Contagious Virus

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
Non-PvP stuff definitely has a place in the game ... anything between that sucks ... this was not the intention of the game's makers or designers.
So yes, I have a heavy focus on PvP, because I believe everything else in the game depends on it.
Allow me to thank you for your well thought out detailed reply. A sincere compliment. Let us remember this is the debate section of the forum and therefore disagreements can develop hopefully in the spirit of positive debate. I completely disagree. Do I want to question the game makers intention? No, not really! Can that even be substantiated? Is there an actual thread from the owners that states their intention? We should keep in mind also intentions can change over time. Anyone could argue based on some kind of observation that any particular game play will determine the intention of a game.

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.

I was a little confused in how the idea of a separated pvp stuff is from non-pvp stuff. It was however suggested everything else is part of the game but only as a compliment for all of the play versus player activities. Is this not a bit of a contradiction that the idea that anything except one feature of the game "sucks"? I think this is purely based on the preferences of an individual. 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.

The game play leaders however do tend to be more vocal or possibly aggressive so that the other quiet players have voices which are not represented.

Berry picking inc
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.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Let us remember this is the debate section of the forum and therefore disagreements can develop hopefully in the spirit of positive debate.
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.

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?
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.

We should keep in mind also intentions can change over time.
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.

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.
The game is whatever an individual player wants it to be to that individual player. That's the beauty of RPG's.

It was however suggested everything else is part of the game but only as a compliment for all of the play versus player activities.
No that wasn't what I was suggesting, simply that they do happen to compliment the PvP aspects of the game that I enjoy.

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'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?
 
Last edited:

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
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 guess you never participated in a full large fort battle with 140 vs 120 players? Can you really compare the cooperation of 100 online players trying to capture or defend a fort with "I'll sell you some charcoal if you sell me some resin"?
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
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.
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.

Reality is, they don't cause the budget isn't their and not enough developers.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
I guess you never participated in a full large fort battle with 140 vs 120 players? Can you really compare the cooperation of 100 online players trying to capture or defend a fort with "I'll sell you some charcoal if you sell me some resin"?
Yes, I've been to large fort events. We are not discussing the same thing. 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.
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.

Reality is, they don't cause the budget isn't their and not enough developers.
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.
 

asdf124

Well-Known Member
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.
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.

If I had a game I would want to have all of the features to have equal time as that would be more fair unless. My community had a favorite, I would look at it and try my best to get that feature to the best it could be.

Why? simple, the best feature would be enhanced. More players would be sucked in as they would tell their friends.
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
Yes, I've been to large fort events.
have you really? where did you find the world where large fort battles are filled? I see a few months ago some battles were filled in CO, was that it? did you like it, did you understand what was happening? and are you really saying that was less cooperative than market trading and jobbing?!
I will remind you of your own words: "the "non" player to player is more co-operative" (which, I assume means non player-versus-player is more cooperative). how in the hell is the effort of more than one hundred people towards a common goal of conquering or defending a fort less cooperative than two people trading stuff on the market?

I think you are stating the following. Fort events are much better than any other game activities such as market trading.
then you didn't understand a single word I said. stop debating with some imaginary arguments that you think someone put forth and start actually reading what was said. if you can find this statement written by me, then please quote it. if I said that I enjoy this or that part of the game more than some other part, that doesn't mean I said anything about this or that being "better" or "worse".

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.
yes, they are part of The West. did someone say they are not? why are you constantly going on about this if nobody is arguing against it? if you want to shine shoes, pick berries or craft chewing tobacco that is perfectly fine and if it brings you joy and makes the game fun we are all very happy for you. can we now drop this subject?

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.
and this is something we all understand, and I have no idea why you think you have to explain it to the visitors of this forum. we have seen the map of the game, job locations, quest givers, forts, towns... we know they are there, in the game, they're all parts of it. yes. they are. we know. thanks.

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.
and I don't see any members claiming that this game is solely about forts (especially not the veterans like lulu or me who remember very well the time before forts. or belts, or pants, or tombolas..).
this is supposed to be a MMORPG = massive multiplayer online role playing game. if we're all in the same world picking cotton, that doesn't make this game multiplayer, just like a hundred people in the same room playing sudoku or solitaire on their phones and tablets doesn't make sudoku or solitaire a multiplayer game. it's about interaction between the players, and the highest level of interaction are fort battles and duels. (please note- I didn't say only interaction, or best interaction or whatever else you can imagine. I said highest level - require most effort, most skill, most time). they are also the highest source of income for the company that makes this game.

if you're still not sure what point I'm trying to make, I'll repeat the same thing that was already said by others: forts and duels (pvp) are the largest reason (largest, most important - not only, not the best) players play this game and spend money on it. they are the indicator of the activity in the game, the most complex and demanding part. yes, it is true that some players enjoy other parts of the game more, but the moment when forts and duels die - the server dies. I've seen the decline from 40000 players in a world to 1000 players, and it wasn't because of crafting or farming products. I guess you will just have to trust me on that one.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
I'll repeat the same thing that was already said by others: forts and duels (pvp) are the largest reason (largest, most important - not only, not the best) players play this game and spend money on it. they are the indicator of the activity in the game, the most complex and demanding part. yes, it is true that some players enjoy other parts of the game more, but the moment when forts and duels die - the server dies.
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.


...how in the hell is... then you didn't understand a single word I said. stop debating with some imaginary arguments that you think someone put forth and start actually reading what was said. ..why are you constantly going on about this...now drop this subject? ... this is something we all understand, and I have no idea why you think you have to explain it to the visitors of this forum.
Pankreas this thread's topic was originally about complaining about the game. I never wanted to point fingers or suggest that I am immune to it. I'm complaining now about your aggressive comments pointing at me! (see above) Do you have issues with discussions and debates or something? Are you demanding that posts here be written to your satisfaction. If so ....

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 PorFavor

Well-Known Member
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.
it wasn't crafting, because it didn't exist.
it wasn't market trading, because it didn't exist.
it wasn't chatting with other players, because chat didn't exist.
it wasn't alliance politics, because alliances didn't exist.
it wasn't tombolas, because they didn't exist.
you could do quests, you could build your town, you could work on jobs (to get money and/or products for quests), and you could buy items in town shops. and you could duel... oh, the terrible pvp again! that you chose to ignore - again, and decided for cherry picking and ignored lulu's interview in the western post and the part about the duel wars - again, player versus player, and again cooperation of members of a town against another town.


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.
12 years of dueling, tyvm. since day one. forts were added as a new form of pvp and cooperation, then adventures - again, more pvp and more cooperation.
even berry picking for crafting is mostly just an extension of that same cooperation for pvp purpose because most of the crafted items are used as fort or duel buffs.
and 12 years ago, it was about getting together with your townmates, putting on the best clothes you could buy in your town, getting your rusty razor out, riding to enemy town, open the saloon and duel their members one by one. at the same time, you would check your town to see if there are any strangers there because you knew what they wanted to do :D

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.
and I have never claimed otherwise. I did claim that my predictions and opinions are based on 12 years of game play, and that this probably has some impact on the validity of those opinions.
but what I do disagree with, and I'll ask you for the third time, and you'll probably ignore for the third time - how is shining shoes or cotton picking and trading products on the market with another player more cooperative than a fort battle today or a duel raid with your townmates 12 years ago? please explain your statement.


I'm complaining now about your aggressive comments pointing at me! (see above) Do you have issues with discussions and debates or something?
I have issues with untrue statements (2 people trading stuff on market is more cooperative than a large group of people trying to capture/defend a fort, knock out duelers from an enemy town, or win in an adventure).
I have issues with claiming how the sky is blue and the grass is green, trying to imply how other participants in this debate are saying something different without quoting where that was said (and you can't, because they never said so).
and yes, those kinds of posts irritate me, and that's why I reply this way.


Don't even try to tell me how to write in this forum. I'll write in this forum as I see fit.
Don't even try to tell me how to write in this forum. I'll write in this forum as I see fit.
Or, are you saying that only you are allowed to do that?


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.
you see, this is what irritates me, and this is what I have issues with. what you wrote above implies that I think that this forum is not for everyone. it implies that I say that this forum is not a part of the west. it implies that I am trying to steer this thread in the direction solely about forts. and when I ask you to stop doing it, and don't put words in my mouth but quote where I said anything like that - you don't. but you then still repeat the same thing! "Pank, I really resent the way you write. sky is blue, and grass is green." as if I said they're not! my posts may be aggressive, but it's only a response to your passive aggression. so, again, I'll ask you to stop doing it, or provide evidence where I have said anything opposing to your statements above.
since we both know that you can't, it is obvious what you are trying to do. I don't really understand your motivation, but I have an issue with you doing it.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
you see, this is what irritates me, and this is what I have issues with. what you wrote above implies that I think that this forum is not for everyone. it implies that I say that this forum is not a part of the west. it implies that I am trying to steer this thread in the direction solely about forts. and when I ask you to stop doing it, and don't put words in my mouth but quote where I said anything like that - you don't. but you then still repeat the same thing! "Pank, I really resent the way you write. sky is blue, and grass is green." as if I said they're not! my posts may be aggressive, but it's only a response to your passive aggression. so, again, I'll ask you to stop doing it, or provide evidence where I have said anything opposing to your statements above.
since we both know that you can't, it is obvious what you are trying to do. I don't really understand your motivation, but I have an issue with you doing it.
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 and to be frank I don't want your problems. I enjoy the west game and have enjoyed communicating with some very nice people in the game and in this forum as well. But there are always exceptions. Your comments are far from pleasant. 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 have issues with untrue statements (2 people trading stuff on market is more cooperative than a large group of people trying to capture/defend a fort, knock out duelers from an enemy town, or win in an adventure).
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.

I'll ask you for the third time, and you'll probably ignore for the third time - how is shining shoes or cotton picking and trading products on the market with another player more cooperative than a fort battle today
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.

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.
And it seems it is not just in the game but the forum as well!
I've noticed in another game Forge of Empires it gets suggested in the beginning of the game that there are two directions to go in. You can fight to advance or you can trade to advance.
Although the west game has a different style of play, I think the same idea is present? I've noticed how some players are less aggressive and in some cases happier than others in the game.

When only one way is said to be "the most important thing" (did someone write that, Oh I don't remember - but whatever) then it stands to reason the players who like being aggressively challenged and/or are aggressive will tend to want to rule in their game? That isn't cooperative play, it is dictatorship play. For the record, I'm not saying everyone who plays gun fight is overly aggressive but some definitely do seem to be feeling something.:rolleyes:
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
Pankreas this is something we can agree on. A direct quote. You have issues and you are irritated.
...with you putting words in my mouth. Making it bold, all caps, underlined, red or font size 100 won't make it true. This is exactly what I am talking about.
You should do 2 things:
1. Learn what is a direct quote.
2. Stop twisting my words, because this is what irritates me and what I have an issue with. A little bit lower I will give you an over-exaggerated example that will hopefully help you understand what you are doing.

That is your problem to work out not mine
You're causing the problem with your implied accusations, word twisting and passive aggression. I am working it out, as I don't intend to allow you to blame me for things I never said or did.

What I may write in this thread is not going to be directed only to you but anyone who wants to read the forum.
Exactly. If you wrote all this nonsense in a private message, I would ignore you a long time ago. But if you are going to accuse me in a public forum for excluding or disqualifying players from this forum and the game, describing different play styles as less valuable etc. then I need to defend myself, and I will keep doing that as long as you continue to do it.


I will give you that one. When a group of people unite it is cooperative. Happy now!
You made this question though not me.
Wrong and untrue. You explicitly wrote that pvp is the less cooperative part of this game, not me. I asked for an explanation, example, reasons for this claim and provided proof and examples of the opposite. So, no, I am not happy, because all you said is that my examples show that pvp can be cooperative. But that's not all it is.
So, you are obviously sticking to your claim that it is the less cooperative part. Maybe you should go back to The West Post and read about IFBC, if you don't accept my claims, maybe you will accept the same source that you like to quote? Or, keep insisting on this nonsense and prove again your failure in understanding of the basics of this game.


Statements can be opinion based and just because you don't agree with them does not make them untrue.
But the facts make them untrue. 2 people spending 2 minutes exchanging products cannot be more cooperative than a hundred players spending an hour defending or attacking a fort. Not to mention all the preparation that preceeds it. Numbers are numbers, and opinions don't matter here. You do know what they say about opinions... everyone has one.


You answered your own question. Both are cooperative.
And this is another example of you twisting my words or failing to understand what I asked. In any case, it's irritating.

However, when I was referring to being cooperative or not being cooperative I wasn't looking at your point of view.
This is not a subjective issue. Point of view is irrelevant. Facts are facts.





When only one way is said to be "the most important thing" (did someone write that, Oh I don't remember - but whatever)
But no, it's not "whatever"! This is what you are doing all along! If nobody said that, who are you discussing with? Why are you implying that someone did say it and basically accusing them for elitism or excluding others? Let me now give you that exaggerated example. Look at the text between ######:

#############
Statements can be opinion based and just because you don't agree with them does not make them untrue
I don't agree with your opinion.
I must say that racism is wrong, and very bad.
#############

When you look at these two lines separately, they are perfectly innocent.
Ok, we disagree. This is "Debates and discussions" forum, you need a difference of opinions or there's no forum.
Racism is wrong - sure, true, no argument with that.
But when you put those two together, it seems that I disagree with you because you're saying that racism is a good thing. And you never wrote this!
Do you understand now? This is what you are doing in your replies to me all the time! "Blabla, Pank, I disagree, blabla, I think all players and play styles have a place in this game and forum." How else should I reply to this?
When you say that players are negative and always complaining, and of course Innogames will ignore this, I am not opposing you because you are new to this forum and the game - as you suggest, but because these events happened in the reversed order.
When you say that pvp is a less cooperative part of the fame, I am not confronting you because I think that jobbing or crafting is a less valuable aspect of the game - as you suggest, but because I know how much effort it takes to have a good fort battle or a dueling raid.

And if you again write a reply to me in such a way that it implies that I said, wrote or thought that players old and new, duelers and berry pickers, fort fighters and questers, and all the different varieties, shapes, sizes, ages, colors and whatnots don't have a place in this game or forum - I will reply again.
If you again write a post with false statements, against facts that can be easily checked, or that defy basic logic and game mechanics - I will probably reply again unless someone beats me to it.
And since this has gone completely off topic, and I am sure we both would rather enjoy the game - please, PLEASE, don't twist my words again. Read this reply 2 or 3 or 10 times if you need to, read the whole thread again if you must, and you will realize that nobody is belittling you, your play style or your opinions. But in some cases they just aren't based on facts, and the facts are what I was trying to point out to you when you started with all that other stuff.
I would like to end this debate here. Please let it be so.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
Ok, we disagree. This is "Debates and discussions" forum, you need a difference of opinions or there's no forum.
Racism is wrong - sure, true, no argument with that.
But when you put those two together, it seems that I disagree with you because you're saying that racism is a good thing. And you never wrote this!
Do you understand now? This is what you are doing in your replies to me all the time! "Blabla, Pank, I disagree, blabla, I think all players and play styles have a place in this game and forum." How else should I reply to this?
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.

But the facts make them untrue. 2 people spending 2 minutes exchanging products cannot be more cooperative than a hundred players spending an hour defending or attacking a fort. Not to mention all the preparation that preceeds it. Numbers are numbers, and opinions don't matter here. You do know what they say about opinions... everyone has one.
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.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
I still don't actually understand your positions on anything in this thread, @Poker Alice, just that you disagree for some unknown reason with whatever Pank or anyone else to a lesser extent writes, while selectively ignoring most of the content in your replies.

As far as I can tell you just want people to stop complaining on the forums, the designated place for complaining about broken game features, because the developers can make whatever they want regardless of how the playerbase, the actual customers that they make their living off of, feel about features and mechanics of the game. Well aside from the fact that's not how a relationship with a company and their customers ever works, they're now finally making forts great again, so you should see a hell of a lot less complaining and much more constructive feedback. The game will make more money and stay alive for longer now thanks to the singular key mechanic that binds the entire game together being worked on, and you can continue berry picking or church building or whatever it is you do on dead worlds and adding nothing except chat and mindless disagreement to the game, but that's all good if you're having fun :-))
 
Last edited:

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
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!
But it does! I disagree with you. Fort battles and duels should not be banned or removed from this game. What you are writing in this forum is partially correct, but not when it comes to pvp part of The West. I don't know why players like you are dismissing fort battles and saying that players who enjoy FFing or dueling are aggressive and terrible human beings.

(how do you like them apples?)


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.
No, I only expect that you stay on topic and don't mix in stuff that is not connected in any way with the discussion at hand, and writing it in such a way that implies that the person to who you are replying is in disagreement with this new topic you're opening.
If you are introducing a new topic, then make it clear (e.g. "I'd also like to talk about something else - I think that black rabbits blabla..." and not "I disagree with your opinion, black rabbits are not terrible animals that spread the plague, covid and ebola.")


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
And your style of reading is
1. skip what was replied to you
2. invent a completely different story
3. ramble about something not connected to the topic, but agreeable to any normal player and imply that the other person is against it.

I disagree. Your claim here is that because I am writing in this forum and expressing an opinion that is wrong.
This sentence doesn't even mean anything. I claim that you're wrong just because you wrote something? Back that up with evidence, please.

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.
then do it. quote your facts. please, provide some background or basis for your thinking. disprove the facts I put forth. putting quotation marks around the word doesn't disqualify or disprove them. you started a thread in Debate and Discussion forum, but you're so bad at debating that you would be laughed out of any debate club in the world.


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 think and feel that the Moon is larger than the Sun if you want, but your opinion would be wrong, ridiculous and irrelevant. Similar to what you're doing in this thread, actually.


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!
Then go to a political debate and do it there. If you're here to tell us that you "feel" that the Moon is larger than the Sun, expect the reaction that you got and learn to live with it.

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.
This is so meaningless that I don't even know where to begin - or why I should even try?
I clarified everything a number of times. Scroll up and read it again. As I said, it can only end if you stop putting my replies in the wrong context by introducing irrelevant and disconnected topics. If you want to talk about black rabbits or red herrings, then please separate it from your reply to me, implying that I was opposing common sense.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
Ah yes, I love people who consistently complains of complainers.
Is that a complaint or a compliment? :-D

I'll write this again. I'm impressed at the amount of detail which goes into the west game including the players contributions. I do appreciate the well thought out responses.

I have read the content of these comments and it has given me some insight in how many players see this game. The thread has evolved somewhat. I started it to get some insight into what people think and why. I am being asking about my agenda. My agenda for starting a topic was simple. I wanted to have some discussion and 1 page to 2 pages to 3 pages demonstrates this is what took place. Thank you everyone who has contributed. How people want to act or respond is totally up to them.

Not everything I want to write is in disagreement with other players. Some of what I post in this forum might be a different point of view than what other members perhaps have agreed on true. But I'll continue to write here. Since this part of the forum has been designated for debates I have no difficulty sharing my views wherever agreement or disagreement is applicable . Why not?
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
... the developers can make whatever they want regardless of how the playerbase, the actual customers that they make their living off of, feel about features and mechanics of the game. Well aside from the fact that's not how a relationship with a company and their customers ever works, they're now finally making forts great again, so you should see a hell of a lot less complaining and much more constructive feedback. The game will make more money and stay alive for longer now thanks to the singular key mechanic that binds the entire game together being worked on, and you can continue berry picking or church building or whatever it is you do on dead worlds and adding nothing except chat and mindless disagreement to the game, but that's all good if you're having fun :-))
I agree, the developers design a game the way they see fit. I do understand what you are saying. You are saying as a customer you want attention brought to one aspect of the game. I'm not in complete disagreement or ignoring your cause. Actually I commend you for taking such an interest in it. As you wrote here, providing constructive feedback is an asset to future development; if the developers wish to employ it.

Thank you, I am enjoying reading and writing here on the forum. Well most of it, but not all of it. I'm not impressed with the characterization of the last sentence in your comment for instance. Actually, isn't it rather cruel? I'm referring to the "chat and mindless disagreement" remark. I can easily understand that your opinion on berry picking, church building or whatever people do, is not held with much regard by you. That's fair, but is it also your intention to decide that new comers to the game who don't contribute much to forts are "noobs" who really don't add much to the game either? Just asking.

I can see everything would be fine if I were to agree with "The game will make more money and stay alive for longer now thanks to the singular key mechanic that binds the entire game together" I like the staying alive part. I suppose, I could offer up outside this thread a suggestion as well. It won't be about forts being the prime motivation for playing.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
But it does! I disagree with you. Fort battles and duels should not be banned or removed from this game. What you are writing in this forum is partially correct, but not when it comes to pvp part of The West. I don't know why players like you are dismissing fort battles and saying that players who enjoy FFing or dueling are aggressive and terrible human beings.

(how do you like them apples?)
Okay, you made your point. Some ground apples aren't very agreeable for eating. I don't think fort battles and duels should be banned. Do you? Do you think players are terrible human beings. I don't. Some players are aggressive though. They like to shoot off their guns.

No, I only expect that you stay on topic and don't mix in stuff that is not connected in any way with the discussion at hand, and writing it in such a way that implies that the person to who you are replying is in disagreement with this new topic you're opening.
I do actually understand what you mean. Topics can wonder around inside threads. If they go off topic anyone can go back on topic. I think that is how forums in general work? I also agree that when using quotes and then replying to a quote it does have its limitations. I am willing to adjust a little with an agreement from you that you will address the topic and not me personally. I'll do the same.

And your style of reading is
1. skip what was replied to you
2. invent a completely different story
3. ramble about something not connected to the topic, but agreeable to any normal player and imply that the other person is against it.
Horse manure!
1. I do read comments. I am not under obligation to answer every question given to me specially those which are leading.
2. I'm entitled to give an opinion and my viewpoint.
3. really! my style of reading???

then do it. quote your facts. please, provide some background or basis for your thinking. disprove the facts I put forth. putting quotation marks around the word doesn't disqualify or disprove them. you started a thread in Debate and Discussion forum, but you're so bad at debating that you would be laughed out of any debate club in the world.
Well, it is your opinion that I am bad at debating. There are different ways to debate. I am not fond of debates where people are degraded and devalued. You say you want more fact writing then you should consider that you need to change the way you reply. Debates and discussions can be very rewarding. But not so much when insults start flying around. Are these really necessary? It is getting tiring. I've been disagreeing here with the topic of the importance of forts, yes. but all the while you have been taking this thread off topic by insulting me personally. Who really needs to change their writing style here? Think about it at least.
 

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
I am not under obligation to answer every question given to me specially those which are leading.
I have to disagree with you again. I don't think that players who have been here for so many years should be blamed for the state the game is in today. And I certainly think that banning them is an overreaction! What a terrible idea!

On another note, I prefer when someone is direct. If you want to insult - insult. Want to get personal? Get personal. The fact you're doing it between the lines, indirectly, through sarcastic remarks doesn't detract in the slightest from it. I do it directly. So?