If I thought there was no chance to fix the big problems with the game, I would simply Goodbye Tool. But lately they've actually been trying... Coming up short, but trying nonetheless.
And yes it's their game to f up beyond all playability (as we have seen), but they then constantly ask for feedback on how to make it better.
They would make so much more money with a stable game and decently priced-pixels, it really is a shame they targeted gambling addicts with more money than gaming integrity, and that's literally all that we've been coasting on for a few years now. Not exactly Innovative, but maybe, at the risk of Triggering the English, the EU itself will come to our rescue and ban some more of the companies' negative practices.
We've won Browser Game Of The Year, twice, and now we're a casino simulator, and I know this is why basically everyone we ever knew from the game has quit, however I genuinely don't believe this was the goal of these mis-managed years, and if we don't keep asking for very important yet simple things like migrations (which you know there is a strong historical precedent for when there's not enough players on a world for it to function), they'll certainly never happen with this management who I strongly believe has never seriously played The West, therefore can't understand the needs of the communities. I think at least half of the players on Kansas are refugees from other, completely non-functional, servers, which is good or us, but imagine what it's like back home for them when Kansas, the arse end of .net, is an improvement.....
When the game's development finished, it was stated that changes would be based on community feedback, well the feedback from every community in the game is that forts are broken due to tombola power-creep and we need migrations. What they choose to do with the money-making gambling part of the game is up to them, but the actual gameplay should be strongly based on the players themselves, as was always intended by the creators. No one to play with means no reason to drop 50 euros on a single set in a decade old game, but also therein lies the unfairness that makes people quit the game in their masses.
So keep trying, Raider and anyone else who wants The West to go back to being a fun game, over a spam-questing, berry picking, casino simulator with broken PvP and <300 player worlds.
You say forts are what keep the game viable and profitable, of course everyone agrees with this, but they aren't exactly viable (to me) on more than maybe two worlds in the entire game at the moment (EN15 and HU14), and they even appear to struggle there due to lack of tank classes. And on a personal note, I don't want to play as an Adventurer anymore, but I have soldiers trapped on dead worlds. We just had an International Fort Battle Championship, where they banned the strongest damager set, but attack still won 95%+ of the battles and I believe this was the first time the suits actually realised there's a MASSIVE problem with their game, despite years of trying to get them to see that. And I'd like to point out that as soon as the IFBC ended, they [
did a thing some idiot complainer asked them to do.] Well about 5% of what the idiot asked, but still, defending towers are now viable due to players moaning for changes (for good or for bad, I haven't really decided yet)
Also a relevant Beta thread, feel free to get involved:
Let's talk about Fort battles, adventures and duels. It'll be a lot more useful than arguing on .net forums, since they're directly asking for opinions on PvP, and how to improve these vital aspects of the game. You are totally welcome to give up on InnoGames as you eluded to, I definitely wouldn't think that's a strange decision.