they knock over their toys and ragequit. There's plenty of nations who fought like a man and simply dropped down to a more defensive position in the mid-tier, not a single Polar upper-tier nation hid from fighting DBDC and we got rid of the chickens in SNX.

 

Instead of coddling upper tier nations maybe they should grow a set of balls, nuke-turret, and re-balance their infra/tech ratios.

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Personally I've come to have little sympathy for upper tier nations who spend years avoiding wars and hugging their infrastructure, and then when they finally face a tough situation, they knock over their toys and ragequit. There's plenty of nations who fought like a man and simply dropped down to a more defensive position in the mid-tier, not a single Polar upper-tier nation hid from fighting DBDC and we got rid of the chickens in SNX.
 
Instead of coddling upper tier nations maybe they should grow a set of balls, nuke-turret, and re-balance their infra/tech ratios.

Caladin is just complaining again just like any other post he makes.

Instead of facing any tough situations major alliances just treaty their greatest threats. This isn't the glory days where alliances handed out CBs like candy. Hell, we come to a point where we are too lazy to hand or manufacture CBs. Alliances are scared to drop treaties or make drastic FA moves over the fear of getting rolled. Hell, some alliances are even afraid to honor their M level treaties. Edited by rileyaddaff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caladin is just complaining again just like any other post he makes.

Instead of facing any tough situations major alliances just treaty their greatest threats. This isn't the glory days where alliances handed out CBs like candy. Hell, we come to a point where we are too lazy to hand or manufacture CBs. Alliances are scared to drop treaties or make drastic FA moves over the fear of getting rolled. Hell, some alliances are even afraid to honor their M level treaties.

I could have sworn your own alliance does exactly this or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have sworn your own alliance does exactly this or something.

Maybe you forgot about TOP and co?

 

We had treaties with most of these AAs since our inception. DT, DBDC, NG, and so on. We only have a couple real new treaties. This is taking DS into account as well, obviously. So no, at the time we didn't, and we still don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you forgot about TOP and co?

 

We had treaties with most of these AAs since our inception. DT, DBDC, NG, and so on. We only have a couple real new treaties. This is taking DS into account as well, obviously. So no, at the time we didn't, and we still don't.

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.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...