Finally an opinion, thanks ! Unfortunately, seems like the idea isn't well liked lol xD.
Actually, if it's one battle at wild time from time to time, I don't see a real problem. If the player is alone (or almost) there's no risk he can steal a fort and the defenders would also win the minimal reward (currently when this happens, they have almost NO reward). That's exactly one of the interests of this : the defenders would have a minimum reward even if the attacker bother them in imbalanced battle at wild hours, instead of 0xp reward + very few currencies. The attacker would also win the minimum reward, but I don't think it's a problem : the attacker would still have better interest to dig a battle with higher attendance than with almost no attendance at all : it's more boring alone and the more he gather fighters, the more his battle will bring him a good reward. Well, actually maybe the minimum shouldn't be 400 if alive, 800 if dead, but max(400, (att+def)*6
*(if dead : 2; otherwise : 1
))
The difference with the formula above is in the brackets places : here the minimum would always be 400, whatever if we die or not, cause surely only the attacker would die in the example of 1 vs 9, and 800 might be indeed too incentive for lame battles (and unfair). 400 isn't high at all though, the attacker would win almost as much with 1h jobs.
If he isn't alone, we'd be in the case of real battles and the debate about battles dug at "wild time" already exists (some players playing in another timeslot than the european one); this idea wouldn't change anything about this ...
The possibility of abuses I was worried about was mostly "several small battles" per day actually : several are allowed (as long as there's time between them); but I don't know how many can be dug the same day before it's considered as abusive. I just know there are some restrictions like : a same fort can't be attacked more than once every 48h; the cost of a digging is higher with the number of battles in the list of scheduled battles; if the battles are too close, the team re-schedule them (which naturally limit the number of battles we can have per day); I heard there were sometimes sanctions in case of abuse in multi-dig ... Maybe there are others ... It seems to limit the possibilities of abuses but I surely don't have enough distance with the subject to anticipate all of them.
In any case, even with several battles a day, if players dig more cause battles would become more lucrative, more players could be tempted to join to enjoy the reward as well, which I think would be good : we'd go from "no battles" to "several battles with more and more fighters" ... And if enough fighters motivated, there should be less and less small battles per day for, instead, bigger ones to have optimum rewards ... A big fort full, it's 1590 event currencies alive, 3180 dead, without mentionning the xp reward which can be until 18k xp. If the world becomes active, better dig once with full attendance, than 4 times per day for 4*400 event currencies minimum with low attendance in each. The second case is super tiring, with potentially lower reward in xp cause not everyone will participate in the 4 battles. Among all of that, if it can motivate players just to "fight" without only thinking about rewards but also about competition, it'd be even better. Cause here the world would really become active.
But well, seems like I'm the only one to think this way, so I won't insist more
I've surely already insisted too much lol.
And for the birthday celebration, if players didn't win in the special events, there were no in-game celebrations, or a bonus for a couple days like in previous years. Way to treat the players to a birthday! <slow clap for the current team>
