New Awesomia battles

[Pankreas PorFavor]

There are two very different views about when FFs are fun. Some say its fun when a fort is filled on both sides. I can understand that, but its not my view. I like FFs when its a close win (or lose), an achievement, surprising developments etc. I remember very exciting FF with 10 people on both sides, and I had boring FFs that were filled.

sure. but with multis, it almost every time means each side will defend their fort(s), and there's almost no attackers. or, the attackers dig a lot of forts at the same time and focus on one, while defenders are spread all over which results in one walkover and a couple defenses against nobody. chances for a fun battle are second to none with multis. at least in my experience...

That said, 'prime time' FFs are good, but there should be FFs at very different hours, so everyone has the chance to be online at one or two battles a week.

and that's what a good agreement should bring. reasonable parties will be ale to reach one, as someone said above.

 

[Poker Alice]

Long post wauw

Sorry i did not read it all.
But first of, with... well anything really. If something happens, that is "rule-breaking" we will only know of this, by you, the player, write to us in support, or report the "stuff" happening. We on the team, simply do not sit and watch out for stuff like this, since we of course hope you all play nice

Game rules which decide how many battles a player can make should not be a concern for the moderation team but only for the players who can not ban players.

By making you believe the players who are asking for in-game rules are the majority and how multi-attacks should be an INNO rule and not remain an in-game alliance rule are misleading you. I agree with Nisa and Oddersfield and not with what other members are writing.

_________________________________________________________________________

Hypothetically
if a player asked for a black cowboy avatar because their skin was dark in color should INNO ban that player because some players don't like that persons skin color?

Another way of looking at this, I know your objective is to keep peace but... the game allows for strategy and clicking on stuff is a strategy. A fake shot with a hockey stick at a goalie could be annoying yes very true. But I remember inviting (once) a player who didn't belong to a town to my town and the person got annoyed.

So what if a town (even if has only one player in it) spends its money to start a fight at a fort? Should they be told if they click too often or don't show up it is against INNO rules? Does that mean if I click on the battle button and suddenly my Uncle and Aunt come over for a visit that I should turn them away because I need to play a video game?

 

[Oddersfield]

One thing is for sure though, majority likes the consistency/continuity instead of randomness.

I like to be consistently random

 

[RaiderTr]

Which is what usually stops people from attending stuff.
Especially if they are paying for Premium.

 

[Poker Alice]

I like to be consistently random

Random is good for a game as it gives a little variety, twists and turns in game play. There shouldn't really be a distinction made between players whether they are paying premium or not other than to say premium gives an advantage to game play. In fort battles not attending might actually be a good strategy to take if someone is challenging the lead player by setting up fake battles.

Of course if not attending means actually leaving the game or threatening to leave as a premium player just because they can't control others is yet another story altogether.

 

[Oddersfield]

My comment was actually meant as a joke - just playing around with RaiderTr's words. Perhaps I should have said randomly consistent instead

FYI, I usually play with character premium when ff'g. I am not sure why that demands you have to be serious all the time.

 

[Philopoimen]

sure. but with multis, it almost every time means each side will defend their fort(s), and there's almost no attackers. or, the attackers dig a lot of forts at the same time and focus on one, while defenders are spread all over which results in one walkover and a couple defenses against nobody. chances for a fun battle are second to none with multis. at least in my experience...



and that's what a good agreement should bring. reasonable parties will be ale to reach one, as someone said above.

Well, I agree that multies are no fun. For that reason I have never dug a multie and never will, even though my alliance has lost several battles because we were dug with multies.

 

[NovaStar]

and that's what a good agreement should bring. reasonable parties will be ale to reach one, as someone said above.

yes, this is the key ...

 

[Philopoimen]

It's a game alright.
Some takes it seriously and some does not. (And some does both somehow)

One thing is for sure though, majority likes the consistency/continuity instead of randomness.

You might be right that the majority likes consistancy, but I am not the entertainer of the majority. I like to enjoy the game. Plus, having a battle every Sunday morning sounds consistent to me

 

[Poker Alice]

My comment was actually meant as a joke - just playing around with RaiderTr's words. Perhaps I should have said randomly consistent instead

FYI, I usually play with character premium when ff'g. I am not sure why that demands you have to be serious all the time.

It was RaiderTr that brought having a character which is premium into the discussion not I. Sorry, I missed seeing your funny.

Well, I agree that multies are no fun.

Isn't that the point?

 

[RaiderTr]

Yea and the game isn't there to entertain every single one of us but to make money first.

And while you might like 10v10 even, thats not how a game/server survives.

I hadn't commented on ur digs tho.

 

[DeletedUser15368]

I hadn't commented on ur digs tho.

Yeah I'm not sure who Philo is arguing with about their legit digs.

 

[Dr Roth]

To be fair, it wouldnt be difficult to keep lowly populated servers around. If you do play one of those servers and would like to not see them shut down you will have to take ut the slack and spend enough on nuggets to make it worthwhile for inno to keep it alive.

If the battles are 10vs10 instead of 100vs100 I guess you would have to spend 10 times more each or so. Obviously I have no idea of how many nuggets are spent but you get my point.

 

[Poker Alice]

@Dr Roth I might be completely wrong about this but I think closing servers and allowing migration is because someone wants to accommodate. It may well have very little to do with money being made from the game? Opinion sometimes suggests on the forum that there are not enough players to have fun with. At the very least a decision which seems reasonable to me is if too few are active on a server then it is best to focus attention on servers which are more active.

I see a statement for example that the west game is not for entertainment but exists only to make money. I don't see anything that substantiates this kind of claim. Money collection for a large company is not the only interest. It might be that they desire to see the west continue and perhaps for it to pay for its own maintenance but even that might not be the prime reason for shutting a server down?

@lulumcnoob I didn't think Philo was arguing but making a point that the game can be fun regardless of fort fight size. Which might be what management desires. That is for people to say they enjoy the ole west game over how much money they can make from it? But that is as well speculation on my part.

There are two very different views about when FFs are fun. Some say its fun when a fort is filled on both sides. I can understand that, but its not my view. I like FFs when its a close win (or lose), an achievement, surprising developments etc. I remember very exciting FF with 10 people on both sides, and I had boring FFs that were filled.
That said, 'prime time' FFs are good, but there should be FFs at very different hours, so everyone has the chance to be online at one or two battles a week. When one side tell me I have to dig prime time only, but they don't dig themselfs or rarely do, I ignore that. Plus, I simply don't like to lead at prime time or can't because of RL. I really don't understand why people can't accept that. Its a game and should be fun.

 

[asdf124]

I didn't think Philo was arguing but making a point that the game can be fun regardless of fort fight size. Which might be what management desires. That is for people to say they enjoy the ole west game over how much money they can make from it? But that is as well speculation on my part.

You would be correct if they didn't make this many servers. No, its about milking the cow which is the playerbase. Always has been, always will be.

 

[RaiderTr]

They open new servers just before the most horrible P2W/P2P event called DotD, for years.

That alone says enough.

 

[NovaStar]

Phil is not condemning prime time battles with higher numbers, he seems to be saying, to me, that the off prime battles with low numbers are also fun for people...one size does not fit all, but they can all co-exist and have a camaraderie together, as well. It is also an opportunity for the "minority" to have active online participation in an occasional battle when they might otherwise never be able to during prime. Phil's off prime battles are only once a week and considering there are 42 forts on the map, I fail to see how that can be an issue. If he wins one in battle, take it back during prime or whenever you want...no problemo. I managed to be awake for 2 of his battles and they were both extremely fun. There were actually more people online and active and chatting together than I see during many prime time battles (especially considering many are afk juggling 2-3 battles or more at the same time through other worlds). At one time, when I was in Galveston, we had late nite battles with very low numbers, but they sure were fun. I still see no problem with the occasional (once a week or so) of the off prime, whethor early or late, so long as they do not interfere with the prime time when most players are "there". I'm not trying to speak for Phil, but this is just my personal experience over some years, myself. I do not feel he is arguing with anyone at all in particular.

 

[NovaStar]

Friday's are not good for those working in North America if ff times are to be typical of those for NPC events. Saturday or Sunday gives such players more opportunity to attend and be on-line (although still wouldn't be a brilliant time either),

I THINK the poll results shows (if I know how to read it correctly):

#1 Saturday
#2 Sunday
#3 Friday

? So, I guess Friday won the decision as a compromise...? Regardless, something is being tried which says a lot

 

[Kidd Kalypso]

11am on a Friday no less....not even late enough to drink a bourbon during a battle
But I am still glad to see a battle called on a dead battling world Thanks.

 

[NovaStar]

11am on a Friday no less....not even late enough to drink a bourbon during a battle

Aww, Kidd, that is sad indeed for you