[Fief Defense] 62 Signups - 34 Show Up

[Nessaj]

A persistent problem. People signing up for battles for then not to show. Already happened a lot in the new Strategus and it certainly happened in the latter versions as well. Some by mistake, most due to negligence.

Latest example:

Wolves vs Taznujat

62 Signups for Village Defense.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



34 Show up for the actual battle (The below image is pieced together from these two [1] [2] screenshots from the last 5 minutes of the battle).

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


visitors can't see pics , please register or login


~~~

Suggestions for a solution?

• Temporary Strategus Ban (You stumbled upon your way to the field of battle and broke something Must rest for X hours)
  
• Strategus Gold Penalty
• Temporary Gold Earning Penalty in C-RPG
• Temporary XP Earning Penalty in C-RPG

It could also run on a 2 strikes (3 is too generous) warning before a punishment sets in. The strikes would be on a time out (1/2 weeks), where if the player signs up for another battle and yet again does not show he's punished. OR the first strike is punished more lightly whereas the second is heavily punished.

For example the first strike would be a Strat gold penalty, if the player has no gold he should instead not be able to earn Strat gold in C-RPG. The second strike would temporary ban the player from attending any battles for a fixed amount of time.

[Dom.Miguel]

Bump for great justice

[Matey]

actually... the reason the AI can sign so many more players than the attackers is to account for the fact that there are always so many no shows... the idea is for them to end up with at least as many players as the attackers... and they have consistently done so... what is not expected and troublesome is when 60+ do show up vs 20-30 people...

[Ozin]

+1

The current system with no penalty just needlessly prevents players from joining strat battles because of wasted slots

[Nessaj]

actually... the reason the AI can sign so many more players than the attackers is to account for the fact that there are always so many no shows... the idea is for them to end up with at least as many players as the attackers... and they have consistently done so... what is not expected and troublesome is when 60+ do show up vs 20-30 people...

So your logic is that we leave the system flawed instead? If the amount of players versus each other is the problem - and it surely isn't there is almost always a full team during prime time - we could just lower the amount of player slots for a neutral fief.

By installing this change we'd make sure people show up and we'd also get rid of the fake sign-ups where people sign-up on the enemy side for friendlies for then to not show.

~

In my opinion villages should be buffed anyway, better gear, more troops. Thus allowing attackers to have more slots given it'll still be hard to take the village.

[PhantomZero]

In my opinion villages should be buffed anyway, better gear, more troops. Thus allowing attackers to have more slots given it'll still be hard to take the village.

The villages are already equipped with 30+ body armor and such, and 500 of them to boot. It's a tiny damn village, not a city or castle.

[Nessaj]

The villages are already equipped with 30+ body armor and such, and 500 of them to boot. It's a tiny damn village, not a city or castle.

Buff troop count in general OR gear slightly.

[PhantomZero]

It's already been two weeks, and there have been 3 AI villages captured, and you really want to make it harder?

This isn't supposed to be PvE you know, it's just a speedbump to prevent someone from running over all the villages in a week, but if nobody can take them at all, whats the point?

[Bjarky]

the OP suggestions would be nice to have, making sure people actually show up to their own chosen battles.
+ defenders should get their pay.
meanwhile attackers should have an better roster balance, seing a possible 90 people roster on AI def would be very tough, so to have an better battle experience for all, attacker should at least have a larger roster than this 30 something, wich is way too little.
it's probably made on some kind of relation to troop account, that one should be rebalanced to make it more fair than these ~30.

[Slamz]

I don't understand why this is a problem.  So you signed up to an attack and didn't show up.  So what?  Does this cause some sort of problem versus not signing up to begin with?

I signed up about 30 minutes before the battle.  It said "pending" and I was never on the roster, but it let me into the match when the time came.  I guess so many people not showing up meant there was plenty of room so it let the pendings in.  So there was nothing stopping late joiners from trying to get in if they wanted to.

[Bjarky]

because not everyone is getting in because of this 
plus people not taking this serious and not showing up isn't helping either to promote better battles.

[Gristle]

No real motivation to sign up since you don't get paid and you really don't get any experience worth mentioning.

[Vibe]

No real motivation to sign up since you don't get paid and you really don't get any experience worth mentioning.

This. Who would spend 1 hour+ getting killed for such a weak xp/gold reward? Boring. Best to grind battle, still.

[Segd]

Bans + payment = profit

[SittingBull]

Sorry. I went to a party.