Disallow small towns w/ no alliance from digging battles

[Keinan Walker]

First of all, thank you for making the effort to reduce spam fort battles. But I think we're still missing one key factor that causes spam battles and ruins the interest of many players from fort fights, also reducing active numbers.

There are often cases where players in small towns, which have barely 10-15 members, and are not part of any alliance at all, dig fort fights, large forts even. What's worse, they attack forts that belong to large alliances which can get 30-40 people to defend, minimum. These people usually like to play lone wolf, and even though they know they have absolutely no chance to win, they keep digging regularly, at the weirdest times. They also do not read their telegrams, so there is no way to negotiate with them, and actively keep digging. You also can't report them, because reporting does nothing, there is no such rule they are breaking.

But we have to agree, when you have these random fort fights from random non-alliance towns, it affects the prime battles for the day, and eventually, people aren't sure which one to join, they start skipping fights, the numbers reduce.

The game already lacks players on many worlds, like Kansas, and I was recently trying to revive it. But the efforts go to vain when things like these happen.

I highly recommend we put a stop to this, and come up with a new rule, which you can feel free to think about and discuss, but I think you should only be allowed to dig fort fights if your town/alliance has a combined total of at least 50 members, below which you shouldn't be able to dig at all. This will encourage people to join alliances and create proper sides rather than single little towns going rogue and digging for no reason.

I hope this will be considered.

Thanks,
Keinan

 

[Clever Hans]

If the digger is from a non-alliance town or town from a small alliance, that would mean that the most of players can join as the freelancers. So why do they all choose the same side?

Nowadays I think the bigger issue is related to transferring ("donations") of the forts from dominant alliance to pseudo second alliance (usually formed by 1-2 towns leaving the dominant alliance) and then digging and transferring the forts back and forth while controlling both sides of the battle. This opens a possibility to abuse the ranking system via traitoring of the players from the underdogs side and also it makes it pointless to win forts since even if the forts are lost, they will be immediately transferred back and farming of the underdogs continues for months and years (like on some worlds such as Juarez). One can argue whether these are the real fights or friendlies but they definitely reduce the total numbers of players willing to join fights and end up in numbers which more reflect the manoeuvres.

 

[ScarletKisses]

I think its dangerous grounds of too much oversight, we are on with this suggestion. I honestly believe everyone should be able to play in a way that suits them. I dont think anyone should be banned from digging even if it is a one man own. I hate this insistence that everyone be in two main alliances. I feel its just another way for people to try and be in total control of a world and the West was never played that way before.
There are numerous reasons why someone might be digging at times that doesn't suit you. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have as much right as anyone else to dig. We have quests and people play here that live all across the world maybe in different time zones for main battles.
I think people should learn to be more tolerant of others, and understand its not your personal game it is meant for many and you won't always agree. But they have just as much right as you to enjoy the game!

 

[Ektoras BOTrini]

What makes you think that digging battles at 21:00 pm is ok and digging at 04:00 am is not? ( That's just an example don't go into it alot ) Anyone has as much right to dig a battle as much as anyone else. Having 2 alliances doesn't mean only these 2 alliances will play the game. Like scarlet said , not everyone lives in a single timezone and not everyone has the same motives as others. If you are so bothered that someone is digging battles late night you can go and defend it.

This will encourage people to join alliances and create proper sides rather than single little towns going rogue and digging for no reason.

Not everything runs by 2 alliances, little towns have many reasons but I guess you go by the system so you wouldn't know.

 

[Annie-Bell]

If the digger is from a non-alliance town or town from a small alliance, that would mean that the most of players can join as the freelancers. So why do they all choose the same side?

Nowadays I think the bigger issue is related to transferring ("donations") of the forts from dominant alliance to pseudo second alliance (usually formed by 1-2 towns leaving the dominant alliance) and then digging and transferring the forts back and forth while controlling both sides of the battle. This opens a possibility to abuse the ranking system via traitoring of the players from the underdogs side and also it makes it pointless to win forts since even if the forts are lost, they will be immediately transferred back and farming of the underdogs continues for months and years (like on some worlds such as Juarez). One can argue whether these are the real fights or friendlies but they definitely reduce the total numbers of players willing to join fights and end up in numbers which more reflect the manoeuvres.

For the one town digs, i know its annoying and if lots, sometimes real battles get overlooked, but in reality, its not like the 1 person town wins forts, and there is no real threat, usually both sides agree to show up to defend in most worlds.

For the second paragraph related to juarez battles, where in the 13 some worlds, the only worlds that can actually see daily battles every single day for 2 years is in colo, montana, juarez as top three. Sadly, the non cooperation in worlds has driven so there is 50v17 battles driven as what some feel is "real" battles which totally demoralizes teams to point where chances of recovering worlds is unlikely (ie vegas, idaho, el dor).

In Juarez, the alliance leader of the stronger team (AoW) stepped up when all the leaders left the world, when kansas, then vegas, then montana opened. It is common to see bulk of players leave prior world and chase top points or create their super alliances. This doesnt have to be poven, it just known. In Juarez, the now alliance leader was new player to game, didnt know of what goes on in other worlds or fueds. She, (killer bonnie) had natural instinct to create an enviornment to identify and help fill in gaps of what both sides needed. Years ago, she worked with player from MW who was abandoned and he became leader and both were actually in saloons recruiting for MW side. After time, saw that AoW was still stonger, we asked the new ff leader to opposiion to come to juarez which he hadnt played for year and after trying few combinations of building opposition, he became opposition leader. Yes we moved around forts (you state donate, sure.) and we geared up opposition, and we recuited for both sides after finding leader for opposition. The concept was didnt want any one alliance to own all forts cause that was deemed undesirable. We got to point whee we were having 30v30 daily battles (small battles, but daily, and out of view of people who want super alliance worlds) - typcially both sides won defenses, lots attacks.

I recognize the writer above feels like our battles were situation where one side controlled other side but assure u was real battles and most importantly, unlike 10 other worlds, had daily battles. The people that contributed to this cooperative, no drama for 2 years environment had attempted to do in idaho and vegas but as we all know, cant save all worlds and people's times limited so was up to other solution focused players to step up. Dont like seeing people discredit honest efforts in worlds, but know probably you didnt see alll cause never involved in actual battles for 2 years.

By instinct, the AoW leader copied and implemented a environment similar to colo without ever knowing colo. Daily battles good outcome.

Unfortunately since migrations opened to juarez, and players returning who have not been involved are pushing to dominate our once strong alliance, which we took risk of splitting up. Hear them say that they can make us quit - which in dying game, pushing out those that contribute to game by ones that come back is more concerning to continuance of game. (yes recognize is negative comment, more out of sigh sigh sigh, not again). But players arent dumb, may be hard road ahead for while but as long as honest people from both sides keep trying we can keep seeing daily battles.

Prior to inno announcing migrations out of world of Houston, players who just wanted ff's had proposed concept of major reshuffle teams and yes, donate forts. Spag (earp) and helen, both kinda experiencing bit of burnout of leading in galv and houston for years, gave their blessings and indicated would donate 1/2 of forts to one newly developed team, and 1/2 forts to other newly developed team. Ofc i was bit hesitant and know some will view as us controlling things but we appreciated seeing people who wished to step up and seek solutions. It was put on hold when migrations occured but i assure you would of been real battles too. In galv, need wasnt there, as small battles, and at end each team ended with exactly 21 forts each no need to donate to continue worlds activities.

I know not alot of people utilize this inno forum (know i have many friends in game, not seen here), and know some that do, will disagree with us being mini colo concept in juarez. Just posting this one post, as im sure inno mod dont want to go and deal with bickering like did before.

For one person town digs, i think if people post in saloon for all to join defend, in most worlds that works and then no hard feelings. Know some have done forever, and think inno is trying to stop that, but not easy task.

 

[Keinan Walker]

I think its dangerous grounds of too much oversight, we are on with this suggestion. I honestly believe everyone should be able to play in a way that suits them. I dont think anyone should be banned from digging even if it is a one man own. I hate this insistence that everyone be in two main alliances. I feel its just another way for people to try and be in total control of a world and the West was never played that way before.
There are numerous reasons why someone might be digging at times that doesn't suit you. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have as much right as anyone else to dig. We have quests and people play here that live all across the world maybe in different time zones for main battles.
I think people should learn to be more tolerant of others, and understand its not your personal game it is meant for many and you won't always agree. But they have just as much right as you to enjoy the game!

What makes you think that digging battles at 21:00 pm is ok and digging at 04:00 am is not? ( That's just an example don't go into it alot ) Anyone has as much right to dig a battle as much as anyone else. Having 2 alliances doesn't mean only these 2 alliances will play the game. Like scarlet said , not everyone lives in a single timezone and not everyone has the same motives as others. If you are so bothered that someone is digging battles late night you can go and defend it.



Not everything runs by 2 alliances, little towns have many reasons but I guess you go by the system so you wouldn't know.

Congratulations, you both missed the entire point of this post and focused only on the "time" aspect. I really don't mind what time the fort battle is dug.

The main point here is digging fort fights as a tiny little town against large alliances, where you clearly have no chance of winning. I don't understand what you get from this. But as a consequence, it hurts the attendance in other battles.

I personally believe that fort battles are fun only when there are a decent amount of players involved, and decent amount of balance. It takes effort to lead a battle, rank, etc. One battle with 100 players involved is more fun, more worth my time, and simply better than 3 battles with 20 players involved. Some of us can't be online for 12 hours a day to attend every battle. I agree people should be able to do what they want, but not at the expense of ruining the game for other players. That's just woke behavior.

All I'm asking here is that battles should have a purpose, and not just be dug by a 5 person town because they were bored. Like it or not, in the end, such small battles do affect the attendance, when there are 3 battles going on every day, people lose interest and the overall attendance lowers, leaders lose motivation and quit. That's how worlds become inactive. I don't have time/patience to play 6 different worlds, I can only focus on the one I'm playing it. You wouldn't understand if you had an account in Colorado, Arizona, and 5 other worlds.

If enforcing a fair rule to make battles more active and have higher attendance has potential, why not try it out? No one is being singled out. You don't have to have just 2 alliances either. But at least have a group of players who can arrange a proper battle? What are you achieving by digging as a 5 person town?

But oh well, the "one person" who dug got what they want, who cares it ruined everyone else's game, right? Lol.

 

[ScarletKisses]

I understood it just fine Thanks and I disagree with you .. and i don't need lecture either thanks on how you demand this because its how you want to play in the one world you do, as i said before you don't own game and everyone should have same rights to dig as they want without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else . I don't think anyone has right to control another game
for the record some of the best Exciting Fort Fighter where with smaller numbers.

 

[Keinan Walker]

I understood it just fine Thanks and I disagree with you .. and i don't need lecture either thanks on how you demand this because its how you want to play in the one world you do, as i said before you don't own game and everyone should have same rights to dig as they want without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else . I don't think anyone has right to control another game
for the record some of the best Exciting Fort Fighter where with smaller numbers.

Aight, so it's clear then. Let's have 5 fort battles with 10v10 each day, great fun. This is hopeless lol.

 

[Harriet Oleson]

I don't think there's a way to prevent battles with too few attackers compared to the number of defenders ... I mean : even with what you're suggesting it wouldn't prevent it. It could prevent isolated towns yes, but even in big alliances there is often this kind of battles : if they dig at night or morning (server time), the attendance is very often pretty low even from a big alliance; same if they dig several battles a day and don't show up in most of them except in one of them (the idea being to lower the attendance of the defense for the bigger one so they have more chances to win), or even : bigger alliances can be mostly inactive in FF and still have this one digger who still dig battles with low attendance whatever its reasons ...
The thing is, your idea may prevent some of those battles but could also be pretty penalising in some worlds : what if a world doesn't have any alliance with more than 50 members in it ? They wouldn't be able to dig any battle at all anymore. World fully stuck lol. Same in worlds where only one alliance has more than 50 members and its members don't want to leave it : they'd be the only alliance able to dig in the whole world ...

In any case, your attacker shouldn't give you so much trouble anymore : if you didn't notice, he has recently joined a bigger alliance. If he manages to gather fighters, the battles wouldn't be so imbalanced anymore; if he doesn't manage to gather fighters (the alliance is currently fully inactive in FF, so I don't know if they'll follow him), the limitation you're suggesting wouldn't help cause this alliance has more than 50 members. But well, he seemed to have calmed down in any case, you shouldn't worry too much.
As for in a general case, usually this kind of diggers get bored rather fast : it's suicide and doesn't bring them anythng except maybe in event. They have no reason to do that in a long term way. And seems like your attacker is the same.

 

[Terry Hillgrove]

If the digger is from a non-alliance town or town from a small alliance, that would mean that the most of players can join as the freelancers. So why do they all choose the same side?

Nowadays I think the bigger issue is related to transferring ("donations") of the forts from dominant alliance to pseudo second alliance (usually formed by 1-2 towns leaving the dominant alliance) and then digging and transferring the forts back and forth while controlling both sides of the battle. This opens a possibility to abuse the ranking system via traitoring of the players from the underdogs side and also it makes it pointless to win forts since even if the forts are lost, they will be immediately transferred back and farming of the underdogs continues for months and years (like on some worlds such as Juarez). One can argue whether these are the real fights or friendlies but they definitely reduce the total numbers of players willing to join fights and end up in numbers which more reflect the manoeuvres.

Thanks Hans for using Juarez as an example as i feel free to comment on that world, i have stopped playing other worlds to try and keep battles alive with the help and leadership of Killer Bonnie, i am the leader of the other team, we are the council for battles. Without us there would be no battles and for some months now we have dug almost everyday for months.
The interesting word you used was argued whether this or that, anything can be argued as we each have an opinion.
Bonnie and i are privvy to much of what happens with battles in J. Some of what you say is most definitely true, for months it has been a matter of re-adjusting, copping criticisms or some other displeasure of some, almost everyday we had a hurdle to jump over. We have had friendlies, we got passed those, we have transferred forts, the purpose to have a balance of ownership, be it right or wrong, it was our decision and one that has changed for about a month now, there is no more transfers, our battles are real, both teams go out there to win, that has been the case for months.
Individual towns can make or break battles, most prefer to just defend, it can rob all the ffers of bonds and XP.
Juarez is a unique world because of the way it was left before KB and myself took on the challenge of making it a ffing world.

 

[NovaStar]

In worlds where battles are few and far between anyway...I say, it's no biggie if an individual or small town digs. Let 'em dig...go ahead and sign up with your alliance and battle your opponents. Worse case scenario, MAYBE they might win the fort? Ok, well, then whoever lost it can dig it back ORRR, the opposing team can try to take it...(good idea for those worlds where 1 side dominates, actually). It's not the end of the game, either way... I mean...there are still 42 forts to battle, right?

 

[Clever Hans]

So from what I gather from your posts, the digger is from a small alliance and two big alliances join together to defend against him and then you whine coz battles are too short and unbalanced number wise? Unreal. If you instructed your players to support the weaker side instead of trying to dominate the world, perhaps the balance would have been better.

 

[ScarletKisses]

Thanks Hans for using Juarez as an example as i feel free to comment on that world, i have stopped playing other worlds to try and keep battles alive with the help and leadership of Killer Bonnie, i am the leader of the other team, we are the council for battles. Without us there would be no battles and for some months now we have dug almost everyday for months.
The interesting word you used was argued whether this or that, anything can be argued as we each have an opinion.
Bonnie and i are privvy to much of what happens with battles in J. Some of what you say is most definitely true, for months it has been a matter of re-adjusting, copping criticisms or some other displeasure of some, almost everyday we had a hurdle to jump over. We have had friendlies, we got passed those, we have transferred forts, the purpose to have a balance of ownership, be it right or wrong, it was our decision and one that has changed for about a month now, there is no more transfers, our battles are real, both teams go out there to win, that has been the case for months.
Individual towns can make or break battles, most prefer to just defend, it can rob all the ffers of bonds and XP.
Juarez is a unique world because of the way it was left before KB and myself took on the challenge of making it a ffing world.

I believe they are more real battles again in Juarez, More real that they have been in months previous and that make me happy. Real battles provide the passion needed to win and lose forts. If they are just in constant rotation the drive to win them just isn't there in the same way, because everyone knows they will get "given" back.
Sadly though we have the stronger side using all the usual tricks to make sure they are not competitive battle, all that does it drive people away from fighting at all as we saw in Galveston and Houston..
I find it very sad that the lessons from Galv and Houston appear not to have been learned.
While I do hope for a better future in Juarez i guess time will tell.

 

[Keinan Walker]

So from what I gather from your posts, the digger is from a small alliance and two big alliances join together to defend against him and then you whine coz battles are too short and unbalanced number wise? Unreal. If you instructed your players to support the weaker side instead of trying to dominate the world, perhaps the balance would have been better.

Alright folks, this explains everything. That's me done trying to make any further efforts to revive better quality fort fights on Kansas. Back to the church it is, may you all enjoy the legendary 5v5 battles 3 times a day and the woke world live on. Cheers, this can be closed.

 

[Clever Hans]

I think my message was quite clear. Do you lack the comprehension skills? If freelancers would be instructed to join the weaker side, instead of both large alliances defending together, players would be split more equally and battles would be longer. Easy solution without micromanaging the whole world and telling others whether they can participate in certain game modes or not.

 

[Keinan Walker]

So from what I gather from your posts, the digger is from a small alliance and two big alliances join together to defend against him and then you whine coz battles are too short and unbalanced number wise? Unreal. If you instructed your players to support the weaker side instead of trying to dominate the world, perhaps the balance would have been better.

I mean it literally says in the title "small towns w/ no alliance", no idea how you gathered "digger is from a small alliance". Please read! This isn't about "dictatorship" or taking away people's rights from a fundamental game feature. But fort fights are meant to be enjoyed as a team game and are way more fun with higher number of people involved. Hell I'd even say take away everyone's rights from digging and only let the mods dig 1-2 times every day, and let people join whichever side they prefer. In the end, the goal is to ensure there are lesser fights but with better numbers. Quality over quantity. What is there to not get?

 

[Keinan Walker]

I think my message was quite clear. Do you lack the comprehension skills? If freelancers would be instructed to join the weaker side, instead of both large alliances defending together, players would be split more equally and battles would be longer. Easy solution without micromanaging the whole world and telling others whether they can participate in certain game modes or not.

There are barely 50-60 active fort fighters in Kansas, and I'm sure this is the case in a few other worlds too. People are never online to whisper or they barely read telegrams so "instructing" people isn't really a possibility. People just open the fort battle window, see which battles are going on, if they see a random stranger attacking our fort, they go defend it, it turns out to be 5v30 since they don't really know what's up, the battle ends in 10 minutes, and the people who joined actually end up skipping the fight that I dug against another alliance, since they already had their battle for the day. So then I get barely 15 participating in the one I dug. It can be better than this. I still haven't read one proper reason why you all disagree apart from "NOOO EVERYONE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT". There are consequences to these pointless battles that people just seem to dig for no reason. If you dig a battle, you have the responsibility to rank, get numbers, bring people, and make it fun for everyone involved. You don't just dig because "oh I felt like it.... " but that's what you're all telling me, you can dig battles just because you feel like it, regardless of the fact that you're a single 10 person town digging against an alliance capable of bringing 50 defenders. HOW is that fun? And HOW is it okay for that to cause lower attendance in subsequent battles?

 

[Keinan Walker]

And here is your proof. This is not me saying it. These are other players. These single small 10 member towns dig large forts, and they don't even show up to their own battles. Give me ONE reason how this is okay and should be allowed?? Everyone cancels their jobs, uses buffs and is present at the fort, only for this. Then people lose interest. Enlighten me please, how is this okay?

 

[Keinan Walker]

I understood it just fine Thanks and I disagree with you .. and i don't need lecture either thanks on how you demand this because its how you want to play in the one world you do, as i said before you don't own game and everyone should have same rights to dig as they want without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else . I don't think anyone has right to control another game
for the record some of the best Exciting Fort Fighter where with smaller numbers.

Oh and just for your knowledge, the whole point of alliances is not "domination" or "control", this is a video game, on the internet... it's not that serious. We're all just trying to have fun. The whole point of having an alliance is to team up and have a competitive balanced game. If everyone went rogue and there were 20 different alliances with 10 members in each, we'd be having 10-20 fort fights a day and it would be a complete mess. That is why we create alliances, to create balanced sides and enjoy the game better, not for "domination". Maybe some people see it that way, and those people just need to get out of their rooms more. You are yet to provide a proper argument, all you've said so far is "you dont own anything let people do what they want" which, of course, they should be. The rule I'm asking for does not apply to just one player, it applies to all, to me, to you, everyone. If you're serious about owning a fort, gather a group that can actually put up a fight, show up, rank, make it WORTH PEOPLE'S TIME AND EFFORT. Your "let people do what they want" argument doesn't make sense at all here.

 

[NovaStar]

It doesn't matter if it's a small alliance or a single individual in NO alliance that digs...the principal is the same. ANY dig CAN be made into a decent battle. Rather than everyone signing onto defense side, whatever alliance this person dug against...they all ban together and their opponents attack...what is so difficult to understand about this? So what, if he shows up to battle...so what if he "wins" the fort? It's an available fort for the 2 larger alliances to go after...it's only ONE out of 42 forts... For some worlds, this SHOULD be a welcome, as the battles have become so far and few between. It's up to the players to make it a good battle or a bad one. The digger has absolutely nothing to do with it.