Feedback thread about multi fort battles :-D

Nisa

Well-Known Member
Honestly this is why I suggested to new CM to play at least one .Net server with an undercover nick


As far as I can understand, he isn't a "Hardcore" player but not a "Berry picker" either
I'm not sure what to think about that part.
 

Dubjean

Well-Known Member
People have asked why some would vote no. I did and my reason is that in some cases the 'multis' are a tactic that can be used. It is fine for 2 large alliances to come to an agreement to when they should have a battle but that does not take into consideration anyone else. If in every world you are in, you are a member of a large alliance then you have no reason to want anyone else to dig whenever they want. I do know that in some worlds there are a few players that dig all the time and disrupt normal battle play all the time. There should be a rule for these players but not for those that choose to go against the large alliances and split their efforts as a tactic to either shake things up or win a fort. I also hate the rules that say 'every 6 hours' (or 7 or 8 or wtv) because again the large alliances are dictating the time frame of these battles. It would be more fair to limit a certain person digging within a time frame because then at least you are limiting the individuals that disrupt but not the smaller towns or alliances that choose to make a statement.
 

Nisa

Well-Known Member
Yes, we've dealt with multis in the past where someone digs 10 battles day after day.

10 only ? Victor Kruger knows how to dig multies :D


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.
Agreed. It can be abused.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
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?
I don't want to endorse any outlandish behaviour only that a rule could be set by players and not a management team.

Making in-game rules by moderation sets precedence for other in-game rules by moderation. Are you seriously telling you that making formal rules is a good thing in a game? How exactly is a particular person or a few people ruining a game for everyone else? Is that even possible? Heck maybe you could be ruining the game because your avatar contains a flower or maybe you placed your avatar into a fort and then have the audacity to go on a date with your most favourite person in the real world. How dare you! You must be ruining this game for everyone else? Do you see where this is going? Please forgive me for this exaggeration and sarcasm. I only wished to make my point understood in this paragraph.

On world ransom, from my limited experience and from the viewpoint of a greenhorn new to the west I determined that the reason things got messy was because players were not able to organize, negotiate and make concessions with each other. On the other hand I did see game play where forts were allowed to exist for the underdog alliance by a more powerful leader who decided that good sportsmanship was better than world domination.
 

Medi

New Member
My personal experience is 9 hours between battle's is enough time to regenerate health and get to the fort.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
And another person 2 hours is enough...yet another 4

I think we do realize though there is more issue here than just how much time should be allowed between battles
 

flarian

Member
Like i do not approve of multi digging.... however, i can see a world where an underdog team can use multidigging to get some forts. and to get some footing. its also a bit the nature of a top team. to have to controle something and shows they can handle multiple threats and defend them. like it might not give the best battles. but organising wise. it takes as much planning for an attacking side as an defending side who can organise the best.

so making rules for it. is in my point a bit too much. what u are going to imply is that u put a dominant force on number 1. if a small team won't get acknowledged by the other team and want to dig at prime time there is a chance they may never do so because an esthablished dig schedule. and will get flamed for taking those prime spots only creating as much negativity as the multi itselve.

if a troll digs multiple u just need to make the rule from that town at every battle there need to be atleast 2 or 3 town/alliance members. to make it a valid dig.

Edit:
Also this game is called "the West" it is supposed to be chaotic :D
 

Apelatia

Well-Known Member
I always have and will hate multi digs, but imposing a two-hour rule will be restrictive on the game in a negative way. I'd prefer objective mod assessment and point punishment of people clearly abusing the game function to either benefit themselves or detract from the playing experience of others.
 

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
In the olden days a multi was within 8 hours. Then it became 6 and now it is pretty much universally 4 hours. We in kansas use 2 hours during events where the entire purpose is to die horribly for double event currency so recovered health is not necessary, we just want many battles. LOL

As far as a 2 hour rule, that is fine with me but inno should just put it into the code preventing it. We as players will continue to consider 4 hours as standard.

In general, 2 battles per day at the most is what we want, usually only 1 battle per day. Why? Cuz we all play many worlds!
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
In the olden days a multi was within 8 hours. Then it became 6 and now it is pretty much universally 4 hours. We in kansas use 2 hours during events where the entire purpose is to die horribly for double event currency so recovered health is not necessary, we just want many battles. LOL

As far as a 2 hour rule, that is fine with me but inno should just put it into the code preventing it. We as players will continue to consider 4 hours as standard.

In general, 2 battles per day at the most is what we want, usually only 1 battle per day. Why? Cuz we all play many worlds!

Pray tell...where are these "universally" accepted 4 hours?

Also I never really accepted the entire "purpose of dying horribly" very appealing either, even for "double currency" unless it is Awesomia (of which I don't care)..I haven't noticed that with other players either, particularly when actual forts are being battled over...
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
Nothing is universally accepted - and it shouldn't be either.

I notice that some of those stating a dislike for multis are quite happy to partake in them when it suits their purpose.. Good to see "The do as I say but not as I do" philosophy is alive and kicking in The West.

I voted "no" on the basis that I have no real clue as to what voting "yes" means I see lots of opinions but the CM has been far from explicit in his proposal.. Until that is clear, the whole exercise is premature. Nobody in business would ever sign a contract on this basis.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Well, I voted no. Not because I endorse multi-battles or anything like that, I'm one of the loudest voices condemning them, but because deciding when battles can happen should be for the players alone. We have to reach a diplomatic consensus that suits our specific world and specific player-base's needs.
Also because I fear that context will not be considered when ban point are applied, because some of the situations involving multis are accidental or nuanced.

Simply moving a battle on request is good enough, and ideally ban points would only be considered for extreme cases of repeat offenders, causing large-scale disruption.

In the olden days a multi was within 8 hours.
There seems to be two definitions of "multi-battle".
- A multi battle is when two or more battles are running at the same time.
- But also when two or more battles are running within a diplomatically agreed time-frame.

An 8 hour gap was left between battles in some worlds, so players could actually attend them both - with modern regen sets and buffs, we don't need to wait very long now.
Certain worlds have no diplomatic digging agreement, and they have functionally died as a consequence - this is no great loss to the game as a whole.
If the "leaders" of a world cant understand that what they want and what their opponents want are as important as each other, and that a world only survives because of cooperation, then making an unofficial rule can't save them from themselves.
 
Last edited:

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
Oops I forgot to mention time of day for battles! Dummy me! In the olden days I think prime time was 1900-2300 but personally I think that is too confining and should be something like 1700-0100 (plus/minus). The purpose of prime time is to have the most people fill a fort. More battles per day = less attendance in each, hence the one battle per day convention. Off prime time battles get very low attendance and mostly offliners.

Now I realize there are players who hate the concept of prime time totally (especially Americans who work) but the game is as it is. The prime time concept works!

AND this is where the 4 hour multi rule comes in. It allows 2 battles per day max in prime time.

Please, no more npc awesomia battles at the very same time! Again we all play many worlds!
 

Jordy240797

Well-Known Member
I always have and will hate multi digs, but imposing a two-hour rule will be restrictive on the game in a negative way. I'd prefer objective mod assessment and point punishment of people clearly abusing the game function to either benefit themselves or detract from the playing experience of others.

I don't feel comfortable having a moderator decide on what the intend of a dug Fort Battle is based on a story by a player. There are players whom hold a grudge against others and will do anything to get a specific player banned, even the definition of what a multi is gets twisted to fit the narrative. People twist a story to manipulate a moderator or higher to conduct a specific way and this should be prevented at all costs. A knife has two sides after all and this could become very ugly. All players deserve to be treated as equals and to act differently is discrimination for which there are obviously national laws in place to prevent that conduct. We all have to follow national laws after all.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
Oops I forgot to mention time of day for battles! Dummy me! In the olden days I think prime time was 1900-2300 but personally I think that is too confining and should be something like 1700-0100 (plus/minus). The purpose of prime time is to have the most people fill a fort. More battles per day = less attendance in each, hence the one battle per day convention. Off prime time battles get very low attendance and mostly offliners.

Now I realize there are players who hate the concept of prime time totally (especially Americans who work) but the game is as it is. The prime time concept works!

AND this is where the 4 hour multi rule comes in. It allows 2 battles per day max in prime time.

Please, no more npc awesomia battles at the very same time! Again we all play many worlds!

I have no problem with Prime time battles whenever that may be...I also have no problem with some off prime either.

I would like a reasonable agreement on agreed on acceptable times between battles also...but do not like being TOLD or demanded "it IS to be x amount of time and no ifs ands about it" with no discussion at all as if that individual is the only deciding factor.

I like dig schedules (at least for prime) but do not like when one is attempted and some one intentionally goes against it, and maybe even dig multies (as in 3 back to back within 5 minutes) for purpose of "making a statement" (as in "don't dig my fort or this is what happens"..for THAT situation I think deserves some kind of consequence.

I have no problem if a ticket is sent to "move" a battle if it is dug a little too close "whatever too close is" ... But again, if that battle was obviously not a mistake but done in retaliation... (You did this so I do that to "show you" kind of thing)...there is definitely an issue there to address when it is ongoing situations as this that impacts too many other players game, including those on your own side.

I also like when there are rational people that can discuss these things reasonably to work on agreements.
 

Apelatia

Well-Known Member
I don't feel comfortable having a moderator decide on what the intend of a dug Fort Battle is based on a story by a player. There are players whom hold a grudge against others and will do anything to get a specific player banned, even the definition of what a multi is gets twisted to fit the narrative. People twist a story to manipulate a moderator or higher to conduct a specific way and this should be prevented at all costs. A knife has two sides after all and this could become very ugly. All players deserve to be treated as equals and to act differently is discrimination for which there are obviously national laws in place to prevent that conduct. We all have to follow national laws after all.

What I read from this is that you don't trust the mods to be objective to uphold a fair judgement. Am I right? Although, I also heard that you enjoy digging multis yourself, so perhaps you're a little biased. :huh:
 
Top