• You don't like snow? Turn it off here:

Feedback topic on Fridays battle

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Well i know by now that not all reads this forum.
But for you talking here, would the "fort fights buffs" be bad to get ?

Then i can delete them from my list as a start. And i can not remember who wrote about the bonds, but those were down on the list as well, thats why i, i think i never have given them !!

BUT apart from that, it was actually a good idea to find out about "Veteran points" if that could be given as a reward. since so few play adventures.
I will get back on that :)
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
BUT apart from that, it was actually a good idea to find out about "Veteran points" if that could be given as a reward. since so few play adventures.
I will get back on that :)
no, what i meant was inventing a new currency - exactly same system as veteran points.
those would be something like fort fight points. a new category of rewards should be opened in the shop, with fort fight specific rewards.
those points we would get for playing fort fights, just as you get veteran points for adventures.
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Well i do not think we will see anything like that.
But what i thought was giving out those points, to be able to buy the stuff in that part of the shop.

Then you could both get clothes, other kinds of buffs and what ever you can find from that part.
That was just what i thought :)
 

canufeelit

Well-Known Member
Well i do not think we will see anything like that.
But what i thought was giving out those points, to be able to buy the stuff in that part of the shop.

Then you could both get clothes, other kinds of buffs and what ever you can find from that part.
That was just what i thought :)
yes :)
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Well i do not think we will see anything like that.
But what i thought was giving out those points, to be able to buy the stuff in that part of the shop.

Then you could both get clothes, other kinds of buffs and what ever you can find from that part.
That was just what i thought :)
You could combine one buff of your choice with bond letter.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Hmm, so with a budget of 75 bonds per player, we can't even give out basic non-tombola clothes chests, never mind tombola gear chests. Sad.

I also really dislike Spinach as a "reward", it's more of a "revive" for after the battle, which isn't really needed in my opinion, but I do struggle to come up with alternative buffs that would be more useful than the ones we can literally craft ourselves with no bonds.

If that rule was written a considerable time ago, it might be worth asking if it could be updated, as 75 bond buffs/items are not worth anything in 2021, except maybe the rocket turtle, which isn't exactly lore friendly but whatever (the shop badly needs modernised - one would expect premium items to be better than basic items, but no), and also before version 2.xx and all the gambling that came with it, random clothing and special items like the 3rd key dropped from fort battles... #BringBackClassicButAVersionWithForts

Basically, we used to be able to advance our characters by actually playing the game, now it all depends on what tombola set you are wearing, so the opportunity to earn parts of a viable PvP set would be the only worthy reward that would entice people to sign up and come to these GM battles - in my opinion - that's why the tombola battles are stacked, after all.
Or, as has been suggested, just give Bond letters that we can save and use to gamble with.
 
Last edited:

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Hi,

I'm sorry to say that, but the next test in Kansas will surely be irrelevant too : there are even less people enrolled in attack than last time, and before I enrolled (in attack) there were even more town defensers than last time too. Are people really informed about these tests ? I mean : for the previous battle, as RaiderTr said there were nothing said in game; here I've seen a pop-up (which is good) but without mentionning the exceptional 150 rooms in attack ... I don't think a lot of people read the forum, so if a lot aren't in active alliance to inform them, a lot of people may not know at all they were supposed to privilege attack in this battle, and why. Personally I know about it because I frequently read the forum, but if it wasn't the case, I wouldn't have known.

I usually never do that but if things stay like this I think I'll desert this battle. Because as it is right now, it will be once again a "slaughter party". You may say there aren't winners/losers in awesomia, but here the death isn't compensated and the reward doesn't worth what we lose when we die. If we end up with less after the battle that what we had before, I have difficulty to think I'm not in a "losing side", and even less to think I got a reward.

In any case, thanks for these tests. I think they are important : we need much rooms in awesomia so everyone willing to participate, can (especially now that the ticket thing doesn't work anymore). About balancing, just an idea but instead of finding another ratio att/def maybe you could just lowered the buildings bonuses ? I don't know if this can be easier to balance that way or not, but the bonuses are all at max, they surely participate to make things more difficult for attack. It mustn't prevent from increasing rooms though, like 130 def vs 141 att, 140 def vs 152 att etc (same ratio than 120 vs 130), according to what the servers can handle.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
It is indeed rather... unfortunate... and game-breaking, that the result of full fort battles are pre-determined that defenders will win, so naturally people will prefer signing into the winning side - We used to use crafting class as a way to force people to sign into the weaker side on GM battles, similar to the first Nyborg test where character class was used, but actually resulting in viable teams. I suppose that tactic could even the sides out, assuming there's roughly the same number of all 4 craft classes.

Structure bonuses are game development level, I don't believe a CM could play with those, but if the new LCM is a fort fighter, then perhaps we will see more complete formula changes and an attempt to bring balance to the Forts, instead of a vague threat that the level cap might be increased and mess everything up even further :up:

I also know that the games dev's have long intended for the numbers of attackers and defenders to be equal, attackers LOS advantage and control should be enough to counter defenders tower bonus in the first rounds of a battle - but what we see now is defenders able to rotate and hold towers for 30, 40, or 50+ rounds in full LOS, even with more attackers on the map at the beginning of the battle.
We are actually in an even worse position now than when the IFBC happened, when the fact that attack won 98% of tournament battles forced experimental formula changes, and ended with buffing towers and Cortina set. At least attackers had to move and control their LOS, instead of simply tower camping and rotating point.
 
Last edited:

delldell56

Well-Known Member
Well i know by now that not all reads this forum.
But for you talking here, would the "fort fights buffs" be bad to get ?

Then i can delete them from my list as a start. And i can not remember who wrote about the bonds, but those were down on the list as well, thats why i, i think i never have given them !!

BUT apart from that, it was actually a good idea to find out about "Veteran points" if that could be given as a reward. since so few play adventures.
I will get back on that :)
Hey, here's an idea that I think Inno would approve and a lot of players would love to get...enough to make them go to Awesomia on a somewhat regular basis. Can you drop the recipe book once in a while, like the circus? Not too often, to not bomb the market though. It's a lottery what you'll get, some easy to drop recipe like Finish a metal skull, but you have hope that you can get something really valuable like Cavalry Saber or Castello Cheese or Fiscal Act too. Even if you don't craft them, you know you will find a buyer for it, so it's definitely a much better reward than some buffs.

Bonds is a yes for the reason some have given. Even if you have a surplus of those letters in your inventory, you know you'll use them all in December. And fort fight buffs from the shop is a no, unless devs update them like they've done with some gear; even the best of them is not good enough to top a crafted buff you can get in the market, even if you are a townless player without contacts.
 

Dr Roth

Well-Known Member
I might be going against the stream here but I am not 100% sure what the objective of these Awesomia battles is.

Is it to try new numbers to get some kind of balance? Then it has failed as we haven't got close to maxing out, at least not in attack.

Is it to recruit new players to battles, make them interested to make normal battles more stable with higher turnout? One or two might have got more interested and started coming to battles regularly, but in general I believe the numbers are the same in non-Awesomia battles.

Is it to generate buffs for the players? This appears to me to be the most possible outcome. Which is a real shame.

I personally don't think a CM should discuss with the players what rewards can and will be given. The scenario is more that people just sign up, place their toon somewhere and get a few buffs without doing much/anything. Choose defence and you won't even lose your energy but gain 2 buffs (3 on Houston for one battle). If you gave more rewards to the attackers I believe 99% would choose attack, and this would just prove my point.

As you probably can guess I am not very excited about Awesomia battles for the reasons already discussed by many (lack of ranks, leaders, topics) and I took it upon myself to lead a few. But not having a plan and offliners set for random spots or not target anything makes leading not very fun.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Is it to try new numbers to get some kind of balance?
No.
He did that cause some people would be left out in Kansas/Colorado.

But increasing Attackers only was extra cause you know..

He might increase/revert the Max Attacker numbers of other size Forts though.
I personally don't think a CM should discuss with the players what rewards can and will be given.
Why not?

Shop items mostly trash and only way to attract people is to give them something worthy.
makes leading not very fun.
Is it fun to lead "normal" battles nowadays tho?
With 15-20 less Attackers than Defenders?

That is if we can find a proper "prime time" battle.
A lot of days passed without one because Attacking sucks (and people doesn't listen)
 
Last edited:

Dr Roth

Well-Known Member
People only get left out during events so when there isn't events it makes no sense.

I dont think he should speak about what rewards you get in the same way I don't think you should know what you get for Christmas presents. People will only go to the battles is the buffs they get is worth it then. It creates a bad precedent that you will only go to the battles if you get something for it. The battles where there is no reward will be even worse. I see no reason to give anything at all. These days buffs are easy to get with all the OP sets we have.

Leading can actually be fun, on other servers than Colorado you can occasionally win attacks if the lead and teamwork is good. And those battles are the best enjoyment for me right now in this game. But of course the battles cant be full.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Well maybe tell us what do you want?

I mean we have come to this from no activity at all.
So I will take it. Hoping it will only be better from this point.
These days buffs are easy to get with all the OP sets we have.
Your mistake is you think everyone can/has to play the game like you.

I know many players that don't have time or will to deal with such stuff.
(Nowadays even "veterans" like us can't be bothered with many things)

They log-in, set, log out.
And maybe be online for Battles too but that's it.

Buff banks etc exists but not for everyone and a lot of people don't even know about them etc etc
 
Last edited:

Dr Roth

Well-Known Member
For people that log in and log out I don't see why they would use buffs. Why not give people 100k in cash for login in as well? Players that choose to play less should get less in any game. Handouts will most likely not make them play more either.

I like everyone would like fort battles to be exciting again, no matter in what way it can happen by changing max numbers, nerfing tower bonuses or introducing new sets. Awesomia battles isn't even a plaster on the wound.

I understand that a LCM has minimal if any impact on most things that happen and I do appreciate that he is trying. I just hope he doesn't get burnt out doing things that change almost nothing.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
With another battle in the books with rather predictable outcomes I'll add a few more comments:

1) thank you for the spinach/rata -- that's a not-useless reward that if is the expectation should keep some of the irregular FFers coming out, while making it worthwhile for the regular FFers who otherwise dislike awesomia battles to keep coming anyway.
1a) while I agree with Roth that it is undesirable to reward low-effort participants, in the very short term pure attendance is an important goal for achieving any viable amount of experiment results
1b) [echoing others] wild-west chilli and bond-letters or the other in-budget bond-store rewards that are desirable enough to attract attendance.
1c) for something different, and herbs chest might be desirable (no idea if that would be considered in-budget, but a bandit chest would not be desirable)

2) Now, can we focus more on solving the real problem with FFing in the current meta.
while ideally gear+tower_buffs+battle_formulas would allow for both sides to fill with equal numbers and have a good fight without a pre-determined outcome, getting those things right is on the devs and they just have not come close to getting those things right and are not quick to tweak things when it is clear they have gotten them wrong
It is clear that the players and the community manager have very few tools at our disposal to correct for failures in the above balance.
However, it is apparent that altering the player caps IS within the powers of the CM.
Therefor, I beg of you to exercise that power and adjust the player caps such that full v. full is not a predetermined outcome whenever the meta is out of whack.
Obviously we do not yet know what those numbers are (though we have ample data to suggest it is in the vicinity of 94 attacking 80 for a medium and likely to be proportion for smalls and larges)
2a) please set the caps for the next battle such that a full fight is guaranteed and will be proportional to the 1.175:1 suggested above.
2ai) might it be possible to declare the next battle a full 48h in advance and adjust the cap the morning of the fight based on the known sign-up?
e.g. if at 10:00ST there are 80 attackers signed and 100 defenders signed set the caps at 80 attackers and 68 defenders.
[note: if such a plan was publicly announced in advanced you would not likely see such a disfavorable sign-up ratio]

3) if it is at all possible to reward attack side disproportionately that would certainly help with recruiting for attack. e.g. if people expected attack would get spinach + a buff while defense would get mate tea + a buff you would get more opting for attack, but not suddenly filling attack while leaving defense shorthanded

4) even better would be if you could reward effort -- not unlike past special events, you could have a monthly lottery for some decent reward (like christmas bags) for people who tallied up some stat at awesomia FFs during the month, e.g. >=7000xp earned, or >=100 dodges+hits_scored+hits_taken, or >56 rounds on line
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
even better would be if you could reward effort -- not unlike past special events, you could have a monthly lottery for some decent reward (like christmas bags) for people who tallied up some stat at awesomia FFs during the month, e.g. >=7000xp earned, or >=100 dodges+hits_scored+hits_taken, or >56 rounds on line
Let's not go down that road now in a P2W game shall we.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Let's not go down that road now in a P2W game shall we.
meh, if you look at the numbers I suggested that is not pay to win -- at least one of those stats should be easily obtainable by participating in 3 out of 4 FFs by anyone putting in more effort than just set and forget.