Beefmeister
Well-Known Member
is awesomia time of start gonna be changed on colorado?
2023 Awesomia battle initiative -- Discussion
- Thread starter Goober Pyle
- Start date
I am unclear if this was addressed since asked
starshaped
Active Member
When is the Awesomia Battle in Dakota? According to the list it is supposed to take place today July 11th at 21.30 st, but still no such battle has been initiated.
Apologies for the late battle calls this round; there was a communications breakdown.
As there was a conflicting battle at awesomia on Dakota, that battle is being rescheduled to July 13th and will be dug shortly
As there was a conflicting battle at awesomia on Dakota, that battle is being rescheduled to July 13th and will be dug shortly
Harriet Oleson
Well-Known Member
"Additionally, 10 randomly selected participants from this (July 11-13) round of battles will receive a Fireworks Container" -> the container which gives 2500 fireworks every 23h ? Or another type which gives 1250 every 11h30 for example (like for hearts etc) ? I'm asking cause I think a lot of players have already bought the 23h one, and we can't have 2 of them.
Other than that thanks for the bigger reward !
Other than that thanks for the bigger reward !
the "smaller" one
Harriet Oleson
Well-Known Member
Oh ok, no problem for anyone then. Thanks !
NovaStar
Well-Known Member
@BigNoob
Is there actually enough TIME left for these last minute fireworks???
Event ends in 14 hours and 40 minutes... yet battle is supposed to be at 10:00 ST?
This was JUST posted in Saloon...does this mean no fireworks either?
Is there actually enough TIME left for these last minute fireworks???
Event ends in 14 hours and 40 minutes... yet battle is supposed to be at 10:00 ST?
This was JUST posted in Saloon...does this mean no fireworks either?
| 14:50]Saloon 1: | *Sheriff John NPC* has set a new topic: '*https://forum.the-west.net/index.php?threads/2023-awesomia-battle-initiative.61252/page-2#post-801227 (no rewards)* ' |
This is just a fun battle on short notice squeezed in for a 10:00am start so it should finish in time.
No _bonus_ fireworks, just what comes from a normal battle dependent on how many show up.
On less populated worlds, If most players join one side (I suggest defense), then the battle should be quick and give a decent FW/Hr.
e.g. if 20 players show up and the battle lasts 3 rounds that's 120fw in ~8 minutes.
BigNoob
Well-Known Member
The battles start at 10 am. The event ends at midday. Everyone has 2h for a last good battle (no extra rewards but if attendance is high then it can bring lots of fireworks, double if you get KO'd) and players can use them to speed any eventual last construction ongoing in the event.
quick summary of the FW/Hr of those "surprise" battles:
| WORLD | AZ | BR | CO | DK | ED | FB | GV | HU | ID | JU | KS | LV | MT |
| FIGHTERS (ATT: DEF) | 96 (48:48) | 30 (10:20) | 170 (91:79) | 34 (13:21) | 37 (12:25) | 48 (18:30) | 11 (7:4) | 8 (1:7) | 25 (9:16) | 44 (22:22) | 32 (12:20) | 34 (23:11) | 40 (20:20) |
| ROUNDS (MINUTES) | 55 (60) | 21 (23) | 48 (66) | 51 (49) | 42 (44) | 55 (56) | 11 (13) | 5 (7) | 14 (13) | 12 (11) | 32 (29) | 18 (18) | 28 (26) |
| FW/Hr (survivors) | 576 | 470 | 927 | 250 | 303 | 309 | 305 | 411 | 692 | 480 | 397 | 680 | 554 |
Last edited:
Oddersfield
Well-Known Member
What is the point of having NPC ffs when you are giving one side a bigger benefit. The attackers are getting the bigger reward and so will almost certainly get the largest numbers and win. The defenders will get massacred in most of these - it is they that need\ the green tea most I would have thought.
What is the logic for a fort fight strategist deliberately creating imbalanced battles - as if NPCs are not bad enough to start with for the most part? I cannot for the life of me think why anybody in their right mind would sign for the defense under these circumstances. However, I have signed for every defense, so I guess I am mad
What is the logic for a fort fight strategist deliberately creating imbalanced battles - as if NPCs are not bad enough to start with for the most part? I cannot for the life of me think why anybody in their right mind would sign for the defense under these circumstances. However, I have signed for every defense, so I guess I am mad
Oddersfield
Well-Known Member
It is Inno. Did you believe they would have a well-executed, flawless plan? Perhaps you should lower your expectations.
BigNoob
Well-Known Member
As most of you know, when there is no reward at all we can clearly see a tendency for defense to outnumber attack. This was an experiment to see if an extra reward to the attack side could change it.
Here is the official statement:
In this series of battles we are opting to incentivise players to join the attack side of the battle with hopes of improving the likelihood of a good outcome, for this and future battles. The results will be taken into consideration for incentives in future battles on a world-by-world basis.
And about about the extra Mate Tea to the attackers in Idaho and Briscoe they will be rewarded as soon as possible.
Here is the official statement:
In this series of battles we are opting to incentivise players to join the attack side of the battle with hopes of improving the likelihood of a good outcome, for this and future battles. The results will be taken into consideration for incentives in future battles on a world-by-world basis.
And about about the extra Mate Tea to the attackers in Idaho and Briscoe they will be rewarded as soon as possible.
Oddersfield
Well-Known Member
I think it is obvious that the greater the differential you offer attackers then the more likely people will be to join that side - especially if you know you are going to die for 25 bonds max. defending. As a soldier or similar you could be spending that much in bonds to fill your HP before the ff so there may well be no net gain from the doing the battle - especially if you die. A little different for damagers certainly.
Even if NPC battles do get balanced though incentives, how do you propose to roll that solution into regular ffs? If that is not the intent, then I don't understand the purpose of putting this amount of effort into getting NPC battles so balanced: after all, they are inconsequential to the real problems with fort fighting.
Out of interest, what exactly does a fort balancing strategist do and what can they really influence in terms of game development, changes in formulae etc.? Please don't give me the official statement as it is usually a lot of words that don't say anything clearly and simply. For example, "incentivise players to join the attack side of the battle with hopes of improving the likelihood of a good outcome" could be expressed a lot more simply as "attempting to get closer battles through differential rewards ".
Even if NPC battles do get balanced though incentives, how do you propose to roll that solution into regular ffs? If that is not the intent, then I don't understand the purpose of putting this amount of effort into getting NPC battles so balanced: after all, they are inconsequential to the real problems with fort fighting.
Out of interest, what exactly does a fort balancing strategist do and what can they really influence in terms of game development, changes in formulae etc.? Please don't give me the official statement as it is usually a lot of words that don't say anything clearly and simply. For example, "incentivise players to join the attack side of the battle with hopes of improving the likelihood of a good outcome" could be expressed a lot more simply as "attempting to get closer battles through differential rewards ".
We wanted players to join attack and experience how the new gear affects the battles and see how attacks now have a good chance of winning if they show up in decent numbers (nominally 1.1:1 - 1.2:1).
For this first attempt at using this tactic in going on 2 years we determined it should be a one-size-fits-all announcement. On some worlds attack had a huge numbers advantage. On at least 2 worlds defense still massively outnumbered attack. On others the numbers have been close to ideal.
In future battles we will tailor the relative benefit received by the attack for a given world based on the turnout of prior battles.
For this first attempt at using this tactic in going on 2 years we determined it should be a one-size-fits-all announcement. On some worlds attack had a huge numbers advantage. On at least 2 worlds defense still massively outnumbered attack. On others the numbers have been close to ideal.
In future battles we will tailor the relative benefit received by the attack for a given world based on the turnout of prior battles.
NovaStar
Well-Known Member
I don't think we ever got our Mate tea...I haven't noticed it, yet. It's been 2 weeks?