unbalance attack/deff in fort battles

[chydovish4e]

We have big problems with unbalance attack/deff in fort battles
attacking side was more powerful before, but with new set(sundance) it become like God Mode Play

idk about other worlds but in colorado. on large size we can melt 2.5-2.6kk hp.
problem is 2.5kk hp its around 70-80% players come in hp set in deff

battles become like farm no tactic or skills anymore.

1 stap was done. InnoGames change total numbers on deff and att in colo. but seems it not enought.
How we can fix this trouble idk, some new set for deff ?make deff number limits higher? other ways?

 

[the legit]

The problem is that it varies from world to world, server to server.

Lets imagine a player is a rock, as in its own individual weight to the scale in terms of impact.
The longer back you go in the-west the smaller these pebbles were. The less individual impact they carried.
Nowadays the numbers are lot higher in everything ,which means higher possible deviation from the standard, the hp/dmg equilibrium.
And the more rocks you have, the harder it is to balance the scales. A FF with 100 people on each side can deviate a lot more (in terms of hp/dmg) than a FF with 50 players. Trying to balance 2 sides of 100 rocks is harder than half.

A world with 35% dmg/tank ratio is going to play out differently than a 50% or 65%. This is the crux.
How can it be balanced across multiple servers, which of these situations do you want to balance?

Well, the best way to go about it, In my opinion, is how the team from .net adresses it. Locally, by changing the attacking/defending numbers.

Beyond that, would be Innogames by way of:

1) Releasing Tank or Damager sets, depending on where they want to sway the balance - This can be very drastic, like when cortina was first released.

2) Changing formulas - how they somewhat recently changed the distance accuracy formula.

3) Other smaller stuff, like releasing buff - The fort medicine is insane, it adds 2000 hp to soldiers.

Other than that, via players and alliances, like was done at CIBFs you can always invite more people to chose HP/DMG as needed.

 

[BigNoob]

A world with 35% dmg/tank ratio is going to play out differently than a 50% or 65%. This is the crux.

You are forgetting a crucial point. We are not talking about the balance of tanks vs damagers here. We are talking about the balance of attackers vs defenders. Both sides have the exact same dmg/tank ratio and yet attack is doing insane damage and defenders can barely damage attackers. Since sundance became auctionable we have seen battles where attackers started almost 1m hp down and they ended with 1m hp up. This is just a very small example of how bad the situation is right now (westforts link)

How can it be balanced across multiple servers, which of these situations do you want to balance?

In the matter of balance of attackers vs defenders we can only look at battles where the ratio of attackers vs defenders is respected. Dead worlds who typically have 10 attackers vs 20 defenders are a completely moot point. I expect a 15 vs 15 to be balanced, if its 10 vs 20 then obviously the main problem is the players of that world where unable to create 2 balanced sides therefore the balance of their world is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

Well, the best way to go about it, In my opinion, is how the team from .net adresses it. Locally, by changing the attacking/defending numbers.

This problem was created by InnoGames. The problem being that with the current sets and standard battle caps defense cant keep up with attackers' damage. Therefore it is up to InnoGames to fix it. The .net team is just trying to help with emergency exceptional measures until a real fix comes.

1) Releasing Tank or Damager sets, depending on where they want to sway the balance - This can be very drastic, like when cortina was first released.
2) Changing formulas - how they somewhat recently changed the distance accuracy formula.
3) Other smaller stuff, like releasing buff - The fort medicine is insane, it adds 2000 hp to soldiers.

no one cares which way they fix it, what people want is to go to a FF and feel like defenders arent there just as a bullet target decor. But personally I think the best fix is a set that allows defenders to have the same dmg/round as attackers.

Other than that, via players and alliances, like was done at CIBFs you can always invite more people to chose HP/DMG as needed.

That wouldnt change anything in this situation.

 

[the legit]

You are forgetting a crucial point. We are not talking about the balance of tanks vs damagers here. We are talking about the balance of attackers vs defenders. Both sides have the exact same dmg/tank ratio and yet attack is doing insane damage and defenders can barely damage attackers. Since sundance became auctionable we have seen battles where attackers started almost 1m hp down and they ended with 1m hp up. This is just a very small example of how bad the situation is right now (westforts link)

You are right, I was focused more on the other aspect that does amplify this.

But personally I think the best fix is a set that allows defenders to have the same dmg/round as attackers.

That would also be the easiest.

How would you feel of a more immediate partial fix of increasing number of defenders? Unlikely that we'll see a new set like that until valentine's or easter

 

[BigNoob]

How would you feel of a more immediate partial fix of increasing number of defenders?

Thats a temporary emergency measure. I would love to see a better type of solution to the problem they created. They release sets simply based on which sets they havent released for a while. Taking the risk of sounding completely crazy, looking at the game to see which sets the game actually needs sounds like a better way to work. Not only that, the stats they give to the sets is also completely random. Sets like Sundance and Western are much stronger than needed. While other sets like Carson and Aponi are way too weak.

Unlikely that we'll see a new set like that until valentine's or easter

There is always christmas. A set must be released. It must be strong enough to fix this but not too strong to have the opposite problem (defenders becoming too strong). I can do the set if they need.

 

[Brunofs]

This problem will keep happening every time they release a new fort set. The formulas weren’t made to cope with the increasing levels and the constant rise in stats that come with better and better sets. Don’t get me wrong — I’m not criticizing the work that’s been done; I just think it needs some rework to adapt to the current TW reality.

 

[chydovish4e]

it will be difficult for a new set to deal with problem coz defense doesnt play in large sectors not so many players can get ector bocuses bonus of set.

maybe its time to make a new set that should give bonus to everyone who is inside the fort + on walls and towers. bonus to attack/damage/defense/or hp. I don't know what's better

 

[I AM INEVITABLE]

I vote vigor+aim+tactics+health set for christmas event

 

[Emma Swan]

it will be difficult for a new set to deal with problem coz defense doesnt play in large sectors not so many players can get ector bocuses bonus of set.

maybe its time to make a new set that should give bonus to everyone who is inside the fort + on walls and towers. bonus to attack/damage/defense/or hp. I don't know what's better

Not a bad idea. I would maybe change it a bit to release set that gives bonus only to one particular character. But I believe secondary sector bonus should be introduced instead. That way, for example, new tank set, that gives tank bonuses for itself but will buff +6 secondary defence for each soldier in the sector/or any player as well for defenders. This would give opportunity for smaller sectors to spread all bonuses evenly, maybe buff it a little bit longer. Sure, for attack would mean the same, but that could be solved as secondary bonus, it could be made specifically for defence, or attack. Not automatically for both. Then tweak little but other sets with secondary bonus.

Secondary bonus would help in duels as well, not always, but in some ways. For example, 'new name' duelist set, which will give special bonus only if you are dueler, like secondary appearance bonus.

And the problem with balance has started started since the update when we could upgrade sets. With basic sets there would be some unbalanced situation, but it would have been here and there.

 

[alexstraszaPT]

Not a bad idea. I would maybe change it a bit to release set that gives bonus only to one particular character. But I believe secondary sector bonus should be introduced instead. That way, for example, new tank set, that gives tank bonuses for itself but will buff +6 secondary defence for each soldier in the sector/or any player as well for defenders. This would give opportunity for smaller sectors to spread all bonuses evenly, maybe buff it a little bit longer. Sure, for attack would mean the same, but that could be solved as secondary bonus, it could be made specifically for defence, or attack. Not automatically for both. Then tweak little but other sets with secondary bonus.

Secondary bonus would help in duels as well, not always, but in some ways. For example, 'new name' duelist set, which will give special bonus only if you are dueler, like secondary appearance bonus.

And the problem with balance has started started since the update when we could upgrade sets. With basic sets there would be some unbalanced situation, but it would have been here and there.

Metin2 kinda fixed the unbalance between classes with this suggestion, they created Dragon Stone Alchemy which allowed to have secondary bonuses on top of what you have in items the only issue is that since Metin2 is HUGE p2w they also made it insanely hard to get for free however in private servers it works really well, I really like that suggestion if it wouldn't be a p2w scenario.

 

[Emma Swan]

Metin2 kinda fixed the unbalance between classes with this suggestion, they created Dragon Stone Alchemy which allowed to have secondary bonuses on top of what you have in items the only issue is that since Metin2 is HUGE p2w they also made it insanely hard to get for free however in private servers it works really well, I really like that suggestion if it wouldn't be a p2w scenario.

I must say I dont know what is Metin2. But it could work the same as current sector bonus. Free set may offer low, man set significant difference, Nugget and winner set of course more. But people that dont spend too much nuggets or at all could still help or get help as well. After all, its about team work and usually in each town or aliance there is mix of all kind of players from each level -free, event, nugget, winner set. Worth trying. Kinda cool feature but we all know where this will end.... trash

 

[alexstraszaPT]

I must say I dont know what is Metin2. But it could work the same as current sector bonus. Free set may offer low, man set significant difference, Nugget and winner set of course more. But people that dont spend too much nuggets or at all could still help or get help as well. After all, its about team work and usually in each town or aliance there is mix of all kind of players from each level -free, event, nugget, winner set. Worth trying. Kinda cool feature but we all know where this will end.... trash

To simplify Metin2 kinda equips your character like The-West, item per body part, weapon, etc, then you can level the weapons/clothes from 0 to 9, The-West is from 0 to 5, then every item can have 0 to 7 attributes to boost your strenght and abilities just like ours but in Metin2 its random (same clothes can have completely different bonuses), here its fixed to everyone (which makes less P2W and more fair).

Because of this random factor mentioned in the last part is why they added the Alchemy, which is also random (requires luck to upgrade and have decent bonus) but the RNG is reduced, you have less bad stuff to have bad luck while changing the buffs, therefore weaker players could improve their overall strenght with less RNG and less money, unlucky for free players, the whales did what they usually do and spent tons of money and got perfect alchemy, building a way bigger difference and gap xD

In the end I like your idea because it benefits the group rather than the individual but The-West is heavily focused on whales and also, focused in ignoring our proposals.

 

[Emma Swan]

I like how we make conclusion to all of our ideas by saying "they wont listen anyway"

 

[Ebolson]

The problem with FB right now is that, there is super giga turbo scaling of clothes that doesn't really make any difference for the fort battle tank builds anymore. The DMG builds are important to receive first shot, movement and have higher multiplier, but as long as dueler class is scaling with strength of opponents, not his own - the game will be in very bad spot. Not to mention, that when I'm playing 50k Soldier build all I want to do after.receiving crit show is kms.

 

[Uchiha Madara]

Noob problems for Noob players of Colorado....

I'm just joking.. I guess the new update of Diggo where you can decide to deactivate the flag is the change we need in Battles. KAPPA

 

[asdf124]

Noob problems for Noob players of Colorado....

I'm just joking.. I guess the new update of Diggo where you can decide to deactivate the flag is the change we need in Battles. KAPPA

here is the thing though, it just shows how bad the layout for forts are, now most players are just using high hp sets for defenses, just to reach astronomical value and get 3m in hp. Then they complain that the other set is too op. Before this set, attacks have been struggling none stop, to make matters worse, they added a defense set this year for tanks. So this year we had two tank sets, 1 attack damager set.
I say before we conclude anything based on colorado noobs, just wait after xmas.
Message to the colorado is the only world that matters noobs, GET GOOD!

 

[Brunofs]

here is the thing though, it just shows how bad the layout for forts are, now most players are just using high hp sets for defenses, just to reach astronomical value and get 3m in hp. Then they complain that the other set is too op. Before this set, attacks have been struggling none stop, to make matters worse, they added a defense set this year for tanks. So this year we had two tank sets, 1 attack damager set.
I say before we conclude anything based on colorado noobs, just wait after xmas.
Message to the colorado is the only world that matters noobs, GET GOOD!

As I said, this problem isn’t new — every time they add a new set, this happens. The difference is that the imbalance increases exponentially with each new addition. When the formulas were made, we didn’t have 50k HP tanks and 2k damage per shot. It doesn’t take much to understand that things need to be constantly updated in order to work properly. Yes, you can just wait for a new set — and that’s probably what will happen — but it won’t solve anything.

 

[I AM INEVITABLE]

Adjust the fort numbers where u got tge problem no need for another fort set

 

[Uchiha Madara]

here is the thing though, it just shows how bad the layout for forts are, now most players are just using high hp sets for defenses, just to reach astronomical value and get 3m in hp. Then they complain that the other set is too op. Before this set, attacks have been struggling none stop, to make matters worse, they added a defense set this year for tanks. So this year we had two tank sets, 1 attack damager set.
I say before we conclude anything based on colorado noobs, just wait after xmas.
Message to the colorado is the only world that matters noobs, GET GOOD!

Well lets be also real that 90% of players in Colorado play only for the ranking and to get as many dodges possible but end up having problems that other communities dont have.

Thats why .net hasn't produced a good team of fighters for the past 10+ years but they have this idea that they know what they are doing or talking about. Its funny watching it sometimes I get a good laugh

 

[BigNoob]

This problem will keep happening every time they release a new fort set.

If this was true then after the release of Leavenworth/Langdon/French Officer we would have had a period of defense supremacy which did not happen. Yes those sets made defense stronger but for the last years attack has been the dominant side.

I guess the new update of Diggo where you can decide to deactivate the flag is the change we need in Battles. KAPPA

While deciding to deactivate flag is certainly a nice challenge for attackers to take upon themselves its not something that will be used very frequently. And ultimately that does not change the fact that every battle ends with either all defenders dead or just a few defenders surviving by miracle. What I want and what the game needs is for attackers to have 50% chance of killing defenders and defenders to have 50% chance of killing attackers. Which is very far from being what is happening currently.

here is the thing though, it just shows how bad the layout for forts are, now most players are just using high hp sets for defenses, just to reach astronomical value and get 3m in hp.

Yes defenders are stacking 2m-3m hp per battle to try to survive attackers' damage. No one likes this. Its just an attempt at making it slightly less easy for attackers to win. If you have less than 2m hp in defense then your defense is cleared in 40 rounds.

Before this set, attacks have been struggling none stop

Maybe in your world that doesnt fill battles that is true. But as I said before you cant complain about attack being weak if the only reason why attacks are weak on your world its cause attacks on your world are short on people. The only battles that matter are the ones that have a decent ratio of attackers/defenders. Of course if you have 31 attackers vs 39 defenders (1:1,2 ratio) you are not going to see how attack can win too easily (found those numbers in arizona westforts). Try having a battle with a 1:1 ratio and you will see which side will actually struggle for real. Not my fault some of you play on worlds that dont manage to have the normal 1:1 ratio. (Remember that the game allows MORE attackers than defenders in battle so the NORMAL ratio of the game is for attackers to have more guns than defenders, if your world has more defenders than attackers then the problem is your world)

Well lets be also real that 90% of players in Colorado play only for the ranking and to get as many dodges possible but end up having problems that other communities dont have.

While all of the other worlds cant fill a small fort battle, Colorado is the only world that offers the experience of playing a full large fort battle. Thank you for noticing.

Thats why .net hasn't produced a good team of fighters for the past 10+ years

You must be talking about IFBC which is the most irrelevant thing to bring up in a discussion about attack/defense balance.