*sam* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 11:46 am	We need to decide on a system for tiles reverting to neutral. A closely related issue is that we need to make it feasible for a new camp to open to pvp and not be immediately squashed (assuming it doesn't set up in a silly location). Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss!
FireFly Posted Jul 12, 2020, 12:05 pm	*sam* said: Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. Seems to me only doing it once per game year is likely just going to create a single week window for things to happen isn't it, unless someone rolls incredibly poorly? Given the effort required to build up a camp, it might be to small for a new camp to take advantage of it. Granted, I don't have a much better idea aside from the bi weekly hotspots requiring CR to squash as I mentioned in earlier threads, but that seemed undesirable and was more about diverting how much CR a camp had to deploy to the front rather than creating openings. Quote: - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). A good one, with the caveat that it will not take tiles within a few  tiles from an already pvp open camp, or x% of heavy CR. Even with limiting it to once a game year, there could be some incredible shenanigans pulled if it lets tiles near a camp get swiped.
*Ninesticks* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 2:49 pm	*sam* said: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. Not entirely sure what you mean here? *sam* said: - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss! Possibly, could still be used to mess other up quite a bit though - though expensive to do.
*sam* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 3:06 pm	*Ninesticks* said: *sam* said: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. Not entirely sure what you mean here? . It's probably clearer to camp owners, sorry.  When you're deploying CR you're shown exactly what % will arrive in each tile as it travels out from your camp. I was suggesting that (1) there'd be a threshold above which you'd never lose a tile, and (2) below that threshold the chance of losing it would get greater the lower your % was.
*goat starer* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 4:48 pm	*sam* said: We need to decide on a system for tiles reverting to neutral. A closely related issue is that we need to make it feasible for a new camp to open to pvp and not be immediately squashed (assuming it doesn't set up in a silly location). Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss! The 6 tiles around it 'unlrss any of these are adjacent to / within 2 hexes of the camp that currently owns them?'
FireFly Posted Jul 12, 2020, 4:49 pm	Sometimes we do agree goat
*sam* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 5:14 pm	Yep, makes sense.
*Longo* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 5:51 pm	*sam* said: We need to decide on a system for tiles reverting to neutral. A closely related issue is that we need to make it feasible for a new camp to open to pvp and not be immediately squashed (assuming it doesn't set up in a silly location). Some suggestions: - At the game's yearly update, any tile which has a slow-CR rating of (say) less than 90% has a chance of going neutral. (Numbers to be decided).  This should make the map a bit more dynamic every year, as well as opening up for new camps. I get this and understand the concept and reasoning, but I would run a few simulations on this and check the results before going forward. *sam* said: - A camp which opens for PvP gets immediate ownership of not only its own tile, but also the 6 tiles around it. A camp will only be allowed to open for PvP once in the game year (to stop this being an exploit or trollable). Please discuss! I agree with what the others have said on this, that if there is another camp close by then they only get the 6 tiles around them that are not within the other camp's 6 tiles. Id also like to add a few other things here that  I have thought about - Doing these camps wars seems almost like a league to me, although a much longer one. I almost feel like after a longer period of time, that the maps resets. Maybe a real life year, or maybe 2 full game years. The more I play, the more this seems to make sense to me. Just a thought, nothing more at this point. Alternatively, maybe Sam, you throw out the option to those present camps that do not like their location - You will buy back their camp, excluding any building costs, for 1/3 the market price of that size camp. So a SS camp in the wilderness could raze their camp and receive $2,720,000 (8 mil x .34). This would maybe clean up the map a bit and change strategies around, although at a significant cost but also allowing a small down payment for the new camp. Again, just a thought.
*sam* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:24 pm	*Longo* said: I get this and understand the concept and reasoning, but I would run a few simulations on this and check the results before going forward. Definitely agree. It's once-per year code so needs to be correct first time.
*sam* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:26 pm	*Longo* said: Doing these camps wars seems almost like a league to me, although a much longer one. I almost feel like after a longer period of time, that the maps resets. Maybe a real life year, or maybe 2 full game years. The more I play, the more this seems to make sense to me. Just a thought, nothing more at this point. Alternatively, maybe Sam, you throw out the option to those present camps that do not like their location - You will buy back their camp, excluding any building costs, for 1/3 the market price of that size camp. So a SS camp in the wilderness could raze their camp and receive $2,720,000 (8 mil x .34). This would maybe clean up the map a bit and change strategies around, although at a significant cost but also allowing a small down payment for the new camp. Again, just a thought. Yep, I agree that the map needs shaking up periodically. A full reset seems pretty severe though.. it has to feel 'fairly' permanent when you win tiles. The idea of losing a bunch of tiles each year is a kind-of partial reset. Option to 'sell back' camps: good idea. How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price).
FireFly Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:28 pm	*sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). Would that include getting to keep your pvp tiles or would you have to close? Either way I don't dislike it.
*sam* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:31 pm	FireFly said: *sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). Would that include getting to keep your pvp tiles or would you have to close? Either way I don't dislike it. Keep them, I'd say.
FireFly Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:33 pm	*sam* said: FireFly said: *sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). Would that include getting to keep your pvp tiles or would you have to close? Either way I don't dislike it. Keep them, I'd say. Got my vote then, it'll both help getting camps that want to fight get closer as well as help swamped camps get clear. It's not a bad idea.
*Longo* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:35 pm	*sam* said: How about the option to *move* your camp by (say) 2 tiles per year? (at a price). I don't like this. All the mats, sweat, time, to get the camp built and then for some cash you can just pick it up and move it. I kinda think of camps as permanent. Next year I could hire a puppet government at Satellite one and move it right next to Xman's camp. It would be funny for a day, thinking of poor X opening up Darkwind to his morning coffee, seeing the move and spilling his coffee down the front of him. But totally not cool, in my mind. Not fair to X, not fair to the game and could totally unbalance things. Abandoning a camp, saving some mats (in the form of 1/3 the price) and building a new one, sounds much better to me.
*The X Man* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:49 pm	I have never been a big fan of random dice rolls determining outcomes. Is there something that could be put in place where a hard number of tiles lost is known? Maybe at end of game year, the total amount of tiles a players camp owns would be subject to a percent loss? If you own 50 tiles, end of year, 20% of those tiles go neutral? In this case, 10 tiles lost. (I could see this percent higher if needed) Also, to avoid randomness, allow the camp owner to select the tiles to lose? Just another option, whether it is acceptable or not, but option choices are nice when there is more than a few.
Tez Posted Jul 12, 2020, 6:53 pm	A full reset every DW year sounds good to me. Keeps the camps in play without completely wiping people out.
*sam* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 7:05 pm	*The X Man* said: I have never been a big fan of random dice rolls determining outcomes. Is there something that could be put in place where a hard number of tiles lost is known? Maybe at end of game year, the total amount of tiles a players camp owns would be subject to a percent loss? If you own 50 tiles, end of year, 20% of those tiles go neutral? In this case, 10 tiles lost. (I could see this percent higher if needed) Also, to avoid randomness, allow the camp owner to select the tiles to lose? Just another option, whether it is acceptable or not, but option choices are nice when there is more than a few. I kind of like the idea of some randomness, as it shakes things up more. It would give a chance for a lucky roll which gives someone a headstart expanding after the yearly losses.
*goat starer* Posted Jul 12, 2020, 7:10 pm	further away more likely deploying CR reduces or removes possibility possibly influenced by local piracy level i think random is the best thing for this stuff. It is supposed to be outside your control. But there should always be ways to manage / mitigate the risk.
Madbooth Posted Jul 15, 2020, 10:34 pm	Sam way the maps go new camps are gonna be squashed anyway no matter what.the maps gonna be fully taken over by x mas... As for taking the first 6 titles nope thats a bad idear. means if i want said location asap no fighting for it i buy next to it and watch my enemy just lose it without a fight. My suggestion is a CR Boost. (how much would be up to you to make it fair) And a MASSIVE defence bonus (for a certain period of time say 1 month 2 possible attacks if not more) This means a starting camp (anyone buying a camp should'nt be clueless to the game having that sort of money in the first place) has a chance to expand into the enemys hexs (if someone built up in my terriorty id see it as a uprising which would need to be squashed) means i have to dirvert cr around the said camp to keep it locked in if possible which would be 6 hexs which is alot of cr if you think about it sam...and it would take away cr from my front line....there is a deep stratagey in this...sorry for all the spelling mistakes and typing so poorly...but what i said is a good idear.. and if i was to try and attack the camp directly i would need alot of CR to take it out.... Thats my 2 pence of this subject.
Madbooth Posted Jul 15, 2020, 10:46 pm	For tiles going netural my suggestion is Towns have a certain chance to go neutral if not a 100% chance..give the towns a faction if they players are a enemy to that faction they are gonna struggle to keep it if you are an allie of that faction chances of losing it at like say 5%... Factorys stay under ur control as well as radio towers ect. Whats should go neutral is the Boarders of the camps all the camps..if any that boarders another camps boarder should turn neutral so it would be each player losing a hex freeing up 2 spaces Obv it would be alot more as a whole..but all the players lost was there front boarder would also means the larger camps would lose enough CR at end of year to make it slightly easyer for a smaller camp to expand if the larger camps didnt grab there boarders back fast enough.
*goat starer* Posted Jul 16, 2020, 11:40 am	Tez said: A full reset every DW year sounds good to me. Keeps the camps in play without completely wiping people out. I can't imagine why  If you sow the wind...
El Loco Pollo Posted Jul 16, 2020, 11:51 pm	*goat starer* said: further away more likely deploying CR reduces or removes possibility possibly influenced by local piracy level i think random is the best thing for this stuff. It is supposed to be outside your control. But there should always be ways to manage / mitigate the risk. Well said...I agree 100%
*sam* Posted Jul 17, 2020, 9:30 am	*goat starer* said: deploying CR reduces or removes possibility How would this part work, though? Since the process would happen once per game year, I suppose it would have to be based on the average amount of CR deployed by the tile's owner across the period that they owned the tile. Certainly this would make holding onto a large empire much more difficult.
FireFly Posted Jul 17, 2020, 9:40 am	*sam* said: *goat starer* said: deploying CR reduces or removes possibility How would this part work, though? Since the process would happen once per game year, I suppose it would have to be based on the average amount of CR deployed by the tile's owner across the period that they owned the tile. Certainly this would make holding onto a large empire much more difficult. Deploying small amounts to every single tile you own on the current map does sound fairly tedious. It'd also be pretty annoying to remember where you deployed what unless there is solid UI to indicate how much a tile has deployed and how "safe" it'd be. Not against it, but surely there must be some more elegant way to get a similar result? I suppose you could let people deploy semi-permanent "Garrisons" so it doesn't have to be repeated each week? Could work together with tile improvements later, a garrison base could secure the tiles around it if it has enough CR? Otherwise, possibly just putting CR into a more generalized "Piracy Suppression" might work. Idea itself is pretty solid.
Effy Posted Jul 17, 2020, 10:24 am	Just throwing an extra idea from the outside. Camp economy/resources is balanced according to "something". For example take double a non-pvp camp and the resources they have. There should be some values in someone's heads around how many resources a pvp camp "should" stay around. Make something like a "luxury tax" where camps about that expected size or smaller are not hit very hard by the years end, and camps growing "too big" are geometrically hit by the end of year. Or you could apply the tax as an extra CR reduction in all combats for the next year. (Yes, that would bring "camp wars league". Hey! you may even have a winner and a prize :P... And then a "soft reset" to 20 tiles everyone to even things for the next year :P)
Joel Autobaun Posted Jul 17, 2020, 6:06 pm	This all sounds really tedious.
*Longo* Posted Jul 17, 2020, 7:04 pm	Joel Autobaun said: This all sounds really tedious. Yes.
*goat starer* Posted Jul 17, 2020, 8:56 pm	When people start deploying ‘tedious’ arguments over game balance I start looking at conflict of interest. The mechanism for deploying cr is tedious.. mainly because of the lack of an ‘undo’ button. But deploying cr to different tiles is no more or less tedious than it is now. So it’s just a smokescreen for ‘it harms my interests’.
Grimm Sykes Posted Jul 18, 2020, 5:37 am	Idea Once at the end of every game year pirates attack every hex, battles are fought same was as old camp defense works, if you lose a battle you lose the hex, if some escape you receive a strategy point negative modifier
darthspanky Posted Jul 18, 2020, 5:50 am	problem with that is some can truce the pirates in their region, just truce every hex, maybe their enemy attacks each hex and cant be truced, suggested something similiar when this all started, but apprently they want all the goodies with minimal work, the risk reward isnt worth it imo, glad im out. one option might be to have a ability to choose how much you tithe from your tiles, no or very low tithe is less chance to go neutral, the more you tithe greater chances are? could include strategy pointss in this as well, more cr you deploy with stategy points more tile might go neutral? not very many battles, some camps havent done any those camps should be hit hardest imo with their tiles going neutral. one posssible way to get more camp war battles is to give a special construction unit to each camp that wins a battle, collect enouph of these and you can assemble a rare car or engine or weapon, say you want a hv laser you need 20 or whatever construction units to assemble it, might get people to fight instead of sitting around getting free stuff without ever fighting for it?
*goat starer* Posted Jul 18, 2020, 10:14 pm	darthspanky said: one option might be to have a ability to choose how much you tithe from your tiles, no or very low tithe is less chance to go neutral, the more you tithe greater chances are? this is nice role play. low taxes happy peasants darthspanky said: not very many battles, some camps havent done any those camps should be hit hardest imo with their tiles going neutral. again... role play this as the local pirates thinking you are not really willing / able to fight.
Madbooth Posted Jul 19, 2020, 5:15 pm	I dont like the idear of having to do like 20 npc combats just to keep my hex's.
*Dark Tempest* Posted Jul 20, 2020, 12:43 am	Madbooth said: I dont like the idear of having to do like 20 npc combats just to keep my hex's. Wouldn't this be a cool way to make new players valuable? Limit the number of hex battles that each player can have to 2 or 3, so a camp with 20 tiles would need to assign 7-10 players to fight them all. Would encourage camps to have new players get involved without requiring too much of the new players, assuming the squads can be set somewhat like the Camp Wars squads where there's some deployment flexibility.
*Ninesticks* Posted Jul 20, 2020, 10:09 am	The logical route would be to do this based on travel distance from camp, if that can be best expressed through the current travel reductions for Camp War squads that seems sensible enough. Not sure how you are going to be able to allow partial mitigation, perhaps a camp can build a quite limited number of tile enhancements/improvements (outposts or similar) that will have a mitigating effect within a certain radius?
Madbooth Posted Jul 21, 2020, 4:10 pm	Why have it go netural anyways? Also new players can get involved already and get rewards from it. but i dont play with many people. and making it so i have to fight 20 npc battles ect is a little too much. and i dedicate time to this game. New players need to learn how to play the game once they have they can jump into camp wars fact a player can pop out of no where is bad enough. We should just see how it goes for now my personal feelings. Longos looking strong as well as others.