[Change #7] Estimated Update Times Displayed

[Cormac A Stark]

I actually have a question related to this but not actually about the update time display. Ballotonia says that regions will no longer be guaranteed to update in the order found in the XML Dump -- does this mean that a region like Kyzikos will no longer always update last, but may update far earlier in the update?

And another question if the answer to the above is yes: Will regions created during update still not update at all during that update, allowing them to be used as Instant Jump Points to avoid updating before your target region does?

Apologies that this isn't directly related to the topic, but elimination of the ability to avoid updating before a raid/defense/liberation would significantly impact R/D.

[Ballotonia]

Just to explain a bit why removing the ability to trigger is part of this topic in the first place:

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario, with numbers absurdly high to make things really clear:
Take two consecutively updating regions in the game, let's call them region1 and region2, each containing 10 nations. Imagine the game will predict one update in advance when region2 will update. It sees only 10 nations before it and will estimate them updating one second apart. Imagine some (small) uncertainty window of unknown size around both published update times.

After this prediction is published someone dumps 2000 nations in region1. Then, an invader wants to invade region2, and decides to trigger using the 1500th nation in region1.

Then the update starts. All the way until region1 the update has gone smooth without any surprises. But then the update hits region1. So... what should the game do in this case? If it updates region1 and region2 at their promised times, the ability to trigger is lost: by the time the 1500th nation in region1 updates (and no, we can't update them all in 1 second without rewriting close to the entire game), the time to update region2 will have passed. And if the game has kept its promise to update region2 at its designated time, it must have done so before the moment the chosen trigger activates.
Similarly, if the game maintains the ability to trigger then it cannot update both regions at the published times.

Ballotonia

[Ballotonia]

I actually have a question related to this but not actually about the update time display. Ballotonia says that regions will no longer be guaranteed to update in the order found in the XML Dump -- does this mean that a region like Kyzikos will no longer always update last, but may update far earlier in the update?

As the feature is intended: Kyzikos may indeed not update last, but it will be very much near the end. The uncertainty windows for the last X regions will overlap, and that means their order of updating will depend on statistical variations.

And another question if the answer to the above is yes: Will regions created during update still not update at all during that update, allowing them to be used as Instant Jump Points to avoid updating before your target region does?

There is no intention to change this. Regions created during an update will not participate in that same update.

Ballotonia

[Tlik]

Just to explain a bit why removing the ability to trigger is part of this topic in the first place:

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario, with numbers absurdly high to make things really clear:
Take two consecutively updating regions in the game, let's call them region1 and region2, each containing 10 nations. Imagine the game will predict one update in advance when region2 will update. It sees only 10 nations before it and will estimate them updating one second apart. Imagine some (small) uncertainty window of unknown size around both published update times.

After this prediction is published someone dumps 2000 nations in region1. Then, an invader wants to invade region2, and decides to trigger using the 1500th nation in region1.

Then the update starts. All the way until region1 the update has gone smooth without any surprises. But then the update hits region1. So... what should the game do in this case? If it updates region1 and region2 at their promised times, the ability to trigger is lost: by the time the 1500th nation in region1 updates (and no, we can't update them all in 1 second without rewriting close to the entire game), the time to update region2 will have passed. And if the game has kept its promise to update region2 at its designated time, it must have done so before the moment the chosen trigger activates.
Similarly, if the game maintains the ability to trigger then it cannot update both regions at the published times.

Ballotonia

I don't see why the game needs to 'promise' to update a region at a certain time. After all, triggering never promised that a region would update at a certain time, even if experience and practice could make it a very strong prediction. Any estimate shown on the region was always going to be an approximation, and no-one was asking or expecting an exact time.

The problem with this is, as others have said, the fact that knowing when a region updates is an important part of Gameplay these days, and preventing larger organisations from having that information on the grounds that younger orgs don't have it isn't the right way to go about it. From that same argument, we might assume that no organisation is allowed to use "sneaky tactics" such as clean puppets and sleepers, on the grounds that younger orgs don't have the know-how to be able to use them effectively. The obvious answer to the latter suggestion is "no, that's ridiculous, anyone can learn to set up a sleeper, there's enough GP guides around" - why can't that be the answer to this conundrum?

I have a variety of other complaints about this particular proposal, but they are mainly niggles based on the original suggestion, and, with this particular method of implementation at least, are nowhere near as important as the feeling that this suggestion will take a horrendous amount of skill out of tag-raiding, and put an equally horrendous amount of emphasis on skill into larger raids and liberations, as people are forced to use much more skillful methods of concealing themselves. Thus producing exactly the same problem (beginners being kept out of R/D) but in an area much harder to deal with.

[Mahaj]

Just to explain a bit why removing the ability to trigger is part of this topic in the first place:

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario, with numbers absurdly high to make things really clear:
Take two consecutively updating regions in the game, let's call them region1 and region2, each containing 10 nations. Imagine the game will predict one update in advance when region2 will update. It sees only 10 nations before it and will estimate them updating one second apart. Imagine some (small) uncertainty window of unknown size around both published update times.

After this prediction is published someone dumps 2000 nations in region1. Then, an invader wants to invade region2, and decides to trigger using the 1500th nation in region1.

Then the update starts. All the way until region1 the update has gone smooth without any surprises. But then the update hits region1. So... what should the game do in this case? If it updates region1 and region2 at their promised times, the ability to trigger is lost: by the time the 1500th nation in region1 updates (and no, we can't update them all in 1 second without rewriting close to the entire game), the time to update region2 will have passed. And if the game has kept its promise to update region2 at its designated time, it must have done so before the moment the chosen trigger activates.
Similarly, if the game maintains the ability to trigger then it cannot update both regions at the published times.

Ballotonia

Why is this a problem though?

Moving nations and dumping them in regions ought to be another part of the strategy game in NationStates.

It takes skill to move nations around really quickly, let it it be rewarded.

Let those who use this suffer any political blowback, the game doesn't need to do anything.

The current system of timing / triggering / what have you is fine, you can just add the estimated update time for a region. You won't need to add in some artificial window, the time will be slightly off from variance anyway.

And if the time gets off because of a high nation region? So what, it happens, it's a part of the game.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Just to explain a bit why removing the ability to trigger is part of this topic in the first place:

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario, with numbers absurdly high to make things really clear:
Take two consecutively updating regions in the game, let's call them region1 and region2, each containing 10 nations. Imagine the game will predict one update in advance when region2 will update. It sees only 10 nations before it and will estimate them updating one second apart. Imagine some (small) uncertainty window of unknown size around both published update times.

After this prediction is published someone dumps 2000 nations in region1. Then, an invader wants to invade region2, and decides to trigger using the 1500th nation in region1.

Then the update starts. All the way until region1 the update has gone smooth without any surprises. But then the update hits region1. So... what should the game do in this case? If it updates region1 and region2 at their promised times, the ability to trigger is lost: by the time the 1500th nation in region1 updates (and no, we can't update them all in 1 second without rewriting close to the entire game), the time to update region2 will have passed. And if the game has kept its promise to update region2 at its designated time, it must have done so before the moment the chosen trigger activates.
Similarly, if the game maintains the ability to trigger then it cannot update both regions at the published times.

Ballotonia

The only variations of that magnitude which the game that I can think of would be:

• When TRR gets flooded from a coup,
• when someone is trying to create the largest region using a puppet dump,
• if you forgot to use your autologin script and you let your puppets all die.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that new players who do not know how to trigger would be at least somewhat understanding if a cataclysmic event threw the variance to be a bit more than usual every once in a blue moon.

[Cerian Quilor]

The best solution would be to either keep current predictive methods in existence but also add this, or allow some other way for a raid leader/scout/etc figure out the best time by some avaialble evidence within the given time window. Otherwise, everyone will move at the beginning of the window, giving defenders far too much time.

[Superfinity]

The best solution would be to either keep current predictive methods in existence but also add this

I think almost everyone, defenders and raiders are in agreeance with this.

Add an Estimated Update Time feature, without changing how update currently works.

Ballotonia is clever enough to code an Estimated Update Time feature that works like FriarTuck, Uniboot or Halcones's calculator, so that newbies and less professional R/Ders can have access to a tool that will guess an estimated update time. But if players want to figure out update works more than what the game has figured out for them -- they should be allowed to work to gain this advantage.

Players have always had fun, sitting down and doing the mathematics to calculate projective update models and figuring out update. Moreover, an entire culture regarding triggermen has emerged -- the triggerman is like the goalie of a team, everyone depends on them. This is getting rid of that avenue of fun for wonks (which most of us are) and getting rid of a part of contemporary military culture. Turning Military Gameplay into a simple roll of a die is robbing Military Gameplay of even more of its complexity.

The game has always valued the hard work and creativity of players, creating update systems to specifically be less skill-based and more luck-based undermines the competitive nature of R/D. For these reasons, I hope the admins reconsider the plan to change how update works in favor of simply adding a Estimated Update Time without changing update.

[Cerian Quilor]

I don't fine the calculations themselves fun, but I do find the comesurate higher success rate more fun.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The game has always valued the hard work and creativity of players, creating update systems to specifically be less skill-based and more luck-based undermines the competitive nature of R/D. For these reasons, I hope the admins reconsider the plan to change how update works in favor of simply adding a Estimated Update Time without changing update.

That's very well said.

[All Good People]

I just want to say that I initially thought that this was just adding the display, not removing the ability to trigger.

Adding the display would be a help to less experienced players, and players that don't want to be bothered with the process of triggering. And isn't the entire intent to increase the availability of gameplay to more players ?

Why penalize the players that have enhanced gameplay by their own talents and skills in the process ? Much of what has made NS great is what the players themesleves have done. These days, NS is automating many processes that the players themselves invented. That's fine, but no reason to remove the manual means the players themselves devised.

Adding estimated update times is a nice addition, and gives the entire NS public the ability to have the same information skilled/experienced players work to find out. But removing the ability to trigger will kill part of the player developed gameplay. I remember when NS went to random updates, it had a large impact on gameplay to it's detriment. I expect this will do the same.

[Eist]

The game has always valued the hard work and creativity of players, creating update systems to specifically be less skill-based and more luck-based undermines the competitive nature of R/D. For these reasons, I hope the admins reconsider the plan to change how update works in favor of simply adding a Estimated Update Time without changing update.

That's very well said.

The problem is that beyond the physical calculations of update time (which once you've learnt how it's pretty straightforward), there is not any skill beyond clicking the move nation button at the correct time. You naysayers are making the old system seem as if it is as complex as hacking into the NASA flight systems, but in reality a monkey could do it once taught how.

[Mallorea and Riva]

That's very well said.

The problem is that beyond the physical calculations of update time (which once you've learnt how it's pretty straightforward), there is not any skill beyond clicking the move nation button at the correct time. You naysayers are making the old system seem as if it is as complex as hacking into the NASA flight systems, but in reality a monkey could do it once taught how.

Couldn't that be said of the entirety of R/D? That once you know how to do it, all you are doing is clicking a button? I think most would accept that, but would still agree that there is skill involved. There are people who are far better at triggering than others (Jakker is better than me, I'm better than Tramiar, etc).

[Cerian Quilor]

There is a degree of skill in picking triggers and no matter how much you prep, variance can fuck over the best of math. There's a certain skill in being able to almost 'see' the variance in the wider display of information, and making predictions on that impression/hunch.

[Astarial]

The problem with this is, as others have said, the fact that knowing when a region updates is an important part of Gameplay these days, and preventing larger organisations from having that information on the grounds that younger orgs don't have it isn't the right way to go about it. From that same argument, we might assume that no organisation is allowed to use "sneaky tactics" such as clean puppets and sleepers, on the grounds that younger orgs don't have the know-how to be able to use them effectively. The obvious answer to the latter suggestion is "no, that's ridiculous, anyone can learn to set up a sleeper, there's enough GP guides around" - why can't that be the answer to this conundrum?

That can't be the answer because the two are not analogous.

"Using stealth" is not a particularly difficult or complex concept to think of. How to be stealthy, how to avoid being detected, how to then be successful... for a new player, nailing those down might take work, but this being a political game, espionage and intrigue are thematically appropriate. One can use and be good at stealth without a clear understanding of the underlying game mechanics

This is not the case with triggering. To come up with it, one must understand the nature of update (what it is, what it does, how it works, when it works), know about the existence of the daily dumps, figure out what they mean and how they can be exploited, determine a reasonably accurate method of extracting useful information from them for exploitation, and so on. Triggering, while pretty neat from a techie's standpoint, is something based on the way the game happens to be coded, and not on being a good player.

Ballotonia is clever enough to code an Estimated Update Time feature that works like FriarTuck, Uniboot or Halcones's calculator, so that newbies and less professional R/Ders can have access to a tool that will guess an estimated update time. But if players want to figure out update works more than what the game has figured out for them -- they should be allowed to work to gain this advantage.

Adding the display would be a help to less experienced players, and players that don't want to be bothered with the process of triggering. And isn't the entire intent to increase the availability of gameplay to more players ?

Why penalize the players that have enhanced gameplay by their own talents and skills in the process ?

The problem is that allowing this kind of tiering isn't allowing skillful, experienced and knowledgeable players to gain an advantage due to their skill and experience and knowledge, but establishing a playing field where new players will still not be able to participate - when deliberate split-second timing is possible, anybody who doesn't have that capability will find themselves trounced, constantly.

---

I like this change, in principle, but I worry that it's not going to do what it's trying to do. Split-second movetimes are matched, currently, with scripted tools to counter moves - generally assorted banjection scripts. If a window of uncertainty of, say 15 seconds is given, that means that people trying to liberate a raid will need to move in by the beginning of that window. If the region actually updates at the end, a competent raider delegate will have used all fifteen seconds to enjoy a banjection spree (and I would imagine most don't even need a full 15 seconds - not to mention that, realistically speaking, they'd have had more time because liberators would have to give their own troops some time to move). And that's something that can't be countered by moving later in the given window, because you have no way of knowing if update will strike in the beginning, rendering the attempt useless.

I'm not sure if "nobody can succeed" is better than "New players can't succeed"... but neither one is good. The only way I see for real balance here is if banning scripts and other tech is also set aside... but people don't just give up advances once they've been developed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The issue with stealth, and the problem that triggering seeks to address, is that defenders have gotten superb at spotting our attempts to raid medium to large scale regions. It is only through the use of update tactics that many raider orgs have been able to take such regions. Stealth isn't a solid answer.

[Cerian Quilor]

Which is why existing triggering should remain allowed.

[Kanaia]

I think there should be a degree of uncertainty to the order of update.
As it stands now, even with variance, update can be calculated to a very small window, making it nearly impossible to defend. Variance only decreasess the chance for success, it does not increase the chance for defense. The game is still raiders vs the clock, rather than raiders vs defenders.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think there should be a degree of uncertainty to the order of update.
As it stands now, even with variance, update can be calculated to a very small window, making it nearly impossible to defend. Variance only decreasess the chance for success, it does not increase the chance for defense. The game is still raiders vs the clock, rather than raiders vs defenders.

I just don't agree that that is true. I recall someone running a quick study on tag raids before and after variance and finding much better rates for defender when they actually make attempts to defend tags. If someone has actual evidence that variance failed, please put if out here because I'm unaware of any existing.

[Kanaia]

Link to study on tag raids?
My knowledge is only anecdotal, but I found that after variance was implemented defenders still rarely made it in fast enough to update, mostly it was just raiders failing to get in fast enough to take the delegacy, and defenders following after update to secure the region.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Link to study on tag raids?
My knowledge is only anecdotal, but I found that after variance was implemented defenders still rarely made it in fast enough to update, mostly it was just raiders failing to get in fast enough to take the delegacy, and defenders following after update to secure the region.

Isn't that a success? There is no difference between raiders moving too early and too late, we either miss or lose to defenders. We respond to defender pressure by cutting our move times shorter, increasing our risk. Our inability to precisely pinpoint update anymore forced us to choose which way to lose we would prefer, should our estimates be off.

[Kanaia]

Link to study on tag raids?
My knowledge is only anecdotal, but I found that after variance was implemented defenders still rarely made it in fast enough to update, mostly it was just raiders failing to get in fast enough to take the delegacy, and defenders following after update to secure the region.

Isn't that a success? There is no difference between raiders moving too early and too late, we either miss or lose to defenders. We respond to defender pressure by cutting our move times shorter, increasing our risk. Our inability to precisely pinpoint update anymore forced us to choose which way to lose we would prefer, should our estimates be off.

Nope, that is raider failure, not defender success.
Sure, pressure from defenders may decrease your rate of success, but defenders are still not interacting with raiders. Raiders are still racing the clock. Defenders are simply "threatening" the raiders to race the clock more narrowly.
Success for defenders, as I would define it, is spotting a raid, moving into a region, and preventing a raider from taking the delegacy.

[Tim-Opolis]

Isn't that a success? There is no difference between raiders moving too early and too late, we either miss or lose to defenders. We respond to defender pressure by cutting our move times shorter, increasing our risk. Our inability to precisely pinpoint update anymore forced us to choose which way to lose we would prefer, should our estimates be off.

Success for defenders, as I would define it, is spotting a raid, moving into a region, and preventing a raider from taking the delegacy.

Which we do fairly often, mate. However, the Raiders still succeed a lot too. I'd say that Variance definitely did it's intended effect, and was (looking back on it) a pretty good addition to the R/D dynamic.
However, changing R/D so timing becomes 100% luck? That does nothing but dumb down the game and eliminate any existing strategy from it. I echo the concerns of Mahaj, Mall, Cerian, etc. about why we can't keep triggering and still have the approximate region update time.

[Kanaia]

The idea, as I see it, is to change R/D so that triggering is not the Number 1 deciding factor on success or failure.
As it stands today, triggering is the be all and end all of successful raid/liberation. I believe there is a problem with that, and this would change it.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The idea, as I see it, is to change R/D so that triggering is not the Number 1 deciding factor on success or failure.
As it stands today, triggering is the be all and end all of successful raid/liberation. I believe there is a problem with that, and this would change it.

That's not correct. You're making blanket statements regarding the state of R/D with no evidence to back it up. Timing is important of course, no denying that. But this change does not seek to mitigate the importance of timing as far as I can tell, it merely makes it more difficult.