[Change #7] Estimated Update Times Displayed

[Sovreignry]

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.

I can have the best damn trigger in the whole universe but if I don't have numbers, or if people don't jump on time it doesn't matter.

[Cerian Quilor]

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.

I can have the best damn trigger in the whole universe but if I don't have numbers, or if people don't jump on time it doesn't matter.

True. But what does that have to do with Mall?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I can have the best damn trigger in the whole universe but if I don't have numbers, or if people don't jump on time it doesn't matter.

True. But what does that have to do with Mall?

I think he's agreeing with me.

[Sovreignry]

True. But what does that have to do with Mall?

I think he's agreeing with me.

Precisely.

[Land filled with People]

However, changing R/D so timing becomes 100% luck? That does nothing but dumb down the game and eliminate any existing strategy from it.

What existing strategy? Raiders relying 100% on timing/triggers has essentially killed off all strategy. It's almost same shit every update. Park you dirty puppet in Epo (make sure it's still flying your region's flag after it's last raid); Pick WA up at the start of update; Endorse your lead; Move at the trigger/go; Repeat. There is no need for other strategies because raiders are apparently satisfied with their average success rates from triggers.

When I first started defending (you should be able to remember these, you were doing them) some updates all the raiders (using clean puppets) went to one IJP and endorsed their lead before jumping; other times they each made their own IJP then jumped and endorsed their sleeper; sometimes they just stayed in late updating regions before jumping; there were diversionary tactics such as jumping through multiple founderless regions and thorning (which also told you if defenders had spotted you) and more. All of these have almost completely disappeared. It's almost as if raiders have given up even trying new things because they can rely solely on timing.

An uncertainty window of 10-15s would enable raiders (through the use of other techniques) to continue to be successful while raiding. It would force the promotion of ingenuity and new ideas because the 100% emphasis on timing is removed. But it will only work if the ability to trigger is also removed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

You just described sop for TBH regarding our stealth. So. Yeah. Your point falls flat.

[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.

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.

Emphasis mine:

*Snip*
The intention of this change is to:

• Reduce the barriers to involvement in raiding/defending by making information on update times publicly available to all.
• Have the estimated update time displayed on regions be the most accurate information a player can obtain on a region's possible update time, negating the need for other tools.
• Prevent split-second timing from being an absolute necessity for success.

*Snip*

[Mallorea and Riva]

Riddle me this, if split second timing (which has been discredited already by various experienced players within this thread, so let's think of it more as relatively good timing) is a necessity for success, and this change makes it impossible to skillfully achieve relatively good timing, does that not then mean that it is impossible to skillfully win when the defenders see you? For as long as there is an update, this will be a game with a clock. We are playing against defenders, with the knowledge that we also have a clock to worry about. No matter how admin seeks to scramble our understanding of the clock, we will always seek to edge it as close as possible, because it is better to miss an update than to lose outright to defenders and get banned from the region.

[Kanaia]

It should not be all about the clock. The skill with the clock should not, and previously was not, the only skill required and necessary to successfully raid. That is the hang up. It should be about gathering numbers, distraction, infiltration, misdirection, alliances etc. Not calculating the precise moment required to move so that no one has a chance to contest you.

You see timing as the only skill applicable to raiding, and others such as stealth having little use. I say that timing should be part of R/D, but not the main part of R/D.

*snip* we will always seek to edge it as close as possible, because it is better to miss an update than to lose outright to defenders and get banned from the region.

And that is the problem. You would rather contest the clock, than contest defenders.

[Mallorea and Riva]

It should not be all about the clock. The skill with the clock should not, and previously was not, the only skill required and necessary to successfully raid. That is the hang up. It should be about gathering numbers, distraction, infiltration, misdirection, alliances etc. Not calculating the precise moment required to move so that no one has a chance to contest you.

Yeah, and as multiple people have told you who are active in R/D, it isn't about that anymore. Variance has done a good job with this. If anyone wants to throw and evidence against this, feel free. Until it's shown otherwise, I'm working off of the small study that was done before the summit.

You see timing as the only skill applicable to raiding, and others such as stealth having little use. I say that timing should be part of R/D, but not the main part of R/D.

No you aren't listening to what I'm saying. Some groups do things differently, but when going for major targets we always request clean nations in late updating but non obvious regions, admitted to the WA as far in advance as possible. We use a sleeper point to avoid cross endorsing.

The exception to this is tags, which are primarily about timing and quantity, but they are less important to the game overall and their frequency faded once Halcones got his record back.

*snip* we will always seek to edge it as close as possible, because it is better to miss an update than to lose outright to defenders and get banned from the region.

And that is the problem. You would rather contest the clock, than contest defenders.

You don't get it. I don't want to get booted to Fratt in TRR, because that is somewhat embarrassing, so I take the opposite risk, that I'll lose because defenders pushed me to cut it too close. It's a loss for me either way, and I know most defenders count it as a successful defense. You for some reason do not view it that way, but the net result is a region saved.

[Land filled with People]

You just described sop for TBH regarding our stealth. So. Yeah. Your point falls flat.

Which is why your last raid was in what, June? Glad to see you at the forefront of raiding .

@your other point
This would simply (once again) change what is considered "relatively good" timing. Split second timing is not a necessity for success however some raiders seem to think so. There were two regions raided this update that faced 0 defender resistance despite us being around - we simply did see them even though the raiders moved in hours before update. I would much rather be beaten by raiders because they were sneaky/diversionary/whatever than because my internet crapped out during the necessary 4 second window.

[Tlik]

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.

What are you defining as being a good player? In regards to triggering I'd argue it's someone who has learned enough to understand how the update works, and has utilised that knowledge. After all, in regards to stealth, a good player would be one who has learned enough to understand what tools can be used to spot you, and how to oppose those. It's about learning, and then using the information that you've learned. Anyone can do that. If you feel that it's too hard to learn about triggering, go and write up a tutorial on the process and get it put into Nai's "Basics of Military Gameplay" sticky, and people will have the chance to learn, and then become a good player.

The problem here is that we're assuming that being able to do these calculations is an insufficient measure of one's ability to play NS, which is nonsense. Working out when, approximately, a region is likely to update has been a part of both raiding and defending for a very long time. True, we have access to much more accurate data now, but that doesn't negate the fact that if you want to play the game, you have always had to do the calculations.

---

The problem I'm seeing particularly here is liberations. Raiders can use stealth, and that's fine. This proposal would encourage that, and decrease the number of tag raids. I don't mind tag raids, but I can accept they probably aren't the height of NS raiding. However, liberations don't have quite the same setup as raids. Our target is pre-determined, we don't get the luxury of choosing where to liberate. Stealth is impossible, unless we manage to convince whoever's in charge that we genuinely are members of their organisation, which, surprisingly, doesn't happen very often. We can't move in and just hope for the best, because the leads of a big operation will be some of the best kickers in the business. And if this goes through, we can't move in at exactly the right time* because we have no idea what that time is. Instead we have to encourage the use of switchers (another complicated system for new people to work out, probably more so than the fundamentals of update-time) and hope that we can just spam in enough people enough times that eventually when update comes round, we'll have enough people in to win.

That *really* sounds like a fun game to play...

* Assuming we're actually able to move in at exactly the right time anyway, which, based on past experience, might be a bit much to hope for...

[Land filled with People]

However, liberations don't have quite the same setup as raids. Our target is pre-determined, we don't get the luxury of choosing where to liberate. Stealth is impossible, unless we manage to convince whoever's in charge that we genuinely are members of their organisation, which, surprisingly, doesn't happen very often. We can't move in and just hope for the best, because the leads of a big operation will be some of the best kickers in the business.

Which is why ideas such as Delegate-Elect and Reformation are also being discussed. So that the 'traditional' liberation is not the only way to liberate a region.

[Tlik]

However, liberations don't have quite the same setup as raids. Our target is pre-determined, we don't get the luxury of choosing where to liberate. Stealth is impossible, unless we manage to convince whoever's in charge that we genuinely are members of their organisation, which, surprisingly, doesn't happen very often. We can't move in and just hope for the best, because the leads of a big operation will be some of the best kickers in the business.

Which is why ideas such as Delegate-Elect and Reformation are also being discussed. So that the 'traditional' liberation is not the only way to liberate a region.

Delegate-Elect wouldn't, at least under the numbers being suggested, help at all. The Reformation proposal would probably work, but would then itself become the only way to liberate a region.

[Cerian Quilor]

If we're talking a fifteen second window, then raiders will move right at the beginning of the 15 second window, which is more than enough time for defenders to notice and move, and for native dels (if on) to notice and eject.

Even tag raiding takes its own skill, and the reason why "split-second timing" came into vogue was because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, defenders got incredibly good at spoting stealthier attempts.

[Ballotonia]

Right now, due to Variance, there's already an uncertainty window. So I don't understand where the 'timing becomes 100% luck' angle is coming from. Instead of having to calculate on-the-fly what the expected window is, we'd be displaying it 12 hours in advance. That way less experienced players, such as most natives, have some idea of when they can expect stuff to happen.

I see how this proposal removes the skill required to terminate a jump time (triggering). The system would be doing that for you, without the possibility of miscalculations. Shouldn't that make life easier for all sides?

Ballotonia

[Mahaj]

I see how this proposal removes the skill required to terminate a jump time (triggering). The system would be doing that for you, without the possibility of miscalculations. Shouldn't that make life easier for all sides?

But the game is "doing it for us" less accurately than we'd like.

Why couldn't the game "do it for us", *and* we can still have the tools to trigger ourselves if we like?

[Cerian Quilor]

Right now, due to Variance, there's already an uncertainty window. So I don't understand where the 'timing becomes 100% luck' angle is coming from. Instead of having to calculate on-the-fly what the expected window is, we'd be displaying it 12 hours in advance. That way less experienced players, such as most natives, have some idea of when they can expect stuff to happen.

I see how this proposal removes the skill required to terminate a jump time (triggering). The system would be doing that for you, without the possibility of miscalculations. Shouldn't that make life easier for all sides?

Ballotonia

But you're not telling us the exact time. You're giving us a window of some size (the consesus seems to be 15 seconds), but the issue is that that window, given the speed with which the game works, is far too wide, leaving more room for error than we'd like.

[Ballotonia]

But the game is "doing it for us" less accurately than we'd like.

Why couldn't the game "do it for us", *and* we can still have the tools to trigger ourselves if we like?

But you're not telling us the exact time. You're giving us a window of some size (the consesus seems to be 15 seconds), but the issue is that that window, given the speed with which the game works, is far too wide, leaving more room for error than we'd like.

So... why not argue for a smaller window of uncertainty, instead of saying the concept itself is undesirable?

@Mahaj: please reread the example I gave in my earlier post. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ballotonia

[Ponderosa]

Support.

[Tlik]

Right now, due to Variance, there's already an uncertainty window. So I don't understand where the 'timing becomes 100% luck' angle is coming from. Instead of having to calculate on-the-fly what the expected window is, we'd be displaying it 12 hours in advance. That way less experienced players, such as most natives, have some idea of when they can expect stuff to happen.

I see how this proposal removes the skill required to terminate a jump time (triggering). The system would be doing that for you, without the possibility of miscalculations. Shouldn't that make life easier for all sides?

Ballotonia

A good trigger can estimate a region's update time to within a few seconds, with an approximately normal curve. Variance is a factor, but, by-and-large, does not shift the update time by more than a few seconds. This proposal removes the normality, and changes the window to a much higher level. While giving us information at that level is helpful for newer and older players alike (see FT and other bots for evidence of use), removing the ability to make more accurate predictions is a much more severe hindrance.

@Mahaj: please reread the example I gave in my earlier post. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ballotonia

Your example didn't seem to present much of an issue. Why can't you give an "Update ETA", and then let it be a few seconds out? A rough estimate suggests a nation takes about 0.0006 seconds to update, so it would take about 1000-2000 nations moving to add or remove a single second. I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect most people would not be unpleased if that was the largest margin of error in a region's estimated update time.

[Mallorea and Riva]

But the game is "doing it for us" less accurately than we'd like.

Why couldn't the game "do it for us", *and* we can still have the tools to trigger ourselves if we like?

But you're not telling us the exact time. You're giving us a window of some size (the consesus seems to be 15 seconds), but the issue is that that window, given the speed with which the game works, is far too wide, leaving more room for error than we'd like.

So... why not argue for a smaller window of uncertainty, instead of saying the concept itself is undesirable?

Because if we ask for you to make it the same size as the variance window, then I don't see the point of removing triggering. That having been said, can you do that?

[Ballotonia]

A good trigger can estimate a region's update time to within a few seconds, with an approximately normal curve. Variance is a factor, but, by-and-large, does not shift the update time by more than a few seconds. This proposal removes the normality, and changes the window to a much higher level. While giving us information at that level is helpful for newer and older players alike (see FT and other bots for evidence of use), removing the ability to make more accurate predictions is a much more severe hindrance.

So would it be OK if we'd just provide the mean of a normal variation, and the standard deviation of that normal variation is similar to the current Variance?

Your example didn't seem to present much of an issue. Why can't you give an "Update ETA", and then let it be a few seconds out? A rough estimate suggests a nation takes about 0.0006 seconds to update, so it would take about 1000-2000 nations moving to add or remove a single second. I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect most people would not be unpleased if that was the largest margin of error in a region's estimated update time.

Your math is WAY off. At 0.0006 seconds per nation, an update (right now 108697 nations) would last about 65,2 seconds. It takes an hour. If the game provides predicted update times 12 hours in advance, and runs the update as usual, expect some regions to be a minute off or more (though not the ones in front, they'd be spot on!). And that's with the normal shifting of nations due to resurrections, founding, and moving around for regular on-going purposes. That's not even considering people moving nations around for the purpose of throwing off the provided estimates.

The idea is to make Gameplay activities more accessible, not provide misinformation to (for Gameplay) new players.

Because if we ask for you to make it the same size as the variance window, then I don't see the point of removing triggering. That having been said, can you do that?

The game could provide a sub-second exact update time and hit it always with pinpoint accuracy. Far better than any trigger you could create. After all, it's the game code that decides when a region updates.

The point of this proposal is in the OP:

• Reduce the barriers to involvement in raiding/defending by making information on update times publicly available to all.
• Have the estimated update time displayed on regions be the most accurate information a player can obtain on a region's possible update time, negating the need for other tools.
• Prevent split-second timing from being an absolute necessity for success.

Note this would replace the current Variance, as the uncertainty window IS the variance. Instead of having to trigger for it, we'd just tell you when it'll be.

Ballotonia

[Tlik]

A good trigger can estimate a region's update time to within a few seconds, with an approximately normal curve. Variance is a factor, but, by-and-large, does not shift the update time by more than a few seconds. This proposal removes the normality, and changes the window to a much higher level. While giving us information at that level is helpful for newer and older players alike (see FT and other bots for evidence of use), removing the ability to make more accurate predictions is a much more severe hindrance.

So would it be OK if we'd just provide the mean of a normal variation, and the standard deviation of that normal variation is similar to the current Variance?

If it were at a similar degree of accuracy, I think I'd be happy. It's just the previous thoughts were largely around the level of fifteen to thirty seconds, which is insane.

Your example didn't seem to present much of an issue. Why can't you give an "Update ETA", and then let it be a few seconds out? A rough estimate suggests a nation takes about 0.0006 seconds to update, so it would take about 1000-2000 nations moving to add or remove a single second. I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect most people would not be unpleased if that was the largest margin of error in a region's estimated update time.

Your math is WAY off. At 0.0006 seconds per nation, an update (right now 108697 nations) would last about 65,2 seconds.

Fuck. 0.0006 minutes. Ish. I apologise for the fact that I'm apparently unable to do any maths at all.

[Ballotonia]

If it were at a similar degree of accuracy, I think I'd be happy. It's just the previous thoughts were largely around the level of fifteen to thirty seconds, which is insane.

Like you, other people ARE allowed to share their thoughts. Doesn't mean that on our end we'll just take whatever number is thrown around first and implement it blindly. A variance with uniform distribution of 30 secs wide would be, in comparison to todays update, very large. Very large. If we're talking about a window with normal distribution, and three times standard deviation of 15 seconds (so [-3*sd, 3*sd] is 30 seconds wide) providing a certainty of 99.7% of hitting the window (which I can make 100%) then we're getting quite close to what the Variance currently already is.

So, communicating clearly is important when throwing out numbers. But I think I already mentioned that a few pages back

Ballotonia