World setup changes

Higher cost for fort battle or bans for those not attending

  • Higher cost

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Ban players when not showing up

    Votes: 16 66.7%

  • Total voters
    24
Status
Not open for further replies.

C0OPeR

Well-Known Member
Roffo,

the prime objective of the 2 main alliances on Colorado is not to have a monopoly of all the forts but to provide Colorado fort fighters with full, balanced competative battles during the optimal time frame (prime time) that suits most players.

Your and the other 2 humpty dumpties digs suck irrespective what time you guys will dig and that is the one thing everyone is trying to avoid. Not you not owning any forts but having totally crap battles that waste everyones time.

Is this concept so difficult to understand? If so, let me know, i will try to be even more clear in my next reply.

+1 zulu

As mentioned no.
Not that specific. But as for the text for the option is written this: Number of hours apart defining a multi/spam fort battle! And then the hours can be 1-9
But for the fun of it, i have now changed the setup to have the highest cost for fortbattles.

i just send ingame ticket , plz check it yourself
ps we need some change on fort battle rules to force trolls thing more when wanna dig a battle
 

Roffo Snake

Member
I know what is going on is not in any manner Equality and fair what is going on just stinks.

This is simply rigging the system to allow no competition. and to just allow one bunch of oligarchs to hoard all the forts for themselves, how the heck can someone even entertain stupid ideas like stealing towns rescores to the amount of 50%
 

DeletedUser15368

Is there anything the fort alliances can do to accommodate you then? Would you like to be included in their schedule and lead a medium battle at prime time or a small off-prime in co-ordination with the fort fighters, or do you just want 1-player attacks forever to annoy the fort fighters and the leaders who make personal sacrifices to provide quality game experiences to the players?

Your single-fighter town is the only case in which a 3rd neutral alliance won't cause great imbalances to the sides, so I think it's worth a try if it'll prevent spam digs. Of course I don't actually believe for a second you want to be cooperative and treated as an equal.

This is simply rigging the system to allow no competition.
You should write deadpan comedy. Competitiveness is the entire point of the digging agreement and "One Colorado" mentality, the vast majority of players believe in this, and spamming Colorado with a low quality non-battle every day is not competitive, and this "tactic" of disruption has been soundly and completely rejected by the community. in favour of upholding the sacred agreements that have let Colorado survive as an active Fort world for 10 years when worlds less than 2 years old are functionally dead. The proof is that no one shows up to your fights.

Competition is required, and if you have any thoughts on how to make it more competitive, I'm sure we would all love to hear it and debate it with you.

and to just allow one bunch of oligarchs to hoard all the forts for themselves
13 towns (including your own town until this morning's battle) own forts on Colorado, in the main alliances it's because they have valuable battle leaders and to share the workload, and in the 3rd alliances it's because we are incredibly conscious to include small alliances/free lancers, and in your case it's because you took the flag with 2 attackers at 5am. The three of you have never reached out to be included, and when we have reached out, we are ignored or bombarded with the type of nonsense you are posting here, that you have the freedom to try to ruin everyone else's fun, the three of you just spam us with multis for attention, and it's an unhealthy obsession.

There's absolutely no advantage to any individual, town, or alliance to owning a fort, other than to have fort battles.

Find me a world in which more towns own forts than Colorado and back up your oligarchy claims please. We have always and will always be inclusive to all fort fighters.

how the heck can someone even entertain stupid ideas like stealing towns rescores to the amount of 50%
In the same manner that anyone could entertain notions that your (and the other two's) low quality multi battles are for competitiveness, I suppose. A matter of perspective and not wanting the one world that hasn't died yet to be subjected to this crap.
It's not really viable to charge a particular percent of your town funds, but Nyborg has increased the cost of battles to discourage un-competitive spam battles.

Should we hold a poll regarding these measures? Then there would be a democratic community mandate either way to stop the spam, or to allow low quality fights on the world famous for coming to an agreement to ban low quality fights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Reino Eno

Member
While this whole thing seems to be meaningful enough for many of you to keep talking about for four pages now, most of the time multi diggers have gone on and off with their activity, meaning the digs will eventually peter out as the diggers get bored or get banned over other stuff. Hence, i don't really see it as that significant of a problem given the current state of the game and ff overall.

That said, since we have the rare attention of a CM who is actually saying they want to take an active role and help keep Colorado and fort fighting going. How about you take the cue from what we have seen from many of the country specific servers and commit to a regular (maybe weekly) Awesomia mod dig, with special rewards (buffs or whatever) for attendees. I don't think there's anyone who would disagree that would get a nice boost in participation, and moreover, maybe get some of those people joining the daily battles as well. Currently the only time we have had those (and very irregularly i might add) is during some events, but there isn't really any reason why they ought to be limited to those alone.
 

DeletedUser15368

Hence, i don't really see it as that significant of a problem given the current state of the game and ff overall.
It's just about the only problem that we and the Community manager can have any control over, so I suppose it's about picking our battles. (although you know me, I'll happily keep posting about lost causes.)

As for the side step to weekly Large battles with attendance rewards, sounds brilliant and the evidence that these will increase attendance is the fact that it always has when the event battles are held.
 

chad4359

New Member
The fact that this thread is 4 pages deep and the resolution is not "we'll ban naughty and this other asshat" is a prime example of why so many, myself included, don't engage in the game anymore. Thanks for once again showing me my years of playing and hundreds (thousands? I hope not!) of dollars spent on your game mean absolutely nothing because you allow two people to do whatever they want.
 

Darkuletzz

Well-Known Member
The fact that this thread is 4 pages deep and the resolution is not "we'll ban naughty and this other asshat" is a prime example of why so many, myself included, don't engage in the game anymore. Thanks for once again showing me my years of playing and hundreds (thousands? I hope not!) of dollars spent on your game mean absolutely nothing because you allow two people to do whatever they want.
4 pages of solution, but not a single one pointed out, i almost quit this world because first of all the only thing i enjoy about the west its ff, ban that multy diggers, its very simple, if they want to dig and have a ff attack, just join an alliance(storm or regs) and thats it, why we give a lot of solutions , some of them good some of them very bad, they will not stop, they want just to break colorado, the only active world in the NET servers, well Kansas its still active until october.
And like chad said, a lot of people spend a lot of dollars, and you just let 3 individuals to take control of the world, that a lot of people put their time and their experience to make this world(10 years old world) still playable.
After they started with multy dig, i didnt saw a fort battle 92 vs 84 full for a long period of time, i know the attacks are the problems too, but some people go away because of multy digs.
one solution and one solution only , if they do the same, BAN!!!!!
Why to let people like chad or others that are very old on this world who spend dollars quit this world, and dont take action. You let 3 individuals to ruin this world , i know we have a new CM, but c'mon we need the things to move quickly.
 
Last edited:

foscock

Banned
omg is it really that difficult? just remove roffo and pumpkin and doc paines hats, so they can't dig, and keep them removed no matter what town they join. it's like 2 minutes of mod time per day. why make the entire world put up with their crap just because Etriel is afraid to ban someone?
 

szycopath

Well-Known Member
I know what is going on is not in any manner Equality and fair what is going on just stinks.

This is simply rigging the system to allow no competition. and to just allow one bunch of oligarchs to hoard all the forts for themselves, how the heck can someone even entertain stupid ideas like stealing towns rescores to the amount of 50%

Dude what competition? 1 man town digs a fort of any size and 5 people show up (not even the 1 man town)
Where's the competition in that? If we considered it an actual battle and you'd see a full defense you'd still have exactly 0% chance of winning, so, again, how is it a competition? You act like you had an actual alliance that's trying to get forts but the "big guys" are begging support to stop your great barbarian hordes
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
4 pages or not, i just like that we can talk about this, without any major bad words against each other.
So first of, thanks for the great talk from ALL members.

To sum up the latest talk here: The word from innogames is that The West is a "minor" game in their list, and as you all know, markets are being closed because not many people play the game anymore. This will then turn to more of the active players from those markets to the ".net" version of the game. Meaning more people will join all the worlds, or at least that is what i think.

Anyway. Apart from "holding on" to those few players left. It might not be the reason for banning said players when they ruin the game and making players leave anyway. Then we are back to the first point, of players leaving the game.


As for me, i am new to the west tools. As you might know from my intro message i come from Forge of empires. So i am still learning the tools here for the west.
That being said, and the point of this, is that i have now found the tools where i can see the "result" of fort fights, so i can actually check if the person who declared the battle, also was attending. So this is great for me and you, because now you dont need to send a ticket with this, but maybe just "check the latest battle GGRRRR" :p

Because again, i simply just wont check all battles my self ;-)
ANYWAY.... Again.

As noted, i have pushed the cost of fort battles to the very top. BUT if this of cause hinders the "little person" to declare a honest fort battle, i can see the problem in that.

So with this. From now on, as a question to all of you who have been active in this talk. Would it be a better plan to now to, point ban people who declare a battle but not show up?
If then, i will reduce the cost back to the "normal" world settings, and then see if that gives an effect !
 
Last edited:

foscock

Banned
It's very hard to understand the double-negatives... what does " It might not be the reason for not banning said players "mean?

It's pretty simple to use the admin tools to prevent serial abusers from digging battles, without actually banning them from playing the game. The mod team hardly has any work to do anyway, it's not too much to ask that they spend 5-10 minutes doing this. As you stated, Inno doesn't care about this game, and hasn't for years, so why not be creative in your new role and think outside the box? If you need some training on the tools, hit me up.

As for banning people who dig and don't show... stuff happens in real life, you can't make that a blanket rule, but yeah, if they do it X number of times, ofc some punishment is warranted. But reaching for the ban-hammer should be a last resort, why not just prevent them from digging?
 

wyindywidualizowany

Well-Known Member
To sum up the latest talk here: The word from innogames is that The West is a "minor" game in their list, and as you all know, markets are being closed because not many people play the game anymore. This will then turn to more of the active players from those markets to the ".net" version of the game. Meaning more people will join all the worlds, or at least that is what i think.

I know its a bit of an offtopic but that part is interesting. Doesnt that mean you should allow people to migrate and close very old pretty much dead servers on .net with the same logic? Also, just so I understand how you're thinking may I ask which worlds on .net do you consider to be active and which ones to be pretty much dead?
 

C0OPeR

Well-Known Member
This is simply rigging the system to allow no competition. and to just allow one bunch of oligarchs to hoard all the forts for themselves,

in colorado , we didnt care forts for now , we just care good battles , for more time , we swapped forts between 2-3 alliance
everyone are wrong here and only u and 2 next trolls are true :/

How about you take the cue from what we have seen from many of the country specific servers and commit to a regular (maybe weekly) Awesomia mod dig, with special rewards (buffs or whatever) for attendees. I don't think there's anyone who would disagree that would get a nice boost in participation, and moreover, maybe get some of those people joining the daily battles as well. Currently the only time we have had those (and very irregularly i might add) is during some events, but there isn't really any reason why they ought to be limited to those alone.
good point reino , it will help , we increase numbers more and more in none awesomia ones too , hope our new MR CM , make action about this too
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Sorry foxcock for my english, and the way i write ;-)
Might not all make sense.
But as i have said before, i simply cant hinder anyone from making fort battles. I just dont have the tools to do that. So my 2 biggest ways of counter these multi battles, is to raise the price or move the battle times, so they are not to close to each other. Or simply ban people.

As you write yourself, i will do it on a more broad reason. We all have lifes yes, but it sounds like a few people do this on purpose, and those might need a talking to.
 

C0OPeR

Well-Known Member
omg is it really that difficult? just remove roffo and pumpkin and doc paines hats, so they can't dig, and keep them removed no matter what town they join. it's like 2 minutes of mod time per day. why make the entire world put up with their crap just because Etriel is afraid to ban someone?
good point fos :D +1
 

DeletedUser15368

@Hr.Nyborg Not showing up to the battle you declared is a terrible way to measure the disruptiveness in my opinion, because real life issues always take priority over a game, and as you may have seen, 1 vs (up to) 20 is quite common with these type of battles - so there's no consideration for attacking 400 forts a year and showing up to all of them as the only attacker.

I'm not in favour of simply applying bans as others have said, not without sending a ticket with a fair warning first, plus banning the particular type of player who gets their kicks from trolling/griefing only leads to ban evasion. But it's the only solution we have and ban evasion itself is a bannable offense, so prepare for an arms race of sorts with new accounts.
Fos' suggestion of removing hats from offending accounts isn't viable either imo, the moderation team should never interfere with the private running of player's towns, and regardless, you can promote yourself if there are no hats.

The word from innogames is that The West is a "minor" game in their list, and as you all know, markets are being closed because not many people play the game anymore.
Yes we know this well, and we have been begging innogames to improve the broken aspects of the game for half a decade. As @Reino Eno suggested, this entire saga is simply putting a bandage on the wound, but the company keeps poking us with the sword of a thousand tombolas.

This will then turn to more of the active players from those markets to the ".net" version of the game. Meaning more people will join all the worlds, or at least that is what i think.
That is what we have seen, refugees from dead servers joining our new worlds and generally making over half the players there, but this does not translate to all worlds suddenly becoming active, mostly because it's not fun to start a new character on an established and maxed-out world, frankly more than half of the worlds should be closed and consolidated with character migrations, and also players from other servers that are closing down should be allowed to migrate their character here to our stable fort fighting world. I know that is well out of your hands though.

It might sound privileged or something to a player from the Danish worlds for .net to be complaining about low player numbers, but it's just not possible to fill a large battle anymore on any world on the prime server of the game. Accounts might be "active" in higher numbers but that simply means they have logged-in in the last however many months, not that they are playing.
Forts and duels are the heart and soul of this game, so migrations should happen when player numbers drop too low for the PvP to function. You don't necessarily even have to close the "dead" worlds, just let PvPers migrate our characters, which have been built over years with blood, sweat and tears, to somewhere we can actually play the game.

We used to have closures and migrations when a world's players dropped to 4-5k. Now 400-500 and no PvP is "fine".

It is a tragedy to lose a single player from the game, however it would be a scandal to continue to allow 3 people to hold the entire fort fighting community of a world hostage to their mischief.
So yes, it will have to be a strongly worded letter of warning and then following through with a ban, in my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
I know its a bit of an offtopic but that part is interesting. Doesnt that mean you should allow people to migrate and close very old pretty much dead servers on .net with the same logic? Also, just so I understand how you're thinking may I ask which worlds on .net do you consider to be active and which ones to be pretty much dead?

Well compared to the danish worlds. We are about 250 people in total, on 3 worlds. So a world with 400 active players here on .net is a new kind of low. So that makes it a little bit difficult to know when a migration should happen. But i will take this with me to the next meeting :)
 

C0OPeR

Well-Known Member
Sorry foxcock for my english, and the way i write ;-)
Might not all make sense.
But as i have said before, i simply cant hinder anyone from making fort battles. I just dont have the tools to do that. So my 2 biggest ways of counter these multi battles, is to raise the price or move the battle times, so they are not to close to each other. Or simply ban people.

As you write yourself, i will do it on a more broad reason. We all have lifes yes, but it sounds like a few people do this on purpose, and those might need a talking to.
changing the time will not help us , we just dont wanna see more battles except real ones ( the ones dug by 2 main alliance or 3th alliance that dug with managment and always both main alliance support them dugs too )

option 2 : highest price and ban the persons that abuse people funs on fort battle !
 

wyindywidualizowany

Well-Known Member
I have a better idea. SR has ben, regs have rock, why not make us pay nuggets for digging? I'm sure that would make trolls stop and this game has already been p2w for a while anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top