[Region Locking] Something needs to be changed.

[Andacantra]

(copied out from my post that got caught in the thread split)

I can see the region "lock" idea having some potential. It would still rewrite the rulebook quite significantly, mind, and I think that that has been underestimated a bit. As has just been said, tag raiding could conceivably take a hit, if the region lock times got out of sync significantly with the actual update times. The other obvious drawback is if there was no way to access, for example, the past (not historic, but recent) lock times of a region. If there is no recognition on a regional page that it's been locked, the -only- way that I can think of right now (while this is just a vague concept) to get times is to somehow figure out how much earlier regions lock before they update. By that point, the extra variance introduced by the locking procedure itself is going to be a small problem.

I've now also thought about it some more. If there was a system where you always know that the region locks somewhen in the period x time before it starts to update, that I could live with. But, if it was constant throughout the update, you'd probably be in the situation where, like when update was incredibly long, the late updating regions would become ny-on impossible to raid, as you'd have to account for variance in the update time (which, even on the new server, is still noticeable and affects move times), and the region-lock variance.

We need something, and the region lock idea does have the potential to be it, but I'm not 100% sure on it. I'm mulling over possible solutions that won't overcomplicate, because Jamie does have a point that if we overcomplicate too much we'll just discourage people.

[Guy]

I personally think overcomplicating the R/D game would turn off some people from raiding or defending. I personally am opposed to an 'update lock' on favor of adding variance.

But variance may be predicted, just like it is now. Unless you have an idea for an alternative suggestion (like blocks) which would shuffle update as it goes.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I personally think overcomplicating the R/D game would turn off some people from raiding or defending. I personally am opposed to an 'update lock' on favor of adding variance.

But variance may be predicted, just like it is now. Unless you have an idea for an alternative suggestion (like blocks) which would shuffle update as it goes.

We don't predict variance anymore, current methods of raiding make the term variance obsolete. It's now a near exact mathematic system, with any variance being so minor as to be irrelevant. The only time variance will really cause difficulty is if you're triggering off a feeder, and even then you can compensate without too much trouble.

[Guy]

That's what I meant, Mall

[Jamie Anumia]

I personally think overcomplicating the R/D game would turn off some people from raiding or defending. I personally am opposed to an 'update lock' on favor of adding variance.

But variance may be predicted, just like it is now. Unless you have an idea for an alternative suggestion (like blocks) which would shuffle update as it goes.

I'd prefer making regions update in 'blocks' instead that of the 'update lock' proposal since it wouldn't overcomplicate knowing if/when a region has updated quite as much (in my opinion).

[Eist]

But variance may be predicted, just like it is now. Unless you have an idea for an alternative suggestion (like blocks) which would shuffle update as it goes.

I'd prefer making regions update in 'blocks' instead that of the 'update lock' proposal since it wouldn't overcomplicate knowing if/when a region has updated quite as much (in my opinion).

If this is feasible, then I agree. Get regions to update in random order in blocks, where block size is determined by the total number of nations.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I don't like the update lock idea. It seems very inaccessible to new players, makes the whole idea of update more complicated, adds a line to the regional happenings every 12 hours (remember that unlike the RMB, the RH do not get saved...) and essentially adds a large element of chance to the r/d game.

I'm in favor of any solution that will allow defenders to use their skills to their best advantage. I don't think this does that. All it does is take a percentage of would-be raider victories and turn them into losses based on a roll of the dice. I don't see this solving any real problems.

[Sichuan Pepper]

I do not want a large change either to be honest. Removal of the update order list and a shuffle of regions would be a good band aid without changing too much.
Yes invaders would be able to work out the order but it would be subject to slight changes and variance would be much harder to predict.
Prior to that list being available regions were able to be defended.

[Gest]

I do not want a large change either to be honest. Removal of the update order list and a shuffle of regions would be a good band aid without changing too much.
Yes invaders would be able to work out the order but it would be subject to slight changes and variance would be much harder to predict.
Prior to that list being available regions were able to be defended.

In this very thread violet has said that they want to make update times more available for everyone, not less available. Replacing public info with scripts is hardly user-friendly.

[Sichuan Pepper]

*nods*
This is why I am supporting Violets current change plan. I would prefer not such a large change but it is better than the current situation.
Certainly I do not want a situation where scripts must be used. I am certain I have not suggested that.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

You would also see raider groups turning away from the comparatively harmless graffiti of tagging, which would now be too difficult, and instead towards long term infiltration raids, in the name of either imperialism or deliberately destroying the native community.

Alternatively, we'll just predict the region lock. There is no true "random".

[Ballotonia]

But variance may be predicted, just like it is now. Unless you have an idea for an alternative suggestion (like blocks) which would shuffle update as it goes.

I'd prefer making regions update in 'blocks' instead that of the 'update lock' proposal since it wouldn't overcomplicate knowing if/when a region has updated quite as much (in my opinion).

As discussed, the problem with blocks is that it makes a rather huge difference to be updating before or after a feeder.

However, the blocks idea could be combined with sorting the update order by number of nations (lowest first). That way, regions could be shuffled with their 'update neighbors' which are of comparable size. This would also make it easier to group them in blocks of roughly the same number of nations (except the very last part of the update, but that would then be 400+ nation regions, there's only about 20 of those.)

Note that as a side-effect the last 20+ minutes of the update would be just updating those last few regions. The part of the update effectively usable by invaders/defenders would be hence shortened.

FYI, I know this is totally different from what [violet] suggested. We're just throwing ideas around here to facilitate discussion, the Admins have no specific preference other than wanting the game to be fun to the players. (ok, we want solutions which don't bog down or crash the server, that's important too )

Alternatively, we'll just predict the region lock. There is no true "random".

I can assure you, the game is quite capable of producing random results without the realistic possibility of players being able to make any accurate predictions. To my knowledge nobody figured out the region randomization algorithm back when that was random. I also don't see any evidence of someone being able to determine update order of a region without creating the region first and waiting for the update to come by. (eg: calculate which yet-unused region names would update after Kyzikos or before GSL)

Ballotonia

[Klaus Devestatorie]

And so we return to my first suggestion of what implications would exist.

[Tramiar]

However, the blocks idea could be combined with sorting the update order by number of nations (lowest first). That way, regions could be shuffled with their 'update neighbors' which are of comparable size. This would also make it easier to group them in blocks of roughly the same number of nations (except the very last part of the update, but that would then be 400+ nation regions, there's only about 20 of those.)

I'm not entirely sure some people wouldn't create a region with an insane amount of puppets so that they could have something that updates with the feeders. >.>

[Mahaj]

However, the blocks idea could be combined with sorting the update order by number of nations (lowest first). That way, regions could be shuffled with their 'update neighbors' which are of comparable size. This would also make it easier to group them in blocks of roughly the same number of nations (except the very last part of the update, but that would then be 400+ nation regions, there's only about 20 of those.)

I'm not entirely sure some people wouldn't create a region with an insane amount of puppets so that they could have something that updates with the feeders. >.>

That'll just lengthen the update, and not really affect R/D.

[Tramiar]

I'm not entirely sure some people wouldn't create a region with an insane amount of puppets so that they could have something that updates with the feeders. >.>

That'll just lengthen the update, and not really affect R/D.

Who has a later updater generally does affect R/D. If you want to deny it, I guess you won't mind staying out of Kyzikos?

[Jamie Anumia]

That'll just lengthen the update, and not really affect R/D.

Who has a later updater generally does affect R/D. If you want to deny it, I guess you won't mind staying out of Kyzikos?

Weirdly enough, I rarely use Kyzikos when defending (unless spotting to the point after my jump point updates). Arguably, using different jump points (which an update block idea would encourage) would make the R/D game more interesting.

[SunRawr]

Doing it backwards so that big regions updated first would add variance to the whole update and stop people from puppet-hoarding just to get late updaters. If we are going to do it by size, I think that is the way to go.

[Jamie Anumia]

Doing it backwards so that big regions updated first would add variance to the whole update and stop people from puppet-hoarding just to get late updaters. If we are going to do it by size, I think that is the way to go.

I'd agree about making big regions update either near the beginning or end, except I'd personally think big regions should update last instead of near the beginning toward avoid delaying update.

EDIT: Fixing wording.

[Tramiar]

I second Rawr's suggestion. It wouldn't delay update, it would just happen in a different order.

[SunRawr]

Doing it backwards so that big regions updated first would add variance to the whole update and stop people from puppet-hoarding just to get late updaters. If we are going to do it by size, I think that is the way to go.

I'd agree about making big regions update either near the beginning or end, except I'd personally think big regions should update last instead of near the beginning toward avoid delaying update.

Variance is healthy for R/D.

[Jamie Anumia]

I'd agree about making big regions update either near the beginning or end, except I'd personally think big regions should update last instead of near the beginning toward avoid delaying update.

Variance is healthy for R/D.

Indeed. But as Ballo said:

As discussed, the problem with blocks is that it makes a rather huge difference to be updating before or after a feeder.

So, In any regions updating either just before or just after may encounter a large problem with update time accuracy.

[SunRawr]

I'm not talking about blocks, I'm talking about going all the way through update in order of region size.

[Jamie Anumia]

I'm not talking about blocks, I'm talking about going all the way through update in order of region size.

Oh. Apologies for misreading your post. I can still see an issue however, since I think, from what I can gather about [violet]'s comments that this would extend update, which is something that I'm sure both defenders and raiders want to avoid.

[Tramiar]

I'm not talking about blocks, I'm talking about going all the way through update in order of region size.

Oh. Apologies for misreading your post. I can still see an issue however, since I think, from what I can gather about [violet]'s comments that this would extend update, which is something that I'm sure both defenders and raiders want to avoid.

If it extended update, it should even out to be near the same if large regions were at the beginning or end. Unless of course someone gathers enough people to attack a feeder.