The Brain Farts - Brainstorm of ideas here

  • Thread starter Deleted User - 1278415
  • Start date

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your opinion Lulumcnoob !

"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. " -> That's interesting and seems rather fun. But I don't understand how it worked precisely : were there some criterias (let's say staying alive, die, win the battle or whatever) needed to have a chance (let's say 30%) of getting something, or everybody had this chance with no condition ? was there only criterias, but once reached we were sure to win a random thing ? or even : could all fighters be sure to win something, but this something was random ?

I'm asking all of that because I'm wondering why it was removed lol ... If there was a problem with it explaining why it was, maybe it could be fixed instead of being given up ...
If there were crterias, I can understand it was removed : if some players always managed to meet them, and other never (like if a win was needed, or staying alive -so tanks disadvantaged), it may have lead to an imbalance between players and to an unfairness feeling. If it was just random, I don't really see why it was removed ... Maybe when won, the reward was good and incited too much to dig ? and if too frequently won -> not economically good for Inno ? Don't know.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
"chests will be distributed amongst battle participants using a secret formula. This formula will be based on individual and team achievements, with no requirements to be on the winning team and survive to receive one"
[...]
"The chests will contain random items that are either unique to reward chests, or otherwise difficult to obtain by other methods. [...] if more than eleven chests are handed out at a battle with at least seventy players, there is a "fair chance" that at least one chest will contain "high quality gear stuff" "



I wonder if it wouldn't have been better if it was only random (everyone, without any condition, could have x% of chance to get something) and for rewards less "unique/difficult to obtain by other methods" ? I mean : with a formula based on individual/team achievements, there's a risk it will always be the same players who'll have a chance to get a reward. As for the type of the reward, that's rather delicate cause :
- if too common -> it's not more motivating to participate to battles than without this reward;
- and if too "precious", it may deepen the first problem with players who don't manage to get reward/good reward, as well as items considered as "very difficult to get" wouldn't be so rare anymore or could cause complaints from players who got them by the difficult path.
Random for everyone, less precious in a general way, but maybe still with a veeeery low % to find precious/valuable things ... Just suggesting that in case that was why it has been removed. Don't know if it would still be really incentive to participate if it was like that though.
 

Caerdwyn

Well-Known Member
As long as they consider those chests to be REwards, not Awards, there needs to be something to accomplish to earn one.

Last month's INNOBattle's Mate Tea and Green Bondvelope were awarded to everyone.

If chest drops get reinstated for some reason, offering the possibility of an Award for all, with REwards for specific accomplishments (known or secret), will be a bigger draw, overall, than either alone.
 

emer haze

Active Member
I think fort battles should be firearms for defense and bow/arrows for attack like the true wild west. Maybe include attacks on indian villages with no walls.
 

Artem124

Well-Known Member
i have a idea.
if one of the 2 biggest sides dosnt dig in a week .. inno digs for them a battle ..
so that one allaince dosnt keep digging attacks and other allaince defends 24-7
 

DeletedUser15368

i have a idea.
if one of the 2 biggest sides dosnt dig in a week .. inno digs for them a battle ..
so that one allaince dosnt keep digging attacks and other allaince defends 24-7
Are "inno" gonna recruit, rank and lead the battle too?
 

RaiderRt

Well-Known Member
i have a idea.
if one of the 2 biggest sides dosnt dig in a week .. inno digs for them a battle ..
so that one allaince dosnt keep digging attacks and other allaince defends 24-7
This is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen on any the-west forum. Not gonna lie, it's an achievement considering these forums are 15yo, so well done brother.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
As long as they consider those chests to be REwards, not Awards, there needs to be something to accomplish to earn one.

Last month's INNOBattle's Mate Tea and Green Bondvelope were awarded to everyone.

If chest drops get reinstated for some reason, offering the possibility of an Award for all, with REwards for specific accomplishments (known or secret), will be a bigger draw, overall, than either alone.
I said I wouldn't insist with my other idea lol but ... "an award for all" would be the same principle than my first idea (=to give a minimum something to all fighters whatever their final stats or the balance of the battle; i was talking about xp and event currencies but with something else that's exactly the same principle; I'll pêrsonally still talk about "reward" and not "award" though because for me, participation is already something which should be rewarded : not everybody does it. Join, move our toon to the fort, being stuck until it starts then ends (sometimes even after), and participate ... sometimes we can even inflict damages and dodges and still have 0 xp just because the fight was imbalanced; in the end it's as if we didn't participate while we did. I still don't consider as normal to have no REward when there was participation ...).

But well, the thing is : this idea seemed to be considered as potentially problematic cause potentially too incentive to dig battles even with low number of attackers, and well, if problematic, necessarily this idea + rewards with conditions would also be (it wouldn't be less incentive to dig lame battles with "a minimum for everyone + a good one for a few on criteria" than "a minium for everyone" only) ... In any case, "reward based on criteria/stats", it's already what's done with xp/bonds. Here it'd be only more rewards among the already better rewarded, so a double win. Even with a minimum re/award for others, it wouldn't change the fact it would create bigger gaps between those who manage to already get good rewards and others. Once again just my opinion, but I think that's because of that kind of things the chest drop system was removed : too advantageous for some, and unfairness feeling for others.

(And to precise : I'm not badly ranked in battles lol; clearly not the best but not too bad. I'm writting my messages in a neutral point of view, not to correspond to what I hope for myself but to try to balance things. In my point of view, this game is already way too imbalanced because of the imbalanced set system; if imbalanced set system => imbalanced stats => imbalanced rewards ... if even more better rewards for better stats, it can only deepen the gaps).
 

Artem124

Well-Known Member
This is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen on any the-west forum. Not gonna lie, it's an achievement considering these forums are 15yo, so well done brother.
how is this the worst?
i would rather have a battle like a awesomia dig on a random fort then no battle at all..
some allainces are full of crap and dont dig at all and just wait for the other side to dig...
they constantly defend nd get easy wins because defense is broken

who needs ranks..
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
how is this the worst?

Alliance A always digs, Alliance B always defends and gets easy wins. That absolutely sucks, I agree.

But then Inno (moderators, GMs, whoever) digs as Alliance B and Alliance A has to defend! And they finally win because ... nobody shows up for the attack. Alliance A sits at the fort, 0 attackers show up, Alliance B ignores the dig because they didn't want to attack anyway. If they wanted to attack, they would, Inno wouldn't need to do it for them.
 

DeletedUser15368

how is this the worst?
i would rather have a battle like a awesomia dig on a random fort then no battle at all..
a GM-dug Awesomia battle is waaaay different to a GM digging a player alliance on behalf of another player alliance - which both isn't allowed and isn't something any players should ever want. The only time mods should get involved with the internal politics of a game world if if they actually play there themselves legit.
Moral implications aside, why does this alliance never attack? Those issues won't suddenly disappear because a GM dug the battle.

And finally the classic line:
Dig it yourself if you think you can do better.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Say ... if the gap between att and def was always inferior to the difference between the max attackers and max defenders that a fort can allow (currently : 145 - 120 = 25 for a big fort, 15 for a med fort, 6 for a small fort) ... would that help to limit imbalances while not being too unfair for biggest alliances ? Or would it be useless or even more problematic than currently ? lol.

I'm asking cause I was thinking about a way to automatically balance too much imbalanced battles and something like what i'm suggesting is surely not the best but could at least represent a dynamic limit to too big imbalances while being easy to implement (*). It wouldn't change a thing in full forts cause these gaps are precisely the gaps between att and def when the fort is full. But if not full, we wouldn't see battles like 20 against 50 in med fort anymore (the max of defenders for 20 attackers being 20 + 15 = 35 defenders), or reciprocally no more of 50 attackers against 20 defenders still in med fort (the max for this amount of defenders being 20 + 15 = 35 attackers). These max gaps between sides could be adaptated by modifying the max attackers/defenders of each type of fort; and whatever if these max were different from a world to another one, the code would still be the same, it's adaptive.

I feel like my idea will still not be very well liked lol. I'm still suggesting this in case it could, not "solve" the problem but at least help. I don't know though if players prefer "fully imbalanced battles but everyone is sure to participate" or "better balanced battles but potentially more fighters excluded (only if really too much imbalanced in the first place)".

(*)
I said it's easy to implement cause, if I'm not mistaken, we'd just need to do something like that :
If we note :
attackers = the number of registered attackers present at fort when the battle starts; same with defenders,
max_fort_attackers = the maximum capacity of the fort in attack, and same with max_fort_defenders,
diff = max_fort_attackers - max_fort_defenders

Instead of comparing (as currently) attackers and max_fort_attackers to know if all the attackers can participate, we'd just have to compare max_fort_attackers with (attackers<=defenders ? attackers : min(defenders + diff, attackers)). With this, wed' know dynamically how many fighters are allowed to participate in attack according to the number of defenders. Same with defenders : instead of comparing defenders with max_fort_defenders, we'd just have to compare max_fort_defenders with (attackers<=defenders ? min(attackers + diff, defenders) : defenders).

Only 2 comparisons to modify.
 

ikocka

Member
Hello, I like this game a lot :)
I would like to suggest towns to become upgradable.
for town to increase space from 50 to 60 players black hats would need to pay 1 000 000$ from town treasury
for town to increase space from 60 to 70 players black hats would need to pay 2 000 000$ from town treasury
for town to increase space from 70 to 80 players black hats would need to pay 4 000 000$ from town treasury
for town to increase space from 80 to 90 players black hats would need to pay 8 000 000$ from town treasury
for town to increase space from 90 to 100 players black hats would need to pay 16 000 000$ from town treasury
There could also be a different town image for different town level.
 

Jordy

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Forum moderator
Although I think there should be more options to spend town funds on, I personally do not think this is the right idea. However the thought of being able to spend town funds on more than just digging fort fights & construction is quite welcome.
 

ikocka

Member
I would also suggest a possibility of new players beeing able to once withdraw money from "town treasury". Every player would only be able to withdraw that money once. A row "withdraw welcome money" could be added in economy statistic with value zero at start. Once player withdraws the money from town treasury it would be set to one and he would not be able to withdraw welcome money in other towns, if he decides to change towns. An input field and 2x buttons could be added in town treasury tab where black hats would be able to set the amount of money that new players joining town would be able to withdraw. One Input field to enter amount of money that is available for withdraw, one button to confirm money amount that is available for witdraw, only black hats would be able to see those two. And one button "withdraw welcome money" that only brown hats would be able to see. "Withdraw welcome money" could be one of visible town attributes, it could enthusiate new players to search the world map more and find the town with highest "withdraw welcome money".
 

lordofwouldham

Active Member
some time ago the valentina set was given away either as a chest for full set or 1 item at a time. the problem is if you did no get the chest and only got a few bits there is no way to get full set as you can not sell them so it would have been better to give the chest only away and that way we all got the set. so can we sort so we can buy the chest/other bits if other player have them it would also be nice if older set not sellable where as a collector it would be nice to get 1 of everything we can hope this gets more talking and inno have a change of heart lordofwouldham
 
Top