Planned Fort Battle Replay/Fort Participant Limit

Discussion in 'Development Discussions' started by Eclipse, Jul 19, 2009.

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eclipse

    Eclipse Guest

    Fort Battle Re-play: This idea was suggested by steviefow, and i'm just posting it here to hear others opinions. In any fort battle, there will almost always be players who join but are offline for the battle. Therefore, I strongly support an idea to have an option in the battle report to watch a re-play of the battle. In addition to just allowing players who were offline to watch what occured, it can also be used to help your town analyze the battle and work on strategy to see what worked and what didn't. I see no negatives behind this idea and it should certaintly be something that the devs consider for a near future update.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2009
  2. hmm i like these ideas for like a fort re-play and limit. but i thought it was 64 players per side? but a fort battle re-play is a must for me.
     
  3. Eclipse

    Eclipse Guest

    It can't be 64 per side since we had 69 defenders in a battle...
     
  4. Quantrillo

    Quantrillo Guest

    Yeh there should be a maximum amount of slots allocated for each side 64 each obviously, what the hell where people doing on the beta that this wasn't questioned before??
     
  5. Eclipse

    Eclipse Guest

    64's too few, so that's why i said 100.
     
  6. Sauceysauce

    Sauceysauce Guest

    Id love replay. Anilize stratagy, work on stuff you did wrong... Hey, its just like film for football!
     
  7. Cro Sharpshooter

    Cro Sharpshooter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,097
    Likes Received:
    263
    Yeah, that would be very useful, it should be implemented
     
  8. Sauceysauce

    Sauceysauce Guest

    I hate it when I do this, but I just thought of a problem...

    Where will they store all the data? Its gonna be alot, more than the site can safely hold.
     
  9. Quantrillo

    Quantrillo Guest

    Sure as long as it's evenly distributed.
     
  10. Denisero

    Denisero Guest

    More participants does not mean the sides will be more evenly distributed. The limit could be 1000 and it still won't solve the "problem".
     
  11. Morph96070

    Morph96070 Guest

    There should me no mechanic that forces 'fair' fights, but each side should have their own 'pool' of possible positions,

    If there's only 128 participants allowed TOTAL, then neither side should be able to exceed 64 spots.

    If one side fills their slots (64) and the other side can only muster 24, then the weaker side should lose.

    If one side can bring 100 people, the other side shouldn't be LIMITED to 28 spots,

    With the current implimentation, if the OP is correct in his assumptions, a confed could potentially arrange to have 120 attackers all announce at once, completely limitting the possible defenders
     
  12. Eclipse

    Eclipse Guest

    I think you're misunderstanding the idea Denisero. There should be a limit for each side, not for total participants. Right now, it's 128 max participants. That means, it can be 100 attackers against 28 defenders. There isn't a limit for one side. It could possibly be 127 against 1 even. With a limit for each side, like 100 max participants per side, then one side can't completely overpower the other. It allows one side to reach max and then gives the other side the opportunity to reach max, so it can be 100 vs 100.
     
  13. Eclipse

    Eclipse Guest

    Exactly
     
  14. Denisero

    Denisero Guest

    Even so, if you have 100 limit on each side you can still have one side with 100 attacking and the other with 20 defending. There is just no guarantee it will be evenly matched up no matter what the limit is. If you are really worried about making things even then the only way to do that is for every person that signs up for one side then only one is allowed to sign up for the other. I don't think anybody wants that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2009
  15. MoSa1

    MoSa1 Guest

    At the moment the potential flaw could be if there are 100 potential attackers and 200 potential defenders , then as the attackers obviously choose when to attack and assuming they are keeping themselves informed, they could take up 100 places relatively quickly , leaving the defenders (who actually outnumber the attackers) with only 28 slots left:unsure:

    If this is indeed the case then it needs addressed asap;)
     
  16. Denisero

    Denisero Guest

    Then the limit doesn't need to be higher. It just needs a cap on both sides.
     
  17. MoSa1

    MoSa1 Guest

    yeah but as there have been sides with more than 64 fighting for them so far,
    unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one in place to prevent the attackers from immediately filling up more than 50% of the places.

    In doing so they are able to gain a false advantage...
     
  18. Denisero

    Denisero Guest

    Well could be the devs are thinking the west was unruly and things always weren't evenly matched up. I really don't know about this idea. I wouldn't mind it. I just don't know if the devs did it intentionally or not. Just saying, instead of raising the limit you might as well put a cap on both sides. Raising the limit does not ensure one side does not have an unfair advantage. All it does is make sure one side can have a considerable more number or participants than the other. After all, you even said the attackers have the advantage of knowing the attack is going to take place and organinzing. I don't see how letting them have extra players ensures the defenders will be better protected.
     
  19. MoSa1

    MoSa1 Guest

    I think most seem to be agreed that both sides need to be cap rather than an overall total cap .

    On a side note how much are world 1 going to be paid for all this free beta testing they are doing with their premium accounts :laugh:
     
  20. Eclipse

    Eclipse Guest

    Omg. Do you actually read before you type?

    That's what I've been saying.

    I don't want fort battles, especially the really big ones that are sure to come in the future, to be like "oh, let's all get there first and take up all 128 spots before anyone from the other side get there."

    and what about the fort battle replay? anymore opinions on that? I'll be offline prob for many battles in the future and I want to watch what happened when I log on.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.