IFBC 3 - discussion

[DeletedUser1089]

You did more adventurers bonus on the fight. Why do you complain ? You hold your Worker's tower with bonus on every single round in the earlier rounds.
Like please, give us something to

Did u count the ghosts ratio and the adventures in teams? Here it is: you had 9 adventures and 28 ghosts that's 3.11.. we had 12 adventures and 34 ghosts that is 2.83...

Have a nice rest of tournament and see you soon.

PS: Also we made lot of mistakes.

 

[DeletedUser1096]

This change will destroy normal server attacks, so be happy it's not implemented here.

from 0,86 ratio to 0,937

 

[lulumcnoob]

This change will destroy normal server attacks, so be happy it's not implemented here.

Will it though? One expects to win every attack they lead and a large chunk of the battle leaders only lead defences these days for the lack of challenge in attacks, now we may be getting closer to 50/50.

I do not think the changes should happen mid-tournament though, that would be insane.

 

[WLAN-Kabel]

On some German worlds it was recently changed to 50-48 and both fights we´ve had so far ended in a shootout for the attack.
The quality of the battles has improved significantly compared to the IFBC though.

 

[Deleted User - 6799]

So you are telling me that.. CM's are actually allowed to make Custom Numbers per side?
I mean Germans seem to have all the permissions for messing around

Idk how 50v48 ends up Attack winning (in a Balanced battle) though.

 

[WLAN-Kabel]

CMs of other servers probably have the same options.
On German worlds, there are now different numbers for different servers. After a testing period, players could vote whether they want to go back to the old numbers or keep the new ones.

49-48 ended in a win for the attack yesterday. It was a lot closer than in the past though and all the battles with the new numbers ( we also had a medium one with 65-62, which is the maximum for both sides) were a lot more exciting than they have been for a long time .

https://www.westforts.com/de10/battles/battle/39394

However, I still think that in the long run there need to be some more balance changes than just tinkering with the participant numbers. Damage dealers are still extremely powerful compared to tanks.

 

[Deleted User - 6799]

CMs of other servers probably have the same options.
On German worlds, there are now different numbers for different servers. After a testing period, players could vote whether they want to go back to the old numbers or keep the new ones.

Having a CM who plays/knows the game is a big plus I guess..

Different numbers for different servers also my idea since every server has different needs/numbers.
But yea.

However, I still think that in the long run there need to be some more balance changes than just tinkering with the participant numbers. Damage dealers are still extremely powerful compared to tanks.

No s--t

 

[lulumcnoob]

CM's are actually allowed to make Custom Numbers per side?

No, I don't think they are. But I love that the germans did it anyway, while also providing data to better inform the decision of the fort numbers for the rest of us. Maybe it was sanctioned as a prelude to the numbers change.

I still think that in the long run there need to be some more balance changes than just tinkering with the participant numbers. Damage dealers are still extremely powerful compared to tanks

This is exactly it, but at least we are finally moving in the right direction.

 

[Deleted User - 6799]

I kinda understand the reasoning but there is Voting at least.
It's not like one person decides something and imposes it on everyone.

but at least we are finally moving in the right direction.

I hope we are "moving" though. Feels like Inno wants to get away with these number changes.
Just like they do with any other PvP parts of the game.

 

[DeletedUser90]

http://prntscr.com/sjnw48
today it looks like this. Don't know if it would still be 50 attackers.

 

[DeletedUser153]

The sizes have been changed back

 

[rel1]

The sizes have been changed back

we cannot join the fort battles, fix it please

 

[DeletedUser16]

Yes! You are responsible for your doings. We are completly strict this time because we want a 100% fair championship, so we will enforce the rules to the letter.

Did that 100% strictness ever happen? I for one can think of several incidents where that "100% fair" thing didn't happen. Seems to me that only mods from worlds that complained got fired. Is that the new policy, that every mod must bow to their CM, and not present alternate ideas? Surely trying to get the most from your server shouldn't be a basis for getting fired, especially in an event that pits servers against each other. And surely, having months of warning that this event would happen, your CM would make an effort to do something other then make it as easy as possible for the EN admin team to do as little as possible. The simple idea of a training server was apparently too hard to do, until he was prodded.

EN, you guys put up great fight, given the inherent time disadvantage. Well done, but if there's ever another of these things, EN will never, and has never been able to compete at the same battle times as the other servers. That was proven again in this event. No i have no solution, just as I have no solution to Union set other then deleting it. Maybe in a year, EN will be the only server and can be Kuro's hugfest, and the time thing won't matter, but in this event, he dropped the ball.

 

[DeletedUser1128]

Yes. I edited the post. Thanks for your report. (just a translation mistake by myself... )



Yes this point is necessary, because we want to reward the Circuit winners.


This situation is not possible.


Yes, basically the same. We used the word "overall winner" in the text, so we wanted to give it a proper definition. Also for the tournament section it is not necessary how many points you would get. It is only important who won 2 of 3 circuits/is the overall winner of 2 of 3 circuits.



Correct.


We thought about this but made it a bit different for one reason:
The team that wins every turnament round should be the winner. If the team that was last from Winner's bracket would loose in the final it has no second chance in the mentioned picture above.
So basically:
- 1st place: won every tournament round
- 2nd place: lost only one tournament round and won every after that.
- 3rd place: lost one tournament round and lost the final in looser bracket. (last team to reach 2 looses in the tournament)
I know that this not the classic and normal way to do (it is also a variant named in the posted wikipedia article), but that is how we do it this year.
But be sure that all your feedback will be taken into concern for the next edition of the IFBC.

1. The team that wins every tournament round is the winner in any scenario.
2. The right way to use loser-bracket is: loser from IT vs RO is fighting the winner from Mix1 vs Hu, and the winner from that match is fighting a best of 5 with the winner of IT vs RO. The FINAL starts with 1 point awarded to the team coming from the winner bracket. there is a reasons is called FINAL.
3. In current situation the loser from IT vs RO will face an uphill battle for the second place. Many players from the losing team will lose any motivation after losing the final.
So while the winner will reflect who is the best, the second place will likely not reflect who is truly the second best.

 

[rel1]

http://prntscr.com/sukzlc probably first time ive seen something like this

 

[DeletedUser17]

http://prntscr.com/sukzlc probably first time ive seen something like this

when you're last man standing, but you're also a soldier

 

[rel1]

when you're last man standing, but you're also a soldier

and you get 5 critics in 5 hits