Fort disconnect/leave exploit

[Onemantankwall]

This is factually incorrect with what the code does, however it does not matter since in the next patch you will not be able to enter a second fort.



Prove you wrong when its mythic assets? I dont make changes to benefit either realm

man....exatly, doors sich was alredy like this before any postern change; so that mean anyone who would had made any change would had perfeclty know/clear that ppl would had resolt to bottom funnels.......

hence why anyone check before push a change like that if the sich was fair? idk ..... rvr is not about pet a puppet, it's about positionin and such.....it's the first thing it should be check....sigh......

the 2x push is a way to deal with this problem destru have, for order it's just a surplus......

even today order pushed till cw ignoring all other pairing, it's crystal clear that they have an easy way to get into fortress and they are using it but i dont think any dev ( in what 2 month of fortress ) have done anything till now...

I have seriously 0 clue on what your trying to say with that message. But the only thing I get out of this is that you see bottom floor defence as something bad which I dont.

Bottom floor isnt bad. it's just broken and exploited which you dont seem to care to bandaide while perma fix is being worked on. We as players cunningly find our own way to avoid such one sided exploits and that gets instapatched the next weekend.... But you cant do ANYTHING to relieve the exploited one sided fort defense funnel farm?? That's just abit frustrating ya know?

[Hargrim]

Bottom floor isnt bad. it's just broken and exploited which you dont seem to care to bandaide while perma fix is being worked on. We as players cunningly find our own way to avoid such one sided exploits and that gets instapatched the next weekend.... But you cant do ANYTHING to relieve the exploited one sided fort defense funnel farm?? That's just abit frustrating ya know?

Changing models in game is bigger issue than fixing code related stuff. Deal with it and adjust the tinfoil hat.

[Drittalv]

Spoiler:

man....exatly, doors sich was alredy like this before any postern change; so that mean anyone who would had made any change would had perfeclty know/clear that ppl would had resolt to bottom funnels.......

hence why anyone check before push a change like that if the sich was fair? idk ..... rvr is not about pet a puppet, it's about positionin and such.....it's the first thing it should be check....sigh......

the 2x push is a way to deal with this problem destru have, for order it's just a surplus......

even today order pushed till cw ignoring all other pairing, it's crystal clear that they have an easy way to get into fortress and they are using it but i dont think any dev ( in what 2 month of fortress ) have done anything till now...

I have seriously 0 clue on what your trying to say with that message. But the only thing I get out of this is that you see bottom floor defence as something bad which I dont.

man IM NOT AGAINST BOTTOM

I AM AGAINST ORDER HAVEING BETTER DEFENDABLE / ATTACKEBLE DOOR THEN US

GO INTO MY FEEDBACK THREAD ABOUT GREENSKIN/DWARF FORTRESS THERE ARE ALL IMAGES WHICH PROVE EVERYTHING

SICH IS NOT FAIR , SOLVE IT SINCE IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY AFTER POSTERN LOCK

Getting defensive and angry only makes it harded to have a good discussion about the issue Tesq. We are constantly adapting our approach to keep attacks so we can deal with the difficulties with it and this strategy was one that worked well. If the devs really consider double pushing an exploit we will have to find other ways even if it might be frustrating.

This might be a bit much to ask Natherul but are you guys collecting any data on the win ratios for the different forts in any way? I think that people often get stuck up on the losing instances and forget about the winning ones just like we often see in scenarios (both sides complaining about always losing, even tho there will always be a winning side) If you got any win/loss ratio statistics for the different forts that you could share with the players that might help people seeing the bigger picture and maybe reduce the frustration. If not it might clarify the potential problems and make it easier for the community to come with helpful suggestions.

Just a thought keep up the good work!

[Tesq]

Spoiler:

I have seriously 0 clue on what your trying to say with that message. But the only thing I get out of this is that you see bottom floor defence as something bad which I dont.

man IM NOT AGAINST BOTTOM

I AM AGAINST ORDER HAVEING BETTER DEFENDABLE / ATTACKEBLE DOOR THEN US

GO INTO MY FEEDBACK THREAD ABOUT GREENSKIN/DWARF FORTRESS THERE ARE ALL IMAGES WHICH PROVE EVERYTHING

SICH IS NOT FAIR , SOLVE IT SINCE IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY AFTER POSTERN LOCK

Writing in caps does NOT make it easier to understand you. Also posterns have always been locked on RoR for forts. And may I remind you that we are precious few devs working on the game so changes can take time to implement. Forts are not something I would consider fully done with whats laid out yet either.

As for the size of doors its something that we are looking into.

postern has been locked some patch ago...... those are your team patch note not mine.....till some weeks ago anyone could enter fortress postern when main door was destroyed; so no one def bottom floor at the time (now only melee and of course now it is a viable choice depending on the fortress).

btw ty for looking into door sise that's litteraly ALL i wanted.

[Natherul]

Spoiler:

man IM NOT AGAINST BOTTOM

I AM AGAINST ORDER HAVEING BETTER DEFENDABLE / ATTACKEBLE DOOR THEN US

GO INTO MY FEEDBACK THREAD ABOUT GREENSKIN/DWARF FORTRESS THERE ARE ALL IMAGES WHICH PROVE EVERYTHING

SICH IS NOT FAIR , SOLVE IT SINCE IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY AFTER POSTERN LOCK

Writing in caps does NOT make it easier to understand you. Also posterns have always been locked on RoR for forts. And may I remind you that we are precious few devs working on the game so changes can take time to implement. Forts are not something I would consider fully done with whats laid out yet either.

As for the size of doors its something that we are looking into.

postern has been locked some patch ago...... those are your team patch note not mine.....till some weeks ago anyone could enter fortress postern when main door was destroyed; so no one def bottom floor at the time (now only melee and of course now it is a viable choice depending on the fortress).

btw ty for looking into door sise that's litteraly ALL i wanted.

Please show those notes because I have no recollection of such a thing. Nor have the code ever allowed postern attacks for fortresses.

[Tesq]

considering i do not keep up with update consistently , duno; one of the first fortress i was in i said lets def bott and ppl reply to me "no, they can enter postern" and i asked again and again if they were sure cuz of course it was strange to me as it wasnt live case and it also happened once to be killed by a bw wb pushing inside from postern.
It dosent really matter to me one way or another (idc for one systerm or another one), if when this transition happened between a system onto another or even if it was a bug of the time, just look into doors size please and thx you.

P.s: if you dont have enough time to fix it as fast as possible (understandable) then disable chaos fortress because its unfair and order are exploiting this. All here, i dislike one side exploit/unfair advantages.

[Onemantankwall]

Bottom floor isnt bad. it's just broken and exploited which you dont seem to care to bandaide while perma fix is being worked on. We as players cunningly find our own way to avoid such one sided exploits and that gets instapatched the next weekend.... But you cant do ANYTHING to relieve the exploited one sided fort defense funnel farm?? That's just abit frustrating ya know?

Changing models in game is bigger issue than fixing code related stuff. Deal with it and adjust the tinfoil hat.

So removing the pretty much only way to circumvent the door size/funnel exploit helps how? Atm the teams stance is "go to one fort get farmed for 45 mins outside first and if a dev sees you refusing to get farmed you're getting booted out, but leaving is no longer a viable option either anymore so you get shafted from every direction.. I mean removing the 2 fort push shouldnt be nerfhammered untill original issue is solved or at least bandaide so that the attackers have SOME kind of chance of anything other than instadeath upon entering the only door

[Hargrim]

The thing you try to imply Onemantankwall is this:

"It's great strategy to convince 6 out of 12 players from Order to not join the scenario that just popped when there are 12 of us. So cunning."

Now multiply it to the size of the fort pop.

Forts are designed as "closed RvR" with more or less equal numbers. There is no place for "cunning, smart strategy" there that meatgame outside the fort map itself.

[wonshot]

Alright to go back on topic let's look at the patchnotes:

"[Fortresses]

- Leaving or crashing in a fortress will now still give you the same rewards and chance of loot as being in there. However not being there on the conclusion of the fight will mean that you wont receive the bonus 2 tokens for win if your realm did win."

I've been around MMOrpgs long enough to understand that there are two ways of reading such notes. How the players will read it, and how the Devs try to formulate something so its easy to understand and avoid confusion.

With this exact line of patchnotes I honestly think all of us, the players, read it as a solution to the (a)playercap in forts and the (b)limmited way of getting invader + (c)keeping orvr flowing and not feel forced to fight in the fort. It really did seem like a good change, for this sort of reasoning.
Because players who wanted invader could now enter the fort, on classes that is not exactly "fit" for largescale. Such as WE/WL/WH etc. They could with this change be able to enter an ongoing fort via their reservation, and drop back out allowing the aoe-spamming-classes to get in. (seems like a win/win)

Not only that, but more total invader tokens were being handed out by players entering/leaving so more people get to obtain their set items(and put them in the vault because over half of the classes have little use of this poorly optimized set )

Hoooowever,

From reading Dev-comments in this topic it appear to me, like the mentioned change was not aiming at adressing these issues we, the playerbased, assumed was needing correction based of our view, but instead was aimed at something more simple such as "reward players who DC and cant log back in without the reservation timer expires"?

Looking forward it truely makes me happy to read that Stonewatch door is being looked at, since from even an Order perspective its a joke when you add collision. And I dont see why closed postern doors should be a thing in forts. Didnt we learn during the "only 1 parring open at once" testing week, that focusing too much criticalmass and player attention to one door way is not only a struggle but also no-fun.

My final suggesion is open Fort postern doors and in some way allow double fort attacks, with city siges the attakers will need 2 out of the 3 forts anyways to siege the capital so sacrificing 1 of the 2 attack fort-attacks might not be as viable in most situations.

[wonshot]

.... Also posterns have always been locked on RoR for forts. And may I remind you that we are precious few devs working on the game so changes can take time to implement. Forts are not something I would consider fully done with whats laid out yet either.

As for the size of doors its something that we are looking into.

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=31588

[Fortresses]

- The door to the Lord Room in Stonewatch has been slightly widened.
- The postern doors to Butchers pass and stonewatch has been removed.

Would be a good idea to revert this, i think many in the playerbase would agree on.
Thanks for your work though, really! <3