This user has no description yet

[Review] Analysis of SF vs MWCB in IBL in Infinity Kingdom

Guide Forum suggestion
Article Publish : 12/15/2025 15:43

Translate

💠Introduction

What’s up, folks? Welcome back to my Illusion Battlefield League(IBL) series, where I take a closer look at different matches. The IBL tournament differs from regular IB in that everyone will construct marches and skill builds using a fixed set of skills. At different stages of the tournament, more immortals and skills will become available. Everyone has access to the same immortals and the same skills. Castle skins and Lord Talents do not affect the more fast-paced battles of IBL. Relocations and marching speed are also faster. The event is one of the most entertaining events in Infinity Kingdom, and players enjoy spectating, almost like a sporting event. In this article, I’m going to take a closer look at the match between Server 170’s Sexy As Fckk(SF) and Server 380’s Milky Way(MWCB). SF’s positions in this match will be denoted in green while MWCB’s will be in red.

💠Table of Contents

Overview
Starting Positions and Talents
MWCB
SF
Tower 1
Tower 4
Central Tower
Altars
Home Towers
Play-by-Play
Summary

💠Overview

SF versus MWCB is a matchup defined by experience versus inexperience. SF is a former two-time IBL champion, but after losing many of their top players to servers like 38 and 136, the current roster is only a shadow of its peak and no longer a title contender. Even so, SF still has enough institutional knowledge to handle smaller, inexperienced teams. MWCB comes from a server that has never participated in IBL, making this their first exposure to league builds and skills. With both sides only able to field around ten players weekly, SF’s experience gives them the edge and makes them the clear favorite.

💠Starting Positions and Talents

MWCB

Started with 9 players and ended with 14
8 Attack talents
0 Defense talents
1 Support talents

Started with 9 players and ended with 12
6 Attack talents
2 Defense talents
1 Support talents

💠Tower 1

At Tower 1, SF sent two players while MWCB sent one, and although MWCB had better spawns, they effectively conceded the tower. Instead, MWCB chose to focus on Tower 4, where they were at a positional disadvantage. With such small rosters, it is critical to contest only two of the three objectives, and spreading players thinner than that set MWCB up for failure.

💠Tower 4

At Tower 4, SF sent two players while MWCB committed five, including one overlapping relocation. SF had spawn positions that could have blocked or deleted incoming relocations, but instead played passively and parked on the north side of the tower. MWCB’s approach was correct, as overloading a single outer tower makes sense with limited rosters. SF would have been better off reinforcing Tower 4 and conceding Tower 1 rather than splitting their presence.

💠Central Tower

At the Central Tower, SF sent a single player while MWCB chose not to contest at all, effectively conceding the objective. By doing so, MWCB gave up two towers for no real reason. SF, meanwhile, missed an opportunity to capitalize further and should have rotated the rest of their roster into the center or reinforced a side tower to press the advantage.

💠Altars

SF chose not to commit any players to the altars, while MWCB sent two to the Sun Altar and one to the Moon Altar. Because the altars do not generate points, MWCB’s decision amounted to wasted time and manpower that could have been better used contesting towers.

💠Home Towers

SF stationed two guards at their home tower while MWCB kept only one at theirs. In a small match with limited rosters, assigning two players to home defense is inefficient, as a single guard is sufficient. An enemy cannot meaningfully relocate to a home tower unnoticed until roughly the seven minute mark, so SF was unnecessarily wasting manpower that could have been applied to active objectives.

💠Play-by-Play

SF opened Tower 1 by launching nonstop solo attacks into the lone MWCB defender. MWCB absorbed many of the hits effectively while waiting for two late teammates to relocate in support, though SF could have sped things up by rallying instead. One MWCB player canceled his relocation and the other failed to garrison the defender, leaving him exposed. SF zeroed the isolated player, had another teammate arrive shortly after, captured the tower at the six minute mark, and finished by zeroing the final MWCB presence.

Everyone completed their relocations cleanly at Tower 4, with three additional SF players arriving shortly after. SF immediately began the siege while MWCB focused more on trading attacks than defending the objective. MWCB stopped the capture at the last possible second and then zeroed one SF player, but SF quickly answered with a zero of their own to even the numbers. A series of MWCB mistakes left several players without garrisons, which SF punished by wiping them out in succession. SF captured Tower 4 at the ten minute mark and secured the area with four players surrounding the tower.

At the Central Tower, SF captured the objective with little resistance, and by the time two MWCB players arrived, the tower was nearly gone. The pair managed to zero the lone SF defender, briefly opening a window to steal the tower. SF immediately rotated players over from Tower 4, and while MWCB blocked one relocation, they failed to destroy the other. SF halted the siege attempt, zeroed both MWCB invaders, and locked in control of the center to secure the win.

Starting at the five minute mark, an SF player relocated to MWCB’s Tower 3 where only one guard was present. The guard failed to destroy the relocation because it landed on the far side of the tower and was out of march range, when the correct response would have been to relocate next to the invader and wait for the relocation timer. Two MWCB players arrived from spawn to help, but they did not rally, allowing the SF player to defend each solo attack. SF attempted to send reinforcements, and while MWCB did a good job blocking those relocations, they missed the better play of destroying them to strand the attackers for several minutes. Eventually, the full MWCB team arrived and zeroed the lone invader. SF returned a few minutes later with multiple players, wiped most of the MWCB defenders, and captured Tower 3 at the 35 minute mark. Although MWCB traded by taking Tower 4, SF had already built a 50,000 point lead within the first 22 minutes, which carried them comfortably to victory.

💠Summary

SF defeated MWCB 100,000 to 25,100, with Aadhi named MVP for holding off the entire MWCB team at their home tower for a large portion of the match. Both teams entered with weak strategic plans, as the optimal setup would have been one player on home defense, three or four on an outer tower, and the rest contesting the Central Tower. SF attempted to contest all three objectives and was rewarded for it, while MWCB effectively conceded two towers to focus on altars that provided no scoring value. Inexperienced teams would benefit from ignoring altars entirely and concentrating on tower control. SF opens the series 1–0, while MWCB falls to 0–1.