The mighty Fort Firght

  • Thread starter DeletedUser30224
  • Start date

DeletedUser22575

No to this, what just because someone is "healthier" than someone else your gun suddenly shoots a bigger magical bullet.

Gun damage should have a fixed ranged and thats it.

Instead of some artificial "health point" fix like this just cap HP or limit it in some other way.
 

Elmyr

Yeah, I'd still prefer diminishing returns on health to stronger = weaker.
 

Hellstromm

This proposal doesn't make stronger equals weaker. It, in fact, poses exactly what you would prefer, diminishing returns on health points, but only applicable to fort fights.

Please review the charts I provided in an earlier post.
 

Elmyr

This proposal doesn't make stronger equals weaker. It, in fact, poses exactly what you would prefer, diminishing returns on health points, but only applicable to fort fights.
I realize it takes more hits still, but more hp taking more damage is illogical. It makes much more sense to me for more SP in health to be less effective exactly as it is for every other fort skill.
 

DeletedUser22685

I realize it takes more hits still, but more hp taking more damage is illogical. It makes much more sense to me for more SP in health to be less effective exactly as it is for every other fort skill.
However, then we may have to lower duel weapon damage or duellers would suffer from KOs far too often.
 

Elmyr

However, then we may have to lower duel weapon damage or duellers would suffer from KOs far too often.
How do you figure that? Does diminishing returns on aim affect dueling? Dodging? How about leadership and hiding towards jobs? I'm talking about diminishing returns on health as a fort skill.
 

DeletedUser22685

How do you figure that? Does diminishing returns on aim affect dueling? Dodging? How about leadership and hiding towards jobs? I'm talking about diminishing returns on health as a fort skill.
So you're suggesting a different health bar for fort health and duel/job health?

PS. Aim and dodge do have a diminishing return in duels if you pump them ridiculously high.
 

Elmyr

So you're suggesting a different health bar for fort health and duel/job health?

PS. Aim and dodge do have a diminishing return in duels if you pump them ridiculously high.
1. There already is a different health bar. Start a battle, get hit, and refresh and your hp doesn't change in the game window.

2. Yes, and job LP has diminishing returns, but it's not the same formula.
 

DeletedUser22685

1. There already is a different health bar. Start a battle, get hit, and refresh and your hp doesn't change in the game window.
I know that, but that's the only way for the two bars to show different values. If duel HP and fort HP used a different formula, I assume players would want to keep track of both and that would require a different bar, or at least some indication of what the different values are.
 

Elmyr

I know that, but that's the only way for the two bars to show different values. If duel HP and fort HP used a different formula, I assume players would want to keep track of both and that would require a different bar, or at least some indication of what the different values are.
So throw it in fort overview somewhere. :p
 

Hellstromm

It is the same variable, it is merely handled within the flash program (fort battle) separately. Anyway Elmyr, there is effectively no difference to your proposal than to the one before us. Both will have the same results. Do we now argue the how to spite the what? Do we starve ourselves in debate of which utensils to use, when the meal would taste the same, nourish us just as equally?

(want more corny wise sayings to argue the point?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elmyr

It is the same variable, it is merely handled within the flash program (fort battle) separately. Anyway Elmyr, there is effectively no difference to your proposal than to the one before us. Both will have the same results. Do we now argue the how to spite the what? Do we starve ourselves in debate of which utensils to use, when the meal would taste the same, nourish us just as equally?

(want more corny wise sayings to argue the point?)
No it's not the same. It's more similar to Fort Battle Class Adjustment, which was voted down, than it is to diminishing returns. And what's happening to your analogies lately? How is this even comparable to starving? You seem to think the situation in fort battles is dire. Have you even been in one since 2010, besides as a Scoundrel? You know Scoundrel hp is atypical, right?
 

Hellstromm

hehe, I've been in a few even this year, ya njub. Just not playing under the Hellstromm name. Too much "drama" attached to that handle.

And this proposal is very much like diminishing returns and absolutely nothing like the fort battle class adjustment. Please review those reports and graphs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hellstromm

Umm, natural? Don't really know how to respond to that.

Well, ya I do. What are ya, nuts?!?! What's natural about any part of this friggin' game, where you can wear britches that make you more skilled at growing turnips!?!? What's natural about losing a gunfight against a gal with a bowie knife, or putting 8 slugs into someone and having them win the gunfight? What's natural about someone being able to take 80+ bullets and arrows, or winning a fort battle because you run into the enemy's fort and cling to their flagpole for 5 minutes?!?

At what point did tobacco end up being the least profitable item, and some wench's undergarments get top dollar? (okay, maybe that last one is normal, but whatever, you get my drift).

It will have virtually the same effect as diminishing returns, without pissing off a buttload of players who paid a helluva lot of nuggets to get respecced. This is the elegant solution...
 

DeletedUser22685

It will have virtually the same effect as diminishing returns, without pissing off a buttload of players who paid a helluva lot of nuggets to get respecced. This is the elegant solution...
Actually, both ways are going to piss off those players. I put my points in HP to take 50 bullets, not < 30. And I also put my points in HP to have 13k, not some far inferior number. So either way is going to screw over myself and numerous other players, picking which one is just a matter of choosing whether we want all players to do mega damage with guns that hit for up to 800 per hit (and that's not even a crit) or minimal damage with each side's HP cut. I haven't really commented on this thread since the very start, but that's probably because nothing was going to change my vote for my own selfish needs.
 

Elmyr

It will have virtually the same effect as diminishing returns, without pissing off a buttload of players who paid a helluva lot of nuggets to get respecced. This is the elegant solution...
No, the elegant solution is the CONSISTENT solution, not backasswards diminishing returns. There's a traditional gaming logic to crits, but there's no logic to taking more damage from everybody because you CAN take more damage.

I don't really see how this will prevent duelers from having 12k battles. I've had enough 12k battles with a soldier and adventurer that I don't see them going away. In fact, as someone who's frequently a general or captain, I would expect my damage to increase as I have more opportunities to shoot at fresh targets early in battles. Generals and captains already have a bit of damage advantage by getting shots at fat LMS adventurers. Instead of duelers getting all the damage boxes, it will be generals.
 

Hellstromm

meh, it's just a game and I see no point arguing this ad infinitum. just present your solution instead of waiting until so much time and energy has been put into one and then naysaying it. Pointless and demoralizing is all this amounts to.
 

DeletedUser30224

You guys are arguing about what feels right and what feels wrong. This feels unrealistic, but so is the whole game, so why not? It'll fix the problem ... oups, did I say problem? I meant the necessity to have tanks to win a battle, because the more tanks you have the more forts you own, or all forts for that matter. It was the same thing with GG stackable bonus, the more GG you had, the more invincible you were ... up to a theoretical point when each side would have the same amount of GG ... which never hapened by the way, and I feel it will not happen with tanks either. The end result with GG stackable bonus was: they nerfed it.

Now .. this is a bit harder to accept because Duelers will vote NO (they want their unmerited selfish gdamn boxes) and soldier tanks go both ways, some do not want to change, it's costly to change your skills and time consuming to do it without placate shamans, others would love to be able to do jobs, duels and fort fights alltogether. Adventurers and builders are the only people who "should" embrace this. In a twisted way, nerfing HP is beneficial to builders and adventurers.

You can argue all you want gentlemen, but if this would be accepted, tanks would do more damage to other tanks, and all players would do a helluva lot more damage to other tanks ... it would be only a matter of time to realise that having more than 5k hp is a total give-away for an extra 3-5 rounds. And THAT, that would be a personal choice. You can keep the HP if you so wish, as it is with any skill. The only thing is that HP is only beneficial to actions where you know you will protect yourself with that HP ... and let's face it, we do not keep HP for doing hunting pumas with 0 LP.

I see it as a problem, I am an adventurer tank myself,(wasn't fortunate enough to be a soldier or a dueler), I will not even go to how useless an adventurer is in a fort most of the times ... I would like something to change regarding all this more HP more wins. I happen to be a leader, proven might I add, but now I find it soo difficult to make a strategy that would surprise the enemy,so that we might secure a win because of discipline, careful thinking, self sacrifice and a bit of luck instead of running of HP before their tanks die ... I am talking attacks. Defences do not need much thought atm, if you have it in you to make a topic stating where you want to position your troops even as offliners, you are secured...most leaders on my side just ignore the whole topic when defending, because it is "bad luck" to loose a fort in defence.

The question is : will we have more entertaining battles with balanced builds or nothing will change?
I can only hope for it, and my logic tells me that we should. To make it simple, all those tanks that have pure HP (in attack), have a bad chance to hit and a worse chance to dodge ... but the up part is that they can take more hits, about one third more hits than it would be after this proposed change. The really crappy thing is that even though they take more, the whole attacking side misses much more than the defense on their towers and walls ... so even if the charts are showing that the attack should win, in the end it comes to no tanks on the ground and some HP on towers while the horde is protected behind them shooting comfortably with even 10 HP. We have to remember that Blues have a third advantage, and that is that they move first, and this in my oppinion gives it an edge.

Now, if the attacking side had a chance to kill those defenders, some of those defenders in the first rounds, it would balance it out in the big picture. 30 or so attackers shooting at a player with 4-5 or even 6k hp on point "should" kill him. If a player is dead in the first round, it is one less gun shooting at you. While Reds would also fall faster, taking in account that they have more players to sacrifice would even it out ... enough to tip the scales in favour of a good leader ... and here strategy and movement comes.

This is my logic, I may be wrong, please tell me, I can't muster more than this.

Elmyr or Futurama, I don't know who came up with the idea of diminishing returns on HP or why it was rejected, knowing this much as I know now, I would definitely vote in favour of it. I either missed it or was so new to this game that I was still trying to understand how a knife kills a bullet.

While I would like to convince you guys to vote in favour, it is your sole choice to do as you want, and that goes to Tj Tuttle as well. But please be considerate of what it would change to the game instead of how realistic it is.

I do hope to see that HP nerfed any way possible ... Elmyr or Futurama, if this get's rejected, maybe you could do that HP Diminishing returns again ... I do not know how many other viable options are there to reduce the HP, if they all get shoot down, we might as well try again and again :)

Hellstorm, thank you for defending this :)
 

rice farmer

This would be a welcome change for me since I can downgrade to 2900 hp and respec to do jobs or put them in ff skills.