[CHANGE] Turf War Zone Cooldown

  • 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.

  • its usually HS + Z + UE + RF + O vs AA + BB + THC +CDC+ Lunas 5vs5 gangs so whats the problem here? All these years AA and BB are really close allies and they always helped eachother in turfs. I and my teammates never had a problem with that so I think you should do more diplomatic moves to improve your alliances than change the turf wars Thanks.

    (I only mention the active gangs with many members online to regroup and participate in gang wars)

  • Its HS + O + Z + CDC + M + RF + UE vs B~B + AA + ThC

    Lunas died as I know

  • @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.

  • nvm

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

  • I do get the idea, and I do sincerely hope you could get more defenders, but you cannot create a different mechanic on turfs based on the fact that 1 "side" keeps losing. It's just not how it should work.

    It may look unfair and @BurakO has already said this too many times.

    1 Year ago NavM were having most of the zones for the majority of days for the mere reason that they were active and the funny part is nobody would complain because that's how the gameplay is, you can't interfere whether people is connecting or not for a turf war.

    Besides, the longer the turf lasts doesn't necessarily mean it should be fun. By the time 1 hour passes either side is already kind of exhausted until one of them gives up.

  • nvm

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

  • This post is deleted!
  • This post is deleted!
  • @crank said in [CHANGE] Turf War Zone Cooldown:

    @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.

    This sounds too far-fetched, there is no need for turf wars to die. Your side is just simply not active enough, what's the part you don't get?

  • @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?

  • I don’t remember us crying making topics to change turfs because we were on the losing side when the no life NavM and thc were always winning. Now that’s it’s the other way around with us dominating you, you guys start cry wanting turfs changed so you can win lol

  • @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.

  • I don't usually comment on changes or ideas, however I don't understand why you don't like the idea ( that goes to the other side ). Owning zones every day, getting money like crazy, the same thing every time, would bore me to death. The idea is well thought out and makes war between gangs possible again, which isn't possible nowadays. We try it for months and are laughed at as "memes" when we try to dust off some zones through AFK war. Instead of paying attention to the depth and the long term of this idea, you bitch with NavM from last year. The situation is completely different. Only people who really want war and kill players as fun will understand this idea and also agree. The others here, are only focused on money or have in itself of the wars no fun. I have also seen a comment here where you seem to get tired of 1 hour turf, which isn't true at all. We people turf for hours when we have fun together. We stop after an hour because it no longer makes sense to attack zones that can't be won.

  • @silalius said in [CHANGE] Turf War Zone Cooldown:

    I don’t remember us crying making topics to change turfs because we were on the losing side when the no life NavM and thc were always winning. Now that’s it’s the other way around with us dominating you, you guys start cry wanting turfs changed so you can win lol

    I see you don't cry about not winning like we do so you must be turfing because you enjoy it. Thus the question: do you like turfs the way it is right now, or would you like to have turfwars more frequently, like in the past? If the latter, why not support this suggestion? I'm pretty sure it will revive the other side.

  • turf is dry asf imma vote yes for this and hope it works

  • @pain187 And AA is a macaco gang that turfs at 5 AM, so basically vs BB THC + ( G~T chads )