A bit difficult to say as you don't give a lot of details regarding the inflexibility, but my gut feeling says it would be an improvement. Your 4th point sounds really nice in any case.
Faction tree recalibration flexibility [POLL]
Started by Chedburn [1] Admin on in Faction Discussion.
Posts archived: 779 / 779 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
can't really say this effects a small faction like mine, we never held a spot on the map so really i don't feel my opinion here could be held as a valid one as we more discouraged than encouraged to even bother fighting for even a small bit of land but good luck either way with what you choose to do.
Would be nice to see what a 200k fac, 500k fac, 1m, 3m faction and an 8m fac look like with the changes applied.
I personally don't think a major rework of the perk tree is that important, but 72 hours would be nice, or just something like the item loadouts which we could use to switch between war mode and training mode.
Can we get ranked warring first and then see how we feel?
Edit: I also think there are currently too many factions already, if more low respect facs can get more perks I feel like there will be even more factions. The player base is already spread out quite thinly I'd say.
I personally don't think a major rework of the perk tree is that important, but 72 hours would be nice, or just something like the item loadouts which we could use to switch between war mode and training mode.
Can we get ranked warring first and then see how we feel?
Edit: I also think there are currently too many factions already, if more low respect facs can get more perks I feel like there will be even more factions. The player base is already spread out quite thinly I'd say.
The 50% reduction is a great benefactor to have, especially the lower scaled respect factions, will mean they can have more perks on that what they currently can do.
I agree with the comments above that as long as the ranked warring does match you will a similar faction as yourself then it would bring something else to the game.
The game does get stale at times, in which then more and more players become inactive so bringing in another element to keep you invested within the game would go down well. Has to be something where you can decline to war each week as there needs to be a balance of warring and training and weekly wars won't suit the lower end factions too much
I agree with the comments above that as long as the ranked warring does match you will a similar faction as yourself then it would bring something else to the game.
The game does get stale at times, in which then more and more players become inactive so bringing in another element to keep you invested within the game would go down well. Has to be something where you can decline to war each week as there needs to be a balance of warring and training and weekly wars won't suit the lower end factions too much
I find it hard to form an opinion without knowing what we mean by ‘strictly limit’
are we talking about essentially making All Upgrades essentially CORE? The base respect will be spent forever as such?
are we talking about changing one tree a month?
Things like steadfast rotations matter. Whilst we can only have 2 steadfasts at 15 and one at 16 and beyond, many factions operate a rotation system to make this true… if we were limiting the ability to change so strictly it could be of value to allow all steadfast to be unlockable to 20 concurrently.
I think I do err on the side of more rigidity, but, complete rigidity would not be welcome, and as much as this is obviously preliminary I feel like I don’t have enough information on the proposed more rigid system how changes would be made, other than knowing that specials would be cheaper overall knowing if ANY changes are possible and if so how quickly?
are we talking about essentially making All Upgrades essentially CORE? The base respect will be spent forever as such?
are we talking about changing one tree a month?
Things like steadfast rotations matter. Whilst we can only have 2 steadfasts at 15 and one at 16 and beyond, many factions operate a rotation system to make this true… if we were limiting the ability to change so strictly it could be of value to allow all steadfast to be unlockable to 20 concurrently.
I think I do err on the side of more rigidity, but, complete rigidity would not be welcome, and as much as this is obviously preliminary I feel like I don’t have enough information on the proposed more rigid system how changes would be made, other than knowing that specials would be cheaper overall knowing if ANY changes are possible and if so how quickly?
I think that a faction still needs the ability to reset as buying a faction with the upgrades you desire will become a lot more difficult. Maybe if you could change them once every 3 or 6 months for all factions at the same time. Then make the changes visible to other factions so you can see what changes your enemies have made and instantly know if you have f**ked up.
Faction upgrades aren’t the biggest issue with factions.
please spend your time to work out how to balance factions/families rather than messing around with upgrade trees.
at most just make the unset period take 2 weeks instead of 4 days, and that’ll fix it
please spend your time to work out how to balance factions/families rather than messing around with upgrade trees.
at most just make the unset period take 2 weeks instead of 4 days, and that’ll fix it
What is the strictly limited ability to swap? The rest sounds alright, just want a clarification on that. Smaller factions would benefit from the other points but if they are experimenting with upgrades on where they want to go long term, how will it affect them?
This is extremely f**king dumb, why are trying to shit on everything involved in this game? If you want it to die so badly just shut the server down and walk the f**k away or sell the game to someone who actually is gonna care for it.
You're the worst TORN player in the game ched, you suck.
You're the worst TORN player in the game ched, you suck.
"I would like the opportunity to correct my earlier mistakes" then take a look at rackets again please.
OT: 2,3 and 4 sound like great changes, but what exactly does 1 mean? How exactly are factions limited to changing perks? Can you elaborate on this?
OT: 2,3 and 4 sound like great changes, but what exactly does 1 mean? How exactly are factions limited to changing perks? Can you elaborate on this?
'strictly limit' does not mean completely stop, It'll still be possible to completely reset branches but.. well a lot more limited than we currently have.
Read the whole post first....
Honestly this depends allot on how Ranked warring is going to work with current Territory system.
#1 - If ranked warring has zero effect on territories and it is purely based on a ranked ladder where factions are fighting for bragging rights then perhaps option 1 with some minor tweaks to something like a penalty in respect loss each time you unsett your branches.
#2 - If ranked warring plays a vital part on territory warring then clearly just lower the unsetting timer to 24-48 to give the defender a chance to react if they are surprise jumped.
Would be important to think how this would effect smaller factions too not just the top of HoF who got allot of respect. Perhaps a penalty based on % and not a set number of respect. But then again, is this really something you should be focusing on coding Ched? Rackets is hella imbalanced, Territory warring is also way to imbalanced and you speak so highly about lower faction have the option to say "no" to being proxies but you forgetting one vital info here, smaller factions are given better land they usually would never achieve to gain just to sit as a slut for a bigger faction.
Just please, fix the bloody territory/warring aspect of Torn instead of always working on unimportant stuff like this branches tweak.
#1 - If ranked warring has zero effect on territories and it is purely based on a ranked ladder where factions are fighting for bragging rights then perhaps option 1 with some minor tweaks to something like a penalty in respect loss each time you unsett your branches.
#2 - If ranked warring plays a vital part on territory warring then clearly just lower the unsetting timer to 24-48 to give the defender a chance to react if they are surprise jumped.
Would be important to think how this would effect smaller factions too not just the top of HoF who got allot of respect. Perhaps a penalty based on % and not a set number of respect. But then again, is this really something you should be focusing on coding Ched? Rackets is hella imbalanced, Territory warring is also way to imbalanced and you speak so highly about lower faction have the option to say "no" to being proxies but you forgetting one vital info here, smaller factions are given better land they usually would never achieve to gain just to sit as a slut for a bigger faction.
Just please, fix the bloody territory/warring aspect of Torn instead of always working on unimportant stuff like this branches tweak.
What about a 50% reduction for factions under 3 million respect (just threw out a random number). Then when they hit that threshold they have to choose a bit more wisely.
100% agree on that last point - warring once a week for what may be several days is a third/half your E going on warring, more if stacking is considered - defo needs to be a balance there with training vs warring IMO
Are smaller factions not suppose to grind and work their way up to where bigger factions are in terms of respect so they can also do this? Not just be handed the chance to sit on the same number of perks active as a top 10 Hof faction.
This pretty much is against smaller factions in my opinion. Factions need to alternate in gymgains etc pp....which they cant anymore afterwards while HOF factions will just have it all. They can also have warperks ready all the time while smaller ones cant even do it anymore after 3 days to defend themselves.
Factions should not be punished for growing.
Interesting stuff - Riot has a very good point regards the 50% reduction in cost, it would help smaller factions greatly. The moving away from the 100hrs cooldown has been something I've campaigned for for a long time.
Point 1) yes as a 1.6m and growing faction this is a pain keep constantly adjusting
Point 2) a great help to some - doubt will make much difference to larger factions
Point 3) wow this would be nice
Point 4) this upgrade has huge benefits - save me using LouBaker's awesome little app
Didn't think I'd be saying this but I vote for the change proposed with all things considered.
Point 1) yes as a 1.6m and growing faction this is a pain keep constantly adjusting
Point 2) a great help to some - doubt will make much difference to larger factions
Point 3) wow this would be nice
Point 4) this upgrade has huge benefits - save me using LouBaker's awesome little app
Didn't think I'd be saying this but I vote for the change proposed with all things considered.
Having been at bigger factions, and now at a much smaller faction, I have seen the good and bad sides of switching. With settings perms right can swing a war, not setting them right can impact you massively in both peace and War times.
I personally would welcome this new system as this would cease any miss clicking and missed opportunities and make things clearer for all parties.
I do however feel we would need to know more information on competitive warring (potentially see one going on) and we can make a better informed decision.
I personally would welcome this new system as this would cease any miss clicking and missed opportunities and make things clearer for all parties.
I do however feel we would need to know more information on competitive warring (potentially see one going on) and we can make a better informed decision.