Poseidon Continues His Haphazard Efforts to Resuce Pub

[Poseidon]

- The more competitive the pub game is, the more people join and remain longer in the game.
- Competition is good for population.
- Attachmode nearly always creates a more competitive environment, esp with less than 20 players.
- Levis create a less competitive environment, period.

Now I have to ask, which of these points is staff hung up on? What do I need to prove to you? It wont be hard.

As it stands, staff appears they'd rather us play the game of PUBBUX than play actual subspace.
This is not good for the zone.
We could have both:

I've already created a simple and easy-to-implement proposal which generated a lot of interest without a single word of criticism.
This proposal would solve much of the problems stated above.

-

What is stopping us from making this a reality, thereby aiding the zone in maintaining a greater playerbase?
Is it only Qan being stubborn? Can anybody on staff answer any of the 3 questions I've previously proposed in this thread?

-

Let us make progress, together!

[Lizzo]

Poseidon almost always win KoT cause he always spraying pew pew spider Lazer to 0% health. When he die from literally any bomb or mine proximity he complain hard

[Rab]

qan is in the pocket of the troll lobbies so you're wasting your time.

[Voth]

- The more competitive the pub game is, the more people join and remain longer in the game.
- Competition is good for population.
- Attachmode nearly always creates a more competitive environment, esp with less than 20 players.
- Levis create a less competitive environment, period.

Now I have to ask, which of these points is staff hung up on? What do I need to prove to you? It wont be hard.

As it stands, staff appears they'd rather us play the game of PUBBUX than play actual subspace.
This is not good for the zone.
We could have both:

I've already created a simple and easy-to-implement proposal which generated a lot of interest without a single word of criticism.
This proposal would solve much of the problems stated above.

-

What is stopping us from making this a reality, thereby aiding the zone in maintaining a greater playerbase?
Is it only Qan being stubborn? Can anybody on staff answer any of the 3 questions I've previously proposed in this thread?

-

Let us make progress, together!

Can you link me to the proposal?


I can't promise anything as pub changes are not within my "domain," but I can send it up the chain and rattle some cages.

[Poseidon]

Can you link me to the proposal?


I can't promise anything as pub changes are not within my "domain," but I can send it up the chain and rattle some cages.

https://forums.trenchwars.com/main/1354175-pub-proposal



or, easier:

every 20 minutes the bot takes a vote after current game ends:

PUREPUB: yes(1)/no(2)
ATTACHMODE: yes(1)/no(2)

players can !buy exempt, !buy vote, etc etc., details can be worked out later

[Lizzo]

Don't waste time considering his suggestions. They are only to protect his play style and not actually enrich real competition. He literally only plays spider, which he basically suicides every time (staying at 0 health) to rack up the most kills. Doesn't take a high school graduate to see this but surprise surprise, likes everything that explicitly advantages spiders more.
Likes attach mode because more low health players entering his stream (and no other ships besides spiders will have health to shoot him immediately upon attach) and when he attaches he can get a couple of shots off as spider and maybe pick up a kill or at least paralyze another ship.

Hates levs and other bombing/mining ships because he always got a glass jaw so he dies 100% if anywhere near a bomb.

Levs attacking base from outside always been particularly hard for people who essentially suicide anyway in spiders and sharks.

Notice no suggestion on NOSPIDERS: yes(1)/no(2)? Why not?

[qan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody else endorsed your proposal. To say, "...[it] generated a lot of interest without a single word of criticism" is highly disingenuous. You omit that there also was no support.

We can change things if the public is generally in support of them. We've talked about voting on things that people are interested in voting on. Re-read the thread: as I said before, you need some support before it justifies the effort of putting together a vote and doing the development work.

There's very little that can't be voted on without public support, but you do need people to actually support you. A suggestion to aid that is to make it clear that you're looking for support, and get people to clearly state something like, "Yes, I support this. Let's vote." Or something to that effect.

[Poseidon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody else endorsed your proposal. To say, "...[it] generated a lot of interest without a single word of criticism" is highly disingenuous. You omit that there also was no support.

We can change things if the public is generally in support of them. We've talked about voting on things that people are interested in voting on. Re-read the thread: as I said before, you need some support before it justifies the effort of putting together a vote and doing the development work.

There's very little that can't be voted on without public support, but you do need people to actually support you. A suggestion to aid that is to make it clear that you're looking for support, and get people to clearly state something like, "Yes, I support this. Let's vote." Or something to that effect.

Did you read the topic? It does not appear so. Notwithstanding all of the support Ive received outside of forums, the very thread you are referencing contains multiple appeals of support, from obvious implication to downright endorsement. See posts of:

- Vehicle
- WBM
- Jurassic
- PureOwnage
- LF
- Qan: "There are several staffers right now very interested in this concept whose names you may have figured out by following the thread"

I agree with Jurassic, who is agreeing with wbm, who is agreeing with Poseidon.

And in spite of all this - the first thing you shove at me:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody else endorsed your proposal. To say, "...[it] generated a lot of interest without a single word of criticism" is highly disingenuous. You omit that there also was no support.

And to top if off you hit me with the word "disingenuous" HAHA. i dunno what to say
You did a fine job of dancing around all three of the questions I asked, however, excepting possibly the third

And still I maintain: my proposal has generated a lot of interest without a single word of criticism.

[qan]

Ah, I just read page 1. Yes, I see that on page 2. You're right. I checked out on following that thread after you were being kind of rude (from what I remember) and was also busy with work.

It seems worth a vote, then?


Would still need a provision to prevent it from being near-100% attachmode, I think, which is likely what it would become. I'm glad that what we invented as a weekend flavor (that was initially resented by vets trying to practice for basing) has taken off, but if it became full-time it would further differentiate basing and pub communities. Not that there is any meaningful bridge from pub to competitive basing anymore. But virtually eliminating the usefulness Terr, the most important ship in TW basing, seems a bit extreme. It seems as though during Attach Mode Terrs might be due some benefit, as they've lost the prime defining characteristic of being the only attachable ship. I think this idea was tossed around at some point. For instance, a boost to max energy might make sense? Something along those lines. Minds with more brain cells aimed at such a problem would find a good answer I'm sure.

[Vehicle]

Here I am to give my unsolicited two cents:

-- Attach mode is good for getting games going. It works. I do agree that it moves pub away from what traditional TWD basing is. But while pub and TWBD used to be cousins, they're now, at best, third cousins twice removed. With all the !buys, the levis, attachmode, spawn points, etc., the two have very little in common now. I think we should consider having attachmode be default for games that have less than 16-20 players participating, and then disable it at a certain cap.

-- Levis continue to be a scourge on increased pub activity. Without naming names, one particular levi effectively killed an active pub last night. The reason being that attachmode was on so very few players were flying through midbase, leaving a levi with free reign to lob bombs into the FR entrance. A 10v10 game ended after the !purepub buy was blocked and then 1/2 the players specced. This is not good. We are prioritizing the desires of a very small minority over the majority of players who want levs gone. If you're going to run a poll, make that the poll: Should levis be banned outright. I'd be very interested in the results.

-- Poseidon, I know it's like part of your character or whatever, but your digital tone is one of "I'm a genius and better than all of you at all things and am offended that you don't bow down to me." You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I would suggest you consider trying to be less confrontational and flippant. People are much more likely to listen that way.

tl;dr: I think attachmode has done wonders for flagging activity in pub. I think levis should be banned. I think Poseidon could do well to tone down his superiority complex.

[Lizzo]

Psieidon creating haphazard solutions to problems that don't exist in order to forward his agenda, which is making game easier for him. In reality permanent attach mode without Lev eventually becomes sharks and spiders suicide fest 24/7. Which is fun for one long game until the losing team gets pissed, scapegoats something, and logs off. tw is imbalanced and low pop for rest of night.

Pub games are already super competitive. Just that Poseidon isn't open minded enough how to figure out how to win.

The only thing he has right is that low pop is a problem. But this isn't about peak population, which is fine. Need to focus on encouraging sustained population. Intraday and post battles. This is where we need more community policy and love.

-more pubbux / happy hours -less spawning / bring people closer to base in low pop
-auto np for tks, but stricter on the reported actions
-remove purepub, or open up to any ship
-better team balancing, particularly for afk and spawningb. If some one in safety zone, move to private.
-or max ship types on pub freqs

[Vehicle]

Oh and I think when there are less than 15 people currently playing, everyone aside from levs should automatically be warped into mid-base.

[Poseidon]

Ah, I just read page 1. Yes, I see that on page 2. You're right. I checked out on following that thread after you were being kind of rude (from what I remember) and was also busy with work.

It seems worth a vote, then?

I have attempted to make the case to you on multiple occasions that public voting is not that optimal way to make decisions. You have managed to ignore these appeals at every juncture. We elect officials for a reason. Certain people are simply better than average at understanding how to optimize systems. The voice of the "crowd" generally equates to mediocrity. This is life. This is why I have asked very clearly (and still yet to receive a response):

Which of these points are you hung up on?

- The more competitive the pub game is, the more people join and remain longer in the game.
- Competition is good for population.
- Attachmode nearly always creates a more competitive environment, esp with less than 20 players.
- Levis create a less competitive environment, period.

My proposition would increase the population. A "vote" is not going to change this likely fact. Not to mention people have already been "voting" YES via their appeals of support - and the lack of criticism implies little in the way of "NO" votes. So what is your real priority here? Is it not primarily to maintain as healthy of a zone as possible?

Would still need a provision to prevent it from being near-100% attachmode, I think, which is likely what it would become.

If this is what the zone wants, if this is what causes the most people to play the game, why is this a problem?

Not to mention I have already many times in my efforts here proposed suggestions to mitigate any such issues. like !buy vote; or !buy override; etc. It will not be hard to come up with creative solutions to work out any rough edges and create a more a consistent and thriving pub experience for the vast majority of the population. The pubbux and rewards system is fantastic, and we could utilize it to our much greater advantage.

Not that there is any meaningful bridge from pub to competitive basing anymore.

This is a terrible attitude my friend. And it seems like the opinion of a person who is not paying very close attention.

People have probably been saying this for the past 15 years. One can only imagine through all of this time how many more players would have maintained a long term interest in TW if only we had a pub that could consistently function on a competitive basis. I see many pub spiders trickling into TWBD all the time and trying to get into the game. Indeed, it saddens me to imagine how this could have compounded over the years had pub been reconfigured as it should have been with the dawn of competitive basing in TW in 2001.

But virtually eliminating the usefulness Terr, the most important ship in TW basing, seems a bit extreme. It seems as though during Attach Mode Terrs might be due some benefit, as they've lost the prime defining characteristic of being the only attachable ship. I think this idea was tossed around at some point. For instance, a boost to max energy might make sense? Something along those lines. Minds with more brain cells aimed at such a problem would find a good answer I'm sure.

Again, I have already made numerous suggestions along these lines in the various emails/posts of mine. Instead of repeating myself again I will just say: if there is a legit and competitive game of pub happening people are still going to be attaching mainly to the terr given they are decent, simply because they are the ones staying safe and they become in charge of dropping people in the optimal locations. Plus a lot of people are lazy and simply dont want to change their tick to another name.

In my 100s and 100s of hours of playing pub the past year it appears a fair assessment to say that pure pub simply does not decrease the usefulness of Terr, nor do you often see much variance in the number of Terrs in the game, regardless of mode. Ports and bursts are very powerful. The argument of pure pub ruining terr does not stand well in the light of experience and observation.

And ultimately, what are we more concerned with: making sure there are 4 terrs playing instead of 3, or maintaining a healthier population for pub and TW at large?

[Lizzo]

Delusional thinks attach mode doesn't devalue terr and create a temporary non sustainable game dynamic. The few loud peeps complaining about levs won't be happy until TW is effectively spider suicide duel. When do the good players get here?

[Poseidon]

lizzo its hard to take you seriously when you've told me before in pub that you liked my proposal. If it is done right... you might even be able to levi more? Instead of 400k to override purepub for the every levi in the arena, what if you paid 150k to override it just for yourself? One levi is generally manageable, its when you have 3 bombing you from every direction that the game becomes literally unplayable and dies as it does so often. And attachmode simply creates more opportunities for you to bomb. Think about what you are arguing.