Spooky fort battle review

asdf124

Well-Known Member
How about you making the rewards a permanent thing in events? Maybe then people would actually put more effort :p
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
That.. doesn't look like a review :'P But yea, something like that..
Last time it was dug 2 days ahead, so there was enuf time to learn about it & there weren't any confusion/other battles dug before (or after)
That being said, it was overfilled on some servers and some ppl were left out :-(

Btw on some servers the Battles starts at the same minute :roll:
So yeah, attendancy sucked. Hoping for better results with the 2nd.
 

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
Sounds like a reasonable idea. Maybe, during events, if anyone digs awesomia, at the end of each battle, all participants get the rewards. If it becomes normalized, more people would gradually attend these battles. In normal cases, most aren't aware about the special rewards and tend to think of awesomia battles as non-serious battles.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Hmm, so we have Battles on some servers for tomorrow, but not all.
Another day for those?

Ps. Friday and/or Saturday are generally worst days for attendancy.
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
This time we are splitting the battles in two days to give the chance to those who play on multiple servers to be able to join more battles.
The first one was a challenge to get to each one in time :D Thank you.
 

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
Any particular reason the battles are so late, though? - 11.30 PM is late even for many Europeans. Something like 8-9 ST would work for the vast majority of players.
 

TonyMelony

Member
Earlier, in Awesomia / Saloon 21 fights, during the event time, there was always additional event currency!
At least I can remember that it was always the case on the German server!
I do not know why that was abolished - at least it would be no innovation!
 

kuro90

The West Team
Community Manager
Any particular reason the battles are so late, though? - 11.30 PM is late even for many Europeans. Something like 8-9 ST would work for the vast majority of players.
The NET server has players from US/EU/AUS. It's really hard to find a suitable time span for everyone. We think that a late EU time it's a good compromise to give the chance also to AUS and US players to be online.
 

Zuluski

Member
any particular reason why on .net servers the extra prizes for special battles differ so much from for example polish servers? Today on Colorado we got 1000 flowers while today on polish server they got 4500? Is this some kind of discrimination or are we on .net just worth 1/4 of polish players?
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
The NET server has players from US/EU/AUS. It's really hard to find a suitable time span for everyone. We think that a late EU time it's a good compromise to give the chance also to AUS and US players to be online.
Midnight ST is 11pm in the UK/12am in EU, too late for a lot, dinner time in the parts of the US, bad time for a lot of them, and ~10am in Australia, bad time for most. The problem with a compromise, thought the best compromise is one that screws everyone equally, is it doesn't really suit anyone, so I appreciate the difficulty finding a suitable time slot. Best solution in my experience is holding multiple battles over the course of the event at different times. (8pm, 1am and 10am battles, for example)

any particular reason why on .net servers the extra prizes for special battles differ so much from for example polish servers? Today on Colorado we got 1000 flowers while today on polish server they got 4500? Is this some kind of discrimination or are we on .net just worth 1/4 of polish players?
I'm guessing these battles were impromptu events made by the community managers, independently of each other. Too much centralisation for matters that the community should have a say in, and no communication when it comes to making things consistent across all servers.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
any particular reason why on .net servers the extra prizes for special battles differ so much from for example polish servers? Today on Colorado we got 1000 flowers while today on polish server they got 4500? Is this some kind of discrimination or are we on .net just worth 1/4 of polish players?
I'm guessing these battles were imprompt events made by the community managers, independently of each other. Too much centralisation for matters that the community should have a say in, and no communication when it comes to making things consistent across all servers.
It's neither one time nor "random" thing.

Unfortunately;
National servers are favored for certain reasons. Mainly because of even less number of players and probably less number of (big) spenders.
So you gotta "encourage" them somehow. And it goes as far as giving some free nuggets through Weekly events (Turkish servers i.e)

Similar to this one, German servers were giving Firework boxes from all battles during Independence event.
 
Last edited:

asdf124

Well-Known Member
Can you also traitor those who has been attacking for all 3 fort fights? It is certainly not in good faith that the sides keep being one. And certainly not fair for the whole world to try and balance it when their are a lot of greedy players. I believe it would be better to let a town take it and that way you'll lock a populous to make it more likely to achieve a good fort fight.

I have seen one side now in Arizona to join attack 3 times! I have tried to do defense twice, and their wasn't many participants at both times.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
I'd like to commend the players I saw who did try to keep things balanced with information relating to the numbers of signups being available for most players. There's a lot of potential improvements that could be made, but I'm not sure if the team has the manpower to do anything more than digging a battle and letting us figure it out. Well done to the worlds which had balanced fights! Very difficult to achieve on extremely under-attended large battles. (Perhaps it's time to make Awesomia a medium fort? :roll: /s)

I wonder if Diggo would have the time to write a script to randomise the fort battle participation list in the admin tool though, that could be run just before the battle starts. It would both balance the numbers and eliminate the possibility of abusing attacker advantage, however this may inadvertently cause imbalance in the strength that could be mitigated with human input. Perhaps this should be considered on a world-by-world basis, as to not disrupt the cooperative efforts of those slightly more successful worlds.
 
Last edited:

dankolo

Active Member
The rewards are good, but why team which win gets more ? These battles are so unbalanced and are not really fun to play because of that. We could just all stack one side and get the best rewards...

What about giving better rewards if the player count is +- the same on both sides ? And giving lower or no rewards with decreasing balance ?

examples:
80 vs 80 players, everyone gets 100% of rewards.
75 vs 83 players, everyone gets 100% of rewards.
70 vs 95 players, everyone gets 50% of rewards.
60 vs 100 players and lower, everyone gets minimal or none extra rewards!

This could potentially balance the forts battles a bit and make them more enjoyable...
 

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
It's already happening. In Briscoe, both alliances were discussing going on one side, so that everyone gets the maximum rewards. It's happening on zona - from the start, defense seems doomed to fail. In Colorado, as is usually the case, people are trying to balance it out, but it's a tall order.

I really would strongly recommend just giving the same rewards to people on both sides, regardless of the outcome. Otherwise, this whole idea risks becoming a farcical exercise.