Feedback Community Project: Fort Limit Rebalancing

Caerdwyn

Well-Known Member
Is it really the attacker:defender ratio which will change the balance most? Since forts almost never fill, doing something to draw fighters to FF more often would make for a better focus. Like JWillow mentions,
JWillow said:
I would even be happy with doing 100 damage per hit if only I would hit something 50%+ of the time. I think this is a separate issue to tower bonuses because even aiming grass is not that much better.
Click to expand...
people not making hits is the most frustrating aspect. Could a review of the Range Penalty be another way to work on the problem?

Could there be a small attacker bonus for reaching the moat sectors (Sappers!) where you give up LOS for better chance to hit the fewer targets you can see?

How about a grass sector that has a height bonus because it's a small hill?

What about the sector behind the Barracks having a DEF penalty similar to Negs (you know what's behind the Barracks!)?

What about keeping Towers as 2x2 tiles?
 
Last edited:
Goober Pyle

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Attack/Defense caps are about the only tool we have. We have a great deal of flexibility with them so, for example, we could change smalls on Arizona to be 24 attacking 18.

The goal is to find numbers that make FFs more enjoyable by having both attack and defense feel like they have a decent chance of prevailing. When the meta shifts (like it did over Christmas as more players fleshed out their cortina sets) the numbers can be readjusted

Ideally the meta will move towards attack:defense being able to approach 1:1. Having this flexibility allows more experimentation as an overcorrection can be offset this way.
 
Goober Pyle

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
On a related note we will also be experimenting with downgrading towers. More to come on this, but my hope is that a medium with level 3 towers will help reduce the defender advantage significantly.

Additionally, where there are cooperative alliances like on Colorado, this could be used to help balance uneven alliances that haven’t been able find a workable balance of players: the stronger side can downgrade its towers while the weaker side keeps heirs maxed out.
 
Beefmeister

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
out of all these worlds the only world filling a medium battle is colorado...and that won't be for long. so i can say from the start this so-called contest is useless..
lowering numbers to begin with is always a bad move and boosting the numbers with no players attending is useless as well

i understand the whole "changing numbers is the only tool we have"...but why don't the people responsible for the game act based on feedback. it's been over a year since cortina was released...this makes me believe no feedback is actually read at all and it's not at the level of mods in the community...it's much deeper

the only real solutions to the whole balance problem are:
-lowering the tower bonuses...in small batches, one day we lower -5%...another week -5%...and so on
-nerfing the sets that are broken, again...in small batches. i think everyone knows which sets are broken. i still don't understand why this game does not nerf broken aspects of the game when every single game out there is doing that when they make a mistake??????????????????????????????????
-releasing sets with the perfect amount of skill points and bonuses to counter the big ass cortina and union bonuses (attack tank set is the most important here - and not some joke like carl or wilson)

THOSE DO NOT WORK TOGETHER - a big reason why the game is like this right now...releasing the tower bonuses and cortina at the same time without any testing at all...like bro what. (i know the tower bonuses were "tested")

it's obvious it's impossible to balance the forts perfectly but the current state of the game is worse than the time when all attacks were winning everything. at least then it was some sort of diversity with tactics and movement...not sitting on a tower brainless and drool on dodges and crits

just make a move, any move at all...release a good set, change something. you can't keep people like this for a whole year without any change at all...it's ridiculous
 
Harsha..

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
I think it's important for us to keep this in mind:

Syntex said:
While we appreciate the perspective that the needed changes to achieve balance are formula changes, tower bonuses changes, set nerfing, and/or complementary set creation, this balancing mission is specific to the fort battle settings under control of Community Management.
Click to expand...

All of us know very well the issues caused by the formula, sets and tower bonuses. I'm sure the game management is well aware of it as well. But, mostly the community team here can't make those necessary changes. So, it would be pointless to bring up the old arguments again in this thread. What Goob and others are trying to do is to make the best of the situation and make use of the methods within reach to try and improve battles while we wait for the developers to effect the major changes. Quite frankly, this is a very positive step after many years of nothing being tried on the community level.

Aside from the fort numbers changes, I would comment on one aspect - greater incentives to FF. As a premium tank worker with the best gear I can easily average 100+ dodges and get 16 bonds in battles. The situation is very different for others, like JWillow above, as an adventurer, she plays an important role in battles, but struggles to land many hits, winds up with a low hits-dodges ratio and it's in general unfulfilling for her and many others to show up. If on a community level we can figure out some way to give extra special rewards to such players in battles, it would improve attendance for sure.

There's also the need to find ways of rewarding battle leaders - theirs is a thankless job and they get no rewards for doing it, and get burnt out pretty quickly. In a similar way it'd be good to incentivize being a battle leader more - I heard some servers have contests that reward good battle leads on a weekly basis or just gives gifts to people who dig and lead frequently. It would be interesting to give that a try and see how it pans out.
 

Darkuletzz

Well-Known Member
I dont know people are aware but kansas and juarez can not make a full at a small fort now:)
If you don't nerf union, just add a tank set that it's good for attack, Union make's the difference , and a big one in def.
Losing an attack 93 vs 78 like last night with 220K + hp, because we hit nothing, and people with union doing like 50-60K+ damage every battle in defense it's pretty big advantage.
@Goober, i think towers at 3 in medium(Colorado) ff it's a way to go. The smalls I think they are good enough, and the big forts, well awesomania
 
Last edited:
Lyrinx.

Lyrinx.

Well-Known Member
Ahh this forum on phone acting so weird, I cant reply to previous comment parts, I have to do it manualy.

Darkuletzz said:
i think towers at 3 in medium(Colorado) ff it's a way to go. The smalls I think they are good enough, and the big forts, well awesomania
Click to expand...

Temporary this is the only way how we can balance high tower bonuses, without developing a new formula. Permanently we need another formula, because every market has similar or same issues like we have, but for that if I can guess, we have to wait a slightly more than max 1 week (maybe another year or 2, depends how fast you can develop and implement the secret project what everyone wanna see soo badly). Middle-sized forts max tower level should be lvl 3, instead of 4, small forts are good as they are, and nobody digs big forts, so let them be too.

And if we wanna search what caused the current situation, while goober messing with the numbers for months: it was the xmas sale, and the thing that almost every tank made upgraded cortinas. In total those bonuses made defenders immortal.

(btw guys, the speed will close soon, use your imagination what will happening after that)
 

Artem124

Well-Known Member
change A46-D42 on smalls too A42 - D34 .. we just had a small battle where a full Defense has 550k hp while 42 attackers had 250k hp . we got rekt ...

arizona !!!
 

martoru

Well-Known Member
hello

those new limits will not help as much as you want... diference is too big betwen old players and new ones...

want to equalise sale again Union officer, summer spirt, caribbean and do nopt alow those to be upgraded
 

Darkuletzz

Well-Known Member
martoru said:
hello

those new limits will not help as much as you want... diference is too big betwen old players and new ones...

want to equalise sale again Union officer, summer spirt, caribbean and do nopt alow those to be upgraded
Click to expand...
The dif its not that big, cortina at 2 vs an old player at 1 , you will have the same skill points, so no point in union again in shop, that set it's the cancer of this game.
 

Caerdwyn

Well-Known Member
If the only thing you can change is numbers of attackers to defenders (but please keep passing our other suggestions up the chain!):

Drop the number of allowed defenders in every size fort by 3 every week there are at least five attacks and no forts change hands, regardless of the size of fort, and by 1 for a week there are less than five attacks and no forts changing hands. Continue until the attackers win three times, out of five or more FFs, in back to back weeks. Active worlds will find their "sweet spot" faster, but that is to their advantage anyway. Should there be a drastic shift from one week to the next, like the attackers suddenly winning five of five, add back two defenders.

Without a way to account for people forgetting to buff/gear up, for a person who only rarely FFs, new players just reaching the FF level, or someone digging during off-prime hours, the "sweet spot" might be off by a few fighters, but that's not the end of the world and it encourages the weaker alliance to recruit.
 
Alduin

Alduin

Well-Known Member
If Inno Games really wants to find a solution for Fort Battles, if you really mean it there i go.

First of all, i dont see much of a problem to be honest. Also changing any class bonus might upset certain amount community members so it would be nice if they stay untouched.

Secondly, i suggest giving sector bonuses according to height of structures. High ground should be advantageous not because of Kenobi memes but because we have more than enough historical evidence/example about benefits of holding a high ground except Flag and L sectors around flag.
My suggestion; (for simplifying i will refer height as meters)
-> x 0.03 attack value for every meter.
exp: Towers are 11 meters tall so tower attack bonus will be 0.33 instead of 0.35
-> x 0.02 defense value for every meter.
exp: Towers are 11 meters tall so tower defense bonus will be 0.22 instead of 0.25

I will talk about beloved premium set, the Union Officer. I am still curious about which laws preventing games nerf premium stuff when asked, i really would like to know those laws but sake of this post i assume we know the laws and premium stuff can not be nerfed under any situation. Please do not sell any fort gear with nuggets.

After completing bonuses that fort providing to defenders, i have one more suggestion. This might upset some people so think this as a last resort.
Switching James Wilson set with J. Cortina set. For sake of out beloved tanks who put themselves barrages of enemy bullets for their team mates i suggest making James Wilson defensive by just changing "hiding" skill with "setting traps" same as J. Cortina's "setting traps" switching to "hiding" because with sector bonuses provided by fort combined with generous amounts of pure defense values it really makes J. Cortina set annoying to play against it.
-> For sake of post i will provide current bonuses for both sets and bonuses for according to my suggestion.

*Cortina(full set at 150 without upgrade):
985 health points
744 dodging
1125 setting traps
502 leadership
+29,5 defense
+190 resistance

*James Wilson(full set at 150 without upgrade):
580 health points
649 dodging
465 hiding
387 aiming
454 leadership
+7 defense
+2,3 attack
+93 resistance

If the problem isnt obvious enough J. Cortina literally destroying James Wilson about being tank(i didnt include setting traps coming from dexterity on Wilson set), adding sector bonuses provided by fort makes literally puts attacking tank player under stress. As attackers more likely miss than defenders, attacking tanks getting lower and lower rewards when fort battle ends by being able to do less than their defending counterparts. Speaking personally here; i have several friends who done with fort fights.Also we have players that playing LDR soldier/worker/advent to get some bonds and trying to be more useful.
So order to "balance" tank buisness;
-> My suggestion:

*Cortina(full set at 150 without upgrade):
985 health points
744 dodging
1125 setting traps hiding
502 leadership
+29,5 defense +25,5 defense (only horse and saddle will go down from +5 defense to +3 defense)
+190 resistance +150 resistance (as cortina will have huge amount of hiding no need to have tanks with extreme resistance with summer spirits + resistance from animal set will drop to 0 from 45 also crossbow will give 20 resistance instead of 25)

*James Wilson(full set at 150 without upgrade):
580 health points
649 dodging
465 hiding setting traps
387 aiming
454 leadership
+7 defense +10 defense (+1 for defense for dog and glasses also +1 defense increase as set bonus)
+93 resistance +125 resistance (75 resistance set bonus from clothing instead of 55 also 50 from animal set instead of 38)
+2.3 attack +0 attack (set already has aiming, dropping 2,3 attack will not make set useless but only nerfing one side isnt fair)
I know, we all know something big as switching sets might be head ache also some players will not like it. Additionally it might take long time to implement into game for you also for us players to get used to. Reason i took from J. Cortina and add to James Wilson is simple. Cortina nearly doubles Wilson on primary skill for their purpose.

Also putting extra component on bond criteria, "hp spent" like 1 bond for each 2000hp the player lost so tank players feel more appreciated. This might also encourage people to bring more HP to fort battles.

Cactus Poke: The main point is increase both bonds with class redistribution and quaduple the xp, give the 12, 18, 24 (based on fort size) as another option. More rewards = more fighters, more players fighting/interacting or less church building case in point the gm battles and fort battles should have the best rewards.



**Some might argue/point that James Wilson set doesnt have weapons and thats why J. Cortina doubling on primary skill. Go on twcalc or west wiki and see yourself how much extra Cortina getting from weapon set even if you think it isnt significant remember that we dont have accordingly made weapon set to complete Wilson if it changes to defense set from attack set.
**Some might argue/point that i only talked about tank sets but said nothing about damage sets. Yes i play dueler on my main world, Colorado but on my entire The West play time i always played worker/soldier. This is my first/last/only dueler on entire game. As i talked about tanks but you are not happy with my suggestions, please contact with me and provide otherside of the story. We need to ensure happiness of both sides(damagers/tanks-attackers/defenders) order to be successful/balanced.
**** I will ask my close friends and take their suggestions/advices so im going to edit and update this post regularly.
Hope you like it.

not so friendly big black dragon
-Alduin
 
Last edited:

Cactus Poke

Member
It seems to me that if you want active players, go with the aspects of the game that promotes the most interaction… in the west that is fort fights. It is obviously not the latest and greatest technology so it must be something else. I propose it is the fun of meeting up with 200 players from all parts of the world to spend an hour with your little yellow dot playing a fort fight.

Inno’s model seems to be - create new ‘flash in the pan’ worlds that generate a significant amount of revenue at first but I would guess drops off to a trickle as these worlds die.

Colorado seems to be the exception. Why? Community and Fort Fights!

Look at the GM battles during events. On Colorado they are full large battles with the latecomers often not even getting in. On the ‘flash in the pan’ worlds, they slowly decline to a dribble. So what makes the GM event battles so much better? The rewards of attending.

Almost every other software company does their best to create some sort of stream revenue to wrest more cash from their existing customers by giving them more of what they want. Inno seems to be the exception.

How can Inno create a little more stream revenue? Up the rewards for the most player interactive aspect of the game… more rewards for fort battles equates to more active players.

As Alduin has already written:
  • Redo the bond distribution so all classes get a fair share – not duelers getting the lion’s share.
  • Greatly increase the bonds per battle. At least double it.
  • Significantly increase the experience points for fort fights. Quadruple it.
If players could make more at a fort battle, then building churches - that is what they will do. On Colorado we could get back to 2 or 3 battles a day. Maybe even a large during primetime and a couple of smalls during off times. It would accommodate more time zones and hopefully create more active players

If I could get up to 24,000 XPs a battle, I would never build a church again . I’d also be online more.
 

Terry Hillgrove

Member
Without going through reams of forum postings, i think we the players are victims of our own wants and needs, Inno has i imagine only tried to accommodate those wants and needs. Fort fights are the backbone of any world IMO there might be 2 or 3 power groups in each world, they therefore control those worlds, dissent often comes as a result of bickering, one party tries to do the right thing while the other wants total control. With each new world there is a race to level up, to be the best, these are often by people who are prepared to spend real money to achieve game status, to have the best equipment to perform and then to be able to upgrade,
As emer haze said earlier "How much different would it be if no set was up-gradable".
How about taking it a step further and make nothing up-gradable. Although i support what Inno have done with store items giving newer players a better opportunity to proceed in the game, i still can't support that they can also be up-graded. It effects all parts of the game, there are enough buffs and crafted items to assist in a more genuine way.
Perhaps in looking for ways to balance battles, we are going about it the wrong way.
Perhaps we should be asking "why have people stopped fort fighting"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top