Variance added

[General Halcones]

No thanks - so far it seems to create a fine balance

Hopefully the defenders won't start whining again soon.

[[violet]]

Scripts came about to tackle and destroy perceived ambiguities. The idea you are eradicating them but entering in new variables is a fundamental error, you are simply encouraging more robust scripting and creating an even smaller class less of people who really understand what is happening.

Agreed, but the new variance isn't something that can be solved with scripts. It's just a little additional randomness. Previously, if you watched when the 500th region in the world updated, you could predict very accurately (e.g. to the second) when the 550th region would update. Now, the daily update randomly speeds up and slows down by small but significant amounts, meaning it's not possible to predict update times quite so accurately.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Sorry about being an ass at the start of this thread. Have been exceptionally irritable and depressed over a couple of matters, both on and off the internet, but no excuse. Unknown will find a way.

[General Halcones]

It sure will. I am always willing to share any tools that we have. I have already been in discussion with Elindra.

[The XX]

Scripts came about to tackle and destroy perceived ambiguities. The idea you are eradicating them but entering in new variables is a fundamental error, you are simply encouraging more robust scripting and creating an even smaller class less of people who really understand what is happening.

Agreed, but the new variance isn't something that can be solved with scripts. It's just a little additional randomness. Previously, if you watched when the 500th region in the world updated, you could predict very accurately (e.g. to the second) when the 550th region would update. Now, the daily update randomly speeds up and slows down by small but significant amounts, meaning it's not possible to predict update times quite so accurately.

Thank you for your consideration and clarification.

[Sichuan Pepper]

It sure will. I am always willing to share any tools that we have. I have already been in discussion with Elindra.

This is quite interesting. What tools are you currently using?

[Mallorea and Riva]

It sure will. I am always willing to share any tools that we have. I have already been in discussion with Elindra.

This is quite interesting. What tools are you currently using?

Microsoft Excel 2010 and the little multiplication/division calculator that comes built into every freaking Windows OS since forever. That's all you need to get perfect timing (pre variance).

Or, nothing at all. That's just the easy way. You can do it without anything but NS.

[General Halcones]

Indeed, Excel 2010 has a great many handy features.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Well I did wonder as you were offering to share tools that I would expect most people already have. Keep your secrets then

[Mallorea and Riva]

:P
Well I did wonder as you were offering to share tools that I would expect most people already have. Keep your secrets then

By handy features I'm relatively certain he means you can look at it The technical aspect of plotting out an update time is not overly difficult. Focusing on it, delivering orders, making sure troops are trained blah blah blah is where the difficulty usually lies.

[Sichuan Pepper]

So Mall I noticed you have overcome variance with shorter triggers. Do you feel that enough variance was added?

[General Halcones]

Enough variance was added to make it very difficult to get 30+ hits in one update. It is still possible to get accurate times with very short triggers, and so it should be. Going too far with this would ruin the game we currently have. Wait until the summit, and then things can be fixed properly, with new features etc.

[Weed]

Enough variance was added to make it very difficult to get 30+ hits in one update. It is still possible to get accurate times with very short triggers, and so it should be. Going too far with this would ruin the game we currently have. Wait until the summit, and then things can be fixed properly, with new features etc.

If you're using short triggers and still trying to move 2 seconds before an update, you're still playing against the server, not the defenders or natives, which I think was the original complaint. Making your game against the server more difficult was no where near the goal I thought we were aiming for.

[General Halcones]

I was under the impression it was?

[Tramiar]

Enough variance was added to make it very difficult to get 30+ hits in one update. It is still possible to get accurate times with very short triggers, and so it should be. Going too far with this would ruin the game we currently have. Wait until the summit, and then things can be fixed properly, with new features etc.

If you're using short triggers and still trying to move 2 seconds before an update, you're still playing against the server, not the defenders or natives, which I think was the original complaint. Making your game against the server more difficult was no where near the goal I thought we were aiming for.

He did just very much imply that things weren't fixed properly. And if there was much more variance to where short triggers didn't help, it would be near impossible for us to get anything, especially those that don't use short triggers. The variance is simply something added to make things more challenging until they find a permanent fix.

[Sichuan Pepper]

*shrugs*
What happens if the permanent fix found is not to your liking? Seems to me that using short tiggers will only force admins hand into drastic fixes that could be avoided.
The use of 5-10 second tiggers will not only ruin the game for defenders but also other invaders that do not use them. It impacts the whole game.
If it were made near impossible for you to "get anything" I would say you brought it upon yourselves.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Some defenders seem to be implying that raiders should not be using every means available to win, as if some tactics were out of bounds because they unbalance the game. If those tactics are possible, then the game is unbalanced, through no fault of the raiders. To expect us to hold back to give defenders a better chance to beat us is a pretty ridiculous proposal.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Some defenders seem to be implying that raiders should not be using every means available to win, as if some tactics were out of bounds because they unbalance the game. If those tactics are possible, then the game is unbalanced, through no fault of the raiders. To expect us to hold back to give defenders a better chance to beat us is a pretty ridiculous proposal.

You're absolutely correct.

[Eist]

Some defenders seem to be implying that raiders should not be using every means available to win, as if some tactics were out of bounds because they unbalance the game. If those tactics are possible, then the game is unbalanced, through no fault of the raiders. To expect us to hold back to give defenders a better chance to beat us is a pretty ridiculous proposal.

Definitely. But, until recently, a) there seems to have been a systematic attempt by raiders to keep the status quo which, I think, is almost universally seen as brain-dead boring, and b) it's a question of mentality. It has always been possible to do stealth raids, as opposed to night after night of these boring and pointless flash raids and pile-ups (I see Halcones is flash raiding regions that are still tagged with his graffiti -- the ultimate display of pointlessness). Are stealth raids as successful as flash raids? No, of course not. Are they more interesting for everyone involved? I'd argue that yes, because of the competition they are.

But, it is raiders that dictate terms here, and raiders have made it abundantly clear that flash raids competing against a clock is more desirable than actually facing competition.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Some defenders seem to be implying that raiders should not be using every means available to win, as if some tactics were out of bounds because they unbalance the game. If those tactics are possible, then the game is unbalanced, through no fault of the raiders. To expect us to hold back to give defenders a better chance to beat us is a pretty ridiculous proposal.

Definitely. But, until recently, a) there seems to have been a systematic attempt by raiders to keep the status quo which, I think, is almost universally seen as brain-dead boring, and b) it's a question of mentality. It has always been possible to do stealth raids, as opposed to night after night of these boring and pointless flash raids and pile-ups (I see Halcones is flash raiding regions that are still tagged with his graffiti -- the ultimate display of pointlessness). Are stealth raids as successful as flash raids? No, of course not. Are they more interesting for everyone involved? I'd argue that yes, because of the competition they are.

But, it is raiders that dictate terms here, and raiders have made it abundantly clear that flash raids competing against a clock is more desirable than actually facing competition.

Well, I would attribute the rise of tag raiding not to a desire to avoid competition, but a simple lack of competition. Once we gained the ability to pinpoint update times, defenders essentially ceased to pose a credible threat to our success. This isn't our fault, and neither is it yours.

It looks like the added variance has led to a return of defender competition during the initial raid, which is good! Raiders like conflict. However, an ultimate solution will have to include measures to add incentive for raiders to try other tactics, without making major sacrifices to their chance of success. In other words, for us to try other tactics with a lower chance of success, the payoff needs to be bigger. Currently, the payoff is "you get to sit in the region for a while until you realize that defenders will probably never take it back, and then leave." We can no longer measure our success by how long we hold a region, because we can effectively hold it indefinitely. Thus, we have turned to other measures of success: namely, how many regions we can take in one update. With the added variance, it looks like the measure of success is now how many regions we can take in one update, AND how few we can lose to defenders. This is better, but not ideal.

[Tramiar]

Thus, we have turned to other measures of success: namely, how many regions we can take in one update. With the added variance, it looks like the measure of success is now how many regions we can take in one update, AND how few we can lose to defenders.

Depends on who you are, I guess. I wouldn't say I measure success in how many regions we can take in an update. Unless I'm measuring the success of tag raids.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thus, we have turned to other measures of success: namely, how many regions we can take in one update. With the added variance, it looks like the measure of success is now how many regions we can take in one update, AND how few we can lose to defenders.

Depends on who you are, I guess. I wouldn't say I measure success in how many regions we can take in an update. Unless I'm measuring the success of tag raids.

I'm speaking in terms of general trends in the raider community. There's a lot of attention paid to various records, and such. It used to be "Wow, you held that region for two whole weeks!!" and now it's "WOW, you took 41 regions in one night!"

Perhaps "measure of skill" or similar should be substituted for "measure of success" there.

[Unibot II]

Depends on who you are, I guess. I wouldn't say I measure success in how many regions we can take in an update. Unless I'm measuring the success of tag raids.

I'm speaking in terms of general trends in the raider community. There's a lot of attention paid to various records, and such. It used to be "Wow, you held that region for two whole weeks!!" and now it's "WOW, you took 41 regions in one night!"

Perhaps "measure of skill" or similar should be substituted for "measure of success" there.

You see, if I were a raider, I would see success more generally...

Like:

How much did you accomplish that defenders didn't want you to accomplish (quantity of success) x the difficulty to do it (quality of success) = ultimate quantitative measure of success.

What I see with Halc is a focus on quantity -- which bores people, and a focus on quality in, say, the Unknown circles, which annoys a lot of raiders who see that as playing into the defenders' wishes (not attacking as many targets).

I think what raiders view as "success" is incredibly important to this debate, since as you said, we can't expect raiders to not do what is available for them to do to attain success. But what -is- "success" is not really agreed upon.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Well to me unless the Native delegate has a window to defend their own region from attack then the amount of variance is not enough.

It would seem that the variance added either needs to be increased or put into place something that makes it harder to invade multiple regions in one update. Any chance of the update order list being removed and a one time shuffle of regions?
It will still be possible to add triggers but I imagine a lot more work involved in working out what order the regions now fall in and the risk that other new regions have been made that will upset your clock. ( this question is to Admin btw)

[General Halcones]

Take away the current game, and there shall be no R/D game left. A lot of us would stop playing the game, and it would become very quiet and boring.