D3vl: forum

• Territories and Territory warring - I had high hopes for this update. But I soon saw the many flaws in this update. The way we could farm respect without actually warring by helping each other wall farm chaining is by far the most idiotic thing Ive seen on Torn - and the length Chedburn let it be abused for says it all. The current Territory warring we have seen how flawed this system is during this massive war, I can not grasp why Chedburn thinks people who has a life would be interested in enjoying such a system - unless his aim is a war system made with people working on a office with PC and internet access during work and real life losers who leeches on your countries tax money sitting home playing games all day. Yeah, this Territory system is garbage.
• Rackets - Most people know my opinion on this. A update designed purely to give the very top HoF of Torn a chance to funnel more money then anyone is able to earn in other ways. Rackets also is the main reason we have these mega alliances, started with smaller alliances and has now grown over a short period turned into what we see now, 4 big alliances like Crypto, Monarch (westworld), JFK and Rod. The down side with this is that no independent faction can build themselfs up on their own, fighting for good territories due to alliances holding the map on a lockdown. Not sure if this was intended by Chedburn or not, but its not good for the competitiveness to have this sort of system.
• Ranked Warring - Oh boy another update by Chedburn. Can it be any worse then the previous ones? Oh Yes! Kanzu made a suggestion which had over 600 up votes and it took Chedburn nearly a year to reply to it, and as usual he comes with his retarded opinion as a Owner of the game thinking he knows best what works and not vs what the players knows who actually plays the game. It was Chedburns idiotic reply on Kanzus post that made me realize this game is doomed with him running the show like a dictator. Committee is not a committee, its a tool for Chedburn to feel good about himself, he uses the committee to boost his own ego by having a group of Yes people, the more "yes" he gets from them on his suggestions the bigger his ego grows. Pathetic.
• Suggestions - Ive tried multiple times to suggest things for this game - each and every time Chedburn have a weird reply that makes zero logic or sense. Take one example, I suggested that Business class ticket should be added to the City shops like Empty blood bags and Beer is available. This idea is to create a way to take money out of the game. No, Chedburns opinion was that this made no sense, Business class ticket was a premium way of flying and should be so. But soon after, he added this new company perk, well you all know about it, Lingerie Store where you can fly unlimited on BCT if your company is 10* for FREE!!!! Seriously? That day I lost all respect for you Joe. There is 3 more suggestions where Chedburn does shit like the one he did above. Same with Kanzus Suggestion on the outside hit issue in RWs. Dont bother posting your suggestions, if Chedburn cant twist it so it sounds like he made it up, it wont be added no matter how good it is.
• Cheating - This is weird one. Chedburn allowed cheaters to continue playing because in his mind they provide some positives to the game (god knows why). Take PT as a example, they figure out a way to abuse the hell out of a Stock called PRN. They made trillions before Chedburn stopped it, but they got to keep their money. Fair? I think not. How about the API abuse by PT leaders, but only one PT leader was banned. Really? Are we that naiv to think only 1 PT leader had something to do with this API key rule breaking. How about the Bookie exploiting, Same shit different story. Slap on the wrist to those involved. How about the old Black Jack abuse. Basically the old Black Jack you could count cards, and like that win insane numbers of money daily from it. Took ages before Chedburn fixed this. What happen to all the money made from abusing this, nothing. These are the ones on top of my head. Oh, lets not forget how Chedburns corrupt staff destroyed HT back in the days, wrongly fedding our banker (we had over 60% of Torn economy in our possession). We got no compensation or justice on that fedding, hell the corrupt staff involved was not even punished. After that JFK with their corrupt staff rise to take our Throne of being the richest strongest faction in game. Fair? Admin abuse I call it.

[image: snipboard.io]

Hello people of Torn.

Would like to address a issue we/us players have been struggling with over the years now, the constant abuse of power from ingame staff, not just me but allot of other people have had similar unfairness happen to them by the hands of Chedburn or a staff.

However, It is no secret that admins in Torn such as Bogie, and multiple other staff/helpers have a personal dislike for me on the way I have played my Role in this RPG game. In that regard, unlike other players, I have suffered allot of verbal and cyber abuse over the years which I have reported and asked to be dealt with only to be replied back "Upon investigation, the reported player has not been found to be breaking rules at this time. No action will be taken." yet if Rules are followed every single one I have reported should of been game banned. This is however the cost of being famous and disliked by a Community manager and the game owner himself Chedburn (You can find chedburns public rage at me in some of my other posts in the forums). This kind of unprofessionalism should not be tolerated, this game is after all a business and as with every business there are IRL laws they have to follow as well.

Heres the latest proof of Torn admins being biased and corrupt managing a player report.

The case is simple, I reported the person for "Impersonation" under the Social Violation rules. You can see in the screen shot and judge by yourself but the rules states as follow, "Taking advantage by pretending to be another person, or holding a position of authority." I reported him for pretending to be me, which is clearly what he is doing. He even copying my faction name. Bottom line, this is not even in the grey zone it is blatantly copy cat behavior and a breech of Social Violation rules.

[image: snipboard.io]

And this is Admins reply to my report.

[image: snipboard.io]

Theres been multiple other reports and admin abuses over the years, which I will add later. Just need to find all the facts and get them sorted before I add them in here. One of which was a rage rampage from Bogie himself where he threatened me and my whole faction for derailing a forum thread, while other players who where derailing where not even mentioned. You guys can also look at the kind of disrespect Bogie and Chedburn is showing from their Keepsake creation of me, taunting me as if I have not made this game allot more interesting.

[image: snipboard.io]

Now I dont know what the rest of you believe is right, but I have never tolerated unfairness either it is in here or IRL. 

I will never accept Biased corrupt Admins behavior, do you? Should we accept this kind of unprofessionalism? Not a chance!

Perhaps it is time to have Bogie replaced as CM, and give someone more mature with integrity to take over the job. No one should be sitting this long with that kind of ingame power. Imagine if Trump was able to sit as President for the next 20 years, same thing here with Bogie the power in this game is corrupting him.

Pool added bellow.

Hello folks, here is a suggestion based on my overall experience of Ranked Warring.

Wanted to address something I see most games uses, which we do not have in Torns Ranked Warring.

Other games who operates with Ranking, ladder or league systems have a restricted number of factions/teams for each Rank.

I suggest we consider the possibility to have this added in Torn as well. We all know a faction can be upgraded as shown bellow.

[image: snipboard.io]

Now as it is now only Diamond has a restriction to 75 member size to enter this Rank. I find it a bit pointless and cheap to only have 1 rank with restrictions and none of the other ones. So here is a solution or suggestion if you will to improve and make Ranked warring even more competitive and fun.

• Remove the member size restriction and current match making formula.
• Limit how many faction per faction size there can be per rank above Silver/Gold rank. Instead of having 75 member restriction to join Diamond rank make it so a rank can only fit x number of factions and the bottom 5 factions will always match up vs top 5 of the rank bellow. This is commonly used as a Promotion fight/match in other games to determined who is fit to enter the next Rank, and who is not.
• Use the member size of 20, 40, 65, 80 and 100 to create 4 different parallel "leagues/divisions" instead of using the current formula to predict which faction bellow/above you can match. 1 division of factions between 20-39 which can room 100 factions, next is 40-64 then 65-79 and last division being 80-100. All divisions set to room 100 faction seats, which everyone must fight for.
• Forced enlistment can be used on those who fall bellow the ladder, what I mean is if a faction is not enlisting they automatically fall down on the ranking in their division. If factions in their division fights you, you will have factions going up and down on this division ladder depending on how they do. And if you do not enlist you lose -3 rank, example you will drop from rank 45 out of 100 to 42 if you dont fight that week. When they are among the bottom 5 factions in lets say Diamond, they will be auto enlisted (without option to unenlist) and have to fight whoever they get matched up against in top 5 Plat Division for the factions within their faction member size. If the diamond faction does not show up to fight, they will lose and drop down to Plat while the other factions get promoted up to Diamond.

My hope is that we can get a more serious Ranked warring system which is more balanced then the current one. Personally I am growing bored of Ranked warring. There is no Prestige to sit in Diamond, and noobs can do that simply because there is no system to prevent factions for just terming with unlimited seats in Diamond or any rank for that matter. And I do understand current Diamond ranked factions will be against this, its only obvious but we must think of the bigger picture here not just stay content like things are now.

And No, this is not a suggestion I am making just because I want to get up to Diamond with my current 20 size faction. Ive been thinking about this for well over a year now and after personally experience how the various ranks works from bottom at Bronze and up to Diamond is why I am suggesting this now.

Anyone got any ideas to add to this, feel free to post them bellow.

EDIT: Typos

Ranked War Report issue

Enjoy 😊

Up

This is a fucking joke admins.

If you can use scripts to see this, why hell cant we see this before atttack happen.

Stop twisting what I write just for the sake of arguing. And what I have done by extorting factions is irrelevant, not sure why you feel the need to bring it up. You think this is strengthening your, whatever this is, attempt on trash talking me, you are wrong.

Let me put one scenario in perspective for you. Right now Hof factions can sit on the opposite side of the map and control the other side by the touch off 1 button --> Raid. This is how they avoid having to move away from their Sector 1 position. I doubt very much they will go back and forth to help defend S7-S5 every time someone comes in to steal their noobs land in S7. They might do it the first and second time, but I do not think they will continue to do so in fact I know for certain they will never bother defending S7 if they have to work for it.

I can tell you this, I can count on both my hands how many times Monarch, NS and PT have threatened me with Raid and Dirty bombs if I so much as touch their Territories. If I only had to deal with 1 faction sure, I am mad enough to ignore the threats and give them a living hell.

Lets take PT as a example, how many factions do they not have. Or Monarch or NS. If I gave a rats ass about their threats I would be dealing with raid from all their factions. Do you see the difference from 1 faction and 5? No? Sorry then explaining things rationally to you is a waste of time.

And when have I ever defended myself on how I executed raids and extortion in the past. Never. I stand by how I played and how I play now.

No faction are afraid of "being perma hosped" Because you cant hold up this kind of aggression as a faction over longer period of time.

One person can do this against another person, but if a faction goes to this length it wont last simply because people get bored and you cant control 100 people to keep this kind of aggression up.

The fact raiding hangs over everyones heads as a consequence if you are brave enough to try challenge someone bigger and stronger results in a "Dont attack again" mentality.

Of course the boring fake walls is another topic which could be easily solved with adding Queues upon assaulting a territory combined with lowering the score needed to win so these wars last shorter amount of time. If a Territory get challenged by 10 factions all of them can have their turn, but only one at a time. Would not fake walling be pointless if so? But this is another topic.

Right now the question is Raiding, as a in game function it is perhaps outdated and should be removed, no?

Up

This is what DBs are for.

Up

Up

Up

reserved

[image: snipboard.io]

Territory Warring - a Incentive to fight.

I want to bring up something I've been thinking about for a while regarding Territory Warring, Raiding and the way faction politics currently work in Torn.

This isn't about making Territory Wars easier, nor is it about preventing alliances from working together. Alliances are part of Torn and always will be. And people who knows me, knows where I stand in regards to alliances.

The question is whether the current mechanics actually encourage factions to fight each other — or encourage them not to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remove Raiding.

Raiding is probably one of the least used forms of faction warfare in Torn, and I think there's a reason for that.

There is very little positive value in actually starting one. And Torn has evolved away from this type of warfare over the years.

You don't raid another faction to gain territory. You don't raid them for Ranked War rewards. You don't gain respect from the attacks. The entire mechanic is fundamentally destructive — you sacrifice your own potential respect gains in order to remove more of somebody else's respect. Whats the point, if this can be exploited to pin down areas on the map and make a stalemate kind of warring environment among factions. No movements, no nothing and people now complain about a boring warless Torn City.

So what purpose does Raiding realistically serve today?

Most of the time, its biggest value isn't actually using it. It's the threat of using it. And I believe this has an unintended negative effect on Territory Warring simply because Alliances can use it to avoid 1 solo strong faction or smaller alliances from assaulting their territories.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Territory Warring should create conflict and content.

Territories are one of the few faction systems where there is something physical on the map that factions can actually fight over, that should naturally create conflict. Faction A owns something Faction B wants, Faction B assaults it and Faction A defends it.

Maybe Faction A's allies help them. Maybe Faction B brings allies of their own. Faction B wins the territory.
Faction A retaliates by attacking one of Faction B's territories and so on.

Suddenly you have rivalry, politics, alliances and actual wars developing naturally. That is the content right.

But Raiding gives alliances another option.

Instead of responding through Territory Warring, a sufficiently powerful alliance can effectively make the consequence of attacking the faction much larger than the Territory War itself. (See back to when HT got attacked by nameless alliances and NS interfered or when Monarch Punished Damaged INC with a raid for something they did during a Territory war).

The question for a smaller faction or smaller alliance therefore stops being:

"Can we take this territory?" --> "What happens to us afterwards if we take this territory?" or "What happens to us afterwards if we fail?".

That distinction matters. The threat can be stronger than the mechanic itself. This is where I think Raiding hurts Territory Warring despite raids themselves being relatively uncommon. A mechanic doesn't have to be frequently used to influence player behaviour or in this case faction behavior.

If attacking the wrong territory risks escalating into several factions raiding you, then the rational choice for many factions is simply not to attack. So instead of creating conflict, the system can reinforce the existing status quo. Large alliances control areas of the map. Smaller factions understand the potential consequences of challenging them. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What happens if Raiding disappears?

This is where I think the interesting part starts. Removing Raiding does not remove retaliation, It changes how retaliation happens.

"You took our territory?" --> "Fine, We'll take yours."

"Your allies helped you!" --> "Fine. Our allies will help us."

"You pushed into our part of the map! We'll push back into yours."

Suddenly the most effective way of settling faction disputes becomes fighting over territory.

And isn't that exactly what Territory Warring should be designed to achieve?

Instead we have: Territory attack → Raid threat → Don't attack again.

You create: Territory attack → Retaliation → Counterattack → Escalation → Rivalries → More Territory Wars.

This doesn't remove alliance power or alliances in general. They could coordinate walls, reinforce each other, control strategically important territories and retaliate against factions attacking their members by dropping chain bonus hits on their factions. Nothing prevents that.

But instead of having a separate destructive mechanic hanging over everyone, alliances would have to exercise more of that power through the territory system itself. It creates more contested territories, It gives alliances reasons to attack each other.
It gives independent factions more reason to take risks and attack bigger alliances.
And most importantly, it gives the City Map a reason to actually change. Even if current Territory warring with fake walls are as they are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IB as an example.

I'll use my own faction IB as a example, because obviously I can only speak confidently about our own decisions.

We're willing to fight factions significantly larger than ourselves, We're willing to lose. We will adapt, evolve and come back again.

For us, losing a Territory War isn't necessarily a problem. That's part of the game.

What changes the calculation is when attacking one faction potentially means dealing with retaliation from an entire alliance or the strongest faction in game through a completely separate destructive mechanic. And specially if it means to attack the very top and force them to work for their Rackets and Territories, win or lose.

Without Raiding, I'd personally be far more willing to look at the map and think:

"Fuck it. Let's attack them and see how they react and if they fight back."

And I suspect we're not the only faction that would think this way. The funny thing is that removing a war mechanic could potentially result in more actual wars, even with the fake walls and such being a big problem (this could very well be sorted out in the future).

Raiding had a purpose — but does it still improve Torn in a positive and content creating way?

When Raiding was originally introduced, it was explicitly designed as Torn's destructive form of warfare. The concept was that factions could seriously damage another faction's respect, potentially even destroying it.

And mechanically that's still basically what it is today. Torn's official wiki describes Raiding as purely destructive, So perhaps the question shouldn't be whether Raiding technically works as intended.

It clearly does.

The better question is: Does having this mechanic produce better faction warring gameplay today?

Because if a rarely used destructive mechanic indirectly discourages factions from engaging with a system that could generate considerably more wars, politics and player-driven content, perhaps Torn would benefit more without it?

Up

Up

Tired of all you whiny weak minded fools.

Pedro, just remove the cache rewards and make a monthly payout based on their Rank placement combined with their win/loss ratio. The better ratio and higher up on the ladder they are the better payout.

This should remove allot of the crying about "it is to expensive to war". Who the hell made rules so that you should be payed to war? You war because you want to win, you want to punish someone. Fucking barbie generation is what you retards are.

Up

Up

Up

Up

Up