Non-Outside hits

New flowchart...

[image: i.ibb.co]

Am I the new proxima?

.. Yes.

This really clarifies things, thank you for your in-depth analysis! Any way you could simplify the flow chart? It's a little difficult to follow.

ooh attacking events are a really good point here.

Abuse opportunity.

I think making any retaliation hits always count as inside hits is the best way forward for now

I agree with you, it should be if you are at war with a faction you can hit their members wherever they may be and it gives them med cd. It's simple to understand and would be a great solution

it has to be any faction on faction situation.

If A declares a territory battle on B, all hits between A and B should count regardless of where their members are, and med cd applied automatically.

That's too broad.

If you get a retal, it should always be an inside hit.

Did you miss the retal? too bad. Outside hit.

New test competed:

TD on wall A attacks TD on wall B = Outside hit, Med CD not applied
TD on wall A attacks TD on wall A = Outside hit, Med CD not applied

Free bounty clearing for factions in wars now.

Thanks to Boylebag for testing

Given four factions, TF1, TF2, TF3, and TF4...

Let's say every faction has 100 members:

• TF1's strongest player has 2 bill battle stats, and they have 10 players over 500 mill battle stats
• TF2's strongest player has 4 bill battle stats, and they have 5 players over 250 mill battle stats
• TF3's strongest player has 750 mill battle stats, and they have 2 players over 300 mill battle stats
• TF4's strongest player has 9 bill battle stats, and they have 50 players over 5 bill battle stats, 25 players over 3 bill, and 10 players over 2 bill

TF1, TF2, and TF3 are in TA1 (TF = TestFaction and TA = TestAlliance) located in Sector 7
TF4 is not in an alliance


TF4 has roughly 80 members who completely dwarf TF3 in battle stats.

Using common practice here, TF1, TF2, and TF3 all have territories next to each other to help each other out in the event of a war (hence the purpose of an alliance and not a NAP).


TF4 comes in and assaults TF3's territory from off the map.

Until this change, TF1, TF2, and TF3 could coordinate group attacks to keep TF4 off the wall, increase their med cooldown, and theoretically make them have to use a revive contract, and in theory TF4 would have a hard time taking TF3's territory. They would likely be burning anywhere between 100-200 E collectively per attack on TF4 (so way less efficient wall clearing from the alliance to TF4 than the other way around), but TF4 would find it isn't a walk in the park.

Since this change, TF4 comes in and completely trounces TF3 while TF1 and TF2 can only look on helplessly since TF4 doesn't have any territories they can assault. And even if they DID, each smaller faction can only knock off TF4 members on THEIR wall, which reverts it back to effectively a 1v1 fight, because if they group attack and RNJesus doesn't smile on them, the TF4 member gets a ":get out of hospital free" card, while the alliance has burned 100-200 E and has literally nothing to show for it.


The problem lies in the obscene distribution of high battle stat players - more specifically the fact that high stat players' population is concentrated in the HoF factions. Wars are no longer about team work, they're about who has the player with the biggest stats.

In the example above, nobody in any TF1, TF2, or TF3 can even hope to touch half of TF4's members, and only a handful at best of TF2's members can hope to beat the lower 50% of TF4's members. So let's say each wall has 15 slots, TF4 can put 15 of their top 45 members on each wall and then they just wait roughly 14 hours and they have a win, nothing any of the other factions can do to prevent that.

So...what are the smaller factions going to do? Consolidate their heavy hitters into a spearhead faction to go after TF4? There is a 3 day waiting period where a member is a "Recruit" and cannot contribute to a faction. By then, the war will be over one way or the other, so that is an impossibility.

While these changes might make wars between the HoF factions more interesting, and/or level that particular playing field a bit more, it neuters smaller factions ability to compete at all when they already had to band together to have a chance in the first place.

Maybe it's time to add different types of treaties to the game (alliance, mutual defensive pact, etc.) that would allow factions to swap members freely without the three day cooldown (make the treaties take a day or two to take effect if need be for balance purposes)? Or remove the 3 day cooldown altogether so smaller factions could hire mercenaries to support them immediately? Or remove this "outside hitter mitigation" on territory wars, but keep it for ranked wars? Or even just reduce the mitigation and outside hits result in a 50% medical cooldown gain from using medical items (so there's still a penalty, but also still a chance for smaller factions to help each other out in a meaningful way)?

It just seems like this caters to the already established factions and players that, let's be honest, the rest of the game is likely never going to catch up to in the first place.

Not to mention the stake that Torn itself (you, bogie, devs, basically any paid staff member) is putting at risk. If mercenary/revive contracts and bounties no longer have a use, then it stands to reason that donator pack purchases are going to steeply decline which will be a sharp drop in Torn's financial revenues. Let's say there are 500 people who drop an average of $100 on Donator Packs annually to help fund stuff like revive and mercenary contracts... and now they are being told "We're cutting that off, so good luck"? that's $50,000 a year that Torn stands to lose.

Instead of trying to make things exciting and encourage conflict, it feels like staff is intent on just handicapping those who are already dealing with a massive handicap. But... in the end, this is Chedburn's world and I just play in it. But with these constant changes that, quite frankly, appear to be catering to the establishment and not the game overall, the desire to keep playing in it keeps dropping. And I'm absolutely certain that I am not the only person who feels this way.

I believe retaliations would be sufficient, with no need to extend it beyond that timeframe, and in line with the theme of these changes. It lets factions focus their energy onto a wall, and if a member of an involved faction hits someone in a faction not involved with the war, then that person should be accountable for it within the retaliation time frame.

If you extend it beyond that(as you say, to 24 hours), it's essentially reverting the changes, because then when a war between two alliances breaks out, there will simply be an initial round of attacks where people on walls are given the free me CD, but then a 24 hour period where members of those factions are actively attacking each other are all suffering med CD from outside retaliation hits and then we're back to the way we were before the change.

If you change it to "any faction you're at war with" then all it takes is declaring on a territory you have no intent of taking to be able to go around it, again entirely reverting the change.

I think where it is now is a good place for it to be. Only the two factions involved in a territory assault are the ones able to influence it's outcome. Outside hits still have value for removing offline players from walls, especially for smaller factions facing much higher stat opponents, where group attacks with outside help can potentially open a spot, but not so much benefit that the factions fighting over a territory have no control over the outcome of the fight.

Will you also be addressing how this might affect Elimination?

I know it is still quite a while till then, but with how it is at the moment, setting up a defensive wall is all that is required for unlimited meds

Two members of the committee have already said we are dumb for thinking this is an issue they have overlooked as they have very big brains and would never just allow something so broken to be a thing.

Very good point

I see my issue has been marked closed, what is the outcome?

That it is closed.