Feedback thread about multi fort battles :-D

sanidh

Active 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.

Word by word, make this law. CM you have your work done for you
 

undefined

Well-Known Member
rule or no rule, official or not
Something I want to add to this - completely irrelevant to everything else.

If the moderation team suddenly starts giving infraction points for breaking this "agreement", then it needs to become official, announced in a timely manner and added to the game rules page - and it needs to be written exactly how much time one is supposed to wait before attacking a new battle (if you even want to allow him to dig multiple battles a day) and exactly what happens if you break the rule, so it's not up to interpretation.

Just my two cents on this :p
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
While, there are SOME things I truly admire and even envy about Colorado, I do not agree with a "one size" fits all for all worlds...there are parts I do like and agree with, but each world has its own characteristics and some parts of this probably not work as well in EVERY world as it does for Colorado.

I do find it ironic though that the very party we have our problems with in Idaho in regards to these multi's is the one that is fighting so hard to migrate to Colorado with those rules (he is aware of the rules, as he does have another toon there)
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
There is actually something that concerns me about this Rule.

What if a "Troll" (like those trio in Colorado) digs the first and then "serious folk" digs their usual daily battle..
Will have to wait 2 hours for that troll one too, which only very few people will attend?

I can imagine a lot of similar ways to abuse such rule.

Also different Fort sizes can last longer or shorter than others.

So we must have some "Flexibilities"
 

sanidh

Active Member
For once, its a request please keep your personal feuds aside and forget who did what on what world, as long as people are willing to make this "state policy" forward it will only help us all.

this whole charade of, oh its funny you favour it now when you did this/that there takes the conversation down a very unconstructive path. alot of people are guilty of this. when it comes to the Colorado model what i like majorly is how this unnofficial no multi rule helped get numbers up, its a model to follow but yes it needs tweaking for some worlds.
 

sanidh

Active Member
There is actually something that concerns me about this Rule.

What if a "Troll" (like those trio in Colorado) digs the first and then "serious folk" digs their usual daily battle..
Will have to wait 2 hours for that troll one too, which only very few people will attend?

I can imagine a lot of similar ways to abuse such rule.

Also different Fort sizes can last longer or shorter than others.

So we must have some "Flexibilities"

Yeah some tweaking for that will help, we can copy the skeleton of the colorado rule and change it up to make it more functional
 

jarograv

Well-Known Member
Based on comments made and actions recently taken by the CM, it is clear that he wants this to be an obvious yes and as some have stated already on this thread: "How can you vote No and encourage multis?". It's not a vote for or against multis, it is a vote for or against creating a universally enforced template for what Nyborg thinks we need.

Yes, we've dealt with multis in the past where someone digs 10 battles day after day. It was a relief to see action taken against them in the past. But there are also legitimate situations in which a battle is dug within 2 hours of another. Are people going to get points/banned for that? Why create a strict rule when we know we've had legitimate situations in the past (accidentally dug on day other alliance was scheduled to dig, multiple battles to get more rockets, retaking a fort that was previously taken by multi/breach of the agreement, etc.)

I voted NO because I don't think Nyborg should be creating this arbitrary rule. Keep enforcing how it was in the past with points for disruptive behaviour (should probably add in the rules that multi digs are disruptive), but don't make a hard and fast 2hr rule.
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
it's a complicated matter. i think the rule should be allowed for interpretation by the mods. it's obvious though, when a huge amount of players will tell you that the digs are disruptive, then penalties should be applied. it's extremely hard to reach a mutual consensus about the amount of battles you can dig in a certain amount of hours, probably why there wasn't any rule until now.

but we can probably all agree that battles dug to keep forts and battles dug just for the sake of it are heavy punishment material. at least that
 

sanidh

Active Member
Based on comments made and actions recently taken by the CM, it is clear that he wants this to be an obvious yes and as some have stated already on this thread: "How can you vote No and encourage multis?". It's not a vote for or against multis, it is a vote for or against creating a universally enforced template for what Nyborg thinks we need.

Yes, we've dealt with multis in the past where someone digs 10 battles day after day. It was a relief to see action taken against them in the past. But there are also legitimate situations in which a battle is dug within 2 hours of another. Are people going to get points/banned for that? Why create a strict rule when we know we've had legitimate situations in the past (accidentally dug on day other alliance was scheduled to dig, multiple battles to get more rockets, retaking a fort that was previously taken by multi/breach of the agreement, etc.)

I voted NO because I don't think Nyborg should be creating this arbitrary rule. Keep enforcing how it was in the past with points for disruptive behaviour (should probably add in the rules that multi digs are disruptive), but don't make a hard and fast 2hr rule.

Keep the rule but make it contextual and flexible and make the appeal process easy, thats better than having no rule at all, it takes months to stop some idiots from wrecking havoc, this is having freedom for the sake of it, we can have rules which allow for flexibility two and hit two birds with one stone.
 
Attendance would improve if there were fewer battles. Three or four a week with only one on a weekend would make for the best battles with a minimum of turnover due to the "Griefing" described above. Abusive conduct will kill the game and must be stopped. Ideally each battle will draw 60-80 participants per FF for each side. INNO Event FFs at Awesome would be extra. Battle outcomes should reflect teamwork and tactics.
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
Please define what an (un)official rule actually means? Isn't it either an official rule or no rule? I don't see how Inno can have an unofficial rule at all - that is for players to put in place for themselves.

The majority of worlds do have an unofficial rule defining the time interval between fights as either 6 or 8 hrs. So what relevance would this proposal have to them if executed? : Surely it would simply provide justification for those who want to dig after 2 hrs. and therefore could undermine existing agreements. On worlds where player agreements don't 'formally' exist there is usually reasonable behaviour between sides anyway. (Of course there are always a few 'cowboys' who do 'annoyance' digs with no purpose other than to make people waste time defending "just in case'.)

I don't really understand what a multi is actually defined as any more.. At times, the term is applied to ffs dug seconds apart and others to a ff that is dug 7 hrs. 50 secs after the prior one. Now we are into arguing about off-prime fights on some worlds. It is all getting way too complicated..

What happens on Colorado is different to every other world I play. There towns do switch sides in a conscious effort to maintain some sort of balance. Everywhere else not so much or not at all. I think that is the real reason that ff'g is on its way out on most worlds - and it is nothing at all to do with 'multis'.
 
Last edited:

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
The West game is a free online game. Please allow me to repeat, a free game. It is a strategy game which can be freely played as a gamer sees fit. With the exception of abusive messaging in a telegram or in chat there is no such thing as an abusive game play. *There should not be any moderation rules applied to in-game strategy choices. Any changes to game play to improve it should be applied in software and if that is not possible then it is up to the player community to decide for themselves.

Fort battles can be arranged using town alliances. If a player goes rogue then alliances can find ways to deal with it without a cry for moderation. The idea of grieving because of multi-fort battles being ignited is an exaggeration.

Multiple battles at odd times will indeed change the game play. That is their purpose. For example could the little berry-pickin’ farmer's product of the west appear to be more valuable to the fierce hardheaded soldier? The established leaders in the game might loose some battles or even their forts with an underhanded disruptive strategy being thrown at them. But if they are strong and if they are organized they will continue to gain and get their lost forts back. They can keep their team informed of what is happening in the game and deal with rogue players in an in-game effective way. *There shouldn’t be a need for moderation in a fiery pvp conflict.

The West is a free game where everyone starts out as an equal. A gamer can purchase using real world cash a better gun that makes them stronger. Is that fair? Is it grieving others to create such an imbalance? And gamers do find ways when playing a game to gain over other players. Perhaps this is another form of grieving? Should a moderation team attempt to penalize players for behaving like a nasty outlaw in a west game? *Don’t encourage outlaws though for their jail cell might end up being their unpopularity.

*in my humble opinion
 

Dr Roth

Well-Known Member
I don't agree with giving point or banning people for digging one multi. But digging 5 multies should get points. Also if battles are dug so close to each other maybe the mods could just move the battles so that there is a 2h gap between them. Ideally you would just have to send in a support ticket and the time would be altered. However, this could obviously also be abused by a multi digger to just dig battles every 2h and therefor make any "legit" dig a multi.

Do we have enough multies today to warrant making it a rule? I don't think so. Since the multies on Colorado got one person banned it has been generally calm. On other servers (mainly Kansas) people do want several battles a day during events to generate more event currency.

The only other situation is when a CM battle is dug and people complain that their legit dig was moved as it was too close to the GM battle. IMO this happens so seldom that it's not a problem.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
Based on comments made and actions recently taken by the CM, it is clear that he wants this to be an obvious yes and as some have stated already on this thread: "How can you vote No and encourage multis?". It's not a vote for or against multis, it is a vote for or against creating a universally enforced template for what Nyborg thinks we need.

Yes, we've dealt with multis in the past where someone digs 10 battles day after day. It was a relief to see action taken against them in the past. But there are also legitimate situations in which a battle is dug within 2 hours of another. Are people going to get points/banned for that? Why create a strict rule when we know we've had legitimate situations in the past (accidentally dug on day other alliance was scheduled to dig, multiple battles to get more rockets, retaking a fort that was previously taken by multi/breach of the agreement, etc.)

I voted NO because I don't think Nyborg should be creating this arbitrary rule. Keep enforcing how it was in the past with points for disruptive behaviour (should probably add in the rules that multi digs are disruptive), but don't make a hard and fast 2hr rule.
it's a complicated matter. i think the rule should be allowed for interpretation by the mods. it's obvious though, when a huge amount of players will tell you that the digs are disruptive, then penalties should be applied. it's extremely hard to reach a mutual consensus about the amount of battles you can dig in a certain amount of hours, probably why there wasn't any rule until now.

but we can probably all agree that battles dug to keep forts and battles dug just for the sake of it are heavy punishment material. at least that

Or to "make a statement/point", ie...as in "You did xxx, so I'll show you..." .
 

sanidh

Active Member
The West game is a free online game. Please allow me to repeat, a free game. It is a strategy game which can be freely played as a gamer sees fit. With the exception of abusive messaging in a telegram or in chat there is no such thing as an abusive game play. *There should not be any moderation rules applied to in-game strategy choices. Any changes to game play to improve it should be applied in software and if that is not possible then it is up to the player community to decide for themselves.

Fort battles can be arranged using town alliances. If a player goes rogue then alliances can find ways to deal with it without a cry for moderation. The idea of grieving because of multi-fort battles being ignited is an exaggeration.

Multiple battles at odd times will indeed change the game play. That is their purpose. For example could the little berry-pickin’ farmer's product of the west appear to be more valuable to the fierce hardheaded soldier? The established leaders in the game might loose some battles or even their forts with an underhanded disruptive strategy being thrown at them. But if they are strong and if they are organized they will continue to gain and get their lost forts back. They can keep their team informed of what is happening in the game and deal with rogue players in an in-game effective way. *There shouldn’t be a need for moderation in a fiery pvp conflict.

The West is a free game where everyone starts out as an equal. A gamer can purchase using real world cash a better gun that makes them stronger. Is that fair? Is it grieving others to create such an imbalance? And gamers do find ways when playing a game to gain over other players. Perhaps this is another form of grieving? Should a moderation team attempt to penalize players for behaving like a nasty outlaw in a west game? *Don’t encourage outlaws though for their jail cell might end up being their unpopularity.

*in my humble opinion

It's always been this and lead to a mess on many world's, sorry but this kind of system hasn't worked, only few world's have had control over rogue elements and mostly a few people are absolutely able to hold the world ransom, what is the problem with having an arbitrator or someone who decides what rules should prevent something that ruins the experience of everybody? Are you seriously telling you endorse multies and don't want a rule against it?
 

magwai the akeoj

Well-Known Member
Multis can be fun, and intense, but at the same time, I understand why players don't like them. I think an official rule would be good, or even something that prevents digs too close together (such as a pop up that says "you can't dig for X amount of time"). I also think that "deserters" should be penallize, because people who sign up, but don't show up harm the battle.

However, on worlds that the alliances make these rules, there are problems. On some worlds, 2 huge alliances dictate everything on the world. Sometimes it's only the largest alliance that does. This makes it impossible from any smaller alliances to do anything, get on a dig schedule or give input into anything having to do with FFs. And it's normally those smaller alliances that create "multis".
 
Top