Jump to content

How to address raiding


RandomInterrupt

Recommended Posts

Attacking unaligned nations when they have no idea why is not receptive to increasing new players. If there is one thing this game needs, it is new blood. As to how many people are driven away after being the recipient of tech raiding, we don't know. But the fact is some will naturally be driven away.

There's another side to that argument and it goes like: Without raiding, many older nations would leave the game. Would you rather have older, more firmly established nations kicking around and raiding, while maybe chasing away the errant nation here or there, or many of those older nations leave in favor of newer folks who might stick around just long enough to figure out that the only truly fun part of the single-player, non political aspect of the game (the war function) has been utterly neutered by an MADP web the size of my ex's rear and the nanny-state of raid-haters?

Personally I would err in favor of fun and personal choice, but that's just me, and I try not to concern myself with controlling the actions of others.

Edited by Arcades057
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Putting the kibosh on tech raiding absolutely has broader implications for the community as well. Provide empirical data that shows that the net community "worth" would go up without tech raiding, considering that while more tech-raidable nations would stick around, many tech raiders would also leave the game. Then I will accept this argument. Otherwise, you must assume that nations that do not tech raid are intrinsically worth so much more than nations that do, that the retention of one non-tech-raiding nation is worth more than the loss of any number of tech raiders.

Tech-raiders tend to be in alliances like GOONS. QED. :)

I still see peace mode as a viable alternative for people who want to play Nation Builder. Your nation doesn't grow as quickly, but you've got all the time in the world, right?

On the flip side, why don't you just go play TE? You don't get to play the game like everyone else, but you've got all the targets in the world, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, why don't you just go play TE? You don't get to play the game like everyone else, but you've got all the targets in the world, right?

This is quite possibly the best argument against tech raiding being viable war practice.

Why practice in a 3:1 fight in your favor against an inexperienced opponent which is how tech raids often turn out, when you could practice in a real war on TE and have an experienced opponent who is there for the same reason that you are, and you get the opportunity to really sharpen your skills.

Edited by Prime minister Johns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why practice in a 3:1 fight against an inexperienced opponent that tech raids often turn into when you could practice in a real war on TE and have an experienced opponent who is there for the same reason that you are, and you get the opportunity to really sharpen your skills.

Why choose one when you can have both?

You think it's better to raid in TE because the frequent resets mean that the raiding doesn't hurt the raidee as much. You think it's better to raid there than in "real" CN.

But the problem is, that's exactly why it doesn't pay to raid in TE. You don't gain anything permanent or substantial. It only pays to raid in the regular game where you can keep the fruits of your labor forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An analogy, if I may:

Growing your nation is like driving a car in icy conditions. The potential for disaster is fairly decent. You can make the effort to go out and find a nice set of snow tires (an alliance) that will keep you from smacking into an oncoming freight truck (GOONS), or you can risk it and rely on luck to keep you out of harm's way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it exists to allow one to reload and regain the ability to target when facing ridiculous numbers of opponents. Is that what you meant?

I actually meant that it exists as a means for a nation to avoid war completely. The way I see it is this: Nations are given a "bonus" in the game while in war mode because of the increased risk that they take. If you do not wish to partake in war and simply wish to build a nation while enjoying the community, you have means to do so and be at exactly no risk of being raided at any time. You will not be able to grow at the same rate as those who do take that risk, but in the end, there is still the exact same -potential- of growth.

Tech-raiders tend to be in alliances like GOONS. QED. :)

While your statement is true, what does that prove? You dislike GOONS and similar nations, thus they have less worth to the community? That is hardly empirical.

On the flip side, why don't you just go play TE? You don't get to play the game like everyone else, but you've got all the targets in the world, right?

GOONS does not exist in TE. I play because I get to be a part of GOONS.

This is quite possibly the best argument against tech raiding being viable war practice.

Why practice in a 3:1 fight in your favor against an inexperienced opponent which is how tech raids often turn out, when you could practice in a real war on TE and have an experienced opponent who is there for the same reason that you are, and you get the opportunity to really sharpen your skills.

Yeah, TE sure is good for war practice. We actually encourage new GOONS to give it a shot if they accidentally sign up for TE. But I do not require tech raiding for war practice, and I still enjoy doing it. Also, I've never partaken in a 3:1 raid, and I would never voluntarily do so.

Edited by ktarthan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might Makes Right

In short, I agree with Doitzel and Näktergal. Attacking unaligned nations when they have no idea why is not receptive to increasing new players. If there is one thing this game needs, it is new blood. As to how many people are driven away after being the recipient of tech raiding, we don't know. But the fact is some will naturally be driven away.

so you would essentially agree to propose a "might makes right" attitude towards stopping tech-raiding? i.e. you and others would institute some kind of consequence based system for alliances/nations who tech raid? i would assume you would also use this consequence bases system on the unaligned nations that raid as well. most likely this system would have to involve attacking those raiders, which basically makes it like a tech raid in the end, just for those anti-raiders it will be "justice"....

And so we come back to my first post, that the consequences are what makes people reconsider their actions, and that might makes right. I suppose people are inherently evil...

yes, you got me Merger, i am inherently ebil because i choose to play this game differently than you do and choose to have fun my way instead of be bored to tears the way you want me to be. yes, that makes me inherently ebil. damn, now i must end my raiding days and be bored with this game and while i love the community of IAA as well as many others, including Polaris, ultimately, this boredom will most likely make me stop playing the game.

damn those anti-raiders driving people from CN... those anti-raiders have to be inherently evil because they are driving people away from CN and we need more people to stay in CN not leave....

see, i can use all ya'lls arguments against you.

You can state that all you want Doc, but they are precisely analogous and you are obviously smart enough to know that. What's more, this post is so rambling, disconnected, disjointed, and filled with "lawlz" - it really isnt like you. I've been reading your posts for a long time, you are intelligent, well spoken... this post is not. It appears we have hit a nerve.

yeah you are damn right you hit a nerve. you are basically OOC attacking me and i find that crap pathetic. you have no clue what the $%&@ kind of person i am in RL and to make such baseless accusations against me because of something i do in game is the most pathetic argument ya'll anti-raiders have come up with. that argument and all its OOC based flawed analogy is part of the main reason why i started looking at raiding in the first place. boredom and lack of wars helped me along as well.

and yes, i am intelligent obviously more so than you who does not see how flawed that analogy is. it is essentially saying someone is a murderer because they play a shooter game and kills people or if, god forbid, you RP as something awful. like the time i RPed as a black racist nation during WWII and killed all the whities in my nation (played as South Africa). does that mean i am a black racist? for one, i be white and two i am most assuredly not racist. not everything can be compared to RL because RL is quite different. to call every tech raider a mugger and violent person in RL is ridiculous and i would hope that you could see that but obviously you can't.

so yes, heaven forbid i do not like being compared to some piece of !@#$ criminal because i enjoy CN in a different way than you do. this is a game, not RL. the reason the analogy cannot work is simple. RL- real people get hurt. CN- fake people get hurt. if you do not understand that, then i am done with arguing with you.

And this is just sad man. Really sad. You pull out the 'do something about it' rhetoric on someone you know eschews initiatory violence, that is a truly pathetic bit of empty posturing.

The words would be far more appropriate coming from me to you. Buy some infra and jump if you find my words so objectionable, eh? You're the one who claims to be a "courageous raider", not I.

There is a moral imperative to avoid partaking in unjust attacks, to avoid supporting or enabling them. There is NOT a moral imperative to endanger yourself and those who rely on you by becoming involved unnecessarily in other peoples wars, however, and in fact for most of us there is a moral imperative against it, for the simple reason that it would endanger those who rely on us for their defense. If someone offers support and advice to populations most vulnerable to mugging do you then call them hypocritical for declining to don a mask and cape and go hunting muggers after hours?

so basically you just want to whine and OOC attack raiders but do not want to get your hands dirty. and you call me the coward? right. you need to take a look at the definition of a coward sometime before you attempt to use it to call someone else out big guy. as for infra jumping and hitting you, i ain't dumb. pretty sure you are in an alliance and i am not gonna put my alliance in danger to satisfy you. you are the one who is continuously calling me a coward but are obviously to afraid to do anything substantial towards ending tech-raiding other than whine on the OWF about it.

as for what i would call them, i would not honestly care. let others do as they wish. if they choose to play the game in their own style, let them. oocwise, it is a game. ICwise, sure i may challenge it due to political opposition but in all honesty i might just find it fun.

Bob, you are on the right track as usual, and I wish more people would pay attention to you in this thread. That said I dont entirely agree - game design decisions are not the only appropriate topic of discussion here at all. I see nothing inappropriate in discussing broader issues of how we play and how we act IC, in an OOC context. Much of the thread would fit an IC forum, but that doesnt mean it can *only* be discussed IC.

see that is where we have an issue. you want to keep taking this OOC when tech-raiding is entirely IC action. there is nothing OOC about it and to attempt some pseudo-wannabe psychological crap about how i am a bully on CN obviously i am a bully RL is pathetic and useless. you know nothing about me whatsoever so take your OOC crap elsewhere. i do not need to be OOC attacked by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tech-raiders tend to be in alliances like GOONS. QED. :)

On the flip side, why don't you just go play TE? You don't get to play the game like everyone else, but you've got all the targets in the world, right?

i am a raider and in IAA. there are also raiders in MCXA, MK, Athens, FoB and many others. so singling out a single alliance is just ridiculous as raiders are in alliances with far different attitudes than GOONS (Gremlins come to mind, an alliance that many in CN find quite honorable and upstanding. and yes, they allow their members to raid. zomg, they must be ebil now right? amidoinitrite?)

as for TE, i play both. your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the problem is, that's exactly why it doesn't pay to raid in TE. You don't gain anything permanent or substantial. It only pays to raid in the regular game where you can keep the fruits of your labor forever.

Those are not the fruits of your labour, they are the fruits of someone elses labour! Are you completely retarded or do you just think your readers are? In the final analysis, I dont even care so much what you do, but the utter absurdity and dishonesty of how you insist on describing it really rankles.

That whoosh was the sound of you completely missing the point.

most likely this system would have to involve attacking those raiders, which basically makes it like a tech raid in the end, just for those anti-raiders it will be "justice"....

Comrade Craig's signature quote is too apropos. But in fact, I dont think Random was advocating that either, rather as I read him he is just saying that we should be more picky about who we ally with.

yeah you are damn right you hit a nerve. you are basically OOC attacking me and i find that crap pathetic.

I have in no way done that.

you have no clue what the $%&@ kind of person i am in RL and to make such baseless accusations against me because of something i do in game is the most pathetic argument ya'll anti-raiders have come up with.

You are railing against an hallucination, doc. Why are you so overly sensitive here? In fact I dont know you IRL and, until this thread, all the indirect evidence I had to go on lead me to think quite highly of you regardless. Even now, I am not attacking you at all. I am pointing out the consequences of a position you are taking which doesnt match the high regards you enjoy, and the inconsistency of it.

and yes, i am intelligent obviously more so than you who does not see how flawed that analogy is. it is essentially saying someone is a murderer because they play a shooter game and kills people or if, god forbid, you RP as something awful.

Choosing to RP someone awful, or evil, doesnt make you a bad person at all. Choosing to RP someone evil and claiming, in apparent seriousness, in an OOC context, that you are NOT RPing evil, that your evil character is really a paragon of good and his evil acts are all right and proper is something that could and probably should lead your audience to ask questions, however.

IC I know nothing at all about you raiding, I never saw it. I only know what you posted here in this OOC thread, where you are in your "RL" voice ranting and raving in defense of unprovoked violence and theft in game. Do that IC and you are RPing evil. Do it OOC, as you are doing here, and you invite exactly the sort of conclusions you accuse me of making. In point of fact I have not been making them, I have been trying to warn you back from the cliff you appear to be determined to walk off however.

as for infra jumping and hitting you, i ain't dumb. pretty sure you are in an alliance and i am not gonna put my alliance in danger to satisfy you.

Exactly! You see the point so clearly when it is aimed at you, but continue to blithely ignore it otherwise so you can hurl abuse at me. That is hypocrisy.

you are the one who is continuously calling me a coward but are obviously to afraid to do anything substantial towards ending tech-raiding other than whine on the OWF about it.

I have already stated I dont want to end "raiding", I dont consider it possible and wouldnt wish to even it it were. You arent arguing against my words, you are arguing against some idea in your head, which you insist on projecting on me despite it having no resemblance to reality. Nor do I think I have called you a coward. You have asserted your courage, and I have pointed out that this is inconsistent with other things you claim, that is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are not the fruits of your labour, they are the fruits of someone elses labour! Are you completely retarded or do you just think your readers are? In the final analysis, I dont even care so much what you do, but the utter absurdity and dishonesty of how you insist on describing it really rankles.

As I stated in my brilliant although ignored analogy, you can choose to prepare yourself for the dangers that lie ahead, or you can risk being complacent. No one is forcing anyone to join an alliance, although there is an element of risk out there should a nation decide to go without. This is without taking the option of 'peace mode' into consideration. Fruits of labour or not, a person can decide to safeguard their fruits of labour, or they can risk losing a bit of it by making the decision to go without protection. It's their choice to make.

Also, what is 'rankles'. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite possibly the best argument against tech raiding being viable war practice.

Why practice in a 3:1 fight in your favor against an inexperienced opponent which is how tech raids often turn out, when you could practice in a real war on TE and have an experienced opponent who is there for the same reason that you are, and you get the opportunity to really sharpen your skills.

It's not really that good of an argument.

Why buy a Remington .300 and then practice with a Ruger 10/22?

(ie, why have a huge nation and then practice with a 300-infra nation?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated in my brilliant although ignored analogy,

Wasnt brilliant, sorry.

Also, what is 'rankles'. :mellow:

Wordnet is your friend.

It's not really that good of an argument.

Why buy a Remington .300 and then practice with a Ruger 10/22?

Wow! I thought at the least you were actually a shooter.

.300 Winchester Magnum @~$150/100 rounds

.22 LR @~$20/500 rounds

Dóh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasnt brilliant, sorry.

yes it was.

what a despicable word. Sounds too much like 'cankles'.

Wow! I thought at the least you were actually a shooter.

.300 Winchester Magnum @~$150/100 rounds

.22 LR @~$20/500 rounds

Dóh!

He's obviously talking about power, not price of ammunition. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's obviously talking about power, not price of ammunition. :rolleyes:

High power rounds require a larger range, and even more attention to backstops for safety, so that works against the argument too. Low power rounds can be used for practice in more convenient locations. But the main thing is that you can fire 3750 rounds through that 10-22 for the same cost as 100 rounds through that magnum. Cut back to 3k rounds of .22 and fire the magnum a few times as well, sure. But professional shooters all around the world use .22 ammunition for routine practice day in and day out. There's just no substitute for repetition when training any physical skill.

But I think we are wandering off-topic now...

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

High power rounds require a larger range, and even more attention to backstops for safety, so that works against the argument too. Low power rounds can be used for practice in more convenient locations. But the main thing is that you can fire 3750 rounds through that 10-22 for the same cost as 100 rounds through that magnum. Cut back to 3k rounds of .22 and fire the magnum a few times as well, sure. But professional shooters all around the world use .22 ammunition for routine practice day in and day out. There's just no substitute for repetition when training any physical skill.

But I think we are wandering off-topic now...

Go deer hunting with a .22 and see what happens. That's like techraiding without guerilla camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't morally condemn raiding - it's only pixels, after all - but I dislike the "PM for peace", "Don't dare fight back", "Don't dare nuke back" and "Or I'll call my friends to ZI you" attitude, as (ITT) those can hardly enhance the victim's experience of the game, and can't probably satisfy any really sportsmanlike raider... And we should wish that sportsmen, not "sociopaths"(1), join and stay in CN.

It's all about being in a pleasant and fair playing environment.

The neglected problem behind raiding is that it is about RL: each of us can have only one nation and we have to spend some time in it, for it to become "significant". To build a nice state with several improvements, high level aircraft, a navy and wonders - in other words: to actually experience the game mechanics - you need to spend hundreds of days, that at the very least mean weeks of your time(2).

All of that is RL and I can fully understand if someone is annoyed and decides to leave CN after having been beaten and robbed of the fruit of it, if it was because of a group of non-sportsmanlike, sneering "thugs".

(1) Please try to follow me: I'm not saying that raiders are sociopaths, but rather that those raiders that demand to avoid any risk while waging unprovoked wars (or "they'll call in their friends", etc.) are not good for CN (they're "sociopaths in quotation marks"...)

(2) e.g., 20 minutes are not too much to read part of an help/guide, do a quick browsing around the forums, invest in infra/military/land/deals while actually thinking about what you're doing, find or replace your trade partners, etc. Multiply it for 300 days - not much! - and you have 100 hours of actual gameplay, that is worth 2.5 weeks of full-time work...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tech raiding is fine, people should stop getting their panties in a twist over it.

Every nation has the option to join an alliance for protection or defend themselves alone, it is their own decision. Likewise every nation has the option to tech raid and enjoy war or focus on building their nation solely on their own merit. It's called freedom, the freedom to be protected or stand alone, the freedom to attack or do nothing.

The people who wish to take this freedom away from tech raiders and have them act within stupid restrictions simply because a few windbags like the NpO constantly decry tech raiding should find something better to do. Tech raiding has no negative impacts on the planet, the negative impact of taking freedom away from the tech raiders certainly does, people get bored and leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are not the fruits of your labour, they are the fruits of someone elses labour! Are you completely retarded or do you just think your readers are? In the final analysis, I dont even care so much what you do, but the utter absurdity and dishonesty of how you insist on describing it really rankles.

Speaking of whooshes that indicate a person missing the point, you may want to re-read the post I was responding to. My post was a response to the idea that someone who liked tech raiding should do it on TE. My point was that it doesn't pay to raid on TE because everything goes away. There is, in practical terms, no risk and no reward. Raiding in the regular game, on the other hand, involves some risk and also a much higher possibility of reward.

If you oppose tech raiding, then you had better oppose all war, and had better be in an alliance that does not believe in war. If you make war on another nation, you're a total hypocrite. Why? Tech raiding is selfish: you want what someone else has. Alliance wars are selfish: you go to war to achieve a desired end, like beating up another alliance, proving a point, etcetera. It's stupid and asinine to argue that one kind of selfish war is completely fine while another kind is completely wrong. Either you believe in leaving nations alone to grow in their own sovereignty, or you don't. If you say, "I believe in letting them grow unless they anger my alliance / give us a casus belli," then I could just as easily say "I believe in letting them grow as long as they're in an alliance / are not inactive." Hypocrisy is rampant in the abolitionist ranks here.

I would call on anyone who claims to truly be a pacifist to actually go into peace mode. If you believe peace is so much better than war, put your money where your mouth is and take away even the possibility of war from your nation. But you won't, you hypocrites, because you like the advantages that war mode gives you. How can I have a constructive debate with someone so guilty of doublethink?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Craig's signature quote is too apropos. But in fact, I dont think Random was advocating that either, rather as I read him he is just saying that we should be more picky about who we ally with.

i figured, that was mostly meant for the rest of ya'll.

I have in no way done that.

You are railing against an hallucination, doc. Why are you so overly sensitive here? In fact I dont know you IRL and, until this thread, all the indirect evidence I had to go on lead me to think quite highly of you regardless. Even now, I am not attacking you at all. I am pointing out the consequences of a position you are taking which doesnt match the high regards you enjoy, and the inconsistency of it.

what inconsistency? you mean me being a "moralist", sorry don't truly consider myself one. sometimes my personal code of ethics/honor/conduct match up with them, other times it does not. does not mean i am inconsistent at all.

as for the OOC attacks, stop comparing me to being a mugger or violent in RL and i will stop stating you are OOC attacking me. and i am not railing against an hallucination as you did in fact compare me to muggers and other criminals who assault random people. do not even attempt to deny it as it is the one of two main arguments that you anti-raiders have. the RL comparison to mugging someone or just randomly beating the crap outta them. that RL comparison fails because (for the third time i am telling you this) in RL, a real person is hurt possibly killed in those situations. this is a game, so while the actions are similar, they in no way should be compared because no one actually gets hurt over the game (unless you are utterly and completely emo about your pixels). i do not like being compared to criminals as i am a former Marine, married, and a good standing citizen and despite how i RP in a game, am not a criminal at all. so yes, you can keep saying you aren't doing !@#$, but you are.

you want a comparison since you like doing those. You are in Nordreich. that is a German nationalist alliance, you must be a nazi in RL? amidoinitrite? cuz i think i am. i will from now on compare you to nazis everytime you compare me to criminals, deal?

Choosing to RP someone awful, or evil, doesnt make you a bad person at all. Choosing to RP someone evil and claiming, in apparent seriousness, in an OOC context, that you are NOT RPing evil, that your evil character is really a paragon of good and his evil acts are all right and proper is something that could and probably should lead your audience to ask questions, however.

where have i claimed whether raiding is evil or good? i have stated that i raid. i have never justified it. i have never claimed it was evil. ya'll have. so you should get your story straight before coming at me. i have prior to this already stated that raiding is an aggressive war. if you have followed my posts (as you claimed) during the Athens-KoN fiasco, you would have seen that.

so how about you stop claiming i am doing something that you did, not me.

IC I know nothing at all about you raiding, I never saw it. I only know what you posted here in this OOC thread, where you are in your "RL" voice ranting and raving in defense of unprovoked violence and theft in game. Do that IC and you are RPing evil. Do it OOC, as you are doing here, and you invite exactly the sort of conclusions you accuse me of making. In point of fact I have not been making them, I have been trying to warn you back from the cliff you appear to be determined to walk off however.

not really. most people would think- he is defending an IC action in a game and think nothing of my RL viewpoints since this is a game. that is like those groups that want to ban shooter games and other violent games because they feel that those games somehow make people evil or those parents back in the 70s/80s who wanted DnD to be banned because a couple of kids got drugged out of their mind on hallucinegins and killed their parents, claiming to be playing a game of DnD.

so, just because i defend an in game action in an OOC way, does not mean you can make any sort of judgement on who i am in RL. i am defending an action that is allowable by admin in a game that admin created. once you get that through your skull and stop thinking that you can now judge my RL life, which even you stated you have no clue about, we can move on. until then, you are in Nordreich and RP in a German nationalist alliance so obviously you are associated with nazis and WS in RL? i base this off of you joining Nordreich (not that NoR are nazis, <3 you Vince and NoR) and posting in an OOC area. i do this despite me knowing nothing of you in RL. amidoinitrite? do you get the point now? if not, then you are way more dense than you let on.

Exactly! You see the point so clearly when it is aimed at you, but continue to blithely ignore it otherwise so you can hurl abuse at me. That is hypocrisy.

read above and maybe you can finally see my point instead of OOC attacking me.

I have already stated I dont want to end "raiding", I dont consider it possible and wouldnt wish to even it it were. You arent arguing against my words, you are arguing against some idea in your head, which you insist on projecting on me despite it having no resemblance to reality. Nor do I think I have called you a coward. You have asserted your courage, and I have pointed out that this is inconsistent with other things you claim, that is all.

so what are you doing here if you don't want to end raiding? you don't support it or condone it? you want raiding to end. the very words you use are indicitive of anti-raiding morality. you called me a coward without proof (you even stated you have no clue about my raids) just because i raid. the fact that unlike you, i am willing to use the war function without any backing from my alliance in my opinion makes me far more courageous than you. you on the other hand obviously only want to use the war function when you have complete backing from your alliance. that makes you far more cowardly than me. you continuously have made unsubstantiated claims based on no actual knowledge and you state i am not in reality? how about you stop OOC attacking me by comparing me to muggers and criminals, and stop calling me a coward when it seems you are the coward based on the fact that in game, i am willing to fight on my own and you are not. you obviously need your alliance behind you in order to fight, where as i do not.

so it seems that you are the one who never was in reality not me. so do you really wish to continue? because i can continue to make the same unsubstantiated claims about you as you do about me, based in the same style of conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very good guide, unhappyly the main victims of raids do not read this forums :/

The also tend to leave the game afterwards and tell their friends that the game sucks, especially if the raiders are particularly vicious or rude (Remember the ZI game show).

And in the end CN is poorer by one player and also loses an unknown number of potential new players from negative word of mouth advertising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That whoosh was the sound of you completely missing the point.

Those crickets are the sound of you doing absolutely nothing productive in this discussion.

And in the end CN is poorer by one player and also loses an unknown number of potential new players from negative word of mouth advertising.

So do you, too, feel that the worth of a raiding nation is less than that of a non-raiding nation? I've encountered that opinion several times in this thread so far, but I have yet to understand how such a conclusion can be reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The also tend to leave the game afterwards and tell their friends that the game sucks, especially if the raiders are particularly vicious or rude (Remember the ZI game show).

And in the end CN is poorer by one player and also loses an unknown number of potential new players from negative word of mouth advertising.

do you have actual proof of this? seriously, i am tired of this argument as there is no ounce of evidence that a huge swath of players leave due to being raided, let alone tell others that the game sucks. so if you have no proof do not attempt to use it as an argument.

in the end CN is poorer because people whine and !@#$%* about tech-raiders, clogging up the OWF and causing people to leave because they do not want to have to read the whinefest and CN also loses an unknown number of potential new players from the negative word of mouth advertising stemming from the whinefest of anti-raiders.

see, i can say crap without a shred of evidence as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doch, you're really going off the deep end in here.

Arcades, there are no raid targets for large nations (except for when people are leaving the game), so your argument is not correct. This has been true for at least a year. And if it were true for you, you wouldn't have joined a no-raiding alliance.

Various people saying 'lol peace mode': stop being silly. Peace mode is so economically damaging as to be a completely impractical way of experiencing the game.

If you oppose tech raiding, then you had better oppose all war purely for profit, and had better be in an alliance that does not believe in war purely for profit

Fixed that for you. Tech raiding is equivalent to war with no CB, which basically every alliance opposes on an alliance scale.

The neglected problem behind raiding is that it is about RL: each of us can have only one nation and we have to spend some time in it, for it to become "significant". To build a nice state with several improvements, high level aircraft, a navy and wonders - in other words: to actually experience the game mechanics - you need to spend hundreds of days, that at the very least mean weeks of your time(2).

All of that is RL and I can fully understand if someone is annoyed and decides to leave CN after having been beaten and robbed of the fruit of it, if it was because of a group of non-sportsmanlike, sneering "thugs".

Exactly. However, this is the Internet, and a massively multiplayer game. We cannot expect everyone to play in a sportsmanlike fashion. So the game itself should make sure that those players don't lose so much they don't find things fun any more when they meet one of the 'thugs'.

So do you, too, feel that the worth of a raiding nation is less than that of a non-raiding nation?

One raider is likely to cause several players to leave. You are not worth five, or ten, or twenty times a non-raiding player. And you'll leave eventually anyway, if raiding is really that important to you (it's hard for me to see how attacking defenceless people can keep being fun, but that's a side point), once you grow out of range of targets. But as I say, it is better that the game is changed so that you basically griefing unaligned players does not do as much damage as it does, and no-one has to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob- in all honesty, no i am not going off the deep end. i am fairly certain people don't want to be considered nazis RLwise simply because they joined a certain alliance. in fact, i know this is 100% true. i can see the comparison to mugging and whatnot, but the moment you start saying that i would do such in RL is where it needs to stop. that is exactly what Sigrun was doing. he took the comparison and made it personal. my RL beliefs are not completely the same as my IC gameplay. thus, there is no need to even ask a question what i would do RLwise, when this is a game. i like to play shooter games, does this mean i am gonna go Columbine on my college? to me that is what Sigrun was doing.

so no, if you are gonna compare tech-raiding to mugging fine. but do not go any further than that and take it to a personal level.

also, i still have yet to see proof from anyone that people leave due to be raiding. until i see proof, it is an unsubstantiated claim that holds absolutely no value as an argument.

as for a war with noCB- there is a difference. tech-raiding is an aggressive war but to compare it to an alliance wide war is just ridiculous. you are essentially trying to state that all tech-raiding is the equivalent to what Athens/FoB did to KoN and that is hardly true. an unaligned for one, is not in an alliance and thus, cannot even be considered alliance wide. a one-man alliance is still not an alliance as an alliance by all definitions is a group (i.e. 2+ nations) and thus is essentially unaligned for all intents and purposes.

beyond that, unless the entire alliance is being hit by a single alliance AA or by a group of allies, then it would still be hard to consider it a noCB war.

fact is, anti-raiders have no proof that players leave due to being raided.

fact is, tech-raiding should not be considered a noCB war, since war by the definition of the OWF is alliance wide and not single members. if we start considering tech-raiding to be noCB, then we might as well start considering rogues members of alliances to be part of the alliance, which for the most part no alliance would consider as that would be completely detrimental to an alliance's health when they get rogues.

fact is, most of the arguments presented are fairly thin and most get stretched beyond belief. most are presented without evidence and is just opinion. or are trying to stretch a precedent to cover something that it should not.

fact is, the only argument you have is the comparison to mugging which is thin since this is a game that should be played for fun and what anti-raiders want to do is essentially squash the fun us raiders have. you all talk about how immoral raiding is and how it impugns upon the sovereignty of nations, whilst impugning upon the sovereignty of us raiders and being immoral to us by trying to dictate how we should play this game.

so fact is, ya'll anti-raiders have very little leg, if any, to actually stand on as you commit the same actions upon us raiders as you state we do upon our victims. essentially, you are trying to bully us into playing your way instead of allowing us to play the way we want. so we become ya'lls victims in this matter.

also, ya'll anti-raiders rarely mention the unaligned versus unaligned wars, or the unaligned versus small alliance wars that are prevalent. are you gonna start PMing all those unaligned raiders and tell them how wrong and immoral they are or how they are "ruining" the game by driving others away? if not, then why should we care what you say as you are hypocritical and using double standards against us raiders in alliances.

as for the whole changing the game so that unaligned do not take as much damage. that is just fail. so now if an unaligned goes rogue on an alliance and the alliance defends themselves, the unaligned can deal more damage while receiving less making it harder to stop the rogue. thus, ensuring that those smaller nations in an alliance quit the game since the alliance cannot properly defend them. (using the anti-raider logic on the whole quitting the game bs)

as well as the fact that now if i wish to go rogue on an alliance, i need only keep my AA none to ensure that i do not take nearly as much damage as i should and thus, i can deliver more damage to the alliance i am hitting for a longer period. yes, that is the greatest change i have ever foreseen. give more power to rogues....

Edited by Dochartaigh
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...