Approved NEW IDEEA FORT FIGHTS BETWEEN PLAYERS ON NET SERVER

[Darkuletzz]

^I know you can read RO server too, you can check there, they do that(i think in this time), but i write here something that they made mistakes, so i adjusted for everyone.

 

[Darkuletzz]

2 weeks. Not an answer. Anyway thanks for not giving a ****.

 

[Al35ul]

Please see my previous answer. Various factors have to be considered before implementing any kind of (speed) world. At the moment, I would say that this idea is like Schrödinger's cat, it can both be implemented or not be implemented at the same time.

 

[Darkuletzz]

BUMP

 

[Darkuletzz]

Thank for nothing again

 

[Beefmeister]

didn't syntex reply with "i'll see what i can do"? he deleted it?

god i'm so tired of this

 

[RaiderTr]

Good ol' Community management

 

[Bitter Lemon]

I noticed the following today.
I did a fort fight in de10: 2 against 2. At the end there were 15 Bonds reward.
In another fort battle, where the fort was full in attack and defence, I got 17 bonds.
That is totally unfair. I should never have received so many bonds in a "fake battle". Rather, full fort battles should be rewarded more. My suggestion: 1 bond for each participant, plus the usual things like online bonus, performance, award, etc. That would be an incentive to fill the fort battles again. The way things were going today, it's an incentive to constantly call out "fakes" in order to get lots of bonds that way. I don't think that's right.

2 vs. 2full battle: 50 vs. 39

 

[lulumcnoob]

I will assume you are a damager, I think you would find that any non damagers got a whole lot less than you. In low attendance battles/fake battles most times as adventurer get 2 bonds. For a full battle were I survived whole battle most of the time come away with 5-7 bonds. Really the number of participants is not the biggest issue, it is the reward system.

Bitter Lemon is suggesting that the bond rewards should be tied to the number of participants, bringing it in line with event currency.
If Ghosts can't be rewarded, then I think that would be a much fairer way of distributing bonds, compared with essentially rewarding the damage dealt - It may also additionally discourage multi-battles.

There's also hidden bond rewards, which I think was triggered in the "fake" battle above. It's somewhat harder to suggest how to improve something when it's a secret formula.

 

[Goober Pyle]

FWIW I think “ghosted shots” and “damage resisted” should be a tracked/reported Statistics and “ghosted shots” and “damage taken/resisted” should be rewarded stats on par with damage dealt and shots dodged

Alas, as best I can, tell there isn’t even a way to count ghosting let alone ghosted shots, short of scripts on the forbidden list

 

[Bitter Lemon]

I will assume you are a damager, I think you would find that any non damagers got a whole lot less than you. In low attendance battles/fake battles most times as adventurer get 2 bonds. For a full battle were I survived whole battle most of the time come away with 5-7 bonds. Really the number of participants is not the biggest issue, it is the reward system.

No, I´m a soldier with full hp skill, all red and hp.

Well I don't think basing bonds amounts on amount of participants will work as some worlds have very few fort fighters now a days. So less rewards for low numbers will officially kill any reason to participate.

I don't think there will be many fewer bonds as a result. How else can you make the fort battles full again? It is precisely because of the unfair distribution that adventurers, for example, completely lose interest. But yes, you are also right, in inactive worlds that would also be a problem. But that's what it's all about, how can we become more active?

 

[Bitter Lemon]

Yes, for me it's all about finding new ways. None of my ideas are perfect, but you can think about them and find ways together.

 

[lulumcnoob]

Alas, as best I can, tell there isn’t even a way to count ghosting let alone ghosted shots, short of scripts on the forbidden list

All of the data that scripts use exists in the Battle Report window, and you can, awkwardly, see it for yourself:

On Firefox:

1. Open the console to the Network tab
2. Open the battle report you wish to inspect
   Select the file game.php?window=fort_battleresultpage&mode=get_battle
3. Open the Response Section and select Raw format
   Copy the massive JSON string
4. Paste the string into a JSON Formatter (https://jsonformatter.curiousconcept.com)
5. You can now see additional data the the game tracks, like playdeadcount and crithits, just use your browsers search function

Spoiler: This is the alternative to just using a Script lol

 

[lulumcnoob]

@lulumcnoob

Is what you are saying is the ghosting information is in the battle report, so it could be rewarded like damage and dodges, if the devs wanted to change the reward system?

I believe it could, yes.
I don't know definitively, but can't see any reason why it couldn't. It's possible that making this change to the battle rewards system could break everything else, no idea if it's ever been tried.

 

[Goober Pyle]

All of the data exists in the Battle Report window:

Fair enough; yeah, the scripts presenting that data obviously are getting it from somewhere, and sadly what you point to suggests that at best the harvestable data is "playdeadcount" which is rounds when a ghosting happened not the more valuable ~"shotsghosted". Still, while a bit of a tangent as this would be a dev-level request anyway: I don't have access to/familiarity with the admin tools the mods and CM have, but I am confident they don't have raw table read access and have no good reason to believe anyone ever wrote a reporting tool that would let them quickly see how many rounds a player ghosted let alone how many shots.

Umm, I hope the scripts that show ghost are not on forbidden list because have seen many a screen shot with it shown. Since I don't use scripts I have no clue what is allowed.

To the best of my knowledge TWIR and Toolkit are the only ones that present that data. Both are on a "forbidden" list (presumably because they present data that is ripped from hidden elements -- data non-script-using players have no straightforward way to examine) but I know nothing about what makes a script allowed or not. That said, in my experience, enforcement against most forbidden scripts is kinda like speeding on the highway -- sure it's "illegal" but "everyone" does it and only the ones being brazen or presenting a hazard get pulled over (i.e the ones that in widespread use might cause a noticable hit to the servers like the gold/silver finders, or TWIR's old market-scanning tool)

 

[Goober Pyle]

heck, as it is, to gather the list of players to give the "disfavored side" award I use my in-game toon to look at the battle report (hence why I started a toon in all worlds and worked it up to level 25)
If there was an existing simple admin tool exposed to the mod team that offered that info I would hope they'd just use that....

 

[lulumcnoob]

playdeadcount is the total number of Ghosts that the adventurer performed during the battle, you can also see the total number of critical hits (displayed as crithits) a dueller class performed using this method. This is obviously a Dev level change if it were to be displayed and rewarded in game, but I would like it to be known that this data already exists in the game - we don't need a script to track it.
It doesn't (easily) show what rounds or who shot at you when you ghosted, although there is technically a full replay of what happened during the battle, as a long string of numbers. I assume this is what WestForts used to generate battle replays.

Spoiler: this is an example of what is spit out by formatting the battle report data

in this battle I ghosted once and died in round 5.

 

[Goober Pyle]

playdeadcount is the total number of Ghosts that the adventurer performed during the battle, you can also see the total number of critical hits (displayed as crithits) a dueller class performed using this method. This is obviously a Dev level change if it were to be displayed and rewarded in game, but I would like it to be known that this data already exists in the game - we don't need a script to track it.
It doesn't (easily) show what rounds or who shot at you when you ghosted, although there is technically a full replay of what happened during the battle, as a long string of numbers. I assume this is what WestForts used to generate battle replays.

Spoiler: this is an example of what is spit out by formatting the battle report data

in this battle I ghosted once and died in round 5.

I wonder what each of posidx startposidx firstroundpos and targetidx are.
guess: you moved 74th, you set to start in position 580 with a target of position 178, but got bumped to position 648

 

[Caerdwyn]

I think this is something Goober was pondering in the back of his mind while making one of the posts above...

Rounds where ghosting activated will be a far smaller number than shots ghosted, but can you imagine a field of 40 guns pointing at a line of Advents?

Advent 1 takes two hits, then checks for ghosting and does so! (2 shots sent down the line)
Advent 2 takes Advent 1s first and second ghosted shots, then checks for ghosting on his own and does so! (4 shots sent down the line)
Advent 3 dodges the next 20 shots, takes two hits and ghosts everything else. (26 shots sent down the line).
Advent 4, takes the next 10 shots, fails to ghost and dies (36 shots sent down the line).
Advent 5 takes two hits, then fails to ghost, but dodges the next 2. (40 shots down the line).

This is all in one round, so Advent 1, 2 and 3 get +1 in the Ghosting Column. Advent 1 gets +38 shots in the non-existent Shots Ghosted Column. Advent 2 gets +36 Shots Ghosted, Advent 3 gets +14 Shots Ghosted, Advent 4 gets zero Shots Ghosted, Advent 5 gets zero Shots Ghosted.

 

[Harsha..]

Mostly I believe all sorts of detailed and minute data describing every action carried out within a battle is within a FF report and it contains more data than simply the end statistics. This is how West Forts has worked for years. Someone figured out how to extract that data, and then put it together on their site to reproduce battle replays.