TLDR of replies to Ched's Latest Poll - Page 6 | Faction …
TLDR of replies to Ched's Latest Poll
  • CR APOLLO [862724]APOLLO [862724]
    • APOLLO [862724]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 3106
    • Karma: 3477
    • Last Action: 15 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:43:40 - 15/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I am really glad that CRLF has come out with a well thought out, detailed and concise reply to posts that Ched has made.

    Generally as it comes to Torn I am a bit of a dumbass and I often don't catch on very quickly. Its hard to know what Ched means a lot of the time as he speaks in broad terms and avoids outlining definitive truths.

    Now if I am wrong and barking up the wrong tree here I do apologise but with what I am reading from Ched about changing mindsets, flipping faction trees and ranked warring.

    I am starting to think that the new long awaited warring system. Is a ranked warring system. That participation in can be toggled on and toggled off.(Aha, try and beat that Mr Miyagi) And that the whole system will be based on which branches of the faction upgrade tree your faction has chosen to specialise in.

    Like I said I may be way off base. It would be nice to just get some straight answers though.

    Sig

  • |X| HerrSchmidt [2069746]HerrSchmidt [2069746]
    • HerrSchmidt [2069746]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 93
    • Posts: 2841
    • Karma: 10287
    • Last Action: 46 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:46:12 - 15/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.

    CRLF [2095076]

    Can you please clarify a few things? It sounds like these are clear in your mind, perhaps because you have more information on future development not yet public.

    1) this current unfinished state which is clearly broken


    I think you are referring to how the faction specials are currently selected by the lead, specifically how they can change the specials in 100 hours.

    How is that broken? Can you say what about that mechanism is not working?

    2) embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there

    By this, I think you mean keep the current structure for assigning specials but allow them to be changed in 72 hours?

    3) devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them

    By this, you mean a faction can have any tree by giving up another one in 100 hours.

    So this is the equivalent of a player choosing to use an epinephrine temp weapon over a smoke bomb -- they can only have one and they have to choose. However, if they're quick, they can start a fight with one temp, run away, and re-enter with a different temp.

    And if a faction's leadership is quick, they can switch from training to warring and back again with minimal disruption.

    4) Or change the system to its original intent

    I'm not sure I follow this. What was the original intent? Whose intent was it, and did the player population ever know about this?

    5) If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring...

    We have had the option to change branches for quite some time now. The younger players do not even know the older system. I'd say everyone at this point is already "used to flipping around branches".

    I do agree that we do not want to both change how branches are managed AND introduce ranked warfare in the same release. Whatever the method will be for managing specials, the faction leads deserve some time to get accustomed to that prior ranked warfare.

    If we are keeping the current system, they know it well and no additional time is needed for them to adjust.

    6) ...there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees

    I think you're saying here that once ranked warfare starts, people will not want to change how specials are managed because it might affect the standings in ranked warfare. And "long-term trees" just means the locked trees, correct? Not new trees with more functionality.

    At this point in time, you are probably immersed in the ranked warfare plans, but we have seen nothing on that topic recently. We only know that the current process for changing branches is effective. It could be better, but it works. I don't think most of us are afraid of change per se, but afraid of losing all flexibility while gaining nothing in return.

    More importantly, WE CAN'T SEE THE ADVANTAGE OF LOCKING THE BRANCHES. If you can envision some really great gain, perhaps because you know how ranked warfare will work, can you explain to us what advantage there would be in becoming inflexible?

    It's not fair to say the respect will be worth twice as much under this plan. That could be given to us now without locking the branch changes. What, specifically, about not being able to change the branches will be an improvement for factions?

    The only (back-handed) advantage I can see to a highly-skilled faction lead is... less experienced faction leads will probably screw this up. They will choose if not poorly at least not optimally. So if as a lead you do think it through carefully, you may choose better than your peers which would provide a slight advantage.

    But that is essentially saying the new way of doing it would be so burdensome, it would provide an opening for a careful planner.

    7) 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset


    So I think this is the crux of it. You do not want factions to have separate warring modes and training modes.

    Which of these is true then?

    a) Factions should specialize, being either for warring only or training only. People can move from one faction to another depending on whether they want to war or train.

    b) Factions should be balanced, offering both training and warring specials at all times but not specializing in either one.

    I'm guessing you want "b" here.

    Factions will not voluntarily balance between training and warring at the same time. There is zero incentive to do that. Any faction that tries to balance will be at a disadvantage, whether specials are flexible or locked. They will instead specialize and pair with a faction that has the opposite specialization, trading members over time.

    If it is really important for you that all factions be balanced, then the only option is to make Steadfast part of the core branch and automatically unlock the first ten levels for factions as they reach certain respect thresholds without making them spend respect on it.

    Make some branches more like getting additional Life when a player levels up. It's automatic and everyone gets it.

    Pick some balance of branches that you think are important and unlock them by default as the faction's respect grows.

    And then leave the remaining respect to the faction lead to distribute, which I think should still be flexible. But at least this method would get the balance you seem to be striving for.

    -------------

    You've got maybe 1200 super-involved players, about a third of whom read the forums and half again reply in the forums. These include the leads of top and medium factions, long-time top players, and some newer players who spend a lot of time in the game.

    These are also the players who will engage in warfare. They're the ones who care about whether they have training specials or war specials.

    The vast majority of players, both in the game and in the forum, are casual players. They either aren't in a faction or are in a "social" faction that doesn't war, barely chains and never switches specials. As long as you don't touch their extra carry items for travel, they're good.

    Your "vocal minority" are actually the people who give a f**k about your game. They are actually using the game mechanics and not just passively sitting on stocks, travel gains and company jobs, slowly gaining net worth.

    If the "vocal minority" is getting up your ass about this, it is because they CARE. It's when they stop saying anything at all that you have reason to be concerned.
    Do you mind elaborating on your thought here?
  • JFK™ CRLF [2095076]CRLF [2095076]
    • CRLF [2095076]
    • Role: Reporter
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 7838
    • Karma: 22498
    • Last Action: 14 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:34:15 - 15/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.

    CRLF [2095076]

    Can you please clarify a few things? It sounds like these are clear in your mind, perhaps because you have more information on future development not yet public.

    1) this current unfinished state which is clearly broken


    I think you are referring to how the faction specials are currently selected by the lead, specifically how they can change the specials in 100 hours.

    How is that broken? Can you say what about that mechanism is not working?

    2) embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there

    By this, I think you mean keep the current structure for assigning specials but allow them to be changed in 72 hours?

    3) devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them

    By this, you mean a faction can have any tree by giving up another one in 100 hours.

    So this is the equivalent of a player choosing to use an epinephrine temp weapon over a smoke bomb -- they can only have one and they have to choose. However, if they're quick, they can start a fight with one temp, run away, and re-enter with a different temp.

    And if a faction's leadership is quick, they can switch from training to warring and back again with minimal disruption.

    4) Or change the system to its original intent

    I'm not sure I follow this. What was the original intent? Whose intent was it, and did the player population ever know about this?

    5) If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring...

    We have had the option to change branches for quite some time now. The younger players do not even know the older system. I'd say everyone at this point is already "used to flipping around branches".

    I do agree that we do not want to both change how branches are managed AND introduce ranked warfare in the same release. Whatever the method will be for managing specials, the faction leads deserve some time to get accustomed to that prior ranked warfare.

    If we are keeping the current system, they know it well and no additional time is needed for them to adjust.

    6) ...there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees

    I think you're saying here that once ranked warfare starts, people will not want to change how specials are managed because it might affect the standings in ranked warfare. And "long-term trees" just means the locked trees, correct? Not new trees with more functionality.

    At this point in time, you are probably immersed in the ranked warfare plans, but we have seen nothing on that topic recently. We only know that the current process for changing branches is effective. It could be better, but it works. I don't think most of us are afraid of change per se, but afraid of losing all flexibility while gaining nothing in return.

    More importantly, WE CAN'T SEE THE ADVANTAGE OF LOCKING THE BRANCHES. If you can envision some really great gain, perhaps because you know how ranked warfare will work, can you explain to us what advantage there would be in becoming inflexible?

    It's not fair to say the respect will be worth twice as much under this plan. That could be given to us now without locking the branch changes. What, specifically, about not being able to change the branches will be an improvement for factions?

    The only (back-handed) advantage I can see to a highly-skilled faction lead is... less experienced faction leads will probably screw this up. They will choose if not poorly at least not optimally. So if as a lead you do think it through carefully, you may choose better than your peers which would provide a slight advantage.

    But that is essentially saying the new way of doing it would be so burdensome, it would provide an opening for a careful planner.

    7) 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset


    So I think this is the crux of it. You do not want factions to have separate warring modes and training modes.

    Which of these is true then?

    a) Factions should specialize, being either for warring only or training only. People can move from one faction to another depending on whether they want to war or train.

    b) Factions should be balanced, offering both training and warring specials at all times but not specializing in either one.

    I'm guessing you want "b" here.

    Factions will not voluntarily balance between training and warring at the same time. There is zero incentive to do that. Any faction that tries to balance will be at a disadvantage, whether specials are flexible or locked. They will instead specialize and pair with a faction that has the opposite specialization, trading members over time.

    If it is really important for you that all factions be balanced, then the only option is to make Steadfast part of the core branch and automatically unlock the first ten levels for factions as they reach certain respect thresholds without making them spend respect on it.

    Make some branches more like getting additional Life when a player levels up. It's automatic and everyone gets it.

    Pick some balance of branches that you think are important and unlock them by default as the faction's respect grows.

    And then leave the remaining respect to the faction lead to distribute, which I think should still be flexible. But at least this method would get the balance you seem to be striving for.

    -------------

    You've got maybe 1200 super-involved players, about a third of whom read the forums and half again reply in the forums. These include the leads of top and medium factions, long-time top players, and some newer players who spend a lot of time in the game.

    These are also the players who will engage in warfare. They're the ones who care about whether they have training specials or war specials.

    The vast majority of players, both in the game and in the forum, are casual players. They either aren't in a faction or are in a "social" faction that doesn't war, barely chains and never switches specials. As long as you don't touch their extra carry items for travel, they're good.

    Your "vocal minority" are actually the people who give a f**k about your game. They are actually using the game mechanics and not just passively sitting on stocks, travel gains and company jobs, slowly gaining net worth.

    If the "vocal minority" is getting up your ass about this, it is because they CARE. It's when they stop saying anything at all that you have reason to be concerned.

    HerrSchmidt [2069746]

    Do you mind elaborating on your thought here?
    Do you mind specifying which thought requires further elaboration?
  • JFK™ CornHub [2423014]CornHub [2423014]
    • CornHub [2423014]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 2872
    • Karma: 7495
    • Last Action: 3 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:42:00 - 15/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.

    CRLF [2095076]

    Can you please clarify a few things? It sounds like these are clear in your mind, perhaps because you have more information on future development not yet public.

    1) this current unfinished state which is clearly broken


    I think you are referring to how the faction specials are currently selected by the lead, specifically how they can change the specials in 100 hours.

    How is that broken? Can you say what about that mechanism is not working?

    2) embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there

    By this, I think you mean keep the current structure for assigning specials but allow them to be changed in 72 hours?

    3) devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them

    By this, you mean a faction can have any tree by giving up another one in 100 hours.

    So this is the equivalent of a player choosing to use an epinephrine temp weapon over a smoke bomb -- they can only have one and they have to choose. However, if they're quick, they can start a fight with one temp, run away, and re-enter with a different temp.

    And if a faction's leadership is quick, they can switch from training to warring and back again with minimal disruption.

    4) Or change the system to its original intent

    I'm not sure I follow this. What was the original intent? Whose intent was it, and did the player population ever know about this?

    5) If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring...

    We have had the option to change branches for quite some time now. The younger players do not even know the older system. I'd say everyone at this point is already "used to flipping around branches".

    I do agree that we do not want to both change how branches are managed AND introduce ranked warfare in the same release. Whatever the method will be for managing specials, the faction leads deserve some time to get accustomed to that prior ranked warfare.

    If we are keeping the current system, they know it well and no additional time is needed for them to adjust.

    6) ...there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees

    I think you're saying here that once ranked warfare starts, people will not want to change how specials are managed because it might affect the standings in ranked warfare. And "long-term trees" just means the locked trees, correct? Not new trees with more functionality.

    At this point in time, you are probably immersed in the ranked warfare plans, but we have seen nothing on that topic recently. We only know that the current process for changing branches is effective. It could be better, but it works. I don't think most of us are afraid of change per se, but afraid of losing all flexibility while gaining nothing in return.

    More importantly, WE CAN'T SEE THE ADVANTAGE OF LOCKING THE BRANCHES. If you can envision some really great gain, perhaps because you know how ranked warfare will work, can you explain to us what advantage there would be in becoming inflexible?

    It's not fair to say the respect will be worth twice as much under this plan. That could be given to us now without locking the branch changes. What, specifically, about not being able to change the branches will be an improvement for factions?

    The only (back-handed) advantage I can see to a highly-skilled faction lead is... less experienced faction leads will probably screw this up. They will choose if not poorly at least not optimally. So if as a lead you do think it through carefully, you may choose better than your peers which would provide a slight advantage.

    But that is essentially saying the new way of doing it would be so burdensome, it would provide an opening for a careful planner.

    7) 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset


    So I think this is the crux of it. You do not want factions to have separate warring modes and training modes.

    Which of these is true then?

    a) Factions should specialize, being either for warring only or training only. People can move from one faction to another depending on whether they want to war or train.

    b) Factions should be balanced, offering both training and warring specials at all times but not specializing in either one.

    I'm guessing you want "b" here.

    Factions will not voluntarily balance between training and warring at the same time. There is zero incentive to do that. Any faction that tries to balance will be at a disadvantage, whether specials are flexible or locked. They will instead specialize and pair with a faction that has the opposite specialization, trading members over time.

    If it is really important for you that all factions be balanced, then the only option is to make Steadfast part of the core branch and automatically unlock the first ten levels for factions as they reach certain respect thresholds without making them spend respect on it.

    Make some branches more like getting additional Life when a player levels up. It's automatic and everyone gets it.

    Pick some balance of branches that you think are important and unlock them by default as the faction's respect grows.

    And then leave the remaining respect to the faction lead to distribute, which I think should still be flexible. But at least this method would get the balance you seem to be striving for.

    -------------

    You've got maybe 1200 super-involved players, about a third of whom read the forums and half again reply in the forums. These include the leads of top and medium factions, long-time top players, and some newer players who spend a lot of time in the game.

    These are also the players who will engage in warfare. They're the ones who care about whether they have training specials or war specials.

    The vast majority of players, both in the game and in the forum, are casual players. They either aren't in a faction or are in a "social" faction that doesn't war, barely chains and never switches specials. As long as you don't touch their extra carry items for travel, they're good.

    Your "vocal minority" are actually the people who give a f**k about your game. They are actually using the game mechanics and not just passively sitting on stocks, travel gains and company jobs, slowly gaining net worth.

    If the "vocal minority" is getting up your ass about this, it is because they CARE. It's when they stop saying anything at all that you have reason to be concerned.
    If I could R+ this more than once I would
  • JFK™ CRLF [2095076]CRLF [2095076]
    • CRLF [2095076]
    • Role: Reporter
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 7838
    • Karma: 22498
    • Last Action: 14 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:05:02 - 15/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    APOLLO [862724]

    I am really glad that CRLF has come out with a well thought out, detailed and concise reply to posts that Ched has made.

    Generally as it comes to Torn I am a bit of a dumbass and I often don't catch on very quickly. Its hard to know what Ched means a lot of the time as he speaks in broad terms and avoids outlining definitive truths.

    Now if I am wrong and barking up the wrong tree here I do apologise but with what I am reading from Ched about changing mindsets, flipping faction trees and ranked warring.

    I am starting to think that the new long awaited warring system. Is a ranked warring system. That participation in can be toggled on and toggled off.(Aha, try and beat that Mr Miyagi) And that the whole system will be based on which branches of the faction upgrade tree your faction has chosen to specialise in.

    Like I said I may be way off base. It would be nice to just get some straight answers though.
    I agree. It's definitely ranked warfare, he came right out and said that. And he mentioned a while ago in the forum that it would be ranked.

    What is not clear is if the pairing system is based on the faction upgrade tree you are specializing in.

    If it is, then his insistence on locking specials would make some sort of sense. At least I'd understand why he wants to do it then.

    But I can't see how that would work. If you specialize in Excursion, are you going to throw plushies at the other faction? If you specialize in reviving and you going to out-revive them?

    Maybe there's some intention that if a faction specializes in aggression, they will be paired with other factions that do so? But where does that leave other factions? And how would you have a universal ranking if the top fighting factions specialize in aggression but other factions can't be paired with them?

    What makes more sense is, let them set their ongoing specials as they wish. Then offer each warring faction a warring specialty. This would be a new feature that buffs one area just for ranked warfare, and the buff would only work in ranked wars. And THAT buff would be locked for a faction, and pairing could be based on the buff.

    The ranked warfare buff could help factions with specific weaknesses. For example, a buff might give you a temporary battlestats boost as a percent of the total number of revives you've done (I got you, -Yeti). This would help reviving factions compete. Or a buff could temporarily redistribute the battlestats of your highest-stat member to all of the other members (and suddenly bodybagger has a whole new warring game). A buff could be something that helps SSL users if you have a faction full of them. Or it could help members who only trained one battlestat heavily, if you have a few of those people.

    Maybe one buff could reduce battlestats in exchange for extremely short hospital time, while a different buff would increase battlestats but also reduce your revive chance to 5% for all revivers.

    And -- if that warring special was offered properly, it would drive the faction leads to lock their other specials as well -- voluntarily. This is because having a permanent "warring special" would make a specific pattern of other specials much better.

    My point is, there could be a way to group factions by some other choice that they make than their current faction specials. I'm guessing though that something like that would take more development time, and Ched was hoping to re-purpose the current faction branches to serve that purpose.

    The ambition of new development needs to fit the skills of the development team. If the dev team cannot reach the goals for the game, then either the goals are scaled down or the dev team is replaced. But gutting the player experience to meet an ambitious goal with insufficient programming resources is not the way to go, and I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible in saying that.
  • ~SA~ Mysteria [276863]Mysteria [276863]
    • Mysteria [276863]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 99
    • Posts: 1229
    • Karma: 3159
    • Last Action: 2 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:32:17 - 15/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    APOLLO [862724]

    I am really glad that CRLF has come out with a well thought out, detailed and concise reply to posts that Ched has made.

    Generally as it comes to Torn I am a bit of a dumbass and I often don't catch on very quickly. Its hard to know what Ched means a lot of the time as he speaks in broad terms and avoids outlining definitive truths.

    Now if I am wrong and barking up the wrong tree here I do apologise but with what I am reading from Ched about changing mindsets, flipping faction trees and ranked warring.

    I am starting to think that the new long awaited warring system. Is a ranked warring system. That participation in can be toggled on and toggled off.(Aha, try and beat that Mr Miyagi) And that the whole system will be based on which branches of the faction upgrade tree your faction has chosen to specialise in.

    Like I said I may be way off base. It would be nice to just get some straight answers though.

    CRLF [2095076]

    I agree. It's definitely ranked warfare, he came right out and said that. And he mentioned a while ago in the forum that it would be ranked.

    What is not clear is if the pairing system is based on the faction upgrade tree you are specializing in.

    If it is, then his insistence on locking specials would make some sort of sense. At least I'd understand why he wants to do it then.

    But I can't see how that would work. If you specialize in Excursion, are you going to throw plushies at the other faction? If you specialize in reviving and you going to out-revive them?

    Maybe there's some intention that if a faction specializes in aggression, they will be paired with other factions that do so? But where does that leave other factions? And how would you have a universal ranking if the top fighting factions specialize in aggression but other factions can't be paired with them?

    What makes more sense is, let them set their ongoing specials as they wish. Then offer each warring faction a warring specialty. This would be a new feature that buffs one area just for ranked warfare, and the buff would only work in ranked wars. And THAT buff would be locked for a faction, and pairing could be based on the buff.

    The ranked warfare buff could help factions with specific weaknesses. For example, a buff might give you a temporary battlestats boost as a percent of the total number of revives you've done (I got you, -Yeti). This would help reviving factions compete. Or a buff could temporarily redistribute the battlestats of your highest-stat member to all of the other members (and suddenly bodybagger has a whole new warring game). A buff could be something that helps SSL users if you have a faction full of them. Or it could help members who only trained one battlestat heavily, if you have a few of those people.

    Maybe one buff could reduce battlestats in exchange for extremely short hospital time, while a different buff would increase battlestats but also reduce your revive chance to 5% for all revivers.

    And -- if that warring special was offered properly, it would drive the faction leads to lock their other specials as well -- voluntarily. This is because having a permanent "warring special" would make a specific pattern of other specials much better.

    My point is, there could be a way to group factions by some other choice that they make than their current faction specials. I'm guessing though that something like that would take more development time, and Ched was hoping to re-purpose the current faction branches to serve that purpose.

    The ambition of new development needs to fit the skills of the development team. If the dev team cannot reach the goals for the game, then either the goals are scaled down or the dev team is replaced. But gutting the player experience to meet an ambitious goal with insufficient programming resources is not the way to go, and I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible in saying that.
  • SC Lalop [2150517]Lalop [2150517]
    • Lalop [2150517]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 93
    • Posts: 897
    • Karma: 895
    • Last Action: 21 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 00:21:32 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    I agree. It's definitely ranked warfare, he came right out and said that. And he mentioned a while ago in the forum that it would be ranked.

    What is not clear is if the pairing system is based on the faction upgrade tree you are specializing in.

    If it is, then his insistence on locking specials would make some sort of sense. At least I'd understand why he wants to do it then.

    But I can't see how that would work. If you specialize in Excursion, are you going to throw plushies at the other faction? If you specialize in reviving and you going to out-revive them?

    Maybe there's some intention that if a faction specializes in aggression, they will be paired with other factions that do so? But where does that leave other factions? And how would you have a universal ranking if the top fighting factions specialize in aggression but other factions can't be paired with them?

    What makes more sense is, let them set their ongoing specials as they wish. Then offer each warring faction a warring specialty. This would be a new feature that buffs one area just for ranked warfare, and the buff would only work in ranked wars. And THAT buff would be locked for a faction, and pairing could be based on the buff.

    The ranked warfare buff could help factions with specific weaknesses. For example, a buff might give you a temporary battlestats boost as a percent of the total number of revives you've done (I got you, -Yeti). This would help reviving factions compete. Or a buff could temporarily redistribute the battlestats of your highest-stat member to all of the other members (and suddenly bodybagger has a whole new warring game). A buff could be something that helps SSL users if you have a faction full of them. Or it could help members who only trained one battlestat heavily, if you have a few of those people.

    Maybe one buff could reduce battlestats in exchange for extremely short hospital time, while a different buff would increase battlestats but also reduce your revive chance to 5% for all revivers.

    And -- if that warring special was offered properly, it would drive the faction leads to lock their other specials as well -- voluntarily. This is because having a permanent "warring special" would make a specific pattern of other specials much better.

    My point is, there could be a way to group factions by some other choice that they make than their current faction specials. I'm guessing though that something like that would take more development time, and Ched was hoping to re-purpose the current faction branches to serve that purpose.

    The ambition of new development needs to fit the skills of the development team. If the dev team cannot reach the goals for the game, then either the goals are scaled down or the dev team is replaced. But gutting the player experience to meet an ambitious goal with insufficient programming resources is not the way to go, and I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible in saying that.
    Everything you've said in this thread has been brilliant and well worded, and I really appreciate it you taking the time to do so.

    I was gonna go to bed but gdi now i'm all hyped up about orcas 

  • Nubs IndyCision [2597200]IndyCision [2597200]
    • IndyCision [2597200]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 15
    • Posts: 432
    • Karma: 634
    • Last Action: 2 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 07:49:07 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    APOLLO [862724]

    I am really glad that CRLF has come out with a well thought out, detailed and concise reply to posts that Ched has made.

    Generally as it comes to Torn I am a bit of a dumbass and I often don't catch on very quickly. Its hard to know what Ched means a lot of the time as he speaks in broad terms and avoids outlining definitive truths.

    Now if I am wrong and barking up the wrong tree here I do apologise but with what I am reading from Ched about changing mindsets, flipping faction trees and ranked warring.

    I am starting to think that the new long awaited warring system. Is a ranked warring system. That participation in can be toggled on and toggled off.(Aha, try and beat that Mr Miyagi) And that the whole system will be based on which branches of the faction upgrade tree your faction has chosen to specialise in.

    Like I said I may be way off base. It would be nice to just get some straight answers though.

    CRLF [2095076]

    I agree. It's definitely ranked warfare, he came right out and said that. And he mentioned a while ago in the forum that it would be ranked.

    What is not clear is if the pairing system is based on the faction upgrade tree you are specializing in.

    If it is, then his insistence on locking specials would make some sort of sense. At least I'd understand why he wants to do it then.

    But I can't see how that would work. If you specialize in Excursion, are you going to throw plushies at the other faction? If you specialize in reviving and you going to out-revive them?

    Maybe there's some intention that if a faction specializes in aggression, they will be paired with other factions that do so? But where does that leave other factions? And how would you have a universal ranking if the top fighting factions specialize in aggression but other factions can't be paired with them?

    What makes more sense is, let them set their ongoing specials as they wish. Then offer each warring faction a warring specialty. This would be a new feature that buffs one area just for ranked warfare, and the buff would only work in ranked wars. And THAT buff would be locked for a faction, and pairing could be based on the buff.

    The ranked warfare buff could help factions with specific weaknesses. For example, a buff might give you a temporary battlestats boost as a percent of the total number of revives you've done (I got you, -Yeti). This would help reviving factions compete. Or a buff could temporarily redistribute the battlestats of your highest-stat member to all of the other members (and suddenly bodybagger has a whole new warring game). A buff could be something that helps SSL users if you have a faction full of them. Or it could help members who only trained one battlestat heavily, if you have a few of those people.

    Maybe one buff could reduce battlestats in exchange for extremely short hospital time, while a different buff would increase battlestats but also reduce your revive chance to 5% for all revivers.

    And -- if that warring special was offered properly, it would drive the faction leads to lock their other specials as well -- voluntarily. This is because having a permanent "warring special" would make a specific pattern of other specials much better.

    My point is, there could be a way to group factions by some other choice that they make than their current faction specials. I'm guessing though that something like that would take more development time, and Ched was hoping to re-purpose the current faction branches to serve that purpose.

    The ambition of new development needs to fit the skills of the development team. If the dev team cannot reach the goals for the game, then either the goals are scaled down or the dev team is replaced. But gutting the player experience to meet an ambitious goal with insufficient programming resources is not the way to go, and I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible in saying that.
    I don't think the ranked warring will use your faction branches to denote who your enemies will be. It is far more likely to be some sort of ELO system where you can only challenge someone within a certain score range, and you work your way up and down the ranking based on how your score changes.

    I can see *why* he would in theory want the branches to be a lot more static - if they were left as they are now, factions would not need to dedicate themselves to the ranked wars, they could do whatever they wanted and switch back as needed (as you would do now). Making your choices more permanent would mean factions having to choose whether to prioritise ranked war over other gameplay aspects, which part of the game is most important to them.

    If his vision for faction perks was originally to make everyone individual rather than cookie-cutter (which to be fair would only really apply to the non-competitive factions due to the min-maxing aspect of it meaning there would always be a "most effective" build) then I can also see why he would want this to be decided before "yet another faction goal" comes out and there are even more things a faction would/could want to achieve... but unless there are going to be updates coming in the future which allow the same growth/competition for non-combat content then this is pretty much a moot point as there would just be different "cookie cutter" factions for different player-growth stages, and competitive ranked warring factions would have secondary training factions for its members.
  • DAM KeepMustard [2278596]KeepMustard [2278596]
    • KeepMustard [2278596]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 76
    • Posts: 177
    • Karma: 242
    • Last Action: 5 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 11:42:02 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I am fairly certain faction perks are supposed to feel more like our merits, where they help define what we do but you dont switch your merits every chain back and forth do you? You most likely put on a riding crop and whoop up on some noob and never think "why dont we have a 100 hour cooldown on our merits ched?" and I can see where that would be nice in the future where factions are defined as what they are, much like your merits, and when you're ready to switch from a macana to a rifle, that's fine and easy once in a while.  This should hopefully give alot of diversity to faction perks and you wont just know that the faction with 2.7m respect has more training perks AND more war perks than this other faction with 2.4m respect, the members will shape a slightly different one based on its individual players.

    Without some sort of a more "permanent" setup on our trees there would either have to be a "termed war perk set" or there would have to be a 100 hour cooldown before starting a ranked war, can you imagine setting warperks on and queueing up to ranked war and not getting a match for weeks? I know we dont know how the ranked warring will look but with the current system we would require a 100 hour delay between matches and this would IMO be silly and non-sensical so i 100% see the need to have a defined and locked tree most of the time so we can war when we war, and then when that war is done were back to what we were doing immediately, not after a pre-defined X timer we wait to get our perks back.

    Everyone needs to have less regrets and not fear the word "locked." This is a necessary evil we need before the game can progress.
  • JFK™ CRLF [2095076]CRLF [2095076]
    • CRLF [2095076]
    • Role: Reporter
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 7838
    • Karma: 22498
    • Last Action: 14 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:34:14 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    KeepMustard [2278596]

    I am fairly certain faction perks are supposed to feel more like our merits, where they help define what we do but you dont switch your merits every chain back and forth do you? You most likely put on a riding crop and whoop up on some noob and never think "why dont we have a 100 hour cooldown on our merits ched?" and I can see where that would be nice in the future where factions are defined as what they are, much like your merits, and when you're ready to switch from a macana to a rifle, that's fine and easy once in a while. This should hopefully give alot of diversity to faction perks and you wont just know that the faction with 2.7m respect has more training perks AND more war perks than this other faction with 2.4m respect, the members will shape a slightly different one based on its individual players.

    Without some sort of a more "permanent" setup on our trees there would either have to be a "termed war perk set" or there would have to be a 100 hour cooldown before starting a ranked war, can you imagine setting warperks on and queueing up to ranked war and not getting a match for weeks? I know we dont know how the ranked warring will look but with the current system we would require a 100 hour delay between matches and this would IMO be silly and non-sensical so i 100% see the need to have a defined and locked tree most of the time so we can war when we war, and then when that war is done were back to what we were doing immediately, not after a pre-defined X timer we wait to get our perks back.

    Everyone needs to have less regrets and not fear the word "locked." This is a necessary evil we need before the game can progress.
    Everyone needs to have less regrets and not fear the word "locked."  This is a necessary evil we need before the game can progress.

    What are you basing this opinion on? I don't see a committee badge. So how do you know what the implementation plan is? How do you know it is necessary?

    The vast majority of factions will not be interested in termed warfare even if it is easy to do. The larger HoF factions will be interested, and some smaller factions that enjoy territory fights and raiding will want to do it.

    Most factions will compare the cost to the potential gains and decide not to do it. Why would we want to lock them in on specials?

    If some smaller factions are on the fence over whether they want to try it, forcing them to choose between steadfast and aggression will just eliminate any chance that they'd want to try termed warfare. They'll choose to train, and forever be locked out of warfare.

    Faction specials do not equate to player merits. With merits, you are only deciding for yourself. With faction specials, you are deciding for potentially 100 people. By changing the specials periodically, you can tell some users to just wait a month and they can have their specials then.

    Bottom line, we do not have enough information to decide. If there's a possibility that whatever setup we use will not work with ranked warfare, then better to keep it as is and change it once than to change it now and change it again later.

    Changing it now only makes sense if we're sure the change is worthwhile, and at this point I only see the disadvantages of changing. Not one single "gain" has been given yet for locking the specials.
  • AVAL SirEdge [2609907]SirEdge [2609907]
    • SirEdge [2609907]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 50
    • Posts: 2045
    • Karma: 1552
    • Last Action: 7 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:11:07 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Dalzadar [2242727]

    Can a faction tree reset become an attainable prize for factions through events and competitions etc? If those puppies go into circulation as special items it could create a new economy, allow for motivated and collective effort, and give more flexibility to factions to operate with what I think everyone is afraid will be a too limiting system?

    Maybe have them for sale by the system for 500b to get some or the ridiculous cash stores out of the game lol...

    Alternatively what if we have 6 resets per year? 3 or 4 months is a very long time in Torn for most players.
    I like that mode of thinking, but if they are exchangeable, it'll just hurt the folks in the middle- the folks at the top can have everything, so they won't need them.  But the folks in the middle will hurt without them and with an open market, will financially have to pay the cost to keep up with them.
    Last edited by SirEdge on 21:11:51 - 16/08/21

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

  • Rbbt Wreck-It-Wren [2172553]Wreck-It-Wren [2172553]
    • Wreck-It-Wren [2172553]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 79
    • Posts: 161
    • Karma: 293
    • Last Action: 58 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:12:02 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    CRLF [2095076]

    Can you please clarify a few things? It sounds like these are clear in your mind, perhaps because you have more information on future development not yet public.

    1) this current unfinished state which is clearly broken


    I think you are referring to how the faction specials are currently selected by the lead, specifically how they can change the specials in 100 hours.

    How is that broken? Can you say what about that mechanism is not working?

    2) embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there

    By this, I think you mean keep the current structure for assigning specials but allow them to be changed in 72 hours?

    3) devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them

    By this, you mean a faction can have any tree by giving up another one in 100 hours.

    So this is the equivalent of a player choosing to use an epinephrine temp weapon over a smoke bomb -- they can only have one and they have to choose. However, if they're quick, they can start a fight with one temp, run away, and re-enter with a different temp.

    And if a faction's leadership is quick, they can switch from training to warring and back again with minimal disruption.

    4) Or change the system to its original intent

    I'm not sure I follow this. What was the original intent? Whose intent was it, and did the player population ever know about this?

    5) If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring...

    We have had the option to change branches for quite some time now. The younger players do not even know the older system. I'd say everyone at this point is already "used to flipping around branches".

    I do agree that we do not want to both change how branches are managed AND introduce ranked warfare in the same release. Whatever the method will be for managing specials, the faction leads deserve some time to get accustomed to that prior ranked warfare.

    If we are keeping the current system, they know it well and no additional time is needed for them to adjust.

    6) ...there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees

    I think you're saying here that once ranked warfare starts, people will not want to change how specials are managed because it might affect the standings in ranked warfare. And "long-term trees" just means the locked trees, correct? Not new trees with more functionality.

    At this point in time, you are probably immersed in the ranked warfare plans, but we have seen nothing on that topic recently. We only know that the current process for changing branches is effective. It could be better, but it works. I don't think most of us are afraid of change per se, but afraid of losing all flexibility while gaining nothing in return.

    More importantly, WE CAN'T SEE THE ADVANTAGE OF LOCKING THE BRANCHES. If you can envision some really great gain, perhaps because you know how ranked warfare will work, can you explain to us what advantage there would be in becoming inflexible?

    It's not fair to say the respect will be worth twice as much under this plan. That could be given to us now without locking the branch changes. What, specifically, about not being able to change the branches will be an improvement for factions?

    The only (back-handed) advantage I can see to a highly-skilled faction lead is... less experienced faction leads will probably screw this up. They will choose if not poorly at least not optimally. So if as a lead you do think it through carefully, you may choose better than your peers which would provide a slight advantage.

    But that is essentially saying the new way of doing it would be so burdensome, it would provide an opening for a careful planner.

    7) 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset


    So I think this is the crux of it. You do not want factions to have separate warring modes and training modes.

    Which of these is true then?

    a) Factions should specialize, being either for warring only or training only. People can move from one faction to another depending on whether they want to war or train.

    b) Factions should be balanced, offering both training and warring specials at all times but not specializing in either one.

    I'm guessing you want "b" here.

    Factions will not voluntarily balance between training and warring at the same time. There is zero incentive to do that. Any faction that tries to balance will be at a disadvantage, whether specials are flexible or locked. They will instead specialize and pair with a faction that has the opposite specialization, trading members over time.

    If it is really important for you that all factions be balanced, then the only option is to make Steadfast part of the core branch and automatically unlock the first ten levels for factions as they reach certain respect thresholds without making them spend respect on it.

    Make some branches more like getting additional Life when a player levels up. It's automatic and everyone gets it.

    Pick some balance of branches that you think are important and unlock them by default as the faction's respect grows.

    And then leave the remaining respect to the faction lead to distribute, which I think should still be flexible. But at least this method would get the balance you seem to be striving for.

    -------------

    You've got maybe 1200 super-involved players, about a third of whom read the forums and half again reply in the forums. These include the leads of top and medium factions, long-time top players, and some newer players who spend a lot of time in the game.

    These are also the players who will engage in warfare. They're the ones who care about whether they have training specials or war specials.

    The vast majority of players, both in the game and in the forum, are casual players. They either aren't in a faction or are in a "social" faction that doesn't war, barely chains and never switches specials. As long as you don't touch their extra carry items for travel, they're good.

    Your "vocal minority" are actually the people who give a f**k about your game. They are actually using the game mechanics and not just passively sitting on stocks, travel gains and company jobs, slowly gaining net worth.

    If the "vocal minority" is getting up your ass about this, it is because they CARE. It's when they stop saying anything at all that you have reason to be concerned.
    If I could convert all my Karma to R+ on this post I would. 

    Please. Can. Ched. Reply. To. This.

    These are factastic question the need to be considered and answered. I have been extremely looking forward to ranked warring, but this vote is a real wet towel.

    Thank you CRLF
  • ~SA~ sportyguy92 [445884]sportyguy92 [445884]
    • sportyguy92 [445884]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 427
    • Karma: 167
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:57:27 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    That is your opinion, and other people have different opinions. All I'm doing is figuring out the option that is the most preferred.

    I cannot just blindly follow the vocal minority, those who are afraid to adapt. It's incredibly frustrating, but it's always been the case with any change. All I can do is try to make things as clear as possible to the community, and ask them to make a choice. I'm sure we'll have another confirmatory poll soon - but the fact is, I'm not going to select the option that's the least popular.
    "generally votes trend towards what's best for players personally in the moment, rather than the game itself over the long term"

    C'mon Ched be fair!
    This is not about being afraid to adapt. Players like myself have gave their honest opinion, for the long term benefit of the game.
    If we have considered the proposal carefully and gave thought to lower and mid ranked factions, please don't start making accusations towards us.

    It is not right to divide the vote between the afraids and the braves.
    If you are going to ask for opinions and a vote, respect all opinions and votes without name calling and silly accusations.

    We have all adapted to your changes over the years without fear or being afraid.
  • DAM KeepMustard [2278596]KeepMustard [2278596]
    • KeepMustard [2278596]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 76
    • Posts: 177
    • Karma: 242
    • Last Action: 5 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:08:22 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    KeepMustard [2278596]

    I am fairly certain faction perks are supposed to feel more like our merits, where they help define what we do but you dont switch your merits every chain back and forth do you? You most likely put on a riding crop and whoop up on some noob and never think "why dont we have a 100 hour cooldown on our merits ched?" and I can see where that would be nice in the future where factions are defined as what they are, much like your merits, and when you're ready to switch from a macana to a rifle, that's fine and easy once in a while. This should hopefully give alot of diversity to faction perks and you wont just know that the faction with 2.7m respect has more training perks AND more war perks than this other faction with 2.4m respect, the members will shape a slightly different one based on its individual players.

    Without some sort of a more "permanent" setup on our trees there would either have to be a "termed war perk set" or there would have to be a 100 hour cooldown before starting a ranked war, can you imagine setting warperks on and queueing up to ranked war and not getting a match for weeks? I know we dont know how the ranked warring will look but with the current system we would require a 100 hour delay between matches and this would IMO be silly and non-sensical so i 100% see the need to have a defined and locked tree most of the time so we can war when we war, and then when that war is done were back to what we were doing immediately, not after a pre-defined X timer we wait to get our perks back.

    Everyone needs to have less regrets and not fear the word "locked." This is a necessary evil we need before the game can progress.

    CRLF [2095076]

    Everyone needs to have less regrets and not fear the word "locked." This is a necessary evil we need before the game can progress.

    What are you basing this opinion on? I don't see a committee badge. So how do you know what the implementation plan is? How do you know it is necessary?

    The vast majority of factions will not be interested in termed warfare even if it is easy to do. The larger HoF factions will be interested, and some smaller factions that enjoy territory fights and raiding will want to do it.

    Most factions will compare the cost to the potential gains and decide not to do it. Why would we want to lock them in on specials?

    If some smaller factions are on the fence over whether they want to try it, forcing them to choose between steadfast and aggression will just eliminate any chance that they'd want to try termed warfare. They'll choose to train, and forever be locked out of warfare.

    Faction specials do not equate to player merits. With merits, you are only deciding for yourself. With faction specials, you are deciding for potentially 100 people. By changing the specials periodically, you can tell some users to just wait a month and they can have their specials then.

    Bottom line, we do not have enough information to decide. If there's a possibility that whatever setup we use will not work with ranked warfare, then better to keep it as is and change it once than to change it now and change it again later.

    Changing it now only makes sense if we're sure the change is worthwhile, and at this point I only see the disadvantages of changing. Not one single "gain" has been given yet for locking the specials.
    "You're so engrained in that mindset of 'different modes' that it's impossible for you to imagine a system without them." -ched

    "Faction specials do not equate to player merits. With merits, you are only deciding for yourself. With faction specials, you are deciding for potentially 100 people. By changing the specials periodically, you can tell some users to just wait a month and they can have their specials then."
    This is what ched is trying to get rid of, each faction is supposed to be unique based on its members needs, not every faction is exactly the same and you can just swap to the current meta (which is what it is now).

    "Not one single "gain" has been given yet for locking the specials."
    Nobody else is excited to have outgoing hospital time, when your faction is supposed to be training? Or maybe that scammer that gets themself bountied alot is going to get to have fortitude all the time? What about being able to have a chain and you either swapped the perks properly 100 hours before or you get bitched at "don't you even know how to swap perks."

    Maybe its just because i have played alot of other games where your faction has an upgradeable headquarters and its not really ever an option to buy the smithing upgrade one week, then for free just turn it into a woodworkers upgrade next week, you have to earn each individual piece over time and keep working hard to get to the next part. As we are now everyone is just too used to having every perk available whenever they want it so its going to be really hard to explain that to anyone that has the words "stuck" stuck in their head, it it's not supposed to feel stuck its supposed to feel unique. When it comes down to each faction they could all say were stuck in this perk, or tell everyone why their combo is better and smarter than the next.
  • NUKE JoeyDoughnuts77 [2108730]JoeyDoughnuts77 [2108730]
    • JoeyDoughnuts77 [2108730]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 90
    • Posts: 1411
    • Karma: 1190
    • Last Action: 2 hours
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:43:12 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.

    CRLF [2095076]

    Can you please clarify a few things? It sounds like these are clear in your mind, perhaps because you have more information on future development not yet public.

    1) this current unfinished state which is clearly broken


    I think you are referring to how the faction specials are currently selected by the lead, specifically how they can change the specials in 100 hours.

    How is that broken? Can you say what about that mechanism is not working?

    2) embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there

    By this, I think you mean keep the current structure for assigning specials but allow them to be changed in 72 hours?

    3) devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them

    By this, you mean a faction can have any tree by giving up another one in 100 hours.

    So this is the equivalent of a player choosing to use an epinephrine temp weapon over a smoke bomb -- they can only have one and they have to choose. However, if they're quick, they can start a fight with one temp, run away, and re-enter with a different temp.

    And if a faction's leadership is quick, they can switch from training to warring and back again with minimal disruption.

    4) Or change the system to its original intent

    I'm not sure I follow this. What was the original intent? Whose intent was it, and did the player population ever know about this?

    5) If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring...

    We have had the option to change branches for quite some time now. The younger players do not even know the older system. I'd say everyone at this point is already "used to flipping around branches".

    I do agree that we do not want to both change how branches are managed AND introduce ranked warfare in the same release. Whatever the method will be for managing specials, the faction leads deserve some time to get accustomed to that prior ranked warfare.

    If we are keeping the current system, they know it well and no additional time is needed for them to adjust.

    6) ...there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees

    I think you're saying here that once ranked warfare starts, people will not want to change how specials are managed because it might affect the standings in ranked warfare. And "long-term trees" just means the locked trees, correct? Not new trees with more functionality.

    At this point in time, you are probably immersed in the ranked warfare plans, but we have seen nothing on that topic recently. We only know that the current process for changing branches is effective. It could be better, but it works. I don't think most of us are afraid of change per se, but afraid of losing all flexibility while gaining nothing in return.

    More importantly, WE CAN'T SEE THE ADVANTAGE OF LOCKING THE BRANCHES. If you can envision some really great gain, perhaps because you know how ranked warfare will work, can you explain to us what advantage there would be in becoming inflexible?

    It's not fair to say the respect will be worth twice as much under this plan. That could be given to us now without locking the branch changes. What, specifically, about not being able to change the branches will be an improvement for factions?

    The only (back-handed) advantage I can see to a highly-skilled faction lead is... less experienced faction leads will probably screw this up. They will choose if not poorly at least not optimally. So if as a lead you do think it through carefully, you may choose better than your peers which would provide a slight advantage.

    But that is essentially saying the new way of doing it would be so burdensome, it would provide an opening for a careful planner.

    7) 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset


    So I think this is the crux of it. You do not want factions to have separate warring modes and training modes.

    Which of these is true then?

    a) Factions should specialize, being either for warring only or training only. People can move from one faction to another depending on whether they want to war or train.

    b) Factions should be balanced, offering both training and warring specials at all times but not specializing in either one.

    I'm guessing you want "b" here.

    Factions will not voluntarily balance between training and warring at the same time. There is zero incentive to do that. Any faction that tries to balance will be at a disadvantage, whether specials are flexible or locked. They will instead specialize and pair with a faction that has the opposite specialization, trading members over time.

    If it is really important for you that all factions be balanced, then the only option is to make Steadfast part of the core branch and automatically unlock the first ten levels for factions as they reach certain respect thresholds without making them spend respect on it.

    Make some branches more like getting additional Life when a player levels up. It's automatic and everyone gets it.

    Pick some balance of branches that you think are important and unlock them by default as the faction's respect grows.

    And then leave the remaining respect to the faction lead to distribute, which I think should still be flexible. But at least this method would get the balance you seem to be striving for.

    -------------

    You've got maybe 1200 super-involved players, about a third of whom read the forums and half again reply in the forums. These include the leads of top and medium factions, long-time top players, and some newer players who spend a lot of time in the game.

    These are also the players who will engage in warfare. They're the ones who care about whether they have training specials or war specials.

    The vast majority of players, both in the game and in the forum, are casual players. They either aren't in a faction or are in a "social" faction that doesn't war, barely chains and never switches specials. As long as you don't touch their extra carry items for travel, they're good.

    Your "vocal minority" are actually the people who give a f**k about your game. They are actually using the game mechanics and not just passively sitting on stocks, travel gains and company jobs, slowly gaining net worth.

    If the "vocal minority" is getting up your ass about this, it is because they CARE. It's when they stop saying anything at all that you have reason to be concerned.
    this should be the player bases official response to ched and is really deserving of being its own forum thread rather than a reply
  • PM MolonLabe [2072034]MolonLabe [2072034]
    • MolonLabe [2072034]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 296
    • Karma: 254
    • Last Action: 45 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:22:24 - 16/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.

    CornHub [2423014]

    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes'
    IMHO I think the opposite... factions may end up using those very few unsets to have a months long warring 'season', to then unset perks and go to a months long training season (even in high respect factions, in order to have both training and warring perks, branches need to be sacrificed, so I can't imagine many factions actively wanting to have both types active at once)... that sounds more like having a 'war mode' and 'training mode' than not. I don't think embracing the flexibility of perks is a bad idea, tbh
    I agree with this as well. Flexibility is not a bad thing, I never viewed it as such.
  •   SoloWarrior [463005]SoloWarrior [463005]
    • SoloWarrior [463005]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 83
    • Posts: 831
    • Karma: 1044
    • Last Action: 2 days
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 01:52:12 - 17/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
  • BT Larten_Crepsley [1569797]Larten_Crepsley [1569797]
    • Larten_Crepsley [1569797]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 90
    • Posts: 1204
    • Karma: 958
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 05:30:50 - 17/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.
    Hey ched. With all this in mind, regardless of what the final decision is, can we get a time frame or date as to when these changes or updates will kick in ?

  • CR AiR [2251655]AiR [2251655]
    • AiR [2251655]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 94
    • Posts: 726
    • Karma: 2615
    • Last Action: 1 hour
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 12:09:12 - 17/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.

    Beerstein [1322136]

    Developer: Creates a system with 1 thing in mind
    Players: Use it a different way

    2 options
    A. Developers can try to force what they had in mind.
    B. Accept that it turned out differently than intended but works, and continue with changes that cater in this player-driven direction.

    2 consequences
    A. Developer tries to force it - (4 unsets a year for example)
    - Player response: Sub factions transition to sister factions, members shuffle for war periods, effectively 8 resets a year instead of 4, powerhouse players shuffle as-needed to manipulate the ranked system. Drop ranks with one special set up, dominate ranks with other (or if that's not possible some other manipulation, but they will find it)
    - Developer changes system so the user has to be in faction for a month to participate in wars.
    - Users once again (as with every resistant change) get upset and look for a workaround to play the way they want.
    B. Changes are made to balance the play style users have chosen and changes are made to reduce/close gaps in abuse that give certain players advantages over others due to the system, but without changing the core function.
    - A few users whine and then go to bed and forget about it.

    So you can try to force your vision and maybe some day you'll get it just how you want it AND the players will be happy, but it's basically going to be an endless fight between you and the players. Or you can focus on other areas of the game, accept that this is what the players have decided to do with what you made AND that it works, and make smaller changes improving on what it is while focusing on other areas. Maybe some day down the road when other areas are built out you come back with fresh ideas to improve this even further.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Chedburn [1]

    but it's basically going to be an endless fight between you and the players.
    I'm not sure I follow that logic. I just want to let players choose the option they want, and leave it at that.

    I'm certainly not forcing any vision, I just want to finally fix and complete this one system that's been bugging me for years - in whatever way the community prefers.

    Beerstein [1322136]

    PERSONALLY, I'm not entirely opposed to your proposal however, this is REALLY bad design if you do go that direction. For others that do oppose it entirely, I'll let them speak to that.

    Chedburn [1]

    Steadfast definitely wouldn't remain like that in retrospect. We've already discussed alternate solutions.
    With the next poll, maybe you could elaborate on the alternative solution for steadfast?
  • RABD 4-20 [2515051]4-20 [2515051]
    • 4-20 [2515051]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 15
    • Posts: 701
    • Karma: 784
    • Last Action: 6 minutes
    • Quote
    • Report
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:09:48 - 17/08/21 (2 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Chedburn [1]

    I really don't mind what we do - but we need to make a decision one way or the other. I don't want to leave it in this current unfinished state which is clearly broken - it needs to be fully completed. I want to either embrace the tree flexibility and fix the tedium there - even if it devalues respect by effectively having any branches a faction wants whenever they want them. Or change the system to its original intent.

    was to release ranked warring rather than tweaking unnecessary changes before the new system
    I think it's vastly, vastly important that we nip this mindset in the bud before ranked warring - if we're ever going to. If people get used to flipping around branches constantly with ranked warring, there would be no hope in getting public approval for the long-term trees.

    change perks every 4 month
    Any more often than 3 times per year, and factions will still feel the need to have 'war modes' and 'training modes' - the idea is to change that mindset.

    LouBaker [1162207]

    Your taking all the fun out of the game, changing faction tree upgrades for different events is a godsend for members training every day

    Chaining will be dead if you don't have war upgrades or visa versa warring will die if you cant train (this will apply to most lower factions)
    and to put on top of all that you have the recruitment stage where you don't have any perks, you are forcing unwanted movements

    Just the change in daily routines makes a faction what it is, the boredom of doing the same thing every day will kill the game also force members to move to factions (if they can) where they can read a book or do a Torn Event, leaving all the friends behind and probably not returning again.

    This Is a sad day for Torn

    Chedburn [1]

    That is your opinion, and other people have different opinions. All I'm doing is figuring out the option that is the most preferred.

    I cannot just blindly follow the vocal minority, those who are afraid to adapt. It's incredibly frustrating, but it's always been the case with any change. All I can do is try to make things as clear as possible to the community, and ask them to make a choice. I'm sure we'll have another confirmatory poll soon - but the fact is, I'm not going to select the option that's the least popular.
    How about none of the opinions that agree with you the current system is broken? This wouldn't even be a discussion if you hadn't randomly made a post saying it was broken, you are the only one saying that.

    How about you make a simple poll to the player base asking if faction upgrade trees need a revamp? I would bet a generous amount of money 80%+ disagree anything about them needs to be changed.

    You keep removing the nuances to this game that make it fun. Stop before you won't have a game left to ruin.
Reply
Thread Title: