Definable Fortbattle Ranking

Proposal

It is always a problem when a general isn't online, or when players enter the game too late. Generals always have to refresh before seeing exactly who is at the fort, who is online and if they have refilled or not their HP.
I would like to present an idea, that could help resolve these existing problems when ranking at fortbattles.


Current Workaround

Currently, before every single battle a general has to be prepared with 20 or even 30 minutes before a battle just to give ranks and, mostly on very populated worlds, has to make efforts not to make mistakes.


Details

It would be a simple system, where the general can insert a few details, conform any chosen tactic of his own, by which ranks would be given automatically.

For example he would set: Players above 4k HP (6k HP in case of soldiers) and ON would get Captain.
Players lower than 4k HP (6k HP in case of soldiers) would get Soldier.
Players outside of the alliance would get Reservist/Traitor.

I don't know if automated strategy would prevent players from free game or that it would ruin the fact that organizing the players is the job of the leaders, not a systems', but it would be nice to be able to make a strategy inside of the recruiting page and the system could automatically move players by the given criteria.


Abuse Prevention

I have no idea if there could be any abuse about this system, I think this is a necessity in order to ease and simplify ranking and also improve and make battles fair, much more organizable and more fun, no more pain in the bubu for generals and/or players.


Visual Aids

First of all, there would be a Strategy button, where you can adjust the automatic recruiting and adjust a manual/automated strategy.
By leaving there the recruiting menu, you still can recruit manually, this way not being forced to use the system.



By clicking on the Strategy menu, you get to the next step.



Under the priority menu, you can see the priorities set by the general.
You can set more priorities, first would be HP equal or greater than 4k (6k for soldiers) and ON and positioned by strategy. These options can be modified by opening it. There will show you the screen where you can adjust the automated recruiting (image below).

By clicking on the Modify button, you will get a screen where you can create or modify strategy (two images below).




Above is an improvised (but not original) strategy creator window. Go back with the Back button, erase the strategy by clicking the X. Chose different colored arrows, different characters. By checking the box under the characters you make online the selected character. This way you can specify where do online and offline players have to be placed. You can select in the priority menu if the system has to accept only those who are placed by the strategy or others too.

By clicking on the instructions players get to a menu where a strategy is written if those shown on the battlefield are not enough.



Summary

This way, everything related to the battle would be in one windows, generals wouldn't have to literally work in order to fulfill players' requirements.
In my opinion this is excellent in the same way for players as it is for the generals. I think for INNO is just a little plus work, but something simple that could easily improve ranking and increase activity at fortfighting a lot, this could not only keep existing players that often fight over ranking, but would, in the same time, keep newcomers, too.


Administration

Does this idea meet the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria? Yes/No
Does this idea appear on any of the Previously Suggested Ideas List? Yes/No

Wow. Well thought out and superbly presented. I love those screenshots (How the deuce did you make those?!?). However I have some questions.

- How does the idea select the onliners? Are they ranked captains at the last moment before start ? Or maybe 1 hour or so before? If that's the case, this is abusable as people would turn up one hour earlier, get their captain rank and vanish. Simple as that.

- What if I have some preferences of my own? For example player A has been loyal to me and I want to rank him, though he's got extremely low hp. By this idea the system eliminates him automatically if overfilled. Same goes the case for pure leadership snipers (one or two of which I like to have in my team). So the question is, Is the whole thing going to be automated and Generals cant rank some according to preferences? And is this going to be an option? because some may not want it automated and some may want it to be.

-

Players above 4k HP (6k HP in case of soldiers) and ON would get Captain.
Players lower than 4k HP (6k HP in case of soldiers) would get Soldier.
Players outside of the alliance would get Reservist/Traitor.

Click to expand...

This should be a bad problem in case of some worlds where outsider towns and alliances support the main alliances in battles at times and they have certain pacts.

Thanks for the reply!

I made the images with the simple use of printscreen+paint (copy-paste way) and inspect element feature of chrome.

- The onliners are separate for the strategy screen (where you choose it to be seen for players to know where to place themselves if on/off) and for the automated recruiting screen (where you specify if the system should choose only of only or according to hp and/or if the person respected the strategy).

get their captain rank and vanish

Click to expand...

That's why the system would be so great! If he goes offline, he AUTOMATICALLY loses his Captain by the system. If he leaves the fort he loses his Captain again.

- You could use the system fully, partly or at all. You could choose that only the ELITE to be online (so giving only 1 criteria at recruiting) and the rest you do manually.
You can also use only manual version as I said in my post, that's why I left there the Recruit button.

- As I said before, you can set every aspect to be automated or do everything manual or mixed. You cand select to give outsiders rank, too and so on and so forth.

It isn't perfect, maybe some things are missing, but what I need is INNO to understand my idea and than the devs can edit it.

Thank You. Those are the points I had to clarify.

So +1 from me to this idea!

If a general cba to rank, could he be cba to set criteria for autoranks? Why not just have something like if an officer isn't actively ranking a certain amount of time before a battle, a member of the town that owns the fort or dug it can rank. I'm thinking of something like the town hall button in a town with no black hats that lets a grey hat if there is one, or anyone if there are no hats at all, promote themselves to founder.

Elmyr said:

If a general cba to rank, could he be cba to set criteria for autoranks?

Click to expand...

It is not about being lazy, I'm not lazy myself, I have to rank daily and be online long before the battles. This would be a system that would simplify and ease all that, if it is possible, why not? If you can buy meat with your money, why bothering hunting a grizzly? (if not for fun)

Why not just have something like if an officer isn't actively ranking a certain amount of time before a battle, a member of the town that owns the fort or dug it can rank.

Click to expand...

I think someone who does not have hat in a town it is because he's not eligible for that rank and you cannot leave responsibilities in their hands. I don't want to kill recruiting, it is a necessity, I like to recruit at my towns' battles to be sure to recruit correctly, as I said a few times already, it is to simplify and ease the generals' work and to make ranking as correct as possible, this way players would be satisfied, ranking would be precise (if chosen) and who does not deserve by the generals orders, a rank, would not get one.

I'm thinking of something like the town hall button in a town with no black hats that lets a grey hat if there is one, or anyone if there are no hats at all, promote themselves to founder.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that if there is no ranked player in a town, players can promote themselves? I did not know this.
Anyway, I did not understand what or why are you suggesting this, could you be more specific?

After reading this idea and the comments so far thoroughly, I'm still unsure as to whether I like this or not... The idea was extremely well-presented, and for that you get a thumbs up!

I have one comment I'd like to make about the idea. Currently, captains can rank up to private... Would it be only generals that could set a strategy? From my experience of ranking and playing in fort battles on Colorado, I know that the captains of that particular defense, or the ones who have been promoted in an attack, are often left to rank, since generals often can't make it online, etc...

Otherwise I'm all for it. Like you, I'm not sure how abusable it would be... What you clarified for Mj sounds good enough to me.

I really think it needs to not autorank non alliance players as traitors/reservists, though. Other than that, this is a clever idea.

In order to prevent abuse, this auto ranking should take place just a few seconds before the battle. Otherwise, an enemy player could get an 'automatic captain' rank and then start ranking would be fighters as traitors.
Maybe we need a new rank for this system, one above private and below captain - a rank that will move before the privates, but cannot rank like a captain.

I don´t like the part that is "based on health".


I think that there should be a automatic ranking for the fort battles but not based on "who has most health"... the system should be based on the Town that own the fort (generals) the towns that are allied with the fort (captain) and the alliance members (private). Everyone else would get recruit status. On the Attack, the attacking town would get general rankings and everyone from the alliance would be privates. (if there are too much people when the battle starts, it would choose the ones that registered first from the lower rankings to be on the fight and not accept anyone else).
Right now we see some towns with 2 persons getting 4-5 forts and they just go online to declare the battle. The others are the ones that take care of everything else.
Giving ranks based on the ownership of the fort or the attacking town-alliance would let any failure for the alliance that is working on it to move around. If Generals and Captains where online, they can choose the people that will fight but most of the job would be done. On the attacking side there would not be captains... unless some member of the attacking town choose them manually.

That way was good.

s3b-1q said:

Are you saying that if there is no ranked player in a town, players can promote themselves? I did not know this.
Anyway, I did not understand what or why are you suggesting this, could you be more specific?

Click to expand...

It used to be in that situation you had to open a ticket to get a mod to promote someone to founder. Now (well, it's been like two years now), a button appears in town hall > residents to promote yourself.

It doesn't matter who it is, somebody ranking beats nobody ranking.

If only all players were presenting their ideas like you did

If generals are not online, captains can rank privates. Implement autoranking and you remove the human element from the game. I want to be ranked by an actual person, not by some rule thought out by some fella or gal.

can strategies be saved (like outfits are) so that it does not need to be set up from 0 everytime ?
can strategy be modified mid battle?

s3b-1q said:

That's why the system would be so great! If he goes offline, he AUTOMATICALLY loses his Captain by the system. If he leaves the fort he loses his Captain again.

Click to expand...

that would mess a lot with people who have connectivity issues or need to step out to bank cash

DanteNightroad said:

that would mess a lot with people who have connectivity issues or need to step out to bank cash

Click to expand...

Definitely that would mess up things for people with connectivity issues. But in case of stepping out to bank cash, that wouldn't be a problem as the system would restore the rank when the player is back to the fort.

Go for it s3b-1q. Yes from me also!

Introvert Mj said:

Definitely that would mess up things for people with connectivity issues. But in case of stepping out to bank cash, that wouldn't be a problem as the system would restore the rank when the player is back to the fort.

Click to expand...

can it do that ?
what if a guy steps out and while he is away the system ranks another guy , would not they run out of rank ?
system cant hold the door for the first guy because he may not come back.

DanteNightroad said:

can it do that ?
what if a guy steps out and while he is away the system ranks another guy , would not they run out of rank ?
system cant hold the door for the first guy because he may not come back.

Click to expand...

Well as far as I understand, the system would only start ranking after an alloted time so its the guy's responsibility to bank his cash before that time. Its like the duel system. Either you bank your cash beforehand or you lose it. But that's unpredictable, while this is not .

Apelatia said:

After reading this idea and the comments so far thoroughly, I'm still unsure as to whether I like this or not... The idea was extremely well-presented, and for that you get a thumbs up!

I have one comment I'd like to make about the idea. Currently, captains can rank up to private... Would it be only generals that could set a strategy? From my experience of ranking and playing in fort battles on Colorado, I know that the captains of that particular defense, or the ones who have been promoted in an attack, are often left to rank, since generals often can't make it online, etc...

Otherwise I'm all for it. Like you, I'm not sure how abusable it would be... What you clarified for Mj sounds good enough to me.

Click to expand...

I think it is a good question, whether only generals or other, lower ranked, would be able to create strategies, too. I think the strategy creating part isn't the most important par of my proposition, BUT, I think it would be accessible for all ranked players (generals and captains), as it is accessible the current recruiting system, too. But I think the one who made the strategy (e.g. a Captain) could lock it for other captains not to edit it, but Generals could unlock it and make further changes, if necessary.
If there's no General and a Captain locked it, but he wasn't the one who had to create the strategy, then it is a bit unfortunate, I currently have no idea what to do in this situation.
However, it would be a rare situation.

Gandalf Greyhame said:

I really think it needs to not autorank non alliance players as traitors/reservists, though. Other than that, this is a clever idea.

Click to expand...

It would autorank only what you choose for it to autorank. If you want non-alliance players to get ranked the same way as your alliance-members are ranked, the you can set it. My proposal isn't complete, because a system can have unlimited functions and I can't show all of them to you perfectly, the idea is a concept which should give you a taste about my idea, INNO is the one to choose how those situation should been handled.

Parafrog said:

In order to prevent abuse, this auto ranking should take place just a few seconds before the battle. Otherwise, an enemy player could get an 'automatic captain' rank and then start ranking would be fighters as traitors.
Maybe we need a new rank for this system, one above private and below captain - a rank that will move before the privates, but cannot rank like a captain.

Click to expand...

Because this is a system, it would be constantly giving and taking ranks according to the players present at the battle.
If there is a General or a an Owner of the fort at the fight, that player would have the priority of ranking, so those who are not asked or chosen to rank, would not have the possibility to do so.

killado said:

I don´t like the part that is "based on health".


I think that there should be a automatic ranking for the fort battles but not based on "who has most health"... the system should be based on the Town that own the fort (generals) the towns that are allied with the fort (captain) and the alliance members (private). Everyone else would get recruit status. On the Attack, the attacking town would get general rankings and everyone from the alliance would be privates. (if there are too much people when the battle starts, it would choose the ones that registered first from the lower rankings to be on the fight and not accept anyone else).
Right now we see some towns with 2 persons getting 4-5 forts and they just go online to declare the battle. The others are the ones that take care of everything else.
Giving ranks based on the ownership of the fort or the attacking town-alliance would let any failure for the alliance that is working on it to move around. If Generals and Captains where online, they can choose the people that will fight but most of the job would be done. On the attacking side there would not be captains... unless some member of the attacking town choose them manually.

That way was good.

Click to expand...

The system wouldn't be based on health, it is an example that I have. If you set other criterias, the system should be able to handle it and behave accordingly.
Your system is a much more simplified one, but I don't think it has the necessary options for a correct ranking. If the fort allied town had a level 5 player, he should get Captain and the one who is only alliance member and has level 100 with 10k HP should get Soldier? That's bad in every way.
I think the system shouldn't chose who registered first. Duelers are often more active players than fortfighters, and they could register to the battles in the moment the forts are attacked, and those who have more HP or better fortfighter skills would be let out just because they registered later. That's unfair and players shouldn't be chosen by that criteria.
Ranking is important for people suited to be able to move first, and then those who are not so suited move second and so on and so forth. If you have a high rank, than it means you are stronger and you should move first in order to get shots and protect the smaller ones from being knocked out, and giving them to change to shoot at the enemy. By letting them move first, they would die and your part would have fewer fires to shot. Those who are smaller (in HP in general, not level) should be able to make more damage than the big ones who stand in front to protect them.
That is a basic strategy for any kind of battle in any giving situation.

Elmyr said:

It used to be in that situation you had to open a ticket to get a mod to promote someone to founder. Now (well, it's been like two years now), a button appears in town hall > residents to promote yourself.

It doesn't matter who it is, somebody ranking beats nobody ranking.

Click to expand...

I myself found myself in that situation a few years ago, and it was unpleasant. Implementing this was a good idea.

zd3no said:

If only all players were presenting their ideas like you did

If generals are not online, captains can rank privates. Implement autoranking and you remove the human element from the game. I want to be ranked by an actual person, not by some rule thought out by some fella or gal.

Click to expand...

I certainly do not want to remove human element of the game, I just want to have the possibility to RANK by a system in order to play with players I chose (a thing that leaders want to do every single time, but they can't succeed in many cases). And that is because people are entering in last minutes and the one giving ranks does not have the necessary time to change between the ranks.
You would be ranked by a criteria set BY human, so it would chose you if you are suited for that position.

DanteNightroad said:

can strategies be saved (like outfits are) so that it does not need to be set up from 0 everytime ?
can strategy be modified mid battle?


that would mess a lot with people who have connectivity issues or need to step out to bank cash

Click to expand...

I did not think about this aspect, but it is certainly a good idea to save strategies for every fort not having to create the strategy over and over again (especially if the fort was previously fully constructed).
Strategy does not have to be modified mid battle, as it is a thing you use to show people where to position and where to put the target. Strategy is being modified mid-battle by the one leading the battle.

The system would chose the best possible players that meet the criteria you have set. So if you go and put your money in the cash, you lose your rank, but if you come back before the start of the battle to the fort, you will certainly get your rank back. It does not matter when you arrive, the system will chose correctly.

Introvert Mj said:

Definitely that would mess up things for people with connectivity issues. But in case of stepping out to bank cash, that wouldn't be a problem as the system would restore the rank when the player is back to the fort.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what would happen.

DanteNightroad said:

can it do that ?
what if a guy steps out and while he is away the system ranks another guy , would not they run out of rank ?
system cant hold the door for the first guy because he may not come back.

Click to expand...

System can't hold the door, that is correct, but if a player more suited by the criteria would leave, a player less suited for the criteria would be chosen. So, if that more suited would come back, the system would give the rank back to that player.

Introvert Mj said:

Well as far as I understand, the system would only start ranking after an alloted time so its the guy's responsibility to bank his cash before that time. Its like the duel system. Either you bank your cash beforehand or you lose it. But that's unpredictable, while this is not .

Click to expand...

The system would recruit, change between the ranked non-stop, from the moment the fort was attacked. So it does not matter who is at the fort hours before the battle, it matters who is at the fort IN THE MOMENT WHEN THE BATTLES IS STARTING.
And you could certainly follow the ranking made by the system, so you could change or adjust your criteria accordingly.

You just set the bar for well thought out and written up ideas...
I wholeheartedly support this, thanks for clearing up my question.

Gandalf Greyhame said:

I really think it needs to not autorank non alliance players as traitors/reservists, though. Other than that, this is a clever idea.

Click to expand...

That's just an example.
It wont always rank outsiders as reservist/traitors unless you set the option to do so.

For the whole idea, I like it as far as it's an option to use. If someone do not like this new auto-ranking they can do it their own way (like now manually).

but to specify I think there are these options to use:

HP range for each class,
online/offline,
alliance member/outsider,
having/not premium,
attack/defend value (base on percent compared to other participants in the battle on your side)

You can use one or more of these to set criteria or that special rank.