The FA is unwell

[Fjfif]

There are gaps in the ruleset for fellowships and the fellowship adventures that incentivize behavior which is contrary to the spirit of the game, IMHO. Inno Product team should review the situation and update the rules for balanced play.

Fellowships have discovered a way to excel at the FA, achieving scores over 100k. However the methods involve player sharing, alt accounts and exiled players. (Edit: this is the “exile-mayhem” scenario.) When players are made to leave a fellowship to make room for a FA alt account or alt player, it is disruptive to the fellowship and breaks the integrity of the game. Only a handful of fellowships engage in this practice to the detriment of all others.

Some updates to the rules for fellowship membership would address this. Consider the following changes:
+ to contribute to an FA, an account must be a fellowship member for two weeks prior the event start (2 weeks based on the beta “heads up”)
+ accounts that depart a fellowship in the two weeks following an FA become ineligible to contribute for that fellowship in the next FA, also:
+ consider alt accounts that only serve to “farm” FA badges as Push Accounts

With such rules in place it will make fellowships stronger, in the community sense, and level the field for the myriad fellowships that do not wish to exile members for FA points. And the game will be more fun and rewarding for all.

-Fjfif of Elcysandir

Summary: Based on comments, most people believe there are problems with the FA that should be addressed, but there is no consensus how, and changing FS membership 'lock-out' periods is largely unsupported as a possible solution. There were no comments on alt accounts being used as FA farms one way or the other. Many commenters provide alternative suggestions for improving the FA.

 

[Lelanya]

I see what you are trying to do, however I have the following reservations.

Let's say that I run a popular FS. Let us also say that I have a waiting list for players who wish to join. What if, I then discover that one of the existing members has been writing other fellows privately and sort of 'forcing' them to take private swaps and that when I ask around, it transpires that they've played the same tune with at least 15 other fellows. (There's a lot more to this very true story, but it's not about them). So when I catch this person lying outright, and remove them for the good of all, what if their replacement arrives less than a week prior to the start of FA?

It's unhealthy to retain players who are toxic. It's unfair to restrict honest players from participation in FA, either.

We the players asked for a lockout after the FA started to prevent abuse. Now, because of Perks, FSs are locked during both Tournament and Spire and now we cannot even leave our regular FS to trade with a friend without giving up either Tournament or Spire rewards.

I personally don't think that we should punish honest players for a couple of bad actors.

 

[Fjfif]

Yes, this certainly needs to be thoughtfully executed. Extending the lockout period would solve the underlying problem, which you imply to agree with. But maybe there’s another way that Inno Product can devise to lessen the downside.

 

[Lelanya]

I agree that folks shouldn't switch around during FA, a cheat that several FSs employed during the first FA. We have to be cautious about throwing around accusations, however, because my own Iceni was undergoing a change that particular weekend, we had voted on a rule change.

Do I agree with extending the lockout? No.

Do I think that something ought to be done to restrict FA pushing? Yes.

But again we ought to be very cautious. I know of FSs where if the group votes to go whole hog, then players who loathe FA leave for a couple of weeks, while folks who have a city on every server, join up with some friends for a little mayhem. You might see them pushing, while I know the players involved, and they're just keeping their gaming experience fresh and fun.

 

[Fjfif]

My assertion is that such an exile-mayhem scenario, as you describe, is not in the spirit of the game, a perversion of the design. And no disagreement here that (except for the exiled members) a first place win with 100k points is both fun and fresh - gaming the system often is.

This post is to understand A) does Inno find this to be acceptable? And B) if not: what would be its remedy?

If it is acceptable, then it should be explicitly stated, so we’re all clear this is the intent of the game. I do not believe this is the case, but maybe, and if so, would appreciate the clarification from Inno.

 

[Lelanya]

Oh boy
You have a poll going now. Please read this thread.

 

[Darielle]

If I'm going whole hog on a fellowship and someone tells me that they are not going to play and not going to add a single workshop, I'll ask them if they may be happier in a fellowship that does not regularly do alternate "big" FAs. If they decide to leave as a result of my question then you bet your life I'm going to try to get a good FA player just before the FA. I won't be kicking them out right after, or have the other player return. They've made their choice and that's that.

Do I want to limit my ability to do that? Heck no. Do I believe that the FA is "unwell" and needs to be fixed? Heck yes. But those are two different issues.

What I want to see is a fourth map with decent prizes, or a pit that is TRULY a pit ... a dump for all badges. (or both) The pit is a mind-numbing torture chamber that I honestly don't know why we even bother with, but every so often, we have this need to prove we can still make the top 3-5.

I hate the fact that the fellowship with either the most cheating or enough diamonds wins the top spot. It wasn't always that way. I was in a fellowship that got number 1 three times and I don't believe they cheated OR used diamonds. I would have noticed new players, big diamond spends, etc. But now, I keep my eyes open on the FAs and I find shenanigans all the time. But Inno doesn't care as long as those shenanigans make them more money. They certainly aren't going to limit how many diamonds players can dump in the FA.

But a lot of people have asked for a fourth map or a true pit over the years and I don't know that Inno will ever do it. So the best thing a fellowship AM can do is decide for themselves, "Is it worth bragging rights?" The higher the scores go ... over 100K now .... I'm finding myself believing it isn't worth it. Losing your entire stash of 100s of ccs, coin rains, other enchantments, spell frags, and aw kp just seems ridiculous. Not to mention the tons of goods and troops to get those spire/tourney badges. It was worth it a few years ago, and I LOVED the FA then. Now, I'm beginning to hate it and I'm the FA mage as well as the AM, so it's just a lot of work for little benefit.

My team saves ccs and all the other enchantments for months before a "whole hog" FA. We had enough coin rains in the last one for two FAs, lol. We work our buns off, but we refuse to spend diamonds on the FA. Therefore, we may wind up becoming a 3 map, 1 path each, fellowship if scores keep soaring simply because other teams are willing to throw away all of their diamonds for simple bragging rights and that fairly unimpressive number 1 building.

 

[Fjfif]

Oh boy
You have a poll going now. Please read this thread.

Thank you for this.. seems no way to close the poll from my end :/

 

[Fjfif]

I appreciate the discussions and alternate perspectives on this and welcome more

 

[Alram]

There are a lot of funny things that go on during an FA that seem contrary to the spirit of the game. Why pick on people who rotate players?

 

[Fjfif]

There are a lot of funny things that go on during an FA that seem contrary to the spirit of the game. Why pick on people who rotate players?

Do you see that as a problem? What’s another way to address it if so?

 

[Alram]

I see that your FS does a lot of things to give you an edge over other teams in an adventure. Why not rotate players too? It's just one of the many options available to all teams who wish to be #1.

 

[ajqtrz]

So what do all the big FA players have in common that makes them able to do what they do? They have the space and/or the diamonds. That's it. The diamonds we can't fix and Inno probably wouldn't want to fix it. But the space we can. Here's how: We limit the number of lvl 1 workshops and T1 buildings you can have at one time. Say 50 of each. Now that's still a fair bit of territory, but not so much that those building FA farm cities can just out-build everybody. It still allows for the building of FA competitive cities, but it also increases the number of competitive fellowships while still allowing fellowships to get through the FA stages.

Another advantage is simply that to get that high score you can't rely on three, four, or five massive -- 250 workshops or more -- heavy hitters but have to get everybody working together. And that, I think, is the real determiner of a successful FA team.

And, finally, it will force those who buy the FA top slot to spend a lot more. Inno's got to love that!

That's my proposal.

AJ

 

[Fjfif]

I see that your FS does a lot of things to give you an edge over other teams in an adventure. Why not rotate players too? It's just one of the many options available to all teams who wish to be #1.

We play solid in the spirit of the game, we have several nonFA players and happy they remain in the FS. But it seems you see player rotation as ‘by design’, is that right? I want to make sure I reflect your view accurately in the summary.

 

[Iyapo]

I do not have a problem with fellowships rotating players for the FA, some players love the FA and try to join "all in" fellowships prior to the FA. They want to win and are willing to decimate inventories and cities to get there. They give players who do not want to go all in an out that does not harm the fellowships FA goals.

 

[Fjfif]

So what do all the big FA players have in common that makes them able to do what they do? They have the space and/or the diamonds. That's it. The diamonds we can't fix and Inno probably wouldn't want to fix it. But the space we can. Here's how: We limit the number of lvl 1 workshops and T1 buildings you can have at one time. Say 50 of each. Now that's still a fair bit of territory, but not so much that those building FA farm cities can just out-build everybody. It still allows for the building of FA competitive cities, but it also increases the number of competitive fellowships while still allowing fellowships to get through the FA stages.

Another advantage is simply that to get that high score you can't rely on three, four, or five massive -- 250 workshops or more -- heavy hitters but have to get everybody working together. And that, I think, is the real determiner of a successful FA team.

And, finally, it will force those who buy the FA top slot to spend a lot more. Inno's got to love that!

That's my proposal.

AJ

I like this proposal. Relatively clean to implement, balances play even for those who have purchased premium expansions and unconstrained by space (like me). It would still incentivize alt accounts and exiling of nonFA players however.

 

[Iyapo]

I also don't think there is a problem with a player adding a poll to a forum post to gather opinions.

 

[Maeryn]

I don't think having a lockout to join a fellowship prior to the start of the fellowship adventure is a good idea. Your eliminating a small portion of the player base that inno wants to keep that is the new players by having a lockout.

 

[Fjfif]

I also don't think there is a problem with a player adding a poll to a forum post to gather opinions.

Yes the poll is intended to support a stance on the problem statement not the solution. Leylana’s contrarian language threw me off for a moment.

 

[Alram]

We play solid in the spirit of the game, we have several nonFA players and happy they remain in the FS. But it seems you see player rotation as ‘by design’, is that right? I want to make sure I reflect your view accurately in the summary.

I think the entire FA system was designed by Inno and is working as intended. I'm not sure why you need them to "say" that.