• You don't like snow? Turn it off here:

New Awesomia battles

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
"New Awesomia battles" is the topic, isn't it? are you following? :D
you're talking about balancing the regular FFs by changing the numbers of defenders/attackers? ok, even then it doesn't work for most worlds because you can increase the number of allowed attackers to 1000 if you want when they can't even fill a defense. if you want to talk about what to do in CO only, I guess that belongs to a different topic.



and no, that's not what I suggested, not even remotely.

if I really have to spell everything, then I'll do it so we can start fresh ;)
for Awesomia battles, if we want to have some kind of balance and equal odds of winning for both sides, in most worlds that have a low number of FFers and struggle to fill the battle even during the events, I suggest to lower the number of defenders (before the battle, of course). it can be done by checking the history and seeing how many players even join these battles. for example, if in World XYZ we today have 60 def vs. 40 att on average, try limiting the number of defenders to 45, attackers to 65 and announce that. this way players could check if a side is already full (we've seen that already, players asking in Saloon chat which side to join) and go to the other side.
adjust the numbers if needed after a few battles.
different worlds with different level of activity will need different numbers.
I think it's less damage if a few people don't get in a couple of times, than the status quo where CM dug battles are just a slaughterhouse that is over in 10 rounds.
The only problem I have here, is fighting in a large fort with small or medium numbers is terrible.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Nyborg already said that it's too much work to check every server and their battles to see and adjust the numbers for them as numbers tend to change and finding optimal isn't easy.

He apparently don't wanna give extra stuff to Attackers either.
Or he "can't"

And idk what's problem with talking outside Awesomia battles here?
Not the first time and not my problem you aren't following/you don't care lol
 
Last edited:

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
Nyborg already answered that it's too much work to check every server and their battles to see and adjust the numbers for them as numbers tend to change and finding optimal isn't easy.
then it is settled. too much work, we continue as is - not enough attackers to make Awesomia battles interesting unless players decide on their own not to go to defense. yeah, that will happen soon.


And idk what's problem with talking outside Awesomia battles here?
Not the first time and not my problem you aren't following/you don't care lol
I don't have the problem talking about other battles outside of Awesomia. but, are you sure you're not the only one who's doing it? I did go through the few last pages, and I don't see that the conversation switched in that direction...?
but even so, I think the only solution with the current tools we have is limiting the number of defenders. in CO and other worlds, for Awesomia and other battles.
Maybe CO has more FFers than anyone else and that limit is higher than what the current numbers are (I don't know, maybe it should be 200vs300 for large forts in CO to make it possible to win an attack and let everyone in). but IMHO, for other worlds, without changing the formulas, bonuses and adding new or changing old sets, the only way to balance it is to give the chance to attackers by allowing a lower number of defenders to join than what is currently the case.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
ok, so, yesterday's small primetime FF in Colorado should serve as a useful data point and a jumping off point for experimentation

We had a well led full attack (46) against a full defense (42) -- a 1.095:1 attack:defense ratio. It was never even close, and the attack was wiped out by round 41.

Preliminary researching of the battles on colorado since cortina went auctionable it appears that the minimum ratio for any attack to succeed is 1.15:1, and the successes at that ratio appear limited to excellent attack plans/leads against disorganized defenses. Successful defenses can be found at ratios as high as 1.3:1 (though the ones at the highest ratios were clearly bad attack plans against organized defenses)

As such I would venture to guess that an Attack:Defense ratio can be found that ensures attacks have a decent chance of success without assured victory, and that ratio is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.2:1

Therefor I propose we put to a vote the following proposal:

For the period August 10 through August 31, Should Fort capacities be set as follows:
Large: 136 attackers 113 defenders
Medium: 96 attackers 80 defenders
Small: 48 attackers 40 defenders
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
sounds like a good starting point for CO, I hope you get a chance to try it out!
I see no reason why it wouldn't be good for other worlds as well -- if you guys aren't able to fill a small then setting numbers low enough that you CAN fill is unfair to other worlds that do fill.

That said, if someone on other worlds wants to propose world specific caps feel free to do the research to identify reasonable numbers and see if our CM is willing to do world-specific settings
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
That said, if someone on other worlds wants to propose world specific caps feel free to do the research to identify reasonable numbers and see if our CM is willing to do world-specific settings
Note: once a workable ATT/DEF ratio is establish it is reasonable to expect Colorado will go back to mostly doing Mediums and having smalls set to even lower levels to suit other worlds would likely be deemed an acceptable price to pay to get these tweaks to happen
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
I see no reason why it wouldn't be good for other worlds as well -- if you guys aren't able to fill a small then setting numbers low enough that you CAN fill is unfair to other worlds that do fill.
of course. I will repeat for the third time (or fourth? I lost count) - world specific numbers. what applies for CO does not work in AZ which does not work for Kansas, which does not work for Faribanks etc.
NO to migrations, NO to changing tower bonuses, NO to nerfing existing sets, NO to all other things that can improve FFs - so now that is the only other idea I can come up with - world specific def/att numbers that can give attackers a chance. if all (or any) of the other things that make more sense would be done, I would never propose this

That said, if someone on other worlds wants to propose world specific caps feel free to do the research to identify reasonable numbers and see if our CM is willing to do world-specific settings
looks like he isn't, as was said previously. :(
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
of course. I will repeat for the third time (or fourth? I lost count) - world specific numbers. what applies for CO does not work in AZ which does not work for Kansas, which does not work for Faribanks etc.
NO to migrations, NO to changing tower bonuses, NO to nerfing existing sets, NO to all other things that can improve FFs - so now that is the only other idea I can come up with - world specific def/att numbers that can give attackers a chance. if all (or any) of the other things that make more sense would be done, I would never propose this



looks like he isn't, as was said previously. :(
Which prompts the question:
Are you saying you are opposed to adjusting the currently universally unsuitable global caps to be suitable to the handful of worlds that have a large FF base unless they happen to make FFs viable on your world(s)?

I mean, while colorado does like to have small FFs in the off-prime hours I imagine we'd accept making them tiny if that's the price to get more buy in from other worlds....

Revised poll:
For the period August 10 through August 31, Should Fort capacities be set as follows:
A) Large: 144 attackers 120 defenders; Medium: 96 attackers 80 defenders; Small: 48 attackers 40 defenders
B) Large: 134 attackers 112 defenders; Medium: 90 attackers 75 defenders; Small: 36 attackers 30 defenders
C) Large: 125 attackers 104 defenders; Medium: 84 attackers 70 defenders; Small: 24 attackers 20 defenders
D) No change



{editing to add this point}
My proposal is intentionally time limited with the expectation that in September the caps would be revised again in consideration of the results seen from this "experiment". To that end I would personally vote for "C" so we can get a lot of full FFs in both smalls and mediums on multiple worlds and then go to something closer to A with a higher or lower ratio based on how many attacks prevailed
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
I'd prefer tower bonuses to be adjusted for balance, rather than numbers, but we can actually control numbers, so it could be a fine short-term solution. Might also just cause a lot of confusion.

Remember that the Awesomia numbers were changed because 2 of our worlds were over-filling tombola battles. It was never to do with attack vs defence balance.

As long as we don't end up turning players away that otherwise could have found a space.

Also I'm not sure if numbers can be individually adjusted per world, or it's it gets changed for the entire server...
 

Nisa

Well-Known Member
Also I'm not sure if numbers can be individually adjusted per world, or it's it gets changed for the entire server...
I am totally confused with this talk. Maybe things have changed dunno but yes fort numbers applied for the entire server and couldn't be changed as you
please. Awesomia is another story, it is event fort .
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Event or not Awesomia goes as Big fort (check settings)

And I believe u can change numbers per World.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
I am totally confused with this talk. Maybe things have changed dunno but yes fort numbers applied for the entire server and couldn't be changed as you
please. Awesomia is another story, it is event fort .
Well if you check the Server Info, it says Large forts: 150 / 120 (the standard is 130 / 120), so I was wondering if the entire fort numbers for the entire server has to be changed just to alter Awesomia numbers.
 

Oddersfield

Active Member
If Inno wants to apply Goober's proposal to Colorado and Colorado alone, I would support it. It would be good for the majority of the players there.

However, if the proposal is applied universally, it is at best irrelevant to virtually all of them and potentially damaging to those where ff'g is already on a knife-edge.
 

Nisa

Well-Known Member
Well if you check the Server Info, it says Large forts: 150 / 120 (the standard is 130 / 120), so I was wondering if the entire fort numbers for the entire server has to be changed just to alter Awesomia numbers.
Awesomia can be adjusted with admin tool but I understand Goober Pyle was suggesting change of numbers for small and medium forts on worlds and these numbers were server numbers.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
If Inno wants to apply Goober's proposal to Colorado and Colorado alone, I would support it. It would be good for the majority of the players there.

However, if the proposal is applied universally, it is at best irrelevant to virtually all of them and potentially damaging to those where ff'g is already on a knife-edge.
by no means do I want to risk FF's on any world.
I assume any world capable of filling mediums would love to see SOME effort to try and give attacks a better chance
If leaving smalls alone and only changing mediums would satisfy people I'm all for it (but I am hard pressed to see how limiting defenses to give attacks a chance wouldn't improve things everywhere)