Daily Tasks to include Fort battle

Good Feather

Well-Known Member
Idea title: Daily tasks to include fort fighting

Details of idea: Add the option to attend a fort battle. As on most worlds fort battles already occur daily. This would raise the competition to in deed have fort battles daily, but would limit the players from calling multis to collect absurd daily task bonds by only giving a 1 task. Hopefully players will join more fort battles if there is an incentive to completing their daily goals tasks.

Optional: I might suggest removing the attendance daily bond that you get to offset this so that players are only getting a Completed daily goals bond and not extra from what they are already getting. Just to keep it fair.


Visual Aid:
daily_task.png



Reasons for submitting: As a fort fighter on several worlds I don't do much dueling, so I can usually only do the 2/3 daily tasks crafted products and Daily quests.

This would allow me and other fort fighters to complete the Daily goals of 3 tasks.
 

Elmyr

We already get more bonds from fort battles than anything else. I think the biggest result would be more hurt feelings for not getting ranked. Maybe if a fort battle was counted as a duel vs. player or something.
 

Good Feather

Well-Known Member
Yes I would agree that if a fort battle counted in that regard as a duel then that would satisfy my non-ability of getting the daily goal completed.

Thanks for the alternate suggestion Elmyr
 

DeletedUser15641

How about if it could be added to the "weekly task"?Or it gives a bonus instead?
 

DeletedUser563

This was proposed by me as well
http://forum.westbeta.innogames.de/showthread.php?t=1723. but got no attention. I do not agree that it should substitute a duel or that would be a good idea as proposed by elmyr. In most of my worlds I simply dont duel and a lot of my time per day is taken up by fort battles i.e. getting to them waiting to be ranked and participating in them. There would be a real abuse issue if a fort battle is classed as a duel and that would be that duelers would be even more favored by the scheme than they already are. Because the pure builds do not lend themselves to NPC duels no matter your clothing or whatever and especially considering how they put a great strain in many pure builds already limited HP. Therefore a fort battle must count as a seperate daily task not part of a duel :(

Additionally you may consider the following from my idea in beta
Jakkals-beta said:
Details: A new daily task will be created called participate in fort battle. The requirement for a successful day will remain at 3 tasks. Henceforth completing 3 out of 5 tasks will be enough.

Motivation and benefit to player community and Innogames:
Well thinking about it there is no real reason why it shouldnt have been included in the start of bonds. They experimented with poker games but never with fort battles. Benefits will be more active fort battles and fuller fort battles. Up to level 60 the requirement can be only 2 daily tasks required to accommodate the fact that they won't probably get into fort battles. It will make getting the daily tasks easier for more players. Often I have completed 2 daily tasks and then travel to fort fight and either dont have enough hp to complete it or forget about it if fort battle is close to 12 o'clock deadline or cant get out of a fort battle that drags over the deadline. I think this may make the current game more user friendly. i cant really think about any player that will whine about completing the daily tasks easier .

For example todays Fort Battle:Travel Time - 2 hours, waiting time about 40 minutes and then battle can be up to an hour. That can be up to 3 and a half hour spend on the fort battle afterwards I can have 1 HP meaning that unless I waste bonds to regenerate HP i wont be able to complete the daily tasks where i am required to do a job

ps logically my vote is YES and i would add do not include the suggestion by elmyr.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser15641

Or if someone tried to attend it but all seats were taken then he would have an added point to try attending to fort battles but if he/she was not @ the fight then he/she won't get any point.
 

Elmyr

How about if it could be added to the "weekly task"?Or it gives a bonus instead?

Either wouldn't be bad, but it might be hard to fit into the current system.

This was proposed by me as well
http://forum.westbeta.innogames.de/showthread.php?t=1723. but got no attention.

Isn't that pretty much Good Feather's suggestion. We could just go with the original suggestion, but not get a bond for it. So if you do your crafting and NPC duels plus a fort battle you get 2 bonds for the day, not 3, because, again, we already get enough bonds for fort battles.

Or if someone tried to attend it but all seats were taken then he would have an added point to try attending to fort battles but if he/she was not @ the fight then he/she won't get any point.

It would help with some of the hurt feelings, but it seems like that would lead to large numbers of people joining a battle with no intention of traveling to the fort. On the other hand, it would be another incentive to join a town. I think this would be better if the idea to sort Recruiting by location, hp, etc were implemented as well.
 

DeletedUser563

no we cant go with the original suggestion :p mine was the original suggestion(before good feathers) but is not in this forum ;). what is the big issue you anyway have in rewarding 1 more bond in a day for a fort fighter. the maximum change one can accomplish with this is 366 bonds (in a leap year) so why should we have such an awkward system of you complete 3 tasks for example but only get 2 bonds for the daily tasks? although you do get bonds already from fort fights this has nothing to do with daily tasks atm and not every one get that much each day anyway. so i would say yes go with good feathers idea because it is posted in a more active forum but do not water the idea down based on one player's opinion( elmyr's). because complaining about 1 extra bond not even a unique chest is imo counterproductive and a waste of our time.
 

Elmyr

Like I said, we get enough bonds. It wouldn't be absolutely horrible to give us one more bond, and it would be more consistent, but I just don't think it's necessary. I'm not going to argue strongly against it, because it is just one bond, but I just don't want to give people who say this game is too much about fort battles to have one more thing to complain about.

I'll vote for it in whatever final form the idea takes.
 

Flinten

Well I like the idea that it would count that you had signed up for a battle and travelled there in the hope that you would get a rank, but as the battle filled and you did not get a rank you at least complete a daily task.
But those who sign up, and fail to reach the fort in time for the battle, should not complete the daily task.
 

DeletedUser15641

It would help with some of the hurt feelings, but it seems like that would lead to large numbers of people joining a battle with no intention of traveling to the fort. On the other hand, it would be another incentive to join a town. I think this would be better if the idea to sort Recruiting by location, hp, etc were implemented as well.

I said If they were @fort but got kicked out from it by not getting a rank.It won't lead to not getting @fort but it will lead to higher players joining forts and that would be good for a dead world but a pain in new worlds.
 

Elmyr

I said If they were @fort but got kicked out from it by not getting a rank.It won't lead to not getting @fort but it will lead to higher players joining forts and that would be good for a dead world but a pain in new worlds.

I'm talking about 500 people joining a battle, cluttering up recruiting, and having no intention of traveling to the fort. And dead worlds will shortly be extinct.
 

bladegori

Instead of getting 1 bond for participating in a battle that 1 bond could count in daily tasks for attending 1 battle
 

DeletedUser22493

Im all for making it either 1 fort battle, or 3 duels.

So, either do 3 duels, or 1 fort battle to finish "that" task.
 

Tracker John

Well I like the idea that it would count that you had signed up for a battle and travelled there in the hope that you would get a rank, but as the battle filled and you did not get a rank you at least complete a daily task.
But those who sign up, and fail to reach the fort in time for the battle, should not complete the daily task.

I'm in agreement with this totally. Currently this idea, as proposed, makes no distinction between attacking or defending and a minor tweak towards the attacking side might encourage more participation on the attacking side of battles (far too many people in too many worlds only attend the defensive side of battles out of "fear of losing").

The people who travel to a battle and do not get into battles (unranked or under ranked in an overflowing battle) should be given at least 1 bond for attending so they don't get discouraged and stop attending the fort fights completely.

If "completion" of the daily task was to merely be present at the battle, then I'd go for that as well but I think we'd get more FF participation if the rejected players were to receive a very minor "consolation prize" just for showing up as well (or instead).
 

Elmyr

Currently this idea, as proposed, makes no distinction between attacking or defending and a minor tweak towards the attacking side might encourage more participation on the attacking side of battles (far too many people in too many worlds only attend the defensive side of battles out of "fear of losing").

I really don't see any way distinguishing between attacks and defenses could be incorporated into this idea. Give an extra participation bond for an attack, fine, but I don't think this idea should take away from the simplicity of the daily task system by giving more than 1 bond in some circumstances. You could just as easily argue that it should be done for dueling as well, attacking instead of defending, winning instead of losing, dueling certain people etc. Or for crafting higher skill items, or for doing 1 hour dailies instead of 15 mins or product dailies.
 

Tracker John

I really don't see any way distinguishing between attacks and defenses could be incorporated into this idea. Give an extra participation bond for an attack, fine, but I don't think this idea should take away from the simplicity of the daily task system by giving more than 1 bond in some circumstances. You could just as easily argue that it should be done for dueling as well, attacking instead of defending, winning instead of losing, dueling certain people etc. Or for crafting higher skill items, or for doing 1 hour dailies instead of 15 mins or product dailies.

Yes, all of that could be argued but there isn't a lack of participation in those areas which require group participation on an opposing side and that's why I tossed that out as part of my thinking process on the idea (i.e. : 2 defenses or 1 attack for completion of the daily quest to encourage more participation on the attacking side when members have a choice). In either event, I feel the player should get full credit if they're at the fort, signed up and ready for the battle at the beginning of the battle (failure to get ranked in the processes is not the players fault and they shouldn't be penalized for the time and effort it takes to attempt to participate).
 

Good Feather

Well-Known Member
Yes, all of that could be argued but there isn't a lack of participation in those areas which require group participation on an opposing side and that's why I tossed that out as part of my thinking process on the idea (i.e. : 2 defenses or 1 attack for completion of the daily quest to encourage more participation on the attacking side when members have a choice). In either event, I feel the player should get full credit if they're at the fort, signed up and ready for the battle at the beginning of the battle (failure to get ranked in the processes is not the players fault and they shouldn't be penalized for the time and effort it takes to attempt to participate).

TJ - I would say keep the idea simple. Pass it on to the Devs and see what they want to do with it. If we explicity state it should benefit the attackers more than the defenders then they might just trash can it or do what they like and give it to all.

When you cut hairs then the idea dies and never gets voted on. I agree there is problems with the game of seeing the defense as easier to stay alive, but that falls on the attacking generals to rally their troops in a social game to attack a goal in this case a fort.
 

Tracker John

TJ - I would say keep the idea simple. Pass it on to the Devs and see what they want to do with it. If we explicity state it should benefit the attackers more than the defenders then they might just trash can it or do what they like and give it to all.

When you cut hairs then the idea dies and never gets voted on. I agree there is problems with the game of seeing the defense as easier to stay alive, but that falls on the attacking generals to rally their troops in a social game to attack a goal in this case a fort.

Agreed, but unless I totally missed the boat here this idea was put forth to help increase the fort fighting participation and it's in that spirit that I commented, not to trash the idea but to expand on it's potential use to achieve the desired goal (increased fort fighting participation). Part of that process is to attempt to proactively deal with any objections or obstacles to an idea. Although I would agree with it's implementation in either form, the issues of attempting to participate (signing up and being at the battle but not getting into the battle) vs actual participation is a valid one as well as the attack vs. defense. Regardless of whether it is or is not implemented there will be people arguing for and against each of these items and giving the developers some discussion into the insight of active players could give the developers further ideas on how or how not to add this (or a similar) feature into their game.
 

Tracker John

OK, I just had an epiphany on this and not a good one either. In fact, I had it in my sleep and it bothered me so much that I had to get it down and hopefully think of a suitable "fix" for the problem (don't you hate it when you dream about a game - something is seriously wrong with me now :razz:)

This feature could be ripe for abuse and here's how:

1. If the daily completion is based on the person getting into the battle then it gives a heavy advantage to the higher level players and cliques (big alliances) who will rank their own friends and allies leaving the newer players, less social players, players outside the alliance and lower level players at a decided disadvantage.

2. If the daily completion is based merely on attending a fort fight (ie: signing up and being at the fort at the beginning of the battle) then it can be abused by the lower level players and players outside an alliance who merely sign up for battles they know they have no chance of getting into (or a small fort battle with about 200 people on site for example) and get the free check mark on their daily tally sheet and move on. They could even sabotage their own chances of getting ranked by wearing a scythe, not-battle clothing and a poor fort fighting weapon or no weapon at all.

If a suitable idea can be presented to prevent abuse, then this is still a great idea that I think should pass (I still believe in this idea anyway, just not sure how to resolve the potential for abuse/misuse).
 
Top