Replace or change 'Win the Battle' daily task

Bob Baumeister

Well-Known Member
Twice a week there is a daily quest called win the battle. This often causes people to join a side based on which one is more likely to win. In other words FFs that are already unbalanced become worse.
This might be a bigger problem on newer worlds were people farm bonds more heavily.

I would propose to change the requirement to something else. Could be to complete an FF like the other daily quest or anything else that doesn't give a wrong incentive.
 
Goober Pyle

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
FWIW,
1) on a healthy world with regular full/near full fort fights where attacks win 30-40% of the time, this task helps encourage irregulars to sign in for (and help fill) attacks (they’ll rarely get in the full defenses)
2) player Awesomia battles are perfect for this, it just takes a handful of people to agree to takes turns actually digging it.
 

Bob Baumeister

Well-Known Member
Sambee said:
I'm not against the idea to change it to "complete a fort battle" but to help with balancing maybe it should be "complete 2 battles" or "attack and defend 2 separate battles"
Click to expand...
There is a difference between forcing people to behave in a certain way and giving positive incentive and hope they will do it. Right now the incentive is the opposite of what is desired.
 

Bob Baumeister

Well-Known Member
Goober Pyle said:
FWIW,
1) on a healthy world with regular full/near full fort fights where attacks win 30-40% of the time, this task helps encourage irregulars to sign in for (and help fill) attacks (they’ll rarely get in the full defenses)
Click to expand...
That's a very theoretical example with quite some ifs. Could you point me to the world were this is the case, eg. full attack or full defense? And if that's the case, why would this one or two worlds matter more than all the other worlds?

Also your whole assumption seems to be based on defense usually being full, because of higher win rate. Your example stops to make sense when:
  • defense is not full => people will join defense aka the winning side
  • you play on a new world => game meta / winning side will depend on available sets and especially on which type of FF set was in the last tombola

Goober Pyle said:
2) player Awesomia battles are perfect for this, it just takes a handful of people to agree to takes turns actually digging it.
Click to expand...
To bad there is no TW facepalm emoji. Sure, we could as well avoid all ff related drama by only playing awesomnia battles. Though there are reasons people prefer to fight real battles and I doubt there are many that want an additional awesomnia battle every few days just for some quest.
 
Goober Pyle

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Bob Baumeister said:
That's a very theoretical example with quite some ifs. Could you point me to the world were this is the case, eg. full attack or full defense? And if that's the case, why would this one or two worlds matter more than all the other worlds?

Also your whole assumption seems to be based on defense usually being full, because of higher win rate. Your example stops to make sense when:
  • defense is not full => people will join defense aka the winning side
  • you play on a new world => game meta / winning side will depend on available sets and especially on which type of FF set was in the last tombola


To bad there is no TW facepalm emoji. Sure, we could as well avoid all ff related drama by only playing awesomnia battles. Though there are reasons people prefer to fight real battles and I doubt there are many that want an additional awesomnia battle every few days just for some quest.
Click to expand...
FWIW: abbreviation for For What It’s Worth; idiom: what is to follow obviously doesn’t apply to every circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top