unbalance attack/deff in fort battles

[Uchiha Madara]

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.

Whats the point of going into a battle that will have 90% of players chasing dodges, not participating actively in battles and not listening to the leader calls? You can fit an XXXXXXL fort for whatever matters, the fact remains that Colorado and generally .net have the worst fighters and players. The good players are very few and by good I mean players that actually do what an actual fighter has to do and will not play for themselves but for the team.

I rather play in small forts with 2 alliances that their players actually play FOR THE ALLIANCE and not for themselves rather than in the circus that you have in Colorado where everyone has his own clown role.

 

[Uchiha Madara]

Whats the point of going into a battle that will have 90% of players chasing dodges, not participating actively in battles and not listening to the leader calls? You can fit an XXXXXXL fort for whatever matters, the fact remains that Colorado and generally .net have the worst fighters and players. The good players are very few and by good I mean players that actually do what an actual fighter has to do and will not play for themselves but for the team.

I rather play in small forts with 2 alliances that their players actually play FOR THE ALLIANCE and not for themselves rather than in the circus that you have in Colorado where everyone has his own clown role.

I can write an entire book of how bad the players in .net are but I will keep the thread for the relevant stuff you guys are talking about so I wont continue.

 

[I AM INEVITABLE]

@Uchiha Madara There are two sides of the coin. Some people enjoy playing on their own some as a team. Both ways can lead to enjoyable fort battles. At the end of the day who cares about the "competitive" side of the fort battles (here we laught with tears) as if its an esports game or something.

I would really appreaciete to have the option to play a chaotic battle chasing personal records or a more tactical focusing on team play and winning.

You maybe seem a little jealous that your world cant fill large (or even small?) like 90% of the games servers (I mean do you even get fort battles).

And remember the game would be best if it was played on one server having everyone there (unless you got special worlds with unique bonuses or pvp specific world or pve).

I appreciate the colorado initiative bringing players there from dead markets since InnoGames refuses to open migration routes.

At the end of the day we got to stay united. I have seen many old time players quit the past years its sad. Hope things will change for the better.

 

[Emma Swan]

If you struggle to get HP down, you are changing build and clothes from tank to dmg. Simply as that. This is why there is unity in teams. You go, play couple of FF and then tweak team. If you have 80% tanks on both sides, dont expect taking down all tanks by 20% dmgers where 5% usually die because of bad moves. By lowering down your HP and getting more dmger, yes, you may start with lower hp at the beginning, but after 20 rounds you usually get pretty even. There were a period where on new servers couple of years ago most of players started as duelers and there were lack of tanks. You cant change system for that to lower duelers dmg down because of their choice. Eventually they had to go as tank as well and, out of the sudden, FF took 56 rounds

Nobody should change the way FF works just because 80% of mean dudes wanna show up how good they are at dodging. Thats not how it works. And I dare to say, if nobody from mean dodging dudes is willing to go dmg (and yes, you dont need to be a dueler for that to make high dmg), then they deserve to never win in my opinion. There, I said that.

 

[Emma Swan]

@Uchiha Madara There are two sides of the coin. Some people enjoy playing on their own some as a team. Both ways can lead to enjoyable fort battles. At the end of the day who cares about the "competitive" side of the fort battles (here we laught with tears) as if its an esports game or something.

I would really appreaciete to have the option to play a chaotic battle chasing personal records or a more tactical focusing on team play and winning.

You maybe seem a little jealous that your world cant fill large (or even small?) like 90% of the games servers (I mean do you even get fort battles).

And remember the game would be best if it was played on one server having everyone there (unless you got special worlds with unique bonuses or pvp specific world or pve).

I appreciate the colorado initiative bringing players there from dead markets since InnoGames refuses to open migration routes.

At the end of the day we got to stay united. I have seen many old time players quit the past years its sad. Hope things will change for the better.

I dare to say, with no ofeense to anybody, but even FF 15 on 15 is more playable and enjoyable then full big ff in Colorado honestly. Unless players wont understand that FF are not duels and you need to be a team players, thats why you share bonuses and leader is leading for all of them not just a few (even though in duels you need from time to time your teammates to help), there will never be a good atmosphere there. And the biggest reason is that its mix of people from across the world. If you have server where mostly are players form the same country, they kinda think the same or understant why somebody is this and that way and they still try to play unity. If you get 100 players from 20 countries in 1 city, they would burn it down in seconds because one wants to show how better he is then the rest of them. Thats sadly the truth.

 

[I AM INEVITABLE]

I dare to say, with no ofeense to anybody, but even FF 15 on 15 is more playable and enjoyable then full big ff in Colorado honestly. Unless players wont understand that FF are not duels and you need to be a team players, thats why you share bonuses and leader is leading for all of them not just a few (even though in duels you need from time to time your teammates to help), there will never be a good atmosphere there. And the biggest reason is that its mix of people from across the world. If you have server where mostly are players form the same country, they kinda think the same or understant why somebody is this and that way and they still try to play unity. If you get 100 players from 20 countries in 1 city, they would burn it down in seconds because one wants to show how better he is then the rest of them. Thats sadly the truth.

I dont disagrre with you. Its important to have a choice. As i said i prefer if all players played on one server. Then you have real fort battles and alliance wars just like how the game was when it all started not hey its friday lets have a battle with the boys. Now it feels more like a soccer match back then it was like going to hunting. Imagine if 10k players unite in one server! Thats some real wild west for me.

Then again im a little biased because i focus on duels. And duels are more fun oj big population worlds. Fort battles can be fun with any number if you balance the sides.

 

[kratjeuh]

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)

Rocky Mountains on German server plays small forts 56 vs 42 (so more attackers than usual in small forts) and since Sundance became auctionable we've had amazing FFs. 2 att wins and 3 def wins with less than 10k hp left.

Colorado is not a representable world right now because the whole formula is made for level cap 150 without buffed guns and Colorado is filled with level 200+ with buffed guns and clothes.

There is not a single update, set, ... that can balance the game for every server because all servers are way too different and quite frankly, even the less popular servers deserve to have some fun.

Unless InnoGames finally understands that we need 1 international server with maybe 4-5 worlds max, we will never see balance in any part of the game again.

The only full fix is to merge servers --> Then change formula --> Then make sets based on the formula to keep balance.

 

[Uchiha Madara]

then they deserve to never win in my opinion.

Anyone who chases for personal records or simply does not cooperate with the team doesnt deserve to win and will never have the winner mentality.

@I AM INEVITABLE My friend, personal records and farming dodges or whatever PERSONAL can be achieved through friendly battles. Friendly battles can be arranged by the alliances of X world. Normally in other worlds and communities there are 2 OFFICIAL alliance battles per week + 2 or 3 friendly battles throughout the week. In Colorado you have 10 battles per day, all battles are a free for all with 0 meaning whatsoever. This is not healthy and it destroys the actual fun of battles. If your world cannot sustain a friendly environment with actual weekly plans and programmes then your world is a fail that only thrives because of personal records.

My world is dead for many years now. I can play full medium forts no problem, full attack full defence but with 2 alliances, 2 alliances that fight until the end of the rounds to achieve victory, 2 alliances that have 10+ years of vendetta, this is the actual fun in battles not clowns chasing dodges because they want to feel special in the rankings. If you are a good player you will be high ranking without even chasing those personal records.

For chasing dodges those players might have "fun" but each battle has its own twist of humour and I can say hands down without even hesitation: I rather play 10vs10 with meaning rather than 150v150 with no meaning and out of 300 players 200 will be offline, 80 will be chasing dodges and 20 will be the active players.

 

[Uchiha Madara]

Anyone who chases for personal records or simply does not cooperate with the team doesnt deserve to win and will never have the winner mentality.

@I AM INEVITABLE My friend, personal records and farming dodges or whatever PERSONAL can be achieved through friendly battles. Friendly battles can be arranged by the alliances of X world. Normally in other worlds and communities there are 2 OFFICIAL alliance battles per week + 2 or 3 friendly battles throughout the week. In Colorado you have 10 battles per day, all battles are a free for all with 0 meaning whatsoever. This is not healthy and it destroys the actual fun of battles. If your world cannot sustain a friendly environment with actual weekly plans and programmes then your world is a fail that only thrives because of personal records.

My world is dead for many years now. I can play full medium forts no problem, full attack full defence but with 2 alliances, 2 alliances that fight until the end of the rounds to achieve victory, 2 alliances that have 10+ years of vendetta, this is the actual fun in battles not clowns chasing dodges because they want to feel special in the rankings. If you are a good player you will be high ranking without even chasing those personal records.

For chasing dodges those players might have "fun" but each battle has its own twist of humour and I can say hands down without even hesitation: I rather play 10vs10 with meaning rather than 150v150 with no meaning and out of 300 players 200 will be offline, 80 will be chasing dodges and 20 will be the active players.

Can you also imagine, you are a player that want to participate in the "official battle" and the leader finds a place for you to play and help the team but you rather go and farm dodges. Thats not helping and that is toxic. A leader found that place for you so you can be part of the battle but you chase personal records, you should automatically not participate in any other "official battle".

 

[Ebolson]

Imagine, that classes were updated in 2010 with 2016? iirc update for builder in case of fort battles.
During that time We received a change of stamina, hiding and setting traps for stats. Change of way damage is calculated and so on.
Since 2016 the game changed more than from 2008 until 2016 in terms of scaling and so on.
Unfortunately we receive 250 level update, just to keep us busy for few years, without really taking care of PvP systems, Fort Battle System, XPing system and Adventure system.
After all the years, only thing that I can conclude is fact, that 250lvl update was a massive drawback and failure.
Since 2018 also, the system of clothing also accelerated to the rocket level.
Game is simply not designed for the current state and will never be as long as we only create nugget sets to prolong it's life.

I regularly hate management of this game - not the CMs, Moderators or TW Team, because they don't really matter in the structure for a reason.
Few weeks ago we had a public non offical talk with CM of our market - as a community we didn't event pin point changes that are problematic and needs a change, we came up with full ideas in numbers, calculations and so on, how to solve the issues, but in the end also faced a reality check, that probably none of those would get accepted, as requires too much work.

Another topic is 15s jobs. The idea of speeding up the game is fine, as long as it's action / mobile game. It's not here and it was bad idea that created a problem that most of players are using bots. Simply chaning it to 60s would have a massive buff towards fair players and it's quite funny, as I created first functional 'advanced bot' that probably evolved into dobby and other bots (Sorry for that, was too young to predict the outcome and negatives of it).

Also, let's be honest, how much does Your own character points matter in the game for now? From 2008 to 2013 having a good set of clothes was just an addon to the attribs and skills we put into chars.
From 2013 to 2019 it was very important still to have character points assigned properly for Your purpose of play. Since 2020 it doesn't really matter. In the PVP sets are 20x more important, but it's still somehow 'a bit' important to duel another dueller.
In the Fort Battles it just makes sense to have 1st shot and 1st movement for the damage dealers. Let's be honest that dealing 200 or 400 damage per shot doesn't make a difference anymore, when you shot crits for 6k+ damage and game began depedant on crits.

When crit mechanic was introduced to the game, we were shooting to 10k HP soldiers. Basic hits with Gunsmiths guns were for 200-300 damage, so we received a bonus of maximum 1k damage. At that point of time it was already frustrating to play as tank, when on top of every fort battle You have to regen your HP to maximum and it's just more costy.
Now? We shoot for 2k and fight 80k HP soldiers with 8k crit damage. Is it anyway fair?
Not to mention that before 250max lvl, for a new person to reach 120-130level and be usefull on battles was matter of months. Now Good Luck starting a new character to fight people at 200+ level
Game simply became unfriendly for any player that not only would like to start playing it, but also for us, that would like to start a character on old world after coming back to the game with few years of break.

It's just hard to see what really happened to this game, if You play it active and don't take a step backward to take reflection on how things are.
It would be much easier to just get few devs come to work on this and make it somehow playable with mobile app just changing game a lot, as it really needs a change, than creating another mobile scam that this company is good at, but for this You would need a proper leader, that knows path of game.
You would like to get Roadmap of updates and changes, but only roadmap is money-sucking event roadmap that they planned. Anything else is small changes to tip of from to-do list and urgent - not thinked over game breaking changes.

It's just hard for me to believe that someone is really getting paid for that, as if I would drove the product that I'm in charge of in my company - I would already be fired.

With all the respect to everyone that took a moment to read whole wall of this text - stop pretending like there are changes coming.
If You want to change anything, the only thing that could happen is direct letter to the company with the complains of how the game is being destroyed by current managers. And it would really need to be at least 100 of them.

Have a good blessed Sunday folks and save Your energy for something that's worth it - for sure not this game.

 

[the legit]

Amazing comment @Ebolson , nothing to add.

 

[I AM INEVITABLE]

Can you also imagine, you are a player that want to participate in the "official battle" and the leader finds a place for you to play and help the team but you rather go and farm dodges. Thats not helping and that is toxic. A leader found that place for you so you can be part of the battle but you chase personal records, you should automatically not participate in any other "official battle".

I am not talking with facts here just marely pointing out what would be the best version. Best would be to have 50-200 players with the same mentality as you and have an alliance. Then do fort battles small/medium/large and enjoy versus another alliance with 50-200 players like you but against you.

Now as you say you usually got either 300 people hating each other or 20 people fighting to the end.


As i said i prefer a huge world because i love duelling and want to have as many opponents as possible. For forts i agree with you you can enjoy in a small world of 100 players or even half of that.

 

[Uchiha Madara]

I am not talking with facts here just marely pointing out what would be the best version. Best would be to have 50-200 players with the same mentality as you and have an alliance. Then do fort battles small/medium/large and enjoy versus another alliance with 50-200 players like you but against you.

Now as you say you usually got either 300 people hating each other or 20 people fighting to the end.


As i said i prefer a huge world because i love duelling and want to have as many opponents as possible. For forts i agree with you you can enjoy in a small world of 100 players or even half of that.

I dont mind the one world idea. But that will have some serious ballancing challenges. If they make a world where the divide the sectors to NORTH and SOUTH with each having their 2 respective alliances and North or South not being able to attack each other unless its planned then MAYBE it can be viable. For sure this is not the case for Dueling, it will be a paradise for someone that only duels but not the same for Battles. We have to think all aspects of the game before doing such a big change.

 

[WesternCalin]

I dont mind the one world idea. But that will have some serious ballancing challenges. If they make a world where the divide the sectors to NORTH and SOUTH with each having their 2 respective alliances and North or South not being able to attack each other unless its planned then MAYBE it can be viable. For sure this is not the case for Dueling, it will be a paradise for someone that only duels but not the same for Battles. We have to think all aspects of the game before doing such a big change.

Why would it be hard to do that. If you want you can always make changes to those sides if fights arent balanced. It's easier to move towns or players in a big world than having to change fort formulas or bring new gear to balance the game.

 

[darkuletzz]

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

they won't, dont worry, they changed the numbers in colorado (increased) for big ff, but they said they can not increase for small (the number of players in def) , or medium, because they break the code =)))), who ** will trust this afirmation?

 

[kratjeuh]

they won't, dont worry, they changed the numbers in colorado (increased) for big ff, but they said they can not increase for small (the number of players in def) , or medium, because they break the code =)))), who ** will trust this afirmation?

If your mods/Support/whatever is telling you this, they are straight-up lying through their teeth. On the German server we have changed the number of players in small forts (increased attack) so I can't see why they wouldn't be able to increase defence on your world.

 

[Uchiha Madara]

Why would it be hard to do that. If you want you can always make changes to those sides if fights arent balanced. It's easier to move towns or players in a big world than having to change fort formulas or bring new gear to balance the game.

I didn't mean unbalanced fights but rather an unbalanced world, meaning lots and lots of players. Can you imagine how many players there will be in a world like that? Probably around 5,000, who is going to regulate things? Support and Mods will have the hardest time of their life trying to regulate a world like that.

 

[asdf124]

If your mods/Support/whatever is telling you this, they are straight-up lying through their teeth. On the German server we have changed the number of players in small forts (increased attack) so I can't see why they wouldn't be able to increase defence on your world.

the number for small was 50 vs 42, that was the old number. Now on normal worlds, its 46 vs 42. So has your german world gotten beyond 42?

 

[kratjeuh]

When crit mechanic was introduced to the game, we were shooting to 10k HP soldiers. Basic hits with Gunsmiths guns were for 200-300 damage, so we received a bonus of maximum 1k damage. At that point of time it was already frustrating to play as tank, when on top of every fort battle You have to regen your HP to maximum and it's just more costy.
Now? We shoot for 2k and fight 80k HP soldiers with 8k crit damage. Is it anyway fair?

Never really understood why people think this isnt fair. Frustrating maybe, unfair no.

I wouldnt want to play battles where 80k tanks walk around and it takes over 100 hits to kill them + another 150-200 that they dodge. Would just make it impossible to outshoot HP.

Logic also makes 0 sense here I’m sorry. A 1k crit on 8k HP means you lost 12,5% of your Total Hp
Likewise, a 10k crit on 80k HP means you also lose 12,5% of your Total HP.

It always comes down to the same, people with a certain character come on this forum to promote their favorite character instead of trying to make the game better.

And we wonder why developpers don’t take us serious

 

[Ebolson]

Never really understood why people think this isnt fair. Frustrating maybe, unfair no.

I wouldnt want to play battles where 80k tanks walk around and it takes over 100 hits to kill them + another 150-200 that they dodge. Would just make it impossible to outshoot HP.

Logic also makes 0 sense here I’m sorry. A 1k crit on 8k HP means you lost 12,5% of your Total Hp
Likewise, a 10k crit on 80k HP means you also lose 12,5% of your Total HP.

It always comes down to the same, people with a certain character come on this forum to promote their favorite character instead of trying to make the game better.

And we wonder why developpers don’t take us serious

Why do You even try. Every single char class is frustraded because of one. It’s simply not fair. Should have changed this bonus to something like extra 25% dmg in every hit. Now battles are around rolling out crits on certain class chara. Amazing gameplay. Devs don’t take You serious because this game has no active dev, just one from different project that is being borrowed for few small changes.

Imagine You try to look wise and deny what I said, when I was back in time in structure of this game and faced a reality wall. You can lie yourself, but don’t do it to others.