The Brain Farts - Brainstorm of ideas here

  • Thread starter Deleted User - 1278415
  • Start date
If this ran the drop rate would be the same BUT it would simultaneously drop snowball type 1 snowball type 2 icicle red and blue soccer cards and ears and the like. You would have to do the 10 hours straight of 15 second but you’d get them all at once and have ample energy drops to get it done.

That actually did happen with the harvest event. It's a shame this type of review isn't part of the "events team" that would ensure the Inno events were properly reviewed so that previous achievements could be completed, and players wouldn't be overwhelmed with the event requirements - a players view of what Inno comes up with, instead of a dev writing code thinking they have the greatest ideas ever. Instead, from the events team, we receive additional events that only a fraction of the players participate in. :roll: 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>

Anyway, let's say a new char started in 2019. If the world events in 2014-2018 were achieved, those should be automatically applied to their profile since the world did achieve it. If there's a reward for it, maybe that doesn't get distributed since the char didn't actually participate, but at least allow the achievement to apply.
 

Caerdwyn

Well-Known Member
Most (many?) of the collecting widgets events also tie a quest drop from those widgets to a quest that is only active for those who possess them. It'd be a pain to go through player by player, quest by quest, to find the right drops after the fact. But in theory, it can be done.

That's different from the Achievements which can't be achieved because they required a physical presence at a specific date which will never occur again. If Goober's speculation is possible, I like it, but it's only half the question.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Better not ask too much about it if there's nothing sure. But just :
You would have to do the 10 hours straight of 15 second but you’d get them all at once and have ample energy drops to get it done.
Wrote like that, it feels as if we'll have to farm as much as in real event but in a much shorter time. But if usually events have low drop rate and last several weeks, it's not for nothing : it's because this kind of events are made to be played in a long term way (a bit of farming every day during several weeks). If the duration is shortened (or if players rush at the start of the event to farm hours and hours straight), it may lead to saturation. I personally think that's why some players dislike a lot clicky events and why I'm still not bored of them lol : I use fully the 3 weeks duration to farm a bit but very regularily; and I've never missed an achievement from clicky event by playing like that (I just miss the ones from where I wasn't in the game or when I still didn't know how to play these events). What I want to say with all of this it's : if this kind of server can be opened, I hope you won't shortened the duration of the events to still let the possibility to play daily little by little as we can do in real events. Not everyone can spend (nor have the will to spend) several hours per day to click-click-click. I think playing like that would make me sick of the game (that's why I never participate in speed servers).
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Better not ask too much about it if there's nothing sure. But just :

Wrote like that, it feels as if we'll have to farm as much as in real event but in a much shorter time. But if usually events have low drop rate and last several weeks, it's not for nothing : it's because this kind of events are made to be played in a long term way (a bit of farming every day during several weeks). If the duration is shortened (or if players rush at the start of the event to farm hours and hours straight), it may lead to saturation. I personally think that's why some players dislike a lot clicky events and why I'm still not bored of them lol : I use fully the 3 weeks duration to farm a bit but very regularily; and I've never missed an achievement from clicky event by playing like that (I just miss the ones from where I wasn't in the game or when I still didn't know how to play these events). What I want to say with all of this it's : if this kind of server can be opened, I hope you won't shortened the duration of the events to still let the possibility to play daily little by little as we can do in real events. Not everyone can spend (nor have the will to spend) several hours per day to click-click-click. I think playing like that would make me sick of the game (that's why I never participate in speed servers).

IF such an event were run it’d probably be a 3-4 week speed server. Rewards would definitely favor those who do 15s non-stop, but the ~”achievement participation award” would be designed to accommodate such play
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
I don't understand why some players should have better rewards : do you want to make that as some sort of constest ?

Yes, what I’m talking about is exploring adding “achievements transfers” to a speed world contest. It would have to be the event server to add unscheduled event drops, and would have to be a full premium contest to justify it. I don’t know whether achievement transfers would even be technically possible though.
 

SandViper

Member
this is probably been said before but i had a idea that could be added for multiplayer game modes, fort battle style battles but fighting for towns, open fields and even 2 sides across rivers fighting in a trench style combat.

wont be to really take over that's just the setting layout, give the game a civil war type feel to wars, it would suit the western era and bring a new feel to battles that fort battlers will enjoy, both sides have to either kill everyone or capture their objective like in fort battles so should be simple to do, different starting locations that would fit the battle scenarios and bring new tactics onto the battlefield
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
this is probably been said before but i had a idea that could be added for multiplayer game modes, fort battle style battles but fighting for towns, open fields and even 2 sides across rivers fighting in a trench style combat.

wont be to really take over that's just the setting layout, give the game a civil war type feel to wars, it would suit the western era and bring a new feel to battles that fort battlers will enjoy, both sides have to either kill everyone or capture their objective like in fort battles so should be simple to do, different starting locations that would fit the battle scenarios and bring new tactics onto the battlefield
While a Dev level request, a varient of this should be relatively feasible -- it'd still be a Fort battle in every respect except using a different map layout (with or without any kind of building bonus except that a flag would probably still be necessary) and then it would be a moderator setting for any given fort if an alternative map was to be used (which could be set before a battle is declared if there is a ticket from both sides)
 

cpt.N3M0

Well-Known Member
ok , let's see the classic clothing has been converted to %SP ;
the FF sets are being converted to feature more different playstyle ;
What else I was suggesting ? ahh the thing about the adventures.... yeah that one thing.
 

Twiss

Member
How about a new building in Towns: Water Well

It can upgrade to infinity like the Church. Does nothing, but you can throw in some coins for +Prayer or +Luck, or something

Can have a miscellaneous leaderboard where you can see which Town's water well has had the most money thrown into it lol.

Totally just a goofy addition but it could be cool.
 

Perse

Active Member
I don't know if this has been suggested before but:

When I'm scrolling down what's in the market, I'll like to know if I already have that piece of cloth or recipe in my inventory or not.
Same as in Mobile trader as you hover on stuff it shows "number in inventory: (#) ".

Been wanting this for a long time and I don't think it's that hard to code.

Just my thoughts in here.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Minors ideas about FF :
- A minimum amount of experience points we can win per battle :
If there was a minimum amount of xp we could win (like 10*level) added to the current formula of xp reward, every fighters could win at least a little something, even if the attendance is low, even if the fight is imbalanced, even if offline and not well placed. The thing is, in all of those cases, the reward is veeeeery low, sometimes even = 0, even when we use a buff before the battle, spend time at the hotel etc. This basic reward could be motivating to participate even in low attendance battle, offline or even to dig : I think in inactive worlds, lots of players don't participate/dig because they know the reward will be very small while they could won more by doing something else. It's a vicious circle cause it's because they don't come that the attendance (and so the reward) is lower. But if they know even with low attendance, it can be worth participating, they may participate, increase the attendance and everyone have better rewards. Vertuous circle.

- During events, a minimum of event currencies :
It's the same with event currencies : they are proportional to the number of attackers and defenders : 6*(att+def), doubled if dead. But when there's a low attendance, it's often more worthy to use our energy in 1 hour jobs than to participate in battles. Here again we are in a vicious circle ... If there were a minimum of event currencies we could win per fight even with low attendance here it would be motivating to participate. For example, the reward could be :

max(400, (att+def)*6)*(if dead : 2; otherwise : 1)

so the reward would always be higher than 400 (always higher than 800 if we die).
I think 400 is a very strict minimum to incite to participate in battles when we aim for event currencies cause it's even less than what we can win with 2x1h jobs bringing each 250 event currencies, and this while we wouldn't have to regen HP at the hotel before and after battle during hours (or use HP/energy buffs) etc. Most of the time, jobs bring 300/350 events currencies though, but 6-700 would be too high (higher than in small fort with full attendance ...). In case of death, it could compensate this though.
The thing is, under this, it's not worth participating. If we know we can win at least 400 (800 if dead), more fighters may register, so here again : vertuous circle.

The only problem I see in that, it's it can incite to dig lots of "lame battles" (one fighter alone against a whole alliance). But in case of abuses in the number of battles dug, I think there are some restrictions, no ? As well as it can also incite other fighters to join the one fighter, so they could also enjoy the reward ...
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Nobody to tell their opinion about this ? I really think it could make a difference in inactive worlds, while being easy to implement, and without allowing to win a really higher reward than right now (I mean : cause the team seems to not want that, and because the reward isn't supposed to be high with low stats; but here it'd be reasonable. I think ? The numbers indicated or ways to count could also be changed in any case, that's mostly just an example.
By the way, the xp reward, instead of doing 10*level + usual_reward as I suggested above, could also be counted like that : max(level*10, usual_reward)
I was talking about a sum, but a max might be better if the team doesn't want to increase the max reward, even in full battles).

The idea is just to assure a minimum reward to all fighters so they can be sure it's a minimum worthy to participate even in 10 vs 10 battles. I'm pretty sure a lot of fighters don't come when they think the attendance will be low (cause reward not worthy compared to what they might lose, to what they could win by doing something else, or to all the constraints to be able to participate). If they know the reward can compensate this, it can incite to participate more, and those 10vs10 might become 15vs15 or even more ...
 

Caerdwyn

Well-Known Member
The only problem I see in that, it's it can incite to dig lots of "lame battles" (one fighter alone against a whole alliance). But in case of abuses in the number of battles dug, I think there are some restrictions, no ?

Right now, the thing that stops someone from being mean-spirited and digging a 1 vs. 9 battle at 4am is the fact that he will only get 60 Friendship tokens for that hour. More would do it anyway, if they could get 400.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
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.
 

DeletedUser15368

I definitely think that what you're trying to solve is a serious issue and you've thought out and presented your idea well. Rewarding battle quality is important - and, undoubtedly, the first step to high quality battles is actually getting players to come to the fights, then you can worry about balancing the sides, balanced sides lead to fun battles which leads to more players turning up.

Rewards for both participation and performance in Fort Battles are super important for most players - and for a long time now, they've been inadequate compared to other, arguably, less important aspects of the game like building churches. Even though the exp reward has been increased, it's still less than a daily log-in bonus at high levels. The few worlds left with full battles have very good event currency rewards, and it's also a decent source of bonds if you can be online at battles.
For the other worlds, it's not really a viable way to spend your time, and that really can't be solved with a new mechanic or a formula change. It takes two teams of leaders, and two relatively equal sides.

That being said, in Classic Fort Battles, we could get random drops from fort battles, which was a very popular mechanic that I'd love to make a comeback in v2. You can use some old-school tactics like holding internal competitions, for cash or rare items donated by players, within your alliances to drum up interest.

Ultimately, I think there's too many worlds, the shrinking player-base is too spread out, and we need to consolidate the battle leaders into as few worlds as possible - not that they aren't all likely on Colorado already.
 
Top