Kamikaze-Tool [2035028] —
Original article
Find out how factions really feel about the rackets system, and how Torn's latest changes might address their concerns.
In early October, Cristen posted a thread in the Suggestions forum which illustrated the concerns many players had over the racket system. The biggest issue many have, which Cristen alluded to, is that a handful of major factions are able to control almost all of the rackets, either by owning them directly, owning via proxies, or by extorting their profits from weaker factions.
Cristen's rather contentious solution was to apply negative respect to those who hold certain rackets, with the amount lost growing as your racket level increases. It is no surprise that players are suggesting such radical changes to the system, especially given that the issue of racket dominance has been raised time and time again since their release.
In the aforementioned thread, I asked if Chedburn had conducted a survey of factions to see how players felt about the whole situation. Sugarvalves had indeed performed such a survey earlier in the year, and several changes to rackets and faction memberships were made as a result. But I believed it was time to conduct a new survey to see what the current state of affairs was, so I spent the next week working on this project with some of the great folks over at the Journal of Torn Science.
Between us, we decided that we wanted to know how many factions had extortion/protection agreements, who those agreements were with, and what percentage of their racket proceeds were being paid out. However, aside from these statistical analyses, we also wanted to give players a chance to tell us how rackets had impacted their faction and what effect they thought rackets were having on Torn as a whole.
On October 15 I sent out a link to my survey along with a letter to leaders and co-leaders from the top 100 factions. I had planned to continue my survey down through the top 400 factions, but before I could send my survey out to the next batch of leaders Chedburn released a change to the ways rackets work. This meant that my data on faction extortion/protection was incomplete, but I still had text responses from 100 factions and players who desperately wanted to tell their stories.
I even received mails from players apologizing for the length of their responses and thanking me for giving them an opportunity to talk about their own experience. People in our community wanted to be heard, but felt that they didn’t have a voice. And so, after talking with Sugarvalves, I decided to dig into what players had said, so that I could publish the results for the Torn community to see.
THE RESULTS
In total, I sent out 200 mails and got 58 responses. Those responses represented 44 different factions including at least one response from most of the major faction families, including R, NS, CR, and PT. We first asked players to rate their own experience with rackets before providing a space for a longer text response. We then asked players about the effect rackets have had on Torn as a whole.
Players were evenly split when asked to rate their personal experience. However, when the same players were asked to rate the effect of rackets upon Torn as a whole, almost twice as many people responded with Very or Somewhat Negative compared to those who thought they had had a Somewhat or Very Positive effect.
We noticed that our respondents were able to objectively assess the situation and divorce their response from their own perspectives too. 10 players who rated their personal experience positively flipped their response to negative for their effect on Torn, which demonstrates that even those who are benefitting from the imbalanced racket system harbor reservations about its sustainability. Furthermore, players who rated rackets positively in numerical terms often expressed doubts in their accompanying text responses.
Rackets, Conflict, Drama!
Some respondents who rated rackets positively said that the system as it existed back then provided an incentive for them to work with allies. A more widespread opinion was that rackets have actually driven conflict and drama within Torn and on the city map.
“Torn is boring, this makes it SLIGHTLY less so”
“Rackets have added tremendously to the game dynamics. In both assaulting and defending, it drives up activity, which is needed in the game.”
However, respondents who rated rackets negatively felt that they were limiting conflict, as movement on the map has become more difficult because so many factions have an extortion/protection agreement with those around them, a HOF faction, or both.
“You can’t set foot on the map without having a top faction attack you.”
“The use of proxy factions makes the thought of even fighting for a racket not worth the effort.”
Other players observed that although rackets were causing drama and wars, they were primarily putting factions in conflict that would not normally have any meaningful interactions. The ease at which rackets could be identified and extorted meant that top factions from sector 1 were dealing with much weaker factions from sectors 5, 6, and 7, whereas usually their interests would never be aligned.
“Factions have no incentive to compete against someone their own size. . . The whole fun of the game is to compete with realistic chances against someone mildly appropriate in size.”
“Fights over rackets usually resemble a man-bear slapping a tween to the ground.”
Who Really Benefits?
A surprisingly low number of respondents acknowledged some benefit from the racket system for their faction. Instead, an overwhelming majority said that rackets only help the most powerful. This response cuts across positive and negative ratings and across total faction respect - even those respondents who benefit most from the current system observed this.
“Strong HOF factions like CR, NS, SA are able to exert tremendous pressure across large swathes of the map – but not only that, it is actually worth it for them to go to the effort of doing this. As such a very large portion of the rackets get extorted by a very small proportion of the population, and rackets become a business that is clearly not for the 99%.”
Other players were more direct in voicing their concerns.
“Smaller factions don’t stand a chance of holding anything of value for long. They just make the rich get richer”
“Extortion and bullying is now the modus operandi for many faction experiences when it comes to rackets.”
Revising Rackets
Many players have offered suggestions for improving the racket environment. Several players brought up ideas that have been put forward in the Suggestions Forum before.
“Make racket items unsellable/untradeable.”
“Change rackets altogether to provide passive buffs in addition to what faction specials offer (additional % of gym gains, reduced travel times, etc).”
Other players focused on changes to warring or suggested the lack of meaningful competition (ranked warring) has driven the current environment.
“If factions were put into tiers, based on average stats, not respect, where only those of the same tiers could attack each other, that would be fair. That would be amazing.”
“The city is cesium starved like crazy, so the big factions can do whatever they want unchallenged. Rackets need to have a tool that allows the little guys to have a chance of keeping them.”
Regardless of the specific changes that were proposed, it is clear that the community wants to have rackets in the game and they want to fight over them, just not in the way that has become the norm. Of the 14 players who suggested a specific change to rackets, only a single-player advocated removing them from the game, and even this player’s response was muted by a desire for a change to the existing system.
“Until a thoughtful plan can be implemented, I would rather see rackets removed completely or the value reduced substantially.”
Players did not suggest that rackets be made safe from attacks. Rather, they voiced their dissatisfaction with the use of proxy factions and the prevalence of extortion, particularly as the smallest factions that might be forced to give away 90 or even 100% of racket proceeds on a regular basis.
“Anyone who holds a racket is either a dictator or someone’s b@#*h.”
Suggestions to make items untradeable or to have rackets provide passive benefits run counter to the use of proxy factions and extortion. Some players hope that if rackets provided unextortable benefits to the members of factions directly, such a system would encourage similarly placed factions to fight over rackets and limit the use of proxies and extortion or protection schemes.
Moving Forward
In October, after consultation with the Committee, Chedburn implemented several changes to the racket system. Those amendments were as follows:
1.) There is a roughly equal chance for rackets to spawn in any sector. Each sector should have a fairly even amount of rackets, including Sector 7.
2.) High-value rackets only appear in the center of the map, with their maximum value gradually decreasing as you move out towards sector 7.
3.) Racket spawn frequency has increased, with the total rising from 120 to 160-180 rackets.
4.) Rackets have an even 50/50 chance of leveling up, compared to the previous 60/40 in favor of downgrades.
The result of the first amendment is that a greater quantity of rackets are now found towards the center of the map, with a higher density of rackets available in sectors 1 and 2, and an equalnumber but less dense arrangement of rackets available towards the edges of the map. On its own, the first amendment would be unlikely to have much of an effect. However, when combined with the second amendment, the hope is that we may see some changes to the way larger factions behave.
The second amendment reduces the value of rackets gradually as you move from the center of the map. It appears that the intention here is to have the weakest factions left to fight amongst themselves over these rackets - as I think was initially intended - while the top factions battle for the most lucrative rackets in sectors 1 and 2. The prospect of extorting or protecting low-level rackets on the edge of town is less attractive for top factions now, and if this change produces the desired result, the low-level rackets on the outskirts will work to provide a valuable financial lifeline to those factions that are able to hold onto them.
The chances of the first two amendments having a positive effect may be boosted further by the fact that overall racket spawn frequency has increased, as noted in amendment three. The total daily output of the new total of 160-180 rackets remains at $6bn, but with these proceeds spread out over more rackets, it should, in theory, be harder for large factions to exert their influence and return the same rewards as before. The improved chance of a racket leveling up specified in amendment four may also contribute to this positive change.
Conclusion
Nonetheless, I remain skeptical about these changes, because I think the extortion/protection system is too strongly entrenched for them to have any real effect - certainly in the short term. If these changes had been part of the design of rackets when they were first released I think it would have limited the appeal of establishing an extortion/protection system. The payouts in sectors 5, 6, & 7 would have made constructing such a system look like a lot of work compared to the reward.
With extortion and protection having been rife ever since rackets were introduced, and many small factions already having agreements with at least one top HOF faction, it seems unlikely that anyone will be desperate to break their agreements and risk becoming a target just yet. Saying no to an initial advance or offer from an HOF faction is a lot different from breaking an existing agreement.
Therefore, it may be that these racket changes will only have a widespread effect on Torn once the existing power structures are challenged, or a major war disrupts the existing set of alliances permanently. In the meantime, the greater proliferation of low-level rackets on the outskirts of Torn may allow some smaller factions to begin profiting without being hassled by their more powerful contemporaries.
Whereas some of the previous changes to territories have been made with the goal of restricting or scaring off major factions from extortion tactics, it appears that the October amendments had a different goal in mind. This time, it seems that the aim is to make major factions apathetic towards certain rackets and focus their energies on more profitable ventures. It will be interesting to see if the desired effect is achieved over the coming months.
Cristen's rather contentious solution was to apply negative respect to those who hold certain rackets, with the amount lost growing as your racket level increases. It is no surprise that players are suggesting such radical changes to the system, especially given that the issue of racket dominance has been raised time and time again since their release.
In the aforementioned thread, I asked if Chedburn had conducted a survey of factions to see how players felt about the whole situation. Sugarvalves had indeed performed such a survey earlier in the year, and several changes to rackets and faction memberships were made as a result. But I believed it was time to conduct a new survey to see what the current state of affairs was, so I spent the next week working on this project with some of the great folks over at the Journal of Torn Science.
Between us, we decided that we wanted to know how many factions had extortion/protection agreements, who those agreements were with, and what percentage of their racket proceeds were being paid out. However, aside from these statistical analyses, we also wanted to give players a chance to tell us how rackets had impacted their faction and what effect they thought rackets were having on Torn as a whole.
On October 15 I sent out a link to my survey along with a letter to leaders and co-leaders from the top 100 factions. I had planned to continue my survey down through the top 400 factions, but before I could send my survey out to the next batch of leaders Chedburn released a change to the ways rackets work. This meant that my data on faction extortion/protection was incomplete, but I still had text responses from 100 factions and players who desperately wanted to tell their stories.
I even received mails from players apologizing for the length of their responses and thanking me for giving them an opportunity to talk about their own experience. People in our community wanted to be heard, but felt that they didn’t have a voice. And so, after talking with Sugarvalves, I decided to dig into what players had said, so that I could publish the results for the Torn community to see.
THE RESULTS
In total, I sent out 200 mails and got 58 responses. Those responses represented 44 different factions including at least one response from most of the major faction families, including R, NS, CR, and PT. We first asked players to rate their own experience with rackets before providing a space for a longer text response. We then asked players about the effect rackets have had on Torn as a whole.
Players were evenly split when asked to rate their personal experience. However, when the same players were asked to rate the effect of rackets upon Torn as a whole, almost twice as many people responded with Very or Somewhat Negative compared to those who thought they had had a Somewhat or Very Positive effect.
We noticed that our respondents were able to objectively assess the situation and divorce their response from their own perspectives too. 10 players who rated their personal experience positively flipped their response to negative for their effect on Torn, which demonstrates that even those who are benefitting from the imbalanced racket system harbor reservations about its sustainability. Furthermore, players who rated rackets positively in numerical terms often expressed doubts in their accompanying text responses.
“For my current faction group it is hugely beneficial, but to the overall torn populace, it is not really an equitable thing.”
Rackets, Conflict, Drama!
Some respondents who rated rackets positively said that the system as it existed back then provided an incentive for them to work with allies. A more widespread opinion was that rackets have actually driven conflict and drama within Torn and on the city map.
“Torn is boring, this makes it SLIGHTLY less so”
“Rackets have added tremendously to the game dynamics. In both assaulting and defending, it drives up activity, which is needed in the game.”
However, respondents who rated rackets negatively felt that they were limiting conflict, as movement on the map has become more difficult because so many factions have an extortion/protection agreement with those around them, a HOF faction, or both.
“You can’t set foot on the map without having a top faction attack you.”
“The use of proxy factions makes the thought of even fighting for a racket not worth the effort.”
Other players observed that although rackets were causing drama and wars, they were primarily putting factions in conflict that would not normally have any meaningful interactions. The ease at which rackets could be identified and extorted meant that top factions from sector 1 were dealing with much weaker factions from sectors 5, 6, and 7, whereas usually their interests would never be aligned.
“Factions have no incentive to compete against someone their own size. . . The whole fun of the game is to compete with realistic chances against someone mildly appropriate in size.”
“Fights over rackets usually resemble a man-bear slapping a tween to the ground.”
Who Really Benefits?
A surprisingly low number of respondents acknowledged some benefit from the racket system for their faction. Instead, an overwhelming majority said that rackets only help the most powerful. This response cuts across positive and negative ratings and across total faction respect - even those respondents who benefit most from the current system observed this.
“Strong HOF factions like CR, NS, SA are able to exert tremendous pressure across large swathes of the map – but not only that, it is actually worth it for them to go to the effort of doing this. As such a very large portion of the rackets get extorted by a very small proportion of the population, and rackets become a business that is clearly not for the 99%.”
Other players were more direct in voicing their concerns.
“Smaller factions don’t stand a chance of holding anything of value for long. They just make the rich get richer”
“Extortion and bullying is now the modus operandi for many faction experiences when it comes to rackets.”
Revising Rackets
Many players have offered suggestions for improving the racket environment. Several players brought up ideas that have been put forward in the Suggestions Forum before.
“Make racket items unsellable/untradeable.”
“Change rackets altogether to provide passive buffs in addition to what faction specials offer (additional % of gym gains, reduced travel times, etc).”
Other players focused on changes to warring or suggested the lack of meaningful competition (ranked warring) has driven the current environment.
“If factions were put into tiers, based on average stats, not respect, where only those of the same tiers could attack each other, that would be fair. That would be amazing.”
“The city is cesium starved like crazy, so the big factions can do whatever they want unchallenged. Rackets need to have a tool that allows the little guys to have a chance of keeping them.”
Regardless of the specific changes that were proposed, it is clear that the community wants to have rackets in the game and they want to fight over them, just not in the way that has become the norm. Of the 14 players who suggested a specific change to rackets, only a single-player advocated removing them from the game, and even this player’s response was muted by a desire for a change to the existing system.
“Until a thoughtful plan can be implemented, I would rather see rackets removed completely or the value reduced substantially.”
Players did not suggest that rackets be made safe from attacks. Rather, they voiced their dissatisfaction with the use of proxy factions and the prevalence of extortion, particularly as the smallest factions that might be forced to give away 90 or even 100% of racket proceeds on a regular basis.
“Anyone who holds a racket is either a dictator or someone’s b@#*h.”
Suggestions to make items untradeable or to have rackets provide passive benefits run counter to the use of proxy factions and extortion. Some players hope that if rackets provided unextortable benefits to the members of factions directly, such a system would encourage similarly placed factions to fight over rackets and limit the use of proxies and extortion or protection schemes.
Moving Forward
In October, after consultation with the Committee, Chedburn implemented several changes to the racket system. Those amendments were as follows:
1.) There is a roughly equal chance for rackets to spawn in any sector. Each sector should have a fairly even amount of rackets, including Sector 7.
2.) High-value rackets only appear in the center of the map, with their maximum value gradually decreasing as you move out towards sector 7.
3.) Racket spawn frequency has increased, with the total rising from 120 to 160-180 rackets.
4.) Rackets have an even 50/50 chance of leveling up, compared to the previous 60/40 in favor of downgrades.
The result of the first amendment is that a greater quantity of rackets are now found towards the center of the map, with a higher density of rackets available in sectors 1 and 2, and an equal
The second amendment reduces the value of rackets gradually as you move from the center of the map. It appears that the intention here is to have the weakest factions left to fight amongst themselves over these rackets - as I think was initially intended - while the top factions battle for the most lucrative rackets in sectors 1 and 2. The prospect of extorting or protecting low-level rackets on the edge of town is less attractive for top factions now, and if this change produces the desired result, the low-level rackets on the outskirts will work to provide a valuable financial lifeline to those factions that are able to hold onto them.
The chances of the first two amendments having a positive effect may be boosted further by the fact that overall racket spawn frequency has increased, as noted in amendment three. The total daily output of the new total of 160-180 rackets remains at $6bn, but with these proceeds spread out over more rackets, it should, in theory, be harder for large factions to exert their influence and return the same rewards as before. The improved chance of a racket leveling up specified in amendment four may also contribute to this positive change.
Conclusion
Nonetheless, I remain skeptical about these changes, because I think the extortion/protection system is too strongly entrenched for them to have any real effect - certainly in the short term. If these changes had been part of the design of rackets when they were first released I think it would have limited the appeal of establishing an extortion/protection system. The payouts in sectors 5, 6, & 7 would have made constructing such a system look like a lot of work compared to the reward.
With extortion and protection having been rife ever since rackets were introduced, and many small factions already having agreements with at least one top HOF faction, it seems unlikely that anyone will be desperate to break their agreements and risk becoming a target just yet. Saying no to an initial advance or offer from an HOF faction is a lot different from breaking an existing agreement.
Therefore, it may be that these racket changes will only have a widespread effect on Torn once the existing power structures are challenged, or a major war disrupts the existing set of alliances permanently. In the meantime, the greater proliferation of low-level rackets on the outskirts of Torn may allow some smaller factions to begin profiting without being hassled by their more powerful contemporaries.
Whereas some of the previous changes to territories have been made with the goal of restricting or scaring off major factions from extortion tactics, it appears that the October amendments had a different goal in mind. This time, it seems that the aim is to make major factions apathetic towards certain rackets and focus their energies on more profitable ventures. It will be interesting to see if the desired effect is achieved over the coming months.
Original article
Comments
Post a Comment