Feedback Fort Balancing Actions

Abydos1

Well-Known Member
How about we eliminate big alliances altogether by enforcing a cap on how many towns can join an alliance? I think no more than 2 towns per alliance would have a great way of solving this...would mean a maximum of 100 people per alliance to keep things from being so one sided in battles. If it doesn't work can always go back to the way it was...just putting this idea out there.
 

darthmaul99174

Well-Known Member
Besides the act of balancing, most alliances have long friendships and rely on those alliances to stay in contact. A lot of people recognise towns and will support that way rather than being forced by alliance. Also alliances work as a form of having reliable battles as if they hold forts and one is attacked, they can guarantee a respectable defence. If its a free-for-all that'll be alot harder to achieve.

Players balancing battles never should have been a thing, it's only because we have so few players that it's a problem and honestly while I also try to fix balance I do not blame most that want to stay in their alliance as it's usually reasons beyond just how fair a battle is.

Another problem out of a million that migrating many dead worlds into a few active ones would fix...
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
It would be nice if we could have an additional tier of alliance, say “posse”, that would Limited to, say, 4 towns, independent of alliances, and battles would default to being posse based, but the digger or fort owner could “invite” other posses and/or their alliance (and the respective posse/ally leaders could decline the invite)

This would make it a lot easier to try out alternative line ups while letting long-standing friendships continue to share common chat rooms (without having to manually “/join” an ethereal one)
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
This would make it a lot easier to try out alternative line ups while letting long-standing friendships continue to share common chat rooms (without having to manually “/join” an ethereal one)

Perhaps more likely to get implemented: allow players to save a custom chat room that automatically gets joined at login (and increase the limits on custom chat rooms that people have saved in proportion to how many have saved it)
 

Mrs Sam COlt

Well-Known Member
How about we eliminate big alliances altogether by enforcing a cap on how many towns can join an alliance? I think no more than 2 towns per alliance would have a great way of solving this...would mean a maximum of 100 people per alliance to keep things from being so one sided in battles. If it doesn't work can always go back to the way it was...just putting this idea out there.
Two towns in an alliance is too small.... 10 towns would be more workable. Is there a max on how many members a town can have? 10-25 would be a good range for discussion.
 

szycopath

Well-Known Member
Two towns in an alliance is too small.... 10 towns would be more workable. Is there a max on how many members a town can have? 10-25 would be a good range for discussion.
Town limit is 50
I don't see any reason to "ban" alliances other than Aby having some weird hatred for >big< alliances. That was fair back in 2010 when ours had over 1200 members but the big ones now have 2-250 and half of those are inactive/multi accs anyway.
If anything, both sides having something like an open/balancing town that only has members willing and able to go around individually or in groups as needed could do more with less effort. Many do hold grudges but others don't, or overcome. We already have a few people coming-going as required but assuming battles are ever gonna be a real thing again 3-4 people aren't (and will not) make all the difference
 

martoru

Well-Known Member
unbelivabal how many take aby`s crazy ideeas seriously :)))))))

i wait for him to make a pool about if need one town or two in each aliance :)))))
 

Darkuletzz

Well-Known Member
I guess Colorado will be seeing if one sided slaughters will keep players coming after the event, as there is nothing given for signing up to losing battles until the clover event starts.

Council already admitted it can't find balance. I just hope the weak side stops taking forts to keep things going. One sided slaughters is not going to keep players coming, all one has to do is look at battles before fort battle strategist came on the scene, there were 2 to zero on the supposed too big to fail world. Happens once it can and will happen again.

Also, if you could not notice the changes in caps, then you can't have been paying attention. When mediums were overfilling there was constant talk of going to larges but how to do it without giving the stronger side all the power and to keep competitive battles. I am not even able to access forums and even I knew of the talk among players at large. If you didn't see then you obviously didn't care to notice.


Let the one sided slaughters, I am sure the slaughtered won't get tired of it, right?
Dont bother JW, Colorado still have the most ff in the net server, but the world start becoming like Houston or El dorado, some people dont understand that need a good cooperation on both sides, but always we can not do anything :))
If this is just for Awesomania, its like, well we dont give a ****. Colorado have Awesomania full, the other worlds have between 30 players at Awesomania in event time( lets delete the last world from Conversation)
 

JWillow

Well-Known Member
Welcome to one of the craziest suggestions, mwahahaha, muwhahaha, muahahaha, bwahahaha

2 Independent towns

-owns at least 2 medium and 2 large fort each (so only tying up 8 forts, note could be left in profile of which town originally owned it)

-has 3-4 leaders in each town

- no alliances

- or have towns that have the leaders go independent for the day they dig with invite only fort battles. (I think there is no cool down for alliances, though I do think the owning towns of the fort should by independent 100% of the time, but maybe attack can do the extra work to leave and stay out of alliance for dig time to end of battle)



Make list of fighters

-break down by class

-separate tank and damager within the classes

-Group players into 4, number them 1-4

Ex: Top 4 soldiers(taking into account level, gear, activity, HP, etc)

Keep doing this till you make it down to the bottom 4 soldiers

Then do this for all the other classes (dueler, worker, adventurer)

I do think that some exceptions such as a damager adventure might have to be grouped with a damager worker or even worker damager with a dueler (based on average damage).



When you get the fighters number 1-4, make 3 lists from this.

Ex: 1+2 vs 3+4, 1+3 vs 2+4, 1+4 vs 2+3

Use these to make invite list to prime battles for 4 days out of the week, rest of week have alliance based slaughters. (4th day could be random between the 3 or just stay in line and start next rotation with were the previous week left off)

Keep list updated, as much as possible, ex: once week check participation.

This list should be posted, so players can keep track of their numbers so have a better chance to predict when they will be playing defense or attack.

No exceptions of moving players for their personal drama, one point of this is to build a stepping stone to getting players to work together and learn to get past drama for the greater good. We are all adults right? (age is supposed be 16+ right?)



Try this for at least 3 months.

Would require battles to be moved, as the person loading the list will have to be on to restrict sides to the list of the day, though if allowed, I think it would be best if battles were dug more than 24 hours ahead.







Downside:

-labor intensive, especially getting the start lists

-players choose self- interest instead of giving proper commitment (yes this could be proof positive that very little care for balance only about domination)

-will be confusing to those who don’t read forum or pay attention, might need more labor to telegram the barely active that set offline to battles

-anyone that gets missed would mean a list update



Upside:

-a chance at better balance

-opportunity to team build across lines and strengthen community to better communication

-allows players to stay in their towns



Could be used on more than just Colorado, but with the exception of small forts being used instead and of course the willingness of the community on any given world.



After at least 3 months, decide to continue the 4 day, increase or get rid of entirely. I do think leaders if they leave their towns to make independent, that maybe bonds or something for to give in thank you.

Maybe to encourage players to give it a chance, players that turn out 85% over the 3 months to the list based battles get entered into a drawing for nuggets, buffs, bond, or steel lined chest, ect. Anyone with at least 70% turn out, get 5 of booby trap or view finder as participation reward.



At the end, don’t think many will not even give it a try because they prefer to sit back and blame everyone else for the problems. But maybe this will spark an idea of something or more likely prove how unwilling to change people are and why all the efforts are in vain.





I do wish forum posts were able to be edited in case new issues or things I didn’t think of come up. Don’t like over posting.
 

darthmaul99174

Well-Known Member
Cortina, Spirits & Gringo being over powered on defence towers

I know! Lets make it so tanks can do way more damage against those with even the highest possible resistance (hitting avg 450-700 dmg vs 400+ resist) So tanks on towers not only have way higher chance to dodge so able to avoid this new dmg, but also hit alot more!!!

Unintentionally buffed defences once again, genius :D
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
I do wish forum posts were able to be edited in case new issues or things I didn’t think of come up. Don’t like over posting.
They were once.. (for unlimited time that is) Idk why or who changed it. @Syntex

Cortina, Spirits & Gringo being over powered on defence towers

I know! Lets make it so tanks can do way more damage against those with even the highest possible resistance (hitting avg 450-700 dmg vs 400+ resist) So tanks on towers not only have way higher chance to dodge so able to avoid this new dmg, but also hit alot more!!!

Unintentionally buffed defences once again, genius :D
Intention was to prevent "0 damage" of lowbies but apparently there are some unintended side-effects..

Here's hoping Diggo will fix it..

for reference: https://devblog.the-west.net/?p=1661
 
Last edited:

RaiderRt

Well-Known Member
Biggest problem (and the reason why goober or whoever you hire as fort balancing strategist or whatever the name is will be useless) is that this game and its formulas only work while both sides are balanced. Why Colorado has been the best world for many years? Because both alliances were willing to work together. Right now one side is completely delusional and denying all facts that can easily be shown by looking at pure statistics and therefore the world will slowly be joining every other dead world in this game.

TLDR no matter what administration does when players don't cooperate the world will die.
 

Joe Kidd

Well-Known Member
Biggest problem (and the reason why goober or whoever you hire as fort balancing strategist or whatever the name is will be useless) is that this game and its formulas only work while both sides are balanced. Why Colorado has been the best world for many years? Because both alliances were willing to work together. Right now one side is completely delusional and denying all facts that can easily be shown by looking at pure statistics and therefore the world will slowly be joining every other dead world in this game.

TLDR no matter what administration does when players don't cooperate the world will die.

The key words there being "were willing". I used to go around touting how mature and positive Colorado was a FF world, not just in EN but other servers as well. If I went around telling everyone how awesome Colo is now, I'd be a liar. Hell, it's Houston now but on a somewhat larger scale. When you hear people saying "but we are comfortable with the team we are part of now and don't want to break that up" that was exactly the same excuse used on Houston right before the steep decline to the state of FF now on Houston.

So, Coloradoites, you want a glimpse of your future? Log into Houston. I give it 3 months before it's the same on Colo.
 
Last edited:

szycopath

Well-Known Member
The key words there being "were willing". I used to go around touting how mature and positive Colorado was a FF world, not just in EN but other servers as well. If I went around telling everyone how awesome Colo is now, I'd be a liar. Hell, it's Houston now but on a somewhat larger scale. When you hear people saying "but we are comfortable with the team we are part of now and don't want to break that up" that was exactly the same excuse used on Houston right before the steep decline to the state of FF now on Houston.

So, Coloradoites, you want a glimpse of your future? Log into Houston. I give it 3 months before it's the same on Colo.

If I had a penny for every time I heard "colorado will be like xyz server in 3 months" my BMW would be an M8, not an E36...
Colorado always survived these people and nobody even remembers their names anymore. I remember the exact same debates going on in 2013 or so. It'll be okay. Some will leave, others will come and life will just go on. It ain't easy when some self-appointed "alliance leaders" have no other goal than adding another point on their score list of destroyed alliances, some will not cooperate because they are just too good to cooperate, etc. But it being not easy doesn't mean it will die :)
 

Mrs Sam COlt

Well-Known Member
Until Fort Fights are rewarding for every player, or at least every victorious player, the interest in fort battles will be mediocre. If you pay someone to do something, you get more of it. The drops must be re-established and they should be substancial in their value, not Pilgrim Shoes, Fancy Waistcoats, or Rusty Muskets.
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
Dont bother JW, Colorado still have the most ff in the net server, but the world start becoming like Houston or El dorado, some people dont understand that need a good cooperation on both sides, but always we can not do anything :))
If this is just for Awesomania, its like, well we dont give a ****. Colorado have Awesomania full, the other worlds have between 30 players at Awesomania in event time( lets delete the last world from Conversation)
you talk about cooperation yet you're the one who says your town won't attend forts and set topics to build church
now people wanna send you forts and you say don't accept any forts

make up your mind and stop talking like you're cooperating at all because you're one of those who doesn't

i can point literally each and every one of you who don't wanna cooperate, some who even posted in this topic and i'll end up being the one ironized by the likes of raider who is irrelevant and not even playing this game and lyrinx who's construction built

time to wake up and shut up


@Syntex or @stormtrooper delete the offtopic
 
Top