Discussing how we can improve Fort Battle rebalancing

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
no worries thank you, like i said before, seeing my stuff being quoted like to clarify and then hopefully to get inno to recieve input into topic of low/no activity worlds.

biggest hugs:)

lol .. just lol luv the random :)
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Isn't there already premium gear in Colorado?
Yes, there is a lot. I believe the concern is opening the floodgates for the Union and event winner gear stranded on dead worlds upsetting what fragile balance may exist at any given point in time.
 

WhyN0t

Well-Known Member
Union set and gringo weapons are problematic, but event weapons are usually only good for jobs, so they don't ruin any balance in pvp.
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
While this is not my personal stance, The compelling reason to keep Colorado as a limited premium world is the very reason that some want to change it: it prevents Colorado from becoming a migration target.

With a singular very notable exception, every single toon on Colorado worked its way up from level one. Some would not like to see more exceptions.
It’s a tricky situation since one sides could use a few more veterans, so limited migration is worthwhile but not happening.(IE a surgical few are probably needed to make that finishing touches.)
One suggestion, for those that want to encourage migrations...if you are in many, or even all the worlds... If you have a toon in a low/no active world that you are willing to delete in case of migration, why hold onto it? Go ahead and delete it for INNO to see how low the activity is. If it is a toon that you Do want to hang onto and migrate in the future, then keep it. Does not make sense to hang onto a toon if you are willing to delete it anyway should you get that migration you want. Choose your best toons in your chosen worlds and dump the others that you can sacrifice. Otherwise, you are showing the "powers that be" you want to keep those worlds open.

Deleting is helping inno get more profits if they aren’t premium. If premium, just stop buying nuggets.
My hope was inno would get insight of what it feels like being stuck on inactive worlds, something all kinds of people have said. Note that inno never makes comment on it when being brought up in this forum and then when few rant on about their grudges or whatever in worlds with activity just acts as distraction and unproductive and the discussion of needing to close few worlds goes on for another 5 years

really thinking this forum might be part of issue in reviving this game as source of input from some players who kinda radom just for sake of being random - fort rebalancing convos and upcoming changes would luv to see effective in whatever worlds :)

anyways, look forward to oct :)
I have no grudge against you, I only asked you what was working in arizona? For you to realize its not balanced, does it have to be 120 versus 0?

Whats happening in October? That's like about 7 months away from now.
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
I cant speak to AZ or colo, think as a player, seeing regular battles and amount of people is nice to see. IN small worlds, in saloons (maybe 20 people in saloon at times as well as other clear indicators mentioned (inno pls consider :D) above in small worlds)....

to asdf . I know no grudge, and know you do have thoughts about AZ which not involved, just a soldier toon that gets shot up lots and lots (some friends on opposing side give me hp buffs so they can shoot again, luv those guys!). All good, ty for clarifying why asking me. I can say that in AZ notice we dont win many attacks, and other side dont win many attacks but that is just view of one player looking on.

What wanted to comment on was about no or low activity worlds and players stuck there who want to play full game and why mentioned oct is again repeating comment that you could probably pull out of this forum hundred times from various players about dont open new world (oct) instead gather up the lowest low activity worlds so can have a deecent pool of players and take advantage of all parts of game, including the upcoming ff changes.

The comment was to inno but know same thoughts about low/no activity worlds for long time, by many people that im sure people will be discussing now, pior to new worlds, and likely into the future. .... to be perfectly honest, inno doesnt need more distraction to not to do something :D (love you inno .. lol .. teehee) Anyways, im sure this will be on minds of people, just wanted to give some thoughts to share with innno what feels like as player in low activity worlds and hoping there is plan in place that communicated so people dont just delete their toons they worked on for years and spent money on. As for me, going to keep working on toons, instead of typing more then 20 word posts here about stuff that trend is inno no comment.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
@asdf124 "Deleting is helping inno get more profits if they aren’t premium. If premium, just stop buying nuggets."

I don't understand that statement. Deleting, reduces player base/population; therefore, showing less activity. The less activity shown, logically encourages better chance of closing that world, no?
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
@asdf124 "Deleting is helping inno get more profits if they aren’t premium. If premium, just stop buying nuggets."

I don't understand that statement. Deleting, reduces player base/population; therefore, showing less activity. The less activity shown, logically encourages better chance of closing that world, no?
It means less bandwidth used, less maintenance bill, less electricity used depending on the amount of players.
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
@asdf124 "Deleting is helping inno get more profits if they aren’t premium. If premium, just stop buying nuggets."

I don't understand that statement. Deleting, reduces player base/population; therefore, showing less activity. The less activity shown, logically encourages better chance of closing that world, no?
We should distinguish between the overall players activity and total nuggets used on particular world. On some old inactive worlds with less than 400 players, it's still common to see the tombola event winners with 1000+ wins streaks. As long as the server is profitable, even if the population is suboptimal for PvP, they will not close it.

And about migrations, I think it should be obvious by now that they prefer to open the new worlds and force players to restart and spend extra nuggets, rather than offer the possibility to migrate.
 
Last edited:

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
We should distinguish between the overall players activity and total nuggets used on particular world. On some old inactive worlds with less than 400 players, it's still common to see the tombola event winners with 1000+ wins streaks. As long as the server is profitable, even if the population is suboptimal for PvP, they will not close it.

And about migrations, I think it should be obvious by now that they prefer to open the new worlds and force players to restart and spend extra nuggets, rather than offer the possibility to migrate.
It is certainly true that many worlds have a player or three that loves ruling over a wasteland, happily spending enough nuggets to make the world “profitable” by whatever metrics are being used.

While this may favor not closing such worlds (they remain “profitable” after all) this shouldn’t prevent opening optional migration.

Unfortunately, the powers that be have yet to adopt this position and optional migration is more or less not a thing.

I am aware that many CMs in many markets have forwarded feedback indicating a massive desire for opening optional migration. To the best of my knowledge this has not moved the needle.

I am unaware of anything that would bring about this change. That said I will be be promoting the proposal here: https://forum.the-west.net/index.php?threads/awaiting-migration-setting.61281/
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
@Goober Pyle
So far, migrations have been for the purpose of closing worlds that migrations take place from. Someone once mentioned (and I don't know if this is what you are referring to) that optional migrations should be offered without closing any worlds.

I guess I am asking for clarification of your "optional migrations".

That said, yes the "awaiting migrations" proposal looks great...although, I think the only good it serves is for Inno to see just how many people (in and out of this forum) are in favor (obviously a lot more than we see here in this forum)
 

DeletedUser15368

So far, migrations have been for the purpose of closing worlds that migrations take place from.
Normally, yes, but not always. There's evidence on the Wiki page for each world having previously open migration routes (possibly for facilitating shuffling accounts about when a bunch of the numbered worlds were closing) when migrations were being utilised and worlds were being managed properly.

As a couple of examples; Arizona had migrations to W11, W12 and Briscoe, Colorado had migrations to W1, W11, W12, Arizona and Briscoe.

Also the Beta worlds have just had an open migration policy since migrations were introduced, but that's slightly different.

There's also examples of worlds that players didn't want closed, like World 1, which was forced to close and players migrate - although it lived on for a couple of years after signups to that world were closed and half of them had already regrettably migrated out.
I wonder if it's possible, even, that the negative feedback from closing worlds players didn't want closed, is why we presently have 13 Worlds - which is around what we had, when the game was at its absolute peak, and with a fraction of the player-base to support it.


I'm not goober and maybe he has a different take, but "Optional migrations" is an attempted compromise to a problem where we aren't really sure what the problem is. We don't know why a world is closed, or why it's decreed to be active enough to stay open.

Basically it just means letting the players who are seeking duels, forts, market activity, or chat - the stuff that this game was traditionally about - migrate to a world that has that. What is clearly a graveyard world to those players, still has enough clicks-per-second, nuggets-per-tombola, or whatever unknown metric is used to measure activity, to be considered active - so let them happily click away, but it's only fair to let the others escape to find a new adventure with their character.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PrancingPurplePony

Well-Known Member
A problem with migrations is that many people have accounts in multiple worlds, so being offered a chance to move to a world where you already have an account is not helpful. One toon has to be deleted, and you can do that without migrating. That also does nothing to increase the player base, which is what some people that are pro migration seem to think.

I remember when world 11 closed, one of the choices was to migrate to Arizona, where I already had an account that I didn't want to delete. The world 11 toon ended up in Dakota, which is pretty dead and I'd be willing to move it to another world where I don't already have a toon in place. I only play three worlds [and beta] and have zero interest in starting a new world, so there could be possibilities for me, IF migrations ever happen.
 

PrancingPurplePony

Well-Known Member
It does not increase the player base, but it makes the same people more active. And it is like a chain. More people will then stay active and so on. It is not the same having 200 people in 10 worlds or in 2.
please explain to me how it makes the same people more active if they have to migrate to a world they already inhabit? if the numbers don't change, then the activity isn't likely to change either. If they were already as active as they want to be on the migration destination, then all they will change is which account they want to keep, not their activity level. What am I missing in your scenario?
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
please explain to me how it makes the same people more active if they have to migrate to a world they already inhabit? if the numbers don't change, then the activity isn't likely to change either. If they were already as active as they want to be on the migration destination, then all they will change is which account they want to keep, not their activity level. What am I missing in your scenario?
What you are missing is the synergistic effects—a more populated world with more players to interact with on market, saloon, town forums, PvP, invites more engagement more competition, more activity.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Normally, yes, but not always. There's evidence on the Wiki page for each world having previously open migration routes (possibly for facilitating shuffling accounts about when a bunch of the numbered worlds were closing) when migrations were being utilised and worlds were being managed properly.

As a couple of examples; Arizona had migrations to W11, W12 and Briscoe, Colorado had migrations to W1, W11, W12, Arizona and Briscoe.

Also the Beta worlds have just had an open migration policy since migrations were introduced, but that's slightly different.

There's also examples of worlds that players didn't want closed, like World 1, which was forced to close and players migrate - although it lived on for a couple of years after signups to that world were closed and half of them had already regrettably migrated out.
I wonder if it's possible, even, that the negative feedback from closing worlds players didn't want closed, is why we presently have 13 Worlds - which is around what we had, when the game was at its absolute peak, and with a fraction of the player-base to support it.


I'm not goober and maybe he has a different take, but "Optional migrations" is an attempted compromise to a problem where we aren't really sure what the problem is. We don't know why a world is closed, or why it's decreed to be active enough to stay open.

Basically it just means letting the players who are seeking duels, forts, market activity, or chat - the stuff that this game was traditionally about - migrate to a world that has that. What is clearly a graveyard world to those players, still has enough clicks-per-second, nuggets-per-tombola, or whatever unknown metric is used to measure activity, to be considered active - so let them happily click away, but it's only fair to let the others escape to find a new adventure with their character.
My understanding is that when a world is closing, the migration targets for that world may open up limited migration paths to additional worlds to allow players on closing_world who have toons on destination_world to move their destination_world toon to a secondary_destination_world. So far as I know only players moving a toon from a closing world had the optional migrations opened to them.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
That's what I thought. I might be wrong, but I migrated W11 to AZ and W10 to Galveston (or Dakota...one or the other) and both W11 and W10 closed. (both took place at the same time with a very few optional worlds to migrate to). I don't remember migration being done the other way around (from AZ or Dakota to numbered worlds), again I might be wrong. I was here in 2009 and that was some time ago, so I might not have been aware of much going on's back then...but the migrations I saw were after that (2009). All the migrations that I remember seeing were from a world closing to an open world, though (with exception to first attempt to close W1, in which the players succeeded in getting a delay after some had already migrated out). Assuming we are referring to .net worlds, that is.
 

Azeul

Active Member
The main imbalance seems to be level and skill distribution imbalance. Is it fair for leaders to demand / convince players to shift their own personal skills for the betterment of us all? Asking players to become stooges of HP just to keep FFs alive is a rough ask. And things continue to shake themselves up game-wise that the request is often lost in the waters anyway. Is there a possibility of the fort map being re-designed? Now that's a big ask...
 
Top