The Update Time Makes Me Wanna Cry

[Allrule]

After consultation, the consensus seems to be... let's do it.

YES!!!! Double updates!!!

[Karputsk]

Nai....

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would personally support a 5pm (BST) raiding window: the 5am window is very out of bounds unless I woke up really early.

[Topid]

I noticed this topic is suddenly active again, so, what of significance has happened to cause people celebrate this again? It hasn't been implemented has it?

[Biblical Importance]

As per earlier discussion in this thread, I do want to move to two major daily updates (one every 12 hours), which would guarantee at least one non-horrific time for everybody. But for the moment, the current time seems to be the best available compromise. If it's 6am for you, that's bad, but it's better than the 4am update time many American players had to deal with previously.

Why not make the one update time on a 23 hour or 25 hour basis. That way it would give everyone the chance to be awake during several updates during a month (and it would still be trackable).

[[violet]]

OK, let's see how this goes.

[Karputsk]

[Ketchupland]

[11:21] <Nean> No it's just that the minor update is now going to do everything the major update does
[11:21] <Ketchupland> oh cool

[The Sedge]

We carried out the first liberation at the new update time today, of Mandalore (ironically enough its an old invader region which was invaded by rogue 'defenders'). As the invader's delegacy only lasted 12 hours, I think thats the shortest delegacy in a founderless region in NS history without the delegate CTEing/being kicked out of the WA.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Hmmm....I think that double updates may help defenders more than invaders. Look at it from a point-of-view of an invader delegate. He now has to be active every 12 hours instead of every 24 to prevent liberation. Once school starts, I won't be able to point any raids because I can't be active at noon. In fact, I think it would be very hard to find someone who can be active every 12 hours to hold the delegate position.

Yes, it has become easier to raid a region, but MUCH harder to keep it. Now it's the defenders' turn to pick and choose the time they strike, and it may just be impossible to combat them. I'm withholding judgment so far, as the ingenuity and creativity of the raider community has never let me down before, but this may be the end of raiding as we know it.

[Face Dancers]

I wish this thread had been made known to all raiders (and defenders)...

Double Updates make it easier to take a region (whether you're raider or defender) but make it much harder to keep it. You need a delegate who's active at both updates, and these people are quite rare indeed.

One solution is for two people to control one nation, one active at each update...

[violet]:But go to two daily updates, and there's a time to suit everyone!

There's a time to suit everyone... but not two times to suit anyone.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The problem with that solution, FD, is that if the second person is one of the soldiers endorsing the point, then it's against the rules for him to log into the point nation, because of WA multi rules.

So to have two people control the delegate nation, you have to reduce your invading force by one.

[Sniper Wolv XVI]

I honestly don't think this is a bad idea, and I'm a raider who shares the views of Crushing our Enemies above me.

Go ahead, give it a go, and if it's really bad, change it back!

[Naivetry]

It's in effect as of yesterday.

I figured y'all would think of the shared-nation thing pretty fast. It means one less endo for us to worry about countering and encourages you all to work as a team, so I don't see any negatives.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Excellent progress!

[Face Dancers]

It's in effect as of yesterday.

I figured y'all would think of the shared-nation thing pretty fast. It means one less endo for us to worry about countering and encourages you all to work as a team, so I don't see any negatives.

C'mon, you of all people should know that if raiders or defenders don't work as a team, they will never succeed.

It makes one endo less for you... that's good... for you.

Isn't NS supposed to be a one nation, one controller thing anyway? Doing this just encourages the opposite.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The thing is that ANYONE who wants to hold a region for any length of time needs to have two people controlling the delegate. That includes defenders and natives. All of a sudden, with the innovation of double updates, it has become spectacularly easy to take control of a region, and nigh impossible to hold it.

Of course, to those rare people who can be on at both updates, you now win the game. You are supermen.

[Cement Tides]

I hate to say it, but 2 major updates is gonna kill the battle side of this game...and infringe on that many more neutral/rp based regions.

Moving the update time to where it currently is now was great. Shoulda stopped there.

[[violet]]

I'm interested in feedback to assess how this is going. Please note that since we're now live, reports of what is actually happening are more useful than predictions of what might happen.

[Unibot]

I'm interested in feedback to assess how this is going. Please note that since we're now live, reports of what is actually happening are more useful than predictions of what might happen.

Could you make the second major update possibly optional ?

Just looking at some of the grumblings from the raiding crowd, having a second major updates makes it easier for raiders to take the delegacy but much, much harder for them to continue to control that position.

If the second major update was something that you could turn off for your Region, though requiring a fairly large influence cost (meaning raiders would still have to defend from further invasions very hard for a couple of days) in the Regional Controls. This could work? No?

[The Sedge]

I'm interested in feedback to assess how this is going. Please note that since we're now live, reports of what is actually happening are more useful than predictions of what might happen.

Could you make the second major update possibly optional ?

Just looking at some of the grumblings from the raiding crowd, having a second major updates makes it easier for raiders to take the delegacy but much, much harder for them to continue to control that position.

If the second major update was something that you could turn off for your Region, though requiring a fairly large influence cost (meaning raiders would still have to defend from further invasions very hard for a couple of days) in the Regional Controls. This could work? No?

Thats not a practical solution - for an invader delegate to be able to turn off the second update (which you say would require a large amount of influence), then they'd have had to be delegate for a while to get the influence... and if they could manage that, there would surely be no need for this change. I see the second update as helping raiders by giving them double the opportunity to strike - its only griefers who would want to hold the delegacy for an extended period of time who would lose out. I think it'll take a few more invasions before raiders can really judge whether this disadvantages them significantly enough for it to be changed.

[Unibot]

Thats not a practical solution - its only griefers who would want to hold the delegacy for an extended period of time who would lose out.

Okay, what if the decaying influence concept (that was designed for passwords) was applied to minimalizng the frequency updates, so a delegate could only use a minor update for a short period of time before his influence croaked, as keeping the second major update as a minor update would lower the delegate's influence every update.

[Face Dancers]

I see the second update as helping raiders by giving them double the opportunity to strike - its only griefers who would want to hold the delegacy for an extended period of time who would lose out.

Even raiders just wanting to hold a region for let's say... three or four days would be hard pressed... unless four days is griefing for you..

[The Sedge]

Its not a challenge, rather than a walk in the park. Previously, a raider delegate would just have to be online for 5 minutes a day, and they could counter any liberation attempt (the recent invasion of Q102 showed that a raider delegate experienced with regional controls could kick out any number of nations entering just before update). Yes it is harder for invaders to hold a region, but it was far too easy beforehand. All you need to do is either be online at both updates, or allow someone else access to your nation for the update you can't make.

[Karputsk]

Its not a challenge, rather than a walk in the park. Previously, a raider delegate would just have to be online for 5 minutes a day, and they could counter any liberation attempt (the recent invasion of Q102 showed that a raider delegate experienced with regional controls could kick out any number of nations entering just before update). Yes it is harder for invaders to hold a region, but it was far too easy beforehand. All you need to do is either be online at both updates, or allow someone else access to your nation for the update you can't make.

Sedge is right, simply share your nation with someone you trust enough to be on at the appropriate update. The second update allows a lot more people to become involved in the military aspect of the game and it increases the activity of the military side of the game, the new update hasn't made holding a region impossible, it has made it more challenging (for both sides I might add).