Faction tree recalibration flexibility [POLL] - Page 35 | Fact…
Faction tree recalibration flexibility [POLL]
  • PnBR HD0G [2005521]HD0G [2005521]
    • HD0G [2005521]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 94
    • Posts: 207
    • Karma: 377
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:54:47 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    When i first learned about this game, I read a whole thing about 'which specialization will you choose??  vicious criminal, respected investor, hospital guy, and the other thing' - that kind of character building, ya know.. locking in a class/race/spec is very appealing, if you dont like it you generally start a new character from scratch. 

    the different tanks support control healers have to cooperate to achieve the macguffins, there is no mr. invincible or whatever..

    but that would be a pretty radical shift this far down the line.

    *Bretons are obvs the superior race
    Last edited by HD0G on 17:58:13 - 18/08/21
  • Nubs IndyCision [2597200]IndyCision [2597200]
    • IndyCision [2597200]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 15
    • Posts: 432
    • Karma: 634
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:25:48 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)
    Thank you Chedburn, especially for the "future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect."

    I am, alongside the others who suggested something almost identical to this in the thread, going to be very grateful for that addition!

    (The QoL upgrade which makes the "regular" branch changes be completed at the same time of day will be very appreciated too)
  • Nubs IndyCision [2597200]IndyCision [2597200]
    • IndyCision [2597200]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 15
    • Posts: 432
    • Karma: 634
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:30:24 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    xanty [1169571]

    Relatively to this

    "- Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression."

    Why not, in case a ranked war starts, perks would automatically unset? And for other situations make the unset during 72h or 96h?
    With his second to last paragraph, where he adds two separate layouts so you can instantly change into war mode when required (but takes 24 hours to switch back again), he addresses just that. By doing it the way you suggest above, factions would lose the fast-switch for non-ranked warring (territories, raids, etc)
  • Nubs IndyCision [2597200]IndyCision [2597200]
    • IndyCision [2597200]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 15
    • Posts: 432
    • Karma: 634
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:42:45 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Aezur [1950769]

    Does anyone else think wars being 72 hours long, adjusting the unset timer to 72 hours, and also saying you want to stop "Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration." is a bit counter-productive?

    I'm not against it at all. 72h unsets are shorter, line up with war, and are a multiple of 24 - I'm all about that life - just came off as a bit odd.
    I took it to mean that he didn't like the fact people were having to keep branches in perma-reset mode so they could be more reactive, and that people were having to immediately unset branches and sit through cooldowns to turn into alternate modes (for events, chains, battles, whatever)

    This was then backed up by his statement to create war and peace modes to the branches so you would configure two different setups which would not use the 72 hour cooldown (you can immediately switch between them, but once you switch you cannot switch again for 24 hours) - so while you still have flexibility to change, tweak and refine your two different setups with the 72 hour cooldown rule, you do *not* need to use that to switch for chains, or events, or ranked wars, or raids, or... you get the point.

    Overall it means a lot less branch resets being queued up on the system continually needing to be kept track of, as your need to recreate an individual tree setup is massively reduced, and ironically this then also means that your faction *would* have that "long term personality" (or rather like a psycho ex partner where they have their regular long term personality that grows but stays pretty much stable, and you have the sudden "I'm going to kill you!" rage spurts that just burst into being out of nowhere) - I am *very* happy with this :)
  • S/M Negan [2066105]Negan [2066105]
    • Negan [2066105]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 86
    • Posts: 904
    • Karma: 1240
    • Last Action: 16 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:32:14 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    MolonLabe [2072034]

    Thank you for giving the community a chance to speak, and listening to us.


    The “vocal minority” also happens to be the active community, those that care enough to have and share their opinions to improve the game.


    I look forward to what ideas you and the committee will bring to the community for discussion next.
    We'll have to agree to disagree on that part. 

    I voted yes, and after reading it all, my vote still wouldn't change.
    Not because of the ''50% bribe as people call it'', but because it was never intended to reset perks all the time and I never got the point of changing them constantly.

    The people who voted yes and actually meant it are most likely as active (at least me), we just don't see the reason to bitch and moan about it, even now, after he apparently ignored that the majority voted yes on it.

  • BAD RichardV [1103695]RichardV [1103695]
    • RichardV [1103695]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 97
    • Posts: 1080
    • Karma: 773
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:42:55 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    MolonLabe [2072034]

    Thank you for giving the community a chance to speak, and listening to us.


    The “vocal minority” also happens to be the active community, those that care enough to have and share their opinions to improve the game.


    I look forward to what ideas you and the committee will bring to the community for discussion next.

    Negan [2066105]

    We'll have to agree to disagree on that part.

    I voted yes, and after reading it all, my vote still wouldn't change.
    Not because of the ''50% bribe as people call it'', but because it was never intended to reset perks all the time and I never got the point of changing them constantly.

    The people who voted yes and actually meant it are most likely as active (at least me), we just don't see the reason to bitch and moan about it, even now, after he apparently ignored that the majority voted yes on it.
    I would be interested to know the results of a vote involving faction leadership only. I suspect the exact opposite based on the responses here.

    I voted "Yes" to Ched's original proposal, but also approve of his new plan to have War/Peace stance.

    However saying all of that, I do not believe faction perks should be easily switchable, I think the upgrades should have more value instead of being min/maxed on rotation but that's just my philosophy.
    Last edited by RichardV on 20:46:46 - 18/08/21
  • BAD RichardV [1103695]RichardV [1103695]
    • RichardV [1103695]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 97
    • Posts: 1080
    • Karma: 773
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:48:03 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Question to Ched.

    Are we still going to get the following feature? I think that's a good to have regardless of the ultimate direction.

    "4) Create a system that automatically orders branches by 'most respect spent' to ensure the respect cost modifiers are always optimized, in the best combination."
    Last edited by RichardV on 20:48:16 - 18/08/21
  • |X| Bullzeye [922212]Bullzeye [922212]
    • Bullzeye [922212]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 3915
    • Karma: 7919
    • Last Action: 18 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:20:13 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    AiR [2251655]



    Great news! Thank you :-)
    Hope we still get the magic button to order the tree in the most optimal way?
    at some point this is gonna backfire and that yellow dude gonna suplex us :(

    bullzeye.gif

  • DAM DeKleineKobini [2114440]DeKleineKobini [2114440]
    • DeKleineKobini [2114440]
    • Role: Committee
    • Level: 93
    • Posts: 2655
    • Karma: 3597
    • Last Action: 4 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:33:24 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    MolonLabe [2072034]

    Thank you for giving the community a chance to speak, and listening to us.


    The “vocal minority” also happens to be the active community, those that care enough to have and share their opinions to improve the game.


    I look forward to what ideas you and the committee will bring to the community for discussion next.

    Negan [2066105]

    We'll have to agree to disagree on that part.

    I voted yes, and after reading it all, my vote still wouldn't change.
    Not because of the ''50% bribe as people call it'', but because it was never intended to reset perks all the time and I never got the point of changing them constantly.

    The people who voted yes and actually meant it are most likely as active (at least me), we just don't see the reason to bitch and moan about it, even now, after he apparently ignored that the majority voted yes on it.
    I'm also one of those that voted yes and would keep voting yes. It would also stay yes without the "50% bribe", as I'd rather also see specialized factions that don't keep changing their branches.

    Trading | Spreadsheets | Free Scripts | Paid Scripts

    Creating personalized trading spreadsheets and spreadsheets for other purposes, check my forum thread for more information.

    Buying many items, check my spreadsheet for the items I buy with up-to-date prices.

    competition.php?c=EasterEggs&step=eggImage&access_token=nothanks

  • ARC Kamikaze-Tool [2035028]Kamikaze-Tool [2035028]
    • Kamikaze-Tool [2035028]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 93
    • Posts: 1291
    • Karma: 1723
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:19:17 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    MolonLabe [2072034]

    Thank you for giving the community a chance to speak, and listening to us.


    The “vocal minority” also happens to be the active community, those that care enough to have and share their opinions to improve the game.


    I look forward to what ideas you and the committee will bring to the community for discussion next.

    Negan [2066105]

    We'll have to agree to disagree on that part.

    I voted yes, and after reading it all, my vote still wouldn't change.
    Not because of the ''50% bribe as people call it'', but because it was never intended to reset perks all the time and I never got the point of changing them constantly.

    The people who voted yes and actually meant it are most likely as active (at least me), we just don't see the reason to bitch and moan about it, even now, after he apparently ignored that the majority voted yes on it.

    DeKleineKobini [2114440]

    I'm also one of those that voted yes and would keep voting yes. It would also stay yes without the "50% bribe", as I'd rather also see specialized factions that don't keep changing their branches.
    So I didn't bring this up directly, but I would have loved to see specialized factions, but the bottom line is there is no way to specialize.  As long as there is only one way to earn respect (chaining/war) there can be no specialization.  Sure, we earn respect from territories, but that is supposed to be a result of warring in some way.  If a faction specializing in revives could earn meaningful respect that way and a faction specializing in crimes could earn meaningful respect with OCs then sure maybe people would specialize.  But as things stand now, I don't see how anyone could specialize when we all would need to add the faction specials that allow us to successfully chain and earn more respect.
  • S/M Negan [2066105]Negan [2066105]
    • Negan [2066105]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 86
    • Posts: 904
    • Karma: 1240
    • Last Action: 16 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:38:08 - 18/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)
    So... Even though the majority didn't disagree, you still choose to keep the current settings? 
    Honestly, you can never have a unanimous vote. That's pretty much impossible.

    And no offense to anyone, but if the loudest minority always got their way, it wouldn't really be worth putting it up to a vote.

    The majority obviously wanted the changes, we just didn't make a big fuss out of it.
    Even if there was a new vote, I'm certain the majority still wanted the changes.

    I personally wanted them, because I think it would make the game more interesting if you had to stick to the perks you chose.

    But I understand your position. It's never possible to please everyone. It just seems sad that even though you're outvoted, you can still get your way if you complain enough about it.

    I'm just happy I'm not the one to make the decision, because no matter what, some people will bitch and moan about it.

  • NPO BobbyBG [2501930]BobbyBG [2501930]
    • BobbyBG [2501930]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 23
    • Posts: 254
    • Karma: 273
    • Last Action: 16 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 00:28:12 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Sorry what? 70% voted for it, yet Ched goes against both his and the games views for the minority complaining here! Sometimes it's time to just do what you think is right, and ignore feedback. Yet in this case, feedback is in favour. This isn't even a small number.of votes.
  • FRS Rogue [1873490]Rogue [1873490]
    • Rogue [1873490]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 1987
    • Karma: 3559
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:09:11 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    WiseTheRumGone [2078276]

    ok ched, i really, really hope you read this.

    when me, and 70% of other players saw the poll agreeing with your proposal. we didnt complain.

    the other 30%, ofcourse, did.

    now here i am, dumbfounded as can be, how you somehow dont listen to your own suggestion even when close to 70% of all people in this thread agreed with it

    Chedburn [1]

    Other than the opening paragraphs where I give my personal reasoning for the poll - which I had to do because otherwise none of it would have made any sense, I avoided any bias - and the four steps in bold really couldn't have been much clearer. It was quite weird seeing posts where people were trying to pick that apart. It's clear the large majority were for it, but there was still an unacceptable amount of people against it.

    At the end of the day it was between...

    An update that two thirds like while one third hates
    VS
    An update that everyone either likes or is impartial to
    So startup factions remain broken three years later.

    Can you at least go back and take a second look at Proximas suggestion to fix them? You responded favorably, I naively thought part of the reason for reducing respect costs was to accomplish this as well.
  • PT Butters [34298]Butters [34298]
    • Butters [34298]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 85
    • Posts: 7502
    • Karma: 9075
    • Last Action: 51 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 03:29:56 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    WiseTheRumGone [2078276]

    ok ched, i really, really hope you read this.

    when me, and 70% of other players saw the poll agreeing with your proposal. we didnt complain.

    the other 30%, ofcourse, did.

    now here i am, dumbfounded as can be, how you somehow dont listen to your own suggestion even when close to 70% of all people in this thread agreed with it

    Chedburn [1]

    Other than the opening paragraphs where I give my personal reasoning for the poll - which I had to do because otherwise none of it would have made any sense, I avoided any bias - and the four steps in bold really couldn't have been much clearer. It was quite weird seeing posts where people were trying to pick that apart. It's clear the large majority were for it, but there was still an unacceptable amount of people against it.

    At the end of the day it was between...

    An update that two thirds like while one third hates
    VS
    An update that everyone either likes or is impartial to

    Rogue [1873490]

    So startup factions remain broken three years later.

    Can you at least go back and take a second look at Proximas suggestion to fix them? You responded favorably, I naively thought part of the reason for reducing respect costs was to accomplish this as well.
    Even there he's going about it the wrong way by being tied to the current framework.

    The obvious (and easy) solution would be to set the default maximums for chaining and capacity to what is level II now currently and shift the subsequent increments in those upgrades back two slots accordingly (ie. default maximum chain is 25 hits, chaining I unlocks 50 hit chains, chaining II unlocks 100 hit chains, etc - same goes for capacity with 15 members being the default).

    Armour and weapon armouries could then be purchased immediately and medical armoury shortly after (although the costs for those armouries could also be lowered a bit to all fit inside the initial 5k). Drugs armoury will require a little more work but I'd be fine with that. Stepping into territories is also something that can be done right out of the gate (if you bypass armour or medical items initially) or it can be an upgrade that the faction can earn respect for without too much difficulty.

    To keep the "challenge" in it the subsequent upgrade costs in the relevant paths could be scaled on a curve rising up to what is currently the requirement for the highest upgrade level in those paths similar to how it is now. It would also be possible to flatten out the upgrade cost curve for those upgrade paths a little more early on if required.

    That would solve most of the problems around the difficulty curve for brand new factions and give them an easier path to earning respect for further upgrades.

    There would be some slightly fiddly work around refunding the relatively small difference between core upgrade respect cost and the new system, as well as shortening the core upgrade paths in the UI and refactoring the costs for each level in them, but this would be relatively minor stuff in the grand scheme of things.
    Last edited by Butters on 05:17:00 - 19/08/21

    I like apples doo doo doo...

  • UGK UGK_GEE [927610]UGK_GEE [927610]
    • UGK_GEE [927610]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 99
    • Posts: 656
    • Karma: 88
    • Last Action: 30 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 04:02:02 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    SO what did you guys or Ched figure out whats gonna happen. i really dont mind what happens . we will just have to adapt to whatever changes come in effect. either way im sure i will figure something out to make our faction  ALRIGHT.

    PS: Bring back more chaining time.. this 5 minutes isnt enough ... id like to spend my respect on 10 minute to chain.. i cant even throw out the trash and smoke a cigarette in 5 minutes..
    Last edited by UGK_GEE on 04:04:51 - 19/08/21
  • FRS Rogue [1873490]Rogue [1873490]
    • Rogue [1873490]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 1987
    • Karma: 3559
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 05:47:34 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    WiseTheRumGone [2078276]

    ok ched, i really, really hope you read this.

    when me, and 70% of other players saw the poll agreeing with your proposal. we didnt complain.

    the other 30%, ofcourse, did.

    now here i am, dumbfounded as can be, how you somehow dont listen to your own suggestion even when close to 70% of all people in this thread agreed with it

    Chedburn [1]

    Other than the opening paragraphs where I give my personal reasoning for the poll - which I had to do because otherwise none of it would have made any sense, I avoided any bias - and the four steps in bold really couldn't have been much clearer. It was quite weird seeing posts where people were trying to pick that apart. It's clear the large majority were for it, but there was still an unacceptable amount of people against it.

    At the end of the day it was between...

    An update that two thirds like while one third hates
    VS
    An update that everyone either likes or is impartial to

    Rogue [1873490]

    So startup factions remain broken three years later.

    Can you at least go back and take a second look at Proximas suggestion to fix them? You responded favorably, I naively thought part of the reason for reducing respect costs was to accomplish this as well.

    Butters [34298]

    Even there he's going about it the wrong way by being tied to the current framework.

    The obvious (and easy) solution would be to set the default maximums for chaining and capacity to what is level II now currently and shift the subsequent increments in those upgrades back two slots accordingly (ie. default maximum chain is 25 hits, chaining I unlocks 50 hit chains, chaining II unlocks 100 hit chains, etc - same goes for capacity with 15 members being the default).

    Armour and weapon armouries could then be purchased immediately and medical armoury shortly after (although the costs for those armouries could also be lowered a bit to all fit inside the initial 5k). Drugs armoury will require a little more work but I'd be fine with that. Stepping into territories is also something that can be done right out of the gate (if you bypass armour or medical items initially) or it can be an upgrade that the faction can earn respect for without too much difficulty.

    To keep the "challenge" in it the subsequent upgrade costs in the relevant paths could be scaled on a curve rising up to what is currently the requirement for the highest upgrade level in those paths similar to how it is now. It would also be possible to flatten out the upgrade cost curve for those upgrade paths a little more early on if required.

    That would solve most of the problems around the difficulty curve for brand new factions and give them an easier path to earning respect for further upgrades.

    There would be some slightly fiddly work around refunding the relatively small difference between core upgrade respect cost and the new system, as well as shortening the core upgrade paths in the UI and refactoring the costs for each level in them, but this would be relatively minor stuff in the grand scheme of things.
    Anything that works is fine by me, including your idea. I think adjusting starting respect to 10k and/or reducing the cost of the first upgrade or two is easier than re-factoring the whole core tree. In fact, adjusting starting respect to 10k (and running some kind of script to give existing factions the additional 5k) would be the easy path, requires nothing expect pretty much giving us all 5k. Immaterial to big factions, a boon to middle/small ones, and a real game changer for a brand new startup.

    I just hope this is addressed while factions trees and respect cost is in play, before another topic (like the actual ranked warring) takes over the dev priority list. The 72-hour unset period is a great QoL improvement already, once you have enough respect to actually grab some perks to switch around.
  • PT Butters [34298]Butters [34298]
    • Butters [34298]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 85
    • Posts: 7502
    • Karma: 9075
    • Last Action: 51 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 06:02:49 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)

    Negan [2066105]

    So... Even though the majority didn't disagree, you still choose to keep the current settings?
    Honestly, you can never have a unanimous vote. That's pretty much impossible.

    And no offense to anyone, but if the loudest minority always got their way, it wouldn't really be worth putting it up to a vote.

    The majority obviously wanted the changes, we just didn't make a big fuss out of it.
    Even if there was a new vote, I'm certain the majority still wanted the changes.

    I personally wanted them, because I think it would make the game more interesting if you had to stick to the perks you chose.

    But I understand your position. It's never possible to please everyone. It just seems sad that even though you're outvoted, you can still get your way if you complain enough about it.

    I'm just happy I'm not the one to make the decision, because no matter what, some people will bitch and moan about it.
    I don't think it was just a case of the "loudest" minority winning the day, more a case of that we weren't in possession of all of the information initially.  It is undeniable that there are a significant number of "YES" voters who were just gravitating to the "bribe" of 50% lower respect cost for upgrades without considering what would happen much beyond that.

    I'm not too fussed with the poll itself, although I did vote "no" more because I can see how this would impact far more on low- and mid-tier factions (especially those that are going "solo"), in terms of having to make a difficult choice between warring and non-warring upgrades over a longer period of time, than it would on factions which have more respect to work with and/or are part of a larger faction "family".

    Ultimately locking in such a restrictive change now when we know nothing about ranked warring is the issue here, not the "yes" vs "no" vote.

    I do think that Ched should be open to continuing the discussion especially after ranked warring has bedded down, as there are some valid points that he has made as the thread here has unfolded and I think there would absolutely be a willingness amongst the more active factions across the entire spectrum to come to the table and work something out going forward if further changes need to

    I like apples doo doo doo...

  • SWAT Anblick [2268363]Anblick [2268363]
    • Anblick [2268363]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 75
    • Posts: 170
    • Karma: 153
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 06:10:01 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Personally, the things I wanted most was 1) access to all branches as possibilities and 2) the automatic reordering for optimization.  The half cost was a nice plus, but not the main reasons.  Can we get a compromise and add these two in the mix since the majority vote didn't get their choice chosen?
  • DAM KeepMustard [2278596]KeepMustard [2278596]
    • KeepMustard [2278596]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 76
    • Posts: 177
    • Karma: 242
    • Last Action: 4 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 07:48:55 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)
    With a peace and war mode I feel like it would make alot of sense to have the tree automatically switch when your faction is in a territory dispute or future ranked wars or raid.  This would cause factions who are fake walling or wall slutting to possibly rethink how much its costing their members, with a war over-ride for chaining with war perks to prevent the inevitable "raid an inactive faction to gain warperks for a chain." Make some of the trees only available in 1 mode(most available in both but probably no steadfast ever in a warperk tree etc) especially if different specializations are added to the tree in the future.
  • NAF revstevew [2175299]revstevew [2175299]
    • revstevew [2175299]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 70
    • Posts: 484
    • Karma: 609
    • Last Action: 24 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 08:54:21 - 19/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    VanilaNightmare [2310825]

    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree, then we will instead go in the opposite direction, forever embracing flexible short-term faction tree upgrades."

    I dont really understand the finality of this vote. If faction warring is coming sometime in the future, why vote now before knowing how this will fit with some unknown feature?

    Could we not make a simple change to 96 or 72 hours for a reset and revisit after we see what ranked warring looks like?

    WildHare [2173250]

    To me it shows he's predisposed to reject any other new ideas and that he's unwilling to entertain discussion of other approaches. It's very much a: "Accept this bribe of 50% off perk costs so I can stop people from feeling like they need to reset faction perks on a regular basis or I take my ball and go home forever."

    We've seen this previously with how difficult it was to get him out of his strongly held views on api keys and any sort of management or permissions. He's dismissive of other ideas, here in this thread using the phrase "vocal minority" instead of recognizing that the Majority of vocal players (those invested in the game an passionate about it) in this thread so far think this needs more work than what he's describing in the poll if he's wanting to make a change.

    What his view seems to dismiss, is that this is a common game mechanic that many people like! This is sooo common and is often considered a core part of strategic gameplay in many games.

    I like that we can reset perks for events, but it does put the burden of dealing with perk resets and timing of it on faction leaders. I can understand if there are people that just don't want to deal with it or with the complaints from members if they don't get the perk changes done right or on time. I can see this being a small quality-of-life improvement for some faction leaders out there. That's the only other plus I can think of that hasn't been already talked to death.

    I still voted no, because:
    1) The poll, as written, is horrible. It's slanted with obvious bias towards getting the result wanted by Ched
    2) Events.
    3) Overall it's currently slanted further towards the largest of factions/families, which doesn't really help Torn as a whole
    4) It's limiting gameplay, which will make people less invested in the game.

    When Ched does it anyway thanks to all the yes votes, I'd suggest changing most of the smaller events so that all factions gain the max relevant faction perks for the duration of the event. For example, if it's the flying capacity event balance it and give all factions the max excursion tree buffs. if it's caffeine con, give all factions max voracity....etc.

    ie, make faction perk selection have zero impact on these calendar events if you are going to "strictly limit" changing perks.

    I'd say that it should still matter for a fighting event like elimination.

    Ultimately I've typed way more than I truly really care about the change. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens just fine. The sky isn't falling and we'll still have perks and participate in events, but I do wish Ched would try to bring an open mind to decent suggestions on a topic instead of putting up a self-affirming poll like this.

    Chedburn [1]

    No that is absolutely not the case at all! I've been stuck in a catch-22 with faction trees almost since their release. I wanted to have just one attempt at steering faction trees in the intended direction, or drop it forever and embrace the current mindset. I'd already gone through dozens of lesser ideas over the years, so I'm not interested in wasting any more time going round and round with this - and would happily yield knowing that at least I gave it a shot.

    To say that my original plan (in OP) isn't an improvement, is to say that we somehow stumbled upon the perfect version of faction trees completely by accident due to a last minute ill-thought-out unsetting mechanic. Maybe against all the odds, we did? I don't think this is the case, but I do think that the mindset is now too engrained to be changed, and a lot of players will just always believe it's the best, because it's all they know.



    With 30% in disagreement, it's clear that the plan I had in mind is not as unanimously favourable as I was looking for. We'll instead need to proceed in the less controversial direction, one that doesn't require players to adapt or change their mindsets, and thus won't upset so many people. I'm content with this decision, and very happy to bring this to a close.

    We'll keep things in line with the current flexible short-term upgrades system that everyone is already used to. I'm planning to adjust the unset timers from 100 hours down to 72 hours for now, with no additional changes.

    However there's still some issues that I'd like to resolve in the future...

    - Branches being immediately unset upon being unlocked, with the intention of only keeping them for the minimum duration.
    - Branches being kept in a constant state of being unset / cancelled to minimize time if they're suddenly required.
    - Ranked matchmaking time can be unpredictable, factions would feel bad having war branches 'unnecessarily' active.
    - Reduced grind & progress satisfaction since branches change too quickly to actually have any continuous and meaningful progression.

    A future update will see factions having two separate modes (or loadouts) of their specialization branches, 'Peace' and 'War'. The faction chooses the branches they want during times of Peace or War, and then can instantly switch to the other with immediate effect, with only a 24 hour cooldown before being able to switch back. This will resolve my remaining grievances with faction trees.

    For those providing clear and constructive feedback and opinions within the 33 pages of responses, thank you for this, it was very helpful. To the small minority who went berserk, resorting to anger, swearing, and sarcasm... You were less helpful, but thank you for your participation all the same. :)
    So 70% of the respondents approve of this plan, so we don't get it?

    In other news, Donald Trump won the 2020 election with 46% of the votes, and Jeremy Corbin was the most successful Labour politician in the UK ever.
Reply
Thread Title: