The West EN Census

[Dr Roth]

Not 100% sure Arizona is that unbalanced, is there a team that consistently wins their attacks? I thought both sides just get trapped and killed in attack suggesting people only sign up for defence or out of alliance players all go defence.

 

[asdf124]

Not 100% sure Arizona is that unbalanced, is there a team that consistently wins their attacks? I thought both sides just get trapped and killed in attack suggesting people only sign up for defence or out of alliance players all go defence.

AR literally has 400k hp difference than the other side without the usual defense only. They won the only attack(which frankly they usually never dig that often) Out of 9 medium/large/none awsomia attacks, they dug only 2, with 1 win.

How biased can you be roth?

Edit: With this new update, AR is 10x more powerful. Cause their gun is gonna do more damage even as tanks. While the other side will not have much difference, number wise, AR has a way bigger hand.

 

[Dr Roth]

How biased can you be roth?

I have played on servers where there has been one OP side, they normally have 100% of the forts. Sure one side has more tanks, as the other has more damagers. Just looking at one value doesn't make much sense. All I am saying is that the attacks I have attanded in AR have mainly finished with slaughter where defenders kill all, no matter how much hp the attackers bring. Comparing to other servers I think it's incorrect to say that one side is OP. One side has more tanks, but by no means are OP.

 

[asdf124]

I have played on servers where there has been one OP side, they normally have 100% of the forts. Sure one side has more tanks, as the other has more damagers. Just looking at one value doesn't make much sense. All I am saying is that the attacks I have attanded in AR have mainly finished with slaughter where defenders kill all, no matter how much hp the attackers bring. Comparing to other servers I think it's incorrect to say that one side is OP. One side has more tanks, but by no means are OP.

So by your standard, we are waiting for AR to take all the forts until we admit its unbalanced, makes 100% sense, and the eventual quits due to how bad it is.

 

[Dr Roth]

So by your standard, we are waiting for AR to take all the forts until we admit its unbalanced, makes 100% sense, and the eventual quits due to how bad it is.

you could ask yourself why you guys bring 20 more guns in defence compared to attack while you wait. I am a noob on zona, but the time I have been there I have never seen balanced battles, maybe 1 or 2 in a year where the battle has been decided in the last rounds. but to be called OP when in most attacks I get trapped and killed is not a correct assessment.

 

[asdf124]

you could ask yourself why you guys bring 20 more guns in defence compared to attack while you wait. I am a noob on zona, but the time I have been there I have never seen balanced battles, maybe 1 or 2 in a year where the battle has been decided in the last rounds. but to be called OP when in most attacks I get trapped and killed is not a correct assessment.

Your opponents literally dig twice as much, how is that a metric, out of 6 ff's, you won once. Out of 12 attacks the opposition dug, they won zero times.

This was the last 18 large/medium fort fights, 12 from BB, 6 from AR. And your the one who's discouraged?!

 

[Dr Roth]

so out of 6 attacks, we won 1 time. out of 12 times, you never won. if we go down the percentage route, they are not far away from each other. as I said before, in many worlds I have played only one alliance has had all forts, this as I am sure you know is winning ALL attacks, 100% of them. now you say 1/6 which is less than 17% is a comparable scenario to that. I disagree.

also when you bring almost 80 to defences and 50-something to attacks, I believe there might be more reasons for the weak attacks.

 

[Goober Pyle]

It’s a bit of folly to argue about side to side imbalances when the attack/defense balance is so far off

Hopefully that will improve soon and we can talk about bringing more or less balanced caps to AZ then you can see if one side is winning a majority of attacks while the others attacks are always wiped out. THEN people may be open to balancing the sides. For now fixing a theoretical balance so that both sides always lose in frustratingly boring battles where no one really wants to show up or lead an attack is a fool’s errand.

 

[Ethereal]

but to be called OP when in most attacks I get trapped and killed is not a correct assessment.

You've won 58 out of 88 battles in the last year(?), meaning 65%. I've been on the same side (not yours) for about 3 years. I've won 139 out of 343 (40%). It's true you guys don't win attacks either, but the quality of the battle is a lot higher when you do attack compared to us. At the very least we can't fill towers for 40+ rounds and afk. Sadly this doesn't happen as often as in whispers with your leader(s) it's been settled that AR doesn't care about battles.

Attacks suck on all worlds (except maybe colo? idk) so a social contract between two sides is needed -- if you dig, we dig in turn. For the past year or so BB has dug 70-80% of battles, which, you guessed it right, makes people join the easy side more often. There are about 10-15 defense only players on Arizona, which is much more visible with BB than AR, since you guys overfill defense anyway. That explains the number difference.

Waiting for Inno to solve something is also an option of course, in the mean time eating sand is fun too.

 

[Annie-Bell]

50-60% win rates for teams, that pretty good. think AZ seeing alot of new players and revived accounts cause it kinda "the-west" unplugged like game was played originally and in numbered worlds. THe inno fort specialist implimenting caps is both liked and hated in colo (as seen in chat and forum), but AZ is great option for active world with increasing numbers overall for those that enjoy the player managed world, not so much game managed. I play both, enjoy for different reasons.

On a bunch of worlds so have good view of either no/low activity ff's where putting in caps will be kinda weird when hard to see established pattern as so irregular battles. Do appreciate the census numbers cleverhans has provided for inno forum but know need to be active player to see breakdown of those numbers and doesnt reflect what world reality is in terms of accounts "active" but not really active, vm, market activity (usually very low if no ff world), even number of people in saloon at any given time.. not to mention number of battles and number of players (excluding henry or 1 player town digs with distort stats)

Out of 12 worlds (cant see dakota) do find the most current inbalance world is Las Vegas (all worlds go up and down tho), where there is aggressive attacks(since this census published) against team with declining ff'ers taking part and no leaders to rally up (i stopped ff'ing there simply as battles super early and falling behind on quests but would be happy to join underdog side if someone takes on balancing). There is 100% loss rate for team with half the players in both attacks and defends so the 50-60% above looks sweet. So do agree with the census writers summary that inno opening new worlds kills off prior worlds, but to be fair, also is players seeing their advantage and doing aggressive unbalanced battles that ultimately gets players to stop playing worlds. Still dont think wise to ask inno to implemet caps as loses the essence of game and would never dream of asking inno to implement in worlds as not my favorite thing introduced in game.

 

[Ethereal]

Putting the bar low by comparing dead worlds to Arizona is a bit silly and doesn't help the point. If the only time you're allowed to argue that battles could be improved is when one side wins 100%, you're already too late.

A side having 65% winrate (which yours does, since defending is much easier and digging is too much effort) means you win almost twice as much as your opponent. Which is fine, winning is fun, but it's not surprising that people on the other end(me) don't like it as much as you do.

I'm not a fan of artificial caps either by the way, I'd much rather have organically balanced worlds. This does require cooperation that goes both ways though, and that's way easier said than done since there's a lot of bad dinosaur blood out there.

 

[Annie-Bell]

yes agree would luv to see world balanced by players and yes does involve cooperation and a good strong active player base too. well said

I do know both teams find difficult to attack, one team with more damagers and one team with more tanks - am very happy players themselves showing like AZ is becoming place of choice and seeing rise in player base, lets hope for many good times to come!

Yeah wouldnt look at balance in dead worlds, as would be impossible to figure things out without seeing trending in battles if little or no battles. Looking at worlds that have daily or every other day battles active ff worlds. Still think if people (as you say player coordination not inno caps) can still have opportunity to make things work in some of the more active worlds, i would luv to help even things out too

 

[Matori]

So Vegas is different than other servers, in what way? One ally is winning all forts? What is the difference between all other servers (not AZ, Colo, and Montana)?

 

[Dr Roth]

It's true you guys don't win attacks either, but the quality of the battle is a lot higher when you do attack compared to us.

Most likely because you bring 50 guys to medium attacks

At the very least we can't fill towers for 40+ rounds and afk. Sadly this doesn't happen as often as in whispers with your leader(s) it's been settled that AR doesn't care about battles.

Oh well, if the AR leaders don't care about battles, this situation is all their fault and it has nothing to do with you guys. Seems like you got your excuse now, so play the victim card and don't do anything like focusing on why you bring so few people to attacks. In the end, it's all the other guys that are bad.

 

[Ethereal]

BB could for sure do more, we lack properly HP skilled people which would make battles quite a bit better. Ideally everyone would be equally incentivized to join attacks too. If you had read more than two sentences you had seen that I explained the number difference though; 10 defense only players, attack morale down since we get slaughtered over and over (vicious cycle, worsened by not digging for 6 months) and finally a smaller pool to pick from to begin with. I'm not sure how AR got 40 Swedes to join your ally, kudos for that, but it doesn't make things easier for us. I assume that's the goal, in which case AR succeeded.

I guess explaining things is playing the victim card though, sorry!

 

[Dr Roth]

BB could for sure do more, we lack properly HP skilled people which would make battles quite a bit better. Ideally everyone would be equally incentivized to join attacks too. If you had read more than two sentences you had seen that I explained the number difference though; 10 defense only players, attack morale down since we get slaughtered over and over (vicious cycle, worsened by not digging for 6 months) and finally a smaller pool to pick from to begin with. I'm not sure how AR got 40 Swedes to join your ally, kudos for that, but it doesn't make things easier for us. I assume that's the goal, in which case AR succeeded.

I guess explaining things is playing the victim card though, sorry!

I did read everything but I only comment on the things that don't make sense.

Suggestion 1: Write down the names of the defence only people and ask both alliance to traitor them if they choose defence.
Suggestion 2: Speak with the members who are badly skilled/dressed and try to make them shape up.

I think I will join you guys for a while to have a look of my own how it is around there.

 

[canufeelit]

I did read everything but I only comment on the things that don't make sense.

Suggestion 1: Write down the names of the defence only people and ask both alliance to traitor them if they choose defence.
Suggestion 2: Speak with the members who are badly skilled/dressed and try to make them shape up.

I think I will join you guys for a while to have a look of my own how it is arounthere.

wow crazuist idea i seen
screw them younguns

 

[darthmaul99174]

I did read everything but I only comment on the things that don't make sense.

Suggestion 1: Write down the names of the defence only people and ask both alliance to traitor them if they choose defence.
Suggestion 2: Speak with the members who are badly skilled/dressed and try to make them shape up.

I think I will join you guys for a while to have a look of my own how it is around there.

1. The leader doesn't want to traitor anymore as he doesn't care for the hassle, AR is pretty much a 1 man operation so I don't blame him but it would be nice regardless. At least that is what I took from our last convo, don't want to speak for him.
2. We spent many many millions buying & sharing gear between allies. We probably have the highest ratio of well dressed/skilled players (though this fluctuates depending on how consistent battles are), but as we're so many players down we really need to be 100% efficient which isn't possible sadly, as lots of players have personal reasons for doing what they do regardless of advice or gear offered.

Very welcome to see how things are, even negative feedback would be useful if we can do something with it to improve.

 

[Annie-Bell]

one thing did agree with was that would luv to see groups in worlds talk more to even things out, in AZ still see that both teams looking for more players for attacks, dont recall many successful atttacks for either side. Not sure why here became platforum for some, wold luv to see promoting communication within all worlds to deal with players balancing that specific world

Recognize that some players themselves flip sides if they see necessary in alot of cases based on actual battles. To comment above, we too gear up players and few friends (like wonderful earp) made point of giving out attack gear after the xmas sale (so we can do more attacks hopefully) only to see them jump over with concepts that dont address that both sides needs help with attacks. So then people stop helping each other and oh what a weird web we all weave

I do see some worlds where significanly more inbalanced where feeling is there is no chance to work things out with sides, in some on both stronger and weaker sides - still dont think here place nor asking for inno to step in but to find people invested in those worlds step up, communicate with each other and to work it out (tho, dibs out, been there done that lol) but know needed if want regular active battles

 

[Reyne]

Nice overview...just curious what counts as "active". People that log in regularly? I know of many of the "active" players being counted here that do nothing at all but log in and keep building on church and things like that (waiting for migrations to open, possibly?). With that in mind, not sure what it's showing exactly.

I do find it very interesting though....

"do nothing at all but log in and keep building on church..." That is being active. If someone is logging in and doing anything at all in the way of manipulating their character into an action of any type, that is being active. In fact, that is probably more activity than someone who only logs in to sign up for a fort battle, logging 24 hours later for the battle and then disappearing until the next battle., doing absolutely nothing in between battles to contribute to the world in any way.

Just a difference of opinion there, Nova.