New Awesomia battles

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
As always i will try to answer all question i have read.

Now starting with Awesomia. That is a big fort, and i do not think i can change it in any way. But i will ask about this.

Compared to numbers in the fights, they were raised, as the big fights where overfilled doing the events. But now for some reason they are not, so i am having a hard time figuring out what you all want !?


But compared to the general numbers, they are changed on world basis. And not just awesomia. BUT each world can have its own settings. So that will not be a problem, and they are easily changed. So i would be happy to change them up, for all worlds. Both the same on all, or different on each world. :)

And i do take suggestions for this, since i guess you players know better what could work for an equal and fun battle :)
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Compared to numbers in the fights, they were raised, as the big fights where overfilled doing the events. But now for some reason they are not, so i am having a hard time figuring out what you all want !?
I think I speak for the majority on Colorado when I say we want big full battles, but that's apparently only possible during tombolas, it seems.
So we asked for bigger Awesomia tombola battles.

We ended up getting weekly GM battles, which is cool, but it seems that they won't be as full as tombola battles, because gear is all-important in this version of the game.
Still, the last GM battle had 227 players vs <150 for our own battles. You are increasing attendance, even if we aren't filling battles completely - and it takes time to build up a stable attendance.
 
Last edited:

Goober Pyle

Well-Known Member
each world can have its own settings. So that will not be a problem, and they are easily changed. So i would be happy to change them up, for all worlds. Both the same on all, or different on each world. :)

And i do take suggestions for this, since i guess you players know better what could work for an equal and fun battle :)
Wonderful news!

In that case I would propose the following:
open up a forum poll for each world, advertise it with a login prompt, and ask if they want to adopt a different Attacker to Defender ratio (and/or ask about specific ratios; current is ~1.09:1, I can see trying any of a conservative 1.15:1 (an occasional attack should prevail), a neutral 1.2:1 (most well run attacks should have a chance), an aggro1.25:1 (attacks should prevail more often than not))

for colorado we'd probably be good keeping the same total capacities, for other worlds the might be best served with lower total capacities (and optimal ratios would become more sensitive and might have to differ between small medium and large)
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Well attendance, might also have dropped a little, since these past weeks have seen a lot of battles from me, and maybe people got tired of it.

But from no on, at least without events, i will "only" be doing 1 each week, as voted on one of the polls. So maybe people might be more willing to join these again :)


For you @Goober Pyle - Would you mind making me some more concrete numbers to go with ? Other than ratio that is ;-)
You seem to have a good idea of how to work with this, and i will rely on what you supply :p
 

Dr Roth

Well-Known Member
I agree with Goobers numbers as a start. You can use Colorado as a test server if you want for a specific time and we will do our best to try to fill the battles
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
It's just.. Colorado overfilling Medium defenses very often, Event or not.. So already a lot are left out..
Hence I don't like lowering max Defenders idea.
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
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)?
no, I am not opposed to that. the numbers you suggest make sense, and if they were applied on all .net I would support it.
 

Philopoimen

Member
@Hr. Nyborg: The reason for such volatile numbers on Awesomia battles is not a secret and many said it here. FFs are not ONLY about the fun, but also the gain. During event you get event currency, which is obviously enough motivation to fill Awesomia, because many non-fort-fighters attend. One or two buffs don't provide this motivation, not even for all regular fort fighters. You can't even win a fort. The only way I see to increase numbers on Awesomia battles (or more precise all fort battles) is to increase the quality of reward, if getting better attendance is what you want.

As for unbalanced battles that question is not so easy to answer, as sometimes suggested here. First of all, there is a general psychology of defense-always-wins, which leads to higher attendance in defense, which leads to defense mostly win etc.
Then there is a huge difference between old and new worlds. I have seen battles on Arizona and Colorado where a few advent tanks blocked towers for most of the battle, solider tanks defended other towers. Particularly in filled battles the attacker never had the fire power to overcome defense without ever getting on any tower and receiving tower bonus. On newer worlds I have seen attack win with equal numbers. It is different on every world.
There is a lot more, such as number of offies, skill of team and leader etc. My point is if you change fort fighting formular or tower bonus too drastically, it might work on one world, but all other worlds will suffer.

Changing max numbers of fort fighters, as suggested here, is a different matter. It certainly change things on worlds where fort fights fill, but don't effect the other worlds. I can agree on that.
 

Goober Pyle

Well-Known Member
Well attendance, might also have dropped a little, since these past weeks have seen a lot of battles from me, and maybe people got tired of it.

But from no on, at least without events, i will "only" be doing 1 each week, as voted on one of the polls. So maybe people might be more willing to join these again :)


For you @Goober Pyle - Would you mind making me some more concrete numbers to go with ? Other than ratio that is ;-)
You seem to have a good idea of how to work with this, and i will rely on what you supply :p
bottom line up front:
Please enact one of the following two plans:
1) alter Colorado's Medium fort caps to 96 attacking 80 effective ASAP and we will actively monitor the situation and request regular (roughly every 4 regular fights) tweaks to those numbers throughout the rest of august and then lock in new numbers for all forts in September once things settle in (with a recommendation other worlds be asked whether they want to adopt the new numbers we settle on)
2) Take a poll of Colorado (and perhaps other worlds) asking which of the following caps they want to adopt for the foreseeable future (with expectation of another poll in September and/or October)
What Fort Battle capacity limit would you like to have going forward?:
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) Large: 130 attackers 120 defenders; Medium: 92 attackers 84 defenders; Small: 46 attackers 42 defenders

=================================
Ok, I went back and looked in a little more detail

I looked at every battle on colorado since June 1st
There were 54 battles with at least 46 defenders (so Mediums and Larges with moderate or better turnout)
All defenders wiped out == 0
Win by flag == 2 (ratios of 1.31:1 and 1.18:1)
Lose by rounds ==18
Attack wiped out == 34

more or less when the ratio is <=1.1 odds strongly favor attack being wiped out; above that odds strongly favor the battle ending lose by rounds
(there was one miserable attack wiped out despite a decent ratio (1.136:1 [92:81]), but it was one with a doomed from the start battle plan)

There were 7 battles with relatively high ratios:
87:60 (1.45:1) flag defended
92:70 (1.31:1) flag captured
82:63 (1.30:1) flag defended
82:67 (1.22:1) flag defended
91:77 (1.18:1) flag captured
83:71 (1.17:1) flag defended
92:79 (1.16:1) flag defended

Based on this I believe the ratio at which well led attacks have a decent but not overwhelming chance of winning is roughly 1.2:1


When I look at battles with fewer than 46 defender, and exclude awesome and searchers one (a small that is outside of the major alliance battle agreement)
there are 6 battles with ratios higher than the current ratio (~1.09:1)
35:17 (2.05:1) defenders wiped out
46:29 (1.59:1) flag captured
32:24 (1.33:1) flag captured
28:23 (1.22:1) attack wiped out
38:32 (1.19:1) flag defended
32:28 (1.14:1) flag captured

While this might suggest that smalls may need a different ratio, at least preliminarily it suggests that using the same 1.2:1 ratio does not overly favor the attack even in small battles
 

Oddersfield

Active Member
I like
When I look at battles with fewer than 46 defender, and exclude awesome and searchers one (a small that is outside of the major alliance battle agreement)
there are 6 battles with ratios higher than the current ratio (~1.09:1)
35:17 (2.05:1) defenders wiped out
46:29 (1.59:1) flag captured
32:24 (1.33:1) flag captured
28:23 (1.22:1) attack wiped out
38:32 (1.19:1) flag defended
32:28 (1.14:1) flag captured

While this might suggest that smalls may need a different ratio, at least preliminarily it suggests that using the same 1.2:1 ratio does not overly favor the attack even in small battles
I like ideas presented with some sort of statistical analysis - although I would argue you need a basis of 30 fights at minimum to have much confidence in the conclusion. Thank you for making the effort though. I did it on one world (Galveston) some time ago for the last 50 ffs. at that time and in a somewhat different context to the discussion here. My argument gained no traction there and now look at the state that world is in.

Anyway, some non-statistically backed observations from somebody who digs and leads smalls on several worlds. I have won attacks with equal or less attackers than there were defenders - it is possible but it is very hard. With smalls, some of the other variables in fort fighting appear to play a more significant role than in fully filled :

1. Relative number of off-line players . More on-line for attack, you have a chance - high number of offies on attack and forget it.
2. Abilities and mix of players involved on either side.
3. Generalship or lack thereof.
4. Adjusting the attack ratio will make no difference in the short to medium term on worlds that are struggling. Most attacks don't fill anyway (and neither do defenses). In that situation, adjusting the ratio makes no difference. However, there are a couple of worlds where one alliance can fill defenses while the other cannot. The smaller alliance can presently put up credible defenses and hold forts, albeit it is difficult. Allowing the stronger side more attackers will simply allow them to gain forts more rapidly and speed-up player flight from ff'g plus the attendant knock-on consequences to the world.

On Colorado, from what I see, the smalls don't fill anyway for the most part - because of the time they are at I guess. (I attend neither prime or off-prime ffs there as under the terms of the agreement they are all at ridiculous times for me to be on-line. I certainly cannot dig one at a time that is convenient to me as all hell would break loose.) If that ratio adjustment is done, what practical impact will it actually have on Colorado unless you dig them in prime time? Are you suggesting that change will suddenly cause both sides to fill in off-prime smalls?

Frankly, the last nail in the coffin for many worlds was the last round of rule changes and the introduction of Cortina gear. It made it impossible for smaller alliances to be anything like competitive - starting a vicious downward cycle that caused may players to either quit or go into VM.

As far as I am concerned, we can all debate what colour the new paint should be on rotten wood. It really doesn't matter as it doesn't for one second alter the fact that the structure remains unrepaired.

It seems to me Inno is intent on closing worlds down but won't say so. Now they are wanting players to pay real money for gear on worlds that have a very uncertain future. However, there is no mechanism for you to transfer that gear to another toon elsewhere other than by migrating that toon in the event of world closure to a world where you either have no character or have to replace a pre-existing one (who may have purchased gear). I don't understand how you can buy items and then loose them at Inno's whim. It is unethical at best. Robbery is a word that springs to mind too.
 
Last edited:

mnnielsen

The West Team
Community Manager
so... are GM battle dead?
I would really like to set up some GM battles, we have that on the other servers where I am - the challenge here is just that you are SO many players, compared to where I come from ;-) My thought is that over one month that all the different classes meet each other both as defense and as attacker in awesomia fort, by the server has a diversity of players over several time zones there will be in each class 2 attack matches and 2 defense matches at least, so that everyone can have the opportunity to participate no matter where they come from - does it make sense?
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Are we talking of Character classes?
Well we tried that.. Didn't end well.

Same for "early" hours. Didn't end well.

Idk all the options on tools but;
You could, add craft requirements for both sides like Beta used to do. (i.e Saddlers & Cook vs Blacksmith & Tonic)

Better not overthink it though.
We just need more Attackers than Defenders somehow..
 
Last edited: