Planned Fort Battle Replay/Fort Participant Limit

[DeletedUser]

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.

Omg, do you have to be insulting when your argument is flawed in the first place! That is really funny considering you were agreeing with exactly what I said and then you seemed to have a problem with.

You are asking for an increase in the number of participants. That does nothing to ensure neither side is outnumbered. It only raises how many each side can have. So make it 64v64. As it has been stated vigorously in this thread the attackers have the advantage so if they are well organized they have an advantage in getting people to fight on their side. Making the limit larger just gives the attacker a larger advantage. Your argument is flawed in that regards.

 

[Diggo11]

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??

No-one in the BETA managed to fill a battle, due to the small player limit.

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

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

As Dee said 64 is enough. Firstly if there are too many people you basically get gridlocked in to one position and secondly it slows the server (remember there may be multiple battles going on at once).

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.

They would presumably be forced to buy more server space, which would make this great idea unlikely to be implemented.

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

QFT.

 

[DeletedUser]

Omg, do you have to be insulting when your argument is flawed in the first place! That is really funny considering you were agreeing with exactly what I said and then you seemed to have a problem with.

You are asking for an increase in the number of participants. That does nothing to ensure neither side is outnumbered. It only raises how many each side can have. So make it 64v64. As it has been stated vigorously in this thread the attackers have the advantage so if they are well organized they have an advantage in getting people to fight on their side. Making the limit larger just gives the attacker a larger advantage. Your argument is flawed in that regards.

I agree with the cap, I have a problem with your increasing the cap for both sides argumen.

Defenders have just as big of a advantage as the attackers. How can you say attackers have the advatage if the limit is raised and there is a cap on both sides? In the 3 defensive battles i've been, defenders easily won.

64v64 is just too small. It doesn't give enough players the chance to participate. At this rate, fort battles are going to turn really old and really boring really quick.

Who came up 128 max players anyway? pretty random number.

 

[DeletedUser]

Originally the devs did want more participants to be able to take part in a battle, but they had to limit it because the load on the battle server would be too great. Btw 128 is definitely not a random number....

 

[DeletedUser]

I asked this question on beta I presume it's not a spoiler so I'll post it here.

128 per side. Core members of fort / attack have priority when joining, only people at fort are considered - so it's not possible to win a battle with bad play.

Just to clear things up a little.

 

[DeletedUser]

If it's 128 on each side, then there's no potential problem.

Denisero, I think you may have misunderstood the concern that was being expressed. Noone is concerned about 'Fair Fights' the cocern was that with a limited number of 'slots' in a battle, it was possible for one side to, potentially, cram the slots, preventing potential fighters from the other side from even signing up.

As an example, suppose a city bus has 24 seats. At the first stop there is a Work-Release program from the local prison, and 20 convicts get on the bus to go to work, leaving 4 seats for civillians.

At the second stop there are 20 cops, who are going to ride the bus with the convicts, as a safety precaution, but there's only room for 4.

If a fight breaks out, the 4 cops are going to REALLY wish there had been more seats on the bus.

 

[DeletedUser]

OMG given that zet is the main dev for the forts , I'm starting to wonder If anyone has a clue what is going on , because that last quote from him seems to be a contradiction of the info thats been released so far ........

Piss Up and Brewery comes to mind :sad:

 

[DeletedUser]

It has been stated that anyone that belongs to the fort and that is at the fort at the time of the battle is given priority. It has also been stated that the attackers have a slight advantage because they get to plan and organize well before the defenders get their 24 hour notice.

The way I see it, if the defenders get on overwhelming amount of players to help defend that is a benefit of owning the fort and building it up. If the attackers have an overwhelming amount of players to attack then good for them. The defenders deserve to lose the battle for not having enough support to keep it.

What I did say is that there should be a cap on both sides. So 64 max participants for both sides. It doesn't really matter if you raise it up to 100 or even 200 per side. If one side can't fill all their slots then so be it. They will be outnumbered. If both sides fill the cap then its an even fight. Raising the limit is sort of contradictory to the arguments stated in this thread. Here are the arguments so far:

Fort Participant Limit: So from what I have read and comments from various players, it appears 128 players is the max number of players that can join a fort battle. Therefore, it's possible for 128 defenders or attackers to take up all the spots before the other side has a chance to get to the fort. I am proposing there be a 200 player limit and each side can only have a maximum 100 players join. That would allow for a fair, more balanced battle, and give both sides an equal opportunity.

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

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

I agree with the cap, I have a problem with your increasing the cap for both sides argumen.

Defenders have just as big of a advantage as the attackers. How can you say attackers have the advatage if the limit is raised and there is a cap on both sides? In the 3 defensive battles i've been, defenders easily won.

64v64 is just too small. It doesn't give enough players the chance to participate. At this rate, fort battles are going to turn really old and really boring really quick.

Who came up 128 max players anyway? pretty random number.

First of all, I never said the attackers have an advantage, someone else posted that. That was said by Morph, not me.

So the argument is that 128 without a cap on each side is unfair because one side can overpower the other. That is true. Then there is an argument by the same person that a cap of 64 on each side is unfair because it doesn't allow enough players in. Well which one is it. Do you want a fair fight or the opportunity for one side to overpower the other? Then there is an argument that if a side doesn't muster up enough support they deserve to lose. That is also true.

So make up your minds. The only thing I said was that there should be a cap on each side. Increasing the number of players allowed by both sides does not ensure a fair fight nor does it get rid of the problem of one side being heavily outmanned by the other. 64x64 will most likely ensure a full roster for fort battles. If one side doesn't get enough people then they should lose. Raising the cap to 100 or even 200 for each side doesn't fix anything but allow more people to participate but still leaves the problem of one side having a huge number advantage, which by all accounts this entire thread was originally complaining about.

You all make up your minds what the problem truly is then maybe you will have an idea to implement. In the mean time, don't tell me that I don't understand the problem when there are conflicting arguments going on in this thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

Denisero, I don't think there is a problem as it appears the mechanic allows for 128 people per side, total 256.

If the 128 was a total pool allowed. One side could fill all the slots, preventing the other side from bringing people into the fight at all.


Neither side should be able to take up more than half the TOTAL PERMITTED participants.


Imagine a soccer match if, instead of 11 players from each team on the field, you had 22 players total, With each position available on a first come first served basis.

Whichever team bus got to the field first would enjoy a HUGE advantage, since they could potentially put 22 players on the field, eliminating the competition.

 

[DeletedUser]

I never campaigned for either side to be able to take up more than 50% of the slots. If you are saying there is already a cap of 128 per side then there is no point to this thread. The OP's wishes have been granted. They stated it was 128 total with no cap on each side and wanted that to change. You can certainly stop with the analogies because I get it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Great, now that we're all reading the same playbook.

And I concur, as long as it's 128 for each side, there's no problem, and this thread is done.

Sorry about the analogies, I was unsure if I was explaining the potential problem clearly.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is assuming the Zet's quote is still accurate and in context

We could use some official feedback on this

 

[DeletedUser]

No I knew what the problem was. The problem with this thread was the OP couldn't make up their mind if they wanted a fair fight or more people to be able to join. One doesn't guarantee the other but both were stated as the intent to raise the limit. That made no sense to me at all.

 

[DeletedUser]

I've given up on Fair Fights.. heck my main character is a worker, primarily builder.

Any mechanic that forces 'fair fights' reduces the game down to nothing more than a Random Number Generator.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok fine. If the limit/cap idea is gonna have problems, let's just scratch it for now.

The main idea/proposal is the Fort Battle Replay. I think that's certainly an idea that can be voted on.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why does it have to be 64/64. It seems that if one side can get more then they should have it. However, having a reasonable limit would still make sense so that it isn't completely overpowered.

I mean that there could be a limit of 80 for each side and keep the 128 TOTAL limit. Obviously, when the limit is reached then no more can join. But, one side could never have more then a 80 to 48 advantage (80 is just a random number it could be set at any value).

This way the west would stay "unruly" while not having battles be totally won before the fight starts.

 

[DeletedUser14006]

It is 128 per side, 256 total, just thought ya all should know.

 

[DeletedUser]

yea, it's 128 per side. i was wrong earlier.

stop talking about the cap thing, forget it.

The fort battle replay is the main idea being proposed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok lets simplify this. Giving each side a equal number of slots, gives each town Equal opportunity to attack or defend. At that point it is up to the towns to get there crap together to win that battle, which ever side of it they are on.

Which side gets the most slots filled at that point is irrelevant, to this principle. Everyone has the same chance if they care to take advantage of it.

As far as raising the number of slots. This should be done like the rest of stats in forts according to the size of a fort. The same numbers for a small fort and a large fort battle are ridiculous. A large fort has twice as many potential members as a small fort. And battle numbers should reflect that. Otherwise why have any difference in fort size at all.

And replay is an excellent idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

HotnSexy - edit your first post to take out the participation limit idea. That may stop further discussion of it.

The fort replay should be put up for a vote immediately so the devs can get it implemented with the next update.