the newer .net worlds are the only worlds with regular medium/large battles going on.
it's actually the 1st and 3rd oldest worlds that survived with the highest quality of battles and largest player-base on .net, new worlds are dead already - lack of players and leaders. I've been pushing for nearly 2 years to try to get Inno Management to accept migrations into these still alive worlds in order to rescue the hundreds of fort fighters who are trapped on dead worlds, but that is going way off topic.
The metagame is seriously flawed at the moment
fort battles used to be a lot more fun for both sides when there were more viable tactical options availiable.
Good points though.
As a player who has seen the first battles, I remember they were heavily in favor of the defenders
The first ever battles had no wall or tower bonuses, and it was more balanced than today, on the 12th anniversary of the game.
Attack and defence must win about half the time to be considered good PvP, Small forts are the only size where we can actually balance for full onliners too which is why I believe it should be the first priority.
Doesn't help anyone that the selfish majority of leadership players are encouraged to join attack sides, because they do more damage there, get higher rewards, and don't even have to move for 90% of a battle, because they are so favoured in the online casino part of the game.
I barely even consider The West a game anymore, it's a child gambling simulator with some broken PvP, but I still love what it used to be, and easily could be again with some time spent developing PvP.
Our developer even stopped playing the game a year and a half ago, that tells me everything I need to know about the absolute state of PvP in general.
Small fort battle circuits are fun though, I'll keep saying that until the idea sticks, in the hope of more artificially balanced fort fighting until management gets their act together on PvP.