Get People back to Fort Fighting

DeletedUser25173

Proposal
The idea is to make people come to fort battles, even if they risk to get KO, by changing the FF dynamics and augmenting to the current bonus bonds given.

Current Workaround
Whispering to 100 players and none of them giving a damn about fort fighting.

Details
(got some great ideas fromthis thread, so this is no more my idea :-D )
There may be a need or not to touch the current skill system.
Difference:
1. make the FF screening like the adventures maybe a little bit smaller but 3D.
2. allow builders of the attacking side to build barricades/cannons/etc, in the 24 hours of the timer.
3. allow builders of the defensive side to build barricades/cannons/etc, in the 24 hours of the timer.
4. Cannons to be aimed before battle start and towers/walls/buildings to be even destroyed/damaged by the battle (in fact you win a Fort and it is immaculate like nothing happened).
5. Cannons can be re-aimed but require 4 players to be in the sector and the highest ranked can re-aim it (those players/or the aimer may not be allowed to move that round).
6. Allow moving barricades that require 6 people to move them and can be moved from the highest ranking player. People on the sector have 2X dodging possibility, adventurers 50% more (premium 100%).
6. Require mostly crafted materials for the building.
7. Allow two shots from near sector players (1 rifle and 1 pistol/dagger).
8. waiting for more great ideas to include.

9. Since the removal of the chests from fort battles the battles are going every day worse and with the addition of Avventures they'l get even worse.
The idea is at least to match the old system where chests were given to players after the battle.
My idea is in every battle to be given among few random players (discussable: random on players, random over 3000 XP players, 4500 xp players etc.) as a bonus 1000 bonds per small, 2000 medium and 3000 big. These amounts should be deducted in percentage to the max number of players playing. So if the fort is full both sides the amount would be as above if the fort is 80% the amount to be spread over few selected players would be 80% of that.

Abuse Prevention
Actually there would be more bonds in the game but the idea is exactly that to add people to the battles and something should be given for that.

Visual Aids
Actually the FF screening would be like Adventures.
The actual battle report has a bonus bonds value which in this case can be increased to 100-200 bonds for the few random players.

Summary
The benefit of the idea is to virtually increase activity in many servers where life seems extinct or in servers that fort battles are dying. If a server gets back vital that's a gain for Inno as well. If the selection would be for those who are online and get more than 3000XP than people would invest more time and mony in their characters to get them more gear and level.

Administration
Does this idea meet the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria? Yes/No
Does this idea appear on any of the Previously Suggested Ideas List? Yes/No
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ripwise

Ripwise

Well-Known Member
Maybe not exact figures you mentioned but im sure such incentive would lively up FFing in the worlds.
 

DeletedUser25173

Ripwise said:
Maybe not exact figures you mentioned but im sure such incentive would lively up FFing in the worlds.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes my thoughts exactly the figures are just an example.
They would have to depend on the number of the players that will get selected and are total per battle. As I explained my idea is not to pass more or less than 100-200 for randomly selected player (when the battle is full, if not limits get lowered as well).
 

DeletedUser22685

I'm all for an added incentive to attend fort battles. Like you say, the numbers have been diminishing at a steady rate for years now. Whether that can be blamed on the removal of chest rewards or simply a lack of active players is debatable, but the fact remains that lower numbers make battles less enjoyable for those who do continue to attend.

I doubt the devs would use any exact rewards that we propose, but I think it's worth sending away an idea of this kind just to let them think about potential ways of their own to go about it.
 
Ripwise

Ripwise

Well-Known Member
asdf124 said:
How about a potion of minor experience for each ff you attend?
Click to expand...

You already get xp in FF, getting another xp potion doesnt really seem balanced to me, expecially because 1% potion gives more xp than FF anyway.

EDIT: Actually, xp potion might be good incentive but 1% potion might be to much.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser35533

too many bonds. also sometimes the exp is not indicative of the players contribution to victory.
 

DeletedUser36559

It might be due to the same old strategy, plans, players, every single battle. There's nothing new in fort battles it's always the same thing hence people get bored and do other things in the game but yes better rewards may bring up more numbers in battles.
 

DeletedUser

The things that sent people out of fort battles:
Health, health, healt, damage and luck.
(deleted)

Normal players just don´t want to lose 1 hour fighting and knowing that the same will get the things.
Getting chests back? Only if they cannot be sold on the market. We already see, on the adventures, too many people giving there chests to the same players so they get 300 chests just playing on 10 adventures.

That was the reason because most of the normal players just skip any fort battle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I think part of the problem with the forts is that they have not been developed - with the exception of adding a few buffs - since the start of fort battles. New features or craft-able items like defensive canons could spice it up, or the map could generate a random physical feature that changes the map every fort fight like water logged areas or hills for differing LOS. Something needs to be changed to make them more interesting.

I like the idea of incentives for random people, but if it is as random as the items in the loot boxes, I wouldn't bother!

The other area that should be developed could be speed battles to reduce the online time to around 30 minutes for a FF instead of over an hour.
 

DeletedUser22685

Cameahwait said:
I think part of the problem with the forts is that they have not been developed - with the exception of adding a few buffs - since the start of fort battles. New features or craft-able items like defensive canons could spice it up, or the map could generate a random physical feature that changes the map every fort fight like water logged areas or hills for differing LOS. Something needs to be changed to make them more interesting.
Click to expand...

This. I've seen dozens of viable suggestions tossed around, and yet nothing to do with fort battles has even been on a roadmap, let alone close to development. Instead of getting updates to a feature that has already been proven successful, we get an imitation that really brings nothing new other than a lack of waiting time and far more potential for grinding. And not only did that feature have a negative impact on fort battles, but it's already started to die as well.
 
delldell56

delldell56

Well-Known Member
to me, the problem with fort battles is the huge unbalance with other aspects of the game, and "social" issues with players. in the past, you needed to use strategies and some thinking, leadership, plus lots of teamwork to enjoy them, let alone to win. these days, there's an enormous lack of intelligence and teamwork, people play more for themselves than to get victorious, so it badly affects comradery, and it's become plain boring to be doing the same old things over and over. battles happen at really bad times for some (and will always happen, given the geographical disadvantage for at least half the player, no matter the time). but what really kills this for players who aren't fully dedicated to fort fighting is the rewards. if you are really lucky (or play hiding & hitting really well), most you can get from a battle is 4500xp, 26 bonds and some cash. if the battle sucked for you, even if you are good at it, you may die in the first round and get nothing but 2 bonds, maybe 3 if your team wins.

if you are a non dedicated fort fighter, most of your hp comes from gear (unless you wear full black bart's and are one of the skinny hiders, we know how they are), so you gotta put yourself to sleep 6-8 hours before the battle (or pay 75 bonds for a hp potion), then about an hour fighting and another 6-8 hours of sleep if you die in the battle. that's 13 hours for 4500xp, 26 bonds and some cash if you had a good battle, less if you didn't.

in the same time, you could've queued 4 hours of work for crafting products, quest products or profitable jobs that would give you 3-5k in cash, 1.5k in xp and probably some bonds; used 48 bonds for mate tea to refill energy instead of 75 bonds to refill hp, queue another 4 hours to work on dailies and etcetera; in the end, you might have used the same 13 hours to get 6-12k in cash, 3-8k in xp, done your 8 dailies that guarantees you at least 11 bonds a day. make it 20k of cash, maybe 10k of xp and 20 bonds a day if you are premium. it can be a lot worse for players that cannot be online for the battles.

in a nutshell, if you are not playing this game exclusively for battles, there's little incentive for you to play them. that's what needs to be addressed the most. even if it stays boring, with bad leaders, with selfish hiders, with bickering and stuff, you can be interested in fort fighting if the rewards are close to matching what you get as a jobber or a quester.
 

DeletedUser30224

The fort fighting model has not been changed for a long time. I wasn't around when they first introduced fort fights, but I think as a layout, nothing has changed from the very beginning. I remember they fixed the golden gun stacking bonus (they sure left it abuse-able for quite a while though), then removal of boxes as rewards, then with 2.0 we had bonds introduced and shortly after a changed formula that allowed another lengthy abuse-able period when leadership was a new critical-hit skill. They fixed that since but allowed stamina-skilled-team to make attacking like a breeze.

I'm sure I've left out a few tweaks, but there were no real changes in how a battle is played. We gave them quite a few proposals already, some of them really good stuff as well. Rest assured, if fort fighting is becoming boring, there's nothing wrong with the player-base (well, there's something always wrong with some of us, but that's just how it is) but rather with the static nature of the fort battles.

And it is boring for me, I used to love them but now I would hate to force myself to join one. It's like one of those things you do so many times that just thinking about it makes your stomach ill. That's an obvious exaggeration, but should be a potent enough image on how some of us are "indifferent" to fort battles. A large fort gives you a place to sleep, but with the money you earn in any job, 250$ is nothing to pay for a foreign hotel. A large fort also let's you name the county...I use the mini map daily, I never notice a county name anymore, in fact they could have taken that feature out, I would not notice it being gone.

A fort changes hands quite often, some of them do anyhow. For some reason, it means nothing to me anymore if a town has 10 forts under their care or 0. I simply do not notice the forts being on the map anymore, except for the annoying message I get when I try to duel a player from the duel finder and the player is in a fort battle.

There were plans on putting some more buildings in forts, shops of some kind, I wonder where that idea has wandered off. Furthermore, I believe that forts should be made custom, to force different strategies in a fort battle. Fort battle itself can be changed to give players new roles, new abilities, action moves, fort damage, different winning scenarios, powerups, ground layout with obstacles, medics, fast moving cavalry, slow moving experienced melee fighters, a general on the attacking side (killing her/him has an impact on the effectiveness of the attack) and so on. Fort battles do not have to be boring.

I also think we do not need stunning visuals to make it attractive again, as we've learned with the adventures, adding graphics to (be it flash or html) has a negative impact on performance, so negative in fact that many players are unable to even play it.

If a fort battle would be resolved to something more than the amount of health you have and the collection of gear you bring to a fort battle, I sure would be interested to dive in again, but as it stands, it is just boring.

Thank you for reading my long post.
 

DeletedUser36559

Fort battles have always been the same for a long time, if anyone suggests a new idea people will vote no against it and even if it passes the votes the devs will almost never implement it.

Xp from fort battles- Always the same
Builds/skills required?- Only 1 required for duelers and 1 for the rest.
Gear?- Everyone has the same thing
Strategy/teamwork?- The same as usual
People listening to orders?- Most play for themselves, only few dedicated ones listen.
Timings?- Some people will always be at work or sleep during a battle.
Win or lose?- Have one quick look at recent battles and you can tell if you will lose or not so you can choose to save energy.
Luck?- Usually
Anything new in the fort scene?- Nope
 

DeletedUser34338

I think they need to help the defence side to make battles more fun the swapping in towers is lost and the die hard fighters miss that. You could make towers bigger or more bonus or get rid of gates los (or defence only).

Few ideas i have is if defence wins and keeps hold of the fort they have the option to swap towers for example swap ST with WT would add spice to layouts. Think of ST and DT up top and WT and AT bottom.

The boxes idea is a good one but that should be if you have won 5-10 battles something that makes you turn up to a decent number. Your level decide what type of box you get like iron clad or steel box.

I don't think big changes are needed just solid improvements which are easy to do. That is just my view after all my leading i have done in the past 5 years.

Ok another idea about Gates Los it can only be activated if you get one player from the attacking side on a tower or wall to release the gate los. So the gate los is shut until the attackers unlock it would give the power back to defence a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser35712

I'll leave any ideas to those with more imagination.

However it is criminal that FF has been neglected for so long. We need new incentives to both maintain the interest of veteran FFers and to attract and keep new fighters. It used to be an exciting element - a proper communal event which people found time to attend. But back then the map was static, with poor gifs, few special events and the GG was the thing to aim for.

Please do all you can to impress on the Devs that many feel the same as I do - the game is almost worthless without competitive FF.

PS - Perhaps we could have 'acts of god' to temper alliance dominance or/and need for on going fort maintenance.
 

DeletedUser

To balance out the attack vs defence mismatch of skills, I would love to see a stronger fort with more bonuses, or features that could be built on; and as previously suggested, maintained.

Imagine if the gates were actually closed and the attackers had to open them, or perhaps destroy a section of the wall so they could breach the gap and storm through a different side of the fort. This would clearly mean the forts would need an upgrade.

You could take this a step further and have a different defensive option per battle that could be built and only known about by the fort owner's generals. For example, you could upgrade the fort for one battle to have one of the following (or other suggestions):

Barbed wire fencing around the walls/towers
Crenellations to protect defenders on the wall
Tower canons
Flood a sector
Holes in the walls to shoot out of from the inside.

Any of these could just make a difference and actually make the fort fights a little more challenging and interesting.
 

DeletedUser33342

What I found to be a problem in the alliance I was in, was that the same leaders always wanted to lead and often didn't give people the chance to learn in leading because they were freightened to lose forts.. now these guys get bored and there's no-one to follow..

but btw, I like this thread. Shame devs mostly think of their "nugget price changes" and profits. How many updates of these have we had the past year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top