Few infos about event's end and fort test.

[Kaeldrick]

Well, ok we'll see.

I'm a bit afraid after having participated in two Fort attacks last two or three days where we started P2 outnumbered. How are we supposed to attack a Fort having a 40% AAO buff from start? It began when P1 duration has been reduced, people don't even wait for a first fail anymore to swap on the defending side. I think it happened to both realms.

I hope I'll never experience this anymore but... It's actually only getting worse during EU prime time

When population is low, it's very nice for my alts, I must admit it. Thank you.

So... basically, we're all exploiting at some point a broken system to "farm" bags, renown bonus and tokens. Forts now almost always end with winning side = 2x (or 3x) losing side and a massive zerging most of the time + farming attackers at spawn.

Is this good?

[Ninjagon]

Asd for fort test it has overall also been seen as better and will stay in this "open" form.

Thx for the info, Natherul, but i though, that majority of players think the OLD system was better. Maybe I am mistaken?

Anything the devs are planing to do with fort population imbalances, xrealming for winning side (which is really annoying) and to boost attackers somehow?
Because when population is even, defenders have quite good advantage (from my personal experience).
THX.

[wpc56]

Fort is even less fun now than before and that's an achievement for sure.

Yesterday during NA hours, dest pushed one fort one after another with equal number (more like there were more dest then "magically" order have equal number... I wonder why)

1st one at stonewatch, dest tried some but they were a pug warband (as were we) so after 10 minutes of pushing (at least that was rvr)... then it was followed up by 30 min of farming their camp

Later at reikland they pushed fort with 6 man (while most ppl were in stonewatch) and everyone else joined from one to another... it started right off with defender camping attacker. I simply log after 10 minutes because that's tedious AF.

You can say well it's totally up to the player (and it is, dest shouldn't have pushed fort), but all player acts within the confine of developer's sandbox and the parameters they set up

Now it's like ppl said, either you have 2x as many ppl then ppl just jump to the zerg side (because you can't defend that, might as well get juicy 6 medals and 2-30k rr for 15 minutes) or you have equal-ish number and both sides start to speculate when to switch over to the easier side (usually defensive) when fort happens

[Natherul]

Asd for fort test it has overall also been seen as better and will stay in this "open" form.

Thx for the info, Natherul, but i though, that majority of players think the OLD system was better. Maybe I am mistaken?

Anything the devs are planing to do with fort population imbalances, xrealming for winning side (which is really annoying) and to boost attackers somehow?
Because when population is even, defenders have quite good advantage (from my personal experience).
THX.

we have a system that stops xrealming if it causes realm imbalance. As for switching sides in a fort its something that I have been thinking about the last few days.

[Alfa1986]

4. then it's even? doesn't understand the point at all

Ppl need to stop pretending that the dev's in any way should be accountable for ppl behavior. Their "job" isn't to hold our hands.

4. I also don’t understand how it can become more difficult at the same time both to defend and attack, or one thing became easier then the other is more difficult or vice versa. my opinion is of course easier to defend (under equal initial conditions: the number of players, the level of organization of players, etc.), but my opinion should be so, it works as intended. so that attackers can defeat the defenders, there must be either more, or they should be better organized. this happens in real battles, always during the assault the attackers die much more than the defenders.