Moratorium on tech raiding

[Dajobo]

Two control groups are easy to set up.

 

A nation created today will have a nation ID

One created in a few months will as well and evey nation in between will have a number in that range.

Protect the odds and not the evens...

[Duderonomy]

Maybe we should test on NpO nations? Oh, we already did that and you're still here. :v:

[Franz Ferdinand]

Maybe we should test on NpO nations? Oh, we already did that and you're still here. :v:

Those are just Pacifican sleeper agents.

[applesauce59]

Those are just Pacifican sleeper agents.

 

 

I mean that is true of most nations. 

[Steve Buscemi]

Raiding doesn't drive players out.  Raiding helped retain players.  If you weren't forced to join an alliance for protection you would never find out about the real game - forums, community, alliance foreign affairs.

The game in and of itself is really really awful.  Like really awful.  The outside-the-game parts are what make it tolerable.

[White Chocolate]

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.
 

Good points.  If someone really wants to set one up, he or she can go for it and as long as it is reasonable (i.e. for a limited amount of time).  If other people do it and it's clear who is on the study's "do not raid" list and enough raiding alliances are participating, then sounds good to me.  I'm extremely burned out as far as this entire discussion goes so it would be worth it to just quote a study when the topic comes up again.

 

Raiding doesn't drive players out.  Raiding helped retain players.  If you weren't forced to join an alliance for protection you would never find out about the real game - forums, community, alliance foreign affairs.
 

Yes.  Plus there are more than enough of different types of alliances out there that with a little work and/or asking around, a new person can find one that fits almost exactly what they want even if it's just hang around, grow his or her nation and do nothing else and still be protected by one group or another. 

 

The only thing the vast majority of nation leaders can not do (at least with some success) alone is effect CN politics.

[Sephiroth]

Since most completely new nations just pick a color they like, if one color sphere put unaligned nations under their protection (Red has done it before) & another equally popular color doesn't; we could compare the retention rate of nations starting off on the protected color versus the unprotected one.

I think NPO has the political capital they could protect Red unaligned nations if they wanted. Then maybe compare the retention rates to new nations starting off on Blue for example, if unaligned nations aren't protected from raids there. Maybe pick a sample size of new players who create new nations on each after the protection policy gets put in place on a color, where the next 100 new nations are compared to the next 100 new nations on another color where raiders are free to hit them.

[The Zigur]

Might I play devil's advocate for a moment and suggest that the theoretical loss of inactive players due to raiding is not that big of a problem? For example, let's assume that we lost 1000 of the least active players at one time. What effect would this have on the game?

 

It wouldn't have much of an effect, of course. Aside from some lost advertisement revenue, people who cannot take a raid or even a round of warfare are unlikely to commit to this game in the first place. What drives this game is not passive, individual gaming but rather community participation. It is the community here that keeps us all coming back to see (and influence) the big wars and the micro drama, the sanction races and the ego competitions. I question the value of players who sit on none and do not participate in this community in some form.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that as a result of ten nations raided, 6 do nothing, 2 delete, and 2 join an alliance. Is the two nations becoming integrated into the alliance and global community really off-set by the two who can't take the heat?

[Sephiroth]

Might I play devil's advocate for a moment and suggest that the theoretical loss of inactive players due to raiding is not that big of a problem? For example, let's assume that we lost 1000 of the least active players at one time. What effect would this have on the game?
 
It wouldn't have much of an effect, of course. Aside from some lost advertisement revenue, people who cannot take a raid or even a round of warfare are unlikely to commit to this game in the first place. What drives this game is not passive, individual gaming but rather community participation. It is the community here that keeps us all coming back to see (and influence) the big wars and the micro drama, the sanction races and the ego competitions. I question the value of players who sit on none and do not participate in this community in some form.
 
Let's assume for the sake of argument that as a result of ten nations raided, 6 do nothing, 2 delete, and 2 join an alliance. Is the two nations becoming integrated into the alliance and global community really off-set by the two who can't take the heat?

For a new nation starting off, suddenly getting dog piled by a bunch of nations destroying everything they've built over the last month could make them lose motivation. A lot of raiders just hang out in the lower tiers to raid new nations, while being loaded on military improvements & having nukes. So as soon as the new nation hits them back, suddenly they get nuked and lose everything. For some players joining an alliance is a commitment, so they don't want to just join an alliance they know nothing about or one who is attacking them. Some like to experiment with trying to create their own alliance before they decide on an alliance to join, these types of alliances tend to get targeted for mass raids. Edited September 6, 2015 by Methrage

[The Zigur]

For a new nation starting off, suddenly getting dog piled by a bunch of nations destroying everything they've built over the last month could make them lose motivation. A lot of raiders just hang out in the lower tiers to raid new nations, while being loaded on military improvements & having nukes. So as soon as the new nation hits them back, suddenly they get nuked and lose everything. For some players joining an alliance is a commitment, so they don't want to just join an alliance they know nothing about or one who is attacking them. Some like to experiment with trying to create their own alliance before they decide on an alliance to join, these types of alliances tend to get targeted for mass raids.

 

New nations should not be experimenting with anything, but should be joining a disciplined alliance and learning how to play the game. Sitting on none is not the place to be for a new nation, the sooner they are liberated from the chaos of the state of nature, the sooner they can become an active producer in an alliance.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

New nations should not be experimenting with anything, but should be joining a disciplined alliance and learning how to play the game. Sitting on none is not the place to be for a new nation, the sooner they are liberated from the chaos of the state of nature, the sooner they can become an active producer in an alliance.

 

Because no one has any right to attempt to play the game except in the way that Junka approves of, let alone to enjoy themselves doing it.

[The Zigur]

 

Because no one has any right to attempt to play the game except in the way that Junka approves of, let alone to enjoy themselves doing it.

 

The only rights that exist are those which can be defended. That is why alliances exist in the first place, to lift their members from the state of nature.

[Dajobo]

 

New nations should not be experimenting with anything, but should be joining a disciplined alliance and learning how to play the game. Sitting on none is not the place to be for a new nation, the sooner they are liberated from the chaos of the state of nature, the sooner they can become an active producer in an alliance.

 Sorry Tywin but I'm calling bullshit on this. I started and played CN for ages before even considering joining an alliance. There is no right or wrong way.

[The Zigur]

If you talk to my members you will find they enjoy the discipline and order in SNX today. Some of these members were rotting on none until not long ago, and now have access to stability, growth, and most importantly a real purpose.

Order is not for everyone, but nobody is forced to join any alliance, and a wake up call followed by positive communication doesn't hurt anyone - especially since I don't first strike when I "raid" ;)

Edited September 8, 2015 by Immortan Junka

[Rayvon]

The only rights that exist are those which can be defended. That is why alliances exist in the first place, to lift their members from the state of nature.

Break your chains weakling.

[White Chocolate]

 Sorry Tywin but I'm calling !@#$%^&* on this. I started and played CN for ages before even considering joining an alliance. There is no right or wrong way.

I'm going to have to back Dajobo in this case.  I started out just building my own alliance with all the benefits and hardships that process involves.  It wasn't a walk in the park, but a walk in the park wasn't what I wanted.

Edited September 12, 2015 by White Chocolate

[wes the wise]

This talk brings to mind ROMA and NEAT. NEAT used to work tirelessly to maintain ROMA, a haven for nations of raid abuse, or those who just wanted to enjoy the ruling in their own little way. It is hard for me to fathom how anyone doesn't get bored and delete having so little interaction with the rest of Planet Bob, but yet there it is. The fact is, there are seemingly desolate oasis hidden outside the spotlights of conventional Planet Bob politics are actually pretty active communities, existing "off the grid" and being some of the most well kept secrets on planet bob.  

[HeroofTime55]

I'm going to have to back Dajobo in this case.  I started out just building my own alliance with all the benefits and hardships that process involves.  It wasn't a walk in the park, but a walk in the park wasn't what I wanted.

I spent the better parts of my career managing my micro alliances and screwing around with folks.  Lots of good fun.  Will always have fond memories of those times.  RIA is the first "real" alliance I've ever been a part of.  My idea of retirement was to become an RIA triumvir.

[Morgaine]

Might I play devil's advocate for a moment and suggest that the theoretical loss of inactive players due to raiding is not that big of a problem? For example, let's assume that we lost 1000 of the least active players at one time. What effect would this have on the game?

 

It wouldn't have much of an effect, of course. Aside from some lost advertisement revenue, people who cannot take a raid or even a round of warfare are unlikely to commit to this game in the first place. What drives this game is not passive, individual gaming but rather community participation. It is the community here that keeps us all coming back to see (and influence) the big wars and the micro drama, the sanction races and the ego competitions. I question the value of players who sit on none and do not participate in this community in some form.

 

This is a tired, old and self-serving argument that has been bandied round since the days when I served in NONE and then in the League of Free Nations when this World was nary a year old. I have read through the arguments going back and forth and the above quote sums up the deficit in thinking that has led to the continued erosion in our total population quite nicely.

 

First of all, whether things are interesting here or not do not hinge upon sizing up small alliances and un-aligned nations, then pouncing upon them as soon as they are large enough to plunder.

 

Furthermore, I was there when it was decided that un-aligned nations should not be permitted to defend each other, so nearly three hundreds of our nations left directly as a result rather than be subjugated in a matrix designed to favour brigandage at the expense of independence and free-association. These were people I considered my comrades and I still personally resent having them torn from the entire world, never to be seen again. For those who are interested, I would direct you to review the discussion linked in the quote by our Zombie Glaucon in my signature.

 

So, then, this is not merely about “tech-raiding” as those who oppose or favour the practice may denote it. It is much more.

 

I do not wish to go into a long discussion about this history and instead will appeal to those of you who have the capacity for empathy and are honest enough to consider the whole. Those who do understand this quality know that it is not selfless at all to consider the interests of others; even in this virtual world, we are interdependent. 

 

Consider, please then, what it is like to create a nation here for the first time and find oneself besieged by a mixture of recruitment messages and battle reports. If you do not join an alliance and participate in the discussions here, you are not welcome and will be continually attacked until you become a part of a community, nay, a mentality built by force or are driven away for good.

 

I will submit this to the majority of you who have never had intimate dealings with un-aligned nations. They are not “inactive.” Some are so fiercely independent that they refused to join NONE because they did not want to have to use forums of any kind, preferring instead to communicate in-game only. They are simply playing a different game in this world and should not be forced to play ours. Is that so unreasonable to ask? Is the existence of such nation rulers really a detriment?

 

The advantage is too great for those who are protected by an alliance to be attacking nations that are existing by themselves. Furthermore, they should be considered the seedlings of the future that should be permitted to grow unmolested by those who are playing the alliance system. When allied nations attack un-aligned nations with no provocation, they are eating fruit that has not yet ripened. Hence, they are consuming next year’s crop to the detriment of us all.

 

Early on in our history, nations not belonging to an alliance were permitted to get as large as any of the others. They had a presence on this message board. They were quirky, eccentric hermits who had unique perspectives to offer in discussions of international relations. Their voices had value as they had no investment in the various treaty webs that existed. 

 

Are we really better off without these people? I think not. I daresay that we would not only not be worse off, but would be better off in a world that welcomes nations that are un-aligned amongst those that are.

 

Let us then, consider to leave all of the un-aligned nations alone on all colour spheres. Let them have their place in this world while we have ours. If an un-aligned nation should blunder into attacking one in an alliance, it should only suffer one week’s worth of counter-attacks and then be released so chastened by experience.

 

Who knows, perhaps we might arrest the exodus even start growing the population again. What could possibly be the harm in that?

Edited September 29, 2015 by Morgaine

[The Zigur]

This is a well though-out post and I would like to make a point to defend my position.

 

SNX does not prohibit ghosting of our AA by small nations seeking a safe haven. As long as they do not break the rules (i.e. no raiding alliances), nations are free to relax until they decide they are active enough to participate as full members. I provide low-tier nuclear backed security to all low tier nations on my AA that I can reasonably defend. So it cannot be said that Supernova X is heartless in granting refuge to the weak.

 

If Polar want's to take the moralist stance in defense of nations on none, it should follow my policy and grant refuge to low-tier ghosts.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Immortan Junka

[sethb]

Deleted, wrong thread.

Edited September 29, 2015 by sethb

[Dajobo]

There was never a moralist suggestion Tywin and your comment makes me suspect you simply don't understand the issue or the suggestion in the first place. Allowing ghosts is entirely unrelated to the discussion.

[The Zigur]

As you know I was never a moralist Dajobo and I was just having a little fun just now. But in reality an alliance govt like yourself and mine has to pay consequences (we both know this from experience!), why should we exclude a new nation from the consequences of choice? I take a practical approach and protect ghosts, which to me is better that wailing for people on none.

We have both had to endure the consequences of difficult foreign policy decisions and I am simply asking what is the benefit of shielding none nations from reality? At least under our own benevolent guidance they can avoid the exploitation that occurs in other spheres.

[Morgaine]

This is a well though-out post and I would like to make a point to defend my position.

 

SNX does not prohibit ghosting of our AA by small nations seeking a safe haven. As long as they do not break the rules (i.e. no raiding alliances), nations are free to relax until they decide they are active enough to participate as full members. I provide low-tier nuclear backed security to all low tier nations on my AA that I can reasonably defend. So it cannot be said that Supernova X is heartless in granting refuge to the weak.

 

If Polar want's to take the moralist stance in defense of nations on none, it should follow my policy and grant refuge to low-tier ghosts.

 

I, as a rank-and-file member and Dajobo as Emperor Emeritus certainly cannot reasonably construed to be articulating an Official position on any matter, much less this one. Our alliance does not permit its members to attack anyone without provocation for any reason and does not presume to impose this position on any outsiders.

 

My position with respect to attacking the un-aligned is not a matter of morality at all; it is a matter of practicality. The un-aligned are not "weak" as you say; they are operating in different sphere and at are a disadvantage to nations that are protected by an alliance. The moral aspect would involve having a nation in an alliance attack an un-aligned nation, then call in his comrades to punish the victim for having the temerity of fighting back. 

 

Even that is a matter of practicality for us all. What nation that wishes to operate independently would want to remain here under such conditions?

 

If alliances do permit such "raids" on the un-aligned, they should be stripped of protection when they do so. The raider already gets the advantage of selecting the target and choosing the time. Having a raid that offers little of any benefit to the alliance as a whole (much less the World as a whole) be protected by the alliance puts the target at too much of a disadvantage; so much so that the un-aligned nation would be inclined to go elsewhere.

 

There was never a moralist suggestion Tywin and your comment makes me suspect you simply don't understand the issue or the suggestion in the first place. Allowing ghosts is entirely unrelated to the discussion.

 

So stuck in his mindset of the alliance system being the only way, he is obtuse to the lot of the un-aligned. Consequently, he is unable to see how making it impossible for them to operate adversely affects us all.

 

As you know I was never a moralist Dajobo and I was just having a little fun just now. But in reality an alliance govt like yourself and mine has to pay consequences (we both know this from experience!), why should we exclude a new nation from the consequences of choice? I take a practical approach and protect ghosts, which to me is better that wailing for people on none.

We have both had to endure the consequences of difficult foreign policy decisions and I am simply asking what is the benefit of shielding none nations from reality? At least under our own benevolent guidance they can avoid the exploitation that occurs in other spheres.

 

Arrogance.

 

Perhaps a player who wishes to operate independently and does not want to be forced to utilize forums does not want your "benevolent guidance"! I am not asking that un-aligned nations be "shielded from reality" as you say. I am saying that it is in all of our interests to leave them be so that the entire population of the World can grow and benefit from the existence of free spirits who operate outside of the alliance sphere. 

 

I daresay things were much more interesting when they were left unmolested. Walford has told me that early on, there were hidden bands within the ranks of the un-aligned that would pop-up out of nowhere, sometimes displaying temporary alliance colours, strike at the lower tiers of his former alliance and then fade back into the obscurity of "none" again. 

 

That sounds exciting to me. Consider the potential of having such rogue groups operating in the shadows like that. That certainly sounds more interesting than ganging up on passers-by in the street.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Morgaine

[The Zigur]

I believe man operates on his highest spiritual plane when at war. War integrates the individual into the collective, builds his strength, teaches concepts like honor, duty, sacrifice and loyalty. Therefore I cannot agree with the assessment that sheltering noobs from war is a good thing. I believe in immersing noobs in warfare, but not crushing warfare, just to teach them their strengths and weaknesses. Then I teach them how to salute and follow orders, I put them in battle rattle, and send them off to their first glorious conquest.

 

Who would not enjoy such an experience? I now wish there was an alliance that recruited me like that when I first joined.