First of all, it's important to mirror and associate myself with these comments. Being hostile or openly frustrated doesn't really serve anyone, even though that's how most of the fort fighters or duellers of the game are feeling.Let us remember this is the debate section of the forum and therefore disagreements can develop hopefully in the spirit of positive debate.
Well, besides from the fact that I was there when the original concept was being discussed, knew the people who made fort battles to a small degree on the Beta world, read the DevBlogs from the beginning, got involved in the community who re-balanced fort battles in 2013, joined the beta team who worked closely with the QA and Devs, no I suppose I can't link you to anything because InnoGames don't publicly talk about their intentions with this game anymore.Do I want to question the game makers intention? Can that even be substantiated? Is there an actual thread from the owners that states their intention?
The intentions are the same as always for the company, to make money. And like I've said before, the biggest cash cow in the game are fort sets. This money pit has been exploited a little bit too far by sacrificing the gameplay, which is detrimental to both the players and the people who want the make money from them.We should keep in mind also intentions can change over time.
The game is whatever an individual player wants it to be to that individual player. That's the beauty of RPG's.In the west a game player keen on dueling might determine that dueling or fort battle is what this game is about! Another player who likes building could see only building as to what the game is about. Does that mean either is true. I think not. It could however be true for the individual player.
No that wasn't what I was suggesting, simply that they do happen to compliment the PvP aspects of the game that I enjoy.It was however suggested everything else is part of the game but only as a compliment for all of the play versus player activities.
I'm interested in hearing what a typical week in The West is like on a world with no fort battles to be honest. I'd like to understand what keeps these players going? Is it competing to get exp, or doing all of the quests and playing the events?I don't consider pvp and no-pvp stuff are so very different but are one in the same. I'm assuming that the only real difference is that the "non" player to player is more co-operative than the latter.
I don't consider pvp and no-pvp stuff are so very different but are one in the same. I'm assuming that the only real difference is that the "non" player to player is more co-operative than the latter.
That's funny since most of the updates are usually about quests or new quests, new sets, a few game fixes and then rarely balancing the fort fights. If you think about it with your comment, that would mean that fort fights, adventures, duels, crafting and jobs would also have time allocated as much as new quests/sets.I've played with most of the features of the west game in various degree's and so far continue to have wide range of interests. I don't think the owners intention was to create only two of ways for players to use the game, person to person conflict or person to person non conflict. I do want to write something around the subject of berry picking specifically as I think it really deserves it's own thread.
My point is, duels, fort fights, adventures, and jobs aren't getting the same time allocated to improve upon as quests do, sets, events. And since that is the case, that means We can say that their intentions are clear. Make more sets, new quests, and leave everything as it is.Sorry, I'm not sure what point you were tying to make? My point is to suggest that the point of the game (the owners intention) was not to create a game solely and exclusively about forts as some members claim is true. I don't see any suggestion of that from the owners of the game.
Yes, I've been to large fort events.
I think you are stating the following. Fort events are much better than any other game activities such as market trading.
I meant whether a player is shining shoes to increase player level or leading an alliance into fort building both are part of the western game. Everything is not just there to support fort fighting . Anything and everything that requires game play constitutes intention.
Besides if a new player enjoys picking cotton and a seasoned player enjoys leading fort battles can you really say one is not part of the game? That is what I meant.
Sorry, I'm not sure what point you were tying to make? My point is to suggest that the point of the game (the owners intention) was not to create a game solely and exclusively about forts as some members claim is true. I don't see any suggestion of that from the owners of the game.
Congratulations to all the players who are still with this game or returning to it. "At that time, 12 years ago few imagined it would make it that far. Starting out there were no fort fights..." - https://forum.the-west.net/index.php?threads/western-post-june.58753/ There must have been something about good about the game without forts in order to attract new players.
Certainly some people are very focused on fort battles and dueling now. If they like that part of the game all I can say is enjoy the game the way you like to play it.
But what you have to say about this game now is nothing more than prediction and your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.
I'm complaining now about your aggressive comments pointing at me! (see above) Do you have issues with discussions and debates or something?
Don't even try to tell me how to write in this forum. I'll write in this forum as I see fit.
I have enjoyed, have learned some things, and have understood some players viewpoints in this thread. (from other members who have been so kind to share their thoughts here) If I ask a question it is because I haven't understood or want more information to understand what is been said completely. It was not intended to be a thread solely about forts. It has though been informative. I do think that this forum is part of the game. The newest addition to it regarding the Western Post demonstrates this quite well. Not only can people play the game online but they can read about it and if they wish to interact with other players, ask questions or write posts on the game's forum. This forum appears to be available not only for seasoned players like yourself but for all players? Therefore, I think is quite appropriate that I write in a style that can be read (if anyone chooses to) not only by the selective "we" as you often describe in your words but by all players.
Pankreas this is something we can agree on. A direct quote. You have issues and you are irritated.
That is your problem to work out not mine
What I may write in this thread is not going to be directed only to you but anyone who wants to read the forum.
I will give you that one. When a group of people unite it is cooperative. Happy now!
You made this question though not me.
Statements can be opinion based and just because you don't agree with them does not make them untrue.
You answered your own question. Both are cooperative.
However, when I was referring to being cooperative or not being cooperative I wasn't looking at your point of view.
When only one way is said to be "the most important thing" (did someone write that, Oh I don't remember - but whatever)
Statements can be opinion based and just because you don't agree with them does not make them untrue
How else can you reply? How you can reply is to state that you are in agreement or disagreement that racism is wrong. "I agree that racism is wrong but that does not exclude the fact that people do come from different cultures." See it is easy. Just because someone writes a paragraph doesn't mean they are as you claim, twisting their words, putting words in another person's mouth or what-ever!
You may not like black rabbits but no one says you have to buy them.
You may not like black rabbits but no one says you have to buy them might not apply to you or even be connected to what is being written about specifically. In fact the author of the paragraph might be talking about something totally unrelated to what the other was thinking or talking about. I think you see a quote and expect the writer to write according to how you think the debate should form.
You are directing me and telling me how I should write here in your last comment.
Your style of writing is...
1. do this
2. or do this
3. do as I say
I disagree. Your claim here is that because I am writing in this forum and expressing an opinion that is wrong.
Certainly you can provide some "facts" to dispute what I might write. I could change my mind on something I might write. But just because you think something is true and a "fact" doesn't make it more valid. Just because you have been playing this game for a long time does not make it more valid. Your claim of what is factual can be disputed. Your last comment in this thread I am disputing. Facts are not facts just because you say they are. That is why debate forum's exist because yes even "facts" can be disputed.
I completely disagree with you, opinions do matter in fact opinions are the one thing that enable people to express what they think and feel.
You may want a completely scientific debate style where mathematics rules the pages. That is not how it works. Political debates for example do not need to rely only on the economy's numbers. There are other things which are far more important. Even more important that fighting in fort battles!
You didn't understand what I even meant by co-operative. I gave you your point on what you wrote that fort building can be cooperative. You also wrote in your last comment if I write something you don't like you will reply. By writing that last sentence am I also in your opinion putting words in your mouth? Then clarify what you mean or not. That is up to you. If you want to end something that too is up to you. Do as you like. I will as well.
I am not under obligation to answer every question given to me specially those which are leading.
Jobbing I would say would be the least thing to have to communicate about, some quests, but then why would they be more keen to focus on those points?Thank you for explaining. I see your point. A lot of people play without much communication at all so do you think it might be difficult to know what they like the most about the game?
I did make an effort to be civilized with you in this forum I wrote ...
or you could simply ignore the complaints.