DeletedUser
Improvements to Fort Battles
Ideas to Improve Fort Battles (if there is a better place to post this then I'd gladly move it).
First, to underscore the need for a change, the faults within the current system should be outlined. Don't get me wrong by the length of this post. I LOVE FORT BATTLES ... I just want them to get better.
Fault 1 : Always shooting the closest opponent rather than the easiest to hit or the one that is shooting at you.
Fault 2 : Preset battle order prevents attackers from getting off a dying shot if they're killed. Why is a defender always faster on the trigger than an attacker
Fault 3 : Movement comes after shooting and defenders are always before attackers (so defenders always get to shoot and retreat without being shot at if they so choose).
Fault 4 : Defenders can't use the fort barracks.
Fault 5 : Lack of fort weapons
Fault 6 : Fort Hoarding
Fault 7 : XP distribution in forts
Fault 8 : Including/Ranking players.
There were also other ideas such as fort specific weapons which I've come across that have a certain amount of merit but those threads were closed so I'll address those as well (cannons and gatlin guns for example).
Point 1 : Always shooting the closest opponent rather than the easiest one allows for "snipers" to jump out of the protection of the fort and stay beyond a tower to avoid getting hit (are you freakin' serious? Those jackasses should be shot just for being stupid and not shielded by a tower). So here are some ways to address this:
Solution 1.1 : (easiest) Allow for the system to shoot the easiest target to hit with base bonuses applied (ie: The class bonus of a tower would not be considered for this because then you could target non-class members within a tower). The system would take into account the aiming distance penalties vs the defensive structure bonuses given to a defender so that a defender on the ground outside a fort but 10 squares away would be shot at before the defender in a tower right next to you with a +15 defensive bonus.
Solution 1.2 : (more complicated) Allow players to AIM or select their target. In order for this to work, the person would merely need to click on the target that they want to shoot at. In order to make this fair, the names and health levels of the opponents would have to be masked (As Elmyr pointed out in a prior fort discussion, aiming would unfairly target prominent players and moderators ... well not if they can't be identified!).
Solution 1.3 : (most complicated) Add this feature to the aiming ... LOS. Yeah, I know, it's already there but the line of sight remains the same after the guns have been fired. Try reducing/masking the LOS by the effects of a black powder cloud (a small white puff around each gun that fires that slowly fades over a 30-45 second period and is cleared up by the end of the round - you can't see who to shoot, who moved where unless it's movement outside of the smoke, etc.) Also with LOS, you should only be able to see who you can see and not the positions that are outside your LOS (this would mean removing the counter at the top for total attackers/defenders as well as being able to see every position inside the fort - If you're a defender at the end and there's an attacker hiding somewhere, go find him).
Point 2 : The lack of a dying shot for an attacker is a bit unfair for them. Unless the order of shooting or movement gets mixed up like I've addressed in point 3 below.
Solution 2.1 : (easiest) Allow dying attackers a final shot too. Not exactly falling into the "fair" category whereby defenders always shoot first but it's at least a small step in the right direction.
Point 3 : Lack of movement/shooting randomness. I know that the order is there for simplicity but that simplicity makes it more difficult and less realistic for two sides to fight each other.
Solution 3.1 : Make movement and shooting based on a non-dueling skill (riding for movement and shooting for the order of fire). This would mean that a person specialized in shooting would get to fire before someone who wasn't and would give a slightly higher edge to the shooting duelist (as opposed to the melee duelist and all other players). Riding could be enhanced by your mount too (+25 to +125 if you rode your horse, but do this with a certain element of risk too - if you're riding your horse and you get KO'd then your horse dies!).
Solution 3.2 : Enhance the shooting ability/timing of a player who doesn't move and enhance the dodge ability of a moving player too. A stationary target is/should be easier to hit so they should have a dodge penalty but since they are not moving then their concentration is on their aim so that should be enhanced. Adversely, the player sprinting across the field is going to be much harder to hit but is also going to have a much more difficult time firing their weapon as well.
Point 4 : Although every person who is signed up for the attack is immune from dueling, defenders who are allowed into the fort can not use the barracks to heal themselves up before a battle.
Solution 4.1 : Allow anyone who is signed up to defend to use the barracks (maybe other privileges such as being able to donate to the resource stock too). Hey, they're there to defend the fort so the fort should naturally be open to them (maybe this extends to fort trading if/when that comes along too but that can easily be restricted to just fort members depending on what these fort trading posts actually allow).
Point 5 : Fort weapons. This has been discussed in other forums but the discussions seem to be shut down rather early so I've tossed out a few ideas here on these items.
Solution 5.1 : Cannons. Have a cannon take up 4 squares and only be allowed on a tower or inside the fort. A cannon takes two people to operate (loader, aimer/fire) and those two do not get to take a normal shot either. Cannons on a tower can be fired with a lob and explosion effect (traditional conception) or a holy roller bowling ball effect (think of the battle scene in the end of "The Patriot" where the cannon ball mows through an advancing army riping off legs, etc. - gruesome but that's how they were used, and a grapeshot effect too). The lob would be the only option to the cannons inside a fort. Cannons would have to be aimed two rounds before they were fired (so if the enemy moves out of the way ... too bad ... that's an equalizing factor for a superior weapon). A lobbing cannon could have a burst of 2x2 or 3x3, a rolling cannon shot would have a line that could extend 2 or 3 squares beyond the initial target of impact and a grape shot would cover 2 or 3 squares immediately in front of the target but much lower damage than the other two types. The maximum of 1/3 of a players maximum HP would still apply so that a single cannon shot by itself would not kill any player. The point of fort weapons is not in the massive damage but in the area damage effect. Attackers should also be able to have the cannons too. Attackers can lob into the fort, target defensive structures like a tower or wall (damage would be permanent until rebuilt by the fort owners). Cannons should be able to be moved (but much slower like 2 or 3 squares per turn for a large cannon and 4 to 6 squares per turn for a smaller cannon). Structural damage was something that was first discussed when forts came out in the "preview" (attackers would do damage to the fort structure and building once they occupied them if my memory serves, so let's start actually doing the damage)
Solution 5.2 : Gatlin Guns. Make the damage less than a cannon. The gun only takes 1 additional square and needs one operator who does not fire.
Solution 5.3 : (addressing complications and fairness of play). Who is the operator of the cannon/gatlin gun? This would have to be a player adjacent to the weapon who clicked on the weapon for their point of movement. They would not shoot their own weapon nor move as long as they were operating the fort weapon. An unmanned weapon does not fire. A captured weapon can be used by the other side (nasty). Cannons placed in a tower can not be moved out of the tower (honestly, taking a cannon down from a tower during a battle!). Cannons and Gatlin Guns can not be destroyed but their operators can be killed and if the weapon doesn't have an operator then it doesn't fire. Weapon movement can only be controlled by a General. A weapon can be purchased for the single battle for a "fee" (this would make the weapons a one battle and done, and although it's not realistic it would help to maintain game balance). Superior weapons count as people in your attack/defense limit (Gatling Gun counts as one person and a Cannon as two for example, in addition to the inactivity of the weapon operator this will maintain game balance).
Point 6 : Fort Hoarding. How to reduce it's effects.
Some worlds have multiple forts all owned by the head town in an alliance (GC in W10 or Shadow in W11 - not just pointing the finger here as I'm one of the major ones responsible for the W11 Shadow fort collection). Limit the addition of fort points to a town based on proximity or number of forts. This would encourage more sharing of the forts and not hoarding of the forts under a flagship town.
Solution 6.1 : Make the points that a fort adds to your town points diminish as the fort gets further away from the town. 10% to 25% per county away.
Solution 6.2 : Reduce the fort points as a percentage based on the number of forts a town owns. 100% for the first big, medium, small fort and then -5% cumulative for each secondary fort that is owned (so that a town which hoards 10 large forts would have a -5% penalty for the 9 additional forts and that would be applied across ALL forts owned ... so if a town were to successfully hoard 21 large forts then they would have a 100% penalty). This would eliminate the "point whoring" of forts (a term I'm "stealing" for One Armed Ninja, hope you don't mind OAN). As any town/governing body becomes bigger it also becomes more encumbered by bureaucracy too and this would be an easy and realistic effect which in itself would return some game balance to those worlds that hoard forts.
Point 7 : Distribution of XP in a fort fight. There are several faults in this system but I'm just tossing this out for discussion rather than mentioning any obvious solutions.
Solutions 7.1 : Example, an active player who blocks and maneuvers and is killed early in the fight does not receive as much XP as a player who is offline shooting in the back (or even fleeing the fight completely). Ideas on this, I'm drawing a blank other than to award the XP for all players based on the total length of the battle rather than limit them to a minuscule amount if they are killed in the early rounds (and even that is not a solution without its faults too). Only awarding XP for the winning side - also not a good solutions. Perhaps only awarding "drops" to the winning side of a battle (when it goes the distance of 55 rounds) might be an incentive to finish a fight occasionally rather than just sit back in a state of "truce".
Point 8 : Ranking Players. Although the system of ranking players has gotten MUCH MUCH better, there are still a few tweaks that could be done.
Solution 8.1 : When the number signed up exceed the number that a battle is capable of supporting, some players are eliminated. The system should include on line players within a rank before including off line players. This would mean that Generals get in first, Captains get in second (on line before off line if there are that many Captains), Privates next (again online first and then off line Privates) and finally unranked but on line players over unranked off line players.
Solution 8.2 : Immediate banning of traitors (their position from the field of play is relocated to the flag if they are a defender too so that they don't appear to occupy a wall/tower position). Their ability to read the in game chat room would also be removed, including the topic header (which frequently contains external chat room and battle setup instructions now for those that are signing up). Keep a listing of traitors by fort too so that the traitor will be automatically relabeled as a traitor unless they are a member of the fort/attack (ie : if they don't have an option on which side to join when signing up for the battle then don't auto-label them as a traitor).
As I said, if this should be a topic on it's own then I encourage someone to move it. Forts are fun be there's no reason we can't make them more enjoyable too.
Ideas to Improve Fort Battles (if there is a better place to post this then I'd gladly move it).
First, to underscore the need for a change, the faults within the current system should be outlined. Don't get me wrong by the length of this post. I LOVE FORT BATTLES ... I just want them to get better.
Fault 1 : Always shooting the closest opponent rather than the easiest to hit or the one that is shooting at you.
Fault 2 : Preset battle order prevents attackers from getting off a dying shot if they're killed. Why is a defender always faster on the trigger than an attacker
Fault 3 : Movement comes after shooting and defenders are always before attackers (so defenders always get to shoot and retreat without being shot at if they so choose).
Fault 4 : Defenders can't use the fort barracks.
Fault 5 : Lack of fort weapons
Fault 6 : Fort Hoarding
Fault 7 : XP distribution in forts
Fault 8 : Including/Ranking players.
There were also other ideas such as fort specific weapons which I've come across that have a certain amount of merit but those threads were closed so I'll address those as well (cannons and gatlin guns for example).
Point 1 : Always shooting the closest opponent rather than the easiest one allows for "snipers" to jump out of the protection of the fort and stay beyond a tower to avoid getting hit (are you freakin' serious? Those jackasses should be shot just for being stupid and not shielded by a tower). So here are some ways to address this:
Solution 1.1 : (easiest) Allow for the system to shoot the easiest target to hit with base bonuses applied (ie: The class bonus of a tower would not be considered for this because then you could target non-class members within a tower). The system would take into account the aiming distance penalties vs the defensive structure bonuses given to a defender so that a defender on the ground outside a fort but 10 squares away would be shot at before the defender in a tower right next to you with a +15 defensive bonus.
Solution 1.2 : (more complicated) Allow players to AIM or select their target. In order for this to work, the person would merely need to click on the target that they want to shoot at. In order to make this fair, the names and health levels of the opponents would have to be masked (As Elmyr pointed out in a prior fort discussion, aiming would unfairly target prominent players and moderators ... well not if they can't be identified!).
Solution 1.3 : (most complicated) Add this feature to the aiming ... LOS. Yeah, I know, it's already there but the line of sight remains the same after the guns have been fired. Try reducing/masking the LOS by the effects of a black powder cloud (a small white puff around each gun that fires that slowly fades over a 30-45 second period and is cleared up by the end of the round - you can't see who to shoot, who moved where unless it's movement outside of the smoke, etc.) Also with LOS, you should only be able to see who you can see and not the positions that are outside your LOS (this would mean removing the counter at the top for total attackers/defenders as well as being able to see every position inside the fort - If you're a defender at the end and there's an attacker hiding somewhere, go find him).
Point 2 : The lack of a dying shot for an attacker is a bit unfair for them. Unless the order of shooting or movement gets mixed up like I've addressed in point 3 below.
Solution 2.1 : (easiest) Allow dying attackers a final shot too. Not exactly falling into the "fair" category whereby defenders always shoot first but it's at least a small step in the right direction.
Point 3 : Lack of movement/shooting randomness. I know that the order is there for simplicity but that simplicity makes it more difficult and less realistic for two sides to fight each other.
Solution 3.1 : Make movement and shooting based on a non-dueling skill (riding for movement and shooting for the order of fire). This would mean that a person specialized in shooting would get to fire before someone who wasn't and would give a slightly higher edge to the shooting duelist (as opposed to the melee duelist and all other players). Riding could be enhanced by your mount too (+25 to +125 if you rode your horse, but do this with a certain element of risk too - if you're riding your horse and you get KO'd then your horse dies!).
Solution 3.2 : Enhance the shooting ability/timing of a player who doesn't move and enhance the dodge ability of a moving player too. A stationary target is/should be easier to hit so they should have a dodge penalty but since they are not moving then their concentration is on their aim so that should be enhanced. Adversely, the player sprinting across the field is going to be much harder to hit but is also going to have a much more difficult time firing their weapon as well.
Point 4 : Although every person who is signed up for the attack is immune from dueling, defenders who are allowed into the fort can not use the barracks to heal themselves up before a battle.
Solution 4.1 : Allow anyone who is signed up to defend to use the barracks (maybe other privileges such as being able to donate to the resource stock too). Hey, they're there to defend the fort so the fort should naturally be open to them (maybe this extends to fort trading if/when that comes along too but that can easily be restricted to just fort members depending on what these fort trading posts actually allow).
Point 5 : Fort weapons. This has been discussed in other forums but the discussions seem to be shut down rather early so I've tossed out a few ideas here on these items.
Solution 5.1 : Cannons. Have a cannon take up 4 squares and only be allowed on a tower or inside the fort. A cannon takes two people to operate (loader, aimer/fire) and those two do not get to take a normal shot either. Cannons on a tower can be fired with a lob and explosion effect (traditional conception) or a holy roller bowling ball effect (think of the battle scene in the end of "The Patriot" where the cannon ball mows through an advancing army riping off legs, etc. - gruesome but that's how they were used, and a grapeshot effect too). The lob would be the only option to the cannons inside a fort. Cannons would have to be aimed two rounds before they were fired (so if the enemy moves out of the way ... too bad ... that's an equalizing factor for a superior weapon). A lobbing cannon could have a burst of 2x2 or 3x3, a rolling cannon shot would have a line that could extend 2 or 3 squares beyond the initial target of impact and a grape shot would cover 2 or 3 squares immediately in front of the target but much lower damage than the other two types. The maximum of 1/3 of a players maximum HP would still apply so that a single cannon shot by itself would not kill any player. The point of fort weapons is not in the massive damage but in the area damage effect. Attackers should also be able to have the cannons too. Attackers can lob into the fort, target defensive structures like a tower or wall (damage would be permanent until rebuilt by the fort owners). Cannons should be able to be moved (but much slower like 2 or 3 squares per turn for a large cannon and 4 to 6 squares per turn for a smaller cannon). Structural damage was something that was first discussed when forts came out in the "preview" (attackers would do damage to the fort structure and building once they occupied them if my memory serves, so let's start actually doing the damage)
Solution 5.2 : Gatlin Guns. Make the damage less than a cannon. The gun only takes 1 additional square and needs one operator who does not fire.
Solution 5.3 : (addressing complications and fairness of play). Who is the operator of the cannon/gatlin gun? This would have to be a player adjacent to the weapon who clicked on the weapon for their point of movement. They would not shoot their own weapon nor move as long as they were operating the fort weapon. An unmanned weapon does not fire. A captured weapon can be used by the other side (nasty). Cannons placed in a tower can not be moved out of the tower (honestly, taking a cannon down from a tower during a battle!). Cannons and Gatlin Guns can not be destroyed but their operators can be killed and if the weapon doesn't have an operator then it doesn't fire. Weapon movement can only be controlled by a General. A weapon can be purchased for the single battle for a "fee" (this would make the weapons a one battle and done, and although it's not realistic it would help to maintain game balance). Superior weapons count as people in your attack/defense limit (Gatling Gun counts as one person and a Cannon as two for example, in addition to the inactivity of the weapon operator this will maintain game balance).
Point 6 : Fort Hoarding. How to reduce it's effects.
Some worlds have multiple forts all owned by the head town in an alliance (GC in W10 or Shadow in W11 - not just pointing the finger here as I'm one of the major ones responsible for the W11 Shadow fort collection). Limit the addition of fort points to a town based on proximity or number of forts. This would encourage more sharing of the forts and not hoarding of the forts under a flagship town.
Solution 6.1 : Make the points that a fort adds to your town points diminish as the fort gets further away from the town. 10% to 25% per county away.
Solution 6.2 : Reduce the fort points as a percentage based on the number of forts a town owns. 100% for the first big, medium, small fort and then -5% cumulative for each secondary fort that is owned (so that a town which hoards 10 large forts would have a -5% penalty for the 9 additional forts and that would be applied across ALL forts owned ... so if a town were to successfully hoard 21 large forts then they would have a 100% penalty). This would eliminate the "point whoring" of forts (a term I'm "stealing" for One Armed Ninja, hope you don't mind OAN). As any town/governing body becomes bigger it also becomes more encumbered by bureaucracy too and this would be an easy and realistic effect which in itself would return some game balance to those worlds that hoard forts.
Point 7 : Distribution of XP in a fort fight. There are several faults in this system but I'm just tossing this out for discussion rather than mentioning any obvious solutions.
Solutions 7.1 : Example, an active player who blocks and maneuvers and is killed early in the fight does not receive as much XP as a player who is offline shooting in the back (or even fleeing the fight completely). Ideas on this, I'm drawing a blank other than to award the XP for all players based on the total length of the battle rather than limit them to a minuscule amount if they are killed in the early rounds (and even that is not a solution without its faults too). Only awarding XP for the winning side - also not a good solutions. Perhaps only awarding "drops" to the winning side of a battle (when it goes the distance of 55 rounds) might be an incentive to finish a fight occasionally rather than just sit back in a state of "truce".
Point 8 : Ranking Players. Although the system of ranking players has gotten MUCH MUCH better, there are still a few tweaks that could be done.
Solution 8.1 : When the number signed up exceed the number that a battle is capable of supporting, some players are eliminated. The system should include on line players within a rank before including off line players. This would mean that Generals get in first, Captains get in second (on line before off line if there are that many Captains), Privates next (again online first and then off line Privates) and finally unranked but on line players over unranked off line players.
Solution 8.2 : Immediate banning of traitors (their position from the field of play is relocated to the flag if they are a defender too so that they don't appear to occupy a wall/tower position). Their ability to read the in game chat room would also be removed, including the topic header (which frequently contains external chat room and battle setup instructions now for those that are signing up). Keep a listing of traitors by fort too so that the traitor will be automatically relabeled as a traitor unless they are a member of the fort/attack (ie : if they don't have an option on which side to join when signing up for the battle then don't auto-label them as a traitor).
As I said, if this should be a topic on it's own then I encourage someone to move it. Forts are fun be there's no reason we can't make them more enjoyable too.
Last edited by a moderator:
