2021-05-03

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
I completely understand. If I wrote that much nonsense and someone would deconstruct it and point out each inconsistency, all the fabrications, logical fails and ignorance, I wouldn't like it either. but carry on if you will, I won't.
:lovetw:
:boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone:
You are such a con-artist. If I could delete your negative remarks I would. You say you won't tap tap tap that's my foot but you continue, continue, continue.

Logical fails?
Proposal
Fort decommission in of favour of Western Law Towns

Current Workaround
Many dissatisfied players leave and/or dislike forts so much they stick to the other more attractive aspects of the game. They belong to alliances and enjoy trade and socialization while being repelled by all the player conflicts that normally take place around fort social activities. They remain socially silent in lockdown.

Details
This idea would be easily implemented by changing the value of a fort build to an extreme unattainable amount thereby eliminating a very troubled part of the west game.

This change will work favourably in a new world creation immediately changing the games purpose from fort building to town building for the benefit of the players.

Additional thoughts around this renewal idea:
There is something to be said for town building in that unlike forts the effort and dedication required can not be stolen away as with forts. Town building works well with community building.

Additional character classes and crafting occupations would have a far greater impact on the game than anything related to the failing disabling fort scenes. The game is still interesting with a focus on town communities.

For an example: We could visualize a game with several new occupations. A player could choose “western school teacher” in the town community. The other town members recognizing the value of having a school teacher in town would wish to protect their town institution. Any outsider attempting to rob the school’s candy would be meant by the towns dueling bounty hunter.

There is plenty of scope for new ideas being implemented as well into a new and improved revised western game that might for example include holding in jail or fining outlaws. On the other hand town outlaws might favour belonging to outlaw towns that cater to saloon occupations like “dancer.”

In conclusion a focus on town management rather than wasting energy on the main source of discontentment in the west game the forts would be a possible experiment which could bring along new energy to the west game.


Abuse Prevention
Since this idea is merely a defocus on the myth that forts are the solitary reason for playing the western game I can not see this change having any abusive component.


Summary
Innogames and the player community will benefit from implementing this idea because after messaging several older players I was impressed by what they had to say about how much they had loved the game before forts were implemented into the game.

There are so many game components which make the game interesting and engaging. It is fun to follow other players in the game. With the option to build, craft, manage towns and duel other players there is always plenty of room for socialization. Watching towns grow is always more than enough to develop the kind of enthusiasm most people wish to enjoy. It is a fact that this is exactly what happens first in every new game creation. Why not continue with town building through-out the games life.

With a renewed interest on town communities there is little reason the game wouldn’t continue to attract new members into the future.
I don't have a problem with pointing out flaws or seeing a benefit, whatever.
I just don't like your insults.
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
:boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone::boone:
You are such a con-artist. If I could delete your negative remarks I would. You say you won't tap tap tap that's my foot but you continue, continue, continue.

what can I say, I underestimated you... your posts are more amusing than I thought :*
so, now that your idea is implemented and forts battles are practically removed from all worlds except CO - what's next?
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
Pankreas can't read? :rolleyes:

@lulumcnoob There are parts in your previous reply you could have left out as they have no value in discussion around this idea.

You wrote, "It's almost like fort fighting is the singular main attraction of this game, especially since duels became random."

Is that not your opinion? In my limited experience, yes limited, I find fighting at the fort is not my main attraction. Would it be possible that many players specially younger players might share the same opinion? The people that have the strongest voice on this forum and in the game do suggest it is and perhaps as some members have pointed out Inno likes the fort feature as well.

I'm really only reiterating here to say that dueling fills the same fighting player role as fighting inside forts.

You wrote here that, W1, Arizona, Briscoe, Dakota, El Dorado, Fairbanks, Galveston, Huston and Idaho are dead because of lack of forts. I'm not sure I can follow that logic because are they not dead because they are dead? Do towns really depend on forts to keep them alive?

Tell me if you think I am wrong here. This game is a seasonal game? It has limits. As a player you can only achieve a certain level and that's the end of the road mate. Towns can only be constructed to a certain size except for the church, yes. They can only hold so many players. There are limits and around a year a world turns into a bunch of ghost towns. It's over. Then a new world creation invites players to the west game once more.

In the last paragraph, notice I didn't complain or write if I like it or not. I'm just stating this is how it works. So does it not stand to reason that if world's are designed to go bye bye then everything will go bye bye as well with the exception of an invitation. If someone wants to keep promoting their town in a world for whatever reason because they have invested into it then so be it. They can promote for example how much they like fort fighting to get people to join the world even though population is down from what it was before.

My idea in a nut shell is for management - to try a new world without forts just to see how popular it might become.
That's all folks. It is only an idea. I'm not out to get into any argument over it unless provoked.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Is that not your opinion?
Everything that anyone writes on these forums is an opinion, but yes I strongly believe that forts are the main attraction of this game.

Would it be possible that many players specially younger players might share the same opinion?
There were people who didn't care about forts during the peak fort era, so of course.

dueling fills the same fighting player role as fighting inside forts.
I strongly disagree, duelling is mostly a 1vs1 activity, while fort fighting brings hundreds of players together at the same time.
Yes historically, before forts even existed, duels were the main attraction for the PvP side of the game, and we had town wars. I haven't heard of a town war taking place since World 9.
If you are a highly ranked dueller in V2.XX, you do not have enough targets to continue making it the main aspect of your gameplay.
If you are a worker bully, then fair play to you, enjoy your trash duels.

Tell me if you think I am wrong here. This game is a seasonal game? It has limits. As a player you can only achieve a certain level and that's the end of the road mate. Towns can only be constructed to a certain size except for the church, yes. They can only hold so many players. There are limits and around a year a world turns into a bunch of ghost towns. It's over. Then a new world creation invites players to the west game once more.
I think you are wrong here.

10 years of Colorado and it's still going strong, although the PvP is broken as a game issue - defence and attack do not have an equal chance of winning, so leading fights is pointless and mostly pre-determined, and duels are completely random, a builder in duel clothes has roughly the same chance to win a duel as a dueller in duel clothes.


Max town size is why Alliances were created. How many towns have 50 players these days though?

I'm really sorry that you have only experienced the "new" generation of worlds, which die after 1 year due to the next world opening.

There is no actual endgame to this game, it is up to the players to find a way to create a stable PvP environment to keep things going, or let it die.

My idea in a nut shell is for management - to try a new world without forts just to see how popular it might become.
Well Innogames knows what worlds have active fort fights, and which worlds make them money. These are the same worlds. There's absolutely no chance of opening a new world without forts.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
@lulumcnoob Thank you for the reasonable discussion.

I can't speak for management only as a player. If and this is only an if. If a new world was created that attracted more new people to it? I think it would be logical to project that those same players would possibly be attracted to a fort fighting world as well.

The real questions for this idea are..

  1. Would the experiment be worth taking a risk?
  2. Would a world with this change be attractive to new players?

I'm fully aware that many people like forts. A world without forts might not interest them. I don't see an issue for new members as they have lots to learn and do. Also many members just like "building". There as some of these members too. It is a question of investment. Could a new world generate enough interest to feed the more money making worlds?

At the end of the day though I would rather not concern myself with any real money issue as I just like playing the bloody game. :-D
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
As a player you can only achieve a certain level and that's the end of the road mate. Towns can only be constructed to a certain size except for the church, yes. They can only hold so many players. There are limits and around a year a world turns into a bunch of ghost towns. It's over. Then a new world creation invites players to the west game once more.


This is the saddest description of this game ever :(
And at the same time, it explains a lot about your posts.

Oh, and "thank you" for the private message. I love you too.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
At the end of the day, Forts are so integrated into every aspect of the game that it is impossible to complete many quests without them, including a tutorial quest-line, and it is for that reason, if no other, that this would be rejected.

(and also why the idea that I linked under that OP has admin battles on the PvE world)
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
@lulumcnoob Never thought of the quests. You are right again. That makes sense to have admin battles so as to cater to those quests.

@roland jacobs that would be an excellent idea to create railway stations. I like that one. Neat!

@pankreass "Members who call other members trolls are acting more trollie than the member they wish to attack." Here I see you mentioning a private message. Why? I guess it wasn't private? lol Why don't you leave me alone then if you think these things? Sad but true.
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
that would be an excellent idea to create railway stations. I like that one. Neat!

and it's only been on the roadmap since 2014! neat! go Inogames!

@pankreass "Members who call other members trolls are acting more trollie than the member they wish to attack." Here I see you mentioning a private message. Why? I guess it wasn't private? lol Why don't you leave me alone then if you think these things? Sad but true.

I don't know who "wishes to attack who" but I know who sent a private message with insults. why am I not keeping it private? well, it's one of those things from way back before the forts were implemented. duelers shared all the hate mail they would get, and then laugh about it. what can I tell you, I'm just like that. I can't keep it a secret when someone sends me a message and calls me names. why wouldn't everyone join in on the fun?
and if you wish to be left alone, why keep sending me those private messages? :huh:
and I almost forgot to mention the "typo" in "pankreass" :up: nice one!
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
@Pankreas PorFavor I don't care if it was mentioned 7 years ago, I just thought it was a good idea. I liked it. Got a problem with me writing that?
My personal message was entitled I think you are full of it. Do you need that translated? In the post I wrote, "Why don't you leave me alone? I don't like your posts." The same message was sent twice to your replies. Why do you keep sending me replies to same message?
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
@Pankreas PorFavor I don't care if it was mentioned 7 years ago, I just thought it was a good idea. I liked it. Got a problem with me writing that?
My personal message was entitled I think you are full of it. Do you need that translated? In the post I wrote, "Why don't you leave me alone? I don't like your posts." The same message was sent twice to your replies. Why do you keep sending me replies to same message?

because it's entertaining to me, and I think it helps you with your frustrations. win-win situation.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
Your town player count on kansas just shows how no-FFing approach to the game is something new players are interested in.
On Kansas I wanted a town. Joined just a few fort battles but didn't make my game all about them. No regrets.
 
Top