2022 Awesomia battle initiative -- Discussion

sanidh

Active Member
Join us TODAY (2022-04-28) for a NO BONUS AWARD battle
on Colorado at 22:40 ST

This is a last minute battle request over a missed planned dig.
Other worlds are always welcome to request these NO BONUS AWARD battles, which will be dug at my discretion/availability if AND ONLY IF I receive the request with no less than 6h notice, and only if I happen to be available to see the request on a timely basis with time available to implement it.

That's a great idea, i will keep in touch with you for kansas if we ever need these battles, will discuss it with ragna and chopchop aswell
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
I have often thought about all this tinkering with Awesomia ffs and wondered what the end goal actually was. I understand that by stripping out tower bonuses etc. for the main part, it gives attackers a better chance. Now it seems that the attackers are generally the stronger side and win far more often than not. So I guess the objective is achieved.

That is all fine and dandy, so now what? The very issues that have caused the changes in Awesomia battles remain at every other fort fight on many worlds. Does Inno have any strategy to change anything in regular ffs based on the lessons of Awesomia? If not, what is all this messing about with Awesomia intended to do - simply change for change's sake?

Also, I still fail to see the necessity of all NPC Awesomia ffs being dug in a relatively tight window that suit only players in a narrow range of time zones. Why cannot a few at least be at a time that better suits Australians, North Americans etc.? Not many of us can give up work simply to meet the time dictats of Inno declared ffs .
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
I have often thought about all this tinkering with Awesomia ffs and wondered what the end goal actually was. I understand that by stripping out tower bonuses etc. for the main part, it gives attackers a better chance. Now it seems that the attackers are generally the stronger side and win far more often than not. So I guess the objective is achieved.

That is all fine and dandy, so now what? The very issues that have caused the changes in Awesomia battles remain at every other fort fight on many worlds. Does Inno have any strategy to change anything in regular ffs based on the lessons of Awesomia? If not, what is all this messing about with Awesomia intended to do - simply change for change's sake?

Also, I still fail to see the necessity of all NPC Awesomia ffs being dug in a relatively tight window that suit only players in a narrow range of time zones. Why cannot a few at least be at a time that better suits Australians, North Americans etc.? Not many of us can give up work simply to meet the time dictats of Inno declared ffs .

The primary goal with Awesomia battles is to have fun battles where both sides begin with the sense they have a chance to win.

The limited timeframe (18:00-24:00) is to accommodate the most players such that battles have a larger percentage of onliners. I will do some “off prime” battles and see how it goes.


The secondary benefits have been to validate the effectiveness of the various available tweaks at achieving these goals to be able to offer them for normal battles on worlds that elect to participate, and expose the worlds to these balancing concepts.

While only Colorado has the organizational structure to be able to approve adopting these concepts, I am working on a proposal to offer them in a trial period on other worlds, followed by a choice of continuing to employ them or reverting to the status quo.
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
The primary goal with Awesomia battles is to have fun battles where both sides begin with the sense they have a chance to win.

The limited timeframe (18:00-24:00) is to accommodate the most players such that battles have a larger percentage of onliners. I will do some “off prime” battles and see how it goes.


The secondary benefits have been to validate the effectiveness of the various available tweaks at achieving these goals to be able to offer them for normal battles on worlds that elect to participate, and expose the worlds to these balancing concepts.

While only Colorado has the organizational structure to be able to approve adopting these concepts, I am working on a proposal to offer them in a trial period on other worlds, followed by a choice of continuing to employ them or reverting to the status quo.

Thank you for the response, Goober.

I am now a little wiser, no bad thing, but I am not really fully on-board with what you are saying. So:

1. How does Colorado differ organizationally to anywhere else?
3. Exactly what are you offering to Colorado in the way of changes for normal battles?
4. Who on Colorado (and other worlds if applicable) will be approving offered changes?

Thanks.

Odders
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Thank you for the response, Goober.

I am now a little wiser, no bad thing, but I am not really fully on-board with what you are saying. So:

1. How does Colorado differ organizationally to anywhere else?
3. Exactly what are you offering to Colorado in the way of changes for normal battles?
4. Who on Colorado (and other worlds if applicable) will be approving offered changes?

Thanks.

Odders

Colorado has two major alliances that represent the vast majority of fort fighters and a cooperative inter alliance council that represents them sufficiently to be able to agree/assent to my interventions, specifically modification of caps and rescheduling battles that conflict in prime time. Additionally they are able to get their fort owners to request tower downgrades because they trust the other side to do likewise.

I attempt to communicate with leaders on other worlds to find such consensus and promote coordinated downgrades but so far have been unsuccessful (though we are getting close on Fairbank)

My latest idea is to run login polls on each world to seek permission to experiment with caps and towers for a period of 3 weeks, then at the end run another poll on whether to adopt the changes or revert to the default settings.
 

szycopath

Well-Known Member
Colorado has two major alliances that represent the vast majority of fort fighters and a cooperative inter alliance council that represents them sufficiently to be able to agree/assent to my interventions, specifically modification of caps and rescheduling battles that conflict in prime time. Additionally they are able to get their fort owners to request tower downgrades because they trust the other side to do likewise.

I attempt to communicate with leaders on other worlds to find such consensus and promote coordinated downgrades but so far have been unsuccessful (though we are getting close on Fairbank)

My latest idea is to run login polls on each world to seek permission to experiment with caps and towers for a period of 3 weeks, then at the end run another poll on whether to adopt the changes or revert to the default settings.
That's all nice but can we have battles not set up just a few hrs before the intended time AND rescheduled a ton of times? Most people still have a life outside the game (ikr, weirdos), and it happened more than not that people set jobs and fort, come online a few minutes before battle only to find out that it's been moved to a different time. It's lovely, when that different time is earlier... :D
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
That's all nice but can we have battles not set up just a few hrs before the intended time AND rescheduled a ton of times? Most people still have a life outside the game (ikr, weirdos), and it happened more than not that people set jobs and fort, come online a few minutes before battle only to find out that it's been moved to a different time. It's lovely, when that different time is earlier... :D
We have tightened our requirements for rescheduling so that should be less of a concern, while last minute No rewards on demand Henry battles are just a gift to the community
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
Colorado has two major alliances that represent the vast majority of fort fighters and a cooperative inter alliance council that represents them sufficiently to be able to agree/assent to my interventions, specifically modification of caps and rescheduling battles that conflict in prime time. Additionally they are able to get their fort owners to request tower downgrades because they trust the other side to do likewise.

I attempt to communicate with leaders on other worlds to find such consensus and promote coordinated downgrades but so far have been unsuccessful (though we are getting close on Fairbank)

My latest idea is to run login polls on each world to seek permission to experiment with caps and towers for a period of 3 weeks, then at the end run another poll on whether to adopt the changes or revert to the default settings.

I would be interested to know who you are designating as leaders on all these worlds then. On none of them has there been any mention of this possibility from any leader I know - and I lead on some too.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
I would be interested to know who you are designating as leaders on all these worlds then. On none of them has there been any mention of this possibility from any leader I know - and I lead on some too.

Well, yeah, that’s the hardest part... hence “attempt”...
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
ok, so Idaho JUST Had an Awesomia battle less than 24 hours ago and now it's dug again!? It's not even listed...c'mon....what's the deal? Three days apart...little much?

"Join us in this round of "round the clock" battles
Saturday (2022-06-04) on Colorado at 13:00 ST
Saturday (2022-06-04) on El Dorado at 11:00 ST
Saturday (2022-06-04) on Fairbank at 22:00 ST"

AND Idaho again?


@Goober Pyle
 
Last edited:

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
ok, so Idaho JUST Had an Awesomia battle less than 24 hours ago and now it's dug again!? It's not even listed...c'mon....what's the deal? Three days apart...little much?

"Join us in this round of "round the clock" battles
Saturday (2022-06-04) on Colorado at 13:00 ST
Saturday (2022-06-04) on El Dorado at 11:00 ST
Saturday (2022-06-04) on Fairbank at 22:00 ST"

AND Idaho again?


@Goober Pyle
It appears there was a tabulation error and the battle was called on Idaho instead of Fairbank; thank you for calling my attention to this matter.
The Idaho battle will stand and Fairbank will take it's place in the rotation this round

correction: The dig was correct; the post was inadvertently omitted; the short duration was a result of the previous battle being swapped while digging at a faster rate to make up for the long gap after the first batch of battles. The catchup is mostly complete so battles will now on average be 6-7 days apart.
 
Last edited:
Top