New Awesomia battles

C0OPeR

Well-Known Member
awesomia battles need to have some ranks ! in defence and in attack side
without rank , offliners go onliners nerve :/
 

Abydos1

Well-Known Member
These battles are not really helping attendance since it is hard to fill a large especially when not in an event with it raised to 150 vs 120 but increasing the max number for mediums back up to 100 vs 84 might make things a bit more interesting for the prime battles...
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Well i asked in the forum earlier if people wanted weekly battles, or just when we had events running. People voted for weekly battles.
At the moment i know we have had a lot of battles in a "testing kind of way"
But todays battle will be the last. Then it will "only" for Awesomia battles be a weekly one.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Hi,

Personally I couldn't vote for the first two polls, even though each time I tried not long after it has opened (like the next day or something like that) : it was already closed.
I'm not sure the amount of voters is really relevant of what the majority thinks about all of this : I think the polls were opened on a too short time and there should have been choices like "more battles in inactive worlds only"; or even for the first poll : "none of these possibilities". Because without this option, one of these ideas would necessarly been imposed to us whatever we think about it.

If I could have voted and with this kind of choices, I would have voted : "more battles in inactive worlds only" and "even out of event period" (but still for inactive worlds).
I think what made Awesomia Fort Battles special and enjoyable is the fact it was an event thing : rather rare with an attractive reward (in event currency), and reward given to every participants even to those who's been unfairly excluded. It allowed to enjoy even more an event without unfairness/frustration feeling (and even sometimes was necessary to play an event -cf. the last St Patrick Event which was undoable without these battles). Even the death is compensated by the double reward.
These battles in event should be more or less frequent regarding the difficulty of the event and the activity of a world so the option "more battles" in the first poll was a bit confusing. Out of an event period, I don't think they are needed in active worlds : it can on the contrary make them less "special" (cause more frequent and with more banal reward), unfair if the death isn't compensated anymore by an added reward and if they are always scheduled the same day or hour (potentially always the same who are at advantage), and it can interfere with real battles planification too ... On inactive worlds, they might be a lot more needed and enjoyable : to train, for quests or just to have fun, it can be a very good thing if there really isn't a lot of regular fort fight activity beside that. And that, even if the reward isn't a super big one of the death.

But that's just my point of view, I don't know if it's shared by a lot. Seems like I'm saying that a bit late but as said above, every time, when I wanted to share my opinion the polls were already closed with another one created, so it seemed a bit useless to post. I still post here because I've read several messages going against the results from people who seem to not have voted too. So just in case it's not so much useless than what I thought ...

Still thanks for all of this and to be opened to dialogue.
 

Oddersfield

Active Member
Started my first 3 ffs ... 2 attacks and 1 defense. All are farces ... no chance the attacks can win.

So come on Inno., increase numbers so everybody can join defense. That way we can get the ff over with in 1 round and nobody dies. No sane person is going to attack when the easy win lies in defense. I have no clue how to change player's mind-set when the bonuses etc. are so inequitable between the two sides.

Of course, Colorado should exclude themselves from this approach as they have so many players. I would rather have a 'proper' ff on most worlds than what these are.

Or perhaps you get 2+ x what they get for defending? Now the risk v reward equation changes somewhat. At the moment, there is absolutely no incentive to attack.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
@Oddersfield there's a certain type of player that always signs up for the underdogs, and there's the type of player that always plays for themselves.

Of course there's no chance for attack to win, that is a feature of the game at the moment, but also why basically everyone voted for equal rewards for both sides and why ~120 have signed into an Awesomia attack on Colorado.

The love for this game and the PvP, and actually providing an opposition is worth more to some than another can of spinach. for 40 minutes we can feel like the game isn't a flaming, broken, mess of a casino simulator and have a big fort fight. :dastardly:
 

Oddersfield

Active Member
Coolrado doesn't have the same problems as virtually all the others. Forcing a Colorado solution down everybody else's throats is plain ridiculous.

After 2 ffs on these tawdry, non-gold standard worlds, people are already fed up with them. There is only one outcome and it is obvious.
 

magwai the akeoj

Active Member
Well i asked in the forum earlier if people wanted weekly battles, or just when we had events running. People voted for weekly battles.
At the moment i know we have had a lot of battles in a "testing kind of way"
But todays battle will be the last. Then it will "only" for Awesomia battles be a weekly one.
This is good and I really enjoy that you are trying to find ways to get battles filled. The problem is that they still aren't filled, or balanced. Because there is no stake in Awesomia, no one cares whether the attackers win or not. Most players choose defense because they know it will be easy. On Kansas it was 2 to 1 Defense to Attackers. Something else needs to be done so that it can be more even.
 

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
Sunday's Awesomia tale of the tape. All battles were excellent, considering they were awesomia. The staggered times were perfect! Once again defenders outnumbered attackers but there were more attackers this time. As with last week, I attacked in all my 5 worlds. We won 1/5, same as last week. The goodies were outstanding! Weekly battles are great they really helped my dead worlds! Well done Nyborg!
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
However, in Idaho...there was only 1 more attacker than defender and yet attack side won. In fact, attack only lost 10 players, while defense was a full kill. I suggest that while defense might be easier, attack CAN win if numbers are at least somewhat balanced (and balance also makes for a more enjoyable battle - win or lose).
 

Artem124

Well-Known Member
http://i.prntscr.com/XDCrBfeTQISiTRf5o8s__Q.png
these were the numbers for Arizona battle!

i have a proposition to making filling battles more fair square!

example: small battles hold A48/D42 - medium battles hold A96/D82 - large i forget

so whenever a awesomia gets dug the battle needs to get filled up like a small battle first!
people can join whatever side at the start but if the defense side fills up to 42 spots first then defense gets a stop until attack gets filled to 46 spots
once the awesomia battle fills up stage one small battle - then it moves to stage 2 medium battle - people can join again whatever side and if one side fills up then the other side will be open only.. so no side gets a overkill instantly!!

like my screenshot i showed you.. there was 60+ on defense before there was 40+ on attack..

i hope if any of this makes sense - CM please reply to this message and give me your thoughts on this idea! thanks

i see everyone talking about awesomia isnt balanced - defense is 2-1 on attack.. CM if you can make this happen of a way of filling all awesomia battles then this could be the solution


reposted here since it was ignored in another forum!!
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
I understand what you write, but sadly it will not work.

First of, we in the team would have to look at all the battles constantly since there is no auto function for what you describe.
And the fort in it self can not be changed to any other size. I can limit the total amount of players attending to smaller amount. But then again, i would have to look at all the forts, to see if they are filled up, and so and so.

So my best suggestion would be to ask players ingame to chose the attacking side, or let them know that there can be more people on the attacker side to start with.

Another thing might be that with all the battles in the last days, maybe people have gotten a little tired of them. So maybe with next fight on Saturday more people will join again.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Too many servers means too much effort sadly.

Best chance is to give something extra to Attackers somehow.

Otherwise you can't convince them.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
You mean just for one time to let people know they can win in attack thanks to the increased rooms ? or every time ? I'm asking because if every time, it may lead to the opposite problem : too much people willing to participate in attack instead of defense. And if rooms are increased in attack in the mean time, that would become doubly unfair for defensers : big chances to lose if not enough numerous, and with a lowest reward if they win ...
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Attack loses all battles with "optimal conditions" of both sites, not just Awesomia ones.

There is no scenario where Attack easily wins anymore.

But now let's say..
We somehow filled 150v120 and Attack won, which is Good.

Then see if it wins more than %50.
If it does, 150 can be made 145 (or something) via tools in a matter of minutes.

And if Defense still doesn't fill (somehow) then you remove extra Attacker rewards.

Simple as that.
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Exactly, it is all a test. So until we get a full blown filled fort battle, it is hard to know if the current setup is good.

So if you want a fun long fight, maybe ask how the statistic is in the saloon chat, then one from defense can answer and one from attack can answer.
And that could give the players an idea of where to place yourself to get a fun equal fight.