How to address raiding

[Dochartaigh]

There is an obvious solution to raiding.

Make one colour sphere (not grey) a safe haven and have a major alliance protect it and then all the other colours can be open for tech raiders to raid as much as they like. And nobody will raise too much of a fuss since the raided nation can easily change colours of they wish to stay unaligned and get protection or join an alliance on the colour that they are currently on and get protected as well.

This will satisfy everyone as much as is actually possible.

The hardcore independants will change spheres to the safe haven.

The newbies will join alliances to get protected.

The protecting alliance will also get a increased population on their sphere and more opportunities for trades.

And the raiders will get to raid any unaligned nation not on the protected colour and not get so much grief from the wider public since they can argue that the raided party has two ways to get protection and they are choosing not to take them.

now this is something i can get behind fully.

[nippy]

There is an obvious solution to raiding.

Make one colour sphere (not grey) a safe haven and have a major alliance protect it and then all the other colours can be open for tech raiders to raid as much as they like. And nobody will raise too much of a fuss since the raided nation can easily change colours of they wish to stay unaligned and get protection or join an alliance on the colour that they are currently on and get protected as well.

This will satisfy everyone as much as is actually possible.

The hardcore independants will change spheres to the safe haven.

The newbies will join alliances to get protected.

The protecting alliance will also get a increased population on their sphere and more opportunities for trades.

And the raiders will get to raid any unaligned nation not on the protected colour and not get so much grief from the wider public since they can argue that the raided party has two ways to get protection and they are choosing not to take them.

How is this different from 'the simple solution is to join an alliance'? Were the pro-techraiding side to suggest such a thing (let's pretend that Moldavi doctrine didn't ever exist), people would be crying foul that the poor unaligned nations are being forced to switch trading spheres by the big bad raiders. "Let them choose which color to trade on!", people would shout while shaking their fists at us. Seriously, researching alliances and picking one takes about as much time and effort as switching trade spheres and getting your trades back in order. One is already a solution to protect a nation from tech raids, and one is a proposed solution.

Edited December 28, 2009 by nippy

[TheNakedJimbo]

There is an obvious solution to raiding.

There's an even more obvious solution to raiding: take it out of the game. Get Kevin to change the code so you can't steal tech from people. If tech raiding really was driving people (and potential donations) away from the game, don't you think he would be the first one to throw the hammer down on it? On the contrary, he specifically programmed the game so that tech raiding was possible and profitable. Is it possible that its existence in the game is an indication that Kevin knows that tech raiding is fun, and is one of the things keeping older and more established nations in the game?

Maybe and maybe not, but as the one person who stands to lose the most from tech raiding in the form of advertisement and donation money, if it was really as bad a thing as you people say, he would be doing everything possible to keep people in his game.

[Dochartaigh]

There's an even more obvious solution to raiding: take it out of the game. Get Kevin to change the code so you can't steal tech from people. If tech raiding really was driving people (and potential donations) away from the game, don't you think he would be the first one to throw the hammer down on it? On the contrary, he specifically programmed the game so that tech raiding was possible and profitable. Is it possible that its existence in the game is an indication that Kevin knows that tech raiding is fun, and is one of the things keeping older and more established nations in the game?

Maybe and maybe not, but as the one person who stands to lose the most from tech raiding in the form of advertisement and donation money, if it was really as bad a thing as you people say, he would be doing everything possible to keep people in his game.

ssshhhhh.... you should not bring a logical argument into this. it has no place here amongst the wannabe-raider camp.

[Näktergal]

How is this different from 'the simple solution is to join an alliance'?

Because one forces you to spend time and effort joining a group, then maintaining the mimimal activity requirements of said group, conforming to the obligations said group places upon you (like sending aid to other members), and being tied to the political aspirations of said group, possibly forcing you to fight wars over issues you don't actually give a damn about... while the other simply has you make the one-time effort to move into a color sphere and continue to set your own desired level of activity?

Were the pro-techraiding side to suggest such a thing (let's pretend that Moldavi doctrine didn't ever exist), people would be crying foul that the poor unaligned nations are being forced to switch trading spheres by the big bad raiders. "Let them choose which color to trade on!", people would shout while shaking their fists at us.

Actually, it's worth noting that I was very not fond of the NPO when the Revenge Doctrine was established, was fully aware that it was set up for selfish reasons (ie, more independents in Red means more trades for the NPO without the threat of political opposition), and had always been fairly opposed to the Moldavi Doctrine in principle, yet I still welcomed the offer of sanctuary by a power that could back it up. THAT solution required players to switch trading spheres to avoid the big bad raiders, yet I in no way objected to it at all.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we had a scenario were three or four major blocs got together and basically said something along the lines of "Okay, raiding is now off-limits against anyone in Pink, and anyone who raids a Pink nation will be completely ZIed", I'd be fine with it. Or, conversely, if a large majority of alliances that condone or endorse Tech raiding were to get together to sign a treaty where they voluntarily agree not to raid in a single color sphere, and to aggressively police themselves to make sure no one breaks the treaty, I'd be delighted.

In that vein, the only reason I don't fully advocate nations simply switching to Green and joining the GPA is because we've already seen that people are more than willing to dogpile the GPA as soon as it becomes politically convenient. And I honestly don't consider "Eternal Peace Mode" to be an option for newer players, since it cripples growth early and makes things far, far harder (and frustrating).

[nippy]

Because one forces you to spend time and effort joining a group, then maintaining the mimimal activity requirements of said group, conforming to the obligations said group places upon you (like sending aid to other members), and being tied to the political aspirations of said group, possibly forcing you to fight wars over issues you don't actually give a damn about... while the other simply has you make the one-time effort to move into a color sphere and continue to set your own desired level of activity?

Actually, it's worth noting that I was very not fond of the NPO when the Revenge Doctrine was established, was fully aware that it was set up for selfish reasons (ie, more independents in Red means more trades for the NPO without the threat of political opposition), and had always been fairly opposed to the Moldavi Doctrine in principle, yet I still welcomed the offer of sanctuary by a power that could back it up. THAT solution required players to switch trading spheres to avoid the big bad raiders, yet I in no way objected to it at all.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we had a scenario were three or four major blocs got together and basically said something along the lines of "Okay, raiding is now off-limits against anyone in Pink, and anyone who raids a Pink nation will be completely ZIed", I'd be fine with it. Or, conversely, if a large majority of alliances that condone or endorse Tech raiding were to get together to sign a treaty where they voluntarily agree not to raid in a single color sphere, and to aggressively police themselves to make sure no one breaks the treaty, I'd be delighted.

In that vein, the only reason I don't fully advocate nations simply switching to Green and joining the GPA is because we've already seen that people are more than willing to dogpile the GPA as soon as it becomes politically convenient. And I honestly don't consider "Eternal Peace Mode" to be an option for newer players, since it cripples growth early and makes things far, far harder (and frustrating).

Fair arguments. I must say, however, that people aren't going to white-knight against raids on a trade circle in the scale you presented. For 'four major blocs' to decide to defend a certain color, there would have to be something in it for them. It would be more trouble than it's worth if they're getting nothing out of it.

"Eternal Peace Mode" was never a suggestion....but 'peace mode' is. It's more damaging to be raided time and time again than it is to be in peace mode for extended periods of time...but it isn't a bad idea to hit peace mode during times of 'none'. Joining an alliance is a necessity for survival, as is putting on your seatbelt when you drive. You can risk going without, but sooner than later it's going to bite you.

[Näktergal]

Fair arguments. I must say, however, that people aren't going to white-knight against raids on a trade circle in the scale you presented. For 'four major blocs' to decide to defend a certain color, there would have to be something in it for them. It would be more trouble than it's worth if they're getting nothing out of it.

Oh, I absolutely agree. My point was less that it's something that would ever happen, as much as it being something I would welcome if it did. The idea being that there isn't anything inherently wrong with providing a safe haven for newer or individualistic players but expecting them to change teams to benefit from it. Whereas the "if they don't like it, they can join an alliance" argument is actually much weaker in terms of its utility to new/casual players.

"Eternal Peace Mode" was never a suggestion....but 'peace mode' is. It's more damaging to be raided time and time again than it is to be in peace mode for extended periods of time...but it isn't a bad idea to hit peace mode during times of 'none'. Joining an alliance is a necessity for survival, as is putting on your seatbelt when you drive. You can risk going without, but sooner than later it's going to bite you.

Except that, for people who have no interest or desire in joining an alliance, "Eternal Peace Mode" is exactly what you are essentially suggesting. Someone who doesn't want to join an alliance but who also doesn't want to be vindictively farmed by "honorable" and "sadistic" raiders alike would be forced into Peace Mode, where they'd be suffering economic penalties and -9 Happiness... and at lower strength levels, that's crippling.

People on the forums tend to be people who've spent most of their time in alliances (I know I've spent all of one day out of 1261 not in an alliance), and it seems like most forum posters have very little perspective or sympathy to actually give a damn about anyone who doesn't play the game the same way they do. That even extends to the more active players looking at each other - it seems people who love war always act like anyone who prefers peace is insane and boring, while the more pacifistic/political players tend to look at the warmongers like little more than childish thugs. Some people seem to try and consider points-of-view other than their own, but most people seem to cling to a "The way I play CN is the only RIGHT way to play CN" sort of mentality, either consciously or unconsciously, and that affects a lot of how they see the problems of other players.

(as some people have pointed out, the same even applies to people who hate Tech raiding in general, and think it should be completely outlawed, because they're closing their eyes to the fact that a fair number of people enjoy it)

But that's an incredibly short-sighted and egotistic way to look at the world, and it ignores the fact that plenty of people may absolutely hate everything you love about the game. Different people play for different reasons, and in different ways, and basically telling people "Hey, play the way I do or go screw" really isn't the optimum way to deal with problems.

Saying that "there's absolutely no problem with Tech raiding because people can always join an alliance" doesn't address the fact that some people enjoy being independent, or forming small alliances with real-life friends, or simply don't feel like being forced to conform to the ways other people think the game should be played. And in that sense, looking for solutions that can benefit "non-forum" players is absolutely a valid effort, and dismissing those sorts of discussions on the grounds of "hey, tell 'em to join an alliance" is missing the point by a mile.

Worse, the idea that preying on new players forces them to join alliances and get more involved isn't very realistic. That sort of frustration is far more likely to simply convince them that this game (and most of the people playing it) suck. The same goes for people who just want to casually log in every now and then and play without joining an alliance or being forced to interact on a deeper level. And the worst part of all is that, sometimes, new players or casual players may grow interested in alliance-level and forum-level play gradually, in spite of themselves, if the appeal is there... but will never get the chance because they get so frustrated by constant attacks early on that they just stop playing entirely.

[TheNakedJimbo]

But that's an incredibly short-sighted and egotistic way to look at the world, and it ignores the fact that plenty of people may absolutely hate everything you love about the game. Different people play for different reasons, and in different ways, and basically telling people "Hey, play the way I do or go screw" really isn't the optimum way to deal with problems.

This is a really good insight. You're essentially saying to look for the win-win situation, rather than merely trying to win the argument. In real life, training yourself to look for the win-win is one of the most important things you can ever do.

The difficulty in this situation is that the two groups of people can't both have their way. Tech raiding is either going to be possible (in which case some will be angry), or impossible/outlawed/deterred (in which case the rest will be angry). We're almost forced, just by the nature of the dispute, to address the question of who has the more legitimate - which really means only legitimate - claim, which is what we've spent most of the thread doing. It would be nice if we could find a win-win here, but it seems difficult, and I have a feeling a lot of the anti-raiding camp would object to a compromise on the grounds that it legitimizes raiding, a behavior they find to be inherently immoral.

[Baldr]

In theory, people who believe in tech raiding could raid each other. In practice, they gang up and raid unprepared nations, mostly newbies.

[TheNakedJimbo]

Yes, you do tend to get more tech from someone who doesn't know you're coming than from someone who is simultaneously raiding you. I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

Nations could also minimize their risk of being tech raided by keeping a low tech:infra ratio. The cost is much lower than the cost of peace mode; the only major loss would be a bit of happiness (negligible) and a lack of military preparation (unnecessary because their nation is an unappealing raid target anyway). Most people who get tech raided do it because they buy tech stupidly fast and make themselves appealing targets.

"But that's not fair," you say, "they don't know any better." So wait: you mean to tell me there are sometimes consequences for ignorance and poor choices?! That's outrageous! A CN-wide nanny-state is exactly what we need here to shield people from their own failure to educate themselves. It might even help to have some place where people could go to talk to other players and get advice and insight into the game - we could call them "forums" or "alliances."

edit: VV That's fair, I stand corrected and will edit.

Edited December 29, 2009 by TheNakedJimbo

[Opethian]

Yes, you do tend to get more tech from someone who doesn't know you're coming than from someone who is simultaneously raiding you. I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

Nations could also minimize their risk of being tech raided by keeping a low tech:infra ratio. The cost is much lower than the cost of peace mode; the only major loss would be a bit of happiness (negligible) and a lack of military preparation (unnecessary because their nation is an unappealing raid target anyway). Most people who get tech raided do it because they buy tech stupidly fast and make themselves appealing targets.

"But that's not fair," you say, "they don't know any better." So wait: you mean to tell me there are sometimes consequences for ignorance and poor choices?! That's outrageous! A CN-wide nanny-state is exactly what we need here to shield people from their own stupidity. It might even help to have some place where people could go to talk to other players and get advice and insight into the game - we could call them "forums" or "alliances."

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but I have to go a bit "grammar nazi" here. In this argument you are interchanging "stupid" and "ignorant" as if they carry the same connotation/definition when they do not.

Just saying.

[Baldr]

I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

A way to end up with a Win/Win was being discussed. I simply pointed out if the raiders were willing to fight with each other instead of ganging up on newbies half their size, that nobody would complain about raiding.

Obviously, the tech raiders don't like this plan because they are scared of a fair fight.

[TheNakedJimbo]

Obviously, the tech raiders don't like this plan because they are scared of a fair fight.

Unsupported assertion + ad hominem attack. Come on. I know I'm not the only person in this place who understands the basic rules of logic.

Tech raiders don't like that plan because it's not profitable. It's not a win-win; it's restricting the practice of tech raiding. How can you possibly call that a win for the pro-choice camp?

[Baldr]

Tech raiding is only profitable if nobody fights back. One nation fighting back means you spend enough on lost infra, soldiers, etc to more than make up for any gains you got from someone who didn't fight back.

Tech raiding is probably fun. I haven't done it myself, but in general, war is fun.

To me, this seems like a way to let the people who want to fight all the time do it, while letting people who don't play the game without being beat up on by bullies.

Tech raiders rarely get rolled for tech raiding, but they do get a lot of flak on the forums. This would take that away - nobody would complain.

Obviously, it doesn't work from your end, so it doesn't work.

[TheNakedJimbo]

To me, this seems like a way to let the people who want to fight all the time do it, while letting people who don't play the game without being beat up on by bullies.

If this was the only way to keep people from being beaten up, then you would have a point. But there are other options, which have been floated in the thread, meaning that your solution is not the best even of the options that have already been suggested.

It's also not a win-win at all. It's a compromise, and a pisspoor one at that. If tech raiders want to make a profit by raiding tech, how do you think it's a "win" by restricting them to raiding certain people?

Edit: let me elaborate. A win-win is where both parties get what they want. A win plus a win. A compromise is where neither party gets exactly what they want, but they both get something. In your suggestion, the abolitionists get the protection of all unaligned people from tech raiding - exactly what they're after - while the pro-choice folks get their choice of targets profoundly restricted. That is why it's not a win-win, and that's why it's a terrible attempt at a compromise. Please try again.

How precisely do you think people should be able to choose whether they want to participate in tech raiding or not? Maybe there could be a setting in the game where you can specify that war is not an option for your nation? Why, precisely, do you think that admin programmed the game in such a way that sitting in peace mode indefinitely is damaging to a country?

Edited December 29, 2009 by TheNakedJimbo

[nippy]

Tech raiding is only profitable if nobody fights back. One nation fighting back means you spend enough on lost infra, soldiers, etc to more than make up for any gains you got from someone who didn't fight back.

Not true. Often times, techraiding can be twice as profitable if the nation fights back.

[Kalabac]

If you don't like tech raiding, don't do it.

[Prime minister Johns]

Not true. Often times, techraiding can be twice as profitable if the nation fights back.

Only if they do it wrong...

There are techniques to ensure that the raiders get nothing such as selling off your troops to make a defeat alert the only thing they will cause from their ground attacks. Then fighting back with cruise missiles and escorted bombing runs.

[nippy]

Only if they do it wrong...

There are techniques to ensure that the raiders get nothing such as selling off your troops to make a defeat alert the only thing they will cause from their ground attacks. Then fighting back with cruise missiles and escorted bombing runs.

....which is precisely why raiding people who don't know what they're doing tends to be the preferred method.

[Kalabac]

Alliances exist for one reason: Mutual defense. Everything else is secondary. You don't have to join an alliance, but the normal price of playing your alternative way is people will sometimes want to raid you for tech. Wars start because these mutual protection societies are defending their own members from threats to them. If your delicate sensitivities can't deal with alliances and the things they involve, feel free to not join one. But getting raided is the natural consequence of opting to not joining that alliance AKA mutual protection group.

[ktarthan]

I'd like to share my specific reasoning for why I believe that tech raiding isn't immoral, instead of just continuing to poke at the anti-raiders with pointy things.

I believe that, all things being equal, people should be allowed to take whatever actions they wish to take, as long as in doing so you do not intend to deny this right to others.

Now, those words have a bit deeper meaning than is readily apparent, so I'll paraphrase a bit and frame it within this discussion to help things along.

I believe that all internal moralities are correct, as long as it recognizes all others' right to their own internal morality.

This "freedom of action"/"moral freedom" must come with the stipulation that people must also be aware of the fact that their actions/morals will have consequences, and be willing to accept the consequences for their actions/morals.

I am also willing to say that this is the best way to approach the concept of morality, and is in fact the natural order of things.

When viewed this way, the raiders have as much (if not more) moral ground as the anti-raiders. It is not a raider's goal to drive people from the game, but it is absolutely the anti-raider's goal to not allow tech raiding.

(disclaimer: written at about 4:30AM, so I will not vouch for any of this making sense.)

[Bob Janova]

I believe that, all things being equal, people should be allowed to take whatever actions they wish to take, as long as in doing so you do not intend to deny this right to others.

By raiding someone, you deny their right to grow their nation. A direct attack is the single largest violation of someone's freedom of action. If you really believe what you said there, as an OOC guide to how to play games, you cannot justify raiding.

[Kalabac]

By raiding someone, you deny their right to grow their nation. A direct attack is the single largest violation of someone's freedom of action. If you really believe what you said there, as an OOC guide to how to play games, you cannot justify raiding.

Victims are free to retaliate or to get others to retaliate with them for mutual defense. The name of the game is just that; whether it be a guild or alliance or a group of friends, people are free to attack and free to defend together.

[Prime minister Johns]

I'd like to share my specific reasoning for why I believe that tech raiding isn't immoral, instead of just continuing to poke at the anti-raiders with pointy things.

I believe that, all things being equal, people should be allowed to take whatever actions they wish to take, as long as in doing so you do not intend to deny this right to others.

Now, those words have a bit deeper meaning than is readily apparent, so I'll paraphrase a bit and frame it within this discussion to help things along.

I believe that all internal moralities are correct, as long as it recognizes all others' right to their own internal morality.

This "freedom of action"/"moral freedom" must come with the stipulation that people must also be aware of the fact that their actions/morals will have consequences, and be willing to accept the consequences for their actions/morals.

I am also willing to say that this is the best way to approach the concept of morality, and is in fact the natural order of things.

When viewed this way, the raiders have as much (if not more) moral ground as the anti-raiders. It is not a raider's goal to drive people from the game, but it is absolutely the anti-raider's goal to not allow tech raiding.

(disclaimer: written at about 4:30AM, so I will not vouch for any of this making sense.)

Not absolutely, I am anti-raiding but I only want one colour to be protected from raiders, you can go hog wild on the other colours as far as I care once a safe haven is established.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[Dochartaigh]

A way to end up with a Win/Win was being discussed. I simply pointed out if the raiders were willing to fight with each other instead of ganging up on newbies half their size, that nobody would complain about raiding.

Obviously, the tech raiders don't like this plan because they are scared of a fair fight.

in all honesty, i have never gotten the whole "plight of the masses" bit. even when i was an anti-raider i never understood why i should honestly give a damn for anyone outside my alliance and their allies. none of you are willing to do anything about it except whine about how it is "immoral" from your view point. yet it is tech-raiders who are scared of fighting? please and hardly.

you talk of raiders, raiding one another. you realize that most raiders come from alliances that far exceed the regulations instituted by raiders home alliances? so what you want is for an international incident to occur so you can have more drama?

if you are so worried about this, then i would suggest you mass pm all those unaligned, let them know that they could join an AA as a loose coalition (i.e. basically no leadership, no forums, whatever) that ensures they get at least 20 or so members, and then they will be safe from us pesky raiders.

i find it amusing that except a few cases, raiders seem to know far better ways to end raiding than the anti-raiders whining all the time about it.