*sam* Posted Aug 1, 2020, 10:21 am	As we discussed at the last meeting, I have made a system for simulating different year-end tile loss scenarios. As it turns out, this was easiest to write as part of the website, so therefore we can all play with it. If you click on any camp on the map, you'll see a 'Simulate Tile Loss' button. Then you enter the loss factor you want to simulate. (This is simulated for the whole map, not just the camp you clicked). You can click 'Go' multiple times to see different random effects using the same loss factor. A tile's chance of being lost is related to its accumulated slow-CR dropoff. This is taken as a probability (e.g. 0.85 meaning there's an 85% chance of the tile being kept and not reverting to neutral), but what we're trying to determine is how best to use this number. To do this, I'm planning to use a power function, and the 'loss factor' you enter is used as the exponent in this. If you enter 1.0 then the 0.85 stays as 0.85.. if you enter 0.5 it would become 0.92; if you enter 5.0 it would become 0.44.. and so on. Hopefully this makes sense. I want to figure out the best value for this 'loss factor'. Something in the region of 3 or 4 looks good to me. It means that a camp can be lucky and have a string of connected tiles which will lead to rapid expansion next season, or unlucky and have gaps which will slow down expansion. This season-to-season change should keep things dynamic on the map, and mean every year gives a slightly different challenge to pvp camps.. which I really like.
FireFly Posted Aug 1, 2020, 10:49 am	Seems a bit harsh chief! (So I clicked the button about 20 times to get this screenshot for propaganda purposes, it may or may not be representative of the average roll, it also may or may not be how my CR is deployed bill ) Seems pretty alright to me, would be a real bummer if it shuts down fights for a month tho. We'd be back to weeks of krak vs vault again  I can't recall, was some bonuses moving around just a suggestion or probably happening as well?
*sam* Posted Aug 1, 2020, 10:52 am	It seems harsh at first.. but remember, you don't lose the tiles that you kept but which you are initially unconnected to. When you fill in the gap to them, you can expand from them the next cycle. In most cases bad luck will only slow you down by 1 or 2 cycles. In your pic, for example, the Vault is the only one that's really done badly.
ShawnFireDragon coldmolasses@live.ca Posted Aug 1, 2020, 11:03 am	I think it makes sense to have to re-invest to hold your tiles. Great job Sam.
Djihani Posted Aug 1, 2020, 11:04 am	Dunno, I think it would feel more realistic if border tiles had a bigger chance of going neutral and distance to camp mattered but I hear that shaking up the map thinking of keeping it random.
*sam* Posted Aug 1, 2020, 11:06 am	Djihani said: Dunno, I think it would feel more realistic if border tiles had a bigger chance of going neutral and distance to camp mattered but I hear that shaking up the map thinking of keeping it random. Distance to camp *does* matter, via each tile's accumulated CR dropoff.
FireFly Posted Aug 1, 2020, 11:14 am	Nah it looks pretty alright for a first run to me sam, not saying harsh isn't good!
Djihani Posted Aug 1, 2020, 11:17 am	*sam* said: Djihani said: Dunno, I think it would feel more realistic if border tiles had a bigger chance of going neutral and distance to camp mattered but I hear that shaking up the map thinking of keeping it random. Distance to camp *does* matter, via each tile's accumulated CR dropoff. Ah right, I read it as the tiles own factor. Accumulated is cool.
*sam* Posted Aug 1, 2020, 11:31 am	Djihani said: *sam* said: Djihani said: Dunno, I think it would feel more realistic if border tiles had a bigger chance of going neutral and distance to camp mattered but I hear that shaking up the map thinking of keeping it random. Distance to camp *does* matter, via each tile's accumulated CR dropoff. Ah right, I read it as the tiles own factor. Accumulated is cool. The word 'accumulated' wasn't there in my post; I've added it now.. sorry.
*Longo* Posted Aug 1, 2020, 8:18 pm	Ive played around with this a little bit. I think the best "range" would be something around 1.0. All of the work to get where we are at, to lose so much, is just exhausting to even think about. Its becomes more of a grind than it already is. At levels 3-4, its enough of a game changer that I would assume you could lose 25% of pvp camps. There are approximately 22 Pvp camps, and realistically, about 6 are actively Pvping. So by my estimates this would drop these numbers to 17 open camps and 4 actively Pvping. If thats what your looking for, then pull the trigger. Also seems that some camps are particularly biased due to their locations and surroundings more than others. Just my 2 cents.
*goat starer* Posted Aug 1, 2020, 9:13 pm	1 makes no difference to anyone's borders at all. at 1.8 Joels borders lost hexes (after filling in free hexes) in on one out of 20 tests (we were cut in half 40% of the time). at 2+ it really screaws the map up in random ways. It is not the right methodology is my conclusion. It needs to lose more hexes on borders and fewer internal ones. we also need to make hexes cost something to own.. all towns, villages and factories should consume CR not add it to represent policing and control.
Djihani Posted Aug 1, 2020, 9:31 pm	Maybe one setting of governance? Heavy policing costs CR, keeps your lands safe, low policing increases chance of rebellion but costs less cr.
Joel Autobaun Posted Aug 1, 2020, 9:49 pm	I would certainly bow out at 3.0+
*Joskney* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 5:36 am	at 2+ it really screaws the map up in random ways. It is not the right methodology is my conclusion. It needs to lose more hexes on borders and fewer internal ones. we also need to make hexes cost something to own.. all towns, villages and factories should consume CR not add it to represent policing and control. I agree with this. SO, then it begs, what EXACTLY do each of us want out of this?  WHY do small/northern camp players bother? What do they get and would a level 2 or/up to a level 3 yearly reset kick them into doing fast land grabs that otherwise they would say "Oh well, Longo has it already" (Nothing personal, just using Longo as he is the big North.)  I can run both my camps, make everything my hermit heart wants and I make millions each game year.  And the millions are not based on what my camps produce.  As my BL Tiny PvP camp has a MR42, with 6 total mechanics, I relatively gain nothing and lose anything being in camp wars.  My GW Medium non-PvP camp, I can run at a 80-90 MR with no other player mechs and one-two scouts towards it keep my fame at a level I can run 2 factories at all times.  So camp wars for my camps, becomes chance to fight other players, not really a camp bonus.  It is nice not to have no pirate attacks, any maybe the random thing, but nothing I don't already have any need.
*The X Man* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 5:40 am	I ran a few simulations as well. Judgement from not to many tiles to too many tiles, the sweet spot seems to be 2.0 for a fair average. (I wouldn't recommend going any higher). It really does show how the luck factor can help how fast you can regain your borders.
darthspanky Posted Aug 2, 2020, 8:35 am	make a rating for each camp, those camps that play hug your neibor and never attack anyone should get a higher score say 8, those that fight get lower, or start the next year at say 8 and for each week you have a fight without the auto win it goes down a point so after a year you fought every other week it goes down 6. or mybe have camp be able to choose what tiles cant go neutral more tiles they have means you get to pick more tiles that cant go neutral.
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 9:06 am	1. The random factor is absolutely important. Anyone saying it 'screws with the maps in random ways' as a negative is entirely missing the point. The random factor will, year to year, hand an advantage to one camp or another - this is great - the last thing I want is an unchanging situation. You've been handed a lucky roll? - perfect!- this is your year to make a big push against your enemy. You've had an unlucky roll? - well, it's time to tighten your borders and play defensive for a bit. Either way, it gives a varying challenge year to year and gives the underdog a chance every now and then. This is far better than forcing everything to stay the same. If you don't agree, I suggest you're failing to see past your own self-interest. We need to make space for new camps to open up to pvp with some hope of survival. We need to allow a new camp, over a period of 3-4 seasons, to become as strong as an established camp.  This system offers both. 2. Those maps might look scary at first, due to the sheer number of tiles lost, but it's far less bad than it looks.  In most simulation runs, it would take most camps 2 cycles to fill in all the gaps.  I don't accept an argument that it's too much work - we're talking about a few minutes of CR deployment effort, twice in the game year. However..   I can certainly change things so that tiles are lost on the borders and not internally.  This is mostly just cosmetic, but if it makes people happier that's fine. One good point made above is that some camps are consistently harder hit than others. Although the accumulated-CR-dropoff based approach would make sense if we had a clean playing field, it doesn't make sense (from a game balance perspective) given an already established map. That's a fair point. I will make a new version of this simulation based on distance from camp rather than accumulated CR dropoff. I will make it drop tiles from your borders only. It will retain randomness so that camps can get good years or bad years.
*Ninesticks* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 9:23 am	I must be in a tiny minority that thought 4-5 was the most intersting
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 9:29 am	*Ninesticks* said: I must be in a tiny minority that thought 4-5 was the most intersting  Not at all, it's entirely consistent:  the larger your current camp region is, the lower you see as 'reasonable' for the magic number.  ;-)
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 9:37 am	*Joskney* said: As my BL Tiny PvP camp has a MR42, with 6 total mechanics, I relatively gain nothing and lose anything being in camp wars.  My GW Medium non-PvP camp, I can run at a 80-90 MR with no other player mechs and one-two scouts towards it keep my fame at a level I can run 2 factories at all times.  So camp wars for my camps, becomes chance to fight other players, not really a camp bonus.  It is nice not to have no pirate attacks, any maybe the random thing, but nothing I don't already have any need. So, the tile perks are simply not enough to make it useful? Would it be good to hold a 'small camps only' meeting? The meetings I have held so far have focused on the big players. or is there even enough interest ?
FireFly Posted Aug 2, 2020, 10:40 am	There are a lot of mountain regions and the change to bird distance would let players (like me) easily keep tiles that only 2 tiles away by air but technically 5 tiles away by travel. This would be better for mountain camps like mine, but I think it makes much less sense. Honestly, wouldn't the ability to build infrastructure or move your camp at the end of the year by a tile or two (or both) solve at the very least, the "unfair" part of this?
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 12:17 pm	FireFly said: There are a lot of mountain regions and the change to bird distance would let players (like me) easily keep tiles that only 2 tiles away by air but technically 5 tiles away by travel. This would be better for mountain camps like mine, but I think it makes much less sense. From a 'logical' or 'realistic' point of view, yes it makes less sense to use distance only.  From a 'game balance' point of view, it makes a lot of sense though. We can't have a situation where certain camps get hammered every year and others almost never do. Like I said, if this rule was being written on an empty map before people placed their camps, the requirement would be very different.
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 12:19 pm	Right.. I have written new tile loss simulation code (version 2) which uses distance only rather than accumulated CR dropoff, and which drops tiles from borders only. Try it with loss factor numbers around 3 or 4.
darthspanky Posted Aug 2, 2020, 12:30 pm	so much for the idea of building a new camp in southern plateau
Bigbadgreen86 Posted Aug 2, 2020, 1:36 pm	Perhaps the best solution may be to have the loss factor not be a set number but instead random each year. No advantage for larger or smaller camps to be had? Should be less issues over time that way IMHO.
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 1:42 pm	Bigbadgreen86 said: Perhaps the best solution may be to have the loss factor not be a set number but instead random each year.  No advantage for larger or smaller camps to be had?  Should be less issues over time that way IMHO. That's an interesting idea.  Different each year, but the same for everyone in that year.
*Ninesticks* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 3:09 pm	Hate to say it but even on 5 that is not going to be enough to encourage anything.
*The X Man* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 4:03 pm	*sam* said: 1. The random factor is absolutely important. Anyone saying it 'screws with the maps in random ways' as a negative is entirely missing the point. The random factor will, year to year, hand an advantage to one camp or another - this is great - the last thing I want is an unchanging situation. You've been handed a lucky roll? - perfect!- this is your year to make a big push against your enemy. You've had an unlucky roll? - well, it's time to tighten your borders and play defensive for a bit. Either way, it gives a varying challenge year to year and gives the underdog a chance every now and then. This is far better than forcing everything to stay the same. If you don't agree, I suggest you're failing to see past your own self-interest. We need to make space for new camps to open up to pvp with some hope of survival. We need to allow a new camp, over a period of 3-4 seasons, to become as strong as an established camp.  This system offers both. 2. Those maps might look scary at first, due to the sheer number of tiles lost, but it's far less bad than it looks.  In most simulation runs, it would take most camps 2 cycles to fill in all the gaps.  I don't accept an argument that it's too much work - we're talking about a few minutes of CR deployment effort, twice in the game year. However..   I can certainly change things so that tiles are lost on the borders and not internally.  This is mostly just cosmetic, but if it makes people happier that's fine. One good point made above is that some camps are consistently harder hit than others. Although the accumulated-CR-dropoff based approach would make sense if we had a clean playing field, it doesn't make sense (from a game balance perspective) given an already established map. That's a fair point. I will make a new version of this simulation based on distance from camp rather than accumulated CR dropoff. I will make it drop tiles from your borders only. It will retain randomness so that camps can get good years or bad years. Sam, I just did more simulations based on this change. I started with 2.0, which was my first recommended starting point, it made very little change. Did more at 3.0 to 4.0 and more of the same. A little more tile loss but not one was done where I couldn't "fix" or regain tiles in one weeks deployment. Set it to max, 5.0, it didn't make it any more difficult. I recommend putting it back to random. That had the best fair and average results to what you were looking for. This was done at 2.0.
*Joskney* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 4:17 pm	*sam* said: So, the tile perks are simply not enough to make it useful? Would it be good to hold a 'small camps only' meeting? The meetings I have held so far have focused on the big players. or is there even enough interest ? Perhaps, IMHO it will be the small camp owners that could make/break this otherwise it is just a big camp game.  Why-what would interest a newer camp owner to just jump into the battles?  I used my camps as an example just to show the logistical and bonus differences between a large and a small (or tiny).  My tiny camp MAYBE can have a 6-7 mech shop, at max, so never enough MR/Fame to even worry about upkeep.  My first foray into camps was an EL Tiny, exactly the same size.
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 4:37 pm	*The X Man* said: *sam* said: 1. The random factor is absolutely important. Anyone saying it 'screws with the maps in random ways' as a negative is entirely missing the point. The random factor will, year to year, hand an advantage to one camp or another - this is great - the last thing I want is an unchanging situation. You've been handed a lucky roll? - perfect!- this is your year to make a big push against your enemy. You've had an unlucky roll? - well, it's time to tighten your borders and play defensive for a bit. Either way, it gives a varying challenge year to year and gives the underdog a chance every now and then. This is far better than forcing everything to stay the same. If you don't agree, I suggest you're failing to see past your own self-interest. We need to make space for new camps to open up to pvp with some hope of survival. We need to allow a new camp, over a period of 3-4 seasons, to become as strong as an established camp.  This system offers both. 2. Those maps might look scary at first, due to the sheer number of tiles lost, but it's far less bad than it looks.  In most simulation runs, it would take most camps 2 cycles to fill in all the gaps.  I don't accept an argument that it's too much work - we're talking about a few minutes of CR deployment effort, twice in the game year. However..   I can certainly change things so that tiles are lost on the borders and not internally.  This is mostly just cosmetic, but if it makes people happier that's fine. One good point made above is that some camps are consistently harder hit than others. Although the accumulated-CR-dropoff based approach would make sense if we had a clean playing field, it doesn't make sense (from a game balance perspective) given an already established map. That's a fair point. I will make a new version of this simulation based on distance from camp rather than accumulated CR dropoff. I will make it drop tiles from your borders only. It will retain randomness so that camps can get good years or bad years. Sam, I just did more simulations based on this change. I started with 2.0, which was my first recommended starting point, it made very little change. Did more at 3.0 to 4.0 and more of the same. A little more tile loss but not one was done where I couldn't "fix" or regain tiles in one weeks deployment. Set it to max, 5.0, it didn't make it any more difficult. I recommend putting it back to random. That had the best fair and average results to what you were looking for. This was done at 2.0. You have a pretty compact region (since you haven't expanded hugely). So you're a prime candidate for not getting hard hit. Watch what happens to other camps too.
*The X Man* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 5:07 pm	That is true but the larger your area, you are going to have bigger losses. When I did 2.0 random loss for my camp, It varied between 10-12 tiles lost. I currently have 39 tiles which would be a 25% - 30% loss. That was a number I felt was reasonable. We could possibly dial it down to a 1.8 to give a more consistent 25%.
Joel Autobaun Posted Aug 2, 2020, 5:21 pm	Well I've pondered this a bit. Can't figure out who is actually calling for this....I suppose it doesn't matter. I've warned, it is dangerous to take away stuff from players (even a minority), when you make it random you are doubling down. Anyway seems like it is going to happen (despite many cries from all kinds of factions about it being not very good). So it's going to happen. Ok. I cannot help but take this personally. It is very obviously against me. So if you want me out of the camp game, just ask? Though I've had fun, I am sooooo tired of the arguing and wondering what's the next shoe to drop. I have probably participated in the most fights/schemes etc. and though fun, I can definitely say I could not see me participating indefinitely (even without this end of year basically half wipe). So you put a LOT of time and effort into this, you are successful and whooops all gone (or enough is gone). Well gee, why bother. Grab 4-5 hexes out max (or even 1-2) and Hug-it-out with your neighbors. I'm actually ready(anyway) for that to be honest. Hey Bill, ever had Canadian Pilsner? So basically someone(???) is in a big hurry to have some people stop and let some others get into it? So we have more camp sprawl? I must admit I didn't even forsee so many new camp just for the pvp game, particularly after the camp move , which oddly created the Krak/Goat problem somewhat by accident. We wanted player to try to join camps (and I can tell you i'd pretty much even give everything away getting made at my camp - NO TAKERS), so I never held much hope for that, for myself. Instead we have guys like Ash building camps in the middle of nowhere...which was kinda cool. If new players are petitioning to join.... make more map, I thought we talked about this. Players will get burnt out, trust me. This is not even the FIRST season done yet. but not burning out fast enough I guess. This will rapidly accelerate that. I do predict everyone to improve their Hug game though. Only way to play long term now.
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 6:24 pm	Joel, no one is petitioning for this, and it's not all about you. I have explained in detail what it's about multiple times so I won't do so again now.  Suffice to say, it's about giving newer players or newer camp owners a way in. They're not clamouring for it right now, at least partially because they're intimidated, and perhaps more because they don't even see it as an option- because,  after all, camp wars are just another rich get richer scheme, right? But one thing for sure is that if I let the map get locked down by the vested interests as you want it to be, we will end up with a boring stagnant situation with never any newcomers.  Again, I can 100% assure you my own motivation is to improve the game for everyone.  You could try making helpful suggestions rather than ultimatums. Even explaining above what it's all for suggests to me an idea.. we could have absolutely minimal tile decay, and a boosted new-camp system (e.g. they take all 6 surrounding tiles and receive a big defensive boost for a full season).. is that more palatable?
Wuulf Posted Aug 2, 2020, 6:35 pm	Not wanting to complicate things but... Quite liked the randomness of v1, however one option to tweak it a bit could be to give tiles a free pass that have a certain amount of CR deployed (750, 1000?). This would use movement in that more base CR has to be spent to garrison more distant tiles, and would reflect that uprising is less likely if your tooled up gangers are in town eyeballing the locals. This would also have the effect that ‘active war zone borders’ would end up being protected (the local farmers cowering in their basements rather than revolting in the middle of a war zone). It protects key tiles that the gang chooses (or has to) defend, but will still leave many unoccupied that may revolt according to the magic number. With regard to the number - this could be a base level, with mediating factors based on the assigned local town. Eg if you’re well known and liked revolution is less likely, if you’re a gang that isn’t liked locally or your faction isn’t popular (eg mutants in Somerset) then more chance it kicks off. If PVP is to be rewarded, some sort of modifier reflecting that villagers are going to be more scared of more aggressive gangs. This gives some element of control to the player in terms of longer term gang performance and alignment, and some short term control by beefing up forces in a few tiles that are key, and still keeps some randomness and would mean more spread out empires are going to have more revolts.
*Synyster Gates* jesse_bliss@yahoo.com Posted Aug 2, 2020, 6:42 pm	Joel Autobaun said: So basically someone(???) is in a big hurry to have some people stop and let some others get into it? *sam* said: because,  after all, camp wars are just another rich get richer scheme, right? Looks like you hit it on the head, there, Sam.
Joel Autobaun Posted Aug 2, 2020, 6:46 pm	*Synyster Gates* said: Joel Autobaun said: So basically someone(???) is in a big hurry to have some people stop and let some others get into it? *sam* said: because,  after all, camp wars are just another rich get richer scheme, right? Looks like you hit it on the head, there, Sam. And that ends my participation in this discussion.  Every single ####ing time.
Joel Autobaun Posted Aug 2, 2020, 6:56 pm	*sam* said: You could try making helpful suggestions rather than ultimatums. Even explaining above what it's all for suggests to me an idea.. we could have absolutely minimal tile decay, and a boosted new-camp system (e.g. they take all 6 surrounding tiles and receive a big defensive boost for a full season).. is that more palatable? Ok one last comment.  Before some other ####head decides to take the opportunity for another ad hominem attack. In everything you are talking about - that is literally the only way to take someone out of camps wars.  Throw up a camp next to them, so you are ABLE to attack their camp. So either or - whatever I don't care anymore.
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 7:12 pm	Joel Autobaun said: *sam* said: You could try making helpful suggestions rather than ultimatums. Even explaining above what it's all for suggests to me an idea.. we could have absolutely minimal tile decay, and a boosted new-camp system (e.g. they take all 6 surrounding tiles and receive a big defensive boost for a full season).. is that more palatable? Ok one last comment.  Before some other ####head decides to take the opportunity for another ad hominem attack. In everything you are talking about - that is literally the only way to take someone out of camps wars.  Throw up a camp next to them, so you are ABLE to attack their camp. So either or - whatever I don't care anymore. You can't throw up a camp next to another, because they have to be placed on neutral tiles.. which will be probably 4-5 tiles away (under v.2). But yes, there are currently non-pvp camps scattered around various places, some very close to pvp camps. We could change it so that they're not allowed to open for pvp if their tile is not currently neutral. There are solutions that work all around. Refusing to discuss things in a constructive way doesn't help at all.
*goat starer* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 7:13 pm	even at 5 it makes very little difference to the map. 2 rounds to be back where you were... and there are no strategically interesting things at that level as it basically removes the borders from everyone but very small camps. i come back to scaling outwards so its effectively 5 after a certain number of hexes.... starts at 0 and becomes more intense as you move out. So you can still lose tiles further in.
Joel Autobaun Posted Aug 2, 2020, 7:53 pm	Huge effing neutral zone where Klingons used to live, where NO one has been for 2 months,  but two more new camps up in the SS hug zone. I dunno, excuse me for my doubt as to the motivations for this.  Something definitely seems wrong.  It could be you are simply misguided Sam. Anyway you didn't really acknowledge many of my point and I can nearly guarantee I'm correct on many of them.  That's also not constructive.  Rich get richer sure whatever blah blah.
*sam* Posted Aug 2, 2020, 8:53 pm	Joel Autobaun said: Anyway you didn't really acknowledge many of my point and I can nearly guarantee I'm correct on many of them.  That's also not constructive.  Rich get richer sure whatever blah blah. Sorry, I didn't actually see many points being made in your post. I'll try to answer the points I can see in it. I have deleted the bits where I don't think you were making any point: Joel Autobaun said: Can't figure out who is actually calling for this....I suppose it doesn't matter. answered already Joel Autobaun said: I've warned, it is dangerous to take away stuff from players (even a minority), when you make it random you are doubling down. You're right, it is dangerous, and that's why I'm being very careful. I don't agree on the random bit. Randomness evens out over the long term, and in the short term it generates variation and opportunity. Joel Autobaun said: So it's going to happen. Ok. I cannot help but take this personally. It is very obviously against me. answered already Joel Autobaun said: So you put a LOT of time and effort into this, you are successful and whooops all gone (or enough is gone). Well gee, why bother. Grab 4-5 hexes out max (or even 1-2) and Hug-it-out with your neighbors. I'm actually ready(anyway) for that to be honest. Hey Bill, ever had Canadian Pilsner? Fair point, and yes it's a risk. A risk that I think is worth taking to improve the game overall.
darthspanky Posted Aug 2, 2020, 11:56 pm	lol damm all i was hoping for was for a chance for a tile in southern plateau to go neutral so i could build a large sv corridor type camp, and boy joel thinks im doing it to get close to him and attack, lol even if i built a camp on a neutral tile in southern plateau id keep it closed, and i know better than to ask for pemission from him, should be a way to make new camps that are some of the biggest land to build on without getting joel panties in a bunch, joel i have no intrest in playing this game with you and your boy longo as competion i know how you play and not intrested in playing anything in this game with you, but i am glad i can get under your skin lol err muhahahahaha
Madbooth Posted Aug 3, 2020, 12:10 am	Darth shut up you attacked me and shot me in the back during a Town defence when we was both on the same side. You play low i can clearly see why you did it tho because you cant take it out on joel or longo because you are not good enough. you have to attack players like me by suprise i guess to get out some of that rage you have pent up some how. Its not a good look darth crying all the time. (as for the attack you did against me water off a ducks back tho i will get you back for it at some point promise unless you straight up quit the game which i can see but i expect stuff like that to happen from time to time with me) You made the bed lay in it...
Madbooth Posted Aug 3, 2020, 12:21 am	Joels scared at momment thats all camp wars does seem like a big risk...And alot of players want his blood. But sam's right its not about him...its about me...what about me!? As for players hugging it out joel not being funny ur next to longo and you two are working as a team so lets not beat around the bush please about hugs you is on a piggy back dude. Let changes happen. (i have no complaints until i see something i should complain about the Camp war pvp set up seemed off to me) should be facing each other in my eyes not setting up behind someone with MM while they all have front facing weapons last pvp i saw with longo and joel was a duck shoot for the other side. which seemed unfair to me. if they gonna be that close they should be facing each other. was a ambush in my eyes that. as for title loss i can accept it because its random so some titles you lose will be safe from attack anyways as they are not on ur boarders which i suggested was the titles lost in the first place. so its not that much of a big deal.
Joel Autobaun Posted Aug 3, 2020, 12:48 am	darthspanky said: lol damm all i was hoping for was for a chance for a tile in southern plateau to go neutral so i could build a large sv corridor type camp, and boy joel thinks im doing it to get close to him and attack, lol even if i built a camp on a neutral tile in southern plateau id keep it closed, and i know better than to ask for pemission from him, should be a way to make new camps that are some of the biggest land to build on without getting joel panties in a bunch, joel i have no intrest in playing this game with you and your boy longo as competion i know how you play and not intrested in playing anything in this game with you, but i am glad i can get under your skin lol err muhahahahaha We all find new reasons to play.. only one left for me is to catch you sylvester or DJ in an event and kill you.  Holy #### thats good times.
*sam* Posted Aug 3, 2020, 8:43 am	Oh, one more point about version 2 of the tile loss algorithm - it cuts away (at the moment) a max of 3 tiles from any camp's border. It doesn't matter how far away from your camp those borders are. So if you have been expanding a lot it doesn't have the potential of negating a year's gains.
*Longo* Posted Aug 3, 2020, 9:09 am	I played with the new way a little bit. I didn’t really like this either. Again, it seemed biased to some camps(not mine) and for many camps was insignificant. One simulation did take over 50% of my tiles which was an exception to this and would have been devastating. I don’t have a suggestion as to where it would get better for everyone at this point, sorry.
*goat starer* Posted Aug 3, 2020, 10:24 am	*sam* said: Oh, one more point about version 2 of the tile loss algorithm - it cuts away (at the moment) a max of 3 tiles from any camp's border. It doesn't matter how far away from your camp those borders are. So if you have been expanding a lot it doesn't have the potential of negating a year's gains. I think that is most of its problem. All it does is send the game back 2 tiurns. Essentially it changes nothing at all
FireFly Posted Aug 3, 2020, 10:41 am	Aight' here is my suggestion. Try V1 again with a 3 tile (or two) guaranteed retention zone. It might honestly leave to much intact, but this is how the screenshot from earlier would have looked with that in place. My microsoft paint skills, admire them mortals! I said on page 1 this screenie was a particularly bad roll and probably not how bad it will be on average. I'll also state once again that (iirc) if we get buildable infrastructure to reduce travel costs, that should double as increasing the chance of retaining tiles should it not? That's my assumption anyway. In the end, Ver.2 has the sin of being utterly boring to me, vastly prefeer the more chaotic bent of v1.
*sam* Posted Aug 3, 2020, 12:22 pm	*goat starer* said: *sam* said: Oh, one more point about version 2 of the tile loss algorithm - it cuts away (at the moment) a max of 3 tiles from any camp's border. It doesn't matter how far away from your camp those borders are. So if you have been expanding a lot it doesn't have the potential of negating a year's gains. I think that is most of its problem. All it does is send the game back 2 tiurns. Essentially it changes nothing at all Not true. Large, elongated camp borders are affected far more than small or compact ones. Both v1 and v2 would do a good job of giving breathing space for new camps to set up, as well as injecting some variation and opportunity -- and these are the two main things I'm trying to achieve. There's plenty of randomness if you try looking at the large, elongated ones in particular.  The main difference between this and v1 is it doesn't produce all those internal missing tiles (which seemed to scare people unduly).
*sam* Posted Aug 6, 2020, 2:36 pm	I've decided on an approach based on v1. This will obviously make roads more important (which is a good thing, as it should focus the overly-dispersed battle-fronts we have now). However, since none of you knew about this when you positioned your camps, I'm going to allow any pvp camp one move (anytime from now until the end of the season), by a max of 2 tiles - to a tile that's currently owned by you. You can't move to within 2 tiles of another pvp camp, and the usual rules apply - not allowed on roads, towns, villages, factories, radio towers.
*The X Man* Posted Aug 6, 2020, 4:52 pm	*sam* said: I've decided on an approach based on v1.  This will obviously make roads more important (which is a good thing, as it should focus the overly-dispersed battle-fronts we have now). However, since none of you knew about this when you positioned your camps, I'm going to allow any pvp camp one move (anytime from now until the end of the season), by a max of 2 tiles - to a tile that's currently owned by you.  You can't move to within 2 tiles of another pvp camp, and the usual rules apply - not allowed on roads, towns, villages, factories, radio towers. Will these new camp relocations get adjusted fame increase or decrease depending on how close they are to town? Also, will there be additional charge or refund based on the relocation?
*sam* Posted Aug 6, 2020, 6:25 pm	*The X Man* said: *sam* said: I've decided on an approach based on v1.  This will obviously make roads more important (which is a good thing, as it should focus the overly-dispersed battle-fronts we have now). However, since none of you knew about this when you positioned your camps, I'm going to allow any pvp camp one move (anytime from now until the end of the season), by a max of 2 tiles - to a tile that's currently owned by you.  You can't move to within 2 tiles of another pvp camp, and the usual rules apply - not allowed on roads, towns, villages, factories, radio towers. Will these new camp relocations get adjusted fame increase or decrease depending on how close they are to town? Also, will there be additional charge or refund based on the relocation? I didn't think of those.  Both are possible, yes, I have closed the fame gap quite a bit between wilderness and near-town camps already though (as decided at our last meeting).
*goat starer* Posted Aug 6, 2020, 9:37 pm	If camps choose to move their borders should retreat with them (and expand (if spaces are neutral) in the other direction. There has to be a trade off for this.
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Aug 7, 2020, 4:32 am	I’ve got to say, I haven’t read this whole thread yet but the most funny thing I read so far was *Sam* saying to Joel “You could try making helpful suggestions rather than ultimatums.“ I’ve GOT to ask... Sam, when has Joel NOT made ultimatums? It’s his way! We all love him for it. It’s would be like me not trolling Goat. Anyway. It’s amazing to see all the old names back. I just resubscribed and will be trying to find time to play. What’s the possibility of me moving my camp or something? If it’s even still mine... I hope it is since I spent 27 million on it. And my funds right now are literally $0
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Aug 7, 2020, 6:08 am	Well hmmmmm... I guess I don’t technically own my camp anymore... not surprising I guess since I haven’t had much time to play but it’s ironic that Joel is now one of the core managers there. Considering our violent past history. Though I do have to say, I’m happy to have him aboard. He’s a decent tactician even though I’ve beaten him and stolen his cars before in PvP. I still have his Osprey!
*sam* Posted Aug 7, 2020, 9:17 am	Good to see you Crispin!
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Aug 7, 2020, 9:27 am	*sam* said: Good to see you Crispin!  Some may disagree...  lol
Joel Autobaun Posted Aug 7, 2020, 2:53 pm	Most of my current friends are former enemies or rivals. And everyone has beaten me in pvp at some point. Everyone has a chance (though i will admit maybe 3:1 cr is not doable with more than a few hundred cr). I remember how our fight started Crispin, santas sled circa 2011 maybe... ss dr rally type. Double tap from two CC. 4 shots in one turn. I was as surprised as anyone lol.
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Aug 8, 2020, 4:34 am	Your memory is better than mine! I don’t remember how it started. I do remember how my rivalry with Jeet started. He redded me out in a couple DRs when I was totally new. I think a lot of people experience this and take offense when a long time player reds out a new player. To the veteran it’s all in good fun but the noob hasn’t learned to let go of his attachments to his guys and cars yet. Anyway... I hope to see everyone online soon. I keep splitting my time between Civilization 6 And Advanced Tactics Gold lately (and a new early acces RPG - Low Magic Age) Oh and funny story: —— there this site called steam rating or something where you can compare playtime with other people. And I’m #1 playtime in the world for DW. Caveat: it only lists people signed up for the site so there’s only a few hundred people to compete with. It also shows playtime pie chart for my top 5 most played games. 51% DW and I haven’t played in like 2-3 years! My top 5 in order: —Darkwind —Advanced Tactics Gold (another Indy dev. Sam do you know Vic?) —War Thunder —Civilization 5 —Civilization 4 And #6 and rising is Civilization 6 Can you tell I like Civ? Lol If anything that’s a testament to how much entertainment Sam has brought to my life. That’s something to be proud of even if we all bicker like children and make life difficult!