Kinda same for all but especially for Smalls, yes.For the smalls it should stay on 48 attackers vs. 40 defenders only because having fewer players than that isn't a fort fight anymore, it is an adventure
Occasional Large battles are fine but they take too long to finish as they have longer rounds.As for events Larges have more room
Yea I'm aware.but both sides have not been filling on Colorado for awhile
Yes we should try to adjust to the changes made by the cm to see if it fits these affected worlds.That being said we should convince people to that first, so maybe smaller numbers will be better for start
|2021-08-23 – 2021-08-30||125 attackers vs. 104 defenders||84 attackers vs. 70 defenders||24 attackers vs. 20 defenders|
|2021-08-30 – 2021-09-06||134 attackers vs. 112 defenders||90 attackers vs. 75 defenders||36 attackers vs. 30 defenders|
|2021-09-06 – 2021-09-13||144 attackers vs. 120 defenders||96 attackers vs. 80 defenders||48 attackers vs. 40 defenders|
Of course, the number are not set in stone. I really like the idea to adjust numbers based on server activity, we can also try that out and see how it performs.Thank you Syntex, for trying to try some changes to fort battles. I do hope to see if it is possible to have 2 sides having good chances of success instead of foregone conclusions.
Sorry but both sides have not been filling on Colorado for awhile, so decreasing the numbers, might indeed leave some out. Now it will be up to the leaders to rank how they see fit. (Are you really going to miss that adventurer who always sets to west building in defense?) Though I don't see leaving some out (hopefully offliners) in order to have a more competitive battle. As for events larges have more room. Also Syntex didn't say the new numbers were set in stone so maybe they could be increased for event times, but hopefully the testing will nail down a good ratio.
Maybe Syntex can answer if numbers could be changed once a month to account for activity levels. As typically the player base does ebb and flow.
Though I think this action is suppose to be a patch not a fix, so really why not let the testing go forward before already thinking of negatives. Is not having even a small change better than none?
No worries I look forward to being left out of many battles to come, means leaders have the option of barring me for battles, hehe.
I checked the last battles, and they were not full, so I think between events is fine to have a lower value. Also, as @JWillow said it can bring a new strategy for leaders and players to find the best balance in who they let to play.1st option is "okay" but 2nd and 3rd options will/might leave a lot of people out of the battles and it won't be pleasant to say the least.
Kinda same for all but especially for Smalls, yes.
Now imagine during the Event time.
Civil war to get in
Unfortunately we are unable to give rewards for those who haven't attended the battles. We see 2 solutions for this: increasing the limit, or organizing 2 separate battles based on some criteria, so one player may win once. If you have other ideas, please share with us.Thanks for that !
Just two things : I thought tests 2 and 3 were supposed to be more adapted for inactive worlds.
As Raider said, in event period we do fill Awesomia in Kansas; there aren't enough rooms for everyone. The previous previous CM (Kuro ?) solved this by giving the reward to every participant enrolled in the battle and at fort in time (if excluded at the last second because not enough rooms, we just needed to contact the support to have the reward); Nyborg didn't want to do that and that's part of why he thought about increasing rooms, so more people could participate. But if you end up lowering rooms for good, the problem may become worse ... in event period at least. Out of event period or in event where FF aren't needed, on the contrary we don't fill big forts.
And that's the second thing : we are right now in an event where we need to farm and/or duel, and so forts aren't full (still at least in Kansas, I don't know for Colorado). So by beginning with tests with the higher number of rooms, I'm worried they may become irrelevant if we still don't fill forts, especially knowing this test is only for one week. On the contrary if the rooms are decreased from the beginning, players may more easily noticed the change and may become more enclined to participate to other battles (especially if some forts are stolen : to get them back) ... That's just a supposition though, but I wonder if it couldn't have more impact if you started with the third test, then the second one, then the first one ? Or even if you just stay with the first test on a longer period, at least until we manage to fill forts with these numbers on several battles ...
Definitely a reasonable change, which I am happy to implement. So we will start this week with the smallest numbers.@Syntex The schedule should be flipped:
2021-08-23 – 2021-08-30 125 attackers vs. 104 defenders 84 attackers vs. 70 defenders 24 attackers vs. 20 defenders
2021-08-30 – 2021-09-06 134 attackers vs. 112 defenders 90 attackers vs. 75 defenders 36 attackers vs. 30 defenders
2021-09-06 – 2021-09-13 144 attackers vs. 120 defenders 96 attackers vs. 80 defenders 48 attackers vs. 40 defenders
This way you would avoid an issue of overfilled forts when the Octoberfest event starts.