does this server have too many turns?

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5731

May 22nd 2011, 3:18:55

I get a lot of folks messaging me (especially around FS times) discussing the turn structure for the server -- discussing both how we have more than EC/1A had and the frequency with which they come. The turns structures (for comparison) were/area: EE Alliance=120(120) @ 20min per, EC=120(80) @20min per, old 1A = 80(80) @ 30min per at the end)
So I just wanted to take a quick second to ask that question about the ALLIANCE SERVER ONLY:

Does the current rate of giving, holding and storing turns work well as-is for this server?

If you don't think it does work well, how could it be improved?

Edited By: Pang on May 22nd 2011, 3:24:04
See Original Post

-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

gambit

Member
1285

May 22nd 2011, 3:29:09

i couldnt tell you, cause i have no idea how many turns it has compared to the other servers or any of the old games, ect...

but i can tell you that i have actually become a fan of the change that you made to ffa where you took out the 12/18 hour turn bonuses

so i would take those off of all the servers... except express :)

Natural Born Killer

gambit

Member
1285

May 22nd 2011, 3:30:28

and also...

my teachers told me that i could never stay on subject :P

Natural Born Killer

Trixx

Member
315

May 22nd 2011, 3:31:03

I would like to see the 80(80) actually, more to come on my reasoning when I have the proper time to expand upon that.

-=Trixx=-
Head of AT Spammage

ICQ: 138314471

Servant

Member

EE Patron
1249

May 22nd 2011, 3:37:15

I preferred it when the resets were longer and less turns per day.

I understand more turns = shorter games

I rememeber 72(36)
:)

Z is #1

NOW3P

Member
6503

May 22nd 2011, 3:46:54

no

I seem to remember Jolt experimenting with turns on servers, and having horrible consequences. In fairness, there were other variables at play, but I'm fine with the way things are now.

~I wrote this with my penis~
http://i85.photobucket.com/...s/k48/jdbates/hobosig.jpg
FoG

Jiman

Member
1199

May 22nd 2011, 3:55:47

In terms of war, the increase turn storage with the added attack increase has made the FS something to not only be feared, be dreaded as it can now end wars as soon as they start (unless you call in for an ally for help).

In terms of netting, the increased amount of turns benifits netters by allowing them more freedom to play with their countries to a greater extent.

I do not think the server has too many turns. Decreasing the amount of turns given per so much time will not solve anything, but only take away players playing time with their countries. That should be the last thing done. This doesnt mean taking away the amount of turns stored.

I think the server would benifit greatly from the following two changes.

1) Limit the amount of attacks a country can make few seconds (either a hard limit or through readiness as suggested).

2) Put the turn storage back too 120(80).

This would keep the amount of turns on the server, but decrease the power of FSes. FSes are powerful enough already, and always have been.

TNTroXxor

Member
1295

May 22nd 2011, 4:14:04

I can tell Jiman is a noob waller

Originally posted by JJ23:

i havent been deleted since last set

braden

Member
11,480

May 22nd 2011, 4:20:22

i was killed in under a minute.

something might be wrong, yes.

Jiman

Member
1199

May 22nd 2011, 4:25:38

Originally posted by TNTroXxor:

I can tell Jiman is a noob waller

Nawwww so cute, you can't read.

Monex

Member
214

May 22nd 2011, 4:27:47

I dont think the amount of turns given is the issue so much as the amount of active turns during an FS.

80(160) seems like it would thwart the devastation of an FS but will still allow for the same turn accumulation.
Although after the FS turns will be given very rapidly a successful counter strike would decrease the number of countries that can attack on the second wave thus the same outcome as if you decreased the amount of total turns. Every turn will count more in war chats and will contribute to smarter slower hitting vise click as fast as you can, because defense held will hurt the chat as a whole lot more due to less active turns being available to be wasted.

Also netting clans and people who can not play everyday would not be punished for the actions of clans that start with S

Edited By: Monex on May 22nd 2011, 4:36:36. Reason: punctuation is bad
See Original Post

[url=https://www.torn.com/1994581]Torn-City - Massively multiplayer online text based RPG[/url]

Servant

Member

EE Patron
1249

May 22nd 2011, 4:40:51

Another option may be to increase specialized attacks by a turn to 3 for most governments and 4 for demos...

that would have the same effect...

but not affect # of turns for netting. Or number of hits for kills etc...

Z is #1

Walding

Member
818

May 22nd 2011, 4:47:48

No need to make any changes.

Walding

Member
818

May 22nd 2011, 4:49:23

If you make it like old alliance, bring back old FFA :) unlimited countries.

AoS

Member
521

May 22nd 2011, 4:51:08

Pang turns too many tricks. :P

The dreamer is banished to obscurity.

diez

Member
1340

May 22nd 2011, 5:20:09

servant got a valid point

iTavi

Member
647

May 22nd 2011, 5:52:43

they're ok

Reckless

Member
1190

May 22nd 2011, 6:36:51

I vote for as is.

It makes Tyranny a dominant gov for warring. Also helps with netting with basic netting strats as casher/techer.

Honestly, the explore rate is my huge deal. There is not a great amount of players. Seems as if players get farmed out of playing. Then they seemingly stop playing or suicide.

Silent Sentinel

Member
325

May 22nd 2011, 7:58:25

Maybe split Tyranny into two. The first being a strong attack / weak defence and the second being a strong defence / weak attack so wallers really make life hell for chat runners.

Chaoswind

Member
1054

May 22nd 2011, 9:05:05

wtf

Ok Sucker Punch's FS are killers because the ones that FS have 120 turns stored and can keep pouring hits for days before going back to normal rates.

with the Clan Admin Spy Op Alert thingy, clans can start to store a few hours before the FS arrives, but that will never make up for it.

I would say either of this options would help:

a) 100 (100)
b) 80 (120)
c) 120 (80)

keeping the rate as it is :)

Personally, I like the 100 (100) option :P

back to sleep

Elysium Lord of fluff
PDM Lord of fluff
Flamey = Fatty
Crazymatt is Fatty 2

ponderer

Member
678

May 22nd 2011, 11:13:39

or just eliminate the minimum return on the attacks, and make countries harder to kill.

m0m0rific

Makinso

Member
2908

May 22nd 2011, 11:16:50

100(100) has my vote in this case as well.

It would take the major edge of things. We can evaluate after that how things go at 100(100)

londwell

Member
130

May 22nd 2011, 11:41:00

the 80(160) option probably works better IMO. It means that someone can be away for 72+ hours and still not lose turns..... ie they can go away for the weekend and still do as well as anyone else in the game. Given a lot of our players are old farts, the 80(160) option means that they are not disadvantaged in any way.

Flamey

Member
895

May 22nd 2011, 12:00:41

The amount of players we have it works. It makes it possible to kill fluff for the small alliances. If we have an increase in players, I'd decrease the speed.

paladin

Member
554

May 22nd 2011, 12:24:01

I like the current structure. The way it is now I can go for several days before I start loosing turns. For someone like me that is nice to have.

-Paladin
Why the hell am I here?

galleri

Game Moderator
Primary, Express, Tourney, & FFA
14,044

May 22nd 2011, 13:30:58

If you all are crying about turns......you have too much time on your hands. :P
Otherwise this apparently means galleri is ok with the turns.

Pali lies, like there is no Laurens, IA he has also never really played this game.

https://gyazo.com/...b3bb28dddf908cdbcfd162513

Kahuna: Ya you just wrote the fkn equation, not helping me at all. Lol n I hated algebra.

dagga

Member
1559

May 22nd 2011, 13:44:43

Originally posted by Servant:

A suggestion the admins will LOVE. I vote to keep it the same. The only issue with the turns is the netters think first strikes are over-powered. How about netting alliances get better at the political game instead of whining to the (generally receptive) mods to make war less potent?

Keep the turns the same, but make stored turns come back at a slower rate, say 2 per hour.

signatures are stupid.
Months since LaF netgained: 22

Pontius Pirate

Member

EE Patron
1907

May 22nd 2011, 13:57:27

Originally posted by dagga:

Originally posted by Servant:

The "political game" ceased to be playable when alliances like iMag started FSing netters randomly every set. That isn't to say SOL and SoF haven't done it either, but iMag is the worst offender.
Warring alliances are driving the netters to seek changes.

Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

Soviet

Member
991

May 22nd 2011, 14:47:18

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate:

Originally posted by dagga:

Originally posted by Servant:

If you don't want to get FSed by someone, play the political game to make sure they can't hit you/have someone on hand in case that fails?

Of course iMag hasn't randomly FSed netters since the first set of EE.

Edited By: Soviet on May 22nd 2011, 14:50:02
See Original Post

Imaginary Numbers
http://www.letskillstuff.org

spawn

Member
1707

May 22nd 2011, 15:11:59

90(150) :)

/slap iZarcon

All your deleted countries are belong to me!

aponic

Member
1879

May 22nd 2011, 15:58:19

Don't change the turn counts. Instead formalize Alliance relations in the game (tag manager). Now you can not hit allies, and the pacts could actually work as written. Simply add all the options for pacting into the tag manager.

This would solve a lot of problems, and although not perfect, would address the problems involved with FS power more directly than adjusting the turns. Slowing down the amount of turns would make a somewhat boring text based game all the more boring.

SOF
Cerevisi

aponic

Member
1879

May 22nd 2011, 15:59:00

The changes made in FFA have been incredible. Adding such features to the Alliance server is the logical step.

SOF
Cerevisi

spawn

Member
1707

May 22nd 2011, 16:05:38

thats stupid Aponic, clan pacts are a "community constuct" and should be kept separate from the game. i wouldnt mind some kind of tag-war-option or something like that

/slap iZarcon

All your deleted countries are belong to me!

hanlong

Member
2211

May 22nd 2011, 16:59:19

Originally posted by Soviet:

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate:

Originally posted by dagga:

Originally posted by Servant:

it's just easy to blame imagnum for all that's wrong in this world.

world hunger? imag's fault
babies dying? imag's fault
the reason why i woke up at 3am last night for no reason? imag's fault

;)

Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

Jiman

Member
1199

May 22nd 2011, 17:19:01

Most of the opinions being expressed is based on a game with too few players. That makes your idea's null, void and moot. It doesn't matter what is good for the server as is, but what is good for the server if it has enough players and not underpopulated.

The game is being prepared for when it goes on facebook, its not being prepared for the current state of the game.

Pontius Pirate

Member

EE Patron
1907

May 22nd 2011, 17:25:00

alliance won't be the server going on FB though (yet) so trying to make alliance more playable is good

Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

Jiman

Member
1199

May 22nd 2011, 17:38:15

Pontius Pirate, I am glad that you want to improve Earth as much as myself and others. However, I would suggest re-read what I have said.

I never said that the game should not be more playable. I said that the prospect that we have when we make suggestions should be for a game where there are more players, not for the game it is now.

Pontius Pirate

Member

EE Patron
1907

May 22nd 2011, 17:41:38

but we're talking about turn counts on alliance which isn't going to be the facebook server anyway (and you might be placing too much hope on fb). the server has this many players and will have this many players for the next few resets...

Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

qzjul

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

May 22nd 2011, 18:17:19

i think more turns would make the game less interesting for most of us =/ or force people to play more servers maybe lol...

i'd be up for just making countries harder to kill if the FS is the main problem

Finally did the signature thing.

Lobo

Member
442

May 22nd 2011, 19:08:30

Originally posted by londwell:

agreed

For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack
The only real progress lies in learning to be wrong all alone. ~Albert Camus

Original SANCT...

Jiman

Member
1199

May 22nd 2011, 19:19:12

Originally posted by Lobo:

Originally posted by londwell:

agreed

The most simplistic way of fixing the issue imo.

BobbyATA

Member
2367

May 22nd 2011, 20:35:46

B&S please...

Marshal

Member
32,589

May 22nd 2011, 20:41:22

not too much turns.

of course if limit is needed then 1 turn every 30 mins.

but let's not go back to where we got 1 turn per hr (can't remember server atm).

Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....

enshula

Member

EE Patron
2510

May 22nd 2011, 20:58:30

turns isnt exactly the problem

its theoretical and expected kills/country for FS's 24hours and 72 hours

wars are very likely to be decided quickly and you need a large member advantage if you get FS'd which means an alliance about to get a basically even war against maybe 20% larger can instead get crushed if the larger knows or preempts

and the fixes are numerous, turns being one, readiness regain being another

and the complimentary changes needed when FS is weakened are to make it so the smaller tags can still get kills, particularly by changing stonewalling effectiveness

another related situation is kills really shouldnt be normal in team server, and wars that break out there should be different, favouring situations where 4 tags against one tag isnt an auto win

galleri

Game Moderator
Primary, Express, Tourney, & FFA
14,044

May 22nd 2011, 22:49:42

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate:

Originally posted by dagga:

Originally posted by Servant:

Still hate much?

https://gyazo.com/...b3bb28dddf908cdbcfd162513

Kahuna: Ya you just wrote the fkn equation, not helping me at all. Lol n I hated algebra.

dagga

Member
1559

May 22nd 2011, 23:33:31

1. Reduce the turns and you make it almost impossible for alliance < 40 members to consistently kill.

2. Reduce the speed of turns - see above.

Anything you do to play around with the turns makes it harder to kill, not just for the big bad bullies Pang dislikes, but moreso for smaller alliances. I would increase the turns and do one or both of the following:

a) Slow down the return of stored turns
b) Javascript disable the attack button for 0.5 - 1 second after an attack is made.

and (c) alliances need to stop being lazy with regard to the political component of the game. The SOF v RD war is probably a bad backdrop to be having this discussion, but those types of 'bored' wars should not be the norm anyway.

signatures are stupid.
Months since LaF netgained: 22

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5731

May 23rd 2011, 1:02:52

wow, dagga... what unsolicited and incorrect bullfluff you're peddling.

try to understand that what I do is far above any petty political fluff you wish it was about.

(Edit: I had some other stuff posted, but I'd rather keep this thread on-topic. Feel free to contact me privately if you'd like to follow up re: your hatred of me)

Edited By: Pang on May 23rd 2011, 1:26:13
See Original Post

-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5731

May 23rd 2011, 1:16:26

oh and thanks for all the good responses -- I was looking to get a wide cross-section of opinions :)

that's why the question was generally open ended

no one's really touched on the frequency of turns though

Am I correct to assume that everyone prefers 3 per hour to 2 per hour?

A little background:
120(120) @ 20min per turn = 80 hours of turns, 40 hours to use all turns
80(80) @ 30min per turn = 80 hours of turns, 40 hours to use all turns

-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Pontius Pirate

Member

EE Patron
1907

May 23rd 2011, 1:28:21

Originally posted by iScode:

its ok he is just sad i left sanct and didnt help him in the final days of EC with the suiciding he had planned, I think he holds a grudge against imag because of me.

ITS ALL ABOUT ME!!!!

lol

lol I didn't suicide in the last days of EC ;)

edit: anyway you guys have been schooled by SOL so many times that you've actually made me like SOL for the most part :P

Edited By: Pontius Pirate on May 23rd 2011, 1:34:56
See Original Post

Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

Servant

Member

EE Patron
1249

May 23rd 2011, 1:29:10

I did, I preferred the slower turns longer resets...

Less turns Less in storage= Longer for smaller alliances to respond and get organized,

The FS is just too powerful....has been for Years,

and it wasn't always like this,

When the reset was longer, with feer turns per day (rememeber turns per 40 minutes?) wars lasted longer...kills were harder, due to less turns and that created a plethora of strategies for wars.

an even war could last 3-4 weeks to be decided instaed of 10 days.

I'd be all for a 3 month reset, with something like 72(36),
I know I won't get it,

but we have express, FFA, team, tourney,primary etc for those that want more turns.

that would make turns count even more,
lesson damage of the FS, and make an alliance think twice about hitting 2 weeks into a reset, when they don't get to restart for another 10!

Z is #1