Feedback thread about multi fort battles :-D

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
a random poll with no discussion prior?

It is all of a sudden a new "trend" being set apparently (in Idaho.)..I don't know if the one that started it is trying to gain "prestige" for himself or his team, also I don't know if the one following in his steps is trying to say he now agrees that Off Prime is just fine. Lately though, for each attack to one side, they seem to deem it necessary for a "counter attack" within 2 hours to the ones that dug on them.

Whatever the reason, I kinda encourage them in their efforts as, it supports our claims that 1) Idaho is far from dead (it is VERY active) and 2) Off prime can be fun afterall.

Up until now, they have straight out demanded that we have 8-12 hours between battles (trying to model after another world, perhaps) and now that we are being "allowed" the 2 hour between the GM battles and others, this is what they are going after. I personally feel though that each world is different and should "somewhat" decide an allowable time between battles for that specific world through a discussion between them (firstly, that world should have someone from each side at least willing to communicate which may not always be the case), but do agree there should be a "guideline" of sorts (as with the 2 hour grace period), but also agree with the CM that this should not set the trend for a battle every 2 hours. I also think that perhaps a "guideline" of sorts might be nice in regards to HOW MANY battles should be allowed (again to prevent the 10 battles back to back in a day)...

" and that's what a good agreement should bring. reasonable parties will be able to reach one, as someone said above." (copied from a previous thread and provided you have ANY type of party willing to discuss at all... )

The poll is only 2 choices and sometimes there is an "I choose A, but what about...?" or "I choose B, but with exception to..."
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
This "allowance" doesn't mean there has to be battles every 2 hours but there will be consequences if it's less than 2 hours between each.

There is actually no official and specific rule for Digs and normally Mods or CM don't interfere with such stuff unless it's quite NECESSARY
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
I understood that perfectly, RaiderTr...but thank you for clarifying that for others that may not have...
 

sanidh

Active Member
I cannot believe there are people who voted to allow multies.

Having battles every 2 hours should not be the target of this change though, Any sane minded person would know multi's ruin worlds and people's experience, tweak this rule to weed them out.

Also, the people who voted to have no inno intervention, see what your idea has lead to in the last few years, you should be ashamed, i like varying opinions but i cant see any reasonable explanation to want battles within 2 hours of each other.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
I cannot believe there are people who voted to allow multies.

Having battles every 2 hours should not be the target of this change though, Any sane minded person would know multi's ruin worlds and people's experience, tweak this rule to weed them out.

Also, the people who voted to have no inno intervention, see what your idea has lead to in the last few years, you should be ashamed, i like varying opinions but i cant see any reasonable explanation to want battles within 2 hours of each other.

Another point for discussion though...there has ALWAYS been debates as to what actually defines "multi". Some say anything within 12 hours, some say any within 8 hours and some say within 2 hours...there has never been a clear view...it is usually just defined in the moment, by the one that is arguing against a battle they feel is dug as a multi :D
 

sanidh

Active Member
Another point for discussion though...there has ALWAYS been debates as to what actually defines "multi". Some say anything within 12 hours, some say any within 8 hours and some say within 2 hours...there has never been a clear view...it is usually just defined in the moment, by the one that is arguing against a battle they feel is dug as a multi :D

Its 3 hours for me, more is okay but minimum should be three hours between battles.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
Personally, for me it is 4...so as I have pointed out, there are varied views as to what actually defines a multi...

So, yet again...this poll suggests a 2 hour window before declaring a multi, but should it actually be 3? 4?
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Like I said this only picks the minimum.
Which didn't exist before.

Alliances still can decide whatever time they want between each others' "Real" Battles.
Be it 6, 8 or whatever.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
For the rest of your alliance right? Because funnily enough you all started this ordeal with the Class awesomia battles.

This "ordeal" started way before that Class Awesomia battle... :D Sadly you missed prior multi's from your side in times past (the 3x's back to back within 5 minutes - more than once, by the way). It is a clear pattern multiple times from your side, from a specific person mostly to have multiple multi's all within minutes. I can only assume they are for the sake of "making a point" (like don't dig my fort? since it was specifically said as such during that time) Quite a different situation from my ONE. Also, I am not saying my multi was "right", BUT...at least it had a reason for it (being it was last day of event, and 2 classes had a time to get additional fireworks before event closed and I wanted the other 2 classes to have the same time period for additonal fireworks...it ended up the 2 classes in awesomia had 2 battles in which to gather additional fireworks...)

I have also seen the SAME Person(s) use a statement just like the one you just made to justify their own action(s) six months down the road...

BUT, that topic from MY ONE multi, I thought has ended already and I THOUGHT we moved on from it? It also does not justify repeated offenses of the same afterward...(especially if you didn't like the first one..lol). This is a case of justifying what you feel is "wrong" by doing another wrong... lol
 
Last edited:

Pankreas PorFavor

Well-Known Member
rule or no rule, official or not - the decision will be obvious if we can reply to one question: why do we have fort battles today?
- if we are doing it to have fun, interact with each other and enjoy the game, then we obviously want to have as many players as possible, and we should define a minimum time period between battles. this shows we treat FFs like any other game - whether it's a game of basketball, cards or a board game, you need someone on your team and you need opponents.
- if we are only doing it to own forts, then multis can be a part of the tactics. it can be considered as unfair tactic, but not against the rules.

I feel we have reached a consensus about this topic over the last few years. everyone is talking about wanting fun FFs. towns are switching sides to balance the strength of the teams, agreements are made, etc. in my experience, most battles and most fun was had when a world had a rule like this. will it be 2, 4 or 8 hours, that can always be changed or agreed differently.

ask yourself - why do you join a fort battle? and the answer to the poll should be obvious.
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
Someone said in another topic, multi battles are subjective for every world.
In Colorado we have an agreement that looks like this:


1) You cannot dig on any alliance within 8 hrs of an attack or defense from them. Period. This includes your own alliance defense. 8 hour gap counts on ALL battles except those officially cancelled under this pact.

2) Alliances must leave 9 hrs between their attacks.

3) In the event of a multi by pact members, the multi is cancelled and fort must be returned if accidentally captured. Turning into fun battle is optional upon mutual agreement.

4) In the event of a multi by non-pact members, all legit battles will continue. All pact members will assist in defending the multi and must not support the attack for any reason.

5) In the event a multi fort is lost to non-pact members, all pact members will assist in the recapture.

6) Members of the multi pact will refrain from digging on the forts being used for small fort battles. These forts are currently in County 1 and County 12. (Subject to Change)

This agreement works to maximize fort fighting attendance and keeping the scene organized enough so not everything goes to hell.
2 months ago when we had 3 multi diggers, everything was a mayhem.

It actually works. It is all tested.

Other worlds do not have an agreement like this. In those worlds, it is very common to have people doing something called griefing, digging multiple forts in the interval of a couple minutes to make sure those forts cannot be dug again in 24 hours (the reason is to keep the forts - blocking the other alliance from having the chance of digging them), or just for the sake of capturing them because people can't split themselves to attend multiple defenses. I've seen even ex-mods doing this, in my opinion it is extremely childish.

All the worlds I played across eventually have this happening. So in my opinion, people even trying to plot this kind of move should be instantly and heavily penalized, even permanently banned. It is literally an abuse. This is what people call a real multi battle.

Also, with the risk of people criticizing me, if your world has 3 battles in less than 6 hours and is not the new opened world (new worlds have attendance, even if it's not gonna be like that forever), you're killing that world yourself. Nobody will attend all these battles. You end up with max 20v20 battles which are not fun...whatever you say.

Please take into account the griefing thing, that is the really important one. From there you can maybe work an hour gap in which a battle is considered a multi.
 

Veedle

Member
Personally, I only have time to attend one battle a day. My life does not revolve around The West. I hate multis and never attend one unless absolutely necessary. If there are going to be more than one battle a day they should be at least 8 hours apart to give people enough time to recoup health (not everyone spends money on nuggets to buy buffs from the shop). I think more than two battles a day will become extremely boring and will eventually fizzle out, unless they become really exciting. However, we have been waiting a long time for some excitement. BTW I love the 5 pm server time Awesomia battle today.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
Other worlds do not have an agreement like this. In those worlds, it is very common to have people doing something called griefing, digging multiple forts in the interval of a couple minutes to make sure those forts cannot be dug again in 24 hours (the reason is to keep the forts - blocking the other alliance from having the chance of digging them), or just for the sake of capturing them because people can't split themselves to attend multiple defenses. I've seen even ex-mods doing this, in my opinion it is extremely childish.

All the worlds I played across eventually have this happening. So in my opinion, people even trying to plot this kind of move should be instantly and heavily penalized, even permanently banned. It is literally an abuse. This is what people call a real multi battle.

Also, with the risk of people criticizing me, if your world has 3 battles in less than 6 hours and is not the new opened world (new worlds have attendance, even if it's not gonna be like that forever), you're killing that world yourself. Nobody will attend all these battles. You end up with max 20v20 battles which are not fun...whatever you say.

Please take into account the griefing thing, that is the really important one. From there you can maybe work an hour gap in which a battle is considered a multi.

Yes, especially when you take into account the actual and OBVIOUS intent of the one doing it (repeatedly). I also agree it IS an abuse...
 
Top