Fort limit changes on Colorado and Kansas - Feedback

Syntex

The West Team
Community Manager
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 defenders95 attackers vs. 80 defenders46 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
As requested, the numbers were changed to this one.

We will organize Awesomia battles, so we are hoping to see the forts full.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile.. Game says "Average population" for Colorado with 2k+ people, and some less ones say "High" :lol:
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
While Colorado has come close to finding balance, we are proving unable to fill medium Attacks consistently

unfortunately it seems winning strategies are pretty limited, but if employed a full attack has an expectation of winning. In fact, most attacks over 90 would expect to prevail with the crossover point being in the neighborhood of 92 or so.

therefor I propose a minor tweak to 92 attacking 79

I would await a like from raider and at least one other before acting on this, but I believe most would agree
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if it's the right topic for that but something I read in the chat in the last Kansas battle (it's about ffs setting changes) :
[22:50] corpsernDm: tbh, these big fights, should have more rounds.. like 60 or even 65... with these new sets, players have just too much hp, def and resistance, its almost impossible to clear the other team if we full the sides in 55 rounds... so if you wanna, some forum wannabee member, tell em about increasing rounds on big ffs, i am sure they can change that easily

[22:53] corpsernDm: or if not increasing a numbers on big fights, they should implement something like if attackers are holding flag in round 54, fight will continue either until def clear the flag and win cuz of time, or until attack just take the flag in 5 round no matter if it will be round 56 or 59...
I'm just transmitting if the ff experts want to give their opinion about it :p

Personally as a non-expert at all (xD), I doubt it's possible to change the number of rounds only for big forts : in the server info, it's only written "Maximum number of played rounds: 55", without any distinction between big, medium and small fort. I don't think the second idea is easy to implement too. But I may be wrong. And even if not doable for big forts only, the question may still matters for all forts.

In any case, I've seen several battles (not a lot) where attack failed only because of the lack of rounds; so it may have an impact in some particular situations. Here the player talks about increasing the max number of rounds, but we could think about decreasing the required number of rounds we have to take the flag too/instead, it could lead to new types of more daring strategies ... Not sure if all of this wouldn't be too much at attack advantage though.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
we are proving unable to fill medium Attacks consistently
Because even if filled, decent Defense lead has a bigger chance of winning when both sides are somewhat balanced.

So people don't wanna spend their whole day to conduct an extensive whispering..
And without that Attack numbers will be lacking and Attackers will lose horribly.

Therefore we keep going back to square one aka no diggers/Leaders.
unfortunately it seems winning strategies are pretty limited
Without slight changes to Class bonuses of Towers, I'm afraid it will stay so.


These being said I've no objection to further max number changes..
Won't make things worse than as is anyway.
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
i don't really see how players have too much hp and resistance as long as a f2p player can deal 1.6k dmg on a normal hit if the right conditions are met...and big 100vs100 fights sometimes get finished in 30 rounds...no need to boost number of rounds imo.

are defences op because of tower bonuses? yes
are ld players op because of current best sets? yes

the battles are pretty much relative and sometimes attack won't win due to lots of numbers of factors....it's part of the game.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
OK, so we are still in discussions about where a better cap level may be for Colorado.
I just want to lay the groundwork today for a request I expect to see made and seconded within the next few days for where Caps should be post-event.

1) is there an appetite (@RaiderTr)/willingness (@Syntex , @mnnielsen) to make weekly changes, or should we plan on a monthly, biweekly, or other schedule?
2) is there a willingness to experiment even more aggressively with large numbers at smalls?
 

Syntex

The West Team
Community Manager
We can try things, how you wish. Just please provide your ideas and suggestions and we will do our best to try to them out. We want to find the best and most balanced attacker:defender ratio for everyone.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
(@Syntex , @mnnielsen)

OK, we have a plan (watch for @RaiderTr's "like" to confirm):

Effective as soon as possible, medium caps should be adjusted to 92 attacking 76 defenders.
(This is specific to Colorado, though perhaps some kansans can chime in on whether they want to follow our lead)
We will let this settle in for a week or so.
Every Sunday night/Monday morning starting Oct. 24 we will request a new change. In most cases it should be according to this pattern:
If fortfights are by and large filling without a massive recruiting effort:
If Attack is winning more often than not: increase Defenders by 1
If Defense is winning more often than not: increase Attackers by 1
(optional) If results a pretty mixed: increase both Attackers and Defenders by 1
If fortfights are by and large NOT filling without a massive recruiting effort:
If Attack is winning more often than not: decrease Attackers by 1
If Defense is winning more often than not: decrease by Defenders 1
If results a pretty mixed: decrease both Attackers and Defenders by 1

If following this approach would reduce defenders below 70 or increase attackers above 100 we should switch to using larges or smalls.

This approach should help avoid the falloff in attendance we see whenever something causes FF's to decisively favor attacks or defenses, be it a new set coming out/becoming tradable, a large influx or outflux of players due to migration, retirement, or simply seasonal effects, or any changes to game mechanics (like debuffing the towers! (fingers crossed!))


Our primary focus is Medium forts. However, off prime fights in smalls are something we wold also like to improve through cap adjustments. We will leave things there alone for now, but if we get settled in with the mediums then we will start looking to play around there as well.
 

mnnielsen

The West Team
Community Manager
(@Syntex , @mnnielsen)

OK, we have a plan (watch for @RaiderTr's "like" to confirm):

Effective as soon as possible, medium caps should be adjusted to 92 attacking 76 defenders.
(This is specific to Colorado, though perhaps some kansans can chime in on whether they want to follow our lead)
We will let this settle in for a week or so.
Every Sunday night/Monday morning starting Oct. 24 we will request a new change. In most cases it should be according to this pattern:
If fortfights are by and large filling without a massive recruiting effort:
If Attack is winning more often than not: increase Defenders by 1
If Defense is winning more often than not: increase Attackers by 1
(optional) If results a pretty mixed: increase both Attackers and Defenders by 1
If fortfights are by and large NOT filling without a massive recruiting effort:
If Attack is winning more often than not: decrease Attackers by 1
If Defense is winning more often than not: decrease by Defenders 1
If results a pretty mixed: decrease both Attackers and Defenders by 1

If following this approach would reduce defenders below 70 or increase attackers above 100 we should switch to using larges or smalls.

This approach should help avoid the falloff in attendance we see whenever something causes FF's to decisively favor attacks or defenses, be it a new set coming out/becoming tradable, a large influx or outflux of players due to migration, retirement, or simply seasonal effects, or any changes to game mechanics (like debuffing the towers! (fingers crossed!))


Our primary focus is Medium forts. However, off prime fights in smalls are something we wold also like to improve through cap adjustments. We will leave things there alone for now, but if we get settled in with the mediums then we will start looking to play around there as well.

We will discuss between us, but It sound like an idea worth trying :-)) , we will update you when we have had a chance to look at it
 

roland jacobs

Well-Known Member
Instead of numbers of chars because most worlds aren't bringing those types of numbers - change the tower/wall bonus by just a slight %, not enough to make drastic changes, but enough to assess if the values are overpowered.
 

ImmortalMadGuys

Well-Known Member
Also you can sell Union Gear in Worlds that already sold
I mean Old Worlds Like colo ,some people joined and need it
I guess you can make polls about it
 
Top