Ranked War Matching and Ranks

This proposal seems to lend itself to less diversity and increased repetitive matching.

That's going to ultimately lead to more termed wars from fighting the same factions more often, not less.

If this is going to force factions to stay in a certain rank, maybe look into adding a multiplier within the rank for how many wins you produce within that rank. Wouldn't be fair for a hidden rank of bronze within platinum being stuck in bronze making shitty prizes with each war. A multiplier would atleast help with that. 

This is why there has to be high risk and high reward system. If the risk is too high for a faction then they...just...dont enlist maybe?

I mean there is no need to enlist weekly, factions do it right now only because its ez money. Once the money gets harder to obtain via RW... less factions will enlist... cache prices go back up and the ones willing to risk something, can go after the high reward aswell.

Our hidden rank is definitely not Gold I. This is just more diamond echo chamber bullshit.

Can we get also 3 faction wars,  maybe using elimination style system, that way the 2 smaller teams could gang up on the larger faction, take them out and then fight each other 

Yeah, this is going to be fun for a month or two and then everyone actually trying will be stuck in a cycle, be demotivated and go back to terming. If a better ELO would also mean better rewards, I would also see it as a catalyst creating even more ranked war cache farms where 3-4 carries share better loot than they'd be getting now for terming.

It's good that there's someone looking for solutions, though I genuinely still think this is only fixable by staff banning fixing the matches and creating a new team reffeering this. And please combine that with just a 'war period' and 'downtime' period. Less influx of caches, and gives factions a reason to keep testing out roster strength for whenever they can actually fight for loot.

Their stat score is Bronze 3. The faction is Project Apex. They are Plat.

Making sweeping changes based on the top 400 battle stat factions is insane.

Our faction (Gold 1) would be Silver 1 if our wars were based purely on battle stats, but they're not in the current system. They will be in the new system. How many wars would we need to win to rank up to Silver 2? Pedro said 6 losses would keep Inglorious Bastards in Plat 3. So at least 7 wins to rank up. What the actual fuck. 7 wins per rank up? Are you fucking kidding me.

You are not very smart are you.

With my understanding what this is saying is a faction will remain a rank until their battle stats reaches a desired stat to rank up. Right?

I think he's taking the other way round.

Hidden Rank Bronze. Actual Rank Plat.

Will the faction be demoted to war in the Bronze Rank in the new system? And how long does "over time" count for before the performance element outweighs the stats growth.

My faction (not my current faction) prefers termed wars because we don't enjoy no lifer Ranked Wars requiring sitting at an unmoving screen for hours instead of doing other activities such as living life, working, spending time with families etc. There is however a financial incentive to participate and so we do. Removal of the financial incentive means not participating in ranked wars whatsoever for us. Which we would be totally fine with. For us, they simply are not fun. If you match us with Monarch HQ or a 3 man green leaf faction makes no difference to us. Can this war be profitable? If yes, how can we achieve this in the most efficient cost effective way? That is what we will do 100 times out of 100. I really laughed hard when TNL demanded all our wars be real such as a recent real war where we fought hard for 3 days and beat a strong enemy, at the grand total of 200k per hit after all expenses were tabulated. Fun? No. Not at all. And far from profitable. Termed wars earn us between 4m-8m per hit depending on the conditions of the term and the win/loss taken and time of week the war starts. Thursdays being the most profitable termed wars for winners. 

All of these suggested changes will have exactly zero impact on our willingness to term. As long as it remains an important income mechanic, we will contniue to do everything possible to min max that for the maximum profitbaility for both sides of the match up. It's remarkable how little you care about ranked wars once you remove ego from the equation. For my group, Torn is an income simulator, where we are all trying to develop and maintain a variety of income streams to maximize long term growth of our characters. ELO? So what. Stat average? So what? Torn is a text based game and many of the oldest players barely log in. You have 40b stats and have been playing for 20 years? Great. See you in 5 hours when you login to press 3 buttons. 

My opinion is that these changes would benefit Torn only in the tendency to match up real war factions with other real war factions but at the end of the day, the vast majority of Torn prefers dollars and cents. If I give you a great deal to lose, all but the most autistically challenged of you will likely take it. 

I recently matched up with "friends" who demand a real war every single time. The excuse was that that was what is fun for them. I was a bit childishly angry at the beginning. Because for my team, real wars are anything but fun. Then I realized their demand wasn't so off cuff. Their fun matters to them as ours matters to us. So the real question was do we participate in this real war to help our friends have fun while all of our members get fucked over and go negative? Or do we refrain from doing anything because either way we will receive no rewards at all? 

Your fun vs my fun. Who is wrong? Neither is the correct answer. Had my "friends" been reasonable, in my opinion, we would have had a 'real war' while allowing at least participation score for the losing side, so that each side could make their money and go on their way. However, our 'friends', who are no longer friends at all, demanded a real war with no rewards for the loser even on the table. In that scenario, we just med out for them and finished the war in several hours, receiving nothing. Zero attacks were made from our side, wasting exactly zero e and spending the entire war on peace perks so members could train/trade/travel etc. The penalty for this decision was we lost a rank we would have already lost due to the nature of our players having jobs and families and shit that they actually care about and spend time with. So what.

Chedburn can have a vision of what he wants but he can not ultimately dictate the feelings of individuals and their opinions on whether something he thinks is good, is in fact fun or not. In an ideal world, this mechanic would be more fun. However, a text based game makes this incredibly difficult to make everyone happy as my definition of fun and yours can and should be different as we aren't all fucking robots. And so some won't be happy. The easy answer is "Don't participate", which is absurd due to the amounts of money involved and the ease at which the spicket flows. We see other examples of events that have exactly zero incentive that do quite well in the community such as elimination. There are zero rewards involved for 99% of participants and yet people participate. Dog tags was the same. Only Halloween is a pvp event with a good financial incentive and it's exactly no surprise that everyone likes it the most. At the end of the day, we are training at the gym and building this wealth in order to be able to train more effectively in order to do what exactly? To participate in pvp content. And just like I won't participate in elimination EVER due to the lack of rewards, so too would I not participate in RWs without rewards. That doesn't mean I'm not training and making my character better day by day. This is on a working assumption that something fun will be implemented in the future that requires these stats to grow. Is that a guarantee? Of course not. It's a gamble.

I don't envy your staff position at all in trying to balance the 'funness' of content with mechanical profitability. So I welcome the attempt but understand that I can guarantee that I am not alone in seeking to squeeze as much juice as I can out of whatever system comes to fruition.

To simply put. If you want more real wars within this mechanics, add multipliers within war wins. Win a war you get 2x the prizes next war. Win 3 wars back to back you get x3 prizes so on and so on until you lose, then its back at base prizes. Also think about adding in drug farm mechanics as well. The ability to grow cannabis, start a lab and produce xanax and other drugs. Maybe make it part of a faction perk like oc,s. It would really expand the game much more.

Good. Less faction's enlisting means less caches overall. Drive prices up. Eventually prices will level off where it would be worth it to risk the loss. There shouldn't be rewards for the loser.

I'm sure people would still term tho and just split the cache reward that the winner gets. 

If we get shoved from Gold 1 down to Silver 1 with no way to rank up we will be terming the hell out of wars. No reason to skip a weekend for training since it would be a termed war. No reason to bother actually warring since we would neither rank up or rank down. We would lose nothing and gain nothing from war except the rewards. And if loser gets nothing, we may as well term a cache split and fuck off for the weekend after a paid chain.

I don't give a single fuck about diamond. Not even one. I care about how this will affect MY faction. We just bought this shell a few months ago. Our performance index is unlikely to match our current rank if 6 wars wouldn't derank IB.

I think the multiplier is just another means to game the system and term more. Hey your faction is on your 3rd win and we are only on our 2nd, can you please take the win and split some of that extra loot from the multiplier with my side? kkthx.