Crank

Address: Super Ls Electronics Account name: bonobos19 Last seen: 23rd January 2022 Screenshots:

The Company new Discord: https://discord.gg/RV5NkNEQ3s

The Company goes public again We have made a new Discord Server some time ago and now decided to make it public. Join if you are interested in The Company! https://discord.gg/RV5NkNEQ3s

@silalius Can't remember a time in which we were 'always' winning. Even during the times of quarantine, battles weren't one-sided. Sometimes one side won, sometimes another. Nowadays it is us just taking a few zones for mere deathmatching. You can compare player numbers from today with the ones from last year and then you can see how many options were open back then and how many are left today for us. But if you are happy with how turf wars go nowadays (if they even happen), then enjoy them while they last. Can't wrap my head around the people that view this suggestion negatively while it is actually a benefit for both sides if done right. Might even be more fun.

@brotherhoodman Activity is not going to resolve that issue. Even if we are active enough, it will not change turf wars. On day one, we will be fighting UE, on the next day Z, on the next O and so on. Eventually, it will become tiresome, whilst you are in the position to relax and rotate who is gonna turf next from your allies. We don't have that luxury, what can you not get? Are you so obsessed with being on top that you even want to leave turf wars in the dust? Nothing is too far fetched because if we stop turfing entirely, there will only be 2 gangs that you can fight. What if B~B decide it is enough too? Are you going to let that happen too? Well, as long as you can farm $$$ all is fine, right? Besides all of that, I don't see how this suggestion is going to hurt you. If well executed, you can use this script to your advantage. I don't see any problem with it unless you are not willing to take any risks?

@chaplin No need to bring up alliances as an argument if you are unaware of your diplomacy

@brotherhoodman Then you could as well let turf wars die because there is not going to be a major shift with turf wars. The server is losing players daily, Friday evening player peaks are at 80. If there is no change within either your alliances or within the turf script, you will have no enemies to fight, because we too play for fun.

@chaplin I suppose you are not really aware of your own diplomatic situations as CDC has supported your side from the start.

@chaplin Where are you counting 4 gangs? At best, there are 3 gangs that can turf at once, which is a best case scenario. What usually happens is that one of us (AA, B~B, ThC) turfs alone and gets attacked from 4 gangs. It is really rare that all 3 of us manage to be online at the same time to turf on different sides of the map. I am not including Lunas because at best, they are turfing as 4 and get smashed. You should be aware of the imbalance as you are one of the people that participate in turf wars frequently. "Diplomatic moves" is the exact thing that I rejected above in connection with new gangs not being willing to join the losing side. Obviously you are not having problems to gather more allies whilst being the dominator.

As I have already mentioned in the topic of @krecik in https://saesrpg.uk/topic/30407/turf-war-balance, turf wars are currently unbalanced and pretty much dead. The majority of the gangs are in one faction, dominating the server whilst farming activity & money unlimitedly. For this reason, I want to dare to suggest a balance change in order to revive turf wars and make them enjoyable without directly touching the alliances that have formed yet. The main problem currently is not the number of helpers inside one turf zone, but the number of gangs ganging up on one attacker at the same time. It happens, that 3 or 4 different gangs are each attacking one gang in several different zones, leaving the attacker scattered & outnumbered in every zone, resulting in a loss. In fact 70% of the official gangs are in one side. The argument of inviting more gangs to the outnumbered side is also invalid as new gangs will not voluntarily decide to join the losing side for the sole reason to farm activities & money by taking allied turfs with no opposition (The most recently formed gangs are the perfect example for that). Furthermore, new gangs aren't formed as frequently as they were more than a year ago, so even if one gang decides to join the losing side, it will barely have any effect. It just takes away the fun when you DM one gang in one turf zone, just to be AFK turfed from another gang in another zone. I have stopped using the said tactic to -split- the enemy because of the effect it has on the joy of gameplay. For this reason, I have come up with a balance change for turf wars; Zone Cooldowns for Turf Wars The change has to come from within the script itself because we as players can't change the direction to where turf wars are going at the moment. It was a suggestion that was already brought up. If you could introduce a cooldown to turf zones, that would appear immediately after a zone is taken or defended, it would help immensely. The attackers can take zones, and the opposition is forced to defend. I'd suggest having the cooldown at ~30 mins because 10 minutes would have little to no impact. The same goes for 15 minutes. Gangs would just wait for the cooldown to disappear & to attack the zone to slow down the attackers consistently, as they are then forced to defend on 2 or more fronts again. There would also be a cooldown for successfully defending a zone, so gangs cannot attack 1 zone over and over again. Furthermore, to prevent abuse from defenders, that spray immediately after a zone is getting attacked (so they get progress down to 0 or below 0 to get a defender cooldown) a certain amount of progress is needed to trigger a cooldown for the zone: 50 progress should at least be reached for the cooldown to take effect. 50, because spraying 3 times achieves progress of 45, so you would need to farm 5 more progress to get a cooldown as a defender. Such a thing would also prevent people or allies from accidentally triggering and leaving a zone, which would result in an attacker being unable to take the zone. An example of how this would work out: ThC attacks a Z zone, ThC gets over 50 progress, thus if Z successfully defends, the zone would have a cooldown. If ThC takes the zone, said cooldown will also appear. If an ally of ThC accidentally attacks the zone and gets defended by Z immediately, there will be no cooldown as 50 progress was not reached. Through this minor change, gangs would have to be strategic about which zone they attack, as it could very well turn out to be a waste of time if defended. Defenders need to defend or they would lose more zones. More momentum/movement for an attacker, less stagnation. Longer turf wars, longer fun. This change alone will not save turf wars, but it will be a start of balance. There are still problems with crowded zones, but that is a topic for another time because at least crowded zones are more fun to DM in than whatever is currently practised. I also hope, that the opposition is going to re-consider what they actually desire on SAES: Save the last joy we got (turf wars) or continue farming money & activities whilst losing any joy because there is no enemy to fight. @Tut-Greco Can you keep this suggestion topic clean from unnecessary comments? It would be good if we could stick to the topic. I also ask the people that do not have any interest in turf wars to not get involved. Thank you.

@krecik Your suggestion will not work out the way you think, because the main problem currently is not the number of helpers inside one turf zone, but the number of gangs ganging up on one attacker at the same time. It happens, that 3 or 4 different gangs are each attacking one gang in several different zones, leaving the attacker scattered & outnumbered in every zone, resulting in a loss. The argument of inviting more gangs to the outnumbered side is also invalid as new gangs will not voluntarily decide to join the losing side for the sole reason to farm activities & money by taking allied turfs with no opposition. Furthermore, new gangs aren't formed as frequently as they were more than a year ago, so even if one gang decides to join the losing side, it will barely have any effect. It just takes away the fun when you DM one gang in one turf zone, just to be AFK turfed from another gang in another zone. I have stopped using the said tactic to -split- the enemy because of the effect it has on the joy of gameplay. But that is not what I want to talk about. I would rather counter your suggestion with an in my opinion better suggestion that would leave more options for any gang participating in turf wars: The change has to come from within the script itself because we as players can't change the direction to where turf wars are going at the moment. It was a suggestion that was already brought up. If you could introduce a cooldown to turf zones, that would appear immediately after a zone is taken or defended, it would help immensely. The attackers can take zones, and the opposition is forced to defend. I'd suggest having the cooldown at ~30 mins because 10 minutes would have little to no impact. The same goes for 15 minutes. Gangs would just wait for the cooldown to disappear & to attack the zone to slow down the attackers consistently, as they are then forced to defend on 2 or more fronts again. There would also be a cooldown for successfully defending a zone, so gangs cannot attack 1 zone over and over again. Furthermore, to prevent abuse from defenders, that spray immediately after a zone is getting attacked (so they get progress down to 0 or below 0 to get a defender cooldown) a certain amount of progress is needed to trigger a cooldown for the zone: 50 progress should at least be reached for the cooldown to take effect. 50, because spraying 3 times achieves progress of 45, so you would need to farm 5 more progress to get a cooldown as a defender. Such a thing would also prevent people or allies from accidentally triggering and leaving a zone, which would result in an attacker being unable to take the zone. An example of how this would work out: ThC attacks a Z zone, ThC gets over 50 progress, thus if Z successfully defends, the zone would have a cooldown. If ThC takes the zone, said cooldown will also appear. If an ally of ThC accidentally attacks the zone and gets defended by Z immediately, there will be no cooldown as 50 progress was not reached. Through this minor change, gangs would have to be strategic about which zone they attack, as it could very well turn out to be a waste of time if defended. Defenders need to defend or they would lose more zones. More momentum/movement for an attacker, less stagnation. Longer turf wars, longer fun. This change alone will not save turf wars, but it will be a start of balance. There are still problems with crowded zones, but that is a topic for another time because at least crowded zones are more fun to DM in than whatever is currently practised. If this gets enough support, I can make a new suggestion topic with a vote, to see who would be interested in my suggestion.

^[] ^[LV Bank Robbery - (21/12/2021)] ^[] ^[]

^[] ^[TURF WAR] ^[25/11/2021 - Taking O/HS Zones in TR] ^[Before] ^[] ^[After] ^[]

^[] ^[TURF WAR] ^[20/11/2021 - Taking Z/O/HS/UE/RF/CripZ Zones] ^[Before] ^[] ^[After] ^[] ^[] ^[]

^[] ^[TURF WAR] ^[14/11/2021 - Taking O/UE Bayside & TR Zones] ^[Before] ^[] ^[After] ^[]

^[] ^[SF Bank Robbery - 13/11/2021] ^[] ^[]

^[] ^[TURF WAR] ^[13/11/2021 - Taking RF/O/UE/Z Zones] ^[Before] ^[] ^[After] ^[] ^[]

Happy Birthday @Brooklyn have a good one

Burak is very itchy ye

Sad to see you guys go, I've loved you right from the start and our alliance, though unexpected, was something special to me. You guys are the last gang that made it out alive from that time! You have finished our war with M & X and achieved level 5. What else is there to earn! You can be proud of yourselves. Completely understandable that you decide to go now. Sail away into the sunset somalians! You earned it.

^[] ^[TURF WAR BEFORE] ^[] ^[TURF WAR AFTER] ^[]

^[] ^[TURF WAR 18/07/2021] ^[]

^[] ^[TURF WAR 10/07/2021] ^[]

^[] ^[#1301] ^[Event Type: LMS] ^[Organiser: Foxzilla] ^[Winners: BaRy] ^[Prize: 1.500.000$] ::: ^[] ^[] ^[] :::

@VayraN said in Auf Wiedersehen from Rogue 21: I don't really understand why does the organisations write a paragraph full of drama just because they are closing, It's a game, No need for drama in a game lol, Anyway, RIP Nobody asked for your opinion In the past you cried because you got bomb disliked on a forum of a game. So don't come up saying we are causing drama.