GM organised Awesomia Fort Battles

[Loki]

Howdy Cowboys and Cowgirls,

aren't you tired of the same boring fights week after week?

Alamogordo​	Enewetak​

At the moment it looks like most people join Defence as it's a sure win without fainting and the rewards are the same on either side.

Should we try to make the battles a bit more interesting?
I'm referring to joining rules. Either by class or by town/alliance.

Please, cast your vote and we are also open to any feedback/suggestion!

---

Yours sincerely,

Loki​

Community Manager

 

[Raza]

Either let us join by class or make it so when we try to join it assigns us to the least populated part

 

[martoru]

by class will be a fiasco

 

[BaggyBlue]

Why not fill att first? and completion keep closed? Then open completion?

Example 15 duelists, 15 workers, 25 soldiers and 25 adventures?
So fight it balanced 80:80

Next fk those of Att in Deff and those of Deff in the Att

 

[Loki]

make it so when we try to join it assigns us to the least populated part

I can't do that. That is Dev thing.

by class will be a fiasco

The only time we have tried it, the result was great.

Why not fill att first? and completion keep closed? Then open completion?

Hard to achieve.

I'm referring to joining rules. Either by class or by town/alliance.

This was just an example. We can try many things till we get it right.
My idea was rules or no rules. If there will be rules, they will not be written in stone. We can change them.
If something doesn't work, we don't do it again.

 

[martoru]

The only time we have tried it, the result was great.

my experience was exactly oposite

 

[Raza]

We can try many things till we get it right.

Can we get a list of options that are available right now without dev intervention(or the only options are by class/town/alliance)? Because the simplest thing will be to ask the dev to implement a function that when a gm attacks a fort it makes it so it forces people to join at random or on the less filled side when there is a difference of at least 10 players on a side, because that will solve 99% of the problems with the last one being that some people may get angry because they can't choose a side, like it would matter in gm attacked forts. Or simply offer the loosing part a spinach can so they don't cry about lost energy/hp

 

[Loki]

On Alamogordo:
44 Attackers vs 36 Defenders.

• START HP:
  • Attack: 376714
  • Defence: 350346
• DMG:
  • Attack: 318970
  • Defence: 371415

This was the only time we have tried it but, hey, I can be wrong and it's better without restrictions.
That's why I've made the poll. To let democracy win.
If you guys are happy like this, without rules, we keep it like that.

Because the simplest thing will be to ask the dev to implement a function

That is not the simplest thing by far. I can ask, wait, maybe get approved, wait for it to implemented. It can take a lot of time.
I am referring to things we can do now. Starting this or next week.
Now we can do restrictions by town, alliance, class and any combo of those.

But, it's all up to you guys. Without restrictions it is far easier for me to set it up so I'm basically asking if I should do more work.

 

[MeadowofAsh]

@Loki

For Alamogordo the battles you said were great, were just free wins for the adventurers(do to their numbers), so going by class would not be fair or interesting.

Going by town is an option.

Also if you want to do lots of work maybe a work up a list of the usual suspects that go to GM battles. Then feed the list into a random generator for each battle to come up with two teams to make an invite list for the battle. Non usual suspects could be added later if they send a ticket,
Now of coarse some will just skip if they can't get in defense, but at least the defense wouldn't be so overwhelming and battles might last long enough for more to get good bonds and experience.

Though will wish you luck on trying, as I remember a good amount of belly aching about the class locked sides, so really not sure anything you do will make things better if the playerbase doesn't want it.


Now if there were fort battles changes being tested, 100% would be nice to ensure balanced battles for that, as what does a slaughter of attack actually tell anyone.

Good luck

 

[BaggyBlue]

There are 1,193 registrations/players on Alamogordo and 1,119 of them could do with FK! Beta has a few time zones, so not everyone always participates in fk! And finding the right time where everyone can participate will be a real challenge. That's why only those with whom Bast do it.

Otherwise you can give better rewards for attacking than for defending! That the stimulus is there for the attacker.

Attacker 100 U-P-B 2x Red Envelope and defense usual 75 U-P-B? 1x green 1x red even if defense wins, the reward remains the same. It must be rewarding for the attacker, otherwise it will never calve without being forced. The class is separated

 

[Loki]

For Alamogordo the battles you said were great, were just free wins for the adventurers(do to their numbers), so going by class would not be fair or interesting.

All vs Adventurers?

Also if you want to do lots of work maybe a work up a list of the usual suspects that go to GM battles. Then feed the list into a random generator for each battle to come up with two teams to make an invite list for the battle.

I was thinking of something along those lines.

Though will wish you luck on trying, as I remember a good amount of belly aching about the class locked sides, so really not sure anything you do will make things better if the playerbase doesn't want it.

If the vote shows that the players don't want them, we won't do them.
I haven't checked the votes so far, I want to be surprised.

you can give better rewards for attacking than for defending! That the stimulus is there for the attacker.

Thought of that but some players might not agree. A bonus for bravery?

 

[BaggyBlue]

Otherwise the classes will be separated like last time? there will never be peace. The attack has to be better rewarded than the defense.

Then everyone is on the attack and nobody is on the defensive

 

[Loki]

Then everyone is on the attack and nobody is on the defensive

 

[Raza]

Can't we simply just offer the loosing part some bonus(like a can of spinach and 25 oup for the trouble)? Or can't you set the rewards differently for loosing/winning and only for attackers/defenders?

 

[PRANCINGPURPLEPONY]

how would restrictions by town/alliance work for townless people or for towns not in alliances?
If it doesn't have a way to include them then it could eliminate some players completely.
Then again having restrictions can do that as well, some people won't join or bother to show up if they don't like the choice allowed.

Seems to me the more viable answer is to give better rewards to whichever side is the smaller [whether it is by numbers or total HP?]

 

[Loki]

how would restrictions by town/alliance work for townless people or for towns not in alliances?
If it doesn't have a way to include them then it could eliminate some players completely.

They would be able to choose any side.

Seems to me the more viable answer is to give better rewards to whichever side is the smaller [whether it is by numbers or total HP?]

I can only set the rewards before, not after, so I can't know which one it will be.
I can guess (as probably all of us can) but can't be certain.

 

[BaggyBlue]

On German worlds they have always looked shortly before fk how many are on site. And so reward put in.

Can not you look at the list of how many were there and subsequently pay reward from? Put in inventory?

 

[Loki]

Should we introduce joining rules to GM organised Awesomia battles?

• Yes. 75.8%
  Votes: 25
• No. 24.2%
  Votes: 8

The majority has spoken.