Faction tree recalibration flexibility [POLL] - Page 37 | Fact…
Faction tree recalibration flexibility [POLL]
  • JFK™ CRLF [2095076]CRLF [2095076]
    • CRLF [2095076]
    • Role: Reporter
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 7838
    • Karma: 22497
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:17:13 - 24/08/21 (1 month 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
    1) it was more than 30%

    2) the ones opposed were leads of large factions and other senior players

    While SSL may be a valid gaming option, and while I respect the SLL choice for players over 3000 days as there used to be an advantage there, choosing SSL in recent years is not a good direction. You've added salt to that by persisting in your claims that SSL is so wonderful.

    As such, I have a hard time taking your suggestions seriously, especially when so many other players whom I respect take the opposing view.
  • S/M Negan [2066105]Negan [2066105]
    • Negan [2066105]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 86
    • Posts: 904
    • Karma: 1239
    • Last Action: 30 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:28:11 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Anarchia [2632824]

    "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."

    so that was a f**king lie...
    Of course it was.
    He should've said ''If enough people bitch like little children, we'll do what they want''

  • JFK™ CRLF [2095076]CRLF [2095076]
    • CRLF [2095076]
    • Role: Reporter
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 7838
    • Karma: 22497
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:32:07 - 24/08/21 (1 month 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. :)

    KeepMustard [2278596]

    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.
    I disagree on the automatic change to warring mode.

    Imagine if some small, disgruntled faction decided to take revenge on a HoF faction by raiding them during their training (or during a faction competition). Of course, they couldn't possibly do any damage with the raid, but they could force the specials reset to warring.

    I can promise you there will be factions that do that, given the chance.

    Also, in some cases a faction might feel they so overpower the other faction, they don't need to switch specials. I suggest it stays as a faction lead's choice. OR (best of both worlds) the faction lead could toggle to automatic or manual, the same way at a personal level, we can turn off revives.
  • TW* Anarchia [2632824]Anarchia [2632824]
    • Anarchia [2632824]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 51
    • Posts: 246
    • Karma: 364
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:33:07 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    1) it was more than 30%

    2) the ones opposed were leads of large factions and other senior players

    While SSL may be a valid gaming option, and while I respect the SLL choice for players over 3000 days as there used to be an advantage there, choosing SSL in recent years is not a good direction. You've added salt to that by persisting in your claims that SSL is so wonderful.

    As such, I have a hard time taking your suggestions seriously, especially when so many other players whom I respect take the opposing view.
    i read 27% as of now, i don't know how you can say "it was more than 30%".

  • JFK™ CRLF [2095076]CRLF [2095076]
    • CRLF [2095076]
    • Role: Reporter
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 7838
    • Karma: 22497
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:42:51 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    1) it was more than 30%

    2) the ones opposed were leads of large factions and other senior players

    While SSL may be a valid gaming option, and while I respect the SLL choice for players over 3000 days as there used to be an advantage there, choosing SSL in recent years is not a good direction. You've added salt to that by persisting in your claims that SSL is so wonderful.

    As such, I have a hard time taking your suggestions seriously, especially when so many other players whom I respect take the opposing view.

    Anarchia [2632824]

    i read 27% as of now, i don't know how you can say "it was more than 30%".
    The poll is FLAWED. How anyone can make it to page 37 and not realize that is beyond me.

    For one thing, the real issue was "sweetened" by offering lower cost for specials. A lot of people just voted for more stuff.

    Secondly, later clarification made it clear that the options were worse than they seemed initially.

    Third, a lot of people who voted either aren't in factions or "don't care" as one small faction lead explicitly stated. Since some factions never reset trees anyway, they voted on the freebies instead.

    To make the poll fair, you'd need to JUST list the option on locking factions, with possibly variations, such as leave as is, lock permanently, or offer a peace mode and warring mode for switching.

    You would need to collect the votes ONLY on the main issue and ONLY after stating the choices clearly.
  • S/M Negan [2066105]Negan [2066105]
    • Negan [2066105]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 86
    • Posts: 904
    • Karma: 1239
    • Last Action: 30 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:47:34 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    1) it was more than 30%

    2) the ones opposed were leads of large factions and other senior players

    While SSL may be a valid gaming option, and while I respect the SLL choice for players over 3000 days as there used to be an advantage there, choosing SSL in recent years is not a good direction. You've added salt to that by persisting in your claims that SSL is so wonderful.

    As such, I have a hard time taking your suggestions seriously, especially when so many other players whom I respect take the opposing view.

    Anarchia [2632824]

    i read 27% as of now, i don't know how you can say "it was more than 30%".

    CRLF [2095076]

    The poll is FLAWED. How anyone can make it to page 37 and not realize that is beyond me.

    For one thing, the real issue was "sweetened" by offering lower cost for specials. A lot of people just voted for more stuff.

    Secondly, later clarification made it clear that the options were worse than they seemed initially.

    Third, a lot of people who voted either aren't in factions or "don't care" as one small faction lead explicitly stated. Since some factions never reset trees anyway, they voted on the freebies instead.

    To make the poll fair, you'd need to JUST list the option on locking factions, with possibly variations, such as leave as is, lock permanently, or offer a peace mode and warring mode for switching.

    You would need to collect the votes ONLY on the main issue and ONLY after stating the choices clearly.
    I don't care about the 50% reduction in cost, and I'd consider myself a pretty active player. 
    I'd still vote yes, because it's pretty obvious it was never meant to be something you could just change constantly and I personally don't agree with just being able to reset it all the time.

  • AVAL SirEdge [2609907]SirEdge [2609907]
    • SirEdge [2609907]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 2044
    • Karma: 1552
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:52:54 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Anarchia [2632824]

    i read 27% as of now, i don't know how you can say "it was more than 30%".
    Because there were a fairly large number that admitted they voted yes and would have switched their votes.  

    I had the same discussion with another player and the reality is that the precise number is very fuzzy as things currently stand. (It is probably in excess of the 27% represented. It is probably less than 35%). What is clear is there are a lot of players that have significant concerns. So Ched stated his intent to walk a different path than originally presented.

    As others have pointed out, there is probably not a super majority in favor of this, if you define super majority as 66% unless you count the "no strong opinion" votes as votes in favor.

    It probably doesn't hit a 60% super majority if adjusted for the votes that would have been reversed, but that is more a question of opinion than observable fact.
    Last edited by SirEdge on 13:54:08 - 24/08/21

    88325a84-98c2-374d-2609907.gif

  • AVAL SirEdge [2609907]SirEdge [2609907]
    • SirEdge [2609907]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 2044
    • Karma: 1552
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:57:33 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Anarchia [2632824]

    "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."

    so that was a f**king lie...
    He didn't lie- those conditions weren't met.  The majority didn't disagree.  There was just a large enough minority to cause him to reconsider.

    88325a84-98c2-374d-2609907.gif

  • MMCP WiseTheRumGone [2078276]WiseTheRumGone [2078276]
    • WiseTheRumGone [2078276]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 95
    • Posts: 5772
    • Karma: 3724
    • Last Action: 8 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:59:07 - 24/08/21 (1 month 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

    CRLF [2095076]

    1) it was more than 30%

    2) the ones opposed were leads of large factions and other senior players

    While SSL may be a valid gaming option, and while I respect the SLL choice for players over 3000 days as there used to be an advantage there, choosing SSL in recent years is not a good direction. You've added salt to that by persisting in your claims that SSL is so wonderful.

    As such, I have a hard time taking your suggestions seriously, especially when so many other players whom I respect take the opposing view.
    "your claims that SSL is so wonderful."

    what? I am LITERALLY the person in torn who hates SSL the most. how the actual f**k do you come to this conclusion?

    in fact why the hell do you even mention SSL here? this is not my thread, it has nothing to do with SSL.
    Last edited by WiseTheRumGone on 13:59:52 - 24/08/21

    "Refusing to help a neighbor who's house burned down is shitty. Refusing when you helped start the fire is monstrous."

  • AVAL SirEdge [2609907]SirEdge [2609907]
    • SirEdge [2609907]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 2044
    • Karma: 1552
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:04:36 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    1) it was more than 30%

    2) the ones opposed were leads of large factions and other senior players

    While SSL may be a valid gaming option, and while I respect the SLL choice for players over 3000 days as there used to be an advantage there, choosing SSL in recent years is not a good direction. You've added salt to that by persisting in your claims that SSL is so wonderful.

    As such, I have a hard time taking your suggestions seriously, especially when so many other players whom I respect take the opposing view.
    CRLF, this didn't really feel called for.  The thread I am on that Wise started is about rebalancing drugs through buffs to other drugs to make them worth using drug cooldown/addiction on.  There was discussion about SSL, but the point, which was reiterated several times, was that the current drug mix is causing stagnant gameplay.

    I agree with your conclusions for reasons similar to your other stated reasons, but let's get there without the attacks on the people that disagree.

    Wise does make some valid points, but I'm of the opinion that there is a better third option than the two presented and that we're now exploring the space between the two. I hope we can find that better option.

    88325a84-98c2-374d-2609907.gif

  • TW* Anarchia [2632824]Anarchia [2632824]
    • Anarchia [2632824]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 51
    • Posts: 246
    • Karma: 364
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:07:35 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    The poll is FLAWED. How anyone can make it to page 37 and not realize that is beyond me.

    For one thing, the real issue was "sweetened" by offering lower cost for specials. A lot of people just voted for more stuff.

    Secondly, later clarification made it clear that the options were worse than they seemed initially.

    Third, a lot of people who voted either aren't in factions or "don't care" as one small faction lead explicitly stated. Since some factions never reset trees anyway, they voted on the freebies instead.

    To make the poll fair, you'd need to JUST list the option on locking factions, with possibly variations, such as leave as is, lock permanently, or offer a peace mode and warring mode for switching.

    You would need to collect the votes ONLY on the main issue and ONLY after stating the choices clearly.
    "A lot of people just voted for more stuff."

    how you know this, have you counted them? i'll be glad to admit i'm wrong if you can show me that most of those 2k people wanted just more stuff.
    i for one wanted to make it harder to have different branches, forcing factions to farm respect instead of being able to have all needed combinations with ZERO cost.
    by the way i voted yes even if, at this moment, it would go against my gameplay, since i'm in a quite big faction with great perks for a noob like me and having the possibility to change steadfast and other stuff so easily is perfect for me.
    can you say the same? does your choice goes against your gameplay? or does it least make the game better? if yes, how? because the only thing i see now, unfortunately, is that you'll just need a not too big amount of respect to have all branches needed waiting as little as 72h.
    please, show me how this can help smaller factions and how it doesn't give a BIG advantage to most higher ranked factions.


    "a lot of people who voted either aren't in factions or "don't care" as one small faction lead explicitly stated. Since some factions never reset trees anyway, they voted on the freebies instead."

    so one small faction leader is suddenly EVERY person who voted for the change. ok.
    in other words who ever voted Yes is just a random forum idiot, all others are people who want the most objective best for the game. alrighty.

  • TW* Anarchia [2632824]Anarchia [2632824]
    • Anarchia [2632824]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 51
    • Posts: 246
    • Karma: 364
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:13:27 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    SirEdge [2609907]

    Because there were a fairly large number that admitted they voted yes and would have switched their votes.

    I had the same discussion with another player and the reality is that the precise number is very fuzzy as things currently stand. (It is probably in excess of the 27% represented. It is probably less than 35%). What is clear is there are a lot of players that have significant concerns. So Ched stated his intent to walk a different path than originally presented.

    As others have pointed out, there is probably not a super majority in favor of this, if you define super majority as 66% unless you count the "no strong opinion" votes as votes in favor.

    It probably doesn't hit a 60% super majority if adjusted for the votes that would have been reversed, but that is more a question of opinion than observable fact.
    same question for you, have you counted them? because to me it looks like the people agreeing were TWICE as many as those who were against.

    the premise was clear, the majority voted Yes. you can make up numbers if you want. i can do that as well because i feel like there could be many players agreeing with this who didn't post or even voted. there could even be people who voted No but then regretted it.
    but that's bullshit, right? so let's just stick to the numbers, thanks.

    what is a super-majority? who decides how much is enough? 60% is a majority and, more importantly, 30% isn't.

  • AVAL SirEdge [2609907]SirEdge [2609907]
    • SirEdge [2609907]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 2044
    • Karma: 1552
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:21:47 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Anarchia [2632824]

    same question for you, have you counted them? because to me it looks like the people agreeing were TWICE as many as those who were against.

    the premise was clear, the majority voted Yes. you can make up numbers if you want. i can do that as well because i feel like there could be many players agreeing with this who didn't post or even voted. there could even be people who voted No but then regretted it.
    but that's bullshit, right? so let's just stick to the numbers, thanks.

    what is a super-majority? who decides how much is enough? 60% is a majority and, more importantly, 30% isn't.
    Per Merriam Webster-
    Definition of supermajority
    : a majority (such as two-thirds or three-fifths) that is greater than a simple majority
    Super majorities are required when democratic processes result in situations where the minority is strongly opposed to the proposed legislation to ensure that the majority really is so large that it is worth overriding the objections of the minority.

    Super majority requirements keep bare majorities from running roughshod over very large minorities. They are a control against abuse of power in democracies.

    Majorities are good at determining what is popular. They sometimes struggle with determining what is actually best. I generally prefer that people have the ability to vote and determine their future to some extent, but I'm glad people figured out protections like super majority requirements when it comes to situations like this.

    88325a84-98c2-374d-2609907.gif

  • TW* Anarchia [2632824]Anarchia [2632824]
    • Anarchia [2632824]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 51
    • Posts: 246
    • Karma: 364
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:29:37 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    SirEdge [2609907]

    Per Merriam Webster-
    Definition of supermajority
    : a majority (such as two-thirds or three-fifths) that is greater than a simple majority
    Super majorities are required when democratic processes result in situations where the minority is strongly opposed to the proposed legislation to ensure that the majority really is so large that it is worth overriding the objections of the minority.

    Super majority requirements keep bare majorities from running roughshod over very large minorities. They are a control against abuse of power in democracies.

    Majorities are good at determining what is popular. They sometimes struggle with determining what is actually best. I generally prefer that people have the ability to vote and determine their future to some extent, but I'm glad people figured out protections like super majority requirements when it comes to situations like this.
    ok, though we aren't in the parliament here.

    what i meant is: who said we were looking for a super-majority? and even if we were, quoting again Ched:
    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree"
    which means to me that the super-majority was needed for the No, if anything.

  • AVAL SirEdge [2609907]SirEdge [2609907]
    • SirEdge [2609907]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 2044
    • Karma: 1552
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:44:16 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    The poll is FLAWED. How anyone can make it to page 37 and not realize that is beyond me.

    For one thing, the real issue was "sweetened" by offering lower cost for specials. A lot of people just voted for more stuff.

    Secondly, later clarification made it clear that the options were worse than they seemed initially.

    Third, a lot of people who voted either aren't in factions or "don't care" as one small faction lead explicitly stated. Since some factions never reset trees anyway, they voted on the freebies instead.

    To make the poll fair, you'd need to JUST list the option on locking factions, with possibly variations, such as leave as is, lock permanently, or offer a peace mode and warring mode for switching.

    You would need to collect the votes ONLY on the main issue and ONLY after stating the choices clearly.

    Anarchia [2632824]

    "A lot of people just voted for more stuff."

    how you know this, have you counted them? i'll be glad to admit i'm wrong if you can show me that most of those 2k people wanted just more stuff.
    i for one wanted to make it harder to have different branches, forcing factions to farm respect instead of being able to have all needed combinations with ZERO cost.
    by the way i voted yes even if, at this moment, it would go against my gameplay, since i'm in a quite big faction with great perks for a noob like me and having the possibility to change steadfast and other stuff so easily is perfect for me.
    can you say the same? does your choice goes against your gameplay? or does it least make the game better? if yes, how? because the only thing i see now, unfortunately, is that you'll just need a not too big amount of respect to have all branches needed waiting as little as 72h.
    please, show me how this can help smaller factions and how it doesn't give a BIG advantage to most higher ranked factions.


    "a lot of people who voted either aren't in factions or "don't care" as one small faction lead explicitly stated. Since some factions never reset trees anyway, they voted on the freebies instead."

    so one small faction leader is suddenly EVERY person who voted for the change. ok.
    in other words who ever voted Yes is just a random forum idiot, all others are people who want the most objective best for the game. alrighty.
    CRLF is in JFK, one of the factions that could foreseeably get to having all of the trees unlocked first.  She has everything to gain from inflexible trees because her faction would likely be one of the ones providing every perk she cares about simultaneously.

    So she is already voting against her personal benefit.

    You are correct that folks on the other side should not be generalized based on the remarks of the few. There weren't a lot of players speaking in favor of this change, and many of the ones that did simply said they wanted to make the game more hardcore. So there wasn't a lot to work with for those of us seeking a discussion.

    I like the idea of more rigidity in the faction trees for the reasons Ched outlined. But looking at the status quo, making the trees inflexible is the wrong change to make first. If that is the path we want to walk, we need to make it so that factions can level up through their respective focus- training generates currency necessary for training buffs, travelling generates currency necessary for travel buffs, etc. People need to be able to level up their factions through doing what they do, not just combat.

    This disparity is most obvious with reviving factions, which have to switch over to war mode because they can't earn the currency for upgrading their faction through their type of gameplay.

    One option would be to have several different currencies/types of respect and then force people to get specific types to progress in those various areas. That might be a viable option. At the moment, I'm inclined to say just make it so respect is generated from things like training, traveling, etc. to correspond with the various trees so factions specializing in those trees can upgrade without having to do combat.

    This seems to be some of the thought behind the upgrade challenges, but for a lot of factions, those are completed and then set aside, so many revivers (as an example) benefit from 25e revives without ever having ground out 75e revives to earn them.

    88325a84-98c2-374d-2609907.gif

  • AVAL SirEdge [2609907]SirEdge [2609907]
    • SirEdge [2609907]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 2044
    • Karma: 1552
    • Last Action: 1 minute
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:56:38 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Anarchia [2632824]

    ok, though we aren't in the parliament here.

    what i meant is: who said we were looking for a super-majority? and even if we were, quoting again Ched:
    "If this plan is not accepted and the majority of you disagree"
    which means to me that the super-majority was needed for the No, if anything.
    Um, no on the supermajority being needed for not doing it being implied by what was said.  I will agree it seems at times to be what is practically required.

    True that no one said we were looking for a super-majority, but I was pointing out that I was glad that this instance seemed to be working like a representative democracy (I've never lived under a body called Parliament, so I have to generalize a bit) with a super majority requirement.

    This is and is not a democracy- it is Ched's game to do with as he pleases (which feels like autocracy at times), but as it pleases him to have players, he listens to us (which feels like democracy at times). I think that his decision to reconsider how this change is rolled out will help him retain more players than if he had taken the position you are advocating for and ramrodded it through over objections.

    88325a84-98c2-374d-2609907.gif

  • Butt M1-Garand [1955142]M1-Garand [1955142]
    • M1-Garand [1955142]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 1102
    • Karma: 1401
    • Last Action: 17 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:58:14 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Keep the system the same, everyone's just gunna votes yes because its something new, not better. Its just like the old system of warring. Everyone says they wanted it changed because they were quote on quote bored........ but you better believe everyone's wishing they had that system back 

  • LS Smiffy [1220645]Smiffy [1220645]
    • Smiffy [1220645]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 558
    • Karma: 473
    • Last Action: 2 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:18:16 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    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 my suggestion on faction load outs gets thrown out, then load outs get brought in? Really….


    https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=4&t=16208172&b=0&a=0

    edit for non clicky link:)
    Last edited by Smiffy on 15:21:09 - 24/08/21

     
  • TW* Anarchia [2632824]Anarchia [2632824]
    • Anarchia [2632824]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 51
    • Posts: 246
    • Karma: 364
    • Last Action: 22 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:29:37 - 24/08/21 (1 month ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    CRLF is in JFK, one of the factions that could foreseeably get to having all of the trees unlocked first
    yes, but it takes work. meanwhile from now on you can easily sit on a smaller amount of respect and have all you need. how is this beneficial to the game?

    we need to make it so that factions can level up through their respective focus- training generates currency necessary for training buffs, travelling generates currency necessary for travel buffs, etc. People need to be able to level up their factions through doing what they do, not just combat.
    that would be cool, though we already have something similar like the amount of energy needed to be spent etc...

    no on the supermajority being needed for not doing it being implied by what was said
    read it again, slowly, because it is literally in front of you.

    True that no one said we were looking for a super-majority, but I was pointing out that I was glad that this instance seemed to be working like a representative democracy (I've never lived under a body called Parliament, so I have to generalize a bit) with a super majority requirement.
    i'll answer with your words: "This is and is not a democracy- it is Ched's game"
    that's also why i voted yes. hearing people is great and i'm glad he did like you are, still he should have gone with it because the poll clearly said that only a minority was against.
    how many people were crying for the med revamp? how many left or threatened to leave? still, we are here playing and everything is fine.


    i want to end with:
    Keep the system the same, everyone's just gunna votes yes because its something new, not better.
    Change the system, everyone's just gunna votes no because its something new, not worse.

    FTFY

  • 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 15:54:05 - 24/08/21 (1 month 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. :)

    KeepMustard [2278596]

    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.

    CRLF [2095076]

    I disagree on the automatic change to warring mode.

    Imagine if some small, disgruntled faction decided to take revenge on a HoF faction by raiding them during their training (or during a faction competition). Of course, they couldn't possibly do any damage with the raid, but they could force the specials reset to warring.

    I can promise you there will be factions that do that, given the chance.

    Also, in some cases a faction might feel they so overpower the other faction, they don't need to switch specials. I suggest it stays as a faction lead's choice. OR (best of both worlds) the faction lead could toggle to automatic or manual, the same way at a personal level, we can turn off revives.
    thats exactly why i think it should be automatic, to add another aspect to how factions can affect eachother and to help define when you war. of course this is just my view not saying it is right just that it would add in another aspect to possibly help reduce the stagnant nature of the map, and if a crap faction raids a hof they are likely going to have problems in the long run. i personally would like to see less factions doing 1 thing for 4 months at a time, then 1 chain, then back to nothing. little spats popping up here and there for a few hours to a few days i think would be exciting. force the lazy people to do something i guess for a lack of better words. again it is just my view
Reply
Thread Title: