Fort limit changes on Colorado and Kansas - Feedback

[Kidd Kalypso]

Yup, I know what happened to a few of them.....these new ones? I would guess gone in a month or two.

 

[RaiderTr]

Well Syntex supposed to be "temporary" and he is normally above CM level so he will be fine.

As for Nielsen, it is yet to be seen..

But either way they didn't do anything by themselves so they are safe


Migration routes however.. Yea that's tricky..

 

[mnnielsen]

Well Syntex supposed to be "temporary" and he is normally above CM level so he will be fine.

As for Nielsen, it is yet to be seen..

But either way they didn't do anything by themselves so they are safe


Migration routes however.. Yea that's tricky..

Im mostly quiet ;-) and wont promise anything I cant keep, but I send all the improvements you come with on to the top..... they cant do anything unless they know, and I make sure of that

 

[RaiderTr]

Since last week was a failure on our end (not Inno's) .. guess we don't have any changes to numbers this week?

 

[mnnielsen]

Since last week was a failure on our end (not Inno's) .. guess we don't have any changes to numbers this week?

I really hope Syntex are following the schedule he posted from us earlier, as far as I am informed every thing goes on as planned

 

[Clever Hans]

I really hope Syntex are following the schedule he posted from us earlier, as far as I am informed every thing goes on as planned

Numbers were not changed today as they were supposed to.

EDIT: Changed now!

 

[Clever Hans]

Feedback for the first week:

1) Small forts (24 vs 20): attack is too OP, not a single defense win, mostly coz at such small numbers you can´t afford to have even 3-4 guns afk and attack can rank 4-5 extra damagers

2) Medium forts (84 vs 70): more balanced than 92 vs 84 (longer fights), however, defense still has slight advantage when both sides are full

3) Large forts (125 vs 104): no full large fights on either world so hard to say

 

[mnnielsen]

Feedback for the first week:

1) Small forts (24 vs 20): attack is too OP, not a single defense win, mostly coz at such small numbers you can´t afford to have even 3-4 guns afk and attack can rank 4-5 extra damagers

2) Medium forts (84 vs 70): more balanced than 92 vs 84 (longer fights), however, defense still has slight advantage when both sides are full

3) Large forts (125 vs 104): no full large fights on either world so hard to say

thank you so much for your feedback, I put all your information in my fancy little folder and use it in the rapport

 

[Dr Roth]

The small battles I've been to have been played with same tactics as with earlier numbers. I think this has something to do with attack always winning. With less numbers the defence have to consider bailing in from start and pushing down the LOS the attackers get. And not rank AFKers/offliners of course. At least we are now in a situation where tactics/ranking/spamming has an impact so all in all it's an improvement to fort battles.

As some of you know on Colorado we have taken it further and set up an alliance that just supports attack no matter who is digging. We are still tuning it though.

 

[RaiderTr]

Small forts (24 vs 20): attack is too OP

With such small numbers Attackers usually get to mount much easier.

And that might be the reason since Tanks can't dodge nothing on ground and hit ratios from ground is "meh"

 

[Syntex]

Numbers were not changed today as they were supposed to.

EDIT: Changed now!

Yes, sorry, I was on vacation last week, and I had a lot of stuff to catch up on Monday, therefore I could change it only at the evening.

 

[fuertaventura]

As this change is made for the benefit of players interested in fort fights, there is a lot of work to be done. Following the dynamics of the players at the fort, it can be seen that the number of off players is between 30 and 50% of the players, plus about 10% those who are on only a few rounds. Anyway the fights are not full vs full. The number of players who are on at each fight shows that the lowest number of players would lead to full vs full fights.
An objective example is given by the Beta server, during the period when the number of players was minimal at the fort, implemented in 2017. Then they were the most beautiful fights.

 

[Syntex]

We have entered to the 3rd phase of our testing. Please do not forget to share the feedback for the last week's limits. After this week do you want to keep for more time this bigger limits, or to go back to the "basic" one, or try out something new?

 

[RaiderTr]

Hard to give feedback since we ain't filling any

So personally, I think "3rd phase" limits should stay in place until/during SeptemberFest.
Rather than returning to default values, which doesn't help at all.

 

[Beefmeister]

the attendance numbers change was a great idea...when people were actually showing up to forts
kansas dug only larges during this time (unfilled ones of course). the one medium they dug, defense won, as predicted
colorado is kind of in a grim place right now, since lots of people decided to not show up anymore due to different kinds of issues

i really don't know what could revitalize this game anymore...maybe shoulda kept around the people that actually cared about this game?
if a new world/a good oktoberfest doesn't bring any numbers to forts, well...i don't see good things going forward.

my out of the box idea would be to boost the moat values a bit [*or lower the defense ATTACK value(hit chance)], so attack starts hitting/dodging a bit more from outside the fort. it's either that or revert the tower bonuses back. there are ways to fix the game. they have to be done fast or could say goodbye sooner rather than later.

good luck

 

[Goober Pyle]

so, today we fought a small in prime time, and both sides filled

attack wiped out defense. alas, it was still not the best of data points as the attack side is stronger right now regardless.

nevertheless, I am tempted to conclude that the problem does in fact appears to be overpowered tower bonuses for cortina gear,

Given the bonus is smaller a small I think the ratio needs to be slightly smaller in smalls.

I hearby request that for the event we use these caps:

145 attackers vs. 120 defenders

95 attackers vs. 80 defenders

46 attackers vs. 40 defenders

with an alliance reshuffle we hope to have a number of filled medium fights during the even, provided attackers feel they have a chance. If numbers revert that will not be the case, while these numbers should provide for the goal of both attackers and defenders having a chance in a filled fight

 

[RaiderTr]

Given the bonus is smaller a small I think the ratio needs to be slightly smaller in smalls.

I was actually gonna ask if it's "possible" for Smalls to have a different ratio

As Online ratio still plays a big role for Smalls.

 

[Darkuletzz]

48 to 40 its the best way for small for Colorado, the other numbers are too low for small forts.
84 vs 70 or 90 vs 75 are both good, but when the even arrive we should increase the numbers for medium, and after that we can revert back to 84 vs 70.

 

[Darkuletzz]

Ok, what numbers we have now?

 

[Harriet Oleson]

You can check that in game, in the servor info (in the options menu where are the settings, forum link etc).
On Kansas it's still :

Small fort: 48 / 40
Medium-sized fort: 96 / 80
Big fort: 144 / 120

I suppose it's the same for Colorado.