• Attention!
    • In order to participate in the discussion, you need an account on forum.events.the-west.net.​
      • If you have a game account, register a forum account here: Create forum account
        Important: You cannot comment with your account from your home server (e.g. you cannot vote with an account from the German servers)! You have to have a separate registration on our Events Server!​
      • If you don't have a game account register here or send us an e-mail and we will create a game account for you: west-ts@support.innogames.com
        Please send us your desired nickname! Your account will be linked to the e-mail address from which you contact us! Please expect at least 48 hours for the account creation.​

IFBC 3 - discussion

DeletedUser1096

Guest
beat? :D lmao they barely played good. They hit all them crits and shots, watch the stats
 

Deleted User - 6799

Guest
Yet Spaniards beat you too.

One should play as bad as Germans to not to.
 

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
beat? :D lmao they barely played good. They hit all them crits and shots, watch the stats
You lose to a team that "barely played good" in your mind, but come here to trash people talking of fort imbalance outside a circuit... I'm trying to force inno to make pvp better for everyone but okay mate keep being a njub :)
 

WLAN-Kabel

Unassigned
If you take a look at the westforts stats, the newer .net worlds are the only worlds with regular medium/large battles going on.
Small battles are the only sustainable battles for most servers and worlds, and the player count has been steadily decreasing over the years.

The metagame is seriously flawed at the moment, it is visible for anyone who is playing this world cup and it is even worse on normal servers.
One win as a full HP defense with incredible luck and against an attack with... let´s say not 100% perfect character and skill distribution does not prove a point here.

I also do not think that hiding inside the fort and just blocking towers and walls is the meta that we all hope for. Let´s face the reality, fort battles used to be a lot more fun for both sides when there were more viable tactical options availiable.
 

Deleted User - 5772

Guest
As a player who has seen the first battles, I remember they were heavily in favor of the defenders, maybe only twice in a year attacks managed to win against a full defense. Now, it's steadily becoming the reverse, and defenses are unsustainable everywhere. In this tournament, it makes sense to do a good defense, as you get extra points if you outlast the other side. But on regular servers, it looks increasingly pointless as you will lose regardless of what you do or if the attack is incredibly incompetent.

Honestly, it would be a great thing if somehow we achieved a balance between attack and defense, lending an element of uncertainty to battles again. There are many ways of doing that, as players have proposed elsewhere. I hope that at the least something is done eventually and that would make the game more fun for the remaining players, who will stick around for longer periods of time.

@Aston* If you really see the need to go on the forums and trash talk other teams, that only shows everyone how insecure you are. Teams that are truly confident in themselves don't see the need to talk themselves up in public and let their performance speak for itself.
 

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
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.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser1096

Guest
You came here to cry about game which will never change like ever again LUL sorry that I'm your eyeopener
 

WLAN-Kabel

Unassigned
You came here to cry about game which will never change like ever again LUL sorry that I'm your eyeopener

The sets are probably here to stay even if we all agree that the game was more fun when it was more about skill and less about money.
But it is absolutely justified to talk about balance changes in fort battles. Fixed bonus stats for defenders, buffs to towers and walls, percentage-based resistance instead of a flat amount that is neglected by leadership duellists and adjusted numbers of participants are just a few ideas that the developers should at least think about.
 

Deleted User - 6799

Guest
The sets they allowed in this IFBC clearly shows to me that they are very well aware of the situation. (Even like this its very skewed towards the Attackers and Damagers' advantage)

But they either can't be bothered to do anything about it, or they got no idea "how to" after all the issues amassed like crazy over the years.
Not that they really have a Dev team anymore, let alone QA or proper Test server(s)


They could however increase the Defender limits/number difference of Attackers & Defenders at the very least, like they did in Beta, according to the Servers' needs or so and Merge/Close servers, but yea.
 

DeletedUser85

Guest
Mark Firet0uch his words; ''The Fortbattles will be declared 48 to 24 hours before they start.''. We got tomorrow a battle and we got less then 24 hours. Is it so hard to start a fight? I think that is 5 minutes work. Now finally you started our fight against a fort with Greece and not with CZ. The other fight you start CZ against Germany. I think you did a good job today. Keep up the good work! I think both teams get maximum points as compesation?

Btw; My daddy said that i need to say sorry for my bad English.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
Since towns are apparently allowed to own large forts with upgraded barracks, are we allowed to fight over them to deny a potential opponent the barracks advantage?

eiSxeAz.png
uAuySol.png
snWRT5p.png
YEDcdsR.png
DWfZ54c.png
jhXop3d.png
 
Last edited:

Deleted User - 757

Guest
good morning ;)
it is 8.30 am

the fight was still called wrong yesterday at about 10pm after the third time
our fight tonight is still not correctly declared
we are not the owners of the fort
we cannot recruit anyone
no ranks assigned

excerpt from the rules:
...the contests are announced 48 to 24 hours before the start the team that takes on the role of the defender is the owner of the forts ...

always worked until yesterday
what is the problem, what happened yesterday?!?
 
Top