Feedback Fort Balancing Actions

RaiderRt

Well-Known Member
So first of all people should already understand that .net forum will mostly be about Colorado and stop complaining about it. If you think goober and syntex are gonna sit on voice chat for hours discussing whether Idaho caps for bigs should be 15:12 or 15:11 then youre completely delusional. Only worlds that matter here are new worlds and Colorado, rest are dead or dont even have enough players to be worth discussing about. Whole discussion is only worth peoples time when theres something to gain and if you disagree that its only Colorado that matters please show me another world (besides new ones) that any changes can impact.

Second, stop with the bs about how people dont get enough rewards or how people dont care/tryhard enough. People do whatevers fun for them - for some its adventures, for others its duelling, for vitamin its crafting and for most of us its fort fighting. Biggest issue is that the game is created in a way in which it forces people/biggest alliances to seek for balance themselves instead of granting it to them. This has been especially proven when the level cap increased and all of a sudden alliances where people have been playing for 10+ years became significantly better than the other, more tryharding/energetic sides. Its something that you cant undo at this point so either players continue seeking balance or the game/specific worlds die like most other ones did.

Third, Syntex bro I know you dont like me but Im not trying to be offensive now. Im not sure if what youre doing now is your decision or if its someone with a higher position than yours thats forcing you to do this whole Fort Balancing thingy but I just wanted to tell you that its completely useless (as I stated in the previous message). Theres nothing you or Goober or even Etriel herself can do to make this game or the fort fights themselves dependent mostly on caps, ratios or whatever you call it. If players themselves dont want things to be balanced, if they themselves dont want to have quality fort fights then unless you start banning people that are refusing to cooperate with others (which you obviously wont do because that would be another level) all your work in terms of balancing fort fights is useless.
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
You should add the Freelancer option to FF signup screen and then let the AI assign these freelancers 1h before the fight to whatever side needs it more (similar like its done with adventures). Not sure how difficult that is to implement but it would help with balancing since a lot of freelancers sign up for the side which is more likely to win and get more bonds.
 
You should add the Freelancer option to FF signup screen and then let the AI assign these freelancers 1h before the fight to whatever side needs it more
How does the player know what clothes to put then? If the player is offline during battle won't know if they equip Cortina or Bull, Aster or Captain
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
The simplest solution would be: add a third option from attack/defend: “Go for balance”. Then some algorithm will decide whether to put you in attack or defense and present you that window.
although...many would not choose that option since they have decided to always go for defense, whethor balanced or not.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
As far as I understand solutions were discussing are the ones that dont require dev work? Or am I mistaken?
yes, this would have to be a dev change. -- they aren't impossible, just very unlikely to happen. The simpler the request (in terms of each of dev work, likelihood to cause disruption, and ease of understanding for Devs, CMs, supporters, and players alike) the more likely it is to be considered
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Third, Syntex bro I know you dont like me but Im not trying to be offensive now. Im not sure if what youre doing now is your decision or if its someone with a higher position than yours thats forcing you to do this whole Fort Balancing thingy but I just wanted to tell you that its completely useless (as I stated in the previous message). Theres nothing you or Goober or even Etriel herself can do to make this game or the fort fights themselves dependent mostly on caps, ratios or whatever you call it. If players themselves dont want things to be balanced, if they themselves dont want to have quality fort fights then unless you start banning people that are refusing to cooperate with others (which you obviously wont do because that would be another level) all your work in terms of balancing fort fights is useless.

"Balancing" was never about imposing balance -- that's why so little has happened outside of Colorado: not because I didn't want to help other worlds, but because they generally declined the help I was offering.
"Balancing" is, always was, and likely will always be, about using the tools available in the local community to make battles "better" by tweaking settings to achieve the goals defined by player representatives (so long as their requests were deemed in the interests of the community at large). In particular it was about adapting settings to increase the likelihood of varied outcomes to fortbattles when the sides were balanced, battles were generally capable of being full, but the attack/defense was decidedly imbalanced resulting in a downward spiral of joining the doomed side of a battle.
 

RaiderRt

Well-Known Member
Then change the name to w15 forum. As you can not do that, get over it :)
I have no issues reading about other worlds, you have issues reading about colorado. Guess youre the one that should get over it.

Please Syntex, dont ban me, he provoked me and im trying very hard not to get banned.
 

DeletedUser15368

I think with what this thread has evolved into, it's very much appropriate to talk about the fort battle balance specifics of certain worlds, where necessary.

The balancing desires for Arizona, an old world with high level accounts, is different from the requirements of Colorado - an old world with a relatively high number of players but with low average account levels, especially compared to the top ranked players, and different still from the needs of the new world in the 4-12 months, or so, that it will live for.

Arizona needs an influx of high level accounts through migration, and specifically needs leaders. Colorado is in the process of a reshuffle, which is and always will be the player's responsibility, and is a product of low-player counts in the 2.0 Version of the game and the recent level-cap disaster. I don't know, or really care, how battles are on the temporary world, or a world that can't fill a small fort, but that's why there's a Fort Battle Strategist(s) on the West Team now to use their tools if they want.

You should add the Freelancer option to FF signup screen and then let the AI assign these freelancers 1h before the fight to whatever side needs it more (similar like its done with adventures). Not sure how difficult that is to implement but it would help with balancing since a lot of freelancers sign up for the side which is more likely to win and get more bonds.
The simplest solution would be: add a third option from attack/defend: “Go for balance”. Then some algorithm will decide whether to put you in attack or defense and present you that window.
These are really great ideas, I'd love to see a 3rd button "for balance", perhaps 3rd party signups are simply automatically locked out of the implied stronger side, if it has significantly more signups than the other side. Even if this is just another tool that CM's/Battle strategist teams can use when needed.

Edit: Also would be nice if you could see the signups of each side before joining, maybe this is best reserved for GM battles only, or again as a tool to be employed at the discretion of the CM/Strategist, but I think that would be very useful for balancing the sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Azeul

Active Member
I would like to know, because it was never fully disclosed, how these conversations about re-balancing fort fights (specifically CO) are taking place and with whom are they being conducted with.

If I am to be constructive, then I would need to have this sort of information made available to us ALL. It concerns me that something is still awry, and call it what you will, but it stems from a distrust in community leadership that began with employing select players to be their guiding force. and not consulting with the world at large, entirely. I'm aware of the polls, and open feedback discussions, but not all was made public and still has not been.

So, I'll ask again, what sort of roster numbers are you looking for with the fort balancing team (is it a lot? is it +1- 2 more strategist?) and have the conversation portals that were privately held by players with mod/devs still ongoing or have those also been culled?

Lastly, I really like the idea of a "balancing" option for registration on fort fights. Goober has been fantastic in revealing that information in saloon in a timely manner, if ever asked about it (regarding Awesomia battles, at least) and its so very helpful to players that have the flexibility to go where needed.

Thumbs up for that idea!
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
I would like to know, because it was never fully disclosed, how these conversations about re-balancing fort fights (specifically CO) are taking place and with whom are they being conducted with.

If I am to be constructive, then I would need to have this sort of information made available to us ALL. It concerns me that something is still awry, and call it what you will, but it stems from a distrust in community leadership that began with employing select players to be their guiding force. and not consulting with the world at large, entirely. I'm aware of the polls, and open feedback discussions, but not all was made public and still has not been.

So, I'll ask again, what sort of roster numbers are you looking for with the fort balancing team (is it a lot? is it +1- 2 more strategist?) and have the conversation portals that were privately held by players with mod/devs still ongoing or have those also been culled?

Lastly, I really like the idea of a "balancing" option for registration on fort fights. Goober has been fantastic in revealing that information in saloon in a timely manner, if ever asked about it (regarding Awesomia battles, at least) and its so very helpful to players that have the flexibility to go where needed.

Thumbs up for that idea!
Ultimately it is the designees of the black hats of the "founding towns" of the largest alliances who objectively represent and speak on behalf of their alliance members who constitute the vast majority of regular fort fighters.

The expansion of The Team is intended to ensure that no one person is determining who can speak on behalf of the vast majority of regular fort fighters, to increase the ability to reach out to other voices in the community to have their concerns heard, and to share the workload of ensuring the outcome of decisions is properly communicated.
 

Azeul

Active Member
See that's where my concern is. Syntax says transparency, but what is ultimately happening, is that only designees from those two alliances are granted permission to this particular discussion. While, yes, that's valuable input, it is not made public nor opened up to the entire world, except for the allure of posts being made after the fact in discussion/feedback threads. When you say vast majority, and yet limit it to select few, how is that not a contradiction?
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
how is that not a contradiction?
I also say "represent and speak on behalf of". If towns feel their alliance founding towns do not represent them they are welcome to leave their alliance. If players feel their town black hats (i.e. those who decide on alliance membership) do not represent them, they are welcome to leave their town. If a significant number of regular Fort Fighters outside of the major alliances band together, they are welcome to designate an individual to represent them in discussions.
 

Azeul

Active Member
If a significant number of regular Fort Fighters outside of the major alliances band together, they are welcome to designate an individual to represent them in discussions.
What's a significant number? Where do we apply? Why are designees from large alliances automatically given a seat at discussions, and others have to rally "significant" support to try to decipher WHERE these conversations are taking place and HOW to become a part of them. It's madness trying to get answers and yet transparency is the stated objective here. I'm over asking at this point and will just wait to see what these players and mods have worked out.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
What's a significant number? Where do we apply? Why are designees from large alliances automatically given a seat at discussions, and others have to rally "significant" support to try to decipher WHERE these conversations are taking place and HOW to become a part of them. It's madness trying to get answers and yet transparency is the stated objective here. I'm over asking at this point and will just wait to see what these players and mods have worked out.
The intent is to address the concerns of the vast majority of Fort Fighters; The major alliances represent that.
Significant is intended to mean more than just one player who shows up every now and then. It is not a hard line, but as an example colorados last 10 battles had 1,927 participations. If someone was representing players that accounted for 10% or even 5% of those participations I would press for there to be a seat at the table.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
That being said, I believe it has previously been suggested to speak with the black hats at the founding towns of the major alliances, who I believe would be happy to add you to the discussion, but so far as I know that Suggestion has been declined.
 
Top