Uchiha Madara
Legend of The West ⭐
Legend of The West ⭐Every year we face the same problem: unbalanced sets.
A set releases strong, players invest heavily to obtain and upgrade it, and within twelve months it's already been power-crept into irrelevance. This is a deliberate monetization loop designed to extract maximum spending from dedicated players who always want to stay competitive. Even a 1% stat improvement is enough to trigger another wave of spending, and InnoGames knows it.
The Secondary Market Collapse
The damage doesn't stop at the wallet. When a new set makes the previous BIS obsolete within a year, the bond and nugget value of older sets crashes alongside it. Players who invested thousands of nuggets can't recover even a fraction of that value. This is an in-game economy problem that affects everyone, including players who never spent a cent but rely on a healthy market.
The Psychological Trap
The annual power-creep cycle is engineered around FOMO. Players don't upgrade because the new set is dramatically better, they upgrade because not upgrading means falling behind in fort battles, dueling rankings, and competitive events. It's a pressure system, not a progression system. And most of us have felt it at some point, whether we admitted it or not.
The Veteran Exodus
Long-term players are the backbone of every server, they anchor economies, lead towns, mentor newer players, and keep activity alive. When the upgrade treadmill becomes too exhausting or too expensive, veterans quit. And when veterans quit, servers don't recover. Set inflation isn't just a balance issue, it's a server health issue that InnoGames should be taking seriously if they care about the longevity of their own game.
My Proposal
Since we already have a packed event calendar, the Big 4 main events should operate with a reduced set structure. Currently each major event offers 3 sets + 1 free set. I propose moving to 2 sets + 1 free set.
The reasoning is straightforward: if a new best-in-slot attack damage set drops at Easter, no new attack damage set should appear for at least two years. Let it establish itself. Let players who invested in it actually enjoy it. Two years later, release the upgrade.
If reducing the total number of sets isn't acceptable, then the alternative is simple: fill the gap with genuinely unique sets, class-based sets, cosmetic-utility hybrids, anything that adds variety without directly obsoleting what players already own. There is plenty of creative space here that InnoGames hasn't touched almost ever.
Introduce a Formal "Freeze" System
Take it a step further: formally designate certain stat categories as frozen for a minimum period after a BIS release. No new set in that category until the freeze lifts. This removes the arbitrariness from the process and gives the community something concrete to hold developers accountable to.
The Speed Set Problem
The clearest example of everything wrong with the current approach. Over three years we've received three different speed sets, one free, two premium. Speed sets realistically need a refresh cycle of three to four years, not one. With Masterson already allowing cross-map travel in under two minutes, what exactly is the goal? Shaving off two seconds? The map speed situation is already saturated, and continuing to produce speed sets only highlights how little thought is going into set diversity planning.
Speed should be the first category to enter a formal freeze. It's the most obvious candidate, and it would serve as a proof of concept for the system.
Make a permanent or semi-permanent Legacy Shop, themed around Christmas, where sets from previous years rotate in and can be purchased with dollars. Not the current year's sets, those stay exclusive to their events. But anything one year or older becomes available.
This way:
Current event exclusivity is preserved ✓
Older sets get a lifeline ✓
In-game currency becomes meaningful year-round ✓
Players have a long-term saving goal ✓
What I'm Asking For
1. Reduce the number of sets per major event from 3+1 to 2+1, or replace redundant slots with genuinely unique sets.
2. Implement a formal stat category freeze following each BIS release, minimum two years.
3. Publish a rough set roadmap. It doesn't need to be detailed, even a vague outline of what stat categories are planned each year would allow players to make informed decisions about spending. Other live service games do this as standard practice. There is no reason The West can't.
4. Make a permanent or semi-permanent legacy shop themed around Christmas.
Right now, players are spending blind, and many of them are getting tired of it.
Long Story Short
The current system punishes loyalty. The players who invest earliest get left behind the fastest. A more disciplined release cadence, fewer redundant sets, longer cycles per stat category, and basic communication with the community, would make each release feel meaningful rather than disposable. That's better for player trust, better for server health, and long-term, it's better for the game itself.
I'm not asking for less content. I'm asking for smarter content.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
A set releases strong, players invest heavily to obtain and upgrade it, and within twelve months it's already been power-crept into irrelevance. This is a deliberate monetization loop designed to extract maximum spending from dedicated players who always want to stay competitive. Even a 1% stat improvement is enough to trigger another wave of spending, and InnoGames knows it.
The Secondary Market Collapse
The damage doesn't stop at the wallet. When a new set makes the previous BIS obsolete within a year, the bond and nugget value of older sets crashes alongside it. Players who invested thousands of nuggets can't recover even a fraction of that value. This is an in-game economy problem that affects everyone, including players who never spent a cent but rely on a healthy market.
The Psychological Trap
The annual power-creep cycle is engineered around FOMO. Players don't upgrade because the new set is dramatically better, they upgrade because not upgrading means falling behind in fort battles, dueling rankings, and competitive events. It's a pressure system, not a progression system. And most of us have felt it at some point, whether we admitted it or not.
The Veteran Exodus
Long-term players are the backbone of every server, they anchor economies, lead towns, mentor newer players, and keep activity alive. When the upgrade treadmill becomes too exhausting or too expensive, veterans quit. And when veterans quit, servers don't recover. Set inflation isn't just a balance issue, it's a server health issue that InnoGames should be taking seriously if they care about the longevity of their own game.
My Proposal
Since we already have a packed event calendar, the Big 4 main events should operate with a reduced set structure. Currently each major event offers 3 sets + 1 free set. I propose moving to 2 sets + 1 free set.
The reasoning is straightforward: if a new best-in-slot attack damage set drops at Easter, no new attack damage set should appear for at least two years. Let it establish itself. Let players who invested in it actually enjoy it. Two years later, release the upgrade.
If reducing the total number of sets isn't acceptable, then the alternative is simple: fill the gap with genuinely unique sets, class-based sets, cosmetic-utility hybrids, anything that adds variety without directly obsoleting what players already own. There is plenty of creative space here that InnoGames hasn't touched almost ever.
Introduce a Formal "Freeze" System
Take it a step further: formally designate certain stat categories as frozen for a minimum period after a BIS release. No new set in that category until the freeze lifts. This removes the arbitrariness from the process and gives the community something concrete to hold developers accountable to.
The Speed Set Problem
The clearest example of everything wrong with the current approach. Over three years we've received three different speed sets, one free, two premium. Speed sets realistically need a refresh cycle of three to four years, not one. With Masterson already allowing cross-map travel in under two minutes, what exactly is the goal? Shaving off two seconds? The map speed situation is already saturated, and continuing to produce speed sets only highlights how little thought is going into set diversity planning.
Speed should be the first category to enter a formal freeze. It's the most obvious candidate, and it would serve as a proof of concept for the system.
Make a permanent or semi-permanent Legacy Shop, themed around Christmas, where sets from previous years rotate in and can be purchased with dollars. Not the current year's sets, those stay exclusive to their events. But anything one year or older becomes available.
This way:
Current event exclusivity is preserved ✓
Older sets get a lifeline ✓
In-game currency becomes meaningful year-round ✓
Players have a long-term saving goal ✓
What I'm Asking For
1. Reduce the number of sets per major event from 3+1 to 2+1, or replace redundant slots with genuinely unique sets.
2. Implement a formal stat category freeze following each BIS release, minimum two years.
3. Publish a rough set roadmap. It doesn't need to be detailed, even a vague outline of what stat categories are planned each year would allow players to make informed decisions about spending. Other live service games do this as standard practice. There is no reason The West can't.
4. Make a permanent or semi-permanent legacy shop themed around Christmas.
Right now, players are spending blind, and many of them are getting tired of it.
Long Story Short
The current system punishes loyalty. The players who invest earliest get left behind the fastest. A more disciplined release cadence, fewer redundant sets, longer cycles per stat category, and basic communication with the community, would make each release feel meaningful rather than disposable. That's better for player trust, better for server health, and long-term, it's better for the game itself.
I'm not asking for less content. I'm asking for smarter content.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
