• Howdy partner! You seem new here. Why don't you make an account and join the discussion? You can register here.
    Already have one? Then you login here!
  • Welcome to the saloon, Guest! This is the place where you can discuss about anything you want! Well, almost. Try to not break any of the rules whenever you post otherwise the sheriff might lock you down!

Update 2.125 discussion

RaiderTr

Staff Sergeant
So IFBC winner set is somewhat an improved version of Pizarro.

I don't see any Leadership or Resist/Damage bonus though?
and goodbye useless mojos.
wut?
I have lots of ideas
I? I will let you get away with this one time mistake out of excitement :p


I will consider this number changes as the first very small step of whats more to come.

And I'm wondering if Colorado could have exceptions (like 100 v 90 instead of 92 v 84), having the highest number of FFers and filling both sides of a Medium already (as 100v84)

Sadly Bigs aint that great..
 
Last edited:

bidliz

Reservist
The firefighter set give more points, than the warrior. For a championship price you gave to the winners a pimped Francisco set? (What's useless circa 2 years ago)
 

JustAMoment

Private
Aha comparing 0,3 values to 0,6-1 on sets per lvl. Yea that looks nearly same.
Imho the warrior set looks awesome, Its not OP but still looks perfectly useable in the current state of game. Decent every stat needed+-. (well - leadership)
Also good job on FF, its little balance but much needed one.
 

RaiderTr

Staff Sergeant
I mean, I like the "Hybrid" concept.. and it's not being OP :up:

I guess they didn't add Leadership because they didn't want it to be a Damager set?
But then isn't it unfair to those participants? I believe they could keep it minimal instead.

As for a Tank set it seems to be almost identical to Zapata, but with Damage & decent Hit chance bonus via Aiming that.
Although of course non-existence of Leadership effects the Tanking capabilities too.

Might as well add in some Hp or Defense bonus then.


Ps. Pizarro had decent Leadership bonus.
 
Last edited:

Leones

Master Sergeant
Former Team Member
We'll evaluate the effects this change has and determine whether any further balancing is necessary.
 

Zulus

Private
Again i don't understand the people that have been harping about damage, damage and more damage yet as soon as there is a set with no leadership, there are the eyebrows raised. Leadership should be minimised wherever and whenever possible, so its great to see such an approach for the new sets. I am not saying the new sets are perfect as nothing in this game is, also in all probability they won't have any effect on the happy moods of the critters, but its nice to see leadership taking a back seat at long last.
 

mxj1

Private
Maybe just lower the impact leadership has on bonus damage? Instead of bonus_dmg = dmg*leadership/ hp make it for example bonus_dmg = dmg*0,75leadership/ hp = full leadership build will deal less dmg and fights will be longer = more time to get value out of towers and walls in fort as defenders.
There are plenty of ways to balance FFs, reducing players who take part in a battle will just speed up the process of game dying :/
 

RaiderTr

Staff Sergeant
Minimal is what I said.
We'll evaluate the effects this change has and determine whether any further balancing is necessary.
I hope they help but I believe we all know that amassed issues of years can't just be fixed by simply changing max numbers.

Also there is no server that can consistently fill Bigs to test it.
Colorado can fill Mediums, but for Bigs it'd would need an encouragement like Coin event.

I wish you would change "Sector Damage Bonus" of Union Officer to individual bonus at least.
That would surely be a good band-aid for the time being. Simple math.
 
Last edited:

iTzBirion

Reservist
So, we are losing a lot of hours with the IFBC, training before, thinking new tactics, making missions for points and so on for a set that is not even as good as a full Zapata's set? Yeah, the set has damage on every item, but still useless since there are sets with better sector damage. Even thought there is still Livingstone's set witch is better than Zapata so not every single person will use that set. The El Gringo's weapons set is better than this set clothing. What are we fighting for? A medal and a set that will never be used? The Independence Hero's weapons exists for almost 2 years and is still a lot better than this. But that are won only by a person who needed to spend a lot of money. In other games there are big prizes in money or gears or whatever, but the winner are going to have a medal in this game. Of course, the sets don't have to be that good not to be changed till next IFBC, but not as useless not to be shown... No player will say "I will use this set because is won at IFBC". Everybody will use the best set they have, with or without up. The conclusion is that you just wanted to test small forts on us and see that the defenders got no chance. In exchange, we got nothing. Oh, forgot the global prize for everybody that competed. Maybe it is a good item or are good items or a set, but the difference from just playing and winning is a medal. Wow...
 
Last edited:

syIvester

Reservist
So, we are losing a lot of hours with the IFBC, training before, thinking new tactics, making missions for points and so on for a set that is not even as good as a full Zapata's set? Yeah, the set has damage on every item, but still useless since there are sets with better sector damage. Even thought there is still Livingstone's set witch is better than Zapata so not every single person will use that set. The El Gringo's weapons set is better than this set clothing. What are we fighting for? A medal and a set that will never be used? The Independence Hero's weapons exists for almost 2 years and is still a lot better than this. But that are won only by a person who needed to spend a lot of money. In other games there are big prizes in money or gears or whatever, but the winner are going to have a medal in this game. Of course, the sets don't have to be that good not to be changed till next IFBC, but not as useless not to be shown... No player will say "I will use this set because is won at IFBC". Everybody will use the best set they have, with or without up. The conclusion is that you just wanted to test small forts on us and see that the defenders got no chance. In exchange, we got nothing. Oh, forgot the global prize for everybody that competed. Maybe it is a good item or are good items or a set, but the difference from just playing and winning is a medal. Wow...
You get the good stuff with real money. You should know by now how this game works.
 

syIvester

Reservist
Minimal is what I said.

I hope they help but I believe we all know that amassed issues of years can't just be fixed by simply changing max numbers.

Also there is no server that can consistently fill Bigs to test it.
Colorado can fill Mediums, but for Bigs it'd would need an encouragement like Coin event.

I wish you would change "Sector Damage Bonus" of Union Officer to individual bonus at least.
That would surely be a good band-aid for the time being. Simple math.
There is a world where big forts are filled regularly and people get left out.
InnoGames should increase towers and walls bonuses, not decrease the number of players allowed to join.
 

RaiderTr

Staff Sergeant
Well of course I don't know every single national server but it was/is my suggestion to adjust these numbers to the servers' conditions/needs via CMs.
 
Last edited: