[Region Locking] Something needs to be changed.

[SunRawr]

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.

I believe she has said that she has the power to speed update up on the new server, though. If this slowed it down to an unacceptable level, she could fix it.


Plus what Bri said. I don't understand how the same amount of nations would update slower in that order.

[Jamie Anumia]

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.

I believe she has said that she has the power to speed update up on the new server, though. If this slowed it down to an unacceptable level, she could fix it.


Plus what Bri said. I don't understand how the same amount of nations would update slower in that order.

I accept the first point. However, remember that feeders and sinkers (in particular TRR) do have always varying populations, so surges would slow down update almost certainly to an extent if they updated in order of size.

[SunRawr]

I believe she has said that she has the power to speed update up on the new server, though. If this slowed it down to an unacceptable level, she could fix it.


Plus what Bri said. I don't understand how the same amount of nations would update slower in that order.

I accept the first point. However, remember that feeders and sinkers (in particular TRR) do have always varying populations, so surges would slow down update almost certainly to an extent if they updated in order of size.

Why would update take longer than it does now, though? Those regions all still update.. I'm really not grasping what you are talking about

[Jamie Anumia]

I accept the first point. However, remember that feeders and sinkers (in particular TRR) do have always varying populations, so surges would slow down update almost certainly to an extent if they updated in order of size.

Why would update take longer than it does now, though? Those regions all still update.. I'm really not grasping what you are talking about

To be honest..I have no idea what I'm talking about now. I just get the feeling that updating in order of size would create some issue. However, I can see benefits to your suggestion for both sides since it would mean neither side would need to be online an entire update.

[Ballotonia]

The reason I suggested small regions first is twofold:
1. Convenience to Invasion/Defense players, placing puppets in large regions where they can wait for the right time to jump, instead of continuously having to try to avoid update by being in some small region which still updates after other small regions which happen to be a target.
2. Some WA Census trophies have a large number of ties for first, with region order being the tie-breaker. Having large regions first means there might end up being a competition for 'largest region' just to get trophies. Imagine a puppet-creating frenzy, which I'd like to avoid. So if the large regions go first, we would also have to do rework on the WA Census code. At least to flip the order of ties.

The variance in my suggestion comes from shuffling the order of the update a bit (blocks), not from having a large number of nations update first. After all, any variance caused by updating large regions first can easily be accounted for by using a normal trigger.

Ballotonia

[Jamie Anumia]

The reason I suggested small regions first is twofold:
1. Convenience to Invasion/Defense players, placing puppets in large regions where they can wait for the right time to jump, instead of continuously having to try to avoid update by being in some small region which still updates after other small regions which happen to be a target.

So the point about not being required to be online a whole update unless targeting bigger regions would stand? Because If so, I'd definitely support an idea of putting small regions at either the beginning or end of update.

EDIT: Sorting out quote tags..

[Tramiar]

The reason I suggested small regions first is twofold:
1. Convenience to Invasion/Defense players, placing puppets in large regions where they can wait for the right time to jump, instead of continuously having to try to avoid update by being in some small region which still updates after other small regions which happen to be a target.

So the point about not being required to be online a whole update unless targeting bigger regions would stand? Because If so, I'd definitely support an idea of putting small regions at either the beginning or end of update.

EDIT: Sorting out quote tags..

Update is already just an hour. How short do you want it anyway? You're not required to be online the whole time. An hour isn't so bad for defenders, and it gives raiders enough time to do our thing. I like the big regions in with the others, if for no other reason than we have the ability to attempt a few regions even if we have new guys that we have to move slow and explain things to.

[SunRawr]

1. Having to stay on the ball to make sure your puppets are safe sounds like a good idea to me. Adds more risk. That's part of why I like it. It would push everyone into being less lazy than before.
2. There would be a puppet creating frenzy either way. R/Ders would compete to have larger regions than the other and to keep them from shrinking.

Part of what I had in mind included shuffling the regions with the same number of nations in them. The order would be determined by the region's size during the previous major update, meaning that any growth since then would not be taken into consideration.

It's clear in my head, just hard to put into words. :/

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

The reason I suggested small regions first is twofold:
1. Convenience to Invasion/Defense players, placing puppets in large regions where they can wait for the right time to jump, instead of continuously having to try to avoid update by being in some small region which still updates after other small regions which happen to be a target.
2. Some WA Census trophies have a large number of ties for first, with region order being the tie-breaker. Having large regions first means there might end up being a competition for 'largest region' just to get trophies. Imagine a puppet-creating frenzy, which I'd like to avoid. So if the large regions go first, we would also have to do rework on the WA Census code. At least to flip the order of ties.

The variance in my suggestion comes from shuffling the order of the update a bit (blocks), not from having a large number of nations update first. After all, any variance caused by updating large regions first can easily be accounted for by using a normal trigger.

Ballotonia

Given how few nations there are in GSL, I doubt WA Census trophies will be much of a cause for people to create loads of puppets.

[[violet]]

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.)

This sounds pretty good. I would imagine, though, that regions would switch blocks every now and again. E.g. new regions are created, nations move around, and Region X shifts from being at the 'large' end of Block #13 to the 'small' end of Block #14. This would cause a very large one-off variance in its update time. And possibly that might occur quite a lot, to regions that happen to exist on the cusps of two blocks.

[Unibot II]

Ballo, what kind of variance are you expecting?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Also- how long until this would be introduced?

[Ballotonia]

Ballo, what kind of variance are you expecting?

The one we'd implement

Seriously, there's numerous options involved for the shuffle algorithm alone. For some chosen X: a set block size (take x regions, shuffle, update), a varying block size (take y regions comprising of x nations total, shuffle, update), gradual shuffle (take x regions, shuffle, update 1 of them, add one more region, shuffle, update 1 of them, etc...) [nb: this would cause a non-symmetrical change in update distribution, with peaks of delay for a few random regions], etc... Then whatever shuffle algorithm we'd use would have parameters in it which allows us to tweak it to more/less variance.

Keep in mind the order of the daily data dumps would end up shuffled in the same way as well.

And as time goes by and regions grow / shrink they would see their update time move backward / forward. Going from 1 to 2 nations a region would see a delay in their average update moment of roughly 3.5 minutes. This effect is smaller as regions grow bigger. When going from 75 to 76 nations this effect would be about 10 seconds. And we'd have the interesting effect that a region's update moment would vary depending on region size changes of OTHER regions.

So, with this suggestion there'd be both a systemic (difficult, but technically still predictable) variance, and a non-predictable variance.

Also- how long until this would be introduced?

No clue, maybe even never. Right now we're just discussing. We need to provide ample time for everyone to weigh in, possibly come up with better ideas, raise problems we didn't think of, possible variations of the same idea, etc... I suspect if everyone were to go "woohoo, this is awesome!" this time might be shorter than if the response is "meh" or dead silence. And raising valid objections could have the effect of delaying/scrapping the whole idea. We'll see.

Ballotonia

[Unibot II]

I don't think the system should promote more than 10 seconds of variance -- anymore and you'd have a new problem on your hands: unable to liberate regions. I dunno if variance is as big of a factor for the success of raids as it would be for liberations; but I know a professional raider can usually take ten people out in seven seconds + about three seconds of common hesitation.

[Kshrlmnt]

The reason I suggested small regions first is twofold:
1. Convenience to Invasion/Defense players, placing puppets in large regions where they can wait for the right time to jump, instead of continuously having to try to avoid update by being in some small region which still updates after other small regions which happen to be a target.

Oh dear goodness no. The thought of how much easier it'd be for you to spot us jumping nearly makes me nauseous. Keep it mixed, as it is now, so there's actually some value to the work of hiding and making sure you don't update too early.

And I do hope people are remembering that all these ideas to make it harder to predict update times and jump split-second will be just as hard on liberations as on raids--harder, if it means a raid point potentially has more time to boot fendas. Me, I'd end up holding and possibly burning more, if only to express how much I disliked the change.

[Severisen]

A few things come to mind. I have read through most of the discussions, but I don't remember if this was brought up or not.

All of these suggestions are meant to make it harder for raiders to successfully take over a region, right?

If it becomes harder for raiders to get regions, are you also accepting that it will be harder for defenders to take held regions back?

With fewer successes, I admit it may be tempting to stay in a region much longer than we may have otherwise. With longer occupations, obviously there will come more ejections, passwords, refoundings, etc. These are not threats, just thoughts I have had on the subject.

Are the defenders prepared to accept that responsibility? That each loss may be catastrophic?

Edit: Ninja'd... Wow. Great minds? I was distracted writing my post... 8 minutes later, there are 2 posts saying nearly the same thing.

[Tramiar]

I don't really see why, when defenders often argue that raiders simply play against game mechanics and not defenders, the suggestion to fix that is to make us play even more against game mechanics, just with a higher loss rate. It doesn't sound so much like fixing the problem as "do anything to make sure raiders don't win".

It feels weird agreeing with Wordy on something, but the idea that seems most like it could fix it (and isn't going to happen anyway) is taking away the update order list and scrambling it. Its certainly not the best idea, but it at least seems to more... "fix" the problem than blocks. Yes, I realize it's not gonna happen. And I'm not saying it should. Just that its the most reasonable solution.

[Severisen]

Maybe even hide and shuffle a few times a year, once a month, etc. Keep us on our toes.

[Guy]

I don't think the system should promote more than 10 seconds of variance -- anymore and you'd have a new problem on your hands: unable to liberate regions. I dunno if variance is as big of a factor for the success of raids as it would be for liberations; but I know a professional raider can usually take ten people out in seven seconds + about three seconds of common hesitation.

And I do hope people are remembering that all these ideas to make it harder to predict update times and jump split-second will be just as hard on liberations as on raids--harder, if it means a raid point potentially has more time to boot fendas. Me, I'd end up holding and possibly burning more, if only to express how much I disliked the change.

This situation is exactly what is leading to the reliance on liberations. As I have said many times, liberations have always been a secondary priority and made up a very small percentage of what a defending group would do.

I couldn't care less about the effects on liberations.

I don't really see why, when defenders often argue that raiders simply play against game mechanics and not defenders, the suggestion to fix that is to make us play even more against game mechanics, just with a higher loss rate. It doesn't sound so much like fixing the problem as "do anything to make sure raiders don't win".

This would restore the previous situation. It still requires defenders to actually move to stop the invasion, only gives them more than 0.5 seconds to do so. This is the solution; the game would again be Invaders vs Defenders and not Invaders vs The Clock.

It feels weird agreeing with Wordy on something, but the idea that seems most like it could fix it (and isn't going to happen anyway) is taking away the update order list and scrambling it. Its certainly not the best idea, but it at least seems to more... "fix" the problem than blocks. Yes, I realize it's not gonna happen. And I'm not saying it should. Just that its the most reasonable solution.

An interesting solution, but I have a feeling someone would find a way to abuse that too.

[Tramiar]

Just because someone figures out a way to use what they've got doesn't make it abuse, even if it happens to be the other side that's figured it out. And no, this won't make it raiders vs. defenders. it'll be raiders vs. the clock and chance. Defenders wouldn't even have to bother to move on them, unless we took the safe side and moved really early every single time. Blocks aren't going to solve a thing. It'll be the way it is now, except more raider loss.

[Ballotonia]

And just to throw in yet another possibility to consider and discuss:

Suggestion: If a nation moves into a (non-GCR) region less than Y seconds before it updates, that region is deemed 'under contention'. The update of that region is postponed for a MINIMUM of X seconds allowing other nations some time to respond.

Considerations: if the update were to pause for X seconds, it would make update last longer. Players could even influence update length by triggering a pause for lots of regions (bad players, bad BAD players! ). If the update would instead process the next region instead, then if the next region is a large one the delay of the update moment of the region under contention could be large. This could be solved by the prior mentioned sorting by region size, with the same drawbacks / side-effects as mentioned before.
One could also wonder whether the 'delay' should be cumulative. If nations keep moving in, should the update for that one region be delayed over and over or should there be just a one-time delay?
When the end of the update is reached, the region under contention will have to go through update. The update cycle can wait a few seconds at that moment, but not indefinitely.

Ballotonia

[Klaus Devestatorie]

That's even worse than region locking; at least that gives raiders the chance, should they be willing to take the risk of a wasted night out, of beating the system through getting into a region that just so happened to have a very short lock time; This just automatically lengthens the update and means that you'll automatically never be able to get in faster than 15-20 seconds beforehand, PLUS you've added the possibility of exponential defender stacking. Absolutely not.

[Guy II]

Just because someone figures out a way to use what they've got doesn't make it abuse, even if it happens to be the other side that's figured it out. And no, this won't make it raiders vs. defenders. it'll be raiders vs. the clock and chance. Defenders wouldn't even have to bother to move on them, unless we took the safe side and moved really early every single time. Blocks aren't going to solve a thing. It'll be the way it is now, except more raider loss.

Being able to figure out update time with an accuracy of a couple of seconds is abuse. That's not how Gameplay has been played for the last God knows how long.

Of course defenders are going to move! All that this means is that we'll have 5-10 seconds to stop you, as opposed to no time at all. If defenders don't move, the region is lost either way.

[Gest]

It feels weird agreeing with Wordy on something, but the idea that seems most like it could fix it (and isn't going to happen anyway) is taking away the update order list and scrambling it. Its certainly not the best idea, but it at least seems to more... "fix" the problem than blocks. Yes, I realize it's not gonna happen. And I'm not saying it should. Just that its the most reasonable solution.

Information should be freely available for everyone to use to the best of their ability. There are already enough things in the game that you need a CS degree to do and adding another to the list would be counterproductive. Besides the second someone got a decent facsimile of the currently public list, we would be back here.

I don't think the system should promote more than 10 seconds of variance -- anymore and you'd have a new problem on your hands: unable to liberate regions. I dunno if variance is as big of a factor for the success of raids as it would be for liberations; but I know a professional raider can usually take ten people out in seven seconds + about three seconds of common hesitation.

An inelegant solution would be to make the "region lock" lock out everyone 10 seconds, or some number agreeable to everyone, before the region updates. This would give the defenders a larger move time than 2 seconds but wouldn't kill off liberations. Additionally a standard lock out time would also remove any luck based elements and I don't believe a set lock out time would affect the rest of NS much as non-gameplayers tend to move hours before update.

[Tramiar]

Just because someone figures out a way to use what they've got doesn't make it abuse, even if it happens to be the other side that's figured it out. And no, this won't make it raiders vs. defenders. it'll be raiders vs. the clock and chance. Defenders wouldn't even have to bother to move on them, unless we took the safe side and moved really early every single time. Blocks aren't going to solve a thing. It'll be the way it is now, except more raider loss.

Being able to figure out update time with an accuracy of a couple of seconds is abuse. That's not how Gameplay has been played for the last God knows how long.

Of course defenders are going to move! All that this means is that we'll have 5-10 seconds to stop you, as opposed to no time at all. If defenders don't move, the region is lost either way.

Having the knowledge to do something is hardly abuse. Again, just because you think the world is against you, doesn't mean there is abuse involved, and just because there is a problem that needs fixed doesn't mean theres abuse. It isn't one of your greatest ideas, trying to argue with people who agree something should be done.
They'll move, but they generally wouldn't need to. Unless we aways move early, most of our raids would be more likely to be stopped by the game. And we all know given 15 seconds, any defender paying attention would stop any raid that wasn't a stealth raid. I feel like we could fix the "never enough time" problem without taking away our ability to do update raids like tags completely and without it being mostly a fight against the game mechanics. This isn't that solution, and as long as people refuse to try to think of one and just spend their time arguing for this, we aren't going to find it.