Fort Battles

[DeletedUser]

Syntax was a great fort fighter, but his leaving did NOT cut our strength in half. That is just crazy talk. First of all--common misconception for some reason is that Syntax was our battle general. That is completely false. He may have led 2-3 battles during his time on world 12. Dboone led nearly every battle I have attended. While Syntax did great damage in battles, I just don't see how you can say that he was worth half our collected success. In our town alone, Syntax was ranked below 5 players in battle stats. Granted, he had a better damage average, but participated in far fewer battles than many others. That alone should tell you that while he was a valuable ally for sure, he was just one of the best of many good fort battlers.

Every world has an alliance that dominates at the beginning. And every world has a challenger who rises up to compete and sometimes take over that dominance. This will never change. Mean Girls is perhaps the best fort-fighting town in world 12 now (as many of SV's top guns have moved on).

I am disappointed and frustrated with some of our allies' tactics on counter attacks and multis. In my eyes, this may just be the kind of tactics that take down a great alliance. I'm just a grunt in this world, but even I can see that.

I can agree on some things but I can't agree on other things said here. Sorry.
So three things I disagree:

1. First of all, yes, SV+DD+EH+some more towns, called by others as "hugging alliance", was dominating. But as in all other games, there is a thing called a wheel of fortune. You can't expect that other towns won't organize seeing your monopol. And it is not true that this dominance, or monopol, existed till yesterday. It began to decay the very day the best fort fighter quit on w12. You may disagree with me, but I'll never change my opinion. SyntaxError was the best fort fighter on this world. The very day you lost him, your fort fighing power was at least halved.

2. Problem with multiattacks can be solved pretty simple. Initiating a fort battle is too cheap. Especially after the update that brought new cash system: more LP=more money. I can get 10K $ in two days by myself now, only on jobs. So a town of 50 players can easily initiate 10 multies on big forts - daily. To avoid this, it's pretty easy - make "the hatchet" more expensive!
Oh, and there is another thing also here. You don't have enough players to get into each of your forts? Your problem, pal. Multifights are nothing else but a countermeasure to someone's megalomania. If my town can be happy with only one fort, why can't you?

3. Attacking a fully built fort and stealing it, if both sides are full, is - impossible. There is only one way to win it, I've posted it already, but we don't have enough players specced for that on w12. The reason for this? Devs.
Prior to this version, fort fights were ruled by monstrous HP soldiers. Instead of nerfing soldiers, devs introduced workers' sector bonus in current version that made workers an ultimate fort fighters. All those workers, if mounted, have 99% precentage of successful hits and dodges. And that is rediculous.
And now we wait for the next update. Workers will be nerfed... But not much. Instead of 40% bonus they now get 30% bonus. So their success of aim/dodge if mounted won't be 99% but 79%.
That's not all. Soldiers REALLY needed another bonus like they're not already overpowered in everything, so now nerfed workers will get leadership bonus from a nearby soldier and devs changed practically nothing at all.
What we need is not messing with class bonuses, but nerfing the walls+towers bonuses.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, they are going to be decreasing the impact of worker tower. And, I think you are drastically over-estimating its impact.

With westforts down I can't look for maxed battles the attackers won in the last 3-4 weeks. I don't know if there would even be all that many maxed battles in that timeframe. I'm sure there have been some. I can remember at least one. Mean Coyotes on September 9th. I'm not going to go through looking at all the forts. If/when westforts.com comes back online then you can look through and see that it happens. But it shouldn't happen every time, defenders should have the advantage.

People have claimed it's impossible for attackers to win against a fully built fort for a long time. It's simply not true and attackers win plenty. The new updates haven't changed that.

Edit:
And, jkbattle is absolutely right. Losing one player doesn't make near the difference that you suggest.

 

[DeletedUser]

jk and kayak, to each it's own, but honestly I'd rather have one SyntaxError in a fight on my side then 100 other players. But cards were dealt differently, and I had to join the other side.

While you're watching things from your perspective of Syntax's teammate, I'm saying this from a perspective of your opponent. And I really don't remember if we won any of fights Syntax was in.
It doesn't matter who led it, it doesn't matter if it was an attack or a defense, it really doesn't matter Syntax's oddly distributed SP/AP. That player simply knew to to get the max performance from his character in the fort fighting minigame. And I'll never forget him. Simply can't.
You may say someone is better than him, but to me, he was a true ultimate fort fighter on this world.

Oh and kayak, westforts site is crap. It collects only total of damage you made. Do you honestly believe that a player who made average of 3K damage in 100 fights is better than a player who started fort fights yesterday and made average of 5K damage in only 2 fights?
Oh and if you don't believe what I'm saying about impossibility to steal a fully built big fort defended by 120 players (without only one strategy - for which we don't have enough specced players on w12), try to do it.

 

[DeletedUser]

So, you would take Syntax alone vs. 100 defenders?

He was great--no doubt. And I did watch him and learn from him every battle--as I do GA and OAN every battle. That's how you learn I guess. Syntax had a large role in SV's success--just not half of it!

Winning fort battles comes down to whether or not you can trust your teammates to work together, rotate hp, and follow instructions. If you can do that, you have a chance to win every and all battles regardless of the size of the fort and its bonuses. That is, however, very dependent on whether or not you are facing an enemy that does those things too. If so, I would agree with Joxer--it is next to impossible to take a large fort away from a full defense that 1. Has good strategy/tactics; 2. Rotates hp; 3. Follows orders; 4. Uses bonuses correctly.

jk and kayak, to each it's own, but honestly I'd rather have one SyntaxError in a fight on my side then 100 other players. But cards were dealt differently, and I had to join the other side.

While you're watching things from your perspective of Syntax's teammate, I'm saying this from a perspective of your opponent. And I really don't remember if we won any of fights Syntax was in.
It doesn't matter who led it, it doesn't matter if it was an attack or a defense, it really doesn't matter Syntax's oddly distributed SP/AP. That player simply knew to to get the max performance from his character in the fort fighting minigame. And I'll never forget him. Simply can't.
You may say someone is better than him, but to me, he was a true ultimate fort fighter on this world.

Oh and kayak, westforts site is crap. It collects only total of damage you made. Do you honestly believe that a player who made average of 3K damage in 100 fights is better than a player who started fort fights yesterday and made average of 5K damage in only 2 fights?
Oh and if you don't believe what I'm saying about impossibility to steal a fully built big fort defended by 120 players (without only one strategy - for which we don't have enough specced players on w12), try to do it.

 

[DeletedUser]

To say that 1 player is half the success of a team is completely ridiculous.

It's difficult to take away a fully built large, but not impossible or next to impossible. Even against a good defense it's possible. Defenders have the advantage, but will not win every time. Even the best leader makes mistakes, and even the best team will fail to follow orders at some point. This happens in every battle from every side. The key is to just exploit the mistakes of the other side an minimize your mistakes. I think if you went through the list of maxed out battle in all worlds and you would see that it may be tough, but not impossible.

 

[DeletedUser]

So, you would take Syntax alone vs. 100 defenders?

Yes i would.

He was great--no doubt. And I did watch him and learn from him every battle--as I do GA and OAN every battle. That's how you learn I guess. Syntax had a large role in SV's success--just not half of it!

You'll learn more from GA and OAN on other worlds. On w12... Hardly.
Here GA is a worker and has only two jobs - if defending, sit on the worker tower till the end of the fight, if attacker, mount as soon as possible.
OAN is great when he's really here and if there is no other fort fight on other servers. However, most of w12 fights he acts as if he doesn't care what happens at all, even when he leads.

To say that 1 player is half the success of a team is completely ridiculous.

Somehow I felt someone will say this.
But this won't change my opinion, sorry.

 

[DeletedUser]

Honestly I haven't been involved in this world enough to pay too close of attention to some things. But, you really can't just look at average damage either. If someone has less battles, a logical question is why? Did he start later? Then the average is going to be high since he was in battles where people had more health. Did he not attend battles that you could tell the other side wasn't showing up for? Then again his average is going to be higher.

As far as team success goes a high hp tank would be more valuable than SyntaxError was.

 

[DeletedUser]

Six allied forts under attack AGAIN tomorrow. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[DeletedUser]

maybe that just means you have too many allies.

its not like the battles are pick and choose because of time frame

 

[DeletedUser]

???
Six?
I see only 4 forts - and only one is big others are small.
Since those are not at the same time, I'll combine something and try to go to at least 2 fights.

 

[DeletedUser]

When I checked in yesterday there were six listed--two were last night I guess. I just want good battles--win or lose. Half-baked battles are just a waste of time and xp

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm coming to the first one, so it won't be *that* empty.
If I survive I'll go on the next one. If I get killed, I'll sleep a bit then go to the third or the fourth one.

I really don't see a problem here, none of todays battles are at the same time. Or a problem is that some players can't go to more than one fort fight? Well... That's really not my problem. Duelers have +10% (or +20 if with premium) speed, I have travel premium since I'm not a dueler.

 

[DeletedUser]

yeah and aside from travel premium there are the mexican or indian set that cut a fair chunk of travel time if need be.

and besides, if you are upset that 6 of your allied forts are/were under attack, at least you have the option in some of them to hit the barracks before the battle, and there is at least a little time between travel and battle to do so

 

[DeletedUser]

Not upset. Just pointing out that multi battles have been going on both ways for some time now and sharing my desire to have good, full battles as much as we can. That's it.

 

[DeletedUser18047]

I don't really understand why are you calling battles that happened yesterday "multi battles". If I'm not mistaken, it was possible to attend 5 out of 6 of them without using travel premium, assuming you survived each one, of course.

Just checking towns that initiated battles... as far as I know those towns are not allied and those battles were not planned and coordinated among them. Otherwise your allies would probably lose more forts.

Could it be that you feel the pressure about those battles because you and your allies have made more enemies than you can handle and have more forts than you can handle?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, I think if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd understand my meaning here. How many of these battles were real? In other words, how many had more than 10 attackers? That is what I mean by multi-battles. If a battle is declared and only 2 show up, I have to start wondering why it was declared in the first place. I am no genius, but perhaps some of these little towns are doing the bidding of some of the other bigger towns--you think? At any rate, all I am searching for in this world is real battles. I could care less honestly how many forts my town has--I just like the action.

 

[DeletedUser]

Seriously Wayne, if the shoe were on the other foot, you wouldn't like it. Early battles always affect later battles even if you can make both.

You wouldn't like it if there was say:
A medium fort battle at 7:33
A medium fort battle at 7:45
A small fort battle at 8:43
A large fort battle at 11:55

Imagine how this must look if all the attackers are allies, or all the defenders are allies. It would be very hard for the defenders to fill all those battles properly without knowing where the attackers might be headed.

And I sure you can certainly imagine the frustration if the battles turnout out something like this:
A medium fort battle at 7:33 --- 84 defenders vs 58 attackers (obviously easily defended)
A medium fort battle at 7:45 --- 80 defenders vs 13 attackers (obviously easily defended)
A small fort battle at 8:43 --- 23 defenders vs 39 attackers (obviously easily conquered)
A large fort battle at 11:55 --- 79 defenders vs 120 attackers (obviously easily conquered)

Doesn't look like any very good battles there. A bunch of defenders going to battles that without enough attackers, and then a bunch of attackers easily running over heavily out-numbered defenders. I think this is the type of thing people who don't like multi-battles are trying to avoid.

This is exactly what happened on 6/29/2010. And you'll never guess who the attackers were. SISU Finlandia (attacked fort now known as SISU Hyttynen), Dust Devils 4 (Suddenly Swamped), Knights Templar (Cougar Forest), Sudden Valley (MITBBS-Fort).

The expression "if the shoe were on the other foot," does seem oh so appropriate. And, the words, "And when we won, we won by skillful leading and teamwork, as the other side has always had the superior manpower." seem to ring very hollow to me. It seems like just the opposite to me.

This is not a new phenomenon here on world 12. It's just the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[DeletedUser18047]

How many of these battles were real? In other words, how many had more than 10 attackers?

For the towns that called them, they were all real.

If a battle is declared and only 2 show up, I have to start wondering why it was declared in the first place. I am no genius, but perhaps some of these little towns are doing the bidding of some of the other bigger towns--you think?

I highly doubt it. You (as your alliance, not only your town) just made lots of enemies everywhere. I can tell you that from my own example, as we used to be "allies" at one point, although you probably didn't even know it. Problem is, those are towns loaded with new players, people who still enjoy questing, doing jobs, dueling randomly... they are not fort fighters and don't care about "world's politics". Lots of their fort fighters joined your side, because they were sick of losing one battle after another. However, they still try to get back what, in their opinion, belongs to them, and usually fail miserably.

I was mad yesterday for two reasons:
1. only 7 of my town mates showed up to our battle, only 2 online.
2. there were 60-70 people waiting for Hombre whatever battle, while Fort Violence attack was far from being full, our attack was not full and Green Mile attack was far from being full. Lots of them didn't even get into Hombre battle...

Lack of experience is to blame, maybe selfishness too, but those were not "fake" or "multi" battles. You are referring to your enemies as they are some kind of alliance. Luckily for you, they are not... yet. Hope they will become, eventually, when they realize they can't do anything alone.

At any rate, all I am searching for in this world is real battles. I could care less honestly how many forts my town has--I just like the action.

Agreed. We had 1 decent and 1 great battle yesterday, will have at least one more great today. And yes, those today could be called multi battles, or maybe not, because as far as I know, Shadow and TDC are not allied, they just share the same enemy. I'd still prefer some time difference, so I can be in both and kill more.

 

[One Armed Ninja]

Oh and if you don't believe what I'm saying about impossibility to steal a fully built big fort defended by 120 players (without only one strategy - for which we don't have enough specced players on w12), try to do it.

Oh but what did I do just the other day?
You seem to underestimate me, my friend
And I was one of the first to do such a thing on W10.

Yes i would.


You'll learn more from GA and OAN on other worlds. On w12... Hardly.

OAN is great when he's really here and if there is no other fort fight on other servers. However, most of w12 fights he acts as if he doesn't care what happens at all, even when he leads.

What is this?
I believe I haven't lost any of the last 5 or so fights i've led on W12, so to say I don't care is far from true.
Anyone who watches can learn things, for all it takes is an open mind as to what is going on - and I still kcik arse

When I checked in yesterday there were six listed--two were last night I guess. I just want good battles--win or lose. Half-baked battles are just a waste of time and xp

Agreed with you here Jk, walkovers are never any fun. And are when I tend to zone out because I see no need to concentrate during them

One last thing about fort Battles.
Mean Girls broke the 1 million damage milestone in one month!
And is the FIRST .net town to do so

I thank you, bye.

 

[DeletedUser]

TDC has never supported Multi battles, people have done them, but they where never supposed to happen.


Personally, I like fun battles, I have no grudges with my enemies, and I play on the same side in other worlds.

And the thing with Multi battles. When someone feels they are the underdog, they will use any tactic available, it's human nature. The only solution to it, is to make it not a viable tactic.