DeletedUser15368
conveniently ignoring the two worlds that have just opened migrations, are you?
The West EN Census
- Thread starter Clever Hans
- Start date
Annie-Bell
Well-Known Member
ty lulu for your words. And yeah beefmieste im not under any false illusion that inno will be running any comments here to think tank and consideration council. Hope is to save at least few worlds and game .. but myself, like you, like many have invested alot of our time (and money) into game so might as well put forward.
I know game is dying, in fact seen the choices and direction in last year result in more and more just leaving game. It is a good game, a very different game then had seen before and wish something could be done to keep it alive. But pls dont mistake giving "feel" of worlds and suggesting maybe 5-7 worlds (and no new worlds!!), and stop with the gringo and op sets already. and which worlds have best potential and which should of been left alone, and to be aware of those annoying players out to disrupt things. Seeing so many fort battle specialits and event inno peeps but seeing regular worlds .. even colo .. get impacted not in way that i think players would like to see game would be at this point, i dont know what if that stuff only for event worlds, so cant speak to.
tbh also to say kudos to players hanging back and making worlds keep going. Juarez worked for 2 simple reasons .. was under the radar, for 2 years of probably most frequent primetime battles after colo and people on both sides putting in alot of time to keep ff's going by collobration to keep it even. If hat changes now who knows. Know some groups of amazing people trying to do same in worlds and taking this chance to say kudos to them, know u been thru alot, trust me i KNOW. MIgrations do impact, as what happened in idaho migrating old to new, but so does a million other things in ways that inno may not forsee as may not understand dynamics. Long time vet leaders probably done doing their time, and so respect so many of them. In worlds where see people stepping up as mentioned above, that should be seen as golden in my mind, its what makes game work. Anyone can go in to dominate world then abandon but ends with people not interested - perhaps the fort balance peeps could be helping these new leaders? again just ideas.
but yeah, i am totally aware people say same thing i said in probably million times in million posts. Why not add in another
But again not expecting changes im just adding my thoughts as been involved in trying to keep few of these worlds going with other amazing people, stuff like that is no stat inno can see.
I know game is dying, in fact seen the choices and direction in last year result in more and more just leaving game. It is a good game, a very different game then had seen before and wish something could be done to keep it alive. But pls dont mistake giving "feel" of worlds and suggesting maybe 5-7 worlds (and no new worlds!!), and stop with the gringo and op sets already. and which worlds have best potential and which should of been left alone, and to be aware of those annoying players out to disrupt things. Seeing so many fort battle specialits and event inno peeps but seeing regular worlds .. even colo .. get impacted not in way that i think players would like to see game would be at this point, i dont know what if that stuff only for event worlds, so cant speak to.
tbh also to say kudos to players hanging back and making worlds keep going. Juarez worked for 2 simple reasons .. was under the radar, for 2 years of probably most frequent primetime battles after colo and people on both sides putting in alot of time to keep ff's going by collobration to keep it even. If hat changes now who knows. Know some groups of amazing people trying to do same in worlds and taking this chance to say kudos to them, know u been thru alot, trust me i KNOW. MIgrations do impact, as what happened in idaho migrating old to new, but so does a million other things in ways that inno may not forsee as may not understand dynamics. Long time vet leaders probably done doing their time, and so respect so many of them. In worlds where see people stepping up as mentioned above, that should be seen as golden in my mind, its what makes game work. Anyone can go in to dominate world then abandon but ends with people not interested - perhaps the fort balance peeps could be helping these new leaders? again just ideas.
but yeah, i am totally aware people say same thing i said in probably million times in million posts. Why not add in another
But again not expecting changes im just adding my thoughts as been involved in trying to keep few of these worlds going with other amazing people, stuff like that is no stat inno can see.
degrader
Well-Known Member
Idk what the course of possible action for inno to take. Like it was said, game is dying. Maybe they'll be the ones to release the code and we can enjoy open source game, even though unlikely. Players aren't getting younger, and new players aren't joining in great/significant numbers. I think there is enough enthusiasts to keep the game going, even devs who would contribute to open source game. But, either the game will take a completely different turn, or people who work on it would take a 180 degree turn and work on something new. There are many possibilities of taking the west idea and turning it into a modern, and much better game. The truth is, though, everyone has a combination of the game versions they enjoyed the most, there is certainly a golden middle. Look at the classic for example, people are saying you just need to add certain things to make it playable. I think there is a golden middle of the version of the game, in which most players would have fun and stick to. It would take some courage to revert some changes and see the consequences, but I think you can definitely have some kind of classic-beta-v.2 to test this out. The eternal question is though - does inno need it? Or they realized game is going towards dying and are just trying to milk it as much as possible.
DeletedUser15368
Well I guess don't join the discussion and directly reply to me if you don't actually want to talk? I know you're a drama merchant that doesn't care about anyone else, but i'll bite.
You also don't know much about me, although I will say that the current version of the game isn't fun to actually play, for me - especially when Classic is running.
Yeah very obvious, they're dead - and you actually previously almost figured out why certain worlds didn't have migration routes opened to them, because they're dead too and potentially next in line if they keep dropping players.
I'm sure there are... are their needs more important than the players that want to migrate? Will their game change in any way if they're moved to another world? Are builders on a dead world better customers than Fort Fighters on an active world?
absolutely ridiculous, it's one of the top concerns for many players.
Also ridiculous - do you think that everyone that posts feedback or ideas feels entitled to run the game how they see fit? Nah man it's just better to discuss things, get other perspectives.
You also don't know much about me, although I will say that the current version of the game isn't fun to actually play, for me - especially when Classic is running.
Last edited by a moderator:
Annie-Bell
Well-Known Member
Well some dont want to get into big drama of discussions
Reeling in to bring back to topic. Its super easy to just be critical of others, does it provide insight to game? hardly.
To return to concept that there are players/leaders/groups/teams out there in worlds that while playing this game invest alot of their time who would luv to see the best for the west. Again - agree these type on both sides to make a world work and continue on. That sort of thing worked for colo, with focused efforts of many, and councils. It goes thru ups and down, people take time to adapt to leaving teams which is hard but hope is competitive battles. In few worlds, no council or inno apparent focus or focus of some players that moved on (tho now returned).
To inno, honesly dont know what the job of fort battle specialists are .. i understand event managers and have stated noticed impacts regular worlds, but my biggest wah wah is the gringo and other gear that generally ends up on one side or other but think that is echoing others. To me fort battle specialist is for regular worlds? I am seeing some worlds which think have potential AND people willing to step up to put in months/years of their time .. but lets face it, these people get burnt out after doing so long and we all agree new leaders or groups difficult to come by.. so couldnt a component of fort battle specialists be to communicate with both sides (yes both sides) of leaders in those worlds with greatest potential of promoting active ff's (AZ, Colo, FB, Juarez, montana and looks like kansas too)? If im out to lunch what fort specialists are, then pls say, as just brainstorming as want to see game continue in healthier worlds. And not meaning changing forts or numbers more like soft support so those people dont get burnt out .. when migrations talk with representives from each side and inno encouage balancing as moving in, things like posting for battles in saloon topic for both sides, talking to teams about barriers, dig times, one side too much dmg, one side too much hp .. idk .. like a advisor peep i guess. I know in some worlds like idaho where 10 year toons placed in new world, has much more significant game stopper or game contributor then older worlds. Everyone can see that. Inno has to forsee that one group or other will take advantage of inno decisions like migrations and gather all to one side so the balance worked on for 6 months.. year. .. 2 years ... changed overnight (esp if teams were dissolved and merged to one side) ... to get the umgf to get people to start all over again is going to be difficult, this is where a fort battle specialist could come into play? Again if fort specialist does other thing not that, that's cool i honestly dont know - and pls be clear dont think people want the chage towers/numbers thing, but think leaders on both sides could use understanding ear/hand.
Its good to provide feedback here so inno can maybe consider for next time round .. it is also good for readers to ask themselves do they wish to contribute to the concept of "lets try to balance" or join the (often well known) groups of "lets call those battles fake and try for non balance" .
In terms of some worlds that dont have alot of potential for ff's (with ff's seen can see increase in market, dueling, crafting, questing) . it is shrinking player base and inno time limited maybe not focus there? I am one of people agreeing only about 5-7 worlds.
To comments about drama, pls post your pespectives for inno to also consider and for people like me to gain insight of why you like things differently. Know from experience and reading posts here there are many different thoughts about worlds .. hope inno considers. Fully aware there are others that like things differently so instead of just critical comments, lets hear it .. we would luv to hear your opinions of why good to merge 7-10 year older toons in 4 year old worlds all going to one side, or why you like lots of gringo guns and union an nugget sets not spread out evenly, or why its value adding to world o have 50v10 battles, or why you want to keep 13 worlds alive with low acivity. I know i would luv to understand as quite simply its not in my scope right now and always believe in learning new stuff. It is goal of all of us to keep some parts of game going no?
So pls post varies pespecitons for inno to maybe consider for next round, or to give info to inno main. To inno, could u pls verify about questions about fort battle specialists?
ooh .. i just had another thought as finished that last up .. boy this purple annie is full of ideas today! D
in worlds where potential for ff's, again fort battle specialist not to alter fort or limit numbers which isnt really even viable in worlds outside of colo and maybe AZ ...
no clue how many fort battle specialits there are but if they for sure talked together with reprensitives from both sides when game changer decisions like migrations into worlds happen so its not the dollar daze at department store frenzy we often see as some poor player steps into world being migrated to
o The idea is to try to balance things out as significant changes are made by inno with each world both sides reps whether its migrations or complete overhaul in fort battle calculationsOk.. now my additional thought (know ur waiting in anticipation!) ... depending on how many fort battle specialist to set up town .. NOT affiliaed with one side or other, recruit 5-10 players (depending on size of world) that can be looking at ff's an talking with both sides and getting their town, and themselves o join in one side, then other side so they are he balancing key ! PURPLE IDEA!
could mean flipping back and forth alot, or once i while, depending on need .. but the bonus is the inno clan can get to see all players and talk with wider group and be active solution to issue of battles dying out ..and can hear and get to know many who know have million other ideas that may not otherwise ever heard! :i truly think some worlds like Az, FB, colo, juarez, montana, kansas there are brilliantly amazing people there on both sides could make this work!
JWillow
Well-Known Member
For one, could you try to self edit and less rambling.
I am sure when Goober gets time he can answer better but as a player from what I understand currently, fort battle specialist organize awesomia fights and also handle multi digs. They can no longer change fort cap numbers. I am not sure they can change tower/wall levels anymore either.
For your idea of involving them in politcs of worlds I would have to strongly disagree, as they are human and I would never thrust someone into the daily whining of two sides who can not get along. Colorado worked as the two major sides worked together and were involved without drama, drama was from players outside of council.
Even if fort battle specialist get power to change numbers again, I think any world they help has to have two sides already working together, that is why only colorado was seeing changes. No other world had a council made up of both sides.
In the end, inno can not fix player drama and really they shouldn't have to and if innno did they would just get a lot of heat if one side is not happy.
As for gringo, will say inno did go back on its word of only offering weapons once a year as prizes but if they had kept their word, the clothing was far less impactful.
At the end of the day, fort battles need some level of cooperation. Unfortunately I really don't see much hope outside of colorado as the deep seated grudges even effect colorado to a degree.
Also some advice constantly blaming players that you feel did wrong is not going to do any good, it just makes things more hostile in the long run. Let go of the past and having learned from it build for the future.
Though inno's final character class changes could be a doom that no one can over come.
P.S. Yes I know I did my own rambling as well, bad bad me.
I am sure when Goober gets time he can answer better but as a player from what I understand currently, fort battle specialist organize awesomia fights and also handle multi digs. They can no longer change fort cap numbers. I am not sure they can change tower/wall levels anymore either.
For your idea of involving them in politcs of worlds I would have to strongly disagree, as they are human and I would never thrust someone into the daily whining of two sides who can not get along. Colorado worked as the two major sides worked together and were involved without drama, drama was from players outside of council.
Even if fort battle specialist get power to change numbers again, I think any world they help has to have two sides already working together, that is why only colorado was seeing changes. No other world had a council made up of both sides.
In the end, inno can not fix player drama and really they shouldn't have to and if innno did they would just get a lot of heat if one side is not happy.
As for gringo, will say inno did go back on its word of only offering weapons once a year as prizes but if they had kept their word, the clothing was far less impactful.
At the end of the day, fort battles need some level of cooperation. Unfortunately I really don't see much hope outside of colorado as the deep seated grudges even effect colorado to a degree.
Also some advice constantly blaming players that you feel did wrong is not going to do any good, it just makes things more hostile in the long run. Let go of the past and having learned from it build for the future.
Though inno's final character class changes could be a doom that no one can over come.
P.S. Yes I know I did my own rambling as well, bad bad me.
Annie-Bell
Well-Known Member
yes sorry for rambling, but am one that has talked alot to awesome vets and legends of this game and incorporated some of their thoughts in that ol rambling, check it out ... some really good stuff
My comment about reeling it back to topic was, as we all know have few people that will criticize players that actually put in months/years of work to balance and help make sure daily battles go. My comment shot back was in response to a person questioning integrity. Made comment, that is between me and my shadow and best not for you or others to focus on as know been trying to avoid people like that forever.
Fort battle specialist idea how to support colloborative worlds with players showing interest and effort to revive/keep battles:
Yes will wait until hear about role of fort battles specialist cause as said honestly dont know.. Not sure about multi dig thing as saw multi digs all time. If role is just awesomia battles, that cool.. To be clear, i was one of people that strongly disliked he daily fort tower changes and changes in numbers in colo as felt we never had chance to see what changes meant in practice. Still feel that way.
Just to clarify think you saw opposite of what i wrote). No not cool to involve anyone in politics of feuding groups but what suggested is to get involved o ensure doesnt BECOME drama. In truth feuding groups is what existed in many worlds, and in way healthy competion and feuding was what kept things going but yes agree inno involvment would absolutely been seen as inno picking favorites and don wish that for inno nor us players. Healthy competition may work in mature worlds, as teams already established.
What was I was actually saying is very proud that we had groups that worked very collaboratively, no drama, a long term group with a new group established 8 months ago and representatives from both sides prior to that for two years. World was kinda forgotten about people that do bring drama and it just worked. Included two sides that moved forts around, the main alliance was broken up it core group to go support opposition, people moved back and forth. Aka no drama, Aka daily battles (speaking of juarez, and kudos to those people). Did very smilar to what done in colo, but without council. Dont want to wear out these amazing people that putting in tonnes of their time, and im hoping inno can spare tiny bit of time to support teams/worlds like that. Basically acting as an advisory council or get 2 sides and inno together when there is inno major changes.
So was speaking to worlds that would have collaborative environment.
Example of player trying to encourge players o move where needed vs Inno staff (which wouldnt take long)
Will ramble for minute if i may: I dont know if would be in AZ. I know i personally suggest to people to join battl born side (im on AR side) as appears they need so we can get back to battles, Have no idea what official communication is. My thoughts is as player who is both in galv and houston with many friends, i can communicate the opposite side need some strong, no drama players as my thoughts based on what see there. Now .. imagine if you will .. (sorry if rambling) that instead of me putting myself out there to listen to people llike scalet kisses (above) questioning me while saying other side needs help which always makes me shake head. Now imagine had a fort battle specialist talk to leaders of both sides and then in migrating worlds to give some data of battles, size of teams and geneal feel of what side needs help ... wouldnt that be pretty simple role for fort specialist? Wouldnt it be more fair to players . Wouldnt a informed opinion of inno be objective and better taken. And yeah i get people after me even if i suggest opposition needs help... i could easly not say anything and just sit in worlds criticizing but obviously im opposite of those that do that. Established worlds like colo fairbanks AZ may not need fort battle specialist support. But i think some possible words where it has been identified of non drama both sides willing to put in effort and colloborate, then inno investing an few min of inno time to support would be awesome.
Migrations from old worlds to new worlds, this may be place fo inno to support transitions?
For migrations from old worlds to new worlds, where inno decides not players, then spending few min with collaborating leaders on both sides in those impacted worlds seems reasonable to me. The only drama i see was when people who left for years come rushing back but has been only for 3 weeks and quite honesly we have dealt with before and know will work out in month or so .. so no not claiming anyone wronged anyone lol.
. But wouldnt it be helpful to 50 some players who enjoy daily battles every day for 2 years who see battles change up in week of migrations wouldnt it give good mojo about inno if they involved in the transition and to ensue people dont get burnt out or move on? The poor players being fought over this last week dont seem fair to me for them so yeah i kinda EXPECT inno to make it bit easier for people as thats their role isnt it? The additional idea of fort specialist town moving from one side to other i thought was great idea for both teams when needed. Again have no idea how many fort specialiss are.
Other
As for gringo, yes perfectly aware how frequently given out, and again my wah wah was impacts places like colo . Ofc dont like things won in "event worlds" then be used and impact regular worlds. I have no intention of ever doing event world as is being run now so know i will never ever get gringo gear in regular world, neither will fiends. That fine. Just wish hey didt hand out so many all time. takes away from game.
Advise about blaming players .. again you misread. The bit of drama in last few weeks was expected, happens every migration - our focus is not really on returning drama it is on what is best for players now and going forward cause dangit we want to continue daily battles we had for years!. Did invite others to give opinion of what they value and see best for game as keenly aware im biased i really think daily battles is what will keep game going for bit longer.
Hopefully that clears misunderstanding, and no offense, know its friday, time to relax
(hint .. wont ramble if you show understanding of what being said.. then wont feel need to explain misinterpretations!) hugs
My comment about reeling it back to topic was, as we all know have few people that will criticize players that actually put in months/years of work to balance and help make sure daily battles go. My comment shot back was in response to a person questioning integrity. Made comment, that is between me and my shadow and best not for you or others to focus on as know been trying to avoid people like that forever.
Fort battle specialist idea how to support colloborative worlds with players showing interest and effort to revive/keep battles:
Yes will wait until hear about role of fort battles specialist cause as said honestly dont know.. Not sure about multi dig thing as saw multi digs all time. If role is just awesomia battles, that cool.. To be clear, i was one of people that strongly disliked he daily fort tower changes and changes in numbers in colo as felt we never had chance to see what changes meant in practice. Still feel that way.
Just to clarify think you saw opposite of what i wrote). No not cool to involve anyone in politics of feuding groups but what suggested is to get involved o ensure doesnt BECOME drama. In truth feuding groups is what existed in many worlds, and in way healthy competion and feuding was what kept things going but yes agree inno involvment would absolutely been seen as inno picking favorites and don wish that for inno nor us players. Healthy competition may work in mature worlds, as teams already established.
What was I was actually saying is very proud that we had groups that worked very collaboratively, no drama, a long term group with a new group established 8 months ago and representatives from both sides prior to that for two years. World was kinda forgotten about people that do bring drama and it just worked. Included two sides that moved forts around, the main alliance was broken up it core group to go support opposition, people moved back and forth. Aka no drama, Aka daily battles (speaking of juarez, and kudos to those people). Did very smilar to what done in colo, but without council. Dont want to wear out these amazing people that putting in tonnes of their time, and im hoping inno can spare tiny bit of time to support teams/worlds like that. Basically acting as an advisory council or get 2 sides and inno together when there is inno major changes.
So was speaking to worlds that would have collaborative environment.
Example of player trying to encourge players o move where needed vs Inno staff (which wouldnt take long)
Will ramble for minute if i may: I dont know if would be in AZ. I know i personally suggest to people to join battl born side (im on AR side) as appears they need so we can get back to battles, Have no idea what official communication is. My thoughts is as player who is both in galv and houston with many friends, i can communicate the opposite side need some strong, no drama players as my thoughts based on what see there. Now .. imagine if you will .. (sorry if rambling) that instead of me putting myself out there to listen to people llike scalet kisses (above) questioning me while saying other side needs help which always makes me shake head. Now imagine had a fort battle specialist talk to leaders of both sides and then in migrating worlds to give some data of battles, size of teams and geneal feel of what side needs help ... wouldnt that be pretty simple role for fort specialist? Wouldnt it be more fair to players . Wouldnt a informed opinion of inno be objective and better taken. And yeah i get people after me even if i suggest opposition needs help... i could easly not say anything and just sit in worlds criticizing but obviously im opposite of those that do that. Established worlds like colo fairbanks AZ may not need fort battle specialist support. But i think some possible words where it has been identified of non drama both sides willing to put in effort and colloborate, then inno investing an few min of inno time to support would be awesome.
Migrations from old worlds to new worlds, this may be place fo inno to support transitions?
For migrations from old worlds to new worlds, where inno decides not players, then spending few min with collaborating leaders on both sides in those impacted worlds seems reasonable to me. The only drama i see was when people who left for years come rushing back but has been only for 3 weeks and quite honesly we have dealt with before and know will work out in month or so .. so no not claiming anyone wronged anyone lol.
. But wouldnt it be helpful to 50 some players who enjoy daily battles every day for 2 years who see battles change up in week of migrations wouldnt it give good mojo about inno if they involved in the transition and to ensue people dont get burnt out or move on? The poor players being fought over this last week dont seem fair to me for them so yeah i kinda EXPECT inno to make it bit easier for people as thats their role isnt it? The additional idea of fort specialist town moving from one side to other i thought was great idea for both teams when needed. Again have no idea how many fort specialiss are.
Other
As for gringo, yes perfectly aware how frequently given out, and again my wah wah was impacts places like colo . Ofc dont like things won in "event worlds" then be used and impact regular worlds. I have no intention of ever doing event world as is being run now so know i will never ever get gringo gear in regular world, neither will fiends. That fine. Just wish hey didt hand out so many all time. takes away from game.
Advise about blaming players .. again you misread. The bit of drama in last few weeks was expected, happens every migration - our focus is not really on returning drama it is on what is best for players now and going forward cause dangit we want to continue daily battles we had for years!. Did invite others to give opinion of what they value and see best for game as keenly aware im biased i really think daily battles is what will keep game going for bit longer.
Hopefully that clears misunderstanding, and no offense, know its friday, time to relax
(hint .. wont ramble if you show understanding of what being said.. then wont feel need to explain misinterpretations!) hugs
Last edited:
JWillow
Well-Known Member
The last I looked both sides on Colorado have gringo but why not complain equally about union/deputy holders, as union is far more OP and these are more prevalent still even with all these event worlds.
I don't think inno will ever get so involved in worlds, the most fort battle specialists will probably do is fort changes. If you say two sides are working together already then why not pick some from each side to make a council? But really at this time it is a mute point, as so far they mainly only deal with awesomia.
Second reason not having fort battle specialist involved more than changing fort numbers and tower/wall changes is that there is already one player given this title that is showing signs of abusing the position, would I want to see such a power hungry person with more power no. At least Goober was a professional and didn't abuse the position.
As for migrations, players have free will and nothing inno can do about their choices. Also inno wouldn't want to move migrants to dead worlds, so there is always going to be a shift when one happens. Yes it falls on the player base to deal with it. Maybe it is unfair but it would be equally unfair to lock players on a completely dead world, too.
Also do you really think you are the only one who talks to players that have been in the game a long time? Plenty of people have talked to ones having more time in and gotten their perspective over the years, not exclusive to you.
Lastly if the world has a battle 50 vs10, then the only thing to fix it is the players themselves. As that is not even enough to fill a small fort, so of coarse there will always be those that go for easy wins and no way to lock them out from doing so.
Might be time to be thankful that we have colorado, also be grateful for whatever time you did have on other worlds. Because with every new world and unhelpful change, the time runs out on it all.
I don't think inno will ever get so involved in worlds, the most fort battle specialists will probably do is fort changes. If you say two sides are working together already then why not pick some from each side to make a council? But really at this time it is a mute point, as so far they mainly only deal with awesomia.
Second reason not having fort battle specialist involved more than changing fort numbers and tower/wall changes is that there is already one player given this title that is showing signs of abusing the position, would I want to see such a power hungry person with more power no. At least Goober was a professional and didn't abuse the position.
As for migrations, players have free will and nothing inno can do about their choices. Also inno wouldn't want to move migrants to dead worlds, so there is always going to be a shift when one happens. Yes it falls on the player base to deal with it. Maybe it is unfair but it would be equally unfair to lock players on a completely dead world, too.
Also do you really think you are the only one who talks to players that have been in the game a long time? Plenty of people have talked to ones having more time in and gotten their perspective over the years, not exclusive to you.
Lastly if the world has a battle 50 vs10, then the only thing to fix it is the players themselves. As that is not even enough to fill a small fort, so of coarse there will always be those that go for easy wins and no way to lock them out from doing so.
Might be time to be thankful that we have colorado, also be grateful for whatever time you did have on other worlds. Because with every new world and unhelpful change, the time runs out on it all.
Annie-Bell
Well-Known Member
yes agree
Yes very thankful for worlds that players took initiative and sowing imitative, some i have no real involvement but can appreciate from afar that not easy. There ae great people in worlds that can and seem willing to take on, would luv to see community and inno encourage that in more then 1 world.
No not big fan of fort tower changes, random battles dug or caps. My thought was providing soft support - space here w breakdown of the 5 migrations routes providing the stats on battles, general turnouts, other stuff like market pvp duelling activity some basic info. desciption of th 5 worlds that are similar to what i posted in my above post which felt was good picture of worlds for people to consider. Would like inno tto take that on as we kinda get critiisized if we do, and know that aint our job nor fair. Keeping contact with leaders discuss what needed so informed and bridge gap between migrate to and out worlds. Know kinda just happened in idaho (ie 10 year toons to 4 years world) people were hoping for daily battles with closure of w1. Dont want same outcome. Being part of transition for few weeks as is major change for a world. Yes know some will run for easy wins that is expected and the community will self manage in long run. If inno peep can join f's during transition period can provide better info to those still needing to decide
ofc people choose where to go but some are just looking for that info, THink would be much better coming fom inno was what asking No ofc dont want anyone seen as abusing positions nor giving people heck for balancing as well they arent fort balancing peeps they are players with good intention
2 of the 5 choices is considered by some as deadish worlds.
the 50v10 comment was in response to someone saying that colo and juaez battles were fake so pls just ignore that side spat that made when integrity questioned. I posed comment why like 50v10 in vegas is more value added to game then more even battles, anddid mention union and gringo on one side as well as gathering toons from old worlds to new worlds on one side as admit fully that concept is outside of my reason. Kinda irrelevant side spat
Dont know role of fort balance specialist so guess was asking if could take some load of players that are looking for daily battles but if just awesomia, that is fine, and yes would be mute point .. hoping inno can clarify. Yes council idea is good for places like juarez and kansas. Montana going strong as is. Other older worlds probably dont need as teams established and those migrating seem to have gotten good info about and lets hope for ff's
you are right tho, we should enjoy time we had regardless in many worlds. Sometimes the lets try to balance and keep daily battles works, sometimes doesnt, hope few worlds the community and returning players and migrating in players embrace daily battles but game does seem to be heading in different direction over last year hasnt it? if there is ony 1 or 2 worlds that have daily battles then all his is really irrelevent,
With things like migrations that are outside of players control, bit of inno communication to those looking for and deciding would be nice during transition to support both sides to keep enthusiasm high of good battles.. maybe even inno saying "blah yucky one sided battles" in general lol. Again kudos to endless people that have put in amazing amount of time into game and really think inno OUGHT to step up and also support those kinda peeps asi actually is to their advantage if people like them are doing the legwork and players keep playing i would think.
Anyways chatted on too long but yeah if inno could verify if inno could support players on both sides when such game changing things happen that are not in players control, pls give shout out! know tonne will appreciate.
Yes very thankful for worlds that players took initiative and sowing imitative, some i have no real involvement but can appreciate from afar that not easy. There ae great people in worlds that can and seem willing to take on, would luv to see community and inno encourage that in more then 1 world.
No not big fan of fort tower changes, random battles dug or caps. My thought was providing soft support - space here w breakdown of the 5 migrations routes providing the stats on battles, general turnouts, other stuff like market pvp duelling activity some basic info. desciption of th 5 worlds that are similar to what i posted in my above post which felt was good picture of worlds for people to consider. Would like inno tto take that on as we kinda get critiisized if we do, and know that aint our job nor fair. Keeping contact with leaders discuss what needed so informed and bridge gap between migrate to and out worlds. Know kinda just happened in idaho (ie 10 year toons to 4 years world) people were hoping for daily battles with closure of w1. Dont want same outcome. Being part of transition for few weeks as is major change for a world. Yes know some will run for easy wins that is expected and the community will self manage in long run. If inno peep can join f's during transition period can provide better info to those still needing to decide
ofc people choose where to go but some are just looking for that info, THink would be much better coming fom inno was what asking No ofc dont want anyone seen as abusing positions nor giving people heck for balancing as well they arent fort balancing peeps they are players with good intention
2 of the 5 choices is considered by some as deadish worlds.
the 50v10 comment was in response to someone saying that colo and juaez battles were fake so pls just ignore that side spat that made when integrity questioned. I posed comment why like 50v10 in vegas is more value added to game then more even battles, anddid mention union and gringo on one side as well as gathering toons from old worlds to new worlds on one side as admit fully that concept is outside of my reason. Kinda irrelevant side spat
Dont know role of fort balance specialist so guess was asking if could take some load of players that are looking for daily battles but if just awesomia, that is fine, and yes would be mute point .. hoping inno can clarify. Yes council idea is good for places like juarez and kansas. Montana going strong as is. Other older worlds probably dont need as teams established and those migrating seem to have gotten good info about and lets hope for ff's
you are right tho, we should enjoy time we had regardless in many worlds. Sometimes the lets try to balance and keep daily battles works, sometimes doesnt, hope few worlds the community and returning players and migrating in players embrace daily battles but game does seem to be heading in different direction over last year hasnt it? if there is ony 1 or 2 worlds that have daily battles then all his is really irrelevent,
With things like migrations that are outside of players control, bit of inno communication to those looking for and deciding would be nice during transition to support both sides to keep enthusiasm high of good battles.. maybe even inno saying "blah yucky one sided battles" in general lol. Again kudos to endless people that have put in amazing amount of time into game and really think inno OUGHT to step up and also support those kinda peeps asi actually is to their advantage if people like them are doing the legwork and players keep playing i would think.
Anyways chatted on too long but yeah if inno could verify if inno could support players on both sides when such game changing things happen that are not in players control, pls give shout out! know tonne will appreciate.
Last edited:
Ethereal
Active Member
Inno's involvement shouldn't be necessary in balancing worlds. It's a PvP game, not a please-hold-my-hand-mommy game. If people decide unbalanced battles is what they want (because changes aren't made), that's what they get. Colorado is an exception and people should be glad it is, because it's done in a way that provides one of the most consistent quality battles on .net and probably on all servers. I know it isn't perfect but at least people put in the work to keep it somewhat decent.
Btw Annie, I see that you're subtweeting a lot of people throughout your texts. Just call them out by name, no one gains anything by not doing that. I can only talk to AZ, as that is the only world where I resembled somewhat of a leader position. BB has been losing for over a year now, and to be fair even longer. Sometimes battles were pretty decent, albeit defense still being too strong. You're preaching for balance here, I suggest you do that within your own alliance too. I'm sure it's not your call to make, no one's ever responsible for anything, but try talking to cvr/one of the new Swedes (I think about 50 followed Melkor? Dunno who pulled them in) and see how far that goes. Funny you talk about migrations as a net positive when on Arizona all it did was push pretty much all Scandinavians to one side without any conversation beforehand. Great job there.
Btw Annie, I see that you're subtweeting a lot of people throughout your texts. Just call them out by name, no one gains anything by not doing that. I can only talk to AZ, as that is the only world where I resembled somewhat of a leader position. BB has been losing for over a year now, and to be fair even longer. Sometimes battles were pretty decent, albeit defense still being too strong. You're preaching for balance here, I suggest you do that within your own alliance too. I'm sure it's not your call to make, no one's ever responsible for anything, but try talking to cvr/one of the new Swedes (I think about 50 followed Melkor? Dunno who pulled them in) and see how far that goes. Funny you talk about migrations as a net positive when on Arizona all it did was push pretty much all Scandinavians to one side without any conversation beforehand. Great job there.
Annie-Bell
Well-Known Member
to etheral i do agree about AZ and i have been one of many within galv and houston suggesting solid players join battle born, see it as good for AZ as there are good people promoting joining sides that need it. This may or may not been in what my alliance wants, just felt was right for game in AZ and hopefully bring about battles. had no involvement in non .en migrations and was never on those worlds. never in any position o give my thoughts to people didn know. I did see swedish join opposition shortly and them move about but cant speak to and not one of leaders, just a little player that was trying to help people find good spots they would enjoy from galv and houston.
Full ciicle to the people finding need to be negative to those trying (its not my role to inform of what worlds like, did cause cared about players and good battles and personally saw a huge GAP in inno communication to players of galv and houston) which is why was asking inno do role of informing people about worlds and what to expect (clealry stated no handholding just info and communication and to be available for during transition). If hey do consider doing this, then to talk to both teams so can clearly understand what worlds about to streghen world even more.
I saw there was huge gap in no information being provided by inno and is what asking to consider addressing for next round. In galv and houston, been suggesting join battle born with people im actually in contact with. Did same for fairbanks, our side TBN looking for help as pretty much own smalls not many larges/med. For Briscoe and dakota i kinda say suggest if already have toons elsewhere. For juarez was originally saying both sides need help, then was return in players, and many joining one side, now suggesting just AoW needs help. My suggestion to people going forward is dont get involved lol
What Aow did in juarez was close parallel to colo what council does and do agree it was why successfully had battles every single day during primeitme for 2 years, at times, even recently there is 0 battles in even colo during primetime, so collaboration and moving people and players and forts and splitting up our team did work. I acknowledge some say these battles in juarez and colo are fake but i personally dont agree, and hope others feel same . But as you see critics claim its something else and will not be responding to that as wish to avoid further.. For galv right now each side ends with 21 forts each. Think nice ending. No real battle since migrations out. IN houston, long history we got given 100% of forts when we were independent then lost 100% of forts and yes ended with all forts .. in that time frame, as a player that didnt have to and not inno person, but spent months recruiting for both sides, we got 8 months more of battles going. THen others spammed boycott once they got all forts and we won back once people left. Since that time have heard million incorrect versions of houston but its closing and time for people to move on. Me and my friends biggest fault what critics couldnt stand is we keep trying ... only peeps i know that lost staggeing 109 battles in row and team kept supporting in one world. Woot!
i traditionally dont name players unless good things, i gain personally in not getting into it for responding by name, questioning integrity or othr stuff, that came out of blue and just state do have integrity, or some similar type comment and leave it at that.
Clever hans .. im not sure who u are (unless u will openly declare ur prior galv houston toon name to refresh memory ... butin simple response to you i acknowledge i read your scalet kissses comments and leave it at that. I wish to keep to actual game topics,
Will wait for inno response, and pls be clear, i KNOW it is the players, not inno keeping worlds going, what looking for is communication between migrating in and out worlds and to possibly put good word in for continuing the search for balance. Migrations of old toons to new worlds is pretty big, esp in small worlds/
Full ciicle to the people finding need to be negative to those trying (its not my role to inform of what worlds like, did cause cared about players and good battles and personally saw a huge GAP in inno communication to players of galv and houston) which is why was asking inno do role of informing people about worlds and what to expect (clealry stated no handholding just info and communication and to be available for during transition). If hey do consider doing this, then to talk to both teams so can clearly understand what worlds about to streghen world even more.
I saw there was huge gap in no information being provided by inno and is what asking to consider addressing for next round. In galv and houston, been suggesting join battle born with people im actually in contact with. Did same for fairbanks, our side TBN looking for help as pretty much own smalls not many larges/med. For Briscoe and dakota i kinda say suggest if already have toons elsewhere. For juarez was originally saying both sides need help, then was return in players, and many joining one side, now suggesting just AoW needs help. My suggestion to people going forward is dont get involved lol
What Aow did in juarez was close parallel to colo what council does and do agree it was why successfully had battles every single day during primeitme for 2 years, at times, even recently there is 0 battles in even colo during primetime, so collaboration and moving people and players and forts and splitting up our team did work. I acknowledge some say these battles in juarez and colo are fake but i personally dont agree, and hope others feel same . But as you see critics claim its something else and will not be responding to that as wish to avoid further.. For galv right now each side ends with 21 forts each. Think nice ending. No real battle since migrations out. IN houston, long history we got given 100% of forts when we were independent then lost 100% of forts and yes ended with all forts .. in that time frame, as a player that didnt have to and not inno person, but spent months recruiting for both sides, we got 8 months more of battles going. THen others spammed boycott once they got all forts and we won back once people left. Since that time have heard million incorrect versions of houston but its closing and time for people to move on. Me and my friends biggest fault what critics couldnt stand is we keep trying ... only peeps i know that lost staggeing 109 battles in row and team kept supporting in one world. Woot!
i traditionally dont name players unless good things, i gain personally in not getting into it for responding by name, questioning integrity or othr stuff, that came out of blue and just state do have integrity, or some similar type comment and leave it at that.
Clever hans .. im not sure who u are (unless u will openly declare ur prior galv houston toon name to refresh memory ... butin simple response to you i acknowledge i read your scalet kissses comments and leave it at that. I wish to keep to actual game topics,
Will wait for inno response, and pls be clear, i KNOW it is the players, not inno keeping worlds going, what looking for is communication between migrating in and out worlds and to possibly put good word in for continuing the search for balance. Migrations of old toons to new worlds is pretty big, esp in small worlds/
Last edited:
sheep1
Member
Quote of the year this... and I agree 100%. Innogames follows the steps of the Gameforge company (Another germany company too). One example for those who tried other games... Ikariam which is a game offered by gameforge use to be one of the top games back in 2008-2009 same year with the-west with similar idea behind it more or less. After 13 years of bad manage from the company, no usefull upgrades onthe game graph's, ignooring player's comments on foroum, the game falled below bottom. Same story with the-west, we have I would say max 300 active players out of all communities? 400? no more that 500 I would guess (correct me if i am wrong) the majority of them are old players and they care about the future of this game and I have seen many good ideas that would boost the game and give extra motivation to play it. But unfortunatetly, the company and the game masters who have the 100% resbonsibility to filter and use correctly those ideas are doing nothing.. (70% i blame company and 30% i blame game masters because they have also their own responsibility). Personally If i was a game master and company didnt pay attention or ignooring me also like they ingoore player's ideas I would take it as they dont respect me and i would quit from that possition, and not be there and doing nothing.. I am saying this because I had many conversations with game master and the only thing that they were telling me is ''Yes we know we see that issue but company does not pay attention to what we are reccomend''. Maybe if innogames see game masters quits from those possitions like many players they quit the game they might care in the end who knows?
Games who have good manage companies behind them have future + they take into consideretion what players thinking then the game has future.
Otherwise lets follow the-west logic in order to hold players to keep playing the game... speed server every 1.5 month with worthless prizes, and new sets with nuggets to just take +2 more skills than the previous sets. Tragic
DeletedUser15368
30/05/23 (previous 10/4/23)
Substituted lvl 15 with lvl 40, because that's what's required for migrations.
There's not much difference anyway and it takes like a a couple of days to hit lvl 40 now...
Under each World Name, I've also added some designations, which are based on my opinions of the data, and playing the game.
- PvP worlds are healthy worlds, which are also good, if not better, for PvE playstyles
- PvE worlds have some PvP on them too, which is necessary for the game to function
- dead worlds have no or very low quality PvP
Worlds with Union:
best PvE world
406.9M (lvl 205)
PvE
314.4M (lvl 197)
best fort battles
best PvP world
467.6M (lvl 209)
PvP
347.0M (lvl 200)
dead
264.4M (lvl 193)
PvE
279.6M (lvl 194)
registration closed
outward migrations
224.8M (lvl 189)
registration closed
outward migrations
146.8M (lvl 179)
dead
283.9M (lvl 195)
Worlds without Union:
3rd best fort battles
PvP
216.5M (lvl 188)
dead
179.9M (lvl 184)
PvE
100.9M (lvl 172)
2nd Fort Battles
PvP
59.6M (lvl 163)
Beta Worlds:
PvE
566.2M (lvl 215)
265.1M (lvl 193)
- zz1 has the highest level player in the English-speaking game and is the 2nd most active game world.
- zz1 and zz3 have a permanent migration route between the two worlds.
Classic World:
- The highest level on classic now is 28.
- Most players won't join a month-long world.
- Currently the best version of the game available to play.
- Closes 5/6/23
Fort Battle Data:
More information available at: https://thathanka.grafana.net/public-dashboards/abf214194bee4c98977bdae452567420?orgId=1
20/07/23 (previous 30/05/23)
Worlds with Union:
| Number of lvl40+ accounts | Number of lvl150+ accs | Number of lvl180+ accs | Top ranked exp player | |||
Arizona | 874 (-4) | 551 (-8) | 147 (+10) | Challenger-71 422.5M (lvl 207) | |||
Briscoe | 392 (+3) | 260 (-3) | 83 (+19) | Doc Scurlock 328.3M (lvl 199) | |||
Colorado | 1611 (+74) | 484 (+6) | 102 (+19) | benben7 493.6M (lvl 211) | |||
Dakota | 407 (-21) | 245 (-2) | 35 (+16) | Johnny45s 366.8M (lvl 202) | |||
El Dorado | 311 (0) | 203 (-3) | 31 (+7) | pghracer 280.4M (lvl 194) | |||
Fairbank | 521 (-18) | 330 (-2) | 51 (+9) | silverlady1 297.3M (lvl 196) | |||
Galveston registration closed | 181 (-17) | 68 (-11) | 3 (+1) | Elvis. 239.2M (lvl 190) | |||
Houston registration closed | 182 (-16) | 72 (-9) | 2 (+2) | Wicker24 154.4M (lvl 180) | |||
Idaho | 331 (-17) | 121 (+3) | 10 (+1) | Mary Jane Read 304.7M (lvl 197) |
Worlds without Union:World Name | Number of lvl40+ accounts | Number of lvl150+ accs | Number of lvl180+ accs | Top ranked exp player |
Juarez | 405 (-19) | 100 (+8) | 1 (=) | Luke Cow Walker 237.4M (lvl 190) |
Kansas | 524 (-12) | 63 (+7) | 1 (=) | Luke Cow Walker 198.5M (lvl 186) |
Las Vegas | 608 (-63) | 24 (-6) | 0 (=) | chigra 115.6M (lvl 174) |
Montana | 646 (-35) | 12 (+3) | 0 (=) | Aivos (New!) 69.8M (lvl 163) |
Fort Battles:
More Graphs by @Thathanka Iyothanka
Clever Hans
Well-Known Member
@lulumcnoob Nice update. Only one thing, Juarez is not a world without Union anymore due to migrations.
Annie-Bell
Well-Known Member
graphs very informative, ty for doing these
panos-the-best
Well-Known Member
Sorry but it will never happen. Apart from Colorado, every other world has less activity than Arizona. It is the world that more people will migrate to and not from (since Colorado is not open for migrations) and it is likely to host veterans from other markets like the .DK and .SE players. (wouldn't it be very interesting actually?)
What surprises me is that Juarez has still some decents battles, or at least, more decent that I would expect after M world opened.
DeletedUser15368
I don't like that you only get 5 mins to edit your posts now.
Anyway, my analysis:
Anyway, my analysis:
Arizona: 2/5
Az has the 2nd highest population, and features the most high level players. Arizona only has a battle every second day on average, which are fairly well attended but has imbalanced sides.
Recommended as a migration route for PvE and for battle leaders looking to revive a high potential world.
Briscoe: 0/5
Br also has a high average level, but a low population. Like Az, it only has a battle every second day, but sadly they have appallingly low attendance and no balance.
Not recommended.
Colorado: 5/5
Co has the highest population, an average of more than two, well attended and well balanced, battles every day for various time zones.
Statistically about 6x better than the next best world and realistically the only world still worth playing on.
Dakota: 2/5
At risk of dropping into the low-population zone, Dakota has battle every day, which is fairly well attended but also has fairly imbalanced sides.
High potential migration destination.
El Dorado: 0/5
Low population, no battles.
Dead world.
Fairbanks: 0/5
High population, few battles which are poorly attended.
Dying world.
Galveston & Houston: 0/5
Migrations are open out of these two worlds.
Idaho: 2/5
Idaho has a low population, but is having daily battles, which are surprisingly well attended, but needs work on the balance.
I'll say it's High potential because a significant amount of fort fighters remain active, but clearly needs some balancing.
Juarez: 4/5
Juarez is another world bordering on low population, but has a significant active population of fort fighters.
Juarez has the 2nd best battles, and although that's still a far cry from the quality of Colorado, I think it has the highest potential for migrants.
Kansas: 2/5
Kansas currently features a low-attended, imbalanced, battle every second day on average.
Not Recommended.
Las Vegas: 1/5
Spam world. Dying fast.
Montana: 0/5 or 3/5
Montana is also in rapid decline in terms of its population, but the fort fighters are hanging around for now. It has well attended and balanced battles every day, and ranks 3rd in overall battle quality.
Highly recommended for new players.
Be aware that this world will die when World "N" opens.
Az has the 2nd highest population, and features the most high level players. Arizona only has a battle every second day on average, which are fairly well attended but has imbalanced sides.
Recommended as a migration route for PvE and for battle leaders looking to revive a high potential world.
Briscoe: 0/5
Br also has a high average level, but a low population. Like Az, it only has a battle every second day, but sadly they have appallingly low attendance and no balance.
Not recommended.
Colorado: 5/5
Co has the highest population, an average of more than two, well attended and well balanced, battles every day for various time zones.
Statistically about 6x better than the next best world and realistically the only world still worth playing on.
Dakota: 2/5
At risk of dropping into the low-population zone, Dakota has battle every day, which is fairly well attended but also has fairly imbalanced sides.
High potential migration destination.
El Dorado: 0/5
Low population, no battles.
Dead world.
Fairbanks: 0/5
High population, few battles which are poorly attended.
Dying world.
Galveston & Houston: 0/5
Migrations are open out of these two worlds.
Idaho: 2/5
Idaho has a low population, but is having daily battles, which are surprisingly well attended, but needs work on the balance.
I'll say it's High potential because a significant amount of fort fighters remain active, but clearly needs some balancing.
Juarez: 4/5
Juarez is another world bordering on low population, but has a significant active population of fort fighters.
Juarez has the 2nd best battles, and although that's still a far cry from the quality of Colorado, I think it has the highest potential for migrants.
Kansas: 2/5
Kansas currently features a low-attended, imbalanced, battle every second day on average.
Not Recommended.
Las Vegas: 1/5
Spam world. Dying fast.
Montana: 0/5 or 3/5
Montana is also in rapid decline in terms of its population, but the fort fighters are hanging around for now. It has well attended and balanced battles every day, and ranks 3rd in overall battle quality.
Highly recommended for new players.
Be aware that this world will die when World "N" opens.