Feedback Fort Battle Balancing Event

darthmaul99174

Well-Known Member
In all worlds there are some kind of drama. No matter how hard Goob tries to fix the numbers, at least I think(with my knowledge of Arizona) that there is just not much balance due to players more than actual numbers difference.
Somethings in Colorado might work, but in most other worlds it simply won't, Colorado has a unique environment where a lot of players are willing to work together(most players) rather than work against each other.

For Arizona for example, we have some players that are just selfish, they tend to join the other side that has advantages, rather than try to balance things out. The reason why they decide to join one side rather than the other is simple, usually they have 1 beef with someone or it can be multiple people, which is rather childish in my opinion.

Trust me, no one is gonna "fix" that.

Why would you test things on a successful old world for failed worlds? Why not test it in failed worlds, and try to make a comeback?

And yes, I think Arizona is in danger of being a failure of a world due to players more so than innogames bad decisions. And to be honest, I am not sure if new worlds are the way to go. When worlds were overfilled, yes they were a great idea. But nowadays?

This is the sad truth that Arizona faced for a while and one that cannot be fixed by inno unless they directly influence the players decisions.

There are so few players that even the second most popular world Arizona can be taken completely hostage just by a small group's petty drama, Colorado works to a degree because it has enough active players that this is mostly impossible to sabotage, at least to the degree it is with Arizona & many other more dead worlds.

The only REAL fix for the majority of worlds is merging, The battle formula is secondary to that for them.

On another note, The biggest alliance in Arizona is on average 16 levels higher and are primarily tanks. It's fair to say this update has upset the balance even further so inno certainly isn't helping lol
 

Joe Kidd

Well-Known Member
On another note, The biggest alliance in Arizona is on average 16 levels higher and are primarily tanks. It's fair to say this update has upset the balance even further so inno certainly isn't helping lol

If I could thumbs up this quote 100 times I would. So, so painfully true and due to a lack of proper QA on Innogame's part which, in my opinion, is a far cry from the caliber it was even 5 years ago under Da Twista. I would argue it's almost non-existent now.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
There have/had been many brilliant ideas regarding that EU/NA issue in the past but nothing was done and I doubt it will be either.

They had more than a decade to "fix" it and yet they didn't.. So.. yeah.
 

PrancingPurplePony

Well-Known Member
Change the game clock. AZ= GMT, Brisco = GMT+2, CO = GMT+4, El Do = GMT+6, etc., around the globe until Las Vegas = GMT-2.
Play in the world(s) that makes the most sense for your activity cycle and lifestyle.
that could work if migration to the desired timezone would be allowed, otherwise people are still stuck in the times that don't work for them with their established toons, or have to start all over somewhere else.
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
that could work if migration to the desired timezone would be allowed, otherwise people are still stuck in the times that don't work for them with their established toons, or have to start all over somewhere else.
And it all becomes a circle of migration that I have been *****ing about for 10+yrs...... If inno wants a few pennies for the passage to a different world, make it a nugget/bond thing. Otherwise, all of the worlds on .net will just wither on the vine.
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member

Bob Baumeister

Well-Known Member
So to your hypothesis, kansas/las vegas should have more than double newbies than Arizona but unfortunately it doesn't.
Which hypothesis? :)

How do you count these "newbies"? The numbers from your link would be 6770 (Arizona), 30932 (Kansas), 15645 (Las Vegas).

What both links show to me is that there are still many people that dare to create an account on new worlds. Not sure if there is much more read these data without knowing the level of activity, eg. do people just login to farm the exp login bonus or crafting points or something like that or do they still play?
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
Which hypothesis? :)

How do you count these "newbies"? The numbers from your link would be 6770 (Arizona), 30932 (Kansas), 15645 (Las Vegas).

What both links show to me is that there are still many people that dare to create an account on new worlds. Not sure if there is much more read these data without knowing the level of activity, eg. do people just login to farm the exp login bonus or crafting points or something like that or do they still play?
yes but what I mean by hyperinflated is that, its not really active new players, possible bots, and remaking characters again/again.

The hypothesis of new worlds being more attractive to new players.

Comparing the number of players registered to "active" players, and then looking at information from the census tells me the player retention is really bad.
edit:
Hypothesis that new worlds have more demand is more likely false.
 

Jordy

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Forum moderator
I think the TW Census Thread makes a great case to have 2 or 3 veteran worlds and have other worlds migrate to those veteran worlds after 3 years of existing. There aren't many players that play more than 3 worlds either. Statistics available to higher ups will reflect that fact. (Not taking into account players with more than 1 username on different worlds)

In light of the level cap increase, new achievements and item revamps there could be a great demand for such veteran worlds where collectors, players for the long term and more could migrate to eventually as a final world.

I also think the fort battle attendance after the most recent level cap update will also show the same facts.
 

Bob Baumeister

Well-Known Member
I said "there seems some larger demand for new worlds". Whether that's new players or old ones or whatnot is nothing we can derive from the data.
What we can say is that there are people playing there. Claiming it's mostly bots is nonsensical. One could claim that about any world just to proof some point or another.

Comparing the number of players registered to "active" players, and then looking at information from the census tells me the player retention is really bad.
That sounds like you are mixing different data sources and act like they are about the same thing.
I get what you want to proof, but right now it's just like saying "I belief it's like that and that's why it is like that".

Judging from the fortstats the new world also has good FF attendance. Unless it's all bots
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
I said "there seems some larger demand for new worlds". Whether that's new players or old ones or whatnot is nothing we can derive from the data.
What we can say is that there are people playing there. Claiming it's mostly bots is nonsensical. One could claim that about any world just to proof some point or another.


That sounds like you are mixing different data sources and act like they are about the same thing.
I get what you want to proof, but right now it's just like saying "I belief it's like that and that's why it is like that".

Judging from the fortstats the new world also has good FF attendance. Unless it's all bots
So your comparing recent fort stats of the oldest world versus new world(1 year old world).

Even if the new world has a slight number advantage. For a 1 year old world to lose that many "new players" is astounding.

So here is the recent numbers for forts for Arizona(oldest current world) versus las vegas(newest)

arizona>
DateFortAttackerDefenderPlayersRoundsResultAwesomnia
average parti.=134.1333333​
10/15/2022Wild OatsRIP MEDAAlphas67 vs 5647Conquered
No​
10/13/2022THE SECONDAlphasRIP MEDA63 vs 7743Defended
No​
10/12/2022Wild OatsRIP MEDAAlphas69 vs 6254Defended
No​
10/11/2022THE SECONDAlphasRIP MEDA59 vs 6848Defended
No​
10/10/2022AwesomiaGM TownWashington61 vs 6754Defended
Yes​
10/07/2022THE SECONDAlphasRIP MEDA62 vs 6954Defended
No​
10/06/2022Wild OatsRIP MEDAAlphas72 vs 6754Defended
No​
10/03/2022THE FIRSTAlphasRIP MEDA55 vs 7454Defended
No​
10/01/2022Wild OatsRIP MEDAAlphas75 vs 6754Defended
No​
09/28/2022Wild FireAlphasRIP MEDA68 vs 8254Defended
No​
09/27/2022AwesomiaGM TownWashington73 vs 6652Defended
Yes​
09/25/2022THE FIRSTGloucesterRIP MEDA51 vs 7250Defended
No​
09/22/2022Wild FireMerce...tpostRIP MEDA62 vs 7052Defended
No​
09/20/2022AwesomiaGM TownWashington71 vs 7354Defended
Yes​
09/19/2022Wild OatsRIP MEDAAlphas69 vs 6554Defended
No​
Las Vegas

So for Arizona versus las vegas, its not looking great for a 1 year old world.
 

Jordy

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Forum moderator
I said "there seems some larger demand for new worlds". Whether that's new players or old ones or whatnot is nothing we can derive from the data.
What we can say is that there are people playing there.
In my earlier post new worlds can still be opened like usual but after 3 years they get an option to migrate especially given the recent updates. After a year most new worlds lose a majority of the players. After 3 years those who still remain at least will get an option.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Las Vegas was/is such a fail on Inno's part yet they still choose to open a new anyway since it costs them very little (if any) to open and manage one..

(Ps. Until Las Vegas newest ones used to have 30k+ accounts there)
 

Bob Baumeister

Well-Known Member
So your comparing recent fort stats of the oldest world versus new world(1 year old world).
No. I just pointed out that there is good activity in fort fights on Las Vegas.

And that's just one measure of activity. I couldn't tell how many are actively questing, hunt archievements, improve crafting skills or etc


Even if the new world has a slight number advantage. For a 1 year old world to lose that many "new players" is astounding.
You are still making to many assumptions and follow your them-vs-us agenda. For sure there are people that have their old world and are happy to be there. Just like there are others that like to start a new one, again and again. In some cases they do both.

So what you see as astounding loss could just be a sign that people move on and prepare for the new world. Without further data we can only guess. Also without knowing the player drop on old worlds after one year the comparison seems out of proportion.


So for Arizona versus las vegas, its not looking great for a 1 year old world.
If you say so^^

Though why does that even matter? People like their old worlds. That's cool. No one says anything against that.
The same way there is demand for new worlds.
What is written by some people sounds like these demands for adventures, like hey Inno you have to force people to play them so I don't have to wait that long in matchmaking.
 

Bob Baumeister

Well-Known Member
Las Vegas was/is such a fail on Inno's part yet they still choose to open a new anyway since it costs them very little (if any) to open and manage one..

(Ps. Until Las Vegas newest ones used to have 30k+ accounts there)
*cough* TW is a very old browsergame that is dying a slow death. Of course user numbers decline.
And AFAIK the reason why Kansas had more signups was people joining from other regions.
 

DeletedUser15368

Looking at the TW Census Thread there seems some larger demand for new worlds.
unknown.png

unknown.png

Yes numbers decline, but should we be retaining more than 2.6% of the players on a year-old world?
There's no "demand" for new worlds, people seem to check it out, then leave less than a year later. I would argue that the demand is for long-term stability - everyone that joins a new world does so in the knowledge that it will only last for 1 year at most.

Las Vegas: 1220 active / 15647 total
Kansas: 815 / 30932 total

Colorado having a massive 11% of its userbase active is unprecedented in these times. I wonder why Colorado is able to keep 11% of its users vs 3% on new worlds...
PvP
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top