Actual Fort suggestions

[Marawo]

Current issues with Fort:

Stage 2 (Flags) has barely any impact for the defenders

If you plan to do a bottom floor defense there is barely any incentive to engage in stage 2 as the defender, the extra damage from artillery is so minimal it doesn't make any real difference in your defensive power. Rather it accelerates stage 2 by bigger doorhits and gets you to the next stage faster.

If the defending force outmatches the attackers, stage 2 can drag on forever, combined with the low incentive to do well in stage2 just skipping this stage is encouraged.

Stage 3 (Lord) is too long

Stage 3 takes too long, it becomes boring and if the defenders aren' beat after 4-5 assaults it becomes an awkward waiting game for both sides.

Defender/Attacker advantages are unbalanced

Current design of the Fort heavily favours the Defenders. Defenders only need to be able to hold a funnel which requires very little organisation beyond building a decent wb setup and spamming aoe on the entry in contrast to the attackers who have a much higher organization requirement and way more increments that can make the assault a failure. I am saying the workload is unbalanced.


How to fix all that:


This is how the current system moves fort progression forward:

Stage 1 (Preptime) Outter door falls after certain time leading to stage 2
Stage 2 (Flags) Depending on how well the attackers do with the flags inner drops superfast or at snailspeed.
Stage 3 (Lord) Timer for defenders victory start. Fort ends when either the timer runs out or Lord dies.


This is how i imagine how it should work:

Stage 1 (Preptime) Outter door falls after certain time leading to stage 2
Stage 2 (Flags) Timer for defender victory starts. Ram hits inner door 0-10% (or whatever value is balanced) no flags/no progress!
Stage 3 (Lord) Fort ends when either the timer runs out or Lord dies.

Why is this an improvement?
It reduces awkward decisionmaking for the defenders like letting the enemy take flags prematurely to progress the Fort.
There is no point in having 3rd stage anyways if you can't breach outter wall properly or hold flags at any efficiency.
Dominating or skirmishing stage 2 as the Defender is a viable strategy to win.
Delaying the enemy is a viable defender strategy now to rob the attacker valuable time.
Stage 2 now directly affects stage 3 in how much time you have to breach the final line of defense.
Time becomes a resource instead of a hassle.

All of this gives the defenders more tools to do something to stop the attackers.
Which means Stage 3 can be rebalanced to get alot rougher for the defenders without giving the attackers "free fort".

Imo Fort timer should be 60min max. after the outter walls drop.


Please give me your thoughts about the consequences this change could have.



extra: After successful Defender defense push the active zone to the middle (Praag,DW,TM) this stops zone repetitiveness and gives a good opportunity for a counter offensive and makes campaign more dynamic.

[zulnam]

I agree that the timer starting at Stage 2 would make things more interesting, but don’t defenders get a boost from Stage 2 anyway? Besides the artillery i mean.

And anyone know specifics on how the artillery works? Actual numbers?

[DanielWinner]

Thank you very much for the structured feedback and suggestion.

[Alfa1986]

current proposals for the forts: make account of the scenarios for reserving place on the fort. there was a proposal recently to include scenarios in the zone blocking process?!?! let's say 2 groups in the attacking realm, and 1 group in the defenders. choose those players who have the maximum number of victories in scenarios in 1 hour.(or 2 h, or 30 min don't matter)

[Ototo]

current proposals for the forts: make account of the scenarios for reserving place on the fort. there was a proposal recently to include scenarios in the zone blocking process?!?! let's say 2 groups in the attacking realm, and 1 group in the defenders. choose those players who have the maximum number of victories in scenarios in 1 hour.(or 2 h, or 30 min don't matter)

No. If you want to participate in an RvR event, you earn your slot in the RvR lake. Specially when any contribution that does not include taking the enemy keep in the lake is meaningless, or in other words; there is no fort if you don't lock the zone.

[Alfa1986]

current proposals for the forts: make account of the scenarios for reserving place on the fort. there was a proposal recently to include scenarios in the zone blocking process?!?! let's say 2 groups in the attacking realm, and 1 group in the defenders. choose those players who have the maximum number of victories in scenarios in 1 hour.(or 2 h, or 30 min don't matter)

No. If you want to participate in an RvR event, you earn your slot in the RvR lake. Specially when any contribution that does not include taking the enemy keep in the lake is meaningless, or in other words; there is no fort if you don't lock the zone.

why not? if carring wooden boxes glowing red is very boring, it would be better doing some scenarious for this times. rvr lake would not be empty anyway, that only 12 men take spot for reserve, another spots(60) will be from rvr. and by the way, this service will bring more benefits for the premeydes that you love so much, not for pugs. against a good group, pugs have no chance on scenarios. Of course, there is the problem of the fact that at this time people will simply stop doing sc, but here you can introduce restrictions so that accounting is kept only if a person plays at least 4-6 scenarios in 1 hour, if less then this reserve does not work. there is also a problem that unscrupulous players in the big guild can send a part of their fighters to the opposite side and they will lose on purpose. but there is no way to protect against all possible hacking options.

[Silveras]

The suggestions on the timers do sound very interesting, but from what you said the defenders are heavily favored anyways and it feels like less time for attackers to make those coordinated attacks even more difficult than it already is now.

So I feel that change would only exasperate the issue. I feel like stage 2 needs to have a larger impact on whom is going to win the fort and stop those awkward afk sessions after the attackers lose hope on the funnel pushes.

With that being said I feel there need to be a higher % of attackers allowed in forts than there already are. The attackers have pushed through the zones to get to that point. It should be the defenders pushing against an unstoppable foe and having those epic moments of an amazing defense. Not the case where there defenders just need to set up a funnel and stage 2 doesnt matter because they will defend anyways.

[Alfa1986]

Well, if they have done such a long way, it can be for every attacker to simply give a button to kill everyone in the zone)), it will be easier and faster. the defenders have done exactly the same way, despite the fact that they are so in minority ...

[MaTyllDa]

remove forts from the game problem solved nothing lost

[Hargrim]

remove forts from the game problem solved nothing lost

remove yourself from the game problem solved nothing lost

How easy and constructive that was.