Fort limit changes on Colorado and Kansas - Feedback

cmichd

New Member
It is good but hell we aren't even filling the Forts fights we have other than smalls and you are adding more players. That is not fixing the problem, but you did listen to the players.
 
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 :D
 

SB.access

Well-Known Member
I'm guessing people will like the 4th option where the ratio is at least (Attacker day 1) vs (Defender Day 3) regardless of the fort size :'P
I think the current imbalance situation between Attacker and Defender (what with the sets and tower bonus present) could only be covered by Attacking side outnumbers the Defender side greatly (both in numbers and HP difference).
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
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.

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 :D
Kinda same for all but especially for Smalls, yes.


Now imagine during the Event time.
Civil war to get in :roll:
 
Last edited:

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
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 ...
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
I didn't say "no need to change the numbers" though :-))

As for events Larges have more room
Occasional Large battles are fine but they take too long to finish as they have longer rounds.
but both sides have not been filling on Colorado for awhile
Yea I'm aware.
But I expect a significant increase on attendance for both sides of Battles, when/if these test numbers will help.

That being said we should convince people to that first, so maybe smaller numbers will be better for start :-))
 
Last edited:

TonyMelony

Member
The fortfights taking place cannot be used as a basic source for advice, more tests would have to be made for this, but the smallest level, for example, would be interesting for very sparsely populated worlds.

You could then adapt the different levels to the respective worlds.
 

SB.access

Well-Known Member
That being said we should convince people to that first, so maybe smaller numbers will be better for start :-))
Yes we should try to adjust to the changes made by the cm to see if it fits these affected worlds.

[The state of the world need some attention by the players. Some alliances are bigger than the others in terms of the players, more HP or more damagers. And these limits might have different result when the sides are reversed.] of course, this worries only appear when 2 sides are player alliances.

I'm curious how these medium and small battle will be commenced. since the forts are that of the players, unlike awesomia which is neutral.

Edit: I see, for now the priority result of the change is to get as much players as possible to get into the battles? and not yet about balance. ok, I shouldn't be greedy. step by step change like this is good.
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
@Syntex The schedule should be flipped:

2021-08-23 – 2021-08-30125 attackers vs. 104 defenders84 attackers vs. 70 defenders24 attackers vs. 20 defenders
2021-08-30 – 2021-09-06134 attackers vs. 112 defenders90 attackers vs. 75 defenders36 attackers vs. 30 defenders
2021-09-06 – 2021-09-13144 attackers vs. 120 defenders96 attackers vs. 80 defenders48 attackers vs. 40 defenders

This way you would avoid an issue of overfilled forts when the Octoberfest event starts.
 
Last edited:

Syntex

The West Team
Community Manager
Thank you everyone for sharing your feedback!
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.
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.

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 :roll:
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.

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 ...
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.

Currently we do not intended to lower the limits, especially on the most populated servers. This testing is just to see how these limits work, may be worth considering for less populated servers.
@Syntex The schedule should be flipped:

2021-08-23 – 2021-08-30125 attackers vs. 104 defenders84 attackers vs. 70 defenders24 attackers vs. 20 defenders
2021-08-30 – 2021-09-06134 attackers vs. 112 defenders90 attackers vs. 75 defenders36 attackers vs. 30 defenders
2021-09-06 – 2021-09-13144 attackers vs. 120 defenders96 attackers vs. 80 defenders48 attackers vs. 40 defenders

This way you would avoid an issue of overfilled forts when the Octoberfest event starts.
Definitely a reasonable change, which I am happy to implement. So we will start this week with the smallest numbers.

For those who are looking forward to increase the limits, please send in suggestions for that in this thread, so we can continue after 13th September.
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the testing....now, let me know on open migration routes to make a few of the world's in this server to be able to actually fill a large battle. Make it nugget dependent to pass the smell test to the stock holders. And for the love of God, shut down the dead ones.
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
Indeed....Briscoe is a ghost world.
But, I doubt anything will happen. I just like to post a few things here once in awhile.
I keep waiting for a real LCM to make things happen......give me the days of Hellstrom, he at least had the balls to run these world's.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Well u know what happened with the previous CM that tried.
As for LCM, I think the new one still didn't take over.