Feedback thread about multi fort battles :-D

Jordy240797

Well-Known Member
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:

What I am saying is that moderators are humans too and humans are easily influenced by a sob story. If you think digging 1 and half hour after the previous dig constitutes a multi then yes, I dug a multi in your opinion. I however think a multi is intentionally making it so you have to pick a fight to attend. In my case both fights could be attended.
 

Apelatia

Well-Known Member
I feel it's naive to think that all mod decisions are based purely on a sob story. In fact, I can say from experience that they aren't. No, the moderators aren't perfect, but there's more behind a punishment decision related to multis than you seem to think there is. I've always noticed as well that it's often the ones digging the multis that shout the loudest, complain the most and get angry when they are found out and have nowhere to hide.

Like I said before, multis detract from the playing experience of others. Yes, maybe there is potential for a tactical element there, but I can't think of a single example of that having been beneficial for a world in all my time playing here. It's hard to argue that splitting forces between multiple battles, confusing the player-base and overall taking away from enjoyment of a full or near-full battle is anywhere close to making the game more enjoyable for anyone but the multi digger themselves. In fact, for everyone else, it's a big turn-off.
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
Objectivity lies in the eye of the beholder. Not sure if Confucius said it, but he should have!

One mod. I could name thought it was perfectly OK for an alliance to dig ffs at 2 hr intervals over a period of 30+ hours. on a beta world. That suggests to me there is great variability in how mods. interpret matters. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I could say it is who you know and not what you know that counts.
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
Imo, if y'all are worried on multi battles(which are perfectly legal according to game rules) you have an active world. For that I send kudo's to ya.
For the world's that rarely fort, why would we need some poll or ruling?
Anyhoooooooo, carry on. Always good to see some forum activity.
 

Reyne

Well-Known Member
Its 3 hours for me, more is okay but minimum should be three hours between battles.
I tend to agree with you, here. Consider that some battles go the full number of rounds. That does take some time (I haven't clocked it, but over an hour I'd say). Then, say you either get sent back home due to massive injuries. Or lets even say you, by some miracle, survive. You might have to travel all the way over on the other side of the map, and unless you change into speed gear, it's going to take some time to get to the next battle, where you want to rebuff and get your mind ready, a good snack and a cold or hot beverage, visit the facilities..and so it goes. I think 3 hours is the absolute, positively no less limit of time allowed.
 

delldell56

Well-Known Member
10 only ? Victor Kruger knows how to dig multies :D



Agreed. It can be abused.
Hehehe, I remember those days that futu hated so much, when Johnny would dig ALL forts in like three hours on World 2...and would attend all or almost all of them too as the lone attacker. Let's not forget the adorable Joffers that killed World 6 and World 12 with his multis and how he actually abused this tactic. Totally agree with Nisa here.

Now, I hate multis just as much as anyone else, but I think everybody is forgetting a few things here that might or might not weigh a lot (and yes, just because I am an inactive & retired berry picker doesn't mean I don't have eyes or have forgotten the evolution of the game). Not all the worlds are the same. Applying a fort fighting rule to an active world that has at least one battle a day won't have the same repercussion in a dead world, where a multi would mean almost just as much as having one single battle a week; and the same can be said about a new world, where maybe the spark is still alive because the forts are for the grabs and are harder to defend, and multiple small alliances are forming. The possible outcome is likely going to be different in all three. Also, a universal multi rule assumes every world operates on the basis of having two organized large fort fighting alliances that came up with a schedule arrangement, but leaves out any other players that play the game too but aren't members of those alliances. Would that mean those players/towns MUST join one of the two existing major alliances if they want to dig sometimes or not do it at all? How democratic, right? This is also important when a world closure happens and the players are encouraged to move as a group. Are you going to force those migrants to join those existing alliances? If they migrate with the goal of forming a third or a fouth alliance and shake things up, won't they be allowed to have their own digs, providing that they do want to be a fort fighting alliance? Or what if a major alliance decides to split in two or three and become challenging FF alliances? (that has happened in the past, just not recently).

Another big difference we didn't have to face in the past was the fact that players would join fort fights out of will, because they enjoyed that aspect of the game (at some point, battles were the most fun part of the game). Now, however, developers have introduced all sorts of events and questlines that absolutely require players to go to forts. It might happen that a lone player or a small town or a town full of non FF players, totally unaware of how the world operates in terms of FF, decides to dig to have their own battle for a quest or for fun. Would that mean they unknowingly broke the rules but must be punished for the transgression anyways? How about players that want to join a battle in an active world but are constantly denied a rank because nobody knows them, or are too low level or bad geared or are simply disliked by some or whatever, then decide to dig because if nobody wants to rank them at least having their own battle would guarantee they get in? Settle for an Awesomia battle only? Ignoring the needs of those quiet players that aren't necessarily trolls but neither interested in FF BUT are forced by the game to play some at times shouldn't be an option either.

I hate multis just as much as I hate duels. They ruin the fun for many. But just as you can't erase dueling in a game like The West because some players don't like them, eliminating multis as a valid tactic doesn't seem to be too fair. The key is to act when the tactic is being abused and threatens the integrity of the game, but not treating every case under the same optics because that seems incredibly unreasonable.
 

delldell56

Well-Known Member
10 only ? Victor Kruger knows how to dig multies :D



Agreed. It can be abused.
Hehehe, I remember those days that futu hated so much, when Johnny would dig ALL forts in like three hours on World 2...and would attend all or almost all of them too as the lone attacker. Let's not forget the adorable Joffers that killed World 6 and World 12 with his multis and how he actually abused this tactic. Totally agree with Nisa here.

Now, I hate multis just as much as anyone else, but I think everybody is forgetting a few things here that might or might not weigh a lot (and yes, just because I am an inactive & retired berry picker doesn't mean I don't have eyes or have forgotten the evolution of the game). Not all the worlds are the same. Applying a fort fighting rule to an active world that has at least one battle a day won't have the same repercussion in a dead world, where a multi would mean almost just as much as having one single battle a week; and the same can be said about a new world, where maybe the spark is still alive because the forts are for the grabs and are harder to defend, and multiple small alliances are forming. The possible outcome is likely going to be different in all three. Also, a universal multi rule assumes every world operates on the basis of having two organized large fort fighting alliances that came up with a schedule arrangement, but leaves out any other players that play the game too but aren't members of those alliances. Would that mean those players/towns MUST join one of the two existing major alliances if they want to dig sometimes or not do it at all? How democratic, right? This is also important when a world closure happens and the players are encouraged to move as a group. Are you going to force those migrants to join those existing alliances? If they migrate with the goal of forming a third or a fouth alliance and shake things up, won't they be allowed to have their own digs, providing that they do want to be a fort fighting alliance? Or what if a major alliance decides to split in two or three and become challenging FF alliances? (that has happened in the past, just not recently).

Another big difference we didn't have to face in the past was the fact that players would join fort fights out of will, because they enjoyed that aspect of the game (at some point, battles were the most fun part of the game). Now, however, developers have introduced all sorts of events and questlines that absolutely require players to go to forts. It might happen that a lone player or a small town or a town full of non FF players, totally unaware of how the world operates in terms of FF, decides to dig to have their own battle for a quest or for fun. Would that mean they unknowingly broke the rules but must be punished for the transgression anyways? How about players that want to join a battle in an active world but are constantly denied a rank because nobody knows them, or are too low level or bad geared or are simply disliked by some or whatever, then decide to dig because if nobody wants to rank them at least having their own battle would guarantee they get in? Settle for an Awesomia battle only? Ignoring the needs of those quiet players that aren't necessarily trolls but neither interested in FF BUT are forced by the game to play some at times shouldn't be an option either.

I hate multis just as much as I hate duels. They ruin the fun for many. But just as you can't erase dueling in a game like The West because some players don't like them, eliminating multis as a valid tactic doesn't seem to be too fair. The key is to act when the tactic is being abused and threatens the integrity of the game, but not treating every case under the same optics because that seems incredibly unreasonable.
 

Reyne

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 agree with not having all Awesomia battles at the same time. :D

I am in major disagreement regarding battle times. Yes, I understand that in order to fill battles it needs to be when most of the players are online. But to exclude a huge segment of the player base in every battle does not encourage fort battle participation if every battle they are in must be played offline. AT ALL. That's why I stopped participating on one world, no fun at all, ever, and some of the "decision makers" for that world wouldn't bend even a little to allow an occasional off-prime battle. I have played many battles offline, and expect to. But when people have to have it their way or no way, I'm willing to tell them to stick their battle where the sun doesn't shine. :)
 
Last edited:

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
Imo, if y'all are worried on multi battles(which are perfectly legal according to game rules) you have an active world. For that I send kudo's to ya.
For the world's that rarely fort, why would we need some poll or ruling?
Anyhoooooooo, carry on. Always good to see some forum activity.

Indeed, as I stated in an earlier post...in light of the people trying to prove Idaho is dead...let me assure you they are proving that it is indeed VERY much alive! Ty, Kidd :) (although the times we had to endure the 3 back to back - more than once, I may add... all within 5 minutes were a little much, I admit. And all because "you dug my fort" kind of thing)
 

Annie-Bell

Member
Honestly, ff's rarely occur in 6 or so worlds (regular daily battles occur in colo, houston, idaho, juarez most of time, and kansas) a game wide rule that sets definition of multi digs where peeps get punished or goes against server own agreements in place seems like could cause more issues. In past, mods would look at individual situations. Agree with comment earlier that if there is a rule established by inno it should be officially and clearly communicated to all in server.

I dont like multi digs myself, (in my thoughts 6 hours mainly based on feedback of players) - dont think generally good for worlds and silly small battles and hurt feelings. The reality is .. there isnt alot of ff's going on in most worlds, so not a real issue and seems to take care of itself when does occur. Some worlds they have player base to do multiple battles per day (colo/kansas), most cannot effectively do more than 1 battle per day so regardless of how short of time frames defined as multi players themselves dont show up and there is decline in attendance in long run which changes the behaviour of multi digger usually without inno being involved. We should trust mods to evaluate significant problems of same multi digger on a one by one case - when the intent is to disrupt server, harm server, steal forts. But the players themselves are the ones that "punish" multi digs.

Know in places like colo and briscoe there is few one player towns that dig multi constantly, looks like those leaders/teams deal with it well and no forts usually taken so may be annoying but not game changing. In AZ, there are several alliances and kinda up to them to work it out where everyone has rights (would luv to see battles there again!). In houston, saw group multi dig according to 6 hours between (in place for couple years) BUT would hate for them to get in trouble (we certainly will use info with players to gain more support to defend but would hate to see peeps get in trouble)... thanks to those peeps and few on our side, actually heard that was only time they COULD dig and us digging when we did left them with limited choices ..so ... now we ironed out wrinkles and have been enjoying guaranteed daily battles in houston - an example where multi used against us but made us "hear" and happy end result. (SHAMELESS PLUG FOR HOUSTON .. lol . no we are not dead) In idaho, many of players there to just show up for daily battles and dont involve themselves in growing idaho politics .. i suspect one group saw another group taking to digging weird hours while bragging active server where, again the players deal with it .. lose support .. went from good daily battles to little 18v9 battles, dont know but expect multi digs were to try to address that. Probably digging multi not best solution but it may have been "hey listen" like the opposition did to us in houston, and then both sides interested in that world should find out why multi and try to work it out else they end up with silly small battles when before were adequate. The kansas multi dig wars ..yeah glad dealt with.

I dont like multi digs, and really do try to encourage the idea of working towards one battle per day (exception being colo and kansas who can handle more) but think developing game wide rule for multi digs, not really necessary and each world different, and may interfere with dealing with real issues. Handle real issues of chronic multi diggers case by case basis! Should also say seen whole servers die off because of multis (one makes me very sad), but those are old tendencies no longer applicable.
 
Last edited:

Lyrinx.

Well-Known Member
Indeed, as I stated in an earlier post...in light of the people trying to prove Idaho is dead...let me assure you they are proving that it is indeed VERY much alive! Ty, Kidd :) (although the times we had to endure the 3 back to back - more than once, I may add... all within 5 minutes were a little much, I admit. And all because "you dug my fort" kind of thing)
1627685421256.png
Yeah, alive.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
I agree with not having all Awesomia battles at the same time. :D

I am in major disagreement regarding battle times. Yes, I understand that in order to fill battles it needs to be when most of the players are online. But to exclude a huge segment of the player base in every battle does not encourage fort battle participation if every battle they are in must be played offline. AT ALL. That's why I stopped participating on one world, no fun at all, ever, and some of the "decision makers" for that world wouldn't bend even a little to allow an occasional off-prime battle. I have played many battles offline, and expect to. B:ut when people have to have it their way or no way, I'm willing to tell them to stick their battle where the sun doesn't shine. :)

Yea, we have had the ones that also demand "their way or no way" also...I believe in a little bit of compromise. I think planned Prime battles are just great...but at the same time, I agree with occasional off prime for those that are simply unable to ever attend the prime battles, which there are some. Granted the total number of attendees will be lower, nobody is denying that, BUT, to deny players ANY online battles during their time is wrong too. It's not like we are asking for every day off prime, we don't do that.

It's like people think we are going to run out of forts to dig or something. There are 42 forts on the map...our alliance currently has 5 (yes, ONLY 5), the rest belong to our opponents, so IF/when we win one, is it really hard to understand to just dig it back? Dig it back during prime, off prime, who cares? BUT, to dig multi's behind it is definitely not acceptable...AND, to dig multi's during off prime to retaliate about the off prime dig they are upset about too :D That really makes sense...but it has happened.

So, I orchestrated ONE multi last week on the last day of the event against the Awesomia...I explained myself. A ticket was sent and it was moved. Situation was resolved...end of story. We all know I did it, I won't deny it, and we have attempted to move on from that more than once. I have not gone on a tirade about it and I have not retaliated by doing it again or by digging more multi's... I typically do not dig multi's,...I think I have before innocently by mistake I have dug at same time as someone else, I immediately apologized and said I would attempt to "cancel" the attack and promote defense and if its won, will return it...THAT's what should happen and that is normally what I would do, as I hate multi's as much as the next person, if truth be known.

I prefer a MINIMUM of 4 hours between battles (to allow more time for tanks, of which I am not one) although if it was decided to be 2, I'd be ok with it. If the ones digging are ok with their own teammates trying to make it to a battle 2 hours after another and their tanks have to use extra buffs to make it...fine, but in our situation, I tend to think it's not a matter of digging to just have another battle, due to the history we already have in Idaho and the pattern that has already evolved...
 
Last edited:

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
notice who dug the 7 vs. 19 multi on July 29 though...and within 2 hours or so of the previous one. Thank you, for helping to prove a point on that one.

Again though, I did state that we know the attendance is lower for off prime vs. prime, but that is no reason to eliminate them completely for the ones that cannot make prime time...but I THINK only 1 battle during one off prime period in one day is sufficient, rather than 1 that is dug 2-3 hours after one that is also during off prime time just because one was dug during off prime...
 

Lyrinx.

Well-Known Member
notice who dug the 7 vs. 19 multi on July 29 though...and within 2 hours or so of the previous one. Thank you, for helping to prove a point on that one.

Again though, I did state that we know the attendance is lower for off prime vs. prime, but that is no reason to eliminate them completely for the ones that cannot make prime time...but I THINK only 1 battle during one off prime period in one day is sufficient, rather than 1 that is dug 2-3 hours after one that is also during off prime time just because one was dug during off prime...
Let's check out the 2nd page, where Socks did it as well at 21 of July. (that was the battle what was dug 20 minutes right after awesomia battle. )

1627686636716.png
 
Last edited:

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
Yea, the day of the first split character battle on the last day of the event :)

followed on the 23rd (2nd split character battle with Jordy's dig 2 hours or so later and after the end of event)
 
Last edited:

Jordy240797

Well-Known Member
Yea, the day of the first split character battle on the last day of the event :)

followed on the 23rd (2nd split character battle with Jordy's dig 2 hours or so later and after the end of event)

(Shocks - Socks you mean?)

I simply followed the example that was being set in the world of Idaho. You instigate all of this yet you're here on the forum pretending to be a saint yourself. ''Do as I say but not as I do.''

And then you lot wonder why players start prefering different worlds or ask for migration.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
I simply followed the example that was being set in the world of Idaho. You instigate all of this yet you're here on the forum pretending to be a saint yourself. ''Do as I say but not as I do.''

And then you lot wonder why players start prefering different worlds or ask for migration.

Action was taken on mine and it was resolved, end of story...yet you still prove my point that you have a "tit for tat" mind set...
You "react" with the same thing. Because you didn't like "my dig" you did the exact same thing in return...which is exactly what I was saying earlier... OR you act out in retaliation of something you do not like...

Thank you for helping to support what was said earlier.
 

Jordy240797

Well-Known Member
Action was taken on mine and it was resolved, end of story...yet you still prove my point that you have a "tit for tat" mind set...
You "react" with the same thing. Because you didn't like "my dig" you did the exact same thing in return...which is exactly what I was saying earlier... OR you act out in retaliation of something you do not like...

Thank you for helping to support what was said earlier.

Thank you for setting me up then. Great job.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
Really? Nobody "set you up, Jordy" anymore than I was set up. You made your own decision as always. You played the game completely in character for who you have always been...nobody twisted your arm...just take responsibility for your actions, as I did with mine and move on.
 
Last edited:
Top