Feedback thread about multi fort battles :-D

Reyne

Well-Known Member
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...

My thought regarding the off-prime battles, and accounting for lower attendance, was to only dig small or mediums. That way, they are closer to filling. Also bear in mind that no one was really asking for WAY off-prime. Just a bit later than normal to give people a chance to get home from work, dinner for the family, etc. And no multi would even have to be dug if it was agreed in advance when the off-prime battle was to take place. Say Alliance A dug once a week, and Alliance B dug once a week. Let's say that some members of Alliance A and Alliance B wanted an off-prime battle to accommodate those hours. It could be arranged in advance that a couple of times a month, either Alliance A OR Alliance B is going to dig off-prime. That way, no one gets bent because everyone gets some fun, with the prime attendees having the majority of the online battles.

Seems workable to me if everyone is considerate of the people behind the screen. :)
 

sanidh

Active Member
All in all, not having an official rule against multies has made me leave the game before, and it will make me leave the game again if i encounter it in the future, im not alone in this, it ruins worlds. "Leave it to the players" dsnt work on this game because this game works on social connections, iv seen a ton of people dig multies and their possie never calls it out cuz well, they're well connected (whatever that means in an online game) and honestly half of you are each other's throats half the time so what concensus will you come to? Its EGO's over the health of the server on the west, been that for a while.

World 12 was brought to its knees 8 years ago in a matter of 2 months as i remember and there was NOTHING that could be done about it from the player point of view, please dont be naive enough to believe there's anything players can do themselves to combat this issue.

When i ask for a rule i dont mean a rule that has no contextual application, any law even in RL is applied contextually after hearing all facts related to it, Im not saying CM and moderators should act like virtual courtrooms for our grievances but MOST online games now have anti-griefing rules, so why not TW?

Back when W12 was the latest world many years ago a similar conversation had happened on the forums, not initiated by the Mods but by a player only, the Number 1 argument that day was that "freedoms ingame should not be curtailed by official rules". You guys are trying to avoid the catastrophe of setting a precedent for rules on how we play while turning a blind eye to the catastrophe of entire world's being ruined and a plethora of players leaving.

As i said earlier, this is just wanting freedoms for the sake of it and being naive enough to believe players have ever been able to police this issue.

And with regards to the whole "its a tactic" argument, yes it is a tactic for trying to wrest control from an entire big alliance with multiple members, you're trying to tell me "player power" can police single rogue elements or towns but cant even strike a balance by engaging multiple town's in big alliances to make the world better? If players cant come together to balance a world out for its own longevity, being able to stop multies is out of the question lol, look at half of you using full messages in this thread for accusing other's of using multies and sling dirt at each other, its pitiful, you guys give yourselves too much credit, there is not enough mutual respect in most people to come together and weed out issues, very few worlds have that and thus mod intervention is a welcome sight.
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Problem with a strict 2h rule is that it is not feasible to enforce due to current technical limitations. It often happens that 2 players go to dig the fort around the same time if dig rotation between large alliances is not in place. In that case, it sometimes takes up to several minutes until Fort Overview is refreshed and shows that there is already a battle dug. Should player be punished/banned if the fort overview lagged and didn´t show the recently dug battle? And how should a support team judge what was players intention?

It would be better to punish the individual players/towns and introduce an option to prevent player/town from digging after repeated offenses.

Also making it too complicated to dig, might discourage players from initiating battles and number of hats digging/leading fights is already quite low.
 

sanidh

Active Member
Problem with a strict 2h rule is that it is not feasible to enforce due to current technical limitations. It often happens that 2 players go to dig the fort around the same time if dig rotation between large alliances is not in place. In that case, it sometimes takes up to several minutes until Fort Overview is refreshed and shows that there is already a battle dug. Should player be punished/banned if the fort overview lagged and didn´t show the recently dug battle? And how should a support team judge what was players intention?

It would be better to punish the individual players/towns and introduce an option to prevent player/town from digging after repeated offenses.

Also making it too complicated to dig, might discourage players from initiating battles and number of hats digging/leading fights is already quite low.

cleverhans, when you're going to dig and the battle hasnt been shown in the fort view the price of the next battle increases, its easy to figure out that the increase in price is due to a battle being dug in the last few mins
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Problem with a strict 2h rule is that it is not feasible to enforce due to current technical limitations. It often happens that 2 players go to dig the fort around the same time if dig rotation between large alliances is not in place. In that case, it sometimes takes up to several minutes until Fort Overview is refreshed and shows that there is already a battle dug. Should player be punished/banned if the fort overview lagged and didn´t show the recently dug battle? And how should a support team judge what was players intention?

It would be better to punish the individual players/towns and introduce an option to prevent player/town from digging after repeated offenses.
cleverhans, when you're going to dig and the battle hasnt been shown in the fort view the price of the next battle increases, its easy to figure out that the increase in price is due to a battle being dug in the last few mins

It is not that easy at all. Sometimes players forget to check it (especially hard to do if you dig on the phone) or the prices might be altered on some worlds by mods or coz there is an ongoing Awesomia fight etc.
 

sanidh

Active Member
It is not that easy at all. Sometimes players forget to check it (especially hard to do if you dig on the phone) or the prices might be altered on some worlds by mods or coz there is an ongoing Awesomia fight etc.

As i said earlier, for these instances the law should be applied contextually and we have no problems
 

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone really wants mods to institute punishment for accidental multi digging. This is why I posted that if inno really wants a 2 hour rule, they should just put it into the programming code to prevent it from happening.

On another issue, prime time, I never posted that prime time is the only time to dig battles. I said it is the player preferred time. Some of you read far too much into posts that clearly is not there.
 

Philopoimen

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. 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. :)
You speak my mind. Its good to have prime time battles, so many can participate, but I never understood the only-prime-time battles policy of some. There are people in Asia, Australia, New Zealand for whom prime time is the middle of the night or early morning. Only prime time shut those people out.
I also don't understand the obsession to fill a fort fight. Filling fort fights almost always means some people can't participate, and those are usually the newbies. I like to have a spot for everyone in every fort fight, and I like to have fort fights at different hours so everyone has the chance to be online once in a while.
 

canufeelit

Well-Known Member
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.

I agree with you in principle but consider the following situation -

Say you are in a small alliance but can't get ranked by the two large alliances in battle because you are constantly interrupting the fort battle chatroom. Then say you "make a statement" by interrupting the large alliances digs with multis constantly because if you can't be in battles then noone can. And then fort battles die out on that world because noone wants to put up with the BS.

Terrible completely imaginary situation right?

Yes I voted for 2 hours although I agree with Apel that mods should be given powers to warn/punish constant offenders. Should have had for years as the "it's not our problem, you guys work it out" approach hasn't worked out all that well has it.
 

sanidh

Active Member
I agree with you in principle but consider the following situation -

Say you are in a small alliance but can't get ranked by the two large alliances in battle because you are constantly interrupting the fort battle chatroom. Then say you "make a statement" by interrupting the large alliances digs with multis constantly because if you can't be in battles then noone can. And then fort battles die out on that world because noone wants to put up with the BS.

Terrible completely imaginary situation right?

Yes I voted for 2 hours although I agree with Apel that mods should be given powers to warn/punish constant offenders. Should have had for years as the "it's not our problem, you guys work it out" approach hasn't worked out all that well has it.

Spot on, mods can ask as adjudicators in these instances, letting players deal with these things has almost always led to people leaving the world.
 

Philopoimen

Member
I understand that digging multies can be used as a tactic against a dominating alliance, but it only works if your alliance has no forts. Otherwise it ends up in counter multie the multies, having 10+ FFs a day. To what end? Multies are not achieving anything, except being misused as revenge, fort grabbing, bullying others to 'persuade' them to do what you want. Nothing good comes out of multies.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Thing is, can you consider the 2nd Dig as multi if 1st one was by a "Random" person/town and it's too obvious that it won't be taken seriously by almost no one and won't be attended?

I have seen a lot of examples of that.


This is a multi-dimensional issue and can't be solved this simple.
 

Nisa

Well-Known Member
honestly, those of you who say multis are a tactic are either trolls or just not smart enough to realize how ridiculous that statement is :lol: :lol:
might need to find another game to play
Yes and no.

Multis ARE part of the game. I dont like multis ,never dug one and I am here since 2008 . I believe I've seen it all. As much as I dislike them few multies dug for whatever reason wont hurt anything. Not even dmg record scores cause it will affect everyone.
Disruptive and malicious multies are another story and in that case mods can step in already. BUT again , no punishing for few multies , only in case they ruining the world longer.

Same is with dueling. Ganging up on someone ?' Perfectly legal, few player coordinate duels to KO someone. Do I like it ? nope . But won't complain.

Point is cant just remove something we dont like. This is The West and was not meant to be easy like farmville.

Maybe should find a solution for huge amounts of town treasure so player can focus on spending that money on something better.
 

Oddersfield

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.
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
I am not sure whether to applaud that agreement or tear my hair out. I guess it works well for Colorado except it condemns a minority to not being on-line for any ff. Prime-time is when I am at work and the 8 hr+ rule makes ffs after midnight my time - I get up at 5 am for work. I am effectively condemned to being an offie at all ffs (except for 1 or 2 at the week-end perhaps) and then doing very little farming, questing in-between or simply not do ffs at all. As half my reason for doing the ff is participating in the chat, I now simply choose not to attend as an offie.

Such a rigid agreement seems inappropriate to some worlds - especially with those time dig intervals. Even alternate days is defined in terms of server time, all the time. That in itself is prejudiced against working North America players. Not sure about Australasian players as I cannot juggle 3 times zones in my head! Smaller worlds need far more flexibility as so few will dig/lead on them. That agreement strikes me as conflating a multi with an 8 hr. time interval. I don't really understand why a dig say 4 hrs. after the prior one is such a bad thing.

Common sense has to prevail, not rigidity in thinking. You cannot let a few disruptive people dictate to you.
 
Last edited:

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Maybe should find a solution for huge amounts of town treasure so player can focus on spending that money on something better.

Just another part of the game where development stopped for whatever reason. I recall that a while ago there was an idea of making dueling a team effort where team of duelers would try to rob a town treasury from other towns during dueling raids but it never got implemented.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
honestly, those of you who say multis are a tactic are either trolls or just not smart enough to realize how ridiculous that statement is :lol: :lol:
might need to find another game to play
A fake strategy isn't ridiculous. It can seem underhanded and annoying. During WW2 the allies allowed fake information to leak out about where they might be landing in France. It was common to see fake battleships and airplanes made of wood on the battlefield. Should someone have declared that kind of strategy was ruining the war? :dastardly:

As a newcomer after watching the western movie with the young man shooting and the grandmother rolling her eyes I considered that the west online game might have been directed to children. Then I found adults engaged in the game play. I'm happy to see a wide range of people playing and communicating in it. My message is keep playing with an understanding that not everyone is going to agree on everything but try to work to find a reasonable solution.

Maybe should find a solution for huge amounts of town treasure so player can focus on spending that money on something better.
:indian:
 

Roffo Snake

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.
What a cartel move.
 
Top