Clever Hans
Well-Known Member
Exactly!
Disallow small towns w/ no alliance from digging battles
- Thread starter Keinan Walker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fort fortbattles rule
- Status
Keinan Walker
Member
Funniest thing I've read in a long time. Ty for the laughs!
Azeul
Active Member
Forcing players to join a "large" alliance in order to dig or take part in FFs is not an option I find interesting, despite the logic behind what you suggest, Keinan. No part of the game should be taken away from individuals to be played as they wish. Of course, now, spam is being mentioned, so actions can be done if a small town or individual is calling battles with no intention of attending or disrupting what could be a better scheduled battle, but therein lies the conundrum/fun of owning forts. This is the west and forts are not meant to be hoarded by 1 or 2 sides alone. That's often why I find myself joining smaller, separate alliances. It becomes too monotonous and that is not in the spirit of the west. Might as well build mega cities and we lesser individuals just go to work while the big wigs figure it all out for us. Oh wait, I think that might've been the OP. 
The policy that was announced was the result of a lot of careful consideration of past practices, balancing of interests and particular focus on balancing moderator discretion with transparency for players to avoid running afoul of the intent.
The overarching theme is right at the top ""Spam Fort Battles" are those battles declaration, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others."
This doesn't _directly_ "Disallow small towns w/ no alliance from digging battles" but it does require such digs to have a "discernible legitimate purpose" and not "have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others."
Where the player digging such battles makes a reasonable effort to make the most of his dig, by, say, setting a topic, actively recruiting, attending the battle and arranging for a leader, then it is in compliance. Where instead it is a series of "no show" digs or flooding the active battles list, or clearly disrupting a regular series of battles, then it becomes something the moderators can intervene with, usually with a discussion with the offending player, warnings, and only resorting to bans when the behavior is defiant and persistent.
The overarching theme is right at the top ""Spam Fort Battles" are those battles declaration, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others."
This doesn't _directly_ "Disallow small towns w/ no alliance from digging battles" but it does require such digs to have a "discernible legitimate purpose" and not "have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others."
Where the player digging such battles makes a reasonable effort to make the most of his dig, by, say, setting a topic, actively recruiting, attending the battle and arranging for a leader, then it is in compliance. Where instead it is a series of "no show" digs or flooding the active battles list, or clearly disrupting a regular series of battles, then it becomes something the moderators can intervene with, usually with a discussion with the offending player, warnings, and only resorting to bans when the behavior is defiant and persistent.
Ektoras BOTrini
Well-Known Member
@Keinan Walker You clearly don't play the game long enough.
RaiderTr
Well-Known Member
Well some people living in a dream world and can't accept the reality.
Keinan Walker
Member
Love that! Thank you so much. This definitely takes my concern into consideration. "Where the player digging such battles makes a reasonable effort to make the most of his dig, by setting a topic, recruiting, attending, and arranging a leader" - this is what I want. If you are digging, you should make the effort to make it worth people's time. If you don't, then you simply shouldn't be digging. Agreed, we cannot take away anyone's rights to dig, but a lot of people just do it for fun and then abandon it, not once not twice, but repeatedly for months on end, which does "interfere with the gameplay of others". I wish everyone else in this thread understood this.
I will flag it to you/mods the next time this happens. Please feel free to close this thread.
Last edited:
Keinan Walker
Member
Lmao, I won't even bother answering that.
Ektoras BOTrini
Well-Known Member
You still don't know many reasons that someone can dig a battle , I will give you a chance and think about some.
Keinan Walker
Member
Going by the logic of some of you people in here, the only reason to dig a battle is because "I felt like it and I can
"
ScarletKisses
Well-Known Member
and yours seems to be i will control everyone to play as i want.Going by the logic of some of you people in here, the only reason to dig a battle is because "I felt like it and I can
ScarletKisses
Well-Known Member
This bothers me a LOT.. I hate the new Dictator Role Inno is taking, I feel you need to go back to an oversight role and get much less involved in the minutia of a world, As for saying you listened to players. Well only about 5% of people playing the West are even on this forum so you end up with a couple players deciding what should happen for all the players. Only few weeks ago i dug with every intention to rank and lead but on the day i had emergency with one of my pets which meant at time of battle i was at the vets, no lead no ranks given. In that world i am in town on my own. So in theory should I be banned too.
This rule means too many who may have dug battle in past don't want to dig at all because of the threat of punishment's hanging over them now leading to Less Fort Fights.
If you really want to help worlds Inno should start moderating world forums so no one player base can distort the facts., or only allow their personal POV on there. They should be unbiased but in many worlds that is Not the case.
Keinan Walker
Member
No one is going to ban you for missing one fort fight. Bans are only for repeat offences. It clearly states that in the first few times, they will only reach out to you to talk. You do it more often, you get small warnings, you keep doing it, then they give a final warning before a ban. I have fingers crossed for your pet and wish it gets well soon, no one will ever judge you for missing a fort fight because of an emergency, real life always comes first. The problem here is with people who dig and don't show up / rank / recruit REPEATEDLY FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS. Please stop assuming everything is about you and complaining for no reason.
Again, you will NOT be punished for missing 1-2 fort battles that you dig. This rule is only to tackle bigger issues like people literally abusing the fort battle dig button repeatedly with no intention to actually do what's necessary to lead a proper fort fight, and/or cause interference with other battles.
Big sigh. I feel for the mods now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clever Hans
Well-Known Member
And just to add to that, when these changes were originally discussed, I recall that Syntex wrote that players would have a possibility to vote on the implementation of the rules. However, barely any feedback from the .net community was asked, except for select few which increases the chance of bias or one sided views. While the fort number limits were surveyed on the individual worlds, which I applaud, it would have been nice if you surveyed the implementation of digging restrictions as well.
Situation on individual worlds differs a lot. While Colorado has regular daily fights, most of the worlds barely have any fort fights whatsoever. Multies and spam digs haven't been an ongoing issue on any world in the last 2 years as far as I remember. Quite the contrary, it is hard to find the town hats that are willing to dig and put an effort with organizing FFs on regular bases. In worlds with low FF activity (most of them), these changes are actually discouraging from digging and will further reduce the number of FFs. It also makes it easier for big alliances to dominate the FFs and keep the status quo without balancing the sides. And finally, it also makes it easier to abuse the support system by spamming tickets against anyone that players like Keinan deem "not worthy" of digging fights or digging at times which don't suit them.
Just my 2 cents (which will be ignored by decision makers as usual).
Keinan Walker
Member
"it is hard to find the town hats that are willing to dig and put an effort with organizing FFs on regular bases" - DUH. Because our efforts to bring FF participation up gets ruined by these rogue diggers who destroy attendance, which you seem to support. When I say rogue diggers, I mean people who will dig for fun and make no efforts to rank/recruit/lead or even show up. But apparently this isn't a problem to you. If someone is digging based on what time works on them, it is their job to make the efforts, not mine. My efforts are saved for my own digs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Annie-Bell
Well-Known Member
the hans ad scalet posts (liked each other posts) difficult to know what your argument is, so imagine inno feels same way. One say no inno involvement then other says dismayed that inno not doing surveys and changes?
The worlds right now that do seem to have daily battles remain wih montana as newest world, juarez for now (have some trying ot push for their version of real batles which muck up the contribution by community to balance, and ofc colo continues on.
Yes hard to find leaders but think people look at majority of worlds and try some ff's and see impossible inbalance. It is leaders burnt out but also ones that put in tonne of work when people who feel need to start at square 1 again when other push for inbalance,. Chances are, they wont start square1. Lets face it guys, we have many players who can easily end ff's not many who can keep them going. Many reasons why worlds go without battles. Multi digs just tend to make people tune out, i find.
A good indicator of healthy ff worlds that rules out opinion only or feeling like anyone side is misleading the situation is avg. exp points for players on both sides. Access/utilize the awesome change of up to 18K in exp points based on players, skill, dodges as good indicator . That was one of inno's best changes which unfortunately not alot of worlds had benefit of seeing with lack of activity.
Without basing on "opinions' can say that spam or mutli digs usually represent very low exp points, and likely indicator that going to annoy the masses, after time... battles one sided will also have low exp points for both teams on average, which makes people just give up on that world as well. The bonus using this indicator for overall teams is not one person perception over another. (topic is disallow town/unalligned .. going with assumption not having friends or players join in, assumption those one player towns or small alliance not working with rest)
I think if people dig battles and miss, chances no one will get upset/inno involved if once in blue moon.. Think if constantly no topic, no rank, no lead many times goober stated is probably a good indicator of a spam battle. Using exp points as indicator for both sides may also be something inno considers and not opinion based.
The worlds right now that do seem to have daily battles remain wih montana as newest world, juarez for now (have some trying ot push for their version of real batles which muck up the contribution by community to balance, and ofc colo continues on.
Yes hard to find leaders but think people look at majority of worlds and try some ff's and see impossible inbalance. It is leaders burnt out but also ones that put in tonne of work when people who feel need to start at square 1 again when other push for inbalance,. Chances are, they wont start square1. Lets face it guys, we have many players who can easily end ff's not many who can keep them going. Many reasons why worlds go without battles. Multi digs just tend to make people tune out, i find.
A good indicator of healthy ff worlds that rules out opinion only or feeling like anyone side is misleading the situation is avg. exp points for players on both sides. Access/utilize the awesome change of up to 18K in exp points based on players, skill, dodges as good indicator . That was one of inno's best changes which unfortunately not alot of worlds had benefit of seeing with lack of activity.
Without basing on "opinions' can say that spam or mutli digs usually represent very low exp points, and likely indicator that going to annoy the masses, after time... battles one sided will also have low exp points for both teams on average, which makes people just give up on that world as well. The bonus using this indicator for overall teams is not one person perception over another. (topic is disallow town/unalligned .. going with assumption not having friends or players join in, assumption those one player towns or small alliance not working with rest)
I think if people dig battles and miss, chances no one will get upset/inno involved if once in blue moon.. Think if constantly no topic, no rank, no lead many times goober stated is probably a good indicator of a spam battle. Using exp points as indicator for both sides may also be something inno considers and not opinion based.
Last edited:
Clever Hans
Well-Known Member
Sure Jan. If you talk about Kansas, if you placed so much effort, how comes that there are several weeks in a row without any single FF, except for the event fights? It sure gives an impression that you didn´t make any effort whatsoever despite your arrogant attitude and preaching to the others.
Also, digging (and playing this game in general) doesn´t need to be a full time job. Setting up the topic and sending the battle message help of course, but ultimately it is up to the players to balance the fights. And if both large alliances instruct the players to defend together, no wonder that battles are "not worthy of your time" as you claim.
My arguments have much more sense than yours so get off my back and learn how to discuss without insulting the opinions that differ from yours.
DeletedUser15368
I'll start by ignoring the interpersonal drama and comment on the idea.
I'm pretty much 100% against the OP's proposal - It seems to come from the right place, but it's the wrong idea and has the potential to exclude legitimate interests.
Tbh if a minor town is trying to disrupt your inter-alliance battle schedule, all you have to do, as the two established fort battle sides, is get the word out to ignore the prime-time spam battles, focus on the real one, and then take back anything you lose off-prime. If a town can take a fort, they must also defend it, all good. That goes for majors and minors alike.
You've also now got the possibility of mod intervention under certain circumstances, such as the minor player isn't actually contributing to the quality of battles, and if both sides agree it's nothing more than disruptive to their community.
If your world doesn't have battles, and a minor town digs your forts, that's not a problem. You own forts, you have to defend them. No one is intrinsically entitled to own any given fort.
Now it's a game-wide "rule" because of the situation on other servers - the implementation is still up to the local team and our local team is good with this kind of thing, as evidenced by how they (along with the Colorado fort fighting community) handled Naughty Pumpkin.
I'm pretty much 100% against the OP's proposal - It seems to come from the right place, but it's the wrong idea and has the potential to exclude legitimate interests.
Tbh if a minor town is trying to disrupt your inter-alliance battle schedule, all you have to do, as the two established fort battle sides, is get the word out to ignore the prime-time spam battles, focus on the real one, and then take back anything you lose off-prime. If a town can take a fort, they must also defend it, all good. That goes for majors and minors alike.
You've also now got the possibility of mod intervention under certain circumstances, such as the minor player isn't actually contributing to the quality of battles, and if both sides agree it's nothing more than disruptive to their community.
If your world doesn't have battles, and a minor town digs your forts, that's not a problem. You own forts, you have to defend them. No one is intrinsically entitled to own any given fort.
This was indeed the case when this was simply a local policy implemented to counter Naughty Pumpkin's behaviour on Colorado, of which Colorado obviously agreed to. I seem to remember the same conditions being offered to other worlds, some accepted and some declined.
Now it's a game-wide "rule" because of the situation on other servers - the implementation is still up to the local team and our local team is good with this kind of thing, as evidenced by how they (along with the Colorado fort fighting community) handled Naughty Pumpkin.
Last edited by a moderator:
RaiderTr
Well-Known Member
You know this isn't that simple in practice though right?
No matter what it affects the "real" battle.
I haven't read the proposal thoroughly though but thought I could remind this at least.
Probably further changes ain't needed though.
DeletedUser15368
At first, you'll get a few stragglers going to the wrong battle, but over time everyone learns that this is simply spam and to ignore battles dug by that player. NP multi-battles were often 0vs0.
Although yeah it's definitely a thing when someone opens the fort overview, sees 12 battles dug, and instantly closes that game. This is clearly something that could be intervened with the new anti-abuse policy, though, and actually was why this became a local policy to begin with.
- Status