New Awesomia battles

roland jacobs

Well-Known Member
They are made to have a fresh reference point to be able to go back to :) and so that it could be fun for those who want to participate - in the coming weeks we intend to adjust the numbers in attack / defense ratio, based on your suggestions here in the thread :)

If this is just a "test" Awesomia battle that isn't linked to event rewards, most chars won't participate and your reference point is moot. 10 chars attacking against 50+ defenders is useless.

On worlds that bring less than 70 chars total (attack+defense) the max limit doesn't really matter. Colorado(?) and Kansas(?) issues don't apply to Arizona, Briscoe, Dakota, El Dorado, Fairbank, Galveston, Houston, Idaho, Juarez. 9 servers of 11 can't even fill both sides of a large battle, probably not a medium, and maybe if stars align and miracles happen, a small is filled. We don't know if having 50 chars on attack will help because there aren't 50 chars available to be online, skilled for battles, and ready to go. Having a test in a large on 9 worlds is just laughable.

Address the spread of characters across too many worlds, and then expanding the limit of attackers/defenders the might be a real problem. (or open a new one and spread the issue even further)
 

mnnielsen

The West Team
Community Manager
If this is just a "test" Awesomia battle that isn't linked to event rewards, most chars won't participate and your reference point is moot. 10 chars attacking against 50+ defenders is useless.

On worlds that bring less than 70 chars total (attack+defense) the max limit doesn't really matter. Colorado(?) and Kansas(?) issues don't apply to Arizona, Briscoe, Dakota, El Dorado, Fairbank, Galveston, Houston, Idaho, Juarez. 9 servers of 11 can't even fill both sides of a large battle, probably not a medium, and maybe if stars align and miracles happen, a small is filled. We don't know if having 50 chars on attack will help because there aren't 50 chars available to be online, skilled for battles, and ready to go. Having a test in a large on 9 worlds is just laughable.

Address the spread of characters across too many worlds, and then expanding the limit of attackers/defenders the might be a real problem. (or open a new one and spread the issue even further)

I have a hope and confidence that there are still players who might be able to see the fun in an Awesomia battle without it necessarily being related to an event ..... In my view, a pre-match does not necessarily have to be conditional on a task that says that you have to complete a battle, or survive a battle ...... Depending on what the future says, I would really like to introduce a regular weekly Awesomia battle, here on .net ..... but I can hear from you that if there is not an event that supports this I can well remove this thought .... or am I completely wrong here?
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Players wanted a weekly Awesomeme.
Poll still there on Announcements sub-forum.

Also Nyborg's 2 tests outside Events were decent because there were some extra rewards.

The issue was Attacker v Defender numbers.
Since Defense offers a decent advantage over Attack.
 

roland jacobs

Well-Known Member
They are made to have a fresh reference point to be able to go back to :) and so that it could be fun for those who want to participate - in the coming weeks we intend to adjust the numbers in attack / defense ratio, based on your suggestions here in the thread :)

I have a hope and confidence that there are still players who might be able to see the fun in an Awesomia battle

Sorry, what I read was "a reference for numbers change" not a "fun awesomia battle". Has the objective changed from baseline to fun?

To test a theory (which is what I believe the objective was): if numbers are changed back to original numbers, will this improve the fort battles?

In order for this to work:
1. test all fort sizes with original numbers
2. a good number of online and active participants
3. up-to-date gear (nobody in pat garret gear for example)
4. topics set on attack and defense
5. battle leaders on attack and defense
6. everyone optimally skilled for battles.
7. <i'm certain other forum participants can add suggestions>

What is not going to be a good reference is a large battle with no leaders, no topics, not filling, numbers skewed to defense, nobody wearing optimal gear.

Does inno not have a test server where they can run 10000 simulations with random chars, all optimal build for char selection, optimal gear, and then that can determine that if the above 6+ topics are followed, there is a 50/50 chance of winning an attack based on <player choices>? Hell, maybe they've already done this with the current gear, but just haven't told us they actually did this type of testing.

IFBC or the reference is useless.
 

roland jacobs

Well-Known Member
Players wanted a weekly Awesomeme.
Also Nyborg's 2 tests outside Events were decent because there were some extra rewards.
The issue was Attacker v Defender numbers.
Since Defense offers a decent advantage over Attack.

So rewards should be:

reward for losing side = full energy and health regen buff
reward for winning side = amulet
 

mnnielsen

The West Team
Community Manager
Sorry, what I read was "a reference for numbers change" not a "fun awesomia battle". Has the objective changed from baseline to fun?

To test a theory (which is what I believe the objective was): if numbers are changed back to original numbers, will this improve the fort battles?

In order for this to work:
1. test all fort sizes with original numbers
2. a good number of online and active participants
3. up-to-date gear (nobody in pat garret gear for example)
4. topics set on attack and defense
5. battle leaders on attack and defense
6. everyone optimally skilled for battles.
7. <i'm certain other forum participants can add suggestions>

What is not going to be a good reference is a large battle with no leaders, no topics, not filling, numbers skewed to defense, nobody wearing optimal gear.

Does inno not have a test server where they can run 10000 simulations with random chars, all optimal build for char selection, optimal gear, and then that can determine that if the above 6+ topics are followed, there is a 50/50 chance of winning an attack based on <player choices>? Hell, maybe they've already done this with the current gear, but just haven't told us they actually did this type of testing.

IFBC or the reference is useless.

There is no reason to why it cant be both :) why not just get the best out of it, I don't force anyone to participiate, it is you own free will..... I just have a hope that some players at least will consider participating so I can with good conscience say that you players have actually been involved in testing this, here, which is also one of the reasons why its not done on test server or in a simulated session
 

Killer Bonnie

Well-Known Member
It isn't the number of attackers or defenders that needs to be 'adjusted' Please just put it back the way it was :) Our issue is defense has advantage and more survivability Soo most everyone signs on defense and very little attackers and there are Soo many offline or afk on both sides because everyone plays multiple worlds except only a few players Also you really don't need to put this battle in 'primetime' If there are 'rewards' people will sign up no matter when the battle time is.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Also you really don't need to put this battle in 'primetime'
If there are 'rewards' people will sign up no matter when the battle time is.
Yes and no.

Numbers change drastically depending on hour, no matter what.

Balancing battles is a delicate matter especially without changing Formulas.

My observations say there are more Tanks and less Duelers/Damagers currently because Defenders actually dodging now.

With a small bump from Inno and decent lead, Attackers should have a decent chance to win.

If the bump is big, then there will be a snowball effect (with even more Damagers) and Attackers will start stramrolling again.

So my suggestion for "small bump" is to increase Attackers numbers and nerf the Class Bonus of Towers (except Small Fort's) a tad bit.
 

HelenBack

Well-Known Member
Will there be a reward for joining the "test" Awesomia battles? In the past, every Mod-dug Awesomia battle had some kind of reward for participating... People will expect it as soon as they see "Henry" dug. If there is NO reward, expect a lot of unhappy tickets. :hmf: Also, don't expect any real turn out for those battles. Too many having to clickety click click click click ad nauseum to find all the damn Rye and Wheat Ears for the quests we have enough trouble trying to complete before they end.:roll:
 

Killer Bonnie

Well-Known Member
This "test" does not have ANY effect on Juarez except you put the battle time in prime time when we need to have our Regular Daily Battle . Cant you use data from Regular Daily Battles for your analysis ?
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Cant you use data from Regular Daily Battles for your analysis ?
Especially knowing that balancing Awesomia may unbalance real battles ... I mean : it's already unbalanced lol. But a ratio which allows a good chance of victory to attack while they don't have leader and defense has its towers at max, would mean attackers in real battles would likely be able to steal forts way too much easily. A balance thing for real forts shouldn't be based on results at Awesomia ...
 

Killer Bonnie

Well-Known Member
We have not seen a 140 attackers vs 120 defenders battle or even close to that in over a year and attendance numbers got Worse after the opening of Kansas.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
I don't think this "Fun-Test" stuff will be limited to Awesomia/Big Battles only.
Just be patient.

Also, it seems, Attackers have better chance on unfilled Battles..
 

Killer Bonnie

Well-Known Member
This is just a distraction from the other Bigger issues We do not need How many can attend either side to be adjusted. We are bleeding (losing more) players everyday. We need population to go up so maybe there will be more people to attend FFs. This "test" only effects 1 or 2 worlds not all as a whole on .Net. Then at least 1 of those worlds this test will only effect for a couple months because when they open L world K world becomes just the same as J world and J world will drop by about half again. Its due in about 2 months right. Soo it is a waste of time to worry about 1 or 2 worlds overfilling a large fort fight and more than just the regulars always attend awesomia durring events because everyone needs the event currency or in non event time to gain rewards (some only attend awesomia battles events or not but only to get rewards and do not regular fort fight).
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Decent rewards tonight (50 bonds & 75% HP buff), thanks CMs! :)

For Awesomia battles outside of the events, you should consider giving slightly better reward to attackers so that both sides get filled (e.g. green vs red bond letter or red vs blue letter). It would also help if you could post a server announcement when the battles are dug and if you could write on the forum what are the rewards. Attendance will improve if you continue with Awesomia fights on the weekly bases (Sunday evening server time works fine) so that worlds without regular FFs can get some boost in activity.
 

Oddersfield

Active Member
I did quite a number across the worlds. In every single one of them, the result was a foregone conclusion before the first shot was fired by any side. Generally the attackers were grossly out-numbered.

s
Attendance will improve if you continue with Awesomia fights on the weekly bases (Sunday evening server time works fine) so that worlds without regular FFs can get some boost in activity.

I take the opposite point of view. If fights continue to be so one-sided, attendance will drop off.

And why all at the same time? Please stagger them over 2 or 3 hours.
 
Top