Feedback New Fort Battle formula feedback

RaiderTr

Unassigned
Well on which world you have every player on Level 150 in battles? ;)
On which world you have no offliner?
There are such servers with tons of Level 150s and few Offliners but;
Isn't it much better to test it here then? Much easier to focus fire and all.
If it's balanced here, will be even better on others lol.

And honestly, if it wasn't for IFBC 3 damage-madhouse fiasco, they weren't going to change anything at all. There were no plans for any PvP balancing as far as I know.
Beta is not compareable in any point
While I agree that Beta is no longer a healthy testing server, since Inno changed it into an another perma-server with slightly cheaper Nuggets and technically free Reskill potions, you still can see lots of upgraded Unions there.


For the record... This isn't the final form of the formulas.
As I said before, Resist formulas is very likely to be changed, as Diggo said in Beta forum and server..

But if you wanna complain all day, just for the sake of it.. be my guest.. for all the good it will do :p
 

shith is back

Unassigned
There are servers on which every side has for example five Unionsets, but there are servers where one side has eight and the the other two. And this isn't simulated here or on beta in a way which is satisfying, cause it isn't precise enough cause no imbalances will be meassuered. So if it is balanced here there is no point that it is balanced somewhere else, cause the formula improves the Unionset. And sayin here was a fiasko is true, but then there should be a true improvement and not just another fuckup for everyone who is not purchasing any set for nuggets.
 

RaiderTr

Unassigned
I also agree that Damage formula should minimalise the immense gap between Premium (Nugget) Damager sets and Tombola sets, instead of make it even worse..

It has "diminishing returns" now though with those ^0.8 etc but I don't think it's enough. At the very least penalty part needs changes.
 

shith is back

Unassigned
I saw the recent and it was a great improvement...


... in completly destroying the fortbattles. Defense without any chance. The only thing that changed is, that HP-Players do a little more damage WOW this just increases the speed of getting fired down. Great Job Inn0. As mentioned many times before, it's completly goin to the wrong direction.
 

RaiderTr

Unassigned
It seems.. Making Traps/Hiding relevant to Damage formula made an increase in Hit ratio of No-Hp Damagers (when they are skilled "optimally") .
More Critics if anything.. Apart from all other mentioned issues.

That's the opposite of what we need.
Maybe lower their power from ^0.6 to ^0.5 on "Attack" formula (aka Hit Ratio) ?

Ps. https://forum.beta.the-west.net/index.php?threads/update-2-127-discussion.3543/post-37414

Btw, why didn't mention the change on Soldier's nearby bonus? :D
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
I saw the recent and it was a great improvement...


... in completly destroying the fortbattles. Defense without any chance. The only thing that changed is, that HP-Players do a little more damage WOW this just increases the speed of getting fired down. Great Job Inn0. As mentioned many times before, it's completly goin to the wrong direction.
Well effectively all that happened was the damage formula was changed to remove the viability of pure leadership as a build and shifted that damage to everyone else. you were still watching an otherwise completely regular small battle, where defenders just crumbled 95% of the time in the IFBC. We never expected the first or second tweak to fix fort battles, lots of work still to be done... But I appreciate that we are working with perfect conditions here and don't even have Union Officer set, which makes all of the data truly useful only for future IFBC's where we can control the game breaking sets... which is also good because the IFBC battles are of a relatively incredible quality compared to our regular tombola simulator worlds. I guess I'm just happy to see actual development on broken battles after so long, i'm very optimistic.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Unassigned
Nice stuff! Thanks a lot!

Could u give some Booby Traps & Viewfinders too? Since, by looking at the 14 days x2 Vip, u intend to test for a whole month? :p

And.. can we request other sets too? Like, Zapata clothing & Station manager sets, as well as Phoebe Mosey?
(Basically all the recent/up-to-date FF sets to test various Builds, including "Full Resistance")

I would ask Nugget sets too but I tend to believe that "Management" doesn't wanna involve those here, which, totally understandable.
But Union Officer is way too powerful still and we can't ignore it :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

zek43

Unassigned
Yo its funny that you use exactly the same numbers as I did and also the pictures from this forum.
If you wanna say something useful say it in english and don't ask us to use google translate to check your Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V work.
I said I was quoted from this forum
 

RaiderTr

Unassigned
I have a feeling that there are a lot of Multi accounts just to provide Upgrades for gears, so I hope that's being considered and required actions are being taken..
 

Aston*

Unassigned
I'm not trying to complain but we already should be trying out other formulas, this one isn't good it's obvious. Try to delete /10 in hp (as someone already pointed it out before) and let's try that :D We are just wasting each other's time with this. Also i wasn't online yesterday but even the fort numbers don't match.. I don't see where this "testing" is leading with all of my respect to the 1-2 developers, please just do what has to be done or don't test at all.

Cheers
 

Aston*

Unassigned
I have a feeling that there are a lot of Multi accounts just to provide Upgrades for gears, so I hope that's being considered and required actions are being taken..
that's pretty much doesn't matter, it's more realistic then lvl0 murris running around with dumb builds - such as full leadership now lol.
Raider speak up about changing the formula already :D you are always the loudest buddy :p
 

RaiderTr

Unassigned
It matters.. Creating imbalance and still against the rules.

I've talked about it on every platform I can, now I'm waiting for the next update :)
Diggo is quiet but he is around and following, so lets wait and see :cool:
 

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
Everything takes time with just one developer, and there's not gonna be an update on a Friday or the Weekend in case something breaks.

Pls ban all the multi accounts and anyone who's been fed items by them though. The "perfect" conditions were great and I hope we don't allow that to be compromised by laziness, especially with almost everyone The West employs having powers here - that would just be embarrassing. I am also slightly concerned about how it will all transfer to regular worlds where we can't control the sets, but getting a basic working game mechanic in balanced conditions is the first step.

In the meantime, it's clear that everyone doesn't quite understand how to build their characters yet with pure HP and pure Lead still around, but the battles here are still better than the battles on my home server, and I meet so many great players every day, so I can't complain.
We also don't have data for medium forts or flag rushes yet.
 
Last edited:

Anthraxos

Moderator
Moderator
If we actually need good data to work with, let the GMs to put battles everyday in different forts with a program. For example:

22/6 : Small Fort 20:00 -Medium Fort 21:00 - Large Fort 22:00 (server time)

23/6 : Small Fort 20:00 -Medium Fort 21:00 - Large Fort 22:00 (server time)
.
.
.
etc

until we get as many data as we want. On the IFBC server right now there are 1857 150level players. Enough to fill 3 fights in single day.

The game is not only big forts and what happens when we put many guns each side. Most of the markets are playing on medium/small forts.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Unassigned
I already had suggested that (GM digs) a while ago to prevent chaos/imbalance, lets hope it happens some day :p

I don't think we really need further tests until the next batch of changes though.
 

pawpawpawel

Unassigned
Please STOP playing comedy, that you doing something for us.
Current fort-formula balance maybe isn't the best, but it is OK, there is no need to change fort balance.
Yes, I know during IFBC at 150 lvls battles are different than battles at low lvls on the new world. But pay attention - both can give some fun and competition spirit.
but
There is urgent need to change PAY_TO_WIN_balance in the game.
Give us (PL) even ONE world, where only way to spend real cash is character_bonus/energy_bonus/earnig_bonus/automation_bonus. You can even raise yearly premium bonus cost by 2...
NO SHOP, NO LOTTERIES. XP multiplier=5 (or =10). Make this world stable home for many fort players. Also easy to reach 80 lvl, and be competitive.

Now we have many worlds with no chance to gather 40vs40, excluding newest world. We wan invite other players from never server to older, but even after reaching 80 lvl they have ridiculous chance to hit player at 150 lvl and wearing upgraded EQ.
 

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
Please STOP playing comedy, that you doing something for us.
Current fort-formula balance maybe isn't the best, but it is OK, there is no need to change fort balance.
Yes, I know during IFBC at 150 lvls battles are different than battles at low lvls on the new world. But pay attention - both can give some fun and competition spirit.
but
There is urgent need to change PAY_TO_WIN_balance in the game.
Give us (PL) even ONE world, where only way to spend real cash is character_bonus/energy_bonus/earnig_bonus/automation_bonus. You can even raise yearly premium bonus cost by 2...
NO SHOP, NO LOTTERIES. XP multiplier=5 (or =10). Make this world stable home for many fort players. Also easy to reach 80 lvl, and be competitive.

Now we have many worlds with no chance to gather 40vs40, excluding newest world. We wan invite other players from never server to older, but even after reaching 80 lvl they have ridiculous chance to hit player at 150 lvl and wearing upgraded EQ.
A "home base" for fort fighters is something we've been pushing for on .net too, I'm sure the idea has wide appeal on all markets so I hope they look into it sometime.

I believe as a consequence of the pay to win nature of 2.xx, new formulas with diminishing returns are necessary for fair and fun fights, and that's the direction we seem to be heading in so far with the second set of experimental changes.
 

RaiderTr

Unassigned
I honestly don't know if the gap between Nugget & Tombola gear closes up even a little bit with these changes. Doubtful.

Sector damage still boosted by a lot, total stats now worth more than only Leadership, so Union is still too powerful with the 700-800 more total stats (& higher Weapon damage) than any uptodate & upgraded Tombola gear, apart from the Attack bonus on every piece and the absurd Sector Damage bonus.

That set just don't belong to this game.
With the power-creep, it'd need to arrive on 2025 at best.

Nugget bear can't even come close to that insanity. Simply 150 more resist than Zapata mount set. Nothing more. And as it happens, Resist bonus don't get multiplied or whatever.
Besides, it's only a mount set compared to 6 + 2 items. Unless, you had the best bot to get the Gringo Weapons. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited: