Feedback New Fort Battle formula feedback

darkuletzz

Unassigned
Hi guys,
I m just putting here my opinion.
Soldier, livigston and zapata weapons.
14k hp
570 aiming
651 hiding
647 leadership .


You shot at paapaa32 and caused 931 damage!

hm, this shocked me a lot and on attack i make more damage.
Shooting at a soldier or worker with this type of damage with a set that are for tanks... i dont know what happen when a worker/duelist with Union will shot at them:)
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
That particular hit was so high because the player has 21k if I'm not mistaken, which I believe is intended to encourage deviation from pure HP builds, along with pure leadership builds with the other part of the formula, and we're hopefully going to see some resistance changes soon too.
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
I wonder if Class changes could be considered at some point in the testing process, or will we have to delete and make new accounts to try other classes?
 

*NLO*

Unassigned
( Weapon Damage + Sector Damage ) x ( 1 + [max(0,(min(skill1, leadership, aiming)^0.8 + median(skill1, leadership, aiming)^0.7 + max(skill1, leadership, aiming)^0.6 − |maxHealth ÷ 10 − mean(skill1, leadership, aiming)|^0.6) ÷ 400)] )



Skill1 refers to Hiding/Traps

can someone explain me this magic 0 in *[max(0,(min(skill1, leadership, aiming)^0.8 *
 

rel1

Unassigned
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.
better would be 2 hours between battles ... for example 18:00 small fort, 20:00 medium fort and 22:00 big fort or one day small and medium fort and one day only big fort
 
Last edited:

Hayate Tarzanino

Unassigned
I tried reading all the comments before stating my opinion but it was just more of the same really..pointless whining about nugget sets and unbased claims about how things should change.

So lets start off about what we learned from IBFC 3:

What we understood is something we already suspected for a long time.Defense is getting weaker and weaker to the point it is unplayable

Why is that the case?Pretty straightforward. The bonuses the fort provides were given a long time ago and were never adjusted. Once the available clothing + skill points could get your numbers around 80-90 atk and 60-70 defense. Mounting the tower provided immense strength adding a flat 15-45 points depending on fort size etc... and to counteract that the attackers outnumbered the defenders. Over time, with the introduction of new sets your base values sky rocketed with sets like union officer giving you almost 180 atk without any tower buffs. Its pretty easy to grasp that going from 180 to 204 when mounting a tower is not nearly the same as once going from 80 to 104. The difference in increase percentage wise is immense. So to put it simply

8 more guns>tower buffs

The developers of the game adressed this immediately before even the end of the event by cutting down the number of attackers later on to increase the number of defenders-i think- which is practically the same. Unfortunately we did not have time to observe how these changes would affect the game because of the added changes they are planning.

Before i comment on the changes in the formula i would like to say that i have experience in a ton of games with a far deeper complexity and difficulty than the west fort fighting. That being said up until now fort fighting consisted of 2 main ROLES, well defined AS IT SHOULD BE. The damage dealer and the tank. When you start mixing those two bad things happen balance wise. And we are already seeing those. Exploiting the formula by having your hp around 10k makes you a heavy hitter while at the same time having huge survivability. This is not pleasant for anyone.

There are simple ways to deal with the union officer set being too strong. Rather than messing up the formula you can refrain from releasing sets so much stronger relative to the existing tank items. If nerfing damage is your intent do so in a way that keeps the clear distinction between tanks and damage dealers. If the player wants to go for a hybrid style of play it should come at the PRICE of some of his tankiness and some of his damage.Another way to go about it is to add something equally strong for tanks that use nuggets. This is really a failure on the side of the company that they onesidedly release a union officer set and nothing to deal with it even for p2w players.

I can discuss forts and how they work all day. The bottom line of what we are seeing right now is the following. The EVERPRESENT complain of the playerbase for pay to win stuff. The real problem is not the damage. Its the pay to win aspect of the game and that WILL NOT and SHOULD NOT change. Inno is above all a company that seeks profit. And i have to commend them on keeping this game very playable for players who do not use nuggets, but completely eliminating the advantages of paying makes no sense. Why pay then?
 

Hayate Tarzanino

Unassigned
As a counter arguement i would like to add that i really welcome the change in formula. It looks like its going to add alot of thought process while going for optimal builds, compared to the straightforward builds we saw for so long. That being said, as long as damagers dont become tanks and tanks damage dealers as stated in the previous post
 

lulumcnoob

Unassigned
Thank you for posting your thoughts @Hayate Tarzanino, I really hope you continue to comment as the re-balancing process advances.

You eloquently and precisely described the situation and the issues of fort fighting, and actually had constructive comments about Pay-to-win, which is incredible to see, especially since I've just had a moan about exactly the issue of pricing in this game on another form. I, of course, wish for this version of the game to be hugely successful again, and want good friends of mine to still have jobs and maybe a nice bonus for the dev for literally having to treat the symptoms of mismanagement, the game has to be playable to be sustainable though, and let me stress in no uncertain terms that 10,000 quests and 4 tombolas do not count as a playable game in the context of The West. Duels are too far gone to save but forts, and The West, can be great again.

I too am concerned about completely destroying the damager vs tank dynamic of the fights, and it's one of the main things I'll try to advise on going forward. Ideally a pure damager should still absolutely out-class a tank-hybrid in that regard, but the tank should also be able to dodge or resist a lot more.

I also really like that I, as a tank, am not just sitting inside a tower for 30 rounds to be used up in 1 or 2 anymore, and contributing no damage whatsoever to the team. I went from dealing 300 damage to dealing 500-600 damage on the rare occasions i make a hit (more against bad builds), and leaderships who understand what's going on here went from dealing ~1300 damage to ~1000 (again more against bad builds like pure HP), while knuckle-draggers who only ever had to consider pure leadershi* now do less damage than tanks. It already feels much closer to the good old days to me but I have no idea how this all translates to our regular worlds where most remaining players are dueller class damagers or the direct counter to those as pure HP adventurers, as a symptom of the mangled wreck of Tombola Simulator - a potentially massive issue we'll have to prepare for in our communities. I still seem to dodge like 1 in 100 shots from damagers.

~Union officer rant incoming~
Another concern is obviously union officer set and how it will interact with these changes. Further than that with the game mechanics designed for 2013 West and the players making it clear that forts can't handle the modern sets in 2017, the fact that a set that powerful was then created, just after new worlds were opened, without even an equivalent tank set, is a huge problem, there's no safeguards or quality control to stop us from slipping back into breaking the game in the future, so unless Diggo's formulae can take that into account too, I feel that I can't trust the current people, who i'm convinced don't even play or understand the game to the point a lot of the sets have irrelevant skills, to make the next generations of fort sets which will surely follow these changes. Remember we are treating the symptoms, not the cause here. It would be pretty amazing to keep this world around after the balancing issues and use it to QC new sets without disturbing the revenue streams of the "Beta" world, but I know that's unrealistic as every Fort Fighter already probably prefers ts to their home worlds, there's nowhere else in the entire game where we can have large fights.
And i'm gonna stop there before it turns into a migration rant.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Unassigned
I'm totally against the P2W upgradable Nugget PvP sets with huuuuge gap over tombola sets, but;

As I've written like dozens of times, the difference between Nugget "set" of Tanks and sets of Damagers shows how much the Set designer "knows" the game and how much QA is(n't) there.

Now I know they (hopefully) finally noticed the huuuuge mistake that they have done with Union Officer, but don't have the guts to make things right.
They are sooo afraid to nerf it to a degree that it looks like from maybe 2021 (still not 2019) instead of 2025. I mean make that Sector Dmg as Individual bonus at least??

They also won't boost any of the Tank Nugget sets either.
Like, where is the Defense/Hp bonus of each item, where is the higher stats, or Upgrade option!! on Nugget Bear set?!

While Union Officer would have up to %70 more Damage & Hit Ratio than any of the recent +2 tombola Damager gear?! Apart from the Sector Damage Bonus that would give %20-30 Dmg bonus to every single person on the Sector?!

They must have been thinking.. "But we gave almost %100 resist increase to the recent highest resist gear!"
Well guess what, that's not how things work. Union users still would hit 1200 dmg at the very least. (Which is still %20-30 more than upgraded tombola gears + more often with more critics)
Besides, Nugget Bear set doesnt give "Sector" Resistance.. So if you don't have it, too bad!!


Now I would talk Mosey set with Union Officer sector bonus again but.. At least that set will be less viable now (at least in Defense), as not being balanced stats wise.
It's still dumb how you can merge Hit Chance with Sector Damage though. I mean why do we have to multiply that Sector Damage?!

There is no "Sector Resistance" whatsoever.
Either stop multiplying it, or add a multiplier to the Resistance bonus of sets too.
 
Last edited:

lordofgods

Unassigned
why do we have to multiply that Sector Bonus?!
I Think this movement has to start some traction! Don't know how many times it was said and whom (I also argued about this xD) but this is something that doesn't really make a lot of sense, and would make a BIG difference do the so great Damager Dealers, at least Damage and Resistance would be at the same stage...because as it is now....not so much.

Also, Having an OP Nugget Tank set isn't solving any problems, actually is agravating more the difference between Tanks and Damagers, this is reasoned when seeing that tankers would have an even harder time to hit and damage each other, And we all know that adding Resistance/+Defense/HP won't do that much to deal with the current Damage dealers. Livingston set was supose to help out IMMENSLY....but turns out that is quite..."meh".

2 main ROLES, well defined AS IT SHOULD BE
One problem with this...is that Diggo11 (developer) answered to a question talking about the goals of this formula change:

" The goal of previous changes has been to defuse a hp arms race and the ever larger tanks. This was successful, but somewhat too successful, allowing the attacking side to exploit their line of sight advantage using glass cannons in a way that is more powerful than we intended. Therefore we have decided to run experiments to see how we can moderate and balance these two goals. Our subsequent experiments will likely make further changes to the resistance formula, the penalty for shooting from a distance and potentially other areas as well. "

So...seems that they don't want that...to stop their wantings it needs a lot of "protest", so if people want to maintain what Hayate is talking about...you need to start making more noise.


I don't really know which topic to comment when talking about the formula changes...because topics eventually talk about other things, and in the BETA server, that supposedly should be the place to argue and test this things, doesn't even have a dedicated thread... I guess I will be continuing there, and occasionally here.

Cheers,
 

RaiderTr

Unassigned
Yea. Or add a multiplier to the Resistance bonus of sets too.
Since the designer of sets doesn't seem to acknowledge that multiplication.

Having an OP Nugget Tank set isn't solving any problems
I know it doesnt. See the first sentence of my post.

Livingston set is a critic fodder. Not much stats, nor enough Resist and definitely no Defense bonus.
I thought, it was Union the issue, but IFBC 3 showed us the bitter truth.

I don't really know which topic to comment when talking about the formula changes...because topics eventually talk about other things, and in the BETA server, that supposedly should be the place to argue and test this things, doesn't even have a dedicated thread...
Beta hasn't been doing its job for many years now.
Since the Development has stopped and it became a just another "normal" server with slightly more Nuggets per purchase..

I know Diggo reads both here, and there though. Just prefers to stay silent for some reason.
 
Last edited:

Aston*

Unassigned
And yes it already exists, but it can now ovveride 15+ distance, so it's worth blocking sectors and having the bullets to go to the tower 20-25 away.
 

RaiderTr

Unassigned
Well make an account there, ez :p
Also please dont make a new post for every sentence, I check this page hundreds of times daily :D

And meh.. We were expecting a Distance Damage penalty :rolleyes:
Seeing 4k critics from the very end of a map..
 
Top